Asweeping bill that's at the center of Republicans' efforts to deliver on President Donald Trump's second-term agenda hit a major roadblock on Friday. Trump was not happy. “We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party,” the President posted on Truth Social minutes before a handful of GOP hardliners voted against his “big, beautiful bill” at a key House Budget Committee meeting, effectively stalling the legislation from advancing. The measure would extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and increase spending on the military and border security, offset in part by cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and subsidies for clean energy. House Speaker Mike Johnson has struggled to craft a bill that slashes enough spending to satisfy right-wing members of his party without losing support from GOP moderates, who are wary of cutting too much from widely used safety-net programs. Advertisement Republican leaders had been hoping to push the bill through the House before a Memorial Day recess, though that timeline appears less probable after Friday’s failed vote in the Budget Committee—one of the final stops before it can reach the House floor. Five Republican fiscal hawks on the committee joined with all Democrats in voting against the bill, with the GOP holdouts expressing concerns that the bill doesn’t cut Medicaid spending enough and takes too long phasing out the clean energy tax credits passed as part of former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. They argued that the way the bill front-loads tax cuts in the next few years but delays spending cuts until later is fiscally reckless. “This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits,” Texas Rep. Chip Roy, one of those holdouts, said during the markup. South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman, another one of the holdouts, said he was “very disappointed” with the bill: “Sadly, I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out.” Top GOP lawmakers are expected to continue private talks with the White House and reluctant Republicans over the weekend to figure out a path forward on Trump’s signature legislation. They are using a process known as budget reconciliation to allow Republicans to push the measure through the Senate with a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds support they would need to avoid a filibuster. Assuming Democrats remain united against the bill, Republicans can afford to lose no more than three votes in either the House or the Senate. Even if the bill makes it through the House, Republican Senators are expected to make their own changes to it, which both chambers will then have to reconcile. Here are the main sticking points for Republicans on Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” Medicaid cuts For months, Democrats have condemned the bill’s health care provisions as a disaster for the country. More than eight million Americans are expected to lose insurance coverage if the bill becomes law—an outcome some Republicans fear will kill their chances in the 2026 midterms.But that isn’t stopping some fiscal conservatives from wanting even more cuts. A key part of the measure is nearly $800 billion in reduced spending for Medicaid, a program that provides health coverage for low- and middle-income households. Republicans are hoping to include new work requirements for adult Medicaid beneficiaries without children that would take effect starting in 2029. Under the proposed plan, adult Medicaid recipients would need to submit paperwork every month showing they worked at least 80 hours or qualified for an exception. Democrats, and some swing-vote Republicans, have warned that millions of Americans will lose health care coverage if the provision goes into effect. Indeed, an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that the Medicaid changes would reduce the number of people with health care by at least 7.6 million. But proponents say that the new work requirements are estimated to save $300 billion over a decade, while also creating incentives for work.

The federal government is launching its first in-depth review of infant formula nutrients in nearly 30 years. While the move may spark questions among families, pediatric experts say there is nothing to be concerned about: FDA-approved infant formula remains one of the most rigorously regulated food products in the country and is perfectly safe. Still, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) say it’s time for a fresh look. On Tuesday, the agencies announced that they had issued a request for information about infant formula nutrients. Advertisement The review is part of an initiative launched in March, called Operation Stork Speed, which is meant to “ensure the safety, reliability, and nutritional adequacy of infant formula for American families,” according to HHS. It’s not yet clear who will be leading the review, but the FDA is set to convene a panel of experts in June that will be accessible to the public. “Operation Stork Speed brings radical transparency to ingredients in infant formula and puts science front and center,” HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in the press release. “Every child has a fundamental right to a healthy start. We’re giving parents the truth and the tools to make that happen.” Read More: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Says Americans Should Not Take Medical Advice From Him Could infant formula change? Experts say that any effort to ensure that infant formula contains the best nutrients is important, but they caution that this review is not a sign that infant formula is dangerous, nor do they expect it to trigger dramatic changes. According to HHS, the FDA “regularly reviews individual nutrient requirements for infant formula,” but the last time the agency conducted an in-depth review of infant formula was in 1998. Dr. Steven Abrams, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, says doing a comprehensive analysis is “overdue” because there have been new developments in science and guidance since 1998. Abrams, who is due to attend the June meeting with the FDA, says it’s critical that the research is conducted slowly, cautiously, and rigorously. He says that experts, including himself, want “to make sure that [the review] doesn’t become motivated by concerns that infant formula, as it currently exists, is inherently unsafe. That’s not true.” Dr. Mark Corkins, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, says it’s possible that the review may result in recommendations for a little more of some nutrients, like Vitamin D, and a little less of other ingredients, like iron, but: “I don’t think there’s going to be any huge, earth-shaking changes that comes out of this.

