Politics
A “marriage of convenience”: Pro-Israel conservatives confront antisemitic factions in their coalition
The Heritage Foundation’s antisemitism task force split from the conservative think tank after it defended an interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes, exposing a deeper tension between pro-Israel conservatives and far-right nationalist factions.
read more
House votes 427-1 to release Epstein files
The bill now moves to the Senate.
read more
RFK Jr. touts ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda to divided audience at GW University
The secretary of Health and Human Services faced difficult questions as he explained his crusade against chronic diseases.
read more
IN PHOTOS: Longest government shutdown comes to an end
An inside look at Capitol Hill during a historic week.
read more
Rep. Grijalva sworn into Congress, provides final signature on Epstein discharge petition
Grijalva was elected on Sept. 23 to represent Arizona’s 7th congressional district.
read moreSupreme Court weighs breadth of compassionate release statute, consideration of decades in sentencing difference
WASHINGTON – U.S. Supreme Court justices weighed whether changes in sentencing law can be used as part of a petition for a compassionate release on Wednesday.
In the consolidated cases of Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States, plaintiffs raised questions about whether sentencing laws, which were enacted after they had been sentenced and would have reduced their own terms in prison, could be considered when determining “extraordinary and compelling reasons” to grant compassionate release.
Rutherford received a 42-year sentence in 2003, and Carter received a 70-year sentence in 2007, both for multiple firearm offenses in armed robberies. In 2018, Congress passed the First Step Act, lowering mandatory minimums for individuals convicted of multiple offenses at the same time.
If sentenced today, Rutherford would have received a 24-year sentence and Carter a 34-year sentence. Rutherford and Carter did not seek resentencing under the First Step Act, but did use the change in mandatory minimums to support their applications for compassionate release.
The district courts and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit denied that the defendants’ sentencing disparities were cause for reducing their terms. They instead ruled that because Congress did not make the First Step Act apply retroactively, it couldn’t be used for compassionate release applications, and this created a 6-4 circuit split around the consideration of sentencing changes.
The plaintiffs argue that the law change can be used for compassionate release requests in agreement with the four circuits that allow the justification in a multifactor analysis. In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress’ only limit to finding “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for compassionate release is that the decision can’t be based on rehabilitation alone.
The Sentencing Reform Act also created the Sentencing Commission, responsible for sentencing guidelines as an independent agency. In 2023, the Commission voted 4-3, directly allowing a change in law to be considered in “extraordinary and compelling reasons” for defendants who have already completed 10 years of their “unusually long sentences.”
On Wednesday, some justices called into question the Sentencing Commission’s authority over Congress. Justice Clarence Thomas asked about Congress’s decision not to make the First Step Act a retroactive measure. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also said he was concerned that the Commission had “countermanded” Congress.
The U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin supported those questions, arguing the Commission’s definitions of “extraordinary and compelling” were too broad.
Justice Sonya Sotomayor questioned Feigin’s premise, asking what “goalposts,” a comparison first raised by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Commission had if Congress hadn’t explicitly set other limitations.
The Justices’ ruling in this case could redefine the authority of the Sentencing Commission, as well as what reasons can be used in future applications for compassionate release.
“There are people across the country whose ability to be free really depends on what the Supreme Court does in this case,” Shanna Rifkin, General Counsel of FAMM, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, who filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, said. “Those implications can’t be understated.”
Supreme Court casts doubt on a man’s bid for compassionate release
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court expressed skepticism during oral arguments in Fernandez vs. United States over a New York man’s bid for compassionate release Wednesday morning.
After lower courts rulings went back-and-forth on whether to make changes to Joe Fernandez’ two life sentences for a 2000 double-murder, Fernandez’ case highlights the practice of compassionate release, a process by which inmates are considered for early release from prison due to “extraordinary and compelling reasons” under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, legislation advising judges on how to deliver an appropriate sentence.
During oral arguments, both sides scrutinized the Sentencing Reform Act and a judge’s discretion for granting compassionate release under the broad purview of “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” They also weighed whether The First Step Act, codified in 2018 to improve the criminal justice system, applied to Fernandez’ case. The act provided the legal basis for Fernandez’ argument that courts can consider relevant information when making changes to a sentence unless the Constitution or Congress deems otherwise.
Fernandez was given two life sentences in late 2014 for a murder-for-hire scheme in the Bronx involving a drug ring leader ordering the murder of two Mexican cartel members seeking millions of dollars worth of debt for a cocaine shipment. Patrick Darge, Fernandez’ cousin who asked him to serve as a backup shooter, maintained that when he attempted to shoot one of the cartel members, his gun jammed and Fernandez fired 14 shots that dealt the fatal blows. Darge admitted during cross-examination that he lied to authorities in previous cases, casting doubt on the reliability of his testimony.
