Author

admin

Browsing

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium “in a matter of months,” contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims the US set Tehran’s ambitions back by decades.

While the final military and intelligence assessment has yet to come, Trump has repeatedly claimed to have “completely and totally obliterated” Tehran’s nuclear program.

The 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran began earlier this month when Israel launched an unprecedented attack it said aimed at preventing Tehran developing a nuclear bomb. Iran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The US then struck three key Iranian nuclear sites before a ceasefire began. The extent of the damage to Tehran’s nuclear program has been hotly debated ever since.

US military officials have in recent days provided some new information about the planning of the strikes, but offered no new evidence of their effectiveness against Iran’s nuclear program.

Following classified briefings this week, Republican lawmakers acknowledged the US strikes may not have eliminated all of Iran’s nuclear materials – but argued that this was never part of the military’s mission.

Severe but not ‘total’ damage

Asked about the different assessments, Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told CBS’s “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan”: “This hourglass approach in weapons of mass destruction is not a good idea.”

“The capacities they have are there. They can have, you know, in a matter of months, I would say, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium, or less than that. But as I said, frankly speaking, one cannot claim that everything has disappeared and there is nothing there,” he told Brennan, according to a transcript released ahead of the broadcast.

“It is clear that there has been severe damage, but it’s not total damage,” Grossi went on to say. “Iran has the capacities there; industrial and technological capacities. So if they so wish, they will be able to start doing this again.”

Grossi also told CBS News that the IAEA has resisted pressure to say whether Iran has nuclear weapons or was close to having weapons before the strikes.

“We didn’t see a program that was aiming in that direction (of nuclear weapons), but at the same time, they were not answering very, very important questions that were pending.”

Grossi stressed the need for the IAEA to be granted access to Iran, to assess nuclear activities. He said Iran had been disclosing information to the agency up until recent Israeli and US strikes, but that “there were some things that they were not clarifying to us.”

“In this sensitive area of the number of centrifuges and the amount of material, we had perfect view,” he said. “What I was concerned about is that there were other things that were not clear. For example, we had found traces of uranium in some places in Iran, which were not the normal declared facilities. And we were asking for years, why did we find these traces of enriched uranium in place x, y or z? And we were simply not getting credible answers.”

The initial Pentagon assessment said Tehran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked but Trump has insisted nothing was moved.

“It’s logical to presume that when they announce that they are going to be taking protective measures, this could be part of it (moving the material). But, as I said, we don’t know where this material could be, or if part of it could have been, you know, under the attack during those 12 days,” Grossi told Brennan.

Meanwhile, Tehran has made moves towards withdrawing from international oversight over its nuclear program.

Iran’s parliament passed a bill halting cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, while the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, also said that the country could also rethink its membership of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits signatories from developing nuclear weapons.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

It was a week of downward momentum for the gold price.

The yellow metal neared the US$3,400 per ounce level on Monday (June 23) as investors reacted to the weekend’s escalation in tensions in the Middle East, but sank to just above US$3,300 the next day.

The decline came as US President Donald Trump announced that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire. While the ceasefire has not gone entirely smoothly, with Trump expressing displeasure about violations, the news appeared to calm investors.

Gold’s safe-haven appeal took another hit toward the end of the week, when Trump said late on Thursday (June 26) that the US had signed a trade deal with China. Although details remain scarce — China’s commerce ministry confirmed the arrangement, but said little else — the gold price dropped on the news, closing Friday (June 27) at about US$3,274.

It was a different story for other precious metals this week.

Silver enjoyed an uptick, rising as high as US$36.79 per ounce before pulling back to the US$36 level. Whether it can continue breaking higher remains to be seen, but many experts are optimistic.

In fact, Randy Smallwood of Wheaton Precious Metals (TSX:WPM,NYSE:WPM) said that right now he’s perhaps more excited about silver than he is about gold. Here’s how he explained it:

There’s not a lot of new production coming on stream, just because most silver comes as a by-product from lead, zinc and copper mines — more than half of silver. And we’re just not seeing the investment into the base metals space that we need to sustain that production and grow that production.

