A significant budget reconciliation bill has passed the House of Representatives, igniting debate over its implications and potential impact on green policies.
The Trump-backed bill aims to cement the 2017 tax cuts permanently, remove taxes on tips and overtime, and could spell the end for the Green New Deal, as the Daily Caller reports.
House members passed the bill early Thursday with a slim margin, clocking in at 215-214-1. This legislation seeks to solidify tax rates introduced during the fiscal policies of the first Trump administration back in 2017. By making these cuts indefinite, the bill intends to boost economic incentives for individuals and businesses alike.
Key components of the bill include the elimination of taxes on both tips and overtime pay, which lawmakers assert will provide relief to lower-income workers and stimulate the economy. However, what might be deemed more controversial is the potential cessation of the Green New Deal.
The Green New Deal, initially brought forward by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the wake of her 2018 election, sets ambitious goals to confront climate change while fostering justice and equality. Nonetheless, Energy Secretary Chris Wright has voiced that the new measure could bring the Green New Deal to a halt.
Wright's assertions underscore the bill's intentions to significantly slash government spending on green technology subsidies. He questioned the efficacy of long-standing subsidies for renewable energy sectors, suggesting that they contributed to rising electricity costs without sufficient benefits.
"Look, the wind subsidies are over 30 years old. The solar subsidies are over 20 years old," Wright explained. His stance signals a shift towards potentially relinquishing decades-long support for renewable energy advancement in favor of free-market competition. Wright continued to highlight that billions of taxpayer dollars had already supported these sectors, questioning the lack of tangible benefit to everyday energy consumers. "If they can compete in the marketplace, great," Wright stated.
Tensions surrounding U.S. energy policies have been ongoing. Since former President Joe Biden took office in January 2021, actions such as rescinding the Keystone XL pipeline permit and canceling an offshore lease sale in May 2022 have been points of contention.
The Biden administration's decisions also included proposed regulations targeting natural gas appliances, influenced by health studies linking gas stove usage to asthma instances in children. These regulatory efforts highlighted a divide in energy priorities and underscore political tensions over American energy independence and environmental safeguards.
Prominent political figures have criticized these regulatory moves, presenting the newly passed Trump-backed bill as a legislative countermeasure to the Biden administration's past environmental policies.
The implications of the House bill reverberate beyond the energy domain, potentially instigating broader dialogues about economic policy and government intervention. Its passage arises from a partisan environment, sparking discussions on balancing economic growth with sustainable environmental practices.
By engraving the 2017 tax policy into permanence, the bill seeks to deliver on Trump's key economic pledges, reflecting Wright's declaration that, indeed, "Promises made, promises kept." Yet, its potential repercussions on green initiatives, including the expansive Green New Deal, continue to be a focal point of both acclaim and condemnation.
The debate now heads to the Senate, where its outcome remains uncertain amid tight political scrutiny and fervent lobbying from both environmental advocates and market-focused proponents.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris reportedly expressed strong disapproval toward CNN anchor Anderson Cooper following a heated interview about President Joe Biden's debate performance against Donald Trump in 2024.
A new book, Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, provides details of Harris's harsh reaction in which she conveyed her frustration over Cooper's line of questioning, as Fox News reports.
In 2024, Harris participated in a tense interview with Cooper on CNN, which centered around Joe Biden's performance in a recent debate against Trump. The discussion primarily focused on criticisms from within the Democratic Party, with some members branding Biden's performance as calamitous. Cooper referenced these critiques during their exchange.
Harris was tasked with defending Biden against allegations regarding his mental acuity compared to his earlier years. Cooper pressed on, asking Harris whether Biden appeared different now compared to when she debated him four years prior. In response, Harris emphasized the substantive nature of Biden’s presidency, suggesting that the entirety of his service should outweigh any perceived debate missteps.
Her defense was firm as she underscored the importance of evaluating Biden's entire term. "People can debate on style points, but ultimately, this election and who is the president of the United States has to be about substance," Harris articulated, prioritizing the full scope of Biden’s political accomplishments over any isolated debate performance.
