Advocates for homeless people are urging Congress to stop a bill that will allow people in Washington, DC to be fined or jailed for sleeping on the streets.

The bill, known as HR 5163, was introduced in the US House of Representatives last week by Rep. William Timmons (R-S.C.), as President Donald Trump's militarized takeover of the nation's capital moves into its second month.

Federal law enforcement has already forcibly cleared dozens of homeless encampments in DC under Trump's July executive order, which directed local and federal authorities to fight what it called "endemic vagrancy" in US cities.

Though the Trump administration claims that it has helped to find shelter for those living in the homeless encampments demolished by federal agents, homeless people and advocates in the city told CNN in a report published Monday that federal law enforcement "just told homeless people to move from encampments when they were cleared" and have often taken their possessions, while providing them little assistance and foisting that responsibility onto the city.

Timmons' bill, which is scheduled to be marked up by the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, would further the criminalization of homelessness by codifying it into federal law.

It would ban people in the District of Columbia from setting up or "making preparations" to set up temporary structures to sleep outside. It would also make it illegal to sleep inside a car. Those found in violation will be subject to fines up to $500 or up to 30 days in prison.

— (@)

It is one of several bills Congress will consider that could tighten federal control over Washington, DC. Brianne Nadeau, a member of DC's city council, said it and other bills "will do direct and serious harm to the district" and represent "an unprecedented attack on home rule and on the 700,000-plus residents that call DC home."

According to the most recent data from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are about 5,600 people in Washington, DC experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness on a given night.

One recent investigation found that Trump's deployment of the National Guard to DC costs roughly four times as much as it would cost to provide housing to every homeless person in the city.

"Instead of making rent cheaper and helping people make ends meet, Congress is considering a bill that would jail or fine people who have no choice but to sleep outside," said the DC-based National Homelessness Law Center (NHLC). "That's shameful."

— (@)

The group and others urged voters around the country to contact their representatives and pressure them to oppose the bill.

"Friends outside of DC, we need your help. We have no vote in Congress, yet some people in Congress want to write our laws, and they want DC to lock people up for being homeless," the Washington Legal Clinic for the Homeless posted on X. "Tell Congress NO."

The NHLC said voters should instead urge Congress to back the Housing Not Handcuffs Act introduced by Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) in June, following the Supreme Court's decision the year before to allow cities to ban homeless people from public spaces.

The Democratic bill would stop law enforcement from arresting and ticketing homeless people for camping on federal lands or asking for donations in public places, which advocates say would force Congress to look to long-term housing investment as a solution to homelessness rather than punitive measures to force people off the streets.

According to a May study published in the Policy Studies Journal, the first to ever look at the effects of homelessness criminalization on a national scale, cities that passed ordinances banning outdoor camping have not only failed to reduce homelessness, but actually saw slight increases in their unhoused populations.

Trump's punitive approach to homelessness is broadly unpopular. In a February YouGov survey conducted with the ACLU, 75% said that homelessness is primarily caused by the lack of affordable housing rather than an issue of crime, while 77% said they believed it would be better solved by housing and expanding social services rather than arrests.

"Imposing a $500 fine or sending an unhoused person to jail for 30 days is cruel and shameful," Nadeau said. "Being unhoused is not a crime."

A pair of House Republicans is moving forward with an investigation that will seek to reveal the identities of Wikipedia editors who have edited articles to include information that portrays Israel negatively.

On Wednesday, Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), chair of the House Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Information Technology, and Government Innovation, sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that owns the free encyclopedia.

The representatives asked Wikimedia's CEO, Maryana Iskander, for "assistance in obtaining documents and communications regarding individuals (or specific accounts) serving as Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated Wikipedia platform policies as well as your own efforts to thwart intentional, organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics."

The letter requested information about "nation state actors" or "academic institutions" that may have been involved in efforts to "edit or influence content identified as possibly violating Wikipedia policies."

A spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation told The Hill that they were reviewing the request.

"We welcome the opportunity to respond to the committee's questions and to discuss the importance of safeguarding the integrity of information on our platform," the spokesperson said.

The GOP investigation coincides with a long-standing objective of the far-right Heritage Foundation, which has accused Wikipedia of anti-conservative bias and promoting content that portrays Israel in a negative light, and sought to unmask the identities of the internet users who run it.

The letter sent by Comer and Mace requests that Wikimedia provide Congress with "records showing identifying and unique characteristics of accounts (such as names, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs) for editors" who have been "subject to actions" by Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee, which resolves internal disputes between editors.

It was, in essence, a request by Congress for Wikipedia to "dox" many of its editors.

"In the culture of Wikipedia editing, it is common for individuals to use pseudonyms to protect their privacy and avoid personal threats," wrote tech writer and Wikipedia expert Stephen Harrison for Slate in February. "Revealing an editor's personal information without their consent, a practice known as doxing, is a form of harassment that can result in a user's being permanently banned from the site."