As excited as I am about gold, I think silver’s got a few more fundamentals behind it that make it a pretty exciting time to be watching silver … silver’s got some catching up to do with respect to what gold’s done over the last few years.’

Watch the full interview with Smallwood for more on silver, as well as gold and platinum.

Speaking of platinum, it was also on the move this week, rising above US$1,400 per ounce.

The move has turned heads — despite a persistent supply deficit, platinum has spent years trading in a fairly tight range, and it hasn’t crossed US$1,400 since 2014.

Recent trends supporting platinum’s move include a shift toward platinum jewelry due to the high cost of gold, as well as larger platinum imports to the US earlier this year when tariff uncertainty was heating up. At the same time, miners have faced challenges.

‘This has led to tight forward market conditions,’ said Jonathan Butler of Mitsubishi (TSE:8058), ‘with a deep backwardation across the curve.’ In his view, these conditions will continue providing support for the precious metal in the coming weeks.

Bullet briefing — Gold repatriation, Rule Symposium

Germany, Italy to repatriate gold?

Germany and Italy are facing calls to bring home gold stored in the US.

According to the Financial Times, politicians and economists in the two countries are pushing for repatriation as a result of global geopolitical uncertainty, as well as concerns about Trump’s potential influence on the Federal Reserve as he continues to criticize Chair Jerome Powell.

‘We are very concerned about Trump tampering with the Federal Reserve Bank’s independence. Our recommendation is to bring the (German and Italian) gold home to ensure European central banks have unlimited control over it at any given point in time’ — Michael Jäger, Taxpayers Association of Europe

The news outlet calculates that German and Italian gold held in the US has a total value of about US$245 billion. Market participants agree that it would be a blow to relations with America if the countries were to bring their gold home at this time.

At least for now they seem unlikely to do so — although Italy’s central bank hasn’t commented, Germany’s Bundesbank said it sees the New York Fed as ‘trustworthy and reliable.’

Send your questions for the Rule Symposium

The Rule Symposium runs in Boca Raton, Florida, from July 7 to 11, and I’ll be heading there to interview Rick Rule, as well as Adrian Day, Lobo Tiggre, Andy Schectman, Dr. Nomi Prins and more.

Securities Disclosure: I, Charlotte McLeod, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Senate Republicans rammed President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ through a procedural hurdle after hours of tense negotiations that put the megabill’s fate into question. 

Speculation swirled whether Republicans would be satisfied by the latest edition of the mammoth bill, which was released just before the stroke of midnight Saturday morning.

Nearly every Republican, except Sens. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., all voted to unlock a marathon 20-hour debate on the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., could only afford to lose three votes.

Though successful, the 51-49 party line vote was not without drama.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., flipped his vote from a ‘no’ to ‘yes’ in dramatic fashion, as he and Sens. Rick Scott, R-Fla., Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., and Mike Lee, R-Utah, made their way to the Senate floor accompanied by Vice President JD Vance.

Vance was called in case he was needed for a tie-breaking vote, but only his negotiating services ended up being used.

No lawmaker wanted to be the fourth and final decisive vote to kill the bill. Republican leadership kept the floor open for nearly four hours while negotiations continued – first on the Senate floor and then eventually in Thune’s office.

The bill won’t immediately be debated thanks to Senate Democrats’ plan to force the reading of the entire, 940-page legislative behemoth on the Senate floor, which could drain several hours and go deep into the night.

The megabill’s fate, and whether it could pass its first test, was murky at best after senators met behind closed doors Friday, and even during another luncheon on Saturday.

Lingering concerns in both chambers about Medicaid — specifically the Medicaid provider tax rate and the effect of direct payments to states — energy tax credits, the state and local tax (SALT) deduction and others proved to be pain points that threatened the bill’s survival.

 

However, changes were made at the last-minute to either sate holdouts or comply with the Senate rules. Indeed, the Senate parliamentarian stripped numerous items from the bill that had to be reworked.

The Medicaid provider tax rate was kept largely the same, except its implementation date was moved back a year. Also included as a sweetener for lawmakers like Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and others was a $25 billion rural hospital stabilization fund over the next five years.

Collins said that she would support the bill through the procedural hurdle, and noted that the rural hospital stabilization fund was a start, but whether she supports the bill on final passage remains to be seen.