In comparison, Darge and Fernandez’s co-defendants, who were not sentenced for murder, received significantly lighter sentences. Through it all, Fernandez has maintained his innocence.
In 2021, Fernandez filed a motion for compassionate release, arguing “a strong basis to question the correctness of the verdict” in addition to outlining “significant sentencing disparities”, which was granted by a district court and found that it could consider the disparity in sentencing between Fernandez and his co-conspirators as “extraordinary and compelling.”
In 2022, a district court judge expressed “a certain disquiet” over Fernandez’ harsh sentence. However, the decision to allow the disparity in revising his sentence was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sentencing Commission was unable to update guidelines under the First Step Act.
The district court judge’s skepticism raised questions about whether trial error exists in the case, and, if so, whether it falls under the purview of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Fernandez’ attorney Benjamin Gruenstein argued that having a court identify an error is enough to justify reducing a sentence under the code. He also said that “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under the Imposition of a Sentence code.
“If a court finds an error that significantly increased the length of the defendant’s sentence, that fact can contribute to a finding of extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce the sentence,” he said.
Under the Sentencing Reform Act, inmates are typically considered for release from prison in dire scenarios, some of which include chronic illnesses, extenuating family circumstances like the death of a loved one and age-related health conditions.
“Our position is modest,” Gruenstein said. “We recognize that personal circumstances are common reasons that courts find to be extraordinary and compelling. But we reject the government’s view that courts can never consider an error or unfairness in a defendant’s sentence in that analysis,” he added.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas questioned whether trial error has ever been the underlying reason for a verdict.
Gruenstein responded that there have been “very few” instances where that has been the case.
Until 2018, only the director of the Bureau of Prisons had the authority to invoke the compassionate release provision of the Sentencing Reform Act.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito asked whether it was appropriate for the director to seek a reduction in sentencing because the evidence was insufficient.
“Doesn’t that seem to be far outside of the area of the director of the Bureau of Prisons’ expertise?” he asked.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor posited that there have been instances where rehabilitation has influenced the reduction of a sentence, mentioning the U.S. versus Banks case of 1977.
However, she said she was “troubled” by whether the “disquiet” exhibited by the District Court judge could be identified as an “extraordinary and compelling” reason.
“I was a district court judge, and I had a great deal of respect for the disquiet that sometimes judges feel. It happens to every district court judge. There’s a case where you really struggle. But can we, in the facts of this case, denote that that is an extraordinary circumstance?” she asked.
According to Shanna Rifkin, General Counsel at FAMM — formally named Families Against Mandatory Minimums — and a leading expert on compassionate release, there was no legal infrastructure to make changes to Fernandez’ sentence when his case was reviewed in 2021 due to COVID-19. She added that the observation of an existing sentencing guideline was at the discretion of the courts.
“You had district courts across the country basically able to use their discretion for the first time to decide what might be extraordinary and compelling outside of the confines of the traditional ‘extraordinary’ as defined by the Sentencing Commission,” she said.
An organization that advocates for sentencing reform, FAMM filed an amicus brief advising the court to support Fernandez’ argument.
Rifkin says that cases like Fernandez’ that involve violent offenses are typically tied to harsher sentences.
“In an offense that involves a murder-for-hire or something that was violent, district court judges will weigh that more heavily,” Rifkin said.
In his opening remarks, Department of Justice Deputy Solicitor General Eric Feigin said that Gruenstein was attempting to loosen the structure of how judges impose the Sentencing Reform Act.
“Section 3582 [Imposition of a Sentence code] is a narrow exception to sentencing finality that allows a court to reduce a valid sentence in limited exceptional circumstances…I think what you’ve just heard and what’s in their briefs is a proposal to make it instead an open-ended loophole to challenge the validity of sentences continuously through a potentially endless series of collateral attacks on the criminal judgement,” he said.
Feigin later added that the claim by Fernandez’ attorney that his sentence was invalid was false
“It doesn’t really make any logical sense to reduce a valid sentence because of a procedurally or substantively deficient claim, the point of the claim being that the sentence was actually invalid,” he said.
Following oral arguments, the Supreme Court will hold an internal meeting to discuss the case. Afterwards, Chief Justice John Roberts will assign a justice to write the majority opinion.
LISTEN: Dems lead on affordability as Trump denies voters’ concerns
WASHINGTON — Many voters in Virginia’s off-cycle election were dismayed by President Donald Trump’s handling of economic issues in his second term.
With funding for food stamps running dry and Medicare premiums rising, many describe Trump as out of touch with the current economic reality. They point to his decision to demolish the East Wing to build a grand ballroom as a prime example.