The aftermath of the interview saw Harris revealing her discontent to colleagues. Tapper and Thompson's book records Harris as being visibly incensed by Cooper's approach, feeling that she was not treated with the respect befitting her former office. She reportedly used a derogatory term to express her dissatisfaction.
In the moments following the interview, Harris reportedly lamented the perceived lack of respect. She purportedly said to her colleagues, "This motherf----- doesn’t treat me like the damn vice president of the United States," clearly indicating her personal affront to the line and tone of questioning.
Her apparent exasperation continued with her suggestion of a prior expectation of a more respectful interaction with the anchor. "I thought we were better than that," she is alleged to have stated, expressing a feeling of disappointment.
The exchange between Harris and Cooper was marked by pointed questions regarding Biden's capability, raising issues often discussed in political circles. Cooper drew attention to Democratic critiques labeling Biden's debate performance as lacking vigor or strategic effectiveness.
In contrast, Harris resolved to steer the conversation towards Biden’s accomplishments during his tenure. She resisted engaging in a protracted focus on a singular event, articulating her belief in evaluating a long-haul performance over a short-term display.
However, the book Original Sin describes Harris's frustration, noting that her reaction was sparked by what she saw as a personal affront in the form of the interview's intensity. The authors detail how Harris perceived the line of questioning as disrespectful, adding layers to her discontent.
Efforts to procure an additional statement from Harris’ representatives have been unproductive. They have not responded to inquiries made by Fox News Digital in the wake of the reported incident. The incident, as recounted in Original Sin, provides a glimpse into the tension experienced by high-profile politicians under the scrutiny of media lenses. For Harris, the clash exemplified the high stakes and pressures of defending an administration under fire while managing public perception.
Cooper's grilling included a mention of dreaded labels affixed by Democratic Party voices themselves, who voiced concern over Biden's otherwise historic presidential term. Harris sought to quell these concerns by redirecting attention to the broader achievements of the administration.
Ultimately, the source of Harris's frustration seemed to stem from her treatment during the interview. She conveyed to colleagues a sense of feeling undermined, and in doing so, shed light on the challenges unique to the spotlight she maintained as vice president.
The situation highlighted the complex interplay between media figures and political leaders, each navigating the task of maintaining public image, managing criticisms, and articulating policy achievements during an era of heightened political scrutiny.
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein was visited by federal agents after he published a manifesto allegedly linked to a suspect involved in a fatal incident near a cultural institution in Washington, D.C.
The FBI is scrutinizing Klippenstein for obtaining and publishing the document associated with Elias Rodriguez, the alleged gunman in the attack that killed two diplomats near the Capital Jewish Museum, as the Daily Caller reports.
The incident intensified on a Thursday when Klippenstein published what he claimed to be the manifesto of Rodriguez, who was believed to be responsible for a shooting incident the day prior. The shooting had severe repercussions, resulting in the deaths of two Israeli diplomats, adding international attention to the case.
On the day of the publication, Klippenstein experienced a visit from two federal agents at his residence. This unannounced interview was meant to investigate how he managed to acquire the document in question. According to Klippenstein, their demeanor was "aggressive and threatening," implying a high level of pressure in their interactions with him.
During the visit, the agents were keen on gathering more information about Klippenstein's access to the manifesto. They were particularly interested in the sequence of events that led him to possess the document before its public release. They inquired whether Klippenstein had been in contact with Rodriguez prior to the incident. The tough questioning compelled Klippenstein to inform the agents that he would not continue the conversation without his lawyer, thereby redirecting the agents to his legal representative.
After leaving his home, the interaction did not conclude. Klippenstein later received an email from one of the agents, requesting a confidential dialogue regarding several inquiries. In the email, they emphasized discretion, suggesting that the list of questions should not be publicly disclosed.
