'The House of Representatives did not proceed with a planned vote on Speaker Mike Johnson’s controversial spending bill after intense pushback from President Donald Trump, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, and other Republican lawmakers.
The resolution, which many conservatives decried as riddled with liberal concessions, failed to move forward after Musk and Trump issued dire warnings to any Republican considering supporting the measure.
The Continuing Resolution (CR), ostensibly aimed at averting a government shutdown, faced fierce criticism for its inclusion of far-left wish-list items and policy overreach.
One of the most controversial elements of the bill, Section 605, appeared to grant Congress immunity from judicial oversight. The provision would compel courts to quash subpoenas seeking information from House offices, raising serious constitutional concerns about the separation of powers.
The bill’s laundry list of dubious expenditures raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. Critics highlighted the inclusion of:
A $69,000 annual pay increase for members of Congress, bringing their salaries to $243,000.
$900 million earmarked for a new football stadium in Washington, D.C.
Provisions to fund 12 new biolabs
72 pages of “Pandemic Preparedness and Response” policy
Renewal of the embattled Global Engagement Center (GEC), accused of coordinating censorship campaigns under the guise of combating misinformation.'
'The House of Representatives did not proceed with a planned vote on Speaker Mike Johnson’s controversial spending bill after intense pushback from President Donald Trump, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, and other Republican lawmakers.
The resolution, which many conservatives decried as riddled with liberal concessions, failed to move forward after Musk and Trump issued dire warnings to any Republican considering supporting the measure.
The Continuing Resolution (CR), ostensibly aimed at averting a government shutdown, faced fierce criticism for its inclusion of far-left wish-list items and policy overreach.
One of the most controversial elements of the bill, Section 605, appeared to grant Congress immunity from judicial oversight. The provision would compel courts to quash subpoenas seeking information from House offices, raising serious constitutional concerns about the separation of powers.
The bill’s laundry list of dubious expenditures raised eyebrows across the political spectrum. Critics highlighted the inclusion of:
A $69,000 annual pay increase for members of Congress, bringing their salaries to $243,000. $900 million earmarked for a new football stadium in Washington, D.C. Provisions to fund 12 new biolabs 72 pages of “Pandemic Preparedness and Response” policy Renewal of the embattled Global Engagement Center (GEC), accused of coordinating censorship campaigns under the guise of combating misinformation.'