LISTEN HERE:
WATCH: Vets rally in D.C. and nationwide against Trump policies
WASHINGTON — On Veterans Day in the nation’s capital, hundreds of vets gathered not to commemorate their compatriots, but instead to protest Trump administration policies on military occupation in U.S. cities and ICE.
Veterans rallied nationwide in Portland, Chicago, Memphis, Tenn. and other major cities that have faced national guard deployment. In Washington, rally speakers shared complicated feelings about the federal holiday and the definition of service.
“Especially today on Veterans Day, I got a lot of texts from my mom, from my boss, saying ‘Thank you for your service. Thank you for what you did,’” Rob Cheng, an Army Veteran, said. “But, seeing today our streets here in D.C. full of National Guard, seeing ICE tearing apart families, it makes me really question, what does the word service mean?”
Watch the video report here:
Senate Republicans renew push to ‘terminate’ Obamacare as key vote approaches
WASHINGTON — As Senate Republicans prepare to make good on their end of the shutdown-ending bargain and vote on a measure to address rising health care premiums, some are eyeing a backup plan.
On Saturday, President Donald Trump proposed redirecting the billions spent each year on Affordable Care Act subsidies directly into Americans’ pockets to pay for health care — a move that experts say could actually increase premium costs for many enrollees.
In the same post, Trump renewed calls to “terminate” the ACA, commonly known as Obamacare, but did not elaborate on whether he wants the direct payments to replace the ACA or enhanced subsidies.
“Instead of subsidies to give to the insurance companies — they’re doing well without it — why don’t we just give that subsidy to the American people?” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) told Medill News Service.
The same day as Trump’s Truth Social post, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) announced he was drafting a bill that would deposit the funds into tax-advantaged HSA savings accounts, bypassing insurance companies.
“I’m going to put something out and try to start the conversation,” Scott told reporters on Monday.
Scott clarified that Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) is leading Republicans’ subsidy negotiations, and that Scott’s direct payment bill might not end up as Republicans’ primary plan to lower costs.
Health care experts and Democratic lawmakers were quick to point out that paying Americans directly could destabilize the risk pool — driving up premiums and removing protections for pre-existing conditions.
Timothy Jost, professor emeritus at the Washington and Lee University School of Law, said the Trump-Scott proposal eliminates risk pooling, which could benefit healthier Americans, but would leave sicker ones with serious conditions unable to afford expensive treatment.
“They’re either ignorant or willfully ignorant of the way health insurance works,” Jost said.
Jost added that Scott’s plan to replace insurer subsidies with HSA accounts would disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals and is not a substitute for quality insurance.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said in a Sunday floor speech that Republicans’ new attempt to repeal the ACA risks increasing costs as Americans struggle to pay for health care.
“They fired up the old bad ideas machine to try and find a new way to repeal the ACA,” Murray said.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) broadly criticized the ACA on Monday, telling reporters that Republicans would eventually present a “full-fledged replacement” for the ACA subsidies.
Sen. Jim Justice (R-W. Va.) agreed, telling Medill News Service the subsidies needed to expire and that Republicans would work on another proposal after the government fully reopens. In the meantime, however, Justice is backing Trump and Scott’s direct payment proposal.
“It may very well have real merit, because we need to be helping our folks rather than helping our insurance companies,” Justice said.
Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) told Medill News Service on Monday that she had not reviewed Trump’s plan yet. However, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted the proposal in a Sunday interview with ABC, arguing that the proposal would effectively undermine the protections guaranteed by the ACA.
Trump’s proposal seems to be picking up steam among Republican lawmakers — Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told Medill News Service he supported the plan, adding that he also supports a one-year extension of the subsidies in the meantime.
“The only way it works is if it’s a bipartisan plan,” Tillis said.
Senate votes to reopen the government after 41 day shutdown
WASHINGTON—The Senate formally voted 60-40 to reopen the government Monday evening, after a motion to proceed reached a two-thirds majority Sunday night. Following a rare weekend work period a breakthrough was reached, with eight Democrats siding with Republicans to vote for the reopening of the government.
A new bill was released Sunday night and would extend government funding through Jan. 30, 2026, without extending subsidies for Affordable Care Act premiums.
With the Senate’s passage of the bill, it must now be voted on by the House of Representatives, which returns to Washington later in the week.
The bill was brokered by eight Democratic senators, including Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), New Hampshire Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan, Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.).
In a Sunday press conference, Hassan said she was motivated to reopen the government after seeing the impact of cuts to SNAP benefits and the lack of pay for federal workers in New Hampshire.
After the bill formally passed on Monday, Kaine told reporters he felt “very good” about the potential reopening of the government.