Of chief concern to the legislators is investigating Wikipedia's handling of content related to Israel. They cited a report from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a pro-Israel lobbying group, which the legislators said "raised troubling questions about potentially systematic efforts to advance antisemitic and anti-Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the state of Israel."

The ADL report makes the allegation that 30 "bad-faith" Wikipedia editors, whose identities are not public, were collaborating to edit pages about the Israel-Palestine conflict by "spotlighting criticism of Israel and downplaying Palestinian terrorist violence and antisemitism," and in the process violating Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality.

That report, however, has been heavily criticized, including by some of the academics it cited. In a piece for The Forward, Shira Klein, whose research on Wikipedia's documentation of the Holocaust appears in the report, said the ADL "inaccurately" used her work, and the work of others, as part of its "ramped-up efforts to police public discourse about Israel," and quoted other researchers who felt the same.

Klein described the study's interpretation of the facts as "very skewed" and said it was reliant "on a faulty premise: that criticism of Israel or Zionism is inherently antisemitic."

"To establish foul play, the ADL would need to demonstrate that Wikipedia content about Israel and Zionism regularly expresses as fact ideas that diverge from broadly held scholarly opinions on the matters in question," Klein said. "But where is the evidence of editors repeatedly misrepresenting or contradicting peer-reviewed literature? There is none. The report simply wants us to take the ADL's word for it."

The ADL's report, as well as a similar report from the Atlantic Council alleging that Wikipedia editors had conspired to spread pro-Kremlin propaganda, are the sole pieces of evidence cited by Comer and Mace in their request for identifying information on Wikipedia's editors.

However, right-wing efforts to undermine Wikipedia's independence and attack the privacy of its editors go back much further.

In January, documents obtained by The Forward's Arno Rosenfeld revealed a secret plan by Heritage, the think tank behind the authoritarian Project 2025 playbook, to "identify and target Wikipedia editors" who the organization said were "abusing their position."

Among the methodologies it directed Heritage employees to use include "analyzing text patterns, usernames, and technical data through data breach analysis, fingerprinting, [human intelligence], and technical targeting."

The targeting methods also included "creating fake Wikipedia user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them."

According to Rosenfeld, "The Heritage Foundation sent the pitch deck outlining the Wikipedia initiative to Jewish foundations and other prospective supporters of Project Esther, its roadmap for fighting antisemitism and anti-Zionism."

Jewish Voice for Peace has described Project Esther as Heritage's "blueprint for using the federal government and private institutions to dismantle the Palestine solidarity movement and broader US civil society, under the guise of 'fighting antisemitism.'"

"Even if you take issue with how the site is currently framing the conflict, that doesn't justify Heritage's plan," Harrison wrote. "Targeting Wikipedia editors personally, instead of debating their edits on the platform, marks a dangerous escalation."

Coming amid the Trump administration's crackdowns against campus protests and efforts to deport immigrants over pro-Palestine speech, critics have described the House Republican investigation as the latest GOP attempt to censor criticism and the spread of unflattering information about Israel.

Adam Johnson, a co-host for the political podcast Citations Needed, described it in a post on X as "House Republicans working with the ADL and Atlantic Council to discipline Wikipedia into parroting the Israeli and NATO line."

Johnson noted that this push was coming as the clear majority of Americans, including an overwhelming number of Democrats, now oppose US support for Israel, with many now believing the country is committing a genocide.

"Rather than end the genocide," Johnson said, "the response instead is to continue firing, doxing, smearing, and attempting to censor inconvenient narratives."

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday struck a defiant tone during a political rally in Los Angeles aimed at promoting a ballot initiative that would allow the state legislature to redraw the Golden State's electoral maps.

During his speech, Newsom emphasized his preference to having an independent commission draw up districts in California and across the country. However, he said that U.S. President Donald Trump's push to have Texas Republicans redraw their state's map in the middle of the decade to gain five more Republican seats in the U.S. House of Representatives has left him with no choice but to return the favor.

"You have poked the bear, and we will punch back," Newsom said during the speech, addressing Trump directly.

The California governor then explained why doing nothing in response to Trump's pressure on Texas is not an option.

"[Trump] doesn't play by a different set of rules—he doesn't believe in the rules," Newsom said. "And as a consequence, we need to disabuse ourselves of the way things have been done. It's not enough to just hold hands, have a candlelight vigil, and talk about way the world should be. We have got to recognize the cards that have been dealt, and we have got to meet fire with fire!"

Newsom also pointed out that several Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials had stationed themselves nearby where California Democrats were holding their rally, which he called a deliberate attempt at intimidation.

However, Newsom said that instead of subduing lawmakers and advocates with the mass deportation force, Trump was only exposing his weakness.

"He is a failed president," Newsom declared. "Who else sends ICE at the same time while having a conversation like this? Someone who is weak. Someone who's broken. Someone whose weakness is masquerading as a strength. The most unpopular president in modern history."

Newsom encouraged voters in his state to approve a ballot initiative this coming November 4 that would allow the redrawing of California's congressional map on a temporary basis before returning to the independent commission that has long been used in the state starting in 2030.

