📰 PULSE POINTS:

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Trump’s flagship budget bill—meant to lock in his 2017 tax cuts and deliver more relief for workers—is moving through Congress via the reconciliation process. However, internal Republican divisions threaten to derail the plan.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: House Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing to pass the bill by May’s end, but Republicans like Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik want changes to the SALT deduction, while hardliners demand Medicaid cuts. Trump, meanwhile, opposes both cutting Medicaid and hiking taxes.

⚠️FALLOUT: Disagreements over SALT deductions, Medicaid cuts, and public land sales have splintered GOP unity. With Democrats unanimously opposed, the bill’s survival hinges on near-total Republican support, currently far from guaranteed.

📌SIGNIFICANCE: Without a resolution, Americans face a $4.5 trillion tax hike as Trump’s 2017 cuts expire. Failure could force Trump to oppose his own bill, risking a political embarrassment and undermining GOP midterm messaging.

IN FULL:

President Donald J. Trump’s much-touted “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill” is taking shape in Congress as the House of Representatives and Senate delve deep into the budget reconciliation process. The legislation, a budget reconciliation bill, circumvents the Senate’s filibuster rules, meaning that only a simple majority of the upper chamber is needed to pass it into law. Notably, the core content of the bill includes a permanent extension of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, additional tax relief for American workers, and funding for border security and the White House’s mass deportation program.

Currently, designated Republican lawmakers in the House are hammering out the final legislation. However, policy differences between the two chambers threaten to halt the process. While House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to state he intends to pass the House version by the end of May, internal House Republican disagreements over key tax provisions suggest the May deadline is overly optimistic. Meanwhile, cuts to Medicaid and a federal land sales provision are also causing consternation in the Senate.

WHAT IS A RECONCILIATION BILL?

While a reconciliation bill is more straightforward to pass through Congress than typical legislation, the process is constrained by several rules governing what can be included in the budget measure and its ultimate impact. Reconciliation bills must deal with mandatory spending, the federal government’s debt limit, or revenue measures.

According to Congressional rules, the Senate can, in theory, take up three reconciliation bills each year, dealing with each of the three subjects independently. Additionally, the legislation is subject to a provision known as the “Byrd Rule”—enacted by the late Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)—which stipulates that a reconciliation bill cannot increase the federal deficit after a 10-year budget window and cannot alter the Social Security program.

Notably, the current reconciliation bill contains critical provisions making several of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent. If the bill fails, Americans would face a massive tax increase totaling $4.5 trillion over the next ten years.

THE ‘SALT’ PROBLEM. 

Negotiations over the bill have stalled because of changes made to the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction under the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Right now, the SALT deduction is limited to $10,000. This cap means that taxpayers in high-tax states—most of which have Democratic governors—can only deduct up to $10,000 of their state and local tax payments from their federal income taxes.

The SALT deduction has become a significant issue for House lawmakers. Some moderate Republicans from swing districts in Democrat-controlled states want to lift the cap on this deduction to levels in place before the 2017 tax cut. Representatives Mike Lawler (R-NY), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), and Nick LaLota (R-NY) from New York are strong supporters of restoring the deduction. These Republican lawmakers work with House Democrats, who tried to lift the SALT cap during former President Joe Biden’s time in office but were unsuccessful.

Some conservative House Republicans want to eliminate the SALT deduction completely. They believe this deduction unfairly transfers money from low-tax Republican states to high-tax Democrat states. These lawmakers also argue that eliminating the SALT deduction could help fund new tax relief measures in the bill.

THE MEDICAID DILEMMA. 

While the debate over the future of the SALT deduction has thrown up one roadblock to the passage of President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill,” a brewing fight over Medicaid threatens to derail the legislation entirely.

House Republicans are deeply divided over proposed cuts to the government healthcare program. Moderates and some Trump allies uphold President Trump’s promise not to slash Medicaid funding. However, conservative House lawmakers are pushing for deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing that the spending reduction is the only way to keep the reconciliation bill budget neutral, as required by the Byrd Rule.

House lawmakers must identify either $1.5 trillion in spending cuts or new revenue to cover the federal revenue loss created by making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent. To enact new tax relief, such as Trump’s “No Tax on Tips,” “No Tax on Overtime,” and “No Tax on Social Security” proposals, the House will need to find even more spending reductions or generate new tax revenue from other sources.

President Trump has repeatedly emphasized he will not sign a budget bill that cuts Medicaid or Social Security. This pledge, and resistance among some Republican members, has left reconciliation negotiators scrambling to identify other methods to keep the legislation at least revenue-neutral. A similar divide over cuts to Medicaid exists in the Senate.

Without a consensus on addressing the government healthcare program, some lawmakers are pushing for new revenue-raising measures, such as increasing federal income taxes on top earners or upping the capital gains tax. The first idea has gained some steam among influential Republicans, though House leadership insists tax increases are a non-starter.

FEDERAL LAND SALES. 