This incident is not Klippenstein's first interaction with federal authorities. Over the past year, he has reported a prior visit from the FBI following the publication of a dossier related to prominent political figures.
Furthermore, he has a history of publishing sensitive materials. He previously reported on the manifesto of another individual linked to a high-profile case involving the death of a corporate executive. That document was later verified by law enforcement, underscoring the credibility of his reporting.
Despite attempts to reach both Klippenstein and law enforcement for comments, there have been no responses. The media remains in anticipation of official statements from involved parties, particularly given the gravity and sensitivity of the case.
Klippenstein's experiences highlight ongoing tensions between journalistic practices and law enforcement activities. The pressure he describes raises concerns about the potential implications for the freedoms afforded to members of the press.
One aspect of the agents' inquiry was whether Klippenstein had distributed the manifesto to anyone else, indicating concerns over further dissemination. The implications of such interactions with journalists could reverberate through the industry, posing questions about the balance between national security interests and the freedom of the press.
As the investigation into the shooting unfolds, the nature of Klippenstein's reporting will continue to draw attention. The publication of sensitive material often navigates the fine line between public interest and security concerns, making his revelations particularly significant.
The circumstances surrounding this visitation also bring to light the conversation about shield laws. These laws are designed to protect journalists from revealing confidential sources, a contentious issue intersecting with this current situation. Potential future developments could arise if further legal actions are pursued against Klippenstein. These actions could set a precedent for how similar situations are managed, both in legal frameworks and professional protocols for journalists.
As the case receives attention, questions around how journalists obtain and manage sensitive information persist. Legal experts, media organizations, and policymakers may engage in dialogue to assess current laws and their adequacy in protecting journalistic integrity and security.
The story continues to develop, and as new information emerges, it will likely influence ongoing discussions about the rights and responsibilities of journalists. Through this incident, the importance of safeguarding press freedoms while addressing critical public safety concerns remains at the forefront.
In a striking development, President Donald Trump has offered his backing to a landmark partnership between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel, positing it as a transformative investment for the state of Pennsylvania.
This collaboration, endorsed by Trump, hailed as the largest economic endeavor in Pennsylvania’s history, promises to contribute $14 billion to the U.S. economy and create 70,000 jobs while keeping U.S. Steel headquartered in Pittsburgh, as the Daily Caller reports.
On Friday, Trump put his weight behind a planned collaboration between the two steel giants. This announcement concludes a prolonged disagreement over the future of U.S. Steel, with this partnership ensuring the iconic company maintains its roots in Pittsburgh. The scope and significance of this deal have been highlighted as pivotal for the region.
Trump’s enthusiastic endorsement of the venture marks a stark contrast to the stance taken by his predecessor, Joe Biden. Earlier, Biden blocked a similar arrangement citing national security concerns and potential disruptions to the supply chain. However, since taking office, Trump has maintained a focus on fostering strong economic growth and preserving vital industries.
During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump voiced opposition to a full sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon. However, he embraced the idea of a partnership upon winning office, opening the path for this substantial investment. In April, he directed a fresh review by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to ensure the partnership aligns with national interests.
Dave McCormick, a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, expressed his approval, emphasizing the joint venture’s potential for job creation and economic development in the Mon Valley area. "My priorities are preserving and expanding jobs and investment," McCormick stated, adding that the partnership achieves these goals.
In anticipation of celebrating the transformative impact of this agreement, Trump announced plans to host a rally at U.S. Steel's headquarters on May 30. This event is set to commemorate the significant step forward in job creation. The rally underscores Trump’s commitment to revitalizing the U.S. steel industry and the American economy.
The partnership will bring an infusion of resources and innovation into the steel sector. The projected 70,000 jobs represent a hopeful prospect for many seeking employment opportunities in the region.
Trump remarked, “For many years, the name ‘United States Steel’ was synonymous with greatness, and now, it will be again.” His comments underscore the administration's efforts to restore prominence to domestic steel production.
