By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">Jennifer Shutt</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate began floor debate on Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” Sunday afternoon, though there are several steps to go before the legislation can become law, and any one of those could lead to additional GOP opposition — potentially dooming the measure.&nbsp;

Senators must wrap up an ongoing review of the bill with the parliamentarian to ensure it meets the strict rules for using the reconciliation process and then run the gauntlet during a marathon amendment voting session.

Additional changes to the sweeping tax and spending cuts package, some of which were being worked on as debate took place, need to garner the support of nearly every Republican in Congress. Otherwise, it will never become law.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaled during a brief hallway interview there may be enough votes for a new twist in the Medicaid changes in the bill — an amendment reducing in some way how much the federal government spends on Medicaid in states that expanded the program as a result of Democrats’ 2010 health care law. The federal government&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/eliminating-the-medicaid-expansion-federal-match-rate-state-by-state-estimates/" target="_blank">currently pays</a>&nbsp;90% of the costs for enrollees in the expansion.

“We’re going to do what we can to support the effort,” Thune said, referring to an amendment offered by Florida Sen. Rick Scott that was not yet public. “It’s great policy and something that there’s a high level of interest in our conference in getting made part of the bill, and obviously scores a substantial savings.”

But Thune, R-S.D., sidestepped a question about whether making that change would create vote-count issues if Republicans in the House with affected districts object, potentially preventing the bill from reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.

“We have had some of these conversations with (Speaker Mike Johnson) and others over there, and then also with our colleagues for some time,” Thune said. “But I think the way this is designed, and the way that Sen. Scott has written it; it should be something that I don’t know how Republicans couldn’t be in favor of what he’s trying to get done here.

“So, you know, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Obviously, we’ve still got to get into the debate over here and get through the amendment process and we’ll see what the fate of the amendment is on the floor.”

Currently 41 states, including the District of Columbia, have adopted the Medicaid expansion,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions/" target="_blank">according to&nbsp;</a>the health care research organization KFF.

A Scott spokesperson told States Newsroom they would share his amendment once it was final.

Typically when a major piece of legislation comes to the Senate floor the text is set and amendment debate is closely controlled to ensure delicately negotiated deals don’t crumble in full public view.

That isn’t the case this time around and much could change before senators take a final passage vote later this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday.

GOP leaders using the complex reconciliation process to move their signature policy bill through Congress means every provision must have an impact on federal spending or revenue that is not “merely incidental.”

That involves Democrats and Republicans going before the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official referee, to argue over dozens of provisions. She then decides if a given policy meets the strict and sometimes murky rules.

That process hadn’t yet wrapped up when debate on the megabill began and is expected to continue as the 20-hour clock ticks down toward a marathon amendment voting session.

Senate bill would add $3.2 trillion to deficits

There are also increasing concerns among Republicans, including those in the House Freedom Caucus, over how the bill will impact the federal government’s balance sheet during the next decade.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced Sunday morning the Senate’s revised tax and spending cuts package will add $3.253 trillion to deficits during the next decade compared to current law.

Trump appeared to try to assuage concerns through a social media post.

“For all cost cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected,” Trump wrote. “Don’t go too crazy! We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before.”

The latest&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61534" target="_blank">score</a>&nbsp;came just hours before senators officially began floor debate on the sweeping package that will extend the 2017 GOP tax law, rework how much state governments have to contribute to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, overhaul several aspects of Medicaid and cut its spending, restructure higher education aid programs and much more.

Senators&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-votes-advance-republican-mega-bill-tense-late-night-session" target="_blank">voted mostly along party lines</a>&nbsp;late Saturday to proceed with the legislation, though leaders had to hold the vote open for more than three hours as they worked to get the votes needed.

Even after taking that crucial procedural step, the bill continued to evolve.

The parliamentarian ruled Sunday morning that another six provisions must be revised to comply with the rules or be removed from the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/chairman-graham-releases-full-senate-text-of-presidents-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank">940-page package</a>.&nbsp;

GOP senators cannot include, or might need to restructure, language meant to bring Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski on board by enhancing the federal matching rate for Medicaid in two states with high poverty guideline levels: Alaska and Hawaii. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-tax-cut-plans-may-depend-savings-medicaid-what-it-and-who-relies-it" target="_blank">program for low-income people</a>&nbsp;and some people with disabilities is run as a state-federal partnership.

Since Hawaii is represented in Congress by a Democratic delegation, the Republican benefit would largely have applied to Alaska’s two GOP senators.

Senate Republicans did receive some good news from the parliamentarian in her latest ruling, which cleared language that will steadily lower the maximum percent states can set for Medicaid provider tax rates from the current 6% to 3.5% in 2032.

The in-the-weeds policy has caused considerable frustration among GOP senators across the political spectrum, who argued a prior version would likely cause financial strain for rural hospitals by beginning the process one year sooner.

The parliamentarian is still reviewing several other policy changes in the bill, including whether Republicans can prevent Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year, effectively blocking beneficiaries from receiving care there at all.

Federal law already bars federal taxpayer dollars from going toward abortions with limited exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. So this change would prevent Medicaid patients, who may have few other options, from using Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals, contraception and cancer screenings.

A prior version of the bill blocked federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood for the next decade.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom about how the rulings might impact the bill going forward.

Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in a statement the latest rulings show “that Republican attempts to give away goodies that benefit certain states will not pass muster under Senate rules.”

“Senate Democrats have also successfully challenged a giveaway to Big Pharma, as well as policies that make it harder for seniors and kids to get affordable health care through Medicaid,” Wyden wrote. “Republicans wanted to bring back the health care tactics of yesteryear, like waiting periods, lock-outs and annual limits on care, but Democrats have wrestled these out of the bill. I am disappointed that the Republican rewrite of the provider tax changes will remain in the bill: this policy will force states into devastating cuts to health care that seniors, kids and Americans with disabilities depend on. We will continue to fight any attempt to sneak through harmful health care policies in this morally bankrupt legislation.”

Republicans hope to pass the entire package before the Fourth of July, though they have several hurdles to jump over before they can meet that goal.

Senate floor debate can last up to 20 hours. After that, senators will begin a marathon amendment voting session where members of each political party can propose changing or removing certain pieces of the legislation.

GOP leaders generally like to avoid public disputes within the party but the rules of reconciliation don’t really allow that and several Republican senators are expected to offer amendments.

There is no time limit or cap on the number of amendments that can be offered&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/both-parties-prep-mega-bill-marathon-us-senate-vote-rama" target="_blank">during vote-a-rama,</a>&nbsp;so that can last hours or even days in theory.

Whenever Democrats and Republicans decide they’ve debated their last amendment, they’ll move on to voting to approve the Senate’s version of the “big, beautiful bill.”

At least 50 Republicans need to vote to approve the measure, with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. More than four GOP senators objecting to the overall bill means it cannot pass as it’s written.

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against moving forward with debate so it’s likely they will vote against final passage as well. Two more senators deciding not to back the bill would halt its momentum, at least until GOP leaders could make changes to get their votes.