‘If the bill is not further changed, I will be leaning against the bill, but I do believe this procedural vote to get on the bill so that people can offer amendments and debate it is appropriate,’ Collins said.

Tillis, who is also concerned about the changes to Medicaid and would like to see a return to the House GOP’s version, said that he would not vote in favor of the bill during final passage.

The SALT deduction included in the House GOP’s version of the bill also survived, albeit the $40,000 cap will remain intact for five years. After that, the cap will revert to its current $10,000.

Other sweeteners, like expanding nutrition benefit waivers to Alaska and a tax cut for whaling boat captains, were thrown in, too, to get moderates like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, on board with the bill.

Lee announced that he withdrew his open lands sale provision, which proved a sticking point for lawmakers in Montana and Idaho. 

Still, Republicans who are not satisfied with the current state of the bill will use the forthcoming ‘vote-a-rama,’ when lawmakers can offer an unlimited number of amendments, to try and change as much as they can before final passage. 

Democrats, however, will use the process to inflict as much pain as possible on Republicans.

Once the amendment marathon concludes, which could be in the wee hours of Monday morning, lawmakers will move to a final vote to send the bill, which is an amendment to the House GOP’s version of the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ back to the lower chamber.

From there, it’s a dead sprint to get the package on the president’s desk by July 4.

In a statement of administration policy obtained by Fox News Digital, Trump signaled that he would sign the bill.

‘President Trump is committed to keeping his promises,’ the memo read. ‘And failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal.’ 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts warned Saturday of the dangers of politicians using heated rhetoric against judges. 

‘It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who’s doing his or her job is part of the problem,’ Roberts said in Charlotte, North Carolina, at the Judicial Conference of the Fourth Circuit, a gathering of judges and lawyers. 

‘And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work. So, I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind.’

Roberts didn’t name anyone but appeared to be referencing President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer when he said he’d felt compelled to speak out against rhetoric by Democrats and Republicans in the past. 

Trump has criticized judges many times over the years, including calling for the impeachment of a judge who ruled against a deportation policy earlier this year, referring to him as ‘radical left’ and a ‘lunatic.’ 

Roberts responded at the time, saying, ‘For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.’

In 2020, Roberts condemned Schumer for saying that Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch would ‘pay the price’ regarding an abortion rights case during Trump’s first term. 

‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,’ Schumer said at a rally outside the Supreme Court at the time. ‘You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’

Schumer later said he was referring to the political price he believed Senate Republicans would pay, but he said, ‘I shouldn’t have used the words I did, but in no way was I making a threat. I never, never would do such a thing, and Leader McConnell knows that.’ 

Roberts, at the time, said of Schumer, ‘Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.’

In April, an armed man who was arrested outside of Kavanaugh’s home pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate the justice. 

Roberts’ remarks came after the Supreme Court issued the final decisions of its term, handing the Trump administration a win Friday by limiting judges’ ability to block his agenda through court orders. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The top Democrat in the Senate plans to inflict maximum pain on Senate Republicans in their march to pass President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ before lawmakers even get a chance to debate the legislative behemoth.

Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., plans to force clerks on the Senate floor to read the entirety of the GOP’s 940-page megabill. His move to drain as much time as possible will come after Republicans vote on a key procedural test to open debate on the legislation.

‘I will object to Republicans moving forward on their Big, Ugly Bill without reading it on the Senate floor,’ Schumer said on X. ‘Republicans won’t tell America what’s in the bill

‘So Democrats are forcing it to be read start to finish on the floor,’ he said. ‘We will be here all night if that’s what it takes to read it.’

Indeed, staffers were seen carting the bill onto the Senate floor in preparation for the all-night read-a-thon.

Schumer’s move is expected to take up to 15 hours and is designed to allow Senate Democrats more time to parse through the myriad provisions within the massive legislative text. Ultimately, it will prove a smokescreen as Senate Republicans will continue to march toward a final vote.

Once the bill reading is done, 20 hours of debate evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans will begin, likely early Sunday morning. Democrats are expected to use their entire 10-hour chunk, while Republicans will go far under their allotted time.

