GET THE APP
Thursday, August 7, 2025

Category: Politics
July 1, 2025
Politics

Tesla Shares Are Dipping Amid Musk-Trump Spending Bill Clash.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Tesla shares dropped sharply after a renewed public dispute between Elon Musk and President Donald J. Trump over the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Tesla CEO Elon Musk, President Trump, and Tesla investors.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The stock drop occurred on Tuesday morning, following Musk’s comments over the weekend and on Monday. The dispute has played out publicly on Musk’s X platform (formerly Twitter) and elsewhere.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The bill would destroy millions of jobs in America.” – Elon Musk

🎯IMPACT: Tesla’s stock dropped 7.1 percent in early trading and remains down 5.4 percent as of late afternoon. The ongoing dispute is causing investor concerns over government scrutiny of Musk’s ventures.

IN FULL

Tesla shares dipped Tuesday morning following a public spat between Tesla CEO Elon Musk and President Donald J. Trump over the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ which has passed the Senate and now heads back to the House for final approval. The electric vehicle company’s stock price fell 23 points in early trading, or 7.1 percent, and was down roughly 5.4 percent at $300.60 per share as of 1:50 PM EST.

Musk reignited the argument on Saturday by criticizing the bill, which President Trump is urging Congress to pass by July 4. Musk described the legislation as a “big, beautiful bill” that would “destroy millions of jobs in America.” On Monday, Musk escalated his rhetoric, suggesting he might form a new political party and support primary challenges against Republicans who vote in favor of the legislation.

President Trump responded Tuesday morning, highlighting the subsidies Musk’s companies receive from the government. He also suggested that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Musk previously led before stepping down in May, might investigate government spending linked to Musk’s ventures.

Wedbush tech analyst Dan Ives noted in a report that investor concerns about increased scrutiny from the Trump administration could lead to weak trading early on, but he expects the situation to “settle at the end of the day.” Musk has previously called the reconciliation bill, which funds U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations and border security while cutting taxes on tips, overtime, and social security, “pork-filled” and a “disgusting abomination.”

Tesla stock prices have fallen roughly 21 percent since the start of the year, with Musk’s involvement in political disputes becoming a significant issue for investors. The company is set to release its quarterly earnings tomorrow.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 1, 2025
Politics

The USAID ‘NGO Industrial Complex’ Is Officially Over.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will cease implementing foreign assistance programs, with the State Department taking over such efforts under the Trump administration.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Trump administration, and USAID.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Announcement made Tuesday; changes effective July 1.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end.” – Marco Rubio

🎯IMPACT: Over 80 percent of USAID programs will be cut, with 5,200 of 6,200 programs canceled.

IN FULL

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) will no longer implement foreign assistance programs, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Tuesday. Beginning July 1, the State Department will take over such programs under the Trump administration’s directive to prioritize America’s national interests.

Rubio stated that USAID has failed to meet development objectives for decades, often worsening instability and fostering anti-American sentiment. “Beyond creating a globe-spanning NGO industrial complex at taxpayer expense, USAID has little to show since the end of the Cold War,” Rubio remarked, adding: “This era of government-sanctioned inefficiency has officially come to an end.”

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) recently conducted a review of USAID’s operations, leading to the cancellation of over 80 percent of its programs. Rubio revealed that approximately 5,200 of USAID’s 6,200 programs will be terminated. Controversial funding decisions, such as a $1.5 million program to promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in Serbia and a $70,000 “DEI musical” in Ireland, contributed to the agency’s scrutiny.

Critics of the decision include Democrats and activists, with actress Charlize Theron voicing strong opposition. Theron claimed that foreign aid cuts have brought HIV and AIDS programs in South Africa to a halt, describing the situation as “absolutely heartbreaking.” She also criticized U.S. immigration policies and alleged a rollback of women’s and LGBTQ rights, stating, “Here in Los Angeles, in the U.S. and across the globe, we are moving backwards fast.” It is unclear whether Theron was voicing support for the violent, pro-illegal immigration riots in Los Angeles or just opposition to several large-scale U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the city.

Despite the criticism, the Trump administration has maintained that the changes will ensure foreign funding aligns with American interests, emphasizing greater accountability and efficiency under the State Department’s oversight.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 1, 2025
News
Politics

Trump Brands NYC’s Mamdani ‘Terrible,’ ‘A True Communist.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump criticized far-left New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) for refusing to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.”