Tillis on Sunday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/north-carolina-us-sen-thom-tillis-announces-retirement-after-drawing-trump-wrath" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;he would not run for reelection, after being attacked by Trump for voting against advancing the legislation.

Senate approval of the bill would send it back to the House for a final vote, though centrist and far-right members of the Republican Conference in that chamber have voiced concerns about changes made in the upper chamber.

Johnson, R-La., will need to keep nearly every one of the 220 House GOP lawmakers supportive if that chamber is to send the legislation to&nbsp; Trump for his signature before Friday.&nbsp;

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751251142755.png" alt="Minnesota  U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar during her floor speech Sunday night-image courtesy CSPAN" />
                        <figcaption>Minnesota  U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar during her floor speech Sunday night-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">Jennifer Shutt</a></p><p>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate began floor debate on Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” Sunday afternoon, though there are several steps to go before the legislation can become law, and any one of those could lead to additional GOP opposition — potentially dooming the measure.&nbsp;</p><p>Senators must wrap up an ongoing review of the bill with the parliamentarian to ensure it meets the strict rules for using the reconciliation process and then run the gauntlet during a marathon amendment voting session.</p><p>Additional changes to the sweeping tax and spending cuts package, some of which were being worked on as debate took place, need to garner the support of nearly every Republican in Congress. Otherwise, it will never become law.</p><p>Senate Majority Leader John Thune signaled during a brief hallway interview there may be enough votes for a new twist in the Medicaid changes in the bill — an amendment reducing in some way how much the federal government spends on Medicaid in states that expanded the program as a result of Democrats’ 2010 health care law. The federal government&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/eliminating-the-medicaid-expansion-federal-match-rate-state-by-state-estimates/" target="_blank">currently pays</a>&nbsp;90% of the costs for enrollees in the expansion.</p><p>“We’re going to do what we can to support the effort,” Thune said, referring to an amendment offered by Florida Sen. Rick Scott that was not yet public. “It’s great policy and something that there’s a high level of interest in our conference in getting made part of the bill, and obviously scores a substantial savings.”</p><p>But Thune, R-S.D., sidestepped a question about whether making that change would create vote-count issues if Republicans in the House with affected districts object, potentially preventing the bill from reaching President Donald Trump’s desk.</p><p>“We have had some of these conversations with (Speaker Mike Johnson) and others over there, and then also with our colleagues for some time,” Thune said. “But I think the way this is designed, and the way that Sen. Scott has written it; it should be something that I don’t know how Republicans couldn’t be in favor of what he’s trying to get done here.</p><p>“So, you know, we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Obviously, we’ve still got to get into the debate over here and get through the amendment process and we’ll see what the fate of the amendment is on the floor.”</p><p>Currently 41 states, including the District of Columbia, have adopted the Medicaid expansion,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/status-of-state-medicaid-expansion-decisions/" target="_blank">according to&nbsp;</a>the health care research organization KFF.</p><p>A Scott spokesperson told States Newsroom they would share his amendment once it was final.</p><h2>Still fluid</h2><p>Typically when a major piece of legislation comes to the Senate floor the text is set and amendment debate is closely controlled to ensure delicately negotiated deals don’t crumble in full public view.</p><p>That isn’t the case this time around and much could change before senators take a final passage vote later this week, potentially as soon as Tuesday.</p><p>GOP leaders using the complex reconciliation process to move their signature policy bill through Congress means every provision must have an impact on federal spending or revenue that is not “merely incidental.”</p><p>That involves Democrats and Republicans going before the Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official referee, to argue over dozens of provisions. She then decides if a given policy meets the strict and sometimes murky rules.</p><p>That process hadn’t yet wrapped up when debate on the megabill began and is expected to continue as the 20-hour clock ticks down toward a marathon amendment voting session.</p><h2>Senate bill would add $3.2 trillion to deficits</h2><p>There are also increasing concerns among Republicans, including those in the House Freedom Caucus, over how the bill will impact the federal government’s balance sheet during the next decade.</p><p>The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office announced Sunday morning the Senate’s revised tax and spending cuts package will add $3.253 trillion to deficits during the next decade compared to current law.</p><p>Trump appeared to try to assuage concerns through a social media post.</p><p>“For all cost cutting Republicans, of which I am one, REMEMBER, you still have to get reelected,” Trump wrote. “Don’t go too crazy! We will make it all up, times 10, with GROWTH, more than ever before.”</p><p>The latest&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61534" target="_blank">score</a>&nbsp;came just hours before senators officially began floor debate on the sweeping package that will extend the 2017 GOP tax law, rework how much state governments have to contribute to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, overhaul several aspects of Medicaid and cut its spending, restructure higher education aid programs and much more.</p><p>Senators&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-votes-advance-republican-mega-bill-tense-late-night-session" target="_blank">voted mostly along party lines</a>&nbsp;late Saturday to proceed with the legislation, though leaders had to hold the vote open for more than three hours as they worked to get the votes needed.</p><p>Even after taking that crucial procedural step, the bill continued to evolve.</p><p>The parliamentarian ruled Sunday morning that another six provisions must be revised to comply with the rules or be removed from the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/chairman/newsroom/press/chairman-graham-releases-full-senate-text-of-presidents-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank">940-page package</a>.&nbsp;</p><h2>One Alaska sweetener knocked out</h2><p>GOP senators cannot include, or might need to restructure, language meant to bring Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski on board by enhancing the federal matching rate for Medicaid in two states with high poverty guideline levels: Alaska and Hawaii. The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-tax-cut-plans-may-depend-savings-medicaid-what-it-and-who-relies-it" target="_blank">program for low-income people</a>&nbsp;and some people with disabilities is run as a state-federal partnership.</p><p>Since Hawaii is represented in Congress by a Democratic delegation, the Republican benefit would largely have applied to Alaska’s two GOP senators.</p><p>Senate Republicans did receive some good news from the parliamentarian in her latest ruling, which cleared language that will steadily lower the maximum percent states can set for Medicaid provider tax rates from the current 6% to 3.5% in 2032.</p><p>The in-the-weeds policy has caused considerable frustration among GOP senators across the political spectrum, who argued a prior version would likely cause financial strain for rural hospitals by beginning the process one year sooner.</p><h2>Planned Parenthood</h2><p>The parliamentarian is still reviewing several other policy changes in the bill, including whether Republicans can prevent Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year, effectively blocking beneficiaries from receiving care there at all.</p><p>Federal law already bars federal taxpayer dollars from going toward abortions with limited exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the pregnant patient. So this change would prevent Medicaid patients, who may have few other options, from using Planned Parenthood for other types of health care, like annual physicals, contraception and cancer screenings.</p><p>A prior version of the bill blocked federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood for the next decade.</p><p>Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom about how the rulings might impact the bill going forward.</p><p>Senate Finance Committee ranking member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote in a statement the latest rulings show “that Republican attempts to give away goodies that benefit certain states will not pass muster under Senate rules.”</p><p>“Senate Democrats have also successfully challenged a giveaway to Big Pharma, as well as policies that make it harder for seniors and kids to get affordable health care through Medicaid,” Wyden wrote. “Republicans wanted to bring back the health care tactics of yesteryear, like waiting periods, lock-outs and annual limits on care, but Democrats have wrestled these out of the bill. I am disappointed that the Republican rewrite of the provider tax changes will remain in the bill: this policy will force states into devastating cuts to health care that seniors, kids and Americans with disabilities depend on. We will continue to fight any attempt to sneak through harmful health care policies in this morally bankrupt legislation.”</p><h2>Amendment fights ahead</h2><p>Republicans hope to pass the entire package before the Fourth of July, though they have several hurdles to jump over before they can meet that goal.</p><p>Senate floor debate can last up to 20 hours. After that, senators will begin a marathon amendment voting session where members of each political party can propose changing or removing certain pieces of the legislation.</p><p>GOP leaders generally like to avoid public disputes within the party but the rules of reconciliation don’t really allow that and several Republican senators are expected to offer amendments.</p><p>There is no time limit or cap on the number of amendments that can be offered&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/both-parties-prep-mega-bill-marathon-us-senate-vote-rama" target="_blank">during vote-a-rama,</a>&nbsp;so that can last hours or even days in theory.</p><p>Whenever Democrats and Republicans decide they’ve debated their last amendment, they’ll move on to voting to approve the Senate’s version of the “big, beautiful bill.”</p><p>At least 50 Republicans need to vote to approve the measure, with Vice President JD Vance’s tie-breaking vote. More than four GOP senators objecting to the overall bill means it cannot pass as it’s written.</p><h2>Thom Tillis, Rand Paul</h2><p>Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted against moving forward with debate so it’s likely they will vote against final passage as well. Two more senators deciding not to back the bill would halt its momentum, at least until GOP leaders could make changes to get their votes.</p><p>Tillis on Sunday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/north-carolina-us-sen-thom-tillis-announces-retirement-after-drawing-trump-wrath" target="_blank">announced</a>&nbsp;he would not run for reelection, after being attacked by Trump for voting against advancing the legislation.</p><p>Senate approval of the bill would send it back to the House for a final vote, though centrist and far-right members of the Republican Conference in that chamber have voiced concerns about changes made in the upper chamber.</p><p>Johnson, R-La., will need to keep nearly every one of the 220 House GOP lawmakers supportive if that chamber is to send the legislation to&nbsp; Trump for his signature before Friday.&nbsp;</p>