“We protected two million federal employees. We got them back to work…we got them back-pay guaranteed, and we protected them against RIFs going forward,” he said.
The senators who voted “yes” on the bill, none of whom are up for reelection, garnered substantial backlash after the motion to proceed reached a majority Sunday evening.
Both elected Democrats and members of the public in the Democratic party deemed the senators’ vote to reopen the government a capitulation to Republicans, who refused to address health care concerns until the shutdown concluded. After elections throughout the country successfully favored Democrats last Tuesday, the eight senators are accused of caving to the GOP, including by “The Daily Show” host Jon Stewart.
“They f—ing caved on the shutdown, not even a full week removed from the best election night results they’ve had in years,” Stewart said on his show on Monday.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted a video captioned “Tonight was a very bad night” following the vote.
“To my mind, this was a very, very bad vote…it raises health care premiums for over 20 million Americans…people can’t afford that when we are already paying the highest prices in the world for health care,” he said.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters the senators were “going to have to explain themselves,” in a press conference Sunday night
“The overwhelming majority of Senate Democrats, led by leader [House Minority Leader Chuck] Schumer, are opposing this bill in the Senate,” he said.
Members of the public have also expressed outrage over the vote, including Shaheen’s own daughter Stefany, who is running for Congress in New Hampshire.
She condemned Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) for not guaranteeing a vote on extending ACA subsidies.
“Improving health care has been the cause of my life. It’s why I am running for [C]ongress. So I cannot support this deal when Speaker Johnson refuses to even allow a vote to extend health care tax credits,” Stefany Shaheen tweeted on Monday.
Schumer has faced backlash from members of his party after he failed to keep his caucus in line. Critics say the majority leader has been ineffective in leading the party.
“Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) tweeted.
Schumer had already drawn blowback from his party in March after supporting a GOP-led stopgap funding bill that did not restrict President Donald Trump and Elon Musk from gutting federal agencies. His rationale had been that the bill would have led to a shutdown.
When asked whether Schumer is an appropriate leader of congressional Democrats, Jeffries praised his efforts to protect the ACA.
“Leader Schumer and Senate Democrats over the last seven weeks, have waged a valiant fight on behalf of the American people,” he said.
The House is expected to vote on the bill Wednesday evening.
Supreme Court justices dismiss private prisons’ claim for immunity and appeal
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices cast doubt on a private prison company’s argument that government contractors can obtain the government’s own immunity and be shielded from future litigation during oral arguments on Monday.
The private prison company, The GEO Group, has been profiting from the Trump administration due to the recent increase in ICE detention centers, and the company’s shares doubled one month after Trump was elected into office.
As a government contractor, GEO argued it was acting on behalf of the government and therefore deserved immunity under “derivative sovereign immunity,” citing a 1940 precedent case, Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Construction Co. The government has “sovereign immunity,” a legal doctrine that protects it from being sued.
The class-action lawsuit, originally filed by Alejandro Menocal in 2014, represented over 30,000 detainees from the ICE-contracted Aurora Immigration Processing Center in Colorado.
Menocal claimed that he saw GEO force other detainees to participate in “voluntary” work programs and clean common areas like bathrooms and do various jobs for $1 a day. If they refused, they would face punitive punishment, such as solitary confinement.
The U.S. 10th Circuit Court dismissed GEO’s claim of immunity in 2018. The Supreme Court agreed to hear their arguments on whether or not its immunity claim is valid and that government contractors should be allowed to immediately appeal the rejection of immunity, rather than waiting until a final judgment, under the “collateral-order doctrine.”
“The Supreme Court has never recognized ‘derivative sovereign immunity,’” said Amit Jain, Supreme Court and Appellate counsel at the MacArthur Justice Center, in an email to the Medill News Service. “There’s basically no support in legal history or Supreme Court precedent for this idea that a government contractor can derive the government’s own immunity.”
Dominic Draye, the attorney for GEO, argued that they have “immunity” under the Yearsley case.
But minutes into Draye’s oral argument, it appeared that the justices struck it down. Five of the nine justices claimed that immunity was never the point of the Yearsley case.
“It’s just odd to suggest there’s ‘derivative sovereign immunity’ in this kind of circumstance,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, prompting a back-and-forth conversation between her and Draye.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Draye why the government was testifying against GEO and said that they would face a “big hurdle.”
Assistant Solicitor General Sopan Joshi, the last to testify before rebuttal, spent about 10 minutes siding with the respondent.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett critiqued Draye’s argument and asked why GEO didn’t consider including potential litigation fees in their contract.
Draye claimed that there are a variety of laws that prohibit government agencies from spending more funding than what Congress had appropriated and that contracts do not allow the government to cover all losses and damages for a contractor.