President Donald Trump’s whirlwind three-country tour of the Middle East saw him receive a royal welcome in the Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Trump’s arrival in the Saudi capital of Riyadh was flanked by an escort of F-15 fighter jets, a show of the grandiose visit that awaited him. He was later accompanied by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to a state banquet dinner. The President made a number of investment agreements with the Crown Prince, which the White House said are worth up to $600 billion, including an arms deal worth $142 billion. Advertisement Trump also met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa after announcing he plans to lift U.S. sanctions on the country. In Qatar, the President signed further investment deals with the country’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. The President concluded his visit in the UAE, where talks focused on AI infrastructure investment in both countries. Potential progress on a nuclear deal with Iran was discussed too. Read More: Key Moments From Trump's Whirlwind Tour of the Middle East At the close of the trip—which lasted from Tuesday, May 13, to Friday, May 16—Trump received a "drop of oil" as a gift from Emirati officials. Accepting the gift, the President joked: “This is the highest quality oil there is on the planet, and they only gave me a drop. So, I’m not thrilled, but it’s better than no drop.” Some key moments from Trump’s Middle East trip are captured in the images below.

On Thursday in Istanbul, the empty seat reserved for Vladimir Putin perfectly symbolized Russia’s unwillingness to end the war in Ukraine. Putin’s counterpart in the negotiations, Volodymyr Zelensky, had spent days calling on him to show up and face him. "We are ready to talk," the Ukrainian President said. "To end this war." But Putin stayed away, demonstrating his disdain for the peace process and handing Zelensky a tactical victory. For the Russians, it was the latest in a string of diplomatic stumbles. President Donald Trump and his envoys have tried for months to engineer a ceasefire in Ukraine. Along the way, they have given Putin plenty of chances to steer the Americans into his corner. But the Russian leader missed every one of them. Advertisement The most valuable opportunity landed in Putin's lap on the last day of February, when Trump and Zelensky engaged in a bitter shouting match in the Oval Office. Relations between the U.S. and Ukraine faced a crisis after that, and Trump briefly cut off U.S. aid to Ukraine. His overtures to Moscow grew friendlier than ever. In the middle of March, Trump held what he described as a “very good and productive” phone call with Putin. His lead envoy in the peace talks, Steve Witkoff, visited Putin in Moscow and, upon his return, publicly echoed many of the Kremlin’s arguments about the war. Watching from Kyiv, Zelensky grew worried that Putin had won over the Americans. “I think Russia managed to influence some members of the White House team through information,” Zelensky told TIME in an interview in Kyiv on March 21. “Their signal to the Americans was that the Ukrainians do not want to end the war, and something should be done to force them. Of course, that was disinformation. It’s not true.”But Trump appeared to be buying it. In early April, his administration welcomed Putin’s envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, who became the first senior Russian official to visit the White House in more than three years. Dmitriev, a former investment banker, offered the U.S. a series of lucrative mining deals and access to Russian natural resources in exchange for the lifting of U.S. sanctions. Trump seemed impressed. “Europe has not been successful in dealing with President Putin,” he told reporters after the visit from Dmitriev. “I think I will be successful.” To all appearances, Putin was outwitting Zelensky in their competition for Trump’s good graces. But on April 13, just a few days after Dmitriev’s visit to Washington, the tide abruptly turned. Two Russian ballistic missiles struck the Ukrainian city of Sumy that morning, killing at least 34 people and wounding another 117, including 15 children. Television broadcasts around the world showed the bloodied bodies of the victims strewn across one of the city’s central squares, near the university. Less than two weeks later, as Trump and his team continued pushing for a peace deal and promising results, the Russians launched one of the deadliest bombing raids against the Ukrainian capital since the start of the war. Around 70 missiles and 150 drones struck Kyiv on the night of April 24, killing at least a dozen people and wounding scores of others. That wave of attacks made Trump look naive, even foolish, for claiming that Russia was serious about the peace process, and his tone toward the Kremlin sharply changed. “Not necessary, and very bad timing,” Trump wrote on social media the day of the Kyiv bombings, adding a direct appeal to Putin: “Vladimir, STOP!” The attacks against Kyiv and Sumy seemed wholly unnecessary, even for the advancement of Putin’s war aims. Striking civilians in northern Ukraine, far behind the frontlines, did nothing to help Russian forces advance in the east and south of the country, where they have been desperately fighting for years to seize more Ukrainian territory. It would have cost Putin nothing to halt the attacks against civilians and focus on military targets along the front lines, at least until he could cement his rapprochement with the Trump administration. But the Russians couldn’t help themselves. Even as Trump and Zelensky called for a ceasefire of 30 days to clear the way for peace negotiations, Putin blew apart any semblance of good faith by continuing to massacre civilians. On the diplomatic front, the decision has cost him dearly. It created an opportunity for Zelensky to win Trump back to his side, and the Ukrainian leader seized it on April 26.

This article is part of The D.C. Brief, TIME’s politics newsletter. Sign up here to get stories like this sent to your inbox. Citizen Donald Trump made a whole lot of promises about what he would do if returned to the White House. President Trump has not yet delivered on so, so much of that wish list, and, in some cases, almost certainly never will. He promised he would end the war in Ukraine even before he took office. He similarly promised to end the war in Gaza. He promised to cut federal spending by $2 trillion. He promised to eliminate the so-called Deep State, end taxes on Social Security, and make IVF free. Advertisement Failed. On every single one of them. At least to this point. There’s the tired cliche that campaigns are fought in poetry and government is conducted in prose, but Trump’s clash with reality has been more stark than his more recent predecessors. His tax-cut agenda is on shaky ground at the Capitol as his demands are running head-first into the challenges of a narrow