US Senate continues debate on GOP mega-bill, passage still not assured

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751248060945.png" alt="Photo courtesy KXLY" />
                        <figcaption>Photo courtesy KXLY</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FBI technical teams and tactical assets are currently on the scene providing support. <br>It remains an active, and very dangerous scene. <a href="https://t.co/yYcfiYeI3b">https://t.co/yYcfiYeI3b</a></p>&mdash; Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) <a href="https://twitter.com/FBIDDBongino/status/1939488667677913417?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FKootenaiCountyIdahoSheriff%2Fposts%2Fpfbid0355vAb1DG4pb83totaD8rB1X73gscT3LYLL4wjXXph17cMdmpRC1wao3obrXUs7vnl&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="952" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/DHSgov?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DHSgov</a> is actively monitoring the scene in Coeur d’Alene.<br><br>Pray for Idaho’s first responders. Justice will be served.</p>&mdash; Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) <a href="https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem/status/1939480555814277204?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥2 killed in ambush as Idaho firefighters come under siege from rifle fire

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ashley-murray/">Ashley Murray</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/shauneen-miranda/">Shauneen Miranda</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">Jennifer Shutt</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate voted mostly along party lines late Saturday night to move forward with Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” that President Donald Trump wants on his desk in less than a week, after a dramatic three-hour pause when several GOP senators withheld their votes.

Republican Sens.&nbsp;Thom Tillis of North Carolina&nbsp; and Rand Paul of Kentucky&nbsp;voted against moving forward with the sweeping tax break and spending cuts package that contains many of the GOP’s campaign promises. All Democrats were opposed. Vice President JD Vance came to the Capitol in case a tie-breaking vote was required, but in the end was not needed.

Tillis, who is up for reelection in 2026, had told reporters earlier that he would vote “no” on what is called a motion to proceed and on final passage.&nbsp;

He said in a statement the legislation would result in tens of billions of dollars in lost funding for North Carolina and force the state to make “painful decisions” about Medicaid. Trump in a post on social media later threatened to find primary candidates to challenge Tillis.

The&nbsp;51-49 vote doesn’t guarantee the bill will make it through a final passage vote but does make it significantly more likely, even with Republicans’ narrow 53-47 majority.

The procedural vote kicked off a maximum of 20 hours of floor debate on the bill, with half of that time controlled by Democrats and the other half by Republicans — though Democrats after the motion to proceed vote forced a reading of the giant bill expected to take as long as 15 hours. That would mean floor debate would not begin until sometime Sunday.

Unlike regular bills, budget reconciliation packages are not subject to the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, so as long as at least 50 Republicans support the package, and Vance casts the tie-breaking vote if needed, the measure will go back to the House.

The vote on the motion to proceed that began at about 7:30 p.m. Eastern was held open for more than three hours, with the votes of four senators in suspense — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida. All four eventually voted aye and Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson switched his vote to aye after earlier voting against the measure.

Lee, however, just before the vote was over,<a href="https://x.com/SenMikeLee/status/1939132778605388207" target="_blank">&nbsp;announced</a>&nbsp;he had pulled from the bill an extremely controversial proposal to sell some public lands that was opposed by other lawmakers from the West. He said because of the process being used for the bill, he was unable to obtain enforceable safeguards to ensure the land would be sold to American families and not China or foreign interests.

The latest version of the measure had set up the Interior Department to sell at least 600,000 acres of public land and up to 1.2 million acres of public land within 10 years, advocates said.

Critics, including hunters, anglers and other Western state constituents, have ripped the measure as a “land grab,” as put by Jennifer Rokala, executive director for the Center for Western Priorities.

<a href="https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/E711007F-42C9-49B4-863B-2A939142DA81" target="_blank">A summary</a>&nbsp;of the provisions by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee said the Bureau of Land Management “must sell a minimum of 0.25% and a maximum of 0.50% of their estate for housing and associated community needs. This will increase the supply of housing and decrease housing costs for millions of American families.”

Senate GOP leaders released new bill&nbsp;<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf" target="_blank">text</a>&nbsp;just before midnight Friday that satisfied rural state lawmakers’ worries about financial threats to rural hospitals posed by cuts in Medicaid. The bill also addresses concerns by Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska about access to food assistance for their constituents despite new restrictions on a USDA program for low-income people.

As talks continued on Capitol Hill Saturday afternoon, a handful of Senate Republicans, including Missouri’s Eric Schmitt and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were on the golf course with Trump, according to the White House. Graham&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/LindseyGrahamSC/status/1939036491549757804" target="_blank">said on social media</a>&nbsp;that Kentucky’s Paul also played.

Senate Democrats said a fresh financial analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the preliminary Senate text would result in $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid, the joint federal-state low-income health insurance and disability assistance program.