The progressive advocacy group Unrig Our Economy launched a new $2 million advertising campaign Monday against four Texas Republicans who voted for the massive Medicaid cuts in this month's GOP megabill.

At the behest of President Donald Trump, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is mounting an unusual mid-decade effort to redraw Texas' congressional map to keep control of the U.S. House of Representatives come 2026.

The plan is expected to net the GOP five seats. But the flipside is that some seats that were once GOP locks may become more vulnerable to Democratic challengers.

Those include the ones held by Republican Reps. Lance Gooden (5), Monica De La Cruz (15), Beth Van Duyne (24), and Dan Crenshaw (2)—all of whom voted for the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."

Put together, these four congresspeople alone represent around 450,000 Medicaid recipients, according to data from KFF.

The law remains dismally unpopular, with the majority of Americans believing that it benefits the rich, while providing little to ordinary Americans. According to a Navigator survey conducted last week, 7 in 10 Americans said they were concerned about its cuts to Medicaid.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that 10 million Americans will lose health insurance as a result of the law's Medicaid cuts.

Around 200,000 of them are in Texas according to KFF. In total, up to 1.7 million people in the state may lose their insurance as a result of other subsidies that were also cut.

Those are the people Unrig Our Economy hopes to reach with its new ad blitz.

One ad hits Crenshaw—whose district has nearly 92,000 Medicaid recipients—for making false promises to protect the program.

(Video: Unrig Our Economy)

It shows a video of the congressman from May 14 assuring Texans: "You have nothing to worry about. Your Medicaid is not going anywhere," less than two months before voting for "the largest Medicaid and healthcare cuts in history."

Another singles out De La Cruz—who represents over 181,000 Medicaid recipients—for her vote for the bill after warning that the cuts "would have serious consequences, particularly in rural and predominantly Hispanic communities where hospitals and nursing homes are already struggling to keep their doors open."

Among hundreds at risk across the country, 15 rural hospitals in Texas are in danger of closing because of the cuts, according to a study by the health services research arm of the University of North Carolina.

The ads targeting Gooden and Van Duyne, meanwhile, draw more attention to the effects of their cuts on Texan families: "Medicaid covers a third of all children, half of all pregnant women, the elderly in long-term care, and the disabled."

(Video: Unrig Our Economy)

Gooden's district contains more than 120,000 Medicaid recipients—over half of whom are children. In Van Duyne's district, children make up close to two-thirds of the more than 57,000 enrollees.

According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the bill cuts more than $930 billion in total from Medicaid over the next ten years. Over that same ten-year period, the wealthiest 1% of Americans will receive over $1 trillion worth of tax breaks.

All the ads hammer home the fact that these devastating cuts were passed "to fund tax breaks for billionaires."

Unrig Our Economy's ad blitz is the first salvo of a $20-million effort by the House Majority PAC—the largest national PAC supporting Democrats—to beat back the effects of the Republican gerrymandering effort.

"We're holding these members of Congress accountable for voting for the Republican tax law that strips healthcare away from millions of Texas families," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal.

Unrig Our Economy has launched similar ads against vulnerable Republicans across the country, such as first-term Rep. Rob Bresnahan, whose northeast Pennsylvania constituency is made up of more than one-fourth Medicaid recipients.

"These ads," Tal said, "are just the latest in our nationwide campaign to show the horrible impacts of this law, which benefits the superwealthy at working families' expense."

Republicans on the House Rules Committee have ground business in the chamber to a halt to avoid having to vote on Democratic amendments calling for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

For weeks now, Republicans in Congress, facing pressure from the White House, have dodged efforts to force the release of the files, which may implicate U.S. President Donald Trump in crimes committed by the convicted sex criminal.

According to Axios, the House had been scheduled to vote on GOP legislation involving immigration and environmental legislation this week. But in order for these votes to reach the floor, they'd first need to pass through the Speaker-controlled Rules Committee, which has also been presented with multiple Epstein amendments.

Republicans on House Rules "don't want to vote no because they're then accused of helping hide the truth about Epstein," Punchbowl News reported Tuesday morning. So instead, they've chosen to simply stop work for the week to avoid having to vote at all.

This has essentially ground all business in the House to a halt, potentially until after Congress gets back from its August recess.

On Monday, the ranking Democrat on the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), told Politico reporter Mia Camille, "We're done in [the] Rules Committee until September."

"The Rules Committee decides what gets voted on in the House. It's where Republicans have already voted six times against forcing the release of the Epstein files," said Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-N.M.). "They'd rather shut down Congress than vote to release the files. What are they hiding?"

The Epstein cloud has only grown thicker over the White House over the past week after The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2003, Trump gave Epstein a salacious letter for his 50th birthday containing talk of a "secret" between the two men and a drawing of a nude woman. Trump has sued The Journal, calling the letter "a fake thing."

The New York Times later reported that a decade earlier, Trump hosted a party full of young women where Epstein was the only other guest.