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Donald Trump, Zohran Mamdani, New York City residents.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job. I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route.” – Donald Trump

🎯IMPACT: Trump’s remarks highlight concerns about Mamdani’s political ideology and its implications for New York City.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump blasted New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) after the Queens assemblyman refused to condemn the term “globalize the intifada.” The phrase is often used to support violent Palestinian action against Israelis and Jews generally, including terrorism.

“Frankly, I’ve heard he’s a total nut job,” Trump told reporters Tuesday morning. “I think the people in New York are crazy because they go this route. I think they’re crazy. We will have a communist in the for the first time, really a pure, true communist. He wants to operate the grocery stores. The department stores. What about the people that are there? I think it’s crazy.”

Mamdani, a Ugandan-born Muslim from the extreme “Twelver” sect of Shia Islam, won the Democratic Party’s primary for New York City mayor in June. During an interview on Sunday, Mamdani stated he didn’t want to condemn the term “globalize the intifada” because he didn’t want to “police language.”

“I think he’s terrible. He’s a communist,” Trump reiterated on Tuesday. The native New Yorker added that the “last thing we need is a communist. I said, there will never be socialism in the United States… I think it’s bad news.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
July 1, 2025
William Upton
Politics

Senate GOP Fails to Restore Medicaid Cuts for Illegals to ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans failed to restore a provision barring illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ after it was thrown out by the Senate Parliamentarian.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Republicans, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, and President Donald J. Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ‘vote-a-rama’ on amendments to the budget reconciliation bill began on June 30 and was ongoing on the morning of July 1.

🎯IMPACT: The removal of key provisions found in the House of the legislation could push lawmakers in the lower chamber to either outright oppose or demand amendments to the Senate bill once it is passed. This could jeopardize the chances of passage or delay adoption of the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ beyond President Trump’s July 4 deadline.

IN FULL

Senate Republicans failed to re-add a measure preventing illegal immigrants from accessing Medicaid to the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ during the longest ‘vote-a-rama’ in American political history. The measure was rejected with 56 Senators in favor and 44 opposed. Typically, the amendment would have needed only 51 votes to be adopted. However, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the provision violated the Byrd Rule, which raises the vote threshold to 60 votes to break a filibuster.

The removal of the measure has angered conservatives who saw the provision as a key component of the budget reconciliation legislation. Notably, a number of policies that were adopted in the House version of the bill have been stripped in the Senate by the Parliamentarian.

While the core of the legislation remains intact, including the implementation of President Donald J. Trump‘s campaign promises of no tax on tips, no tax on social security income, no tax on overtime income, and making permanent the 2017 Trump tax cuts—other provisions that prevented Medicaid funds from being used for the gender transition of minors and the clawback of funding for Planned Parenthood were stripped by the Parliamenarian. Consequently, the more watered-down Senate legislation could be seen as unpalatable in the House.

Some “moderate” House Republicans are already balking at the Senate bill’s larger direct cuts to Medicaid. If they’re joined in opposition by conservative House Republicans, it may be difficult to find a path to bring both sides back to supporting the legislation, jeopardizing its final passage.

President Trump has said he wants to sign the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ into law on July 4, though as of the time of publication, the reconciliation legislation is still stuck in the Senate, so lawmakers on Capitol Hill are running quickly out of time.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
Politics

Trump Is Suing Los Angeles for Obstructing ICE.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Trump administration has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, alleging that its sanctuary policies interfere with federal immigration enforcement.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Attorney General Pam Bondi, President Donald J. Trump, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The lawsuit was filed on Monday, June 30, 2025, following recent pro-illegal immigrant riots in Los Angeles targeting ICE operations.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.

🎯IMPACT: The lawsuit seeks to block Los Angeles’s sanctuary policies, citing constitutional violations under the Supremacy Clause.

IN FULL

The Trump administration is suing the city of Los Angeles, alleging that its sanctuary policies obstruct federal immigration authorities from performing their duties. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated, “Sanctuary policies were the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”

The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that Los Angeles’s policies intentionally discriminate against federal authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), by treating them differently from other law enforcement agencies. The lawsuit claims that these policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits state and local jurisdictions from interfering with federal law.

“The Los Angeles Ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the Federal Government by treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents through access restrictions both to property and to individual detainees,” the lawsuit reads. It further accuses the city of prohibiting contractors from cooperating with federal authorities and disfavoring federal criminal laws.

Los Angeles recently experienced violent demonstrations and riots in response to ICE operations in the region. Mayor Karen Bass criticized the presence of federal law enforcement, stating, “Last Thursday, ICE entered our city and provoked the city by chasing people through Home Depots and car washes and showing up at schools and, today, showing up at emergency rooms and homeless shelters.” Bass further claimed that the deployment of the National Guard was used as a pretext to escalate federal involvement.