Then comes the ‘vote-a-rama’ process, where lawmakers can offer an unlimited number of amendments to the bill.

Democrats will again look to extract as much pain as possible during that process, while Republicans, particularly senators that have lingering issues with key Medicaid and land sale provisions, will continue to try and shape and mold the bill.

The last time clerks were forced to read the entirety of a bill during the budget reconciliation process was in 2021, when Senate Democrats held the majority in the upper chamber.

At the time, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., demanded that the entire, over-600-page American Rescue Act be read aloud. Schumer, who was the Senate Majority Leader attempting to ram then-President Joe Biden’s agenda through the upper chamber, objected to the reading. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday said alleged calls in Iran for the arrest and execution of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi are ‘unacceptable and should be condemned.’

Rubio’s warning came after Iranian parliament vice speaker Hamid Reza Haji Babaei banned Grossi and removed surveillance from its nuclear facilities, accusing Israel of acquiring ‘sensitive facility data,’ according to a report from Mehr news.

‘We support the lAEA’s critical verification and monitoring efforts in Iran and commend the Director General and the lAEA for their dedication and professionalism,’ Rubio wrote in an X post. ‘We call on Iran to provide for the safety and security of IAEA personnel.’

The lAEA this week commented on damage at Iranian nuclear facilities, following U.S. airstrikes on key nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

While speaking on Fox News’ ‘The Story with Martha MacCallum,’ Grossi said Isfahan and Natanz were damaged, with Natanz showing ‘very serious damage’ in one of the centrifuge halls where enrichment was being performed.

Though a ceasefire agreement was made between Israel and Iran, Grossi alleged 900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium had been taken to an ancient site near Isfahan.

‘I have to be very precise, Martha,’ Grossi said. ‘We are the IAEA, so we are not speculating here. We do not have information of the whereabouts of this material.’

He claimed Iranian officials had told him they were taking protective measures, which could include moving the material.

‘My job is to try to see where is this material, because Iran has an obligation to report and account for all the material that they have, and this is going to continue to be my work,’ Grossi said.

President Donald Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal Tehran signed with the U.S., U.K., European Union, France, Germany and Russia in 2018, prompting Iranian threats to remove cameras and limit access to its facilities.

Rubio did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Greg Wehner contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Top Qatari officials had been meeting with the country’s prime minister on Monday afternoon to find ways of de-escalating a conflict between Iran and Israel, when defense ministry personnel called to warn of incoming Iranian missiles.

The attack, the first on the Gulf, caught them by surprise, according to Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesperson Majed Al-Ansari, who recalls feeling the prime minister’s residence shake with the interceptions that quickly followed overhead.

Unease had gripped the Gulf Arab states that morning. The glitzy, oil-rich capitals feared a worst-case scenario: an Iranian missile strike shattering their image of stability after 12 days of war between Israel and Iran, which had culminated in a series of US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Bahrain, where the US Naval Command is located, told residents not to use main roads and Kuwait, which hosts several US military bases, activated shelters in ministerial complexes. In nearby Dubai and Abu Dhabi, some residents were booking early flights out and others stocking up on supplies.

In Doha, nervous residents were on high alert. US and UK citizens in the country had been told to seek shelter and American military personnel had been evacuated from the US-run Al Udeid Base.

Qatar’s early warning military radar system, one of the most advanced in the region, and intelligence gathered indicated that Iranian missile batteries had moved toward Qatar earlier that day, the spokesperson said – but nothing was certain until shortly before the strikes.

“It could’ve been misdirected to lead us away from the actual target. There was still a lot of targets in the region…but towards the end it was very clear, their missile systems were hot and we had a very clear idea an hour before the attack, Al Udeid Base was going to be targeted,” a Qatari official with knowledge of defense operations said.

Responding to the attack

Around 7 p.m. local time, Qatari officials were informed by their military that Iran’s missiles were airborne and heading towards Al Udeid base, Al-Ansari said.

Qatar’s armed forces deployed 300 service members and activated multiple Qatari Patriot anti-air missile batteries across two sites to counter the 19 Iranian missiles roaring toward the country, according to Al-Ansari. US President Donald Trump has said that 14 missiles were fired from Iran.