Amid the drip of scandal, the White House has remained dismissive of calls, including from the president's own supporters, for the Department of Justice to release all its files related to Epstein.

Not long ago, officials in his administration made promises to release the files themselves, assuring damning revelations. But now, Trump describes the files as a "hoax" by the "radical left." Of the Trump-faithful who have called for their release, he said, "I don't want their support anymore!"

Late last week, Trump called for the DOJ to release grand jury transcripts pertaining to the investigation. But many other critical pieces of information, including ones that could implicate the president, would remain hidden.

— (@)

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has closely coordinated the House GOP's response to the Epstein fiasco with the White House, saying repeatedly that there is "no daylight" between his position and that of the administration.

Johnson last week introduced a non-binding resolution to provide the public with "certain" Epstein-related documents, but it had no legal weight, allowing the White House to have total control over the information they disclosed. But even that resolution, Johnson said, would not be brought forth for a vote until after the August recess.

This has provoked the ire of a fellow Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who—along with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna (Calif.)—drafted a discharge petition last week in an attempt to force a vote on the Epstein files onto the House floor.

"I think this is the referendum on [Johnson's] leadership," Massie said. "Who's he gonna pick? Is he going to stand with the pedophiles and underage sex traffickers? Or is he gonna pick the American people and justice for the victims?"

Last week, a CNN/SSRS poll found that just 3% of Americans were satisfied with the amount of information the government had released about the Epstein files, while more than half said they were dissatisfied.

"This is the ultimate decision the speaker needs to make. And it's irrespective of what the president wants," Massie said.

More than 100 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives helped Republicans send what would be the country's first major cryptocurrency law to the desk of President Donald Trump, despite warnings that the legislation would not only further his corruption, but also "expose our financial stability, national security, and consumer protections to greater risk."

All but a dozen voting Republicans and 102 Democrats—including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.)—supported the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which last month passed the Senate 68-30, with support from 18 Democrats.

If signed by the president, as is expected, the bill would create a regulatory framework for stablecoins, which are pegged to the value of existing assets such as the U.S. dollar. The Trump family's World Liberty Financial has issued the stablecoin USD1.

Advocacy groups and Democrats critical of the GENIUS Act, and other bills making their way through Congress during "Crypto Week," have highlighted how the legislation would "bolster Trump's business empire while putting American interests at risk."

Leading House Democratic opposition to the GOP's package is Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), who warned last week that "these bills would make Congress complicit in Trump's unprecedented crypto scam."

As Politico detailed Thursday:

Waters and other Democrats called for presidential ethics provisions to be added to the bills, pointing to the Trump family's business entanglements in the crypto industry. Trump and his sons have stakes in several crypto ventures, including a company they launched last year that issues a stablecoin and could benefit from the GENIUS bill that is now awaiting the president's signature.

But a growing bloc of the party has joined Republicans in lining up behind the digital asset industry's Washington agenda, a sign of crypto firms' ascendance as a political force. Companies in the crypto sector have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into influence efforts, and a mountain of super [political action committee] money is threatening to target lawmakers who stand in the way of the industry's goals.

After Thursday's vote, Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, declared that "today, House members piled venality onto perversion onto corruption. In approving this crypto-enabling bill, Congress surrendered to the onslaught of crypto political spending and legitimized the world's biggest Ponzi scheme."

"To add insult to injury," Naylor added, "they also forfeited an opportunity to stop Trump's massive crypto grift, some of the most heinous and flagrant corruption in American presidential history."

In addition to sending the GENIUS Act to Trump, the House advanced two other crypto bills on Thursday: the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which would create a regulatory framework for digital asset markets, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

All Republicans present and 78 Democrats backed the CLARITY Act, while just Democratic Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Shri Thanedar (Mich.) voted alongside the GOP to pass the CBDC ban. Both of those bills still need Senate approval.

A new analysis details precisely how a slate of proposed cryptocurrency bills making their way through Congress this week, if passed, will enrich U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his family who are heavily invested in the crypto markets.

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives continued their fight to pass the GOP's cryptocurrency bills on Thursday, despite warnings from Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups that the legislation would personally benefit Trump.

As right-wing hard-liners on Wednesday thwarted Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson's (R-La.) effort to advance the trio of bills, the watchdog Accountable.US released an analysis highlighting how the industry-backed package would "bolster Trump's business empire while putting American interests at risk."

The bills that the House is considering during "Crypto Week" are:

• the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which would create a regulatory framework for a type of cryptocurrency called stablecoin, and passed the Senate 68-30 last month;
• the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which would create a regulatory framework for digital asset markets; and
• the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

The Accountable analysis focuses on the first two bills. The group's executive director, Tony Carrk, said in a statement that "the so-called GENIUS and CLARITY acts ironically do nothing to lift the cloak of mystery and unaccountability that shrouds the Trump family crypto interests around the world, leaving American interests at high risk."