The newest hurdle facing the reconciliation bill is a provision approved by the House Natural Resources Committee that would authorize an expansion of oil, gas, coal, and mineral leases on public lands and waters. Additionally, the committee passed a provision allowing the sale of some tracts of federal lands in Nevada and Utah. The leasing changes and federal land sales would raise an estimated $18 billion in new revenue—a small but noteworthy offset to the overall legislation’s cost.

While the leasing and land sales provisions help reduce the total cuts or revenue increases needed to keep the reconciliation bill budget-neutral, they have opened the bill to new avenues of opposition, with several lawmakers declaring them non-starters. Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) has previously said that new federal land sales are a non-starter for him and that he’d oppose any bill that includes the provision. Additionally, Western state Senators in the upper chamber are drawing similar red lines to the land sales measure.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Republican House leaders say they intend to unveil a finalized reconciliation bill this coming week and aim to pass it on to the Senate by the end of the month. However, with only a narrow majority and likely uniform Democratic Party opposition, Speaker Johnson cannot afford to lose more than a handful of Republican votes. This means the significant divides over SALT, Medicaid, and federal land sales must be resolved far ahead of any final votes on passage for the reconciliation bill.

If the House negotiations continue to break down, Republican leaders may be forced to turn to President Trump to put political pressure on holdouts. However, even on that front, Trump has clarified that he will not back cuts to Medicaid. Should House conservatives succeed in slashing funding for the government healthcare program, Trump could find himself opposing his own “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill.”

President Donald J. Trump has once again thrown down the gauntlet against the corporate media—this time by taking CBS to court. His bold litigation has exposed what millions of Americans already know: the mainstream media is not a neutral institution but a political weapon used to silence, smear, and control. But we must go beyond the courtroom to move from outrage to reform. It’s time to hit fake news where it hurts most: financially.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should cap reverse retransmission fees (revenue that local TV stations pay back to their affiliated broadcast networks) at 30 percent to protect local broadcasters, lower consumer costs, and strike a decisive blow against the corrupt media cartel.

Excessive reverse retransmission fees are among the least understood but most abused levers in the modern media economy. Reforming them concretely realigns our communications infrastructure with the public interest and President Trump’s America First agenda.

HOW THEY WORK.

These fees (and ad sales) generate revenue for broadcasters that they use to run their operations and produce local journalism. However, media conglomerates like Paramount Global, the parent company of CBS, have begun charging what’s known as “reverse” retransmission fees to broadcasters. The networks demand a share of broadcasters’ revenue for the right to use their content. This practice was once unheard of, but some networks now regularly require more than one hundred percent of broadcasters’ retransmission fees as “reverse” fees, leaving broadcasters to sustain themselves solely on whatever ad sales they can make with their limited inventory (also capped by the networks, and often amounts to only a few minutes of airtime per hour).

This funnels more and more money out of local markets and local journalism and into the hands of mega media corporations, who threaten broadcasters with content blackouts if they don’t get sky-high payouts.

This problem gets even worse with providers like YouTube TV and Hulu Live. Under their affiliate agreements with the networks, local affiliates can’t even negotiate for online providers to carry the content. The networks do it for them and pay the affiliates whatever they deem reasonable (sometimes, nothing). This gives the networks total control over streaming distribution while robbing local stations of revenue and autonomy in the rapidly growing online video space.

What was once a mechanism to support hometown news is now a corporate racket. Instead of investing in local reporters, meteorologists, and producers, local broadcasters’ funds are siphoned to bloated national newsrooms that churn out anti-Trump propaganda and woke talking points. Meanwhile, higher cable bills pass the cost to everyday Americans.

HIT ‘EM WHERE IT HURTS.

President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS underscores the ideological warfare these media giants are waging. They’ve abandoned any pretense of objectivity, acting instead as political operatives with studios. Capping reverse retransmission fees at 30 percent is not just a technical tweak; it’s a strategic strike on these bad actors’ financial foundations.

We must return power to the communities and stations serving the people. Local broadcasters provide vital coverage—emergency alerts, school board meetings, small business spotlights—that you’ll never find on CNN or MSNBC. They reflect the values of the towns and cities they serve. However, the incentives shift when a national corporation owns the local affiliate. Content becomes homogenized. Narratives are imported. Local journalists lose editorial independence, and viewers get New York news with a local logo slapped on top.

We limit these national behemoths’ ability to weaponize local stations as bargaining chips and ideological delivery systems by capping reverse retransmission fees. We restore breathing room for independent broadcasters and stop the endless consolidation cycle that has gutted journalism in rural and working-class communities.

The FCC can solve both of these issues.

It has the authority to cap reverse retransmission fees and rein in Big Tech and network dominance by eliminating their unfair advantage over local broadcasters. Whether through traditional cable or streaming platforms, the Commission must act decisively to level the playing field.

This reform is in the same spirit as President Trump’s efforts to break up Big Tech, bring back American manufacturing, and take on the pharmaceutical lobby. It’s a populist solution to a top-down problem. It reduces costs, decentralizes power, and reorients the system to serve the needs of regular Americans, not just media executives and political elites.

THE PUBLIC FIGHT.