“If we were to put them in as sort of, like, overhead or something, that would be a false claim and would expose us to suit under the False Claims Act,” Draye said.
The False Claims Act holds those individuals and companies that defraud the government liable.
Joshi argued against this and said not negotiating had little to do with including overhead litigation costs and more so with competition with other private contractors.
“We don’t see a hesitance on the part of either Petitioner or CoreCivic or — or other private contractors in bidding on contracts in circuits,” Joshi said.
Justice Clarence Thomas asked both the attorney for the respondent, Jennifer Bennett, and Joshi what the subsequent actions would be to dispose of this case, which would invalidate GEO’s request for an immediate appeal.
Bennett and Joshi both asked the Court to clarify the meaning of Yearsley for future cases.
“GEO’s entire argument rests on this contention that Yearsley is a right to avoid trial,” Bennett said. “I think it’s clearly not, if you look at Yearsley itself.”
Emory Law Professor Alexander Volokh, who wrote an amicus brief in support of GEO, said he does not think the GEO Group is at fault because ICE policy is “horrible” to the Medill News Service.
“My personal view is, I think ICE is horrible,” Volokh said. “If ICE were running its own ICE facilities, things would be just as horrible. And so I don’t think that the fact that they’re using contractors makes it any more horrible.”
Jain said if GEO wins, the impact could make it much harder and more expensive for people to win when their rights are violated, especially since GEO had been taking several midstream appeals throughout the last decade.
“These kinds of delays will make it less likely that contractors are ever held accountable if they violate the law—not just detention operators like the GEO Group, which makes billions of dollars a year, but also tree-removal companies, janitorial or food service providers, and all the other millions of entities that contract with the government,” Jain said.
Senate committee considers extending federal recognition and services to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina
WASHINGTON — The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs heard from Native American leaders and representatives Wednesday about whether Congress should recognize the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and make them eligible for national services and benefits.
The testimony will help senators decide whether to approve the Lumbee Fairness Act, which the House passed in September.
The bill seeks to amend the Lumbee Act passed in 1956, which recognized the Lumbee Tribe but prohibited the U.S. from extending national services and benefits to the Lumbee that are normally given to federally recognized tribal nations.
“This problematic language of determination here continues to hinder us today, placing the Lumbee in a legal limbo that only Congress can resolve,” John Lowery, chairman of the Lumbee Tribe, said.
He and Arlinda Locklear, the tribe’s attorney and a member of the tribal nation, testified in support of the Lumbee Fairness Act.
The Lumbee live in southeastern North Carolina, along the Lumbee River. Currently, there are over 60,000 members enrolled in the tribe, Lowery said.
There are two avenues through which a tribe can be recognized by the U.S. government: an act of Congress or an administrative process through the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA), housed within the Department of the Interior, that examines the genealogy and history of a tribe.
Michell Hicks, principal chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and Ben Barnes, chief of the Shawnee Tribe, testified before the Committee that the Lumbee should be recognized through the administrative route rather than an act of Congress.
“There’s too many gaps in the genealogies,” Hicks said. “There’s too many gaps in the history. There’s no treaty relationships. Lumbee does not have a sister tribe in Oklahoma. There’s so many things here that need to be evaluated. That’s the importance of why it needs to go through the OFA process.”
Hicks said while he believes there may be Native ancestry, he does not consider the Lumbee a tribe because they lacked a continuous form of government, language, name and history.
“If Congress passes this bill, this group would be the first in American history to receive federal recognition without demonstrating any descent from an historical tribe,” Hicks said. “This is not fairness. It is abandonment of every safeguard that protects tribal sovereignty and identity.”
Locklear said the Lumbee Tribe descends from Siouan-speaking tribes like the Cheraw.
Although the tribe has used several different names over the last century, she said most of them were imposed by the state of North Carolina and that tribal members chose to identify as Lumbee in the 1950s.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a member of the Cherokee Nation, said the issue of questioning tribal identity was personal.
“We were wronged a long time ago by the United States, and we’ve been fighting for recognition for a long time,” Mullin said. “When we have in-house fighting, it causes Congress sometimes to have an impasse. All we’re saying is the Lumbees have the right to be recognized, just like you have the right to be recognized.”
Currently, Congress funds agencies like the Indian Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which helps tribal members with employment, agricultural development and more.
In 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated extending services to the Lumbee Tribe would cost agencies an additional $363 million over a four-year period — a number Hicks said was an underestimation. He added that the additional funding would divert resources away from other tribal nations.
Senators across the aisle acknowledged that the cost was a valid concern to raise before Congress.
“That’s a real issue,” Vice Chairman Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said. “It’s just not a reason not to grant recognition.”