"The president has already demonstrated he'll seemingly take money from anyone, even possible criminal elements and foreign adversaries," he noted. "So to pass a bill that lets Trump... enrich himself from deeper in the shadows is a recipe for American workers getting sold out to the highest bidder. The real clarity we have about this president is he fights to give his billionaire buddies a tax break and profit from his office while betraying the working Americans he claims to represent."

The CLARITY Act would "significantly" limit the regulatory role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), "which already has been severely weakened under Trump and has oversight over many Trump crypto products," the analysis details. It would also "put the less robust Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) 'at the center' of digital asset regulation."

According to Accountable:

• Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which has made a "fast and furious" move into Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, disclosed to the SEC that, "if Bitcoin is determined to constitute a security"—which it likely would not be under the CLARITY Act—it could "adversely affect" Bitcoin's price and the price of Trump Media's offerings.
• World Liberty Financial Inc. (WLFI) has disclosed to the SEC that its token sales to "non-U.S. persons" were not believed to be an issuance of securities subject to SEC oversight. In the same SEC filing, it disclosed President Trump as a WLFI "promoter," but curiously claimed he was not actually a promoter for federal Securities Act purposes. Under the CLARITY Act, WLFI could enjoy lighter regulation by the CFTC as a digital commodities platform—or, it could be "subject to almost no federal oversight" as a decentralized finance (DeFi) platform run on automatic protocols, according to Wall Street watchdog Americans for Financial Reform.
• Just weeks after the $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins launched, the Trump SEC stated that meme coins are not subject to federal securities law, with one dissenting SEC commissioner calling the guidance "a roadmap for crypto enterprises looking to evade oversight by labeling themselves as a meme coin." Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, said the SEC was shortchanging average retail investors while helping "the president's bottom line." The CLARITY Act would likely shield Trump's meme coins even further from SEC oversight.

A coalition of over 80 groups—including Accountable.US, Americans for Financial Reform, and Demand Progress—wrote to Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday that the CLARITY Act "creates loopholes or confusing legal questions that crypto and non-crypto firms will exploit in order to evade existing regulatory standards, causing more damage."

"The legislation gives the shady practices and endemic fraud in the crypto industry a government imprimatur without adequate guardrails to protect investors and the financial system and unleashes and rewards the administration's crypto corruption," the coalition warned, urging members of the chamber to vote against the bil.

Meanwhile, the GENIUS Act would let banks and private entities issue stablecoins—which are pegged to the value of existing assets such as the U.S. dollar—with "light oversight" and could "enable corruption, screw over taxpayers, and potentially destabilize the economy," warns Accountable's new report.

The publication points out that the Trump family's WLFI has launched its own "USD1" stablecoin, which was used in a $2 billion transaction between MGX, a fund backed by the United Arab Emirates, and the crypto exchange Binance, "just weeks before the Trump administration dropped a securities case" against Binance and its founder, Changpeng Zhao.

WLFI also announced on social media Wednesday that investors in its token voted to make the crypto tradable on public exchanges. Sludge reported that "the decision could boost the token's price and directly benefit President Trump and his family, who hold billions of the tokens and have already reaped hundreds of millions from its early sales."

Warren, the report notes, has warned that the GENIUS Act would "create a superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption."

After a handful of hard-line Republicans tanked a procedural vote on the crypto package Tuesday, Trump hosted a meeting at the White House and later announced a deal had been reached to pass the legislation.

However, when Wednesday came, "committee chairs pushed back at hard-liners' demands to attach a central bank digital currency ban" to the CLARITY Act, Politico reported. "The impasse kept the House rule vote open for nine hours until GOP leaders finally cut a late-night deal to include a CBDC ban in the National Defense Authorization Act."

Now, Johnson has to juggle the defense and crypto legislation with a Trump rescission package that Senate Republicans passed overnight. As Politico put it: "If something's got to give, watch to see whether all three cryptocurrency bills end up getting a vote this week as planned. One possibility under discussion is passing only the Senate-approved stablecoin bill, which Trump wants to sign as soon as possible, and punting the other votes."

Congressional Democrats are divided on the GOP package, and leadership is not whipping for or against it. Politico obtained a Monday notice from the office of House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) that, according to the outlet, "sharply criticized both a crypto market structure bill and a Senate stablecoin measure that the lower chamber is slated to vote on, but did not tell members how to vote."

Reps. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), Don Davis (D-N.C.), and Ritchie Torres (D-NY) are original co-sponsors of the CLARITY Act. Craig still wants Democrats to support the legislation, Semafor reported Tuesday, and both Davis and Torres joined Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) in a Monday letter urging their Democratic colleagues to vote for it, arguing that "although this bill is not without its shortcomings and may still be improved, inaction is not a viable option."

More Perfect Union on Tuesday published a report detailing how Davis, Torres, and Gottheimer have collectively taken millions from cryptocurrency industry executives and political groups. Responding to the findings on social media, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that "it's a terrible bill that basically endorses Trump's massive crypto corruption scheme. Democrats will regret voting for it."