Critics will claim this is “government interference.” That’s nonsense. The airwaves are public property to which the government grants broadcast licenses to companies that serve the public interest. When national corporations abuse that privilege by hoarding retransmission profits, forcing the slashing of local news staff, and pumping out politicized content, it is not only appropriate for the FCC to step in; it is necessary.

Just as President Trump stood up to China on trade, he now stands up to CBS on the truth. His lawsuit has opened a vital lane for real reform. Capping reverse retransmission fees gives that legal challenge policy teeth. It weakens the media’s monopoly, strengthens local stations, and ensures that taxpayer-owned airwaves serve the public, not the D.C. cocktail circuit.

Make no mistake: this is a fight for the soul of the American media. National networks have shown they cannot be trusted. They’ve censored stories, smeared dissenters, and openly campaigned against conservative candidates. The only remaining check on their power is at the local level, and even that is slipping away under the weight of retransmission extortion.

If we want a media that informs instead of indoctrinates and represents communities instead of manipulating them, we must go upstream to the funding model. Capping reverse retransmission fees is the cornerstone of that effort. And if the networks try to make an end-run by demanding an unfair cut in ad sales, restricting available airtime for local news and weather, or prohibiting broadcasters from trying to reach new audiences through alternative distribution channels, then the FCC should be prepared to step in and stop it.

President Trump was elected with a mandate to put the American people back in charge. Capping reverse retransmission fees does just that. It ensures your local news stays local, your cable bill stays lower, and your country remains free from corporate media control.

Let’s follow President Trump’s lead, end the fake news grift, and get to work capping reverse retransmission fees for the good of our country, our communities, and our future.

Nathan A. Simington is a Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission. Gavin M. Wax is Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to Commissioner Simington and the co-author of ‘The Emerging Populist Majority’.

The first post-Justin Trudeau Canadian federal election campaign has entered its final week, and the race between the two leading parties, the leftist Liberals and the notionally center-right Conservatives, has tightened. Early voting took place over the Easter weekend, and a record number of people showed up at the polls, which could indicate a high turnout overall.

The election comes after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned after nearly a decade in power, after a political career embroiled in scandal after scandal. The Canadian parliament was suspended as Trudeau’s Liberals engaged in an internal leadership race that saw globalist former Bank of England head Mark Carney win the vote.

TRUDEAU LESS POPULAR THAN LIBERALS.

At the time of Trudeau’s resignation, the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, were projected to win a large majority in the legislature, and were ahead of the Liberals by as much as 20 percent or more. However, in January, the Liberals began to see a surge of support. When new Prime Minister Mark Carney called the federal election in March, they were ahead of the Conservatives.

There are several reasons why the Liberals saw the surge in support. The first is that Justin Trudeau’s resignation shows that many Canadians were personally sick of him leading the country, rather than tired of the Liberal party as a whole.

Animosity toward Trudeau regularly saw him heckled in public, and many have not forgiven him for declaring emergency powers to crush anti-lockdown Freedom Convoy protests in February 2022.

TARIFFS.

Another major factor has been the election of President Donald J. Trump in the U.S. and his promised tariffs on Canadian-produced goods. The tariffs provoked a backlash from many Canadians, with even Conservatives like Ontario Premier Doug Ford promising to retaliate by removing American liquor from government-owned stores and potentially stopping the supply of electricity to the U.S.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has made similar comments about retaliatory tariffs, though his government agreed to negotiate with the Trump administration on the issue earlier this month. Much of Carney’s campaign has been aimed at painting Carney as someone who will stand up to President Trump.

Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, did not make the same promises to retaliate or combat President Trump. Instead, Poilievre has maintained that if elected Prime Minister of Canada, he will negotiate with the Trump administration on any tariffs against Canada.

“I will be out there every day outlining my plan to protect Canada against American tariffs, but I will also unapologetically be out there talking about my plan to build more homes, get people off drugs and into recovery, fix the budget, and keep inflation down,” Poilievre said earlier this month.

CARBON TAX.

While Justin Trudeau was still in office, Poilievre heavily campaigned to scrap the Canadian carbon tax, which impacted the prices of many goods and services. While the Liberals under Trudeau constantly claimed that Canadians got more money back through carbon rebates, one of Mark Carney’s first policies was to scrap the tax for consumers himself.

By abolishing the consumer carbon tax, Carney eliminated a major issue for the Conservatives, making Poilievre’s particular pitch to voters less clear—especially considering his weakness on mass migration.

Last week, various Canadian political leaders participated in English-language and French-language debates. Subsequent polling revealed that Canadians saw no clear winners in either debate.

CARNEY POLLING AHEAD.

The newest polling release on Monday, April 21, continues to put Carney’s Liberals in the lead with 43.7 percent of the vote to 36.3 percent for the Conservatives. Should the polling hold, the Liberals will win a majority in the House of Commons.

A future Liberal government could look a lot like former Liberal governments, as Mark Carney has expressed support for transgender therapies for children, including sex change procedures. Carney is also close to China, with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) linked social media channels actively supporting his campaign.

Image by World Economic Forum / Sandra Blaser.