North Carolina recognized the Native American nation in 1885, but the Lumbee Tribe’s fight for federal recognition has lasted over a century.
In 1888, leaders of the Lumbee Tribe first advocated for federal recognition and benefits.
When President Dwight Eisenhower signed the Lumbee Act into law, the tribe was left in limbo. The Lumbee Act was passed during the “termination era” — 15 years in the 1950s and 1960s when Congress cut off relations with 109 Native American nations. Congress has since reestablished connections with these tribes, except for the Lumbee.
In 2019, a bill to extend full federal recognition and benefits passed the House and was introduced to the Senate, but it did not progress beyond the Committee on Indian Affairs.
“I am the descendant of Solomon Locklear Sr., one of 44 tribal leaders who, in 1888 … petitioned Congress to recognize the Lumbee Tribe, an essential step towards securing federal funding for our children’s education,” Lowery said. “Today, 137 years later, I stand before you once again advocating for justice and equal treatment.”
If the Senate committee votes in favor of the bill, it will be sent to the Senate Floor for a full vote.
Senate brings forward a motion to reopen the government 40 days into the shutdown
WASHINGTON — The Senate voted to advance a new bill to reopen the government Sunday evening, after a series of partisan meetings throughout the weekend reached a breakthrough. The continuing resolution was brokered by eight Senate Democrats, including New Hampshire Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, Maggie Hassan and Tim Kaine (D-Va.).
60 Senators voted in favor of the bill, which would extend government funding through Jan. 30, 2026.
Shaheen said Republicans had maintained that they would not meet with Democrats to hear their arguments about health care while the shutdown was still ongoing. She added that there was no positive outcome tied to prolonging the shutdown over rising health care costs.
“The clear statement from [Senate Majority Leader] Thune (R-S.D.) and the Republican majority—when they control the Senate, the House, the White House, was—‘we will not talk about health care with you,’” Shaheen said in a press conference late Sunday evening with Senate Democrats who voted to end the shutdown.
The resolution to reopen the government was drafted late last week and released Sunday evening, following a bill brought forward by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) to pay federal workers that failed to pass.
Republicans reportedly presented Democrats with a deal to vote on extending health care subsidies at a future date. The existing resolution would not extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act.
The bill will be voted on formally today.
In order to reopen the government, the bill still needs to be passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
Kaine said he was a late supporter of the Democratic cohort, privately discussing a vote to reopen the government, after campaigning in Virginia for Democratic candidates last Tuesday.
He said the shutdown has had a rough impact on Americans relying on nutritional assistance programs, and it was too damaging to justify keeping the government closed.
“We were in a situation where SNAP recipients were suffering, and there was no guarantee we would ever get to an ACA solution,” he said in the press conference.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said that his caucus would not back down fighting against increased health care costs in a statement to the press Sunday evening.
“America is far too expensive. We will not support spending legislation advanced by Senate Republicans that fails to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. We will fight the GOP bill in the House of Representatives, where [House Speaker] Mike Johnson will be compelled to end the seven week Republican taxpayer-funded vacation,” his statement says.
Thune said that he was relieved Democrats voted in favor of moving forward to reopen the government in his remarks on the Senate floor Monday morning.
“I’m glad to be able to say that eight Democrats joined Republicans last night to take the first step to reopen the government…all of us, Democrat and Republican, who voted for last night’s bill are well aware of the facts and I’m grateful that the end is in sight,” he said.
The bill’s progression in the Senate has drawn strong backlash from many members of Congress, who say that the eight Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution had sacrificed the party’s health care demands.
“With respect to the senators on the other side of the Capitol, they’re going to have to explain themselves,” Jeffries said in a press conference Monday morning.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was one of the 40 senators who voted against moving forward with the bill, along with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
“Democrats demanded that we find a way to fix this crisis and quick…but Republicans have refused to move an inch. So I cannot support the Republican bill that’s on the floor because it fails to do anything of substance to fix America’s health care crisis,” Schumer said in his remarks on the Senate floor Monday morning.
As it became clear that Democrats would soon vote to reopen the government, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told reporters that he disapproved of the bill, claiming that a vote of “yes” would be a capitulation.
“It would be a horrific mistake to cave in to Trump right now, the American people cannot afford a building of their health care premiums,” he said.
Sanders had previously expressed enthusiasm about Democrats’ wins throughout the country in last week’s elections, telling Medill News Service that their victories were a sign that the public disapproved of Trump and Republicans’ strategy with the shutdown.
“From coast to coast in small towns and big cities, people were saying no to Trumpism, and that included saying no to doubling healthcare premiums for over 20 million people and throwing 15 million people off of health care…Tuesday was a referendum on Trumpism and what the Republicans are trying to do on health care,” he said.