Notably, the illegal aliens detained by ICE ahead of the riots included mass shooters and pedophiles. The DOJ is seeking a judicial order to block the enforcement of Los Angeles’s sanctuary policies.

Image by Lord Jim.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
Politics
The Resistance

Deep Staters at the EPA Are in Open Rebellion Against Trump.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Nearly 300 current and former Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees issued a declaration of dissent, claiming the Trump White House has politicized science and arguing federal workforce reductions have harmed the agency. Notably, EPA career employees have faced scrutiny over their role in aiding a Biden government plot to direct taxpayer dollars to external bank accounts to ensure funding of Democrat-aligned nonprofits.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: 278 EPA employees, including 174 who signed their full names, addressed their complaints to Administrator Lee Zeldin.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The declaration was sent on Monday, June 30, 2025, as the EPA faces another round of staff reductions and a major reorganization.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,” the group stated.

🎯IMPACT: The reorganization is aimed at sidelining far-left environmental justice programs not based in science but rather in progressive social policy.

IN FULL

Nearly 300 current and recently terminated employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are rebelling against President Donald J. Trump, issuing a letter of dissent that declares concerns over the agency’s direction and alleges risks to public health and safety. The declaration, sent to Administrator Lee Zeldin, outlined five key issues, including the dismantling of the research office and the abandonment of far-left progressive environmental justice initiatives.

The letter, signed by 278 employees—174 of whom used their full names—criticized the administration’s approach to deregulation, alleging that it is harmful and dismissive of supposed scientific expertise. “Today, we stand together in dissent against the current administration’s focus on harmful deregulation, mischaracterization of previous EPA actions, and disregard for scientific expertise,” the group stated.

The agency’s reorganization includes consolidating several offices, dissolving the research division, and canceling billions of dollars in grants. Notably, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) uncovered a $14 billion scheme that saw taxpayer dollars funneled by the Biden-era EPA to an external account with Citibank, which disbursed the funds to three Democrat-aligned environmental nonprofits. The National Pulse previously reported that one of the nonprofit groups, which received $2 billion in grants, is affiliated with Georgia election denier Stacy Abrams.

While the EPA, in recent years, has become singularly focused on the promotion and subsidization of so-called “green energy,” which is heavily reliant on materials sourced from China, the Trump White House has rolled out an all-of-the-above energy policy aimed at deregulation, streamlined drilling and mining permitting, and allowing power providers to use market forces to source the cheapest energy available.

The declaration also raises claims regarding partisan rhetoric, alleged “misinformation” in EPA communications, and a culture of fear within the agency. Employees warned that such decisions would have long-term repercussions, stating, “Your decisions and actions will reverberate for generations to come. EPA under your leadership will not protect communities from hazardous chemicals and unsafe drinking water, but instead will increase risks to public health and safety.”

Despite couching the grievances in appeals to scientific authority, most environmental justice initiatives are ideologically driven social engineering and not actually based in scientific fact.

Image by Paul A. Fagan.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
William Upton
Politics

Top Ukraine Ally Quits Congress.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), an outspoken proponent of U.S. military assistance for Ukraine, announced he will not seek re-election in 2026.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Rep. Don Bacon, President Donald J. Trump, and other congressional Republicans.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Announcement made Monday; Bacon represents Nebraska’s second congressional district.

💬KEY QUOTE: “After 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress, it’s time to spend my future with the love of my life, our four kids, and our wonderful grandchildren. Thank you, Nebraska!” – Don Bacon

🎯IMPACT: Bacon’s retirement opens up a key battleground district for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterms. The Nebraska Republican’s exit from Congress also marks a significant blow for the coalition of Democrats and Republicans who continually insist on propping up Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in his ongoing conflict with Russia.

IN FULL

Representative Don Bacon (R-NE), a key House Republican ally of Ukraine who has continually pushed for increased American military assistance for the Eastern European country, announced Monday that he will not seek re-election in 2026. Bacon, who has represented Nebraska‘s second congressional district since 2017, stated his intention to focus on his family. “After 30 years in the Air Force and 10 years in Congress, it’s time to spend my future with the love of my life, our four kids, and our wonderful grandchildren. Thank you, Nebraska!” Bacon said.

The Nebraska Republican has been one of just a handful of GOP lawmakers who have often worked to undermine President Donald J. Trump‘s America First agenda in Congress. While Bacon ultimately voted for President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill‘ last month, he has often expressed concerns about specific provisions. Currently, Bacon is among a group of House Republicans who could potentially derail the legislation’s final passage in the lower chamber later this week.