In opposition to Trump’s endorsement of the partnership, Biden had previously argued the importance of maintaining domestic steel operations to safeguard national security. “Without domestic steel production and domestic workers, our nation is less strong and less secure,” Biden warned, highlighting the ongoing debate over foreign involvement in crucial industries.
The ongoing dialogue between national security and economic growth considerations will continue to shape the narrative as this partnership progresses. This development reflects broader contrasts in economic and foreign investment policies between different administrations.
As the partnership between U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel unfolds, eyes will be on Pittsburgh to gauge the impact of this significant investment. The collaboration represents not just an economic opportunity but also a pivotal moment for the American steel industry’s legacy.
The stakes, involving national security and economic growth, remain high as stakeholders navigate this new direction. The strategic decision to retain U.S. Steel’s headquarters in Pittsburgh signals an enduring commitment to the local economy and workforce. Ultimately, this partnership could redefine the steel industry’s future, with Trump’s endorsement acting as a catalyst for renewed emphasis on domestic industry and job creation. The true effects of this alliance will be closely watched in the coming years.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald Trump are sounding the alarm on what they call a growing health emergency among America’s youth. Their new commission, packed with prominent agency leaders, has just dropped an explosive report that’s already shaking up Washington.
According to Fox News, the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission’s first assessment paints a grim picture: chronic conditions are skyrocketing among U.S. children, and the nation’s future security could be at risk.
The commission, headed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy, highlights a sharp increase in conditions like obesity, depression, autism, and other health issues among children. According to the report, American children are experiencing more physical and mental health problems, even though the country is spending more on healthcare than ever before. The commission plans to release major policy proposals by the end of August in response to these concerns.
The MAHA report, released Thursday, reveals that more than 40% of America’s 73 million children now have at least one chronic health condition. These include asthma, allergies, obesity, autoimmune diseases, and behavioral disorders. Kennedy called the document a “diagnosis” of U.S. child health, with a “prescription” of solutions to follow in 100 days.
The statistics are startling. Teenage depression has nearly doubled from 2009 to 2019. One in five children over age six is considered obese. Autism diagnoses now affect one in 31 children by age eight, and childhood cancer rates have jumped 40% since 1975.
Commission leaders argue the nation’s health crisis is now a national security concern. They say roughly 75% of Americans aged 17-24 are ineligible for military service due to these chronic conditions, including obesity and behavioral disorders.
Commissioners blame a mix of factors for the chronic disease surge, including the American food system, environmental chemical exposure, and culture shifts. The report says the food supply is technically “safe,” but could be far healthier if it moved away from ultraprocessed foods loaded with sugars, chemical additives, and saturated fats.
Children’s exposure to pesticides, microplastics, and other chemicals is also cited as a contributing factor. But perhaps the most controversial claim centers on prescription drug use among youth. The report documents a 250% increase in ADHD prescriptions from 2006 to 2016, a 1,400% jump in antidepressant use between 1987 and 2014, and an 800% surge in antipsychotic medication for children from 1993 to 2009.
“American children are highly medicated — and it’s not working,” the report states. Officials say these trends outpace increases seen in other developed nations, suggesting a uniquely American crisis.
Not everyone agrees with the commission’s findings or its approach. Critics question the emphasis on environmental chemicals and food additives, arguing that the evidence tying these factors to chronic disease is not always clear-cut. Some public health experts argue that social and economic issues, such as poverty and access to care, play a much larger role.
The report’s findings on fluoride are especially controversial. A recent review cited by the commission found a “statistically significant association” between high fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children, but critics say more research is needed before changing public health policies.
Others point out that the United States spends more than double per capita on healthcare compared to peer nations, yet still ranks last in life expectancy among high-income countries. They argue that broader reforms and a focus on prevention, rather than just changing food or medication policies, are needed to reverse these trends.
Commissioners stress that the chronic disease crisis is not just a health issue—it’s a threat to the nation’s security and economy. Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary warned, “We now have the most obese, depressed, disabled, medicated population in the history of the world, and we cannot keep going down the same road.”