The CBO score was not yet publicly available but Sen. Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Finance, pointed to it and slammed the Medicaid provisions as “cruel” in a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-statement-on-new-cbo-numbers-showing-more-than-930-billion-in-medicaid-cuts-in-new-senate-draft" target="_blank">statement</a>&nbsp;Saturday afternoon.&nbsp;Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, also&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/SenWarren/status/1939041047687954589" target="_blank">cited the preliminary analysis</a>, pointing to the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts.

Senate Republicans planned to take their negotiations to the floor and push for amendments after the procedural vote that triggered official debate on the bill, which in its current public version runs 940 pages.

GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voiced concerns throughout negotiations about rural hospitals and health cuts that would harm low-income individuals, said her vote on the motion to proceed “does not predict my vote on final passage.”

“I will be filing a number of amendments,” she told reporters as she headed into a closed-door working lunch before the Senate convened at 2 p.m. Eastern.

While Sen. Tim Sheehy&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/TimSheehyMT/status/1939037092874473488" target="_blank">wrote</a>&nbsp;on social media Saturday afternoon that he was a “no” on the motion to proceed because of a provision to sell off federal public lands, the Montana Republican&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/TimSheehyMT/status/1939047707106038251" target="_blank">changed his mind</a>&nbsp;nearly an hour later and declared he would propose an amendment to strip the provision — which was later removed by its sponsor.

GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma painted somewhat of a rosier picture of the mood in the Senate, telling reporters “we’re good.”

“We won’t bring it to the floor if we don’t have the votes,” said Mullin, who was the lead negotiator with House Republicans on state and local tax deductions, or SALT — a sticking point for Republicans who represent high-tax blue states like New York and California.

The lawmakers settled on a $40,000 deduction through 2029 for taxpayers who earn up to $500,000 annually. The level then reverts to $10,000, the current limit under the 2017 tax law.

Proposed changes to Medicaid have been strongly resisted by rural medical providers who say they are already financially strapped.

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told reporters Saturday he would be a “yes” on both the motion to proceed vote and the final bill based on the new rural hospital “transformation program” Senate leadership included in the bill overnight. The measure has yet to be finalized.

The bill’s new version includes $25 billion in a stabilization fund for rural hospitals from 2028 through 2032. The amount is frontloaded to give more of the funds in the first two years.

Critics warn that amount will not fill the financial gaps that rural medical providers will face from losing a sizable portion of federal funding via Medicaid cuts.

While Hawley called the fund a “win” for Missouri over the next several years, he said his party needs to do some “soul searching” over the “unhappy episode” of wrangling over Medicaid cuts.

“If you want to be a working-class party, you’ve got to deliver for working-class people. You cannot take away health care for working people,” he said.

Senators had not yet agreed on other Medicaid provisions as of Saturday afternoon, including a phase-down of the provider tax rate from 6% to a possible 3.5% that’s become hugely controversial.

States use a combination of general revenues, provider tax revenues and in some cases local contributions to fund their Medicaid programs.

Advocates warn that it’s not a guarantee states would be able to backfill the lost revenue, and if they can’t, provider rate cuts and losses of benefits for patients could be on the horizon.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the House version’s provider tax changes — not as deep as the current Senate proposal — could lead to 400,000 people losing Medicaid benefits.

A full and final financial score for the Senate bill is not yet out as the several provisions remain up in the air.

Hawley also praised the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/radiation-exposure-fund-backed-missouris-hawley-included-us-senate-mega-bill" target="_blank">inclusion</a>&nbsp;of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act fund, or RECA, that revives payments for survivors and victims who suffered cancer as a result of U.S. atomic bomb testing and radioactive waste dumps.

In what clean power advocates dubbed a “midnight dumping,” Senate GOP leadership added language to accelerate the phase out of clean energy tax credits that were enacted under Democrats’ own massive mega-bill in 2022 titled the “Inflation Reduction Act.”

The language, which wasn’t yet finalized by Senate GOP tax writers as of 6 p.m. Eastern Saturday, tightened restrictions on foreign components in wind and solar projects — and added a new tax on those that don’t comply.

Senators largely targeted wind and solar credits, ending them for projects not plugged into the electricity grid by 2028. Additionally credits for wind turbine manufacturers would terminate in 2028.

Other tax credits would be phased out at a faster pace, including those for the production of critical minerals, though a credit for metallurgical coal, used in steelmaking, was added in.

Clean energy industry&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/republicans-congress-axed-green-new-scam-its-red-state-boon" target="_blank">manufacturers</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/small-business-owners-rural-america-urge-congress-keep-clean-energy-tax-credits" target="_blank">small businesses</a>&nbsp;had hoped Senate Republicans would ease up rollbacks in the House version.

Kurt&nbsp;Neutgens, president and chief technology officer of Orange EV, told States Newsroom in an interview Friday that any further rollbacks would amount to “cutting our legs out from underneath us.”

Neutgens, whose Kansas City, Kansas-based company manufactures heavy duty electric trucks and chargers, was watching for changes to credits to the commercial clean vehicles credit. New Senate GOP text would terminate the credit in September of this year.

Jason Grumet, president of the Clean Power Association, said in a statement Saturday that imposing new taxes on the industry “will strand hundreds of billions of dollars in current investments, threaten energy security, and undermine growth in domestic manufacturing and land hardest on rural communities who would have been the greatest beneficiaries of clean energy investment.”

Proposed cuts to federal food assistance remained largely unchanged in the new text released Friday night except for a few carve-outs for Alaska.

If the bill were enacted as written, Alaska’s state government could request a waiver for its citizens from stricter work reporting requirements that critics say will result in some SNAP recipients losing their food benefits.

GOP lawmakers also slightly shifted the timeline for when states will have to begin shouldering SNAP costs — the first time states will be&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-tries-ease-pain-states-sharing-costs-snap-benefits" target="_blank">on the hook</a>&nbsp;for the federal food assistance outside of administrative costs.

States would be required to pick up a portion of the costs depending on their “payment error rate” — meaning how accurate states are at determining who needs SNAP, including both overpayments and underpayments.

States that have error rates at 6% or above would responsible for up to 15% of the food program’s cost. According to&nbsp;<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy23-qc-payment-error-rate.pdf" target="_blank">SNAP error rate data</a>&nbsp;for 2023, the latest available, only seven states had an error rate below 6%.

The new text delays the cost-sharing for states until 2028 and allows states to choose the lesser of their two error rates in either 2025 or 2026.

Starting in 2029, states will be required to use their error rate from three years prior to the current year.

The new text includes the option for Alaska and Hawaii to waive their cost share burden for up to two years if their governments implement an improvement plan. In 2023, Alaska had the highest payment error rate of all states, reaching just above 60%.&nbsp;

Advocates for low-income families worry the cost, which will amount to billions for most state governments, will incentivize states to tighten eligibility requirements for the program, or even drop SNAP altogether.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/by-the-numbers-senate-republican-leaderships-reconciliation-bill-takes" target="_blank">estimates</a>&nbsp;the cuts will affect up to 40 million people who receive basic SNAP assistance, including 16 million children and 8 million seniors.

The Senate bill would also increase a state’s share of administrative costs for the program to 75%, up from the previous 50% cost-sharing responsibility with the federal government.