It's not just Trump and his family who could benefit from the bills. A separate Washington Post analysis published Thursday found that "nearly 70 Trump administration officials and nominees held cryptocurrency or investments in blockchain or digital-asset companies at the time of their selection, with stakes ranging from small to more than $120 million."

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously voted against forcing the Department of Justice to release its full files on deceased financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, just hours after the GOP-led Rules Committee rejected the measure.

The vote was 211-210 along party lines. While nine Republicans—and two Democrats—did not participate, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) voted with his party, after joining Democrats for the Monday night panel vote on Rep. Ro Khanna's (D-Calif.) amendment, which would require the DOJ to release the records within 30 days while protecting abuse survivors' identities.

"Wow. Republicans in the U.S. House just voted UNANIMOUSLY to not release the Epstein files. Every. Single. One. Genuinely surprised it was unanimous," said Nina Turner, who previously ran for Congress as a progressive Democrat in Ohio.

— (@)

Speaking ahead of the full chamber's vote, Khanna called out the Rules Committee's other Republicans, saying that "they voted to protect rich and powerful men who were abusing, assaulting, and abandoning young women. That's what this vote is about. A nation that chooses impunity for the rich and the powerful at the expense of our children is a nation that has lost its moral purpose."

"So you ask, Why did they vote this way? Let's speak plainly," the congressman continued. "Because these rich and powerful men donate to the politicians in Washington, D.C., play golf with the elites in Washington, D.C. They are foreign leaders who we don't want to offend. They interact with our intelligence agencies that we don't want to disobey. There is something rotten in Washington."

"And this is a question of, Whose side are you on?" he argued. "Are you on the side of the people? Are you on the side of America's children? Or are you on the side of the rich and powerful who have had their thumb on the scales and shafted Americans for decades?" he asked. Khanna also praised Republicans, including Norman, who have previously supported releasing the files.

Khanna—who has been laying the groundwork for a 2028 presidential run—emphasized that "it's not a question just of Epstein, it's a question of trust in our democracy. It's a question of restoring a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Khanna pledged Tuesday he "will continue to fight for the release of the Epstein files," a vow echoed by other congressional Democrats. House Rules Committee Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told Axios, "That was probably not the last time that you're going to see us deal with this issue."

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) led a Tuesday letter from panel's Democrats urging Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) to investigate how President Donald Trump's administration has handled the Epstein files. The letter requests that the committee invite—and, if necessary, subpoena—Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel, and Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino to testify publicly.

"Mr. Epstein reportedly took his own life to escape justice, robbing his victims and the public of an opportunity to hold him accountable for his shocking crimes," the Democrats wrote. The New York City medical examiner ruled his 2019 death at the Metropolitan Correctional Center a suicide by hanging, but that determination has been met with widespread skepticism.

— (@)

"In the absence of facts and evidence related to Mr. Epstein's sex trafficking enterprise and the 'vast network' of underage victims he created, the public will turn to conspiracy theories to fill the void of credible information," the Democrats warned. "Alas, President Trump and his team, acting out of personal and political self-interest or some other more inscrutable motive, have suppressed the release of information in their possession and, in so doing, fed yet more conspiracy theories and advanced conjecture to explain this about-face."

After tech billionaire Elon Musk left the Trump administration, he claimed in early June that the president "is in the Epstein files" and "that is the real reason they have not been made public." The DOJ then released a two-page memo about Epstein and some video footage from the jail where he was found dead. Trump—who palled around with Epstein in the 1980s and '90s until a reported falling out in 2004—has since encouraged the media and public to stop paying attention to the dead sex offender.

"At this point, the public has no idea if new information on the Epstein case even exists, why it was repeatedly promised to us if not, and if it does, what it may contain or mean for public safety and the victims of the Epstein ring," the Democrats wrote. "The Trump DOJ and FBI's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein matter, and President Trump's suddenly shifting positions, have not restored anyone's trust in the government but have rather raised profound new questions about their own conduct while increasing public paranoia related to the investigation."

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing to block action that would protect farms from toxic "forever chemicals" found in fertilizers made from sewage sludge.

The provision, introduced as part of a government spending bill unveiled Monday, would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from enforcing the findings from a January risk assessment, which found that the sludge contains dangerous amounts of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).

According to the environmental advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), the act could cause agricultural losses and pose serious risks to public health.

For decades, the federal government encouraged farmers to spread municipal sewage onto their farmland, as it was a good source of nutrients and a preferable alternative to putting the sludge in landfills.

Nearly 20% of U.S. agricultural land is estimated to use this sludge, commonly known as "biosolids," in fertilizer, and 70 million acres of farmland may be contaminated.

These biosolids contain large amounts of PFAS, which are absorbed through the roots of plants and contaminate plant and animal products that end up on store shelves.

These chemicals are known to accumulate in the body for years without degrading and cause increased rates of cancer, decreased fertility, and developmental delays in children.

The EPA's January study found that the risks associated with PFAS in these sewage sludge-based fertilizers "exceed EPA's acceptable thresholds, sometimes by several orders of magnitude." Even very small quantities of these chemicals, it found, could pose major risks.