Food and Drug Commissioner Marty Makary said,
We now have the most obese, depressed, disabled, medicated population in the history of the world, and we cannot keep going down the same road. So this is an amazing day. I hope this marks the grand pivot from a system that is entirely reactionary to a system that will now be proactive.
Director of the National Institutes of Health Jay Bhattacharya added that today’s children may live shorter lives than their parents for the first time in American history. The commission highlighted the need for a strong economy to support public health, cautioning that weak economies can make health problems even worse.
The passage of President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" in the House of Representatives has sparked a heated debate among Republicans over America's mounting national debt. Reps. Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson put themselves squarely in the spotlight, refusing to back President Donald Trump’s celebrated “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”
According to Fox News, Massie and Davidson took to social media on Thursday, May 22, to explain their “no” votes on the high-profile legislation, citing grave concerns over the nation’s $36 trillion debt crisis. Their opposition came even as the House passed the bill by a razor-thin margin, giving Speaker Mike Johnson and President Trump a hard-fought legislative victory.
The bill, a sweeping package that advances Trump’s priorities on taxes, immigration, energy, and defense, promises to cut $1.5 trillion in government spending. But critics, including these two Republican holdouts, warn it will actually swell deficits in the short term and fail to address the immediate fiscal crisis facing the United States.
Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio wasted no time clarifying their positions to constituents and colleagues alike. Davidson, voicing frustration just before the vote, made clear that promises of future spending cuts were not enough.
He stated, “While I love many things in the bill, promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending. Deficits do matter and this bill grows them now. The only Congress we can control is the one we’re in. Consequently, I cannot support this big deficit plan. NO.”
Massie echoed Davidson’s stance, emphasizing that serious action was needed immediately, not in some distant future. On the House floor, Massie delivered a sober warning about the bill’s fiscal impact, stating:
I’d love to stand here and tell the American people, ‘We can cut your taxes and increase spending and everything is going to be just fine.’ But I can’t do that because I'm here to deliver a dose of reality. This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near-term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before?
Despite the coordinated push for party unity from House leadership, the close vote and vocal dissent from Massie and Davidson highlighted the ongoing rift within Republican ranks over how to address the national debt.
The White House was quick to respond to the opposition. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt criticized Massie and Davidson’s votes, suggesting they should face primary challenges for bucking the party’s key agenda item. Leavitt pointedly asked, “Did they want to see a tax hike? Did they want to see our country go bankrupt? That’s the alternative by them trying to vote ‘no.’ The president believes the Republican Party needs to be unified.”
As Trump allies celebrated passage of the bill, Massie took to social media to fundraise off the backlash, writing on X, “The big beautiful bill has issues. I chose to vote against it because it’s going to blow up our debt. For voting on principle, I now have the President AND his press Secretary campaigning against me from the White House podium. Can you help me by donating?”
The political tension was further stoked by former Rep. Bob Good, who lost his seat after supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump in the 2024 primaries. Good warned that “The Big Ugly Truth is that the Big Ugly Bill will push the Big Ugly Debt over $60 trillion,” underscoring how Trump’s critics within the GOP remain deeply concerned about fiscal responsibility.
For fiscal conservatives, the numbers remain alarming. Even with $1.5 trillion in planned spending cuts, the United States’ national debt stands at over $36 trillion, with the Treasury Department reporting an additional $1.05 trillion spent over government receipts in the current fiscal year. The House Republican leadership’s win, while celebrated, is viewed by some as a temporary reprieve rather than a lasting solution.
Massie, wearing his trademark national debt clock pin, described the legislation as a “debt bomb ticking,” painting a dire picture for those who believe the bill will do little to curb runaway spending.