After the preliminary vote, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told reporters Democrats had “lost” the fight to protect health care for Americans relying on the ACA.
“I want to win the fight. I want Republicans to actually grow a backbone and say, ‘regardless of what Donald Trump says, we’re actually going to restore these cuts on health care.’ But it looks like I’ve lost that fight, so I don’t want to impose more pain on people who are hungry and on people who haven’t been paid,” she said.
Note: a previous edition of this article said that the vote to reopen the government had successfully passed, when in fact it was a motion to proceed.
WATCH: Handmaid Army DC unites against Trump, Project 2025 agenda
WASHINGTON — Women dressed in red robes marched in front of the Heritage Foundation building, shouting “shame” on Wednesday. A year after President Donald Trump won re-election, the Handmaid Army DC began a week of resistance, starting with a protest against the foundation that championed the conservative agenda, Project 2025.
“[The Heritage Foundation] should feel the shame for their thoughts, their Christian supremacy and white supremacy and how they just treat people,” Veronica, a participant from Maryland, said.
Another participant said she was motivated to show up by her fears.
“It’s scary to me, I’ve had an abortion,” Melissa Cingle said. “I’ve had an abortion that was medically necessary, so I don’t know what my life would have been like if I didn’t have that choice, and I don’t ever want to have that choice taken away from any other person as well.”
The group continued on to the Capitol, holding up their “shame” signs in GOP congressional buildings. The Handmaid Army DC joined up with other local organizations at an anti-fascism demonstration to rally at the Washington Monument.
‘“We are trying to convey the message that this is wrong, this is where we are going, fascism is already here, fascism is here, people are losing their rights — it’s here and we need to stand up and fight now,” Handmaid Army DC organizer Kate Emerson said.
Watch the video report here:
PELOSI, LAWMAKERS REFLECT ON FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER’S LEGACY
WASHINGTON – Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that she would not be seeking reelection for another term. The move brings to an end a historic career, during which she became the first and only female Speaker of the House, as well as the first woman to lead a major political party in either chamber of Congress.
“I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress,” Pelosi said in a message addressed to San Francisco, the city she has represented in Congress since 1987. “That is why I want you – my fellow San Franciscans – to be the first to know: I will not be seeking re-election to Congress.”
The announcement comes two days after a historic Election Day for women, when Mikie Sherrill became the first female Democrat elected governor of New Jersey and Abigail Spanberger was elected as the first female governor of Virginia.
The election focused on several contentious issues, such as health care and affordability, mirroring some of Pelosi’s own legislative accomplishments, including the Affordable Care Act, Inflation Reduction Act and the American Rescue Plan.
“Speaker Pelosi has made a profound, powerful, permanent impact on our country,” said Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) in a statement Thursday. “She has been a brilliant and bold leader, voice for the voiceless and authentic champion of the least, the lost and the left-behind.”
Both House and Senate Democrats lauded the Speaker Emerita following her announcement, praising both her comportment and initiatives as the former speaker.
“Few in American history have been as effective, as driven, as successful as Speaker Pelosi,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in a statement Thursday. “She’s transformed practically every corner of American politics, and unquestionably made America a better, stronger nation.”
Pelosi also received praise from some of her colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well, with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and others wishing her well in her retirement.
“I will praise Nancy Pelosi. She had an incredible career for her party,” Greene said. “I’m very impressed with her ability to get things done. I wish we could get things done for our party like Nancy Pelosi was able to deliver for her party.”
During her time leading House Democrats, Pelosi faced many challenges, including the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and an attempt on her husband’s life in 2022. Pelosi also had a tumultuous relationship with President Donald Trump, who said he was glad that Pelosi was retiring from Congress.
“I think she did the country a great service by retiring,” Trump said. “I think she was a tremendous liability for the country. I thought she was an evil woman who did a poor job who cost the country a lot in damages and in reputation. I thought she was terrible.”
Pelosi reflected on her time in Congress by thanking her constituents for their support, saying that it was because of their trust that she was able to “represent our city and our country around the world with patriotism and pride.”
“No matter what title they have bestowed upon me – Speaker, Leader, Whip – there has been no greater honor for me than to stand on the House floor and say: ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco,’” Pelosi said.
Pelosi’s term in Congress ends on Jan. 3, 2027. Going forward, Pelosi urged San Franciscans to continue to lead the way “by remaining full participants in our democracy and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.” Pelosi ended her announcement with a final expression of gratitude to the city she served for 38 years.
“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said. “Thank you, San Francisco, for trusting me to be your voice in Congress.”
Senate Republicans, conservative think tanks criticize Affordable Care Act
WASHINGTON — Republican senators and witnesses criticized the affordability of the ACA on Thursday, claiming the health care plan drives up costs and stifles competition. In a contentious hearing with the Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations, witnesses across the health care industry condemned the fiscal impacts of the ACA, also called Obamacare.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said that the ACA harmed the health care market.
“The third-party data system has led to greater consolidation within all sectors of health care industry, medically reducing competition and driving up costs,” Johnson said.
He also criticized the fiscal spending of Medicaid, claiming that the Affordable Care Act cleared the way for high government spending for health care coverage.
“Instead of acknowledging all the damage done by the default design of Obamacare and working in good faith with Republicans to repair it, Democrats simply want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more in their attempt to continue to hide this failure,” Johnson added.
Joel White, President of Council for Affordable Health Coverage, said that the ACA’s consolidation of health care coverage comes at the expense of quality care.
The Council for Affordable Health Coverage advocates for increased competition in the health care market, seeking more options for consumers.
“We are subsidizing inferior coverage through incentives created…Why is this happening? A big reason is that Obamacare drove consolidation and triggered an arms race to consolidate in insurance markets and hospital markets, and that is driving up costs in the market and leaving consumers with fewer choices,” he said.
According to Tarren Bragdon, President and Chief Executive Officer of Foundation for Government Accountability, the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid to able-bodied adults raised taxes for Americans and inhibited access to health care for the “severely disabled.”
He said that allowing adults without disabilities to access Medicaid blocked disabled adults from accessing the same benefits.
“Meanwhile, as that [expansion] happened, 700,000 Americans with intellectual and physical disabilities are stuck on Medicaid, Home and Community waiting lists while Obamacare’s able-bodied adults are always at the front of the line,” he said.
“Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion has left a trail of fiscal destruction. It’s prioritized able-bodied adults over the truly needy, elderly and disabled, and then it rewards money-laundering by states. That’s costly and wrong,” he added.
A conservative public policy think tank that focuses heavily on combating the expansion of Medicaid, the Foundation for Government Accountability has been at the forefront of attacks on the ACA.
Brian Blase, President of conservative think tank Paragon Health Institute said that the ACA sparked an affordability crisis for American taxpayers.
“The Inflation Reduction Act set the Covid credits to expire after 2025, and they should end. Continuing them with exacerbated fraud, increased premiums and health care prices drive out alternative financing arrangements, remove the imperative to perform this failing program, and drive the country into deeper debt,” Blase said.
According to Politico, Blase and the Paragon Health Institute played a critical role in the formation of policies that were adopted into $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts in the GOP’s spending bill.
Wisconsin resident Shana Verstegen, an ACA Marketplace Enrollee and member of MomsRising, an organization that has advocated for women’s health care, said that the growing cost of ACA premiums put a strain on her family’s finances. She said her family hasn’t gone on a vacation in years and had to consider “scaling back” her children’s sports activities.
She said that attacks on the ACA harm American families.
“Families like mine in every state: blue states and everywhere in between, rely on the Affordable Care Act. This is about real families, real kids and real health,” she said.
Verstegen said her family even considered withdrawing from her existing health care plan, but deemed it “too big of a risk.”
“Right now, we’re leaning toward my husband leaving a small business that he loves so that we can have affordable health care,” she said.
First signed into law in 2010, the ACA has long been a target of conservative attacks. Republicans argue that the coverage plan allows for the federal government to exert too much power over the health care system.
During the shutdown, discourse on Obamacare has become a focal point for both parties, as Democrats advocate for the extension of ACA tax credits while Republicans argue that excess spending for the health care plan places a strain on the federal budget.
While Republicans critique the cost of extending Obamacare subsidies, House Democrats like Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries argue that the GOP has no substantial plan to lower health care costs and find an affordable alternative to the ACA.
“Mike Johnson has claimed over the last several weeks that Republicans are the party of health care. That’s a joke,” Jeffries said in a Thursday press conference.
“For several weeks, we were told that Republicans had a health care plan and that Republicans had planned all along to address the ACA issue and the fact that these tax credits for working class Americans, middle class Americans and everyday Americans are about to expire and Republicans can’t be bothered,” he added.
On the Democratic side of the subcommittee, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said that the hearing was a part of a broader effort by Republicans to roll back the protections of the Affordable Care Act and cut spending for health care.
Blumenthal said that GOP-led efforts to cut spending for the ACA are “abhorrent.”
“It is a broad, relentless, calculated campaign to appeal the law that underlies those tax credits and take away health care insurance from millions and millions of Americans who would come to rely on it,” Blumenthal said.
“Republicans are refusing to extend enhanced credits because they hate the ACA more than they care about pain,” he said.
Medill Today | Wednesday, November 19, 2025