Seven missiles were intercepted over the Persian Gulf before reaching Qatari soil, he said. Another 11 were intercepted over Doha without causing damage and one landed in an uninhibited area of the base causing minimal damage.

According to Trump, Iran had given the US early notice ahead of the attack. While Doha received intel from Washington, it did not receive any warning directly from the Iranians, according to Al-Ansari – though officials were well aware that the US bases in the region could be targeted.

“The Iranians told us months ago … if there was an attack by the US on Iranian soil that would make bases hosting American forces in the region legitimate targets,” Al-Ansari said.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that warning was reiterated to his Gulf counterparts in an Istanbul meeting a day before Iranian strikes on Qatar.

Iran’s National Security Council said after the intercepted attack that its strikes had posed “no dangerous aspect to our friendly and brotherly country of Qatar and its noble people.”

Still, Al-Ansari rejects speculation that Qatar – given its working relationship with Tehran – might have given a greenlight for the strikes in order to create an off-ramp for regional escalation.

“We do not take it lightly for our country to be attacked by missiles from any side and we would never do that as part of political posturing or a game in the region,” he said.

“We would not put our people in the line of danger. I would not put my daughter under missiles coming from the sky just to come out with a political outcome. This was a complete surprise to us,” Ansari said.

A ceasefire quickly follows

In the moments after the attack, Trump called Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani telling him the Israelis were willing to agree to a ceasefire and asked him to do the same for the Iranians, according to Al-Ansari.

“As we were discussing how to retaliate to this attack … this is when we get a call from the United States that a possible ceasefire, a possible avenue to regional security had opened,” Ansari said.

Doha’s role as mediator quickly became key in the aftermath of the strikes. Qatar’s chief negotiator Mohammed bin Abdulaziz Al-Khulaifi spoke to the Iranians while the Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani was speaking to US Vice President JD Vance. Soon, “we were able to secure a deal,” Al-Ansaris says – and in the nick of time.

“All options were on the table that night … we could have immediately retaliated or pulled back and say we’re not talking to a country that sent 19 missiles our way. But we also realized that was a moment that could create momentum for peace in a region that hasn’t been there for two years now,” Ansari said.

Shortly after, Trump declared on social media that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel had been brokered.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

Riot police fired tear gas at thousands of anti-government protesters in Serbia’s capital on Saturday.

The major rally in Belgrade against Serbia’s populist president, Aleksandar Vucic, was called to back a demand for an early parliamentary election.

The protest by tens of thousands was held after nearly eight months of persistent demonstrations led by Serbia’s university students that have rattled Vucic’s firm grip on power in the Balkan country.

The huge crowd chanted “We want elections!” as they filled the capital’s central Slavija Square and several blocks around it, with many unable to reach the venue.

Tensions were high before and during the gathering. Riot police deployed around government buildings and close to a camp of Vucic’s loyalists in central Belgrade. Skirmishes erupted between riot officers and groups of protesters near the camp.

“Elections are a clear way out of the social crisis caused by the deeds of the government, which is undoubtedly against the interests of their own people,” said one of the students, who didn’t give her name while giving a speech on a stage to the crowd. “Today, on June 28, 2025, we declare the current authorities illegitimate.”

At the end of the official part of the rally, students told the crowd to “take freedom into your own hands.”

University students have been a key force behind nationwide anti-corruption demonstrations that started after a renovated rail station canopy collapsed, killing 16 people on Nov. 1.

Many blamed the concrete roof crash on rampant government corruption and negligence in state infrastructure projects, leading to recurring mass protests.

“We are here today because we cannot take it any more,” Darko Kovacevic said. “This has been going on for too long. We are mired in corruption.”

Vucic and his right-wing Serbian Progressive Party have repeatedly refused the demand for an early vote and accused protesters of planning to spur violence on orders from abroad, which they didn’t specify.

Vucic’s authorities have launched a crackdown on Serbia’s striking universities and other opponents, while increasing pressure on independent media as they tried to curb the demonstrations.

While numbers have shrunk in recent weeks, the massive showing for Saturday’s anti-Vucic rally suggested that the resolve persists, despite relentless pressure and after nearly eight months of almost daily protests.