According to Fox News Digital columnist David Marcus, the American public’s indifference to the deficit may be one of the greatest challenges facing lawmakers who want real reform.Rep. Thomas Massie said on the House floor: “This bill dramatically increases deficits in the near-term, but promises our government will be fiscally responsible five years from now. Where have we heard that before?”
Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson, two vocal House Republicans, stood apart this week as they voted against President Trump’s signature legislation, citing what they see as a looming fiscal crisis. Both lawmakers used social media to explain their votes, warning that the bill’s promises of future savings do not counteract the immediate reality of rising deficits and an ever-growing national debt.
The House passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act by a single vote, but the debate over how to address the $36 trillion debt is far from over. As President Trump and House leadership move forward, the fate of fiscal hawks like Massie and Davidson—and the voices of their supporters—will remain a key storyline as Republicans continue to wrestle with America’s debt and spending challenges.
A new political storm is brewing in Washington, and President Donald Trump is at the center of it. With his latest legislative push, Trump has reignited a fierce debate over taxpayer funding, transgender rights, and the future of Medicaid coverage.
President Trump’s ambitious “one big, beautiful, bill” has passed the House of Representatives by the slimmest of margins and now heads to the Senate. According to Breitbart News, the bill would strip Medicaid funding for all gender transition procedures, ending coverage for treatments ranging from puberty blockers to hormone therapy and surgery.
The measure, which originally focused on banning Medicaid coverage for minors, was amended late Wednesday to remove age restrictions. Now, the bill targets all Medicaid recipients seeking gender transition treatments, regardless of age. Supporters hail the move as a fiscal and cultural victory, while critics argue it’s a direct attack on a vulnerable population.
The House passed President Trump’s reconciliation budget by a razor-thin 215-214-1 vote early Thursday morning, demonstrating just how contentious the issue has become. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle expressed deep emotions, with the bill’s substance and scope evolving until the last minute.
Initially, the measure sought to prohibit Medicaid from covering “gender transition procedures” only for minors. But a late-night amendment struck the words “minors” and “under 18 years of age,” sweeping all adults under the new regulations as well. This turn of events widened the bill’s impact significantly, raising the stakes for both its supporters and opponents.
A 2023 study cited in the debate found that 25 percent of gender-affirming surgeries in the United States were paid for by Medicaid, with over 12,000 out of 48,019 patients relying on the program. That figure underscores just how many Americans could be affected if the bill becomes law.
Supporters of Trump’s bill see it as a major victory for taxpayers and traditional values. Groups like the American Principles Project have praised the measure, arguing that taxpayer dollars should not be spent on what they call controversial medical procedures.
Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, applauded the bill’s passage, referencing public opinion on the use of government funds for gender transition treatments. He argued that most Americans are uncomfortable with taxpayer-funded gender-affirming care, especially for procedures involving children.
Proponents also argue that the measure will restore fiscal sanity to Medicaid, a program that has faced mounting costs in recent years. They view the bill as a necessary step to ensure government health programs focus on what they see as core medical needs.
On the other side, critics of the bill warn of dire consequences for thousands of Americans. Advocacy groups and medical professionals have argued that gender-affirming care is essential for transgender individuals and that stripping Medicaid coverage could lead to increased suffering and health disparities. Transgender comedian Stacy Cay was among those who spoke out forcefully, calling the move an “attempt of genocide.”
Many in the medical community have echoed these concerns, pointing to studies that show improved mental health outcomes for transgender individuals who can access gender transition care. They fear that eliminating Medicaid funding will make these treatments financially impossible for low-income Americans.
Opponents also criticize the decision to remove age restrictions from the bill, claiming that it disproportionately impacts adults who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare needs and who have no other options for covering these costly procedures.
As the bill heads to the Senate, both sides are preparing for a high-stakes showdown. Some senators have already signaled concerns about the impact on rural and low-income Americans, especially those living in red states where Medicaid is a critical healthcare lifeline.
In a statement, American Principles Project’s Terry Schilling praised the House version and urged senators to maintain its core provisions. Meanwhile, advocacy groups are mobilizing supporters, warning that the bill could set a precedent for further restrictions on transgender healthcare.