A so-called ‘moderate’ Republican, Bacon has on occasion served as a foil to Trump’s agenda in the House. Most recently, he indicated opposition to a White House rescission proposal if it included cuts to an AIDS program. Additionally, Bacon was the only Republican to vote against a House bill that would make Trump’s name change for the Gulf of America permanent.

Bacon has criticized Trump’s stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, both taking umbrage with Trump’s pursuit of an end to the conflict and mounting Republican opposition to further supplying military aid.

In a March post on X (formerly Twitter), Bacon declared, “real Republicans know that Putin’s Russia hates the West and freedom. We also know that Ukraine wants democracy, free markets and rule of law. We stand with right vs evil. Reagan, Churchill, Eisenhower… that is our legacy. I won’t walk away from it.” Notably, Bacon announced his retirement just over three months after the post.

Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which former Vice President Kamala Harris won by nearly five percentage points in 2024, remains a key target for Democrats in the upcoming 2026 midterms. The state is one of two that splits its Electoral College votes by congressional district. Bacon narrowly won re-election in 2024 by less than two percentage points.

Image via the Presidential Office of Ukraine.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
1A
Politics

Could This SCOTUS Case Limit the Need for SuperPACs and Dark Campaign Cash?

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The Supreme Court has agreed to review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, questioning whether these restrictions violate the First Amendment.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Republican Party political committees, Vice President J.D. Vance, former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and the Justice Department (DOJ).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Supreme Court will hear the case during its next term, with a decision expected before the 2026 midterm elections.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.” – GOP appeal filing

🎯IMPACT: The case could reshape campaign finance rules and affect the role of political parties in U.S. elections.

IN FULL

The Supreme Court announced it will review federal limits on coordinated spending by political parties in support of their candidates, raising questions about whether such restrictions violate the First Amendment. The case will be heard in the court’s next term, with a decision anticipated just months before the 2026 midterm elections.

The case was brought by Republican political committees, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), along with Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH). The Department of Justice (DOJ) has joined the GOP in arguing that the limits are unconstitutional. Democratic Party committees have been allowed to intervene to defend the law, as the government has declined to do so in this instance.

Notably, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Republican challenge, the legal changes would likely empower campaign committees directly under the control of political parties and actually reduce the influence of SuperPACs and dark money groups like the far-left Sixteen Thirty Fund. Since the high court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, outside political spending in elections has been taken over by well-financed consulting operations like the politically progressive Arabella Advisors, which controls a network of nonprofits—like the Sixteen Thirty Fund and New Venture Fund—and political PACs.

The limits in question stem from a 50-year-old provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act. For the 2024 election cycle, coordinated spending limits range from $123,600 to $3.7 million for Senate candidates and $61,800 to $123,600 for House candidates. A U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit decision upheld these limits, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that supported an earlier version of the restrictions.

In their appeal, Republicans argued that the spending limits violate the First Amendment by restricting political parties’ ability to coordinate with candidates. They asked the Supreme Court to either clarify or overturn its 2001 decision, describing it as “plainly wrong the day it was decided.”

“Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,” the GOP filing contends, adding: “The result is a more polarized process in which political parties—an institutional force almost as old as ‘the formation of the Republic itself’—have been supplanted by less-restricted speakers.”

The DOJ, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stated that the expenditure limits burden the rights of political parties and candidates, calling the restrictions a significant impediment to political speech. Democratic Party committees stepped in to defend the law after the government sided with the Republicans. Noel Francisco and Don McGahn are representing the Republican campaign committees.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
June 30, 2025
William Upton
Politics

Here’s Where the Big Beautiful Bill Currently Stands.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Donald J. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ is entering the homestretch toward passage in the United States Senate after narrowly clearing a procedural vote this past weekend. Once adopted by the upper chamber, the legislation will face a final vote in the House before heading to President Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, and House Republicans.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The Senate vote-a-rama on amendments began Monday, June 30, at 9:00 AM, and a vote on final passage is expected late tonight. The House is expected to vote on adopting the Senate changes on Wednesday, July 2.

🎯IMPACT: While the budget reconciliation bill is entering the homestretch, several hurdles remain, which could derail the legislation or delay its passage beyond July 4—President Trump’s deadline for the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ to land on his desk.