Serbian police, which is firmly controlled by Vucic’s government, said that 36,000 people were present at the start of the protest on Saturday.

Saturday marks St. Vitus Day, a religious holiday and the date when Serbs mark a 14th-century battle against Ottoman Turks in Kosovo that was the start of hundreds of years of Turkish rule, holding symbolic importance.

In their speeches, some of the speakers at the student rally on Saturday evoked the theme, which was also used to fuel Serbian nationalism in the 1990s that later led to the incitement of ethnic wars following the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.

Hours before the student-led rally, Vucic’s party bused in scores of its own supporters to Belgrade from other parts of the country, many wearing T-shirts reading: “We won’t give up Serbia.” They were joining a camp of Vucic’s loyalists in central Belgrade where they have been staying in tents since mid-March.

In a show of business as usual, Vucic handed out presidential awards in the capital to people he deemed worthy, including artists and journalists.

“People need not worry – the state will be defended and thugs brought to justice,” Vucic told reporters on Saturday.

Serbian presidential and parliamentary elections are due in 2027.

Earlier this week, police arrested several people accused of allegedly plotting to overthrow the government and banned entry into the country, without explanation, to several people from Croatia and a theater director from Montenegro.

Serbia’s railway company halted train service over an alleged bomb threat in what critics said was an apparent bid to prevent people from traveling to Belgrade for the rally.

Authorities made similar moves back in March, before what was the biggest ever anti-government protest in the Balkan country, which drew hundreds of thousands of people.

Vucic’s loyalists then set up a camp in a park outside his office, which still stands. The otherwise peaceful gathering on March 15 came to an abrupt end when part of the crowd suddenly scattered in panic, triggering allegations that authorities used a sonic weapon against peaceful protesters – an accusation officials have denied.

Vucic, a former extreme nationalist, has become increasingly authoritarian since coming to power more than a decade ago. Though he formally says he wants Serbia to join the European Union, critics say Vucic has stifled democratic freedoms as he strengthened ties with Russia and China.

This post appeared first on cnn.com

A key New York Republican said he’s pleased with a tax provision in the Senate’s version of President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ after weeks of tense back-and-forth over the matter.

‘I think it’s a very good deal. We were able to keep the House language intact,’ Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., told Fox News Digital, adding that he was pleased ‘we were able to solve’ differences on tax deductions for certain pass-through businesses, which are companies smaller than corporations whose taxes are ‘passed through’ the business owner’s personal returns.

‘I think at the end of the day, it’s a [four-times] increase on [state and local tax (SALT) deduction caps]. And despite the Senate’s best efforts to whittle down the language, we were able to keep it.’

Lawler is one of several blue state Republicans who threatened to sink the bill if it did not sufficiently raise SALT deduction caps.

SALT deductions are aimed at providing relief for people living in high-cost-of-living areas, primarily in big cities and their suburbs. 

There was no limit on SALT deductions until Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which capped that federal tax benefit at $10,000 for both single filers and married couples.

The House’s bill raised that cap to $40,000 for 10 years, with households making up to $500,000 eligible for the full deduction.

Senate Republicans, who released their text of the bill just before midnight on Friday night, reduced the benefit window to five years instead of 10. 

After that, the maximum deduction would revert to $10,000 for the next five years.

‘Yes, the time was shortened, but at the end of the day, people are going to immediately be able to deduct them to $40,000, which is a massive win,’ Lawler told Fox News Digital.

‘Democrats promised to fix this when they had complete control in ’21 and ’22 and failed to deliver. We’re delivering on it. So you know to me this is a big win for New York. It’s a big win for taxpayers all across the country.’

Blue state Republicans, primarily those in New York and California, have pushed hard in favor of lifting that cap. They’ve painted it as an existential political issue in their districts, where Republican victories were critical to the GOP winning and keeping its House majority.

They’ve also argued that their states sending more money back to the federal government effectively subsidizes lower-tax states that do not bring in as much revenue.

But Republicans in more GOP-leaning states have dismissed SALT deductions as a reward for high-tax Democratic states to continue their own policies.

‘SALT deductions allow blue states to export their political mistakes (electing high-tax, crazy socialists), Americans shouldn’t subsidize,’ Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, wrote on X.