Senate Republicans are expected to push for swift passage, while Democrats and some moderates may seek amendments or attempt to block the bill entirely. With the country watching closely, the Senate’s decision could shape the national conversation on healthcare, gender, and government spending for years to come.
Democrats and Republicans face off as Supreme Court justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, reach a stalemate over religious school funding in Oklahoma. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s unexpected recusal leaves supporters and critics of religious charter schools scrambling for answers.
A 4-4 split decision from the Supreme Court on Thursday effectively upholds Oklahoma’s ban on public funds for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, marking a significant setback for advocates of religious charter schools. According to Fox News, justices issued a brief order affirming the lower court’s ruling, with Justice Barrett recusing herself from the case.
This deadlock leaves in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s determination that directing state funds to a Catholic charter school would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. With no majority opinion, the legal landscape for religious charter schools remains as divided as ever.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School—approved by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board in June 2023—sought to become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The school agreed to comply with federal, state, and local education laws and promised to be open to all students, mirroring traditional public schools.
However, St. Isidore officials made clear that their institution “fully embraces the teachings” of the Catholic Church and is committed to participating “in the evangelizing mission of the church.” That admission sparked fierce legal and political battles over whether a religious institution can receive taxpayer dollars while maintaining its faith-based mission.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond led the charge against public funding for St. Isidore, calling the school’s approval “an unlawful sponsorship” of a sectarian institution and describing it as “a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans.” The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling that state dollars cannot be used to fund a school rooted in religious teachings.
Central to the case was whether charter schools should be treated as public schools—extensions of the state and thus bound by the Establishment Clause—or as private contractors, as argued by St. Isidore. If considered public, the school would be constitutionally barred from receiving state funds for religious instruction.
During oral arguments, justices explored whether Oklahoma’s actions placed an undue burden on the school’s religious mission, potentially violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. School choice advocates argued that denying funding amounted to religious discrimination, while critics countered that public dollars must not support religious evangelization.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan pressed attorneys for St. Isidore on how the school would handle students from different religious backgrounds. Questions about curriculum supervision and the extent of state oversight dominated the debate, exposing deep ideological divides among the justices.
The Supreme Court’s one-sentence decision—“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court”—offers little guidance for states considering similar proposals. With Justice Barrett recused, the even split means the Oklahoma ruling stands but sets no binding precedent for other courts.
This outcome frustrates both sides of the debate. Religious liberty advocates see the decision as a missed opportunity to expand school choice and allow faith-based institutions to compete for public funds. Opponents argue the deadlock preserves vital constitutional protections against government endorsement of religion.
In recent years, the Court’s conservative majority has allowed taxpayer support for religious organizations providing non-sectarian services. However, this case raised new questions about how much control states would have over curriculum and religious practices if faith-based charter schools were publicly funded.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond called the situation “a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans.” St. Isidore officials stated the school “fully embraces the teachings” of the Catholic Church and participates “in the evangelizing mission of the church.”
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision on Thursday, leaving St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s bid for public funding unresolved. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling stands, barring the school from state dollars due to concerns over the Establishment Clause.
Supporters and critics alike now await possible new legal challenges or legislative action that could clarify the boundaries between religious freedom and state funding of education. Nationally, the outcome has reignited debate over the proper role of religion in publicly funded schools and the future of school choice in America.
Demands and drama erupted in Washington this week as President Donald Trump confronted Rep. Andy Harris and members of the House Freedom Caucus behind closed doors. The standoff, which began with a walkout and ended with a presidential ultimatum, left the Capitol buzzing and conservatives divided over what really happened.
President Trump’s intervention over his signature domestic policy package forced hardline Republicans to back down and propelled the massive tax-and-spending bill to House passage, according to POLITICO. While GOP leaders call it a Trump victory, some conservative holdouts insist they won key concessions in the final hours.