Despite inaccurate public statements from Republicans as recently as in a bill&nbsp;<a href="https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/one_pager_-_the_one_big_beautiful_bill_act.pdf" target="_blank">summary</a>&nbsp;released overnight, the bill does nothing to limit food assistance to immigrants without documentation because SNAP was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility/non-citizen" target="_blank">never available</a>&nbsp;to them.

SNAP benefits will remain available to legal permanent residents, and Republicans loosened some language to allow certain immigrants from Cuba or Haiti to access the program.

But if the bill passes, federal food assistance will not be available to refugees and asylees who are already in the U.S. — for example, people from Afghanistan, Ukraine and other war-torn places.

Republicans on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions revised or scrapped several measures that the parliamentarian deemed to not comply with the “Byrd Bath,” a Senate process named for the late Sen. Robert Byrd, according to a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/help_committee_reconciliation_2025_section-by-section.pdf" target="_blank">summary</a>&nbsp;and new bill text out Friday.

Under the revised text, for any loans made starting July 1, 2026, borrowers will have only two repayment plan options: a standard repayment plan and an income-driven repayment plan. The original proposal would have applied these restrictions to existing borrowers, but the parliamentarian struck that down.

Republicans also nixed a proposal that opened up the Pell Grant — a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college — to institutions that are not accredited.

The new plan also scraps a restriction that barred payments made by students enrolled in a medical or dental internship or residency program from counting toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness.

Senate Democrats remain united in opposition to the bill and are expected to slow down final passage by introducing numerous amendments on the floor during&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/both-parties-prep-mega-bill-marathon-us-senate-vote-rama" target="_blank">what is called the vote-a-rama.</a>

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer continued to rally against the package during remarks on the Senate floor Saturday afternoon, saying it’s “hard to believe this bill is worse — even worse — than any draft we’ve seen this far.”

The New York Democrat said “it’s worse on health care, it’s worse on SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), it’s worse on the deficit.”

Schumer added that “if Republicans proceed, Senate Democrats will hold them to account.”

“We’ll gear up for another night of vote-a-rama very soon. We’ll expose this bill piece by piece. We will show how it cuts health care, raises costs, rewards the ultra rich.”

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities condemned the cuts to safety net programs as “all in service to tax cuts that are heavily skewed toward the wealthy and corporations.”

“None of this harm has anything to do with fiscal responsibility: our deficits and debts would soar under this bill,” said Sharon Parrott, the think tank’s president, in a statement Saturday.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan watchdog, released a new&nbsp;<a href="https://www.crfb.org/blogs/senate-obbba-violates-house-budget-instructions" target="_blank">analysis</a>&nbsp;Saturday finding the Senate version will add roughly $4 trillion to the national deficit over 10 years.

“If you thought the House bill borrowed too much — and it did — the Senate manages to make things even worse,” CRFB’s president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement.

Senate Republicans have spent more than a month rewriting the bills that make up the measure in order to meet the strict rules for moving a budget reconciliation package and to earn support from enough Republicans to actually pass the legislation.

The lawmakers have been struggling to maintain spending cuts passed by House Republicans that will pay for the nearly $4 trillion price tag for extending and expanding the 2017 tax cuts.

The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">voted 215-214</a>&nbsp;to approve its 11-bill version of the package in May. Many of that chamber’s GOP lawmakers hoped the Senate wouldn’t change much, though that hasn’t been the case.

The Senate has modified numerous proposals, including those addressing tax law; Medicaid; and SNAP. The Senate bill also&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-wants-hike-debt-limit-5-trillion-mega-bill" target="_blank">raises the country’s debt limit by $5 trillion</a>, a full $1 trillion more than the House version.

The revisions have led to concerns among both centrist House GOP lawmakers and far-right members of the party, muddying the waters around whether Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., can cobble together the votes needed to clear the package for Trump’s signature.

Republicans hold a 220-212 majority in the House, so leaders there can only lose four members if all of the chamber’s lawmakers are present and voting.

Trump has encouraged Congress to approve the legislation before the Fourth of July, but with time running short and some tempers rising over how the legislation will impact the country’s deficits, that might not be possible.

“The Great Republicans in the U.S. Senate are working all weekend to finish our ‘ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’,” Trump posted on social media Friday.

“The House of Representatives must be ready to send it to my desk before July 4th — We can get it done,” he added. “It will be a wonderful Celebration for our Country, which is right now, ‘The Hottest Country anywhere in the World’ — And to think, just last year, we were a laughingstock. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

Senate votes to advance Republican mega-bill in tense late-night session

June 28, 2025 (Ashland, Neb.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— The Nebraska State Patrol is investigating an incident in which a person died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound near Ashland. The incident occurred in the presence of an Ashland Police Officer.

At approximately 4:30 a.m. Saturday, NSP was contacted by the Ashland Police Department regarding an incident that had just occurred. Preliminary investigation shows that an Ashland Police Officer had responded to a report of a crash near the intersection of Highway 6 and Highway 63, southwest of Ashland.

Upon arrival, the officer observed the driver involved in the crash outside the vehicle. The subject then pulled out a handgun and shot himself. There is no indication that the officer fired any shots during the incident.

<p>June 28, 2025 (Ashland, Neb.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— The Nebraska State Patrol is investigating an incident in which a person died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound near Ashland. The incident occurred in the presence of an Ashland Police Officer.</p><p>At approximately 4:30 a.m. Saturday, NSP was contacted by the Ashland Police Department regarding an incident that had just occurred. Preliminary investigation shows that an Ashland Police Officer had responded to a report of a crash near the intersection of Highway 6 and Highway 63, southwest of Ashland.</p><p>Upon arrival, the officer observed the driver involved in the crash outside the vehicle. The subject then pulled out a handgun and shot himself. There is no indication that the officer fired any shots during the incident.</p>

NSP Investigating Death Near Ashland

Word of Bacon’s decision has caused national shockwaves, in one of the most competitive congressional districts nationally

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/jsalinas/">Juan Salinas II</a>&nbsp;<br><a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — Nebraska Republican U.S. Rep. Don Bacon appears poised to leave Congress in early 2027.

One House Republican strategist who works on campaigns across the country said Bacon was not running for reelection and that he had already telegraphed what he was going to do. He spoke to the Examiner Friday on the condition that he not be named publicly, because he was not authorized to share the decision.&nbsp;

“Don’t get me wrong,” the consultant said. “This seat is tougher without Bacon, but he’s not special. It can be done.”&nbsp;

Five other local Republican sources familiar with Bacon’s choice confirmed that he had decided to skip the 2026 race. They echoed Friday evening reports from Washington, D.C., including from&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1938740738134581555" target="_blank">Punchbowl News</a>.&nbsp;

Bacon’s campaign had no immediate comment on the reports. But people who know politics in Nebraska’s Omaha-based 2nd District had been buzzing for days about the possibility of Bacon making a decision as soon as next week. Bacon had planned to meet with local reporters early next week.&nbsp;

Part of the buzz came from a group of Nebraska Republicans waiting on Bacon’s decision, a list that local conservatives have said includes former State Sen. Brett Lindstrom and Omaha City Councilman Brinker Harding, and might also include Bacon’s 2024 GOP primary challenger, Dan Frei.&nbsp;

Bacon, in recent interviews with the Nebraska Examiner and other publications, had been hinting that he might step away, with the retired Air Force brigadier saying that he had to speak with his family and decide.&nbsp;Bacon’s decision would cause national political shockwaves, as Bacon represents one of a handful of true swing districts left nationally, one that is Nebraska’s most political divided and diverse.&nbsp;

The 2nd District includes all of Douglas and Saunders Counties and a significant slice of western suburban and rural Sarpy County. The district includes the state’s largest concentration of Democrats and was redistricted to include a larger swath of Republican-leaning rural voters in Wahoo and surrounding areas.&nbsp;

Neither the Nebraska Republican Party nor the National Republican Congressional Committee had any immediate comment.