Lawler would not say if his support for the deal meant he would vote for the final bill – noting there were other provisions he had to read through in the 940-page legislation.

But he said he believed most of his Republican colleagues in the SALT Caucus would be supportive of the compromise.

‘I think there’s broad consensus among most of us about how important this is, and what a significant win it is,’ Lawler said.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., the only member of the SALT Caucus who sits on the tax-writing House Ways & Means Committee, told Fox News Digital of the deal on Friday, ‘I can live with this but, quite frankly, the $30,000 over 10 years that I negotiated out of Ways & Means would’ve protected my constituents for a longer period of time.’

‘But alas, this is a group exercise and there are a lot of cooks in the kitchen,’ she said.

Not everyone is on board, however. Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., signaled to Fox News Digital that he is rejecting the deal.

‘While I support the president’s broader agenda, it would be hypocritical for me to back the same unfair $10k SALT cap I’ve spent years criticizing. A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote,’ he said in a written statement.

Rep. Young Kim, R-Calif., did not comment on the SALT deal itself but more broadly said her support for the bill is contingent on how decisions on SALT deduction caps, Medicaid measures, and small business taxes play out.

A source familiar with her thinking told Fox News Digital she would vote against the bill back in the House if the Senate’s more severe Medicaid cuts remained in place.

The Senate is aiming to begin considering the legislation on the floor late afternoon on Saturday, though the final vote could come in the early hours of Sunday, if not later.

The bill could also change between now and then, with various Republican lawmakers still expressing their concern.

Fox News Digital reached out to SALT Caucus co-chair Andrew Garbarino, R-N.Y., and Rep. Tom Kean, R-N.J. for comment.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

A vulnerable Senate Republican put his foot down against President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ over concerns of deep Medicaid cuts inside the megabill.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., told Fox News Digital that he would not support the measure through a procedural hurdle necessary to kick off a marathon of debate and amendment voting that would eventually culminate in the measure’s final passage.

Tillis, who is up for reelection in 2026, said after exiting the Senate GOP’s closed-door lunch that he has a ‘great relationship’ with his colleagues, but that he couldn’t support the colossal bill.

‘We just have a disagreement,’ he said. ‘And, you know, my colleagues have done the analysis, and they’re comfortable with the impact on their states. I respect their choice. It’s not a good impact in my state, so I’m not going to vote on the motion to proceed.’

He also won’t support the bill during the final stretch. Tillis is part of a cohort of Senate Republicans who have expressed reservations over the Senate GOP’s changes to the Medicaid provider tax rate.

Tillis’ resistance to the bill is a bad sign for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., who can only afford to lose three votes. So far, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has vowed to vote against the procedural test, and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is expected to follow suit. 

Trump was meeting with Johnson and Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fl., another possible holdout, during the lunch. 

Lawmakers are expected to vote to advance the bill at 4 p.m. on Saturday. 

The mounting resistance could force Thune to go back to the drawing board. Further complicating matters is Collins, who is also up for reelection in 2026, who said that while she would support the bill through the first step, she was leaning against voting to pass the bill in the final stretch unless the legislation was ‘further changed.’

The latest version of the bill, which dropped near the stroke of midnight, included tweaks to the Senate’s offering that would push back the provider rate crackdown by one year, and also added another $25 billion for a rural hospital stabilization fund.

While others in the group, like Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Josh Hawley, R-Mo., are on board to at least see the legislation move through the first key procedural hurdle, Tillis has argued that his state would be harshly affected by the crackdown.

Indeed, during a closed-door lunch earlier this week, the lawmaker reportedly warned that North Carolina could lose as much as $40 billion in Medicaid funding if the changes were codified.

For now, Tillis is unlikely to budge, even after conversations with Trump. He is also planning to unveil further analysis on the impact of Medicaid cuts on his state that he said no one in the ‘administration or in this building’ has been able to refute.

‘The president I have talked, and I just told him that, ‘Look, if this works for the country, that’s great. And if my other colleagues have done extensive research and concluded it’s different in their states, I respect that,’’ he said. ‘We just have a disagreement based on the implementation in our respective states.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS