World News
House GOP approves State Department funding bill despite Ukraine opposition on September 29, 2023 at 2:47 am
House Republicans on Thursday passed legislation to fund the State Department and foreign operations, clearing the bill despite some GOP lawmakers voicing opposition to provisions pertaining to Ukraine.
The chamber approved the measure in a 216-212 vote. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) voted with Democrats against the bill.
Passage of the bill will not help avert an and-of-the-month shutdown, but top Republicans are hopeful that moving the legislation — along with three other full-year funding bills — could make it easier for the House GOP conference to pass a funding stopgap.
Conservative opposition to the State Department spending bill rested largely in provisions related to Ukraine.
The legislation does not allocate a specific amount of money for Ukraine, but it does say funds appropriated under a provision of the bill should be made available to Ukraine to “defend their sovereignty and withstand the impacts of Russia’s invasion,” “combat corruption” and “promote transparency and democracy.”
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), among the most outspoken Republicans when it comes to curtailing aid to Ukraine, has argued that the State Department bill provides Kyiv with a “blank check.”
Greene proposed an amendment that called for prohibiting assistance to Ukraine, which failed overwhelmingly in a 90-342 vote.
Republicans are seeking more than 10 percent in cuts to their State Department funding bill below current levels, with a slew of proposals aimed at trimming “wasteful spending.” That includes terminating U.S. dollars for the United Nations’ regular budget, as well as barring funds for the World Health Organization and the Gender Equity and Equality Action Fund.
Republicans have touted the bill, which also covers funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), as helping Israel by providing billions for the Foreign Military Financing Program. They’ve also highlighted support in the bill for Egypt and Jordan, and efforts seeking to counter Chinese influence.
Democrats, however, have leveled sharp criticism against the bill for cuts they say could have damaging effects to efforts at the border and abroad.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the bill would force the State Department and USAID “to reduce programs that engage countries like Colombia and Guatemala to address the very conditions causing people to flee to the United States.”
“This bill cedes America’s position as the leader of the global community, weakens our national security, shortchanges foreign assistance, hinders our ability to address the climate crisis, and harms women around the world,” she also said.
In addition to the State Department legislation, Greene also took issue with $300 million in funding for Ukraine that was initially included in the Pentagon appropriations bill.
The congresswoman broke from convention and joined other conservatives in opposing a procedural vote on the spending bill, which blocked the chamber from beginning debate on the measure. One day later, McCarthy told reporters that he would strip the Ukraine aid out of the legislation and hold a separate vote on it, which Greene called a “victory.”
But McCarthy backtracked the next day, announcing that the funding would remain in the legislation because aid for Ukraine was also in the State Department measure, and it was “too difficult” to remove it from that legislation. Greene, as a result, voted against a rule that included the Pentagon and State Department bills, along with two others, but it easily passed despite her opposition.
On Wednesday night, however, top House Republicans voted to strip the $300 million from the Pentagon funding bill amid uncertainty regarding the legislation’s chances of passing.
House Republicans on Thursday passed legislation to fund the State Department and foreign operations, clearing the bill despite some GOP lawmakers voicing opposition to provisions pertaining to Ukraine. The chamber approved the measure in a 216-212 vote. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) voted with Democrats against the bill. Passage of the…
President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.
What Trump Is Saying
Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.
How Taxes Work Now
Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.
Questions From Experts
Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.
What Congress Must Do
The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.
What It Means Right Now
For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.
Former President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to declassify all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose death in 2019 continues to fuel controversy and speculation.
The order, signed Wednesday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, instructs the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies to release documents detailing Epstein’s network, finances, and alleged connections to high-profile figures. Trump described the move as “a step toward transparency and public trust,” promising that no names would be shielded from scrutiny.
“This information belongs to the American people,” Trump said in a televised statement. “For too long, powerful interests have tried to bury the truth. That ends now.”
U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that preparations for the release are already underway. According to sources familiar with the process, the first batch of documents is expected to be made public within the next 30 days, with additional releases scheduled over several months.
Reactions poured in across the political spectrum. Supporters praised the decision as a bold act of accountability, while critics alleged it was politically motivated, timed to draw attention during a volatile election season. Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, emphasized caution, warning that some records could expose private victims or ongoing legal matters.
The Epstein case, which implicated figures in politics, business, and entertainment, remains one of the most talked-about scandals of the past decade. Epstein’s connections to influential individuals—including politicians, royals, and executives—have long sparked speculation about the extent of his operations and who may have been involved.
Former federal prosecutor Lauren Fields said the release could mark a turning point in public discourse surrounding government transparency. “Regardless of political stance, this declassification has the potential to reshape how Americans view power and accountability,” Fields noted.
Officials say redactions may still occur to protect sensitive intelligence or personal information, but the intent is a near-complete disclosure. For years, critics of the government’s handling of Epstein’s case have accused agencies of concealing evidence or shielding elites from exposure. Trump’s order promises to change that narrative.
As anticipation builds, journalists, legal analysts, and online commentators are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential information releases in recent history.
What Happened at the United Nations
On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, defending Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. As he spoke, more than 100 delegates from over 50 countries stood up and left the chamber—a rare and significant diplomatic walkout. Outside the UN, thousands of protesters gathered to voice opposition to Netanyahu’s policies and call for accountability, including some who labeled him a war criminal. The protest included activists from Palestinian and Jewish groups, along with international allies.
Why Did Delegates and Protesters Walk Out?
The walkouts and protests were a response to Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. Many countries and individuals have accused Israel of excessive use of force, and some international prosecutors have suggested Netanyahu should face investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including claims that starvation was used as a weapon against civilians. At the same time, a record number of nations—over 150—recently recognized the State of Palestine, leaving the United States as the only permanent UN Security Council member not to join them.
International Reaction and Significance
The diplomatic walkouts and street protests demonstrate increasing global concern over the situation in Gaza and growing support for Palestinian statehood. Several world leaders, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, showed visible solidarity with protesters. Petro called for international intervention and, controversially, for US troops not to follow orders he viewed as supporting ongoing conflict. The US later revoked Petro’s visa over his role in the protests, which he argued was evidence of a declining respect for international law.
Why Is This News Important?
The Gaza conflict is one of the world’s most contentious and closely-watched issues. It has drawn strong feelings and differing opinions from governments, activists, and ordinary people worldwide. The United Nations, as an international organization focused on peace and human rights, is a key arena for these debates. The events surrounding Netanyahu’s speech show that many nations and voices are urging new action—from recognition of Palestinian rights to calls for sanctions against Israel—while discussion and disagreement over the best path forward continue.
This episode at the UN highlights how international diplomacy, public protests, and official policy are all intersecting in real time as the search for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains urgent and unresolved.
ON MAY 8, 2026, YOUR INSTAGRAM DMS STOP BEING TRULY PRIVATE
How Far Would You Go to Book Your Dream Role?
She Was Supposed to Come Home: The Life, Death, and Dehumanization of Ashlee Jenae
News3 weeks agoThe Timothée Chalamet Guide to Ruining Your Image
- Entertainment3 weeks ago
The machine isn’t coming. It’s aleady the room.
- Advice4 weeks ago
Stop Waiting for Permission — The Film Industry Just Rewrote the Rules
- Entertainment2 weeks ago
What Kanye’s ‘Father’ Says About Power, Faith, and Control
- News4 weeks ago
How She Earns $40M+ In 2026
- News3 weeks ago
Did OnlyFans Save Creators—or Trap Them?
- News1 week ago
Why Your Indie Film Disappears Online
- News2 weeks ago
The Franchise Is Over. Here’s Who’s Winning Now.