The GOP bill, however, forbids the EPA from using any funding to "finalize, implement, administer, or enforce" that risk assessment.

"Preventing EPA from protecting public health and our food supply from toxic contamination epitomizes special interest politics at their worst," said PEER science policy director Kyla Bennett, a scientist and attorney formerly with the EPA. "If finalized, this ban will leave ill-equipped state agricultural agencies to deal with a rapidly spreading chemical disaster."

Republicans have faced pressure from chemical manufacturing groups to kill PFAS regulations. In 2023, a report from Food & Water Watch found that eight major companies, including Dow and DuPont, spent a combined $55.7 million to lobby against bills to rein in PFAS between 2019 and 2022. The American Chemistry Council, the industry's lobbying arm, spent over $58.7 million during that same period.

The rule banning action on PFAS is part of a broader effort by Republicans to gut environmental regulations. The bill released Monday slashes EPA spending by over $2 billion, nearly 25%.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has also weakened standards on PFAS in drinking water, which were adopted during the Biden administration.

"Across the country, farms have had to be condemned and livestock slaughtered due to PFAS pollution from fertilizers," said PEER staff counsel Laura Dumais, who filed a lawsuit against the EPA last year for its slow rollout of PFAS regulations. "Further delay in preventing more of these needless tragedies would be unconscionable."

Republicans on the House Rules Committee have blocked an amendment that would force the Department of Justice to release the full Jeffrey Epstein files to the public.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) introduced the amendment to a cryptocurrency bill on Monday, seizing on the controversy that erupted after the Trump administration said it would not release any more documents related to the sex-trafficking billionaire.

Had the measure passed out of committee, it would have required the entire House to vote on whether to force Attorney General Pam Bondi to publish all documents related to Epstein to a "publicly accessible website."

"Trump promised that his administration would release the Epstein files to the public," Khanna said before the amendment's introduction. "Now, the Department of Justice is shielding Trump's rich and powerful friends by refusing to release additional files."

All four Democrats on the committee voted for Khanna's amendment. They were joined by Republican Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.). Seven other Republicans voted the measure down, while Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) did not vote.

— (@)

Explaining why he joined Democrats, Norman said: "The public's been asking for it. I think there are files. All of a sudden not to have files is a little strange. We'll see how it plays out… I think the president will do the right thing."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the chair of the Rules Committee, defended her colleagues' decision to vote down the amendment.

"I think most of us believe what's appropriate will be released when it is time for the president to release it," Foxx said.

The administration's back-track on the Epstein files has ripped apart the MAGA coalition in recent days, with prominent Trump allies issuing some of their fiercest criticisms of the president's entire second term after he told the public to "not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein."

Trump himself is also potentially implicated in the release of the files. He has a well-documented history with Epstein, who once referred to himself on tape as "Donald Trump's closest friend."

In June, amid a public falling-out with the president, billionaire Elon Musk said that the Trump administration, which he'd just departed, was covering up the files to protect Trump.

Rep. Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.), who voted in favor of the amendment, said before the vote that it was of particular interest to her as the chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.

"The Epstein files concern the abuse of women and the abuse of children," Fernández said to her Republican colleagues. "Why are they not just releasing them?"

"What are they hiding?" she asked on Instagram after the vote failed.

See on Instagram

Khanna said this will not be the last attempt to get a vote to the House floor for a release of the files.

"We should see whose side are you on. That's really what this Epstein file issue has become," he told MSNBC. "It's not just about knowing who's being protected, the rich and the powerful...who had interactions with Jeffrey Epstein. It's the sense that people have that the government is too beholden to certain interests who have their thumb on the scale."

— (@)

He mentioned other Democratic congresspeople who are pushing for the release of the files, including Marc Veasey (D-Texas) who introduced his own resolution calling for their release this weekend.

"We won't stop until the files are released," Khanna wrote on X. "This may have been our first attempt, but the public will not be gaslit. We will keep fighting for transparency."

As Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives begin work on spending legislation for fiscal year 2026, conservationists and congressional Democrats are blasting a key appropriations bill released Monday.

"House Republicans are once again waging war on America's wildlife in yet another giveaway to their industry allies," said Stephanie Kurose, deputy director of government affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, in a statement. "Extinction isn't inevitable, it's a political choice. The Appropriations Committee has one job to do, which is to fund the government, not decide whether our most vulnerable animals get to survive."

The bill that the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee is set to consider on Tuesday morning would not only slash funding for the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—by 23%—and the Fish and Wildlife Service, but also strip Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from animals including gray wolves, the center noted.

"This budget proposal shows yet again the extremes to which anti-wildlife members of Congress will go to sacrifice endangered species," declared Robert Dewey, vice president of government relations at Defenders of Wildlife. "The bill is loaded with riders that attack the Endangered Species Act and would put some of America's most iconic species, including the grizzly bear and wolverine, at serious risk of extinction."

"The bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on."