Tensions reached a boiling point with hardliners demanding deeper cuts and major policy changes, only to be confronted directly by Trump in the Cabinet Room. His message was clear—unite behind the bill or risk economic chaos, a bold move that reshaped the legislative landscape and left critics and allies alike reassessing their strategies.
President Trump’s Tuesday morning arrival on Capitol Hill set the tone for what would become a decisive week for House Republicans. He delivered a pointed warning to conservative holdouts, urging them to “fall in line—now,” but not everyone was ready to comply. Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the Freedom Caucus, left the meeting early and told reporters afterward that a deal was still far off, casting doubt on Trump’s ability to sway the group.
Back at the White House, Harris and a handful of conservatives pressed for deeper spending cuts and Medicaid reforms in a tense Cabinet Room meeting. Trump, clearly frustrated, cut off the discussion and lit into Harris. According to several people in the room, Trump accused Harris of grandstanding and warned that sabotaging the bill would lead to historic tax hikes and fiscal disaster.
Trump reportedly told Harris, “You’re out there grandstanding when you should be uniting. You are going to sink this legislation and have the highest tax increase in history and bankrupt the country. That’s the only alternative.” Trump then walked out, leaving stunned lawmakers to reconsider their positions.
Senior Republican aides and White House officials quickly described the outcome as a clear victory for Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson, arguing that the Freedom Caucus had overplayed its hand. They say the president’s tough stance sent hardliners “back down Pennsylvania Avenue with their tails between their legs,” forcing a vote on a bill they had previously rejected.
However, some conservatives involved in the talks pushed back hard. One described the idea that they had been rolled at the White House as “straight-up bullshit,” pointing to several promises they secured, including a new executive order on health care that could save taxpayers billions. Yet, key fiscal parameters of the megabill did not change, and many of the policy demands made by the Freedom Caucus were not met.
Despite threats to hold out for further concessions, most of the group ultimately voted for the bill less than 24 hours after the heated White House meeting. Only Rep. Harris voted present, maintaining his protest while the rest of the coalition largely fell in line. The megabill now advances to the Senate, where its fate remains uncertain, and conservatives vow to fight for more changes.
The standoff grew more intense after a handful of conservatives joined Democrats to temporarily derail a Budget Committee vote, prompting Trump—returning from a Middle East trip—to personally question Budget Chair Jodey Arrington about the misstep. Over the weekend, Trump, his staff, and House leaders launched a pressure campaign, warning of dire economic consequences if the bill failed or if Trump’s 2017 tax cuts expired.
On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt publicly called for GOP unity, stressing the importance of passing the legislation before Memorial Day. Trump’s Tuesday visit to the Capitol was intended to reinforce that message, with Trump telling House Republicans, “We need to stick together and get this bill passed,” as soon as he entered the conference room.
Some moderate Republicans, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, managed to negotiate deals on state and local tax deduction issues, but Freedom Caucus members remained defiant. Even as Trump made his case, Harris restated his opposition, arguing that waste and abuse in Medicaid had not been fully addressed—a point that infuriated White House officials and deepened the divide.
After Wednesday’s breakdown in talks, Trump invited the remaining hardliners to the White House for a final round of negotiations. He presented a list of conservative victories already included in the legislation and urged the group to “take the victory” and avoid jeopardizing Republican priorities. Still, as the hardliners pushed for more changes, Trump’s patience wore thin.
Ultimately, most of the Freedom Caucus accepted the parameters laid out by GOP leaders, with a few sweeteners: the White House agreed to consider additional executive orders on Medicaid, and new incentives were included to encourage states not to expand Medicaid further. While conservatives touted these as significant wins, Trump’s allies argued that the core of the deal had not changed.
The outcome sent a message about Trump’s leadership style and his willingness to confront even his own party’s most vocal dissenters. As the megabill heads to the Senate, both sides are preparing for another round of negotiations, with conservatives promising to draw “red lines” and White House officials remaining skeptical.