“The writing has been on the wall for months,” said Madison Andrus, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of congressional Democrats.&nbsp;

Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, tweeted after Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman tweeted the news that local Democrats have been ready.

“Don Bacon and all the Republicans who give Trump cover see the writing on the wall–voters actually want politicians to focus on issues that impact our pocket books not made up culture wars,” she said.&nbsp;

She touted the Democrats who have already announced, including political action committee co-founder and&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/05/01/denise-powell-launches-bid-in-nebraskas-2nd-congressional-district/">business owner Denise Powell</a>&nbsp;and State&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/06/04/state-sen-john-cavanaugh-running-for-congress-in-nebraskas-2nd-district/">Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha</a>. Before word of Bacon’s future broke on Friday, a third major Democrat&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/06/27/douglas-county-district-court-clerk-exploring-bid-in-nebraskas-crowded-2nd-district-field/">confirmed she is considering a bid</a>, Douglas County District Court Clerk Crystal Rhoades.

Powell, in a statement, thanks Bacon for his service in the military and in Congress and said it “takes courage to recognize when a fresh perspective is warranted.”

“This district is clearly ready for — and deserves — change,” Powell said.

Cavanaugh, in a statement, thanked Bacon “for his decades of service to his country” and wished him well.&nbsp;

“The people of Nebraska’s 2nd District know it’s time for a change,” Cavanaugh said.

Rhoades, in a statement, said Bacon had “finally realized what has been obvious to all of us: Republicans can’t defend their record this year.”&nbsp;

“Costs are going up, they’re cutting healthcare, but they’re giving tax breaks to billionaires,” Rhoades said.

Bacon has been able to fend off multiple Democratic challengers in recent years, thanks in part to the district’s slight GOP tilt. Now, it could be a mad dash for both parties toward an open seat.&nbsp;

The retired Air Force brigadier general gained national attention for being one of the few Republicans to criticize President Donald Trump, though, despite Bacon’s criticism, he often ended up siding with his party as a reliable GOP vote. He survived pointed criticism from Trump and multiple attempts to recruit a GOP challenger from the president and his political team.&nbsp;

Bacon most recently defeated former State Sen. Tony Vargas of Omaha in back-to-back elections. Before that, he defeated Omaha progressive Kara Eastman in two successive contests. And he won election in 2016 by defeating the last Democrat to hold the “blue dot” seat, the late-U.S. Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb.

Besides the two highest-profile Democratic candidates in the race, Mark Johnston and Evangelos Argyrakis have confirmed they are running.&nbsp;

Whoever emerges from the 2026 Democratic primary will have to tangle with a former gubernatorial candidate in Lindstrom, a longtime City Council member in Harding or perhaps a state officeholder on the Republican side.

The nonpartisan Cook Political Report just shifted the Omaha-based House to lean Democrat from lean Republican.

Examiner Editor-in-chief Aaron Sanderford contributed to this report.&nbsp;

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751075681821.png" alt=" One House Republican strategist who works on campaigns across the country said Bacon was not running for reelection (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)" />
                        <figcaption> One House Republican strategist who works on campaigns across the country said Bacon was not running for reelection (Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
                    </figure><h2>Word of Bacon’s decision has caused national shockwaves, in one of the most competitive congressional districts nationally</h2><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/jsalinas/">Juan Salinas II</a>&nbsp;<br><a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/">Nebraska Examiner</a></p><p>LINCOLN — Nebraska Republican U.S. Rep. Don Bacon appears poised to leave Congress in early 2027.</p><p>One House Republican strategist who works on campaigns across the country said Bacon was not running for reelection and that he had already telegraphed what he was going to do. He spoke to the Examiner Friday on the condition that he not be named publicly, because he was not authorized to share the decision.&nbsp;</p><p>“Don’t get me wrong,” the consultant said. “This seat is tougher without Bacon, but he’s not special. It can be done.”&nbsp;</p><p>Five other local Republican sources familiar with Bacon’s choice confirmed that he had decided to skip the 2026 race. They echoed Friday evening reports from Washington, D.C., including from&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/JakeSherman/status/1938740738134581555" target="_blank">Punchbowl News</a>.&nbsp;</p><h2>No immediate comment</h2><p>Bacon’s campaign had no immediate comment on the reports. But people who know politics in Nebraska’s Omaha-based 2nd District had been buzzing for days about the possibility of Bacon making a decision as soon as next week. Bacon had planned to meet with local reporters early next week.&nbsp;</p><p>Part of the buzz came from a group of Nebraska Republicans waiting on Bacon’s decision, a list that local conservatives have said includes former State Sen. Brett Lindstrom and Omaha City Councilman Brinker Harding, and might also include Bacon’s 2024 GOP primary challenger, Dan Frei.&nbsp;</p><p>Bacon, in recent interviews with the Nebraska Examiner and other publications, had been hinting that he might step away, with the retired Air Force brigadier saying that he had to speak with his family and decide.&nbsp;Bacon’s decision would cause national political shockwaves, as Bacon represents one of a handful of true swing districts left nationally, one that is Nebraska’s most political divided and diverse.&nbsp;</p><h2>Diverse swing district</h2><p>The 2nd District includes all of Douglas and Saunders Counties and a significant slice of western suburban and rural Sarpy County. The district includes the state’s largest concentration of Democrats and was redistricted to include a larger swath of Republican-leaning rural voters in Wahoo and surrounding areas.&nbsp;</p><p>Neither the Nebraska Republican Party nor the National Republican Congressional Committee had any immediate comment.</p><p>“The writing has been on the wall for months,” said Madison Andrus, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of congressional Democrats.&nbsp;</p><p>Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, tweeted after Punchbowl News’ Jake Sherman tweeted the news that local Democrats have been ready.</p><p>“Don Bacon and all the Republicans who give Trump cover see the writing on the wall–voters actually want politicians to focus on issues that impact our pocket books not made up culture wars,” she said.&nbsp;</p><h2>Candidates lining up</h2><p>She touted the Democrats who have already announced, including political action committee co-founder and&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/05/01/denise-powell-launches-bid-in-nebraskas-2nd-congressional-district/">business owner Denise Powell</a>&nbsp;and State&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/06/04/state-sen-john-cavanaugh-running-for-congress-in-nebraskas-2nd-district/">Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha</a>. Before word of Bacon’s future broke on Friday, a third major Democrat&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/06/27/douglas-county-district-court-clerk-exploring-bid-in-nebraskas-crowded-2nd-district-field/">confirmed she is considering a bid</a>, Douglas County District Court Clerk Crystal Rhoades.</p><p>Powell, in a statement, thanks Bacon for his service in the military and in Congress and said it “takes courage to recognize when a fresh perspective is warranted.”</p><p>“This district is clearly ready for — and deserves — change,” Powell said.</p><p>Cavanaugh, in a statement, thanked Bacon “for his decades of service to his country” and wished him well.&nbsp;</p><p>“The people of Nebraska’s 2nd District know it’s time for a change,” Cavanaugh said.</p><p>Rhoades, in a statement, said Bacon had “finally realized what has been obvious to all of us: Republicans can’t defend their record this year.”&nbsp;</p><p>“Costs are going up, they’re cutting healthcare, but they’re giving tax breaks to billionaires,” Rhoades said.</p><p>Bacon has been able to fend off multiple Democratic challengers in recent years, thanks in part to the district’s slight GOP tilt. Now, it could be a mad dash for both parties toward an open seat.&nbsp;</p><h2>National attention</h2><p>The retired Air Force brigadier general gained national attention for being one of the few Republicans to criticize President Donald Trump, though, despite Bacon’s criticism, he often ended up siding with his party as a reliable GOP vote. He survived pointed criticism from Trump and multiple attempts to recruit a GOP challenger from the president and his political team.&nbsp;</p><p>Bacon most recently defeated former State Sen. Tony Vargas of Omaha in back-to-back elections. Before that, he defeated Omaha progressive Kara Eastman in two successive contests. And he won election in 2016 by defeating the last Democrat to hold the “blue dot” seat, the late-U.S. Rep. Brad Ashford, D-Neb.</p><p>Besides the two highest-profile Democratic candidates in the race, Mark Johnston and Evangelos Argyrakis have confirmed they are running.&nbsp;</p><p>Whoever emerges from the 2026 Democratic primary will have to tangle with a former gubernatorial candidate in Lindstrom, a longtime City Council member in Harding or perhaps a state officeholder on the Republican side.</p><p>The nonpartisan Cook Political Report just shifted the Omaha-based House to lean Democrat from lean Republican.</p><p>Examiner Editor-in-chief Aaron Sanderford contributed to this report.&nbsp;</p>