IN FULL

President Donald J. Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill‘ is entering the homestretch toward passage in the United States Senate after narrowly clearing a procedural vote this past weekend. The budget reconciliation bill, which enacts much of Trump’s domestic policy agenda, sat in limbo for several hours on Saturday as Senate Republican leadership and Vice President J.D. Vance worked to hammer out last-minute compromises to attain the 51 votes on a motion to proceed. Notably, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Rand Paul (R-KY) both voted with Democrats against the measure. At the same time, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) eventually switched his vote from “No” after protracted talks with Vance and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), giving the bill the support it needed to clear the procedural hurdle.

Typically, after legislation clears the “motion to proceed” hurdle, the Senate swiftly moves to debate and amendments. However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) used a procedural motion to force the entire 900-page-plus bill to be read aloud by the Senate clerk, which—along with the Democrats’ 10 hours of debate time—took up much of Sunday.

As of 9:00 AM on Monday, the Senate had finally moved to the amendment phase before a vote on final passage. Under usual circumstances, the “vote-a-rama” is a highly orchestrated process tightly controlled by Senate leadership. However, the current vote-a-rama is being described as a far more “fluid” process with a number of key compromises and amendments enacting significant changes expected to be brought to the floor. Each amendment receives a 10-minute voting period. Should any of the compromise amendments or other modifications fail, it could erode support for President Trump’s signature legislation—as it only cleared the “motion to proceed” by a single vote.

Sens. Tillis and Paul appear poised to vote with Senate Democrats against the bill once again. However, the Republican duo may be joined by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who has indicated that while she supported the “motion to proceed,” she remains undecided on voting for passage. Concerningly, the combination of Tillis, Paul, and Collins would leave the Senate evenly split on the legislation, meaning Vice President Vance would be required to break the tie. Should the adoption or rejection of an amendment alienate any other Republican vote, Senate Republicans could face the very real possibility of losing majority support for the legislation. Barring any erosion in Republican support, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ should see a vote on final passage late this evening—possibly as late as midnight.

Once adopted by the Senate, the budget reconciliation legislation will return to the House of Representatives, which will need to vote on it again to adopt the changes made to its text in the Senate. A notice from House Republican leadership, issued late Sunday, recalled lawmakers to Washington, D.C. for an expected vote on Wednesday, with Tuesday being reserved for the bill’s reading. Here again, the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ could face headwinds if members of the House Freedom Caucus or the New York Republican delegation balk at the Senate changes. However, lawmakers will likely be under intense pressure from the Trump White House to drop any opposition and back the bill.

President Trump has repeatedly stated that he expected the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ to clear Congress and be on his desk by July 4 for his signature. Barring any significant conflicts in the Senate today or in the House on Wednesday, the bill should land on Trump’s desk with about 24 hours to spare before the July 4 holiday.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
Mamdani
June 27, 2025
Politics

NYC’s Mamdani Wants Higher Taxes for ‘Whiter Neighborhoods.’

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the far-left Democratic Party nominee in New York City’s mayoral race, has proposed shifting the city’s property tax burden to “whiter” neighborhoods.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Zohran Mamdani, Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN), New York billionaire Bill Ackman, and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Mamdani’s policy memo was released ahead of New York City’s general mayoral election in November.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” – Zohran for New York City policy memo.

🎯IMPACT: Mamdani’s plans have drawn criticism from Republicans, moderates, and business leaders, with efforts underway to prevent his election.

IN FULL

Zohran Kwame Mamdani, the Muslim extremist Democratic nominee in New York City’s mayoral race, has proposed a controversial plan to “[s]hift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.” His policy memo claims that the city’s current system favors homeowners in gentrifying areas, and he aims to raise taxes on properties more likely to be owned by affluent white people so he can lower them in lower-income neighborhoods. He is himself a Ugandan immigrant of Indian heritage, only becoming an American citizen in 2018.

Mamdani has also advocated for other radical measures, including city-owned grocery stores, defunding the police, and abolishing prisons. His proposals have sparked backlash from Republicans and moderates nationwide.

Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN) has been particularly critical of Mamdani, even calling for him to be stripped of his American citizenship if it turns out he failed to disclose terrorist sympathies during his naturalization process. In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Ogles accused Mamdani of expressing support for individuals linked to Hamas, stating, “Zohran ‘little muhammad’ Mamdani is an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.”

Billionaire Bill Ackman has pledged significant financial resources to prevent Mamdani’s election. “There are hundreds of millions of dollars of capital available to back a competitor to Mamdani that can be put together overnight,” said Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital.

Mamdani, who defeated former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo in a surprising Democratic primary upset, will now face incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who is running as an independent, in November’s general election.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more