The legislation would block funding for listing the greater sage-grouse as well as money to protect the northern long-eared bat, the lesser prairie-chicken, and captive fish listed under the ESA. It would also block the Biden administration's rules for the landmark law.

"By blocking protections for public lands while also providing short-sighted lease sales for the benefit of oil and gas corporations, the bill and all who support it are compromising the crucial habitats, outdoor recreation areas, and natural resources that Americans and wildlife rely on," Dewey said.

Democrats on the committee put out a statement highlighting that, along with attacking wildlife, worsening the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency, and jeopardizing public health by favoring polluters, the GOP legislation would hike utility bills, promote environmental discrimination against rural and poor communities, and cut national park funding.

"With the release of the FY26 Interior bill, it's clear House Republicans are once again pushing an agenda that accelerates the climate crisis, upends our national parks system, and leaves local communities to fend for themselves—all while undermining the power of the Appropriations Committee and of Congress," said Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), ranking member on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

"We are still living with the fallout of last year's failure to negotiate a full-year funding bill. Instead of correcting course, the bill released today delivers more of the same: It cuts water infrastructure funding, slashes EPA programs, and wipes out environmental justice and climate initiatives. It even blocks the EPA from completing its risk assessment on PFAS in sewage sludge," she continued, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also called forever chemicals. "On top of the environmental attacks, Republicans are taking aim at the arts and cultural institutions that enrich communities and drive local economies."

Pingree asserted that "any arguments that these irresponsible cuts are somehow fiscally responsible ring hollow in the wake of Republicans adding $3.4 trillion to the national deficit thanks to their disastrous so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' I urge my Republican colleagues to come to the table and support the essential work of this subcommittee: Protecting public health, conserving our lands and waters, investing in resilience, and ensuring that every community—from rural Maine to urban centers—has access to a healthy environment and a vibrant cultural life."

House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) pointed out that President Donald Trump "promised to address the cost-of-living crisis, but instead, he and House Republicans are making it worse."

"House Republicans' 2026 Interior funding bill raises utility bills and energy prices to benefit billionaires and big corporations," DeLauro said. "Republicans are threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink and taking steps that damage our public lands, promote dirty energy, and hinder our ability to confront the climate crisis."

"In addition to these dangerous cuts, Republicans' proposal would mean fewer trips to national parks and less access to museums and the arts," she warned. "House Republicans are more focused on lining the pockets of big oil companies than lowering prices for working-class, middle-class, rural, and vulnerable families; protecting our public health; and preserving the planet."

Progressive Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib on Wednesday clapped back at one of her Republican colleagues who suggested that the GOP effort to pass the so-called Big Beautiful Bill this week isn't in response to a directive from U.S. President Donald Trump, who has set a July 4 deadline.

“The president of the United States didn't give us an assignment. We're not a bunch of little bitches around here, OK? I'm a member of Congress. I represent almost 800,000 Wisconsinites," Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) told journalists near the back entrance to the House of Representatives chamber, according to Punchbowl News' Kenzie Nguyen.

Responding to Van Orden's claims on the social media platform X, Tlaib (D-Mich.) simply said, "Yes, he did, and yes, you are."

— (@)

The Michigan Democrat also released a video explaining to constituents why she is voting "hell no" on the package, which would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and strip an estimated 17 million Americans of their health insurance over the next decade while giving trillions of dollars in tax breaks to the ultrarich and corporations.

Tlaib wasn't the only House Democrat to notice the Republican's remarks. A fellow Wisconsinite, Congressman Mark Pocan, asked his followers on X, "Do you think Derrick Van Orden is right... that Congress is not a bunch of 'little bitches'?"

According to Politico's Samuel Benson and Mike DeBonis, Van Orden's comment came in the context of confirming he would vote for the budget reconciliation package, despite some critiques. The congressman reportedly said: "So this bill will pass. Am I happy about everything? No, but there's a difference between compromise and capitulation. We're not capitulating. We're compromising."

— (@)

His remarks to reporters, and the backlash, came as the House considered a version of the megabill passed by the Senate on Tuesday, with help from Vice President JD Vance. GOP leaders in the lower chamber are struggling to get it past a procedural hurdle due to opposition from Republican fiscal hawks—plus all Democrats, who oppose steep cuts to the social safety net.

To protest the Republican effort to send the bill to Trump's desk by Independence Day, House Democrats on Wednesday formed a procedural conga line offering an amendment that would block cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Multiple Democrats also took to the House floor to rail against the package, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who declared that "this bill is a deal with the devil. It explodes our national debt, it militarizes our entire economy, and it strips away healthcare and basic dignity of the American people. For what? To give Elon Musk a tax break and billionaires the greedy taking of our nation. We cannot stand for it, and we will not support it."

"You should be ashamed," Ocasio-Cortez told the chamber's Republicans.

— (@)

As Common Dreams reported earlier Wednesday, progressives outside of Congress are also working to block the bill. Advocacy organizations, including Indivisible, are urging Americans to call and email House Republicans and pressure them to oppose the package. The phone number for the House switchboard is 202-224-3121.