Nebraska U.S. Rep. Don Bacon will not seek reelection in Nebraska’s 2nd District

WASHINGTON —President Trump held a a news conference in the White House briefing room Friday and said that the decision on nationwide injunctions in connection with his birthright citizenship order from the Supreme Court was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

(Click below to watch the full press conference)

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751042330519.png" alt="Image from White House video" />
                        <figcaption>Image from White House video</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>WASHINGTON —President Trump held a a news conference in the White House briefing room Friday and said that the decision on nationwide injunctions in connection with his birthright citizenship order from the Supreme Court was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.</p><p>(Click below to watch the full press conference)</p><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump Holds a Press Briefing, June 27, 2025 <a href="https://t.co/4BE57TB6e5">https://t.co/4BE57TB6e5</a></p>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1938625348129739251?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Supreme Court Monumental Victory 🇺🇸<br><br>&quot;Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.&quot; - <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> <a href="https://t.co/tdFqP0ESVz">pic.twitter.com/tdFqP0ESVz</a></p>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1938634814606934393?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This is really also a decision based on common sense. It didn&#39;t work the other way. It was a disaster where somebody from a certain location in a very liberal state or a liberal judge or liberal group of judges could tie up a country for years.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/MFcAIjKIVG">pic.twitter.com/MFcAIjKIVG</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938630127367405710?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This really brings back the Constitution. This is what it&#39;s all about... the Constitution has been brought back.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/KMmx0e0C8d">pic.twitter.com/KMmx0e0C8d</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938629850174038075?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump: “Should we keep this going?” <br><br>Press: “YES!!!” <br><br>President Trump: “This is the opposite of Biden!” <br><br>TRANSPARENCY! 🇺🇸 <a href="https://t.co/2XCxfKDCkl">pic.twitter.com/2XCxfKDCkl</a></p>&mdash; Margo Martin (@MargoMartin47) <a href="https://twitter.com/MargoMartin47/status/1938637864322929115?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;I think the ruling was a great ruling, and I think it&#39;s a great ruling for parents... they lost control of the schools. They lost control of their child, and this is a tremendous victory for parents.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36">https://t.co/Pla2qrLE36</a> <a href="https://t.co/jqySSHA8QM">pic.twitter.com/jqySSHA8QM</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938631684284432695?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AGPamBondi</a>: &quot;35 of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against this President ... came from Maryland, D.C., Massachusetts, California, and Washington. That&#39;s CRAZY.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/xffC32Wjvk">pic.twitter.com/xffC32Wjvk</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938629547928506391?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@AGPamBondi</a>: &quot;Americans are finally getting what they voted for. No longer will we have rogue judges striking down <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>&#39; policies across the entire nation — NO LONGER!&quot; <a href="https://t.co/rqLMAgVKj9">pic.twitter.com/rqLMAgVKj9</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938627972874854848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The White House press corps has a question for President Trump .. <a href="https://t.co/WTneHzVQjb">pic.twitter.com/WTneHzVQjb</a></p>&mdash; Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) <a href="https://twitter.com/HowardMortman/status/1938642896145559709?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥President Trump victory lap on Supreme Court decisions

The case involves a 2023 state law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but the ruling is expected to have broader implications for free speech law.

By&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/kayla-guo/">Kayla Guo</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/eleanor-klibanoff/">Eleanor Klibanoff</a>&nbsp; <br><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/">Texas Tribune</a>

Texas’ law requiring Pornhub and other adult websites to verify users’ ages is constitutional and can remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">Click here to read the full Supreme Court ruling</a>

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-1122">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to the oral argument from January

The case stems from a 2023 law,&nbsp;<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB1181">HB 1181</a>, that required websites to verify that a user is over the age of 18 if more than one-third of their content is considered harmful to minors. A group of adult entertainment websites sued, arguing this violated free speech and privacy protections.

Texas countered that the state had a right to protect children with what Solicitor General Aaron Nielson framed as “simple, safe and common” restrictions.

While the Supreme Court justices&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/">seemed divided</a>&nbsp;on the free speech issues, a 6-3 majority of the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">ultimately sided</a>&nbsp;with Texas, finding that requiring age verification “is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content.”

The 2023 law “is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority’s opinion. “To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has ‘only an incidental effect on protected speech,’ making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.”

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law should have been held to the higher standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent level of legal review used in cases related to fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. The dissenting judges also argued that while states have a “compelling interest” in protecting children from obscene speech, doing so sometimes impeded the right of adults to access that speech.

In her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan said that Texas’ law might well have passed strict scrutiny and used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals.

“But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech HB 1181 covers?” Kagan wrote. “The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary.”.

Texas’ law requires people visiting websites “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” to show they are over 18 by submitting digital identification, uploading government-issued identification or by using a “commercially reasonable method,” such as their banking information. Neither the website nor the party performing the verification can retain identifying information. Sites that violate the law face fines of up to $10,000 a day.

The law was passed amid a broader push in Texas and other states to prevent children from being exposed to sexual materials, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/26/texas-school-library-bill/">continued this legislative session</a>. Friday’s ruling could have implications for more than a dozen states that have passed similar laws.

It was not the first time that these Texas bills have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/17/texas-book-rating-lawsuit-5th-circuit/">tested the boundaries of</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/31/texas-drag-bill-lawsuit-federal-hearing/">free speech protections</a>: In two cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws aimed to prevent the distribution of obscene materials to minors unconstitutionally restricted free speech.

Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/">Ken Paxton</a>&nbsp;celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” Paxton said. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”

Civil liberties groups decried the decision as a rollback of free speech protections.

“Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents? Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity.”

The Free Speech Coalition, a legal advocacy group representing the adult film industry, has argued that laws targeting pornography are always the “canary in the coal mine of free speech.”

“Many of the First Amendment protections Americans hold dear are the result of hard battles fought by the adult industry and others over issues such as these,” the coalition said in a statement&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">last March</a>. “None of these battles has ever been simple or easy, though they have been important and just.”

Critics of Texas’ law raised privacy concerns and said it could make it dangerous for adults to access legal content. Critics also argued HB 1181 was overly broad and could apply to websites providing resources on reproductive health, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues.

The day before the law was set to go into effect in 2023, a U.S. district judge put it on hold, granting a request for a temporary injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition.

Federal District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said in granting the injunction that the law would allow the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” imposing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.

The state appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the law to take effect. In March 2024, the appeals court upheld most of the law, but struck down a requirement that these websites post a “health warning,” saying that pornography is addictive and weakens brain function.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in July 2024 and heard arguments earlier this year on whether the appeals court applied proper legal reasoning in upholding age-verification.

The pornography websites’ claims attracted support from a wide cross-section of advocacy groups, from librarians to libertarians, who cited concerns about the ripple effects of Texas’ law. The Biden administration also submitted an&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.freespeechcoalition.com/documents/legal/FSCvPaxton/amici/SG.pdf">amicus brief</a>&nbsp;in support of overturning the law.

Meanwhile, some websites, including Pornhub, have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">suspended services</a>&nbsp;in Texas, saying they are unable to comply with the law. In a statement that greets users who try to access the website in Texas, Pornhub says that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”

“As we’ve seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the hundreds of thousands of websites with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply,” the statement says.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1706036605430.png" alt="<br>" />
                        <figcaption><br></figcaption>
                    </figure><p>The case involves a 2023 state law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but the ruling is expected to have broader implications for free speech law.</p><p>By&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/kayla-guo/">Kayla Guo</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/eleanor-klibanoff/">Eleanor Klibanoff</a>&nbsp; <br><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/">Texas Tribune</a></p><p>Texas’ law requiring Pornhub and other adult websites to verify users’ ages is constitutional and can remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.</p><p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">Click here to read the full Supreme Court ruling</a></p><p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-1122">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to the oral argument from January</p><p>The case stems from a 2023 law,&nbsp;<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB1181">HB 1181</a>, that required websites to verify that a user is over the age of 18 if more than one-third of their content is considered harmful to minors. A group of adult entertainment websites sued, arguing this violated free speech and privacy protections.</p><p>Texas countered that the state had a right to protect children with what Solicitor General Aaron Nielson framed as “simple, safe and common” restrictions.</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751040262939.png" alt="" />
                        <figcaption></figcaption>
                    </figure><p>While the Supreme Court justices&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/">seemed divided</a>&nbsp;on the free speech issues, a 6-3 majority of the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">ultimately sided</a>&nbsp;with Texas, finding that requiring age verification “is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content.”</p><p>The 2023 law “is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority’s opinion. “To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has ‘only an incidental effect on protected speech,’ making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.”</p><p>The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law should have been held to the higher standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent level of legal review used in cases related to fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. The dissenting judges also argued that while states have a “compelling interest” in protecting children from obscene speech, doing so sometimes impeded the right of adults to access that speech.</p><p>In her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan said that Texas’ law might well have passed strict scrutiny and used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals.</p><p>“But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech HB 1181 covers?” Kagan wrote. “The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary.”.</p><p>Texas’ law requires people visiting websites “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” to show they are over 18 by submitting digital identification, uploading government-issued identification or by using a “commercially reasonable method,” such as their banking information. Neither the website nor the party performing the verification can retain identifying information. Sites that violate the law face fines of up to $10,000 a day.</p><p>The law was passed amid a broader push in Texas and other states to prevent children from being exposed to sexual materials, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/26/texas-school-library-bill/">continued this legislative session</a>. Friday’s ruling could have implications for more than a dozen states that have passed similar laws.</p><p>It was not the first time that these Texas bills have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/17/texas-book-rating-lawsuit-5th-circuit/">tested the boundaries of</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/31/texas-drag-bill-lawsuit-federal-hearing/">free speech protections</a>: In two cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws aimed to prevent the distribution of obscene materials to minors unconstitutionally restricted free speech.</p><p>Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/">Ken Paxton</a>&nbsp;celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”</p><p>The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.</p><p>“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” Paxton said. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”</p><p>Civil liberties groups decried the decision as a rollback of free speech protections.</p><p>“Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents? Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity.”</p><p>The Free Speech Coalition, a legal advocacy group representing the adult film industry, has argued that laws targeting pornography are always the “canary in the coal mine of free speech.”</p><p>The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.</p><p>“Many of the First Amendment protections Americans hold dear are the result of hard battles fought by the adult industry and others over issues such as these,” the coalition said in a statement&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">last March</a>. “None of these battles has ever been simple or easy, though they have been important and just.”</p><p>Critics of Texas’ law raised privacy concerns and said it could make it dangerous for adults to access legal content. Critics also argued HB 1181 was overly broad and could apply to websites providing resources on reproductive health, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues.</p><p>The day before the law was set to go into effect in 2023, a U.S. district judge put it on hold, granting a request for a temporary injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition.</p><p>Federal District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said in granting the injunction that the law would allow the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” imposing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.</p><p>The state appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the law to take effect. In March 2024, the appeals court upheld most of the law, but struck down a requirement that these websites post a “health warning,” saying that pornography is addictive and weakens brain function.</p><p>The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in July 2024 and heard arguments earlier this year on whether the appeals court applied proper legal reasoning in upholding age-verification.</p><p>The pornography websites’ claims attracted support from a wide cross-section of advocacy groups, from librarians to libertarians, who cited concerns about the ripple effects of Texas’ law. The Biden administration also submitted an&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.freespeechcoalition.com/documents/legal/FSCvPaxton/amici/SG.pdf">amicus brief</a>&nbsp;in support of overturning the law.</p><p>Meanwhile, some websites, including Pornhub, have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">suspended services</a>&nbsp;in Texas, saying they are unable to comply with the law. In a statement that greets users who try to access the website in Texas, Pornhub says that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”</p><p>“As we’ve seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the hundreds of thousands of websites with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply,” the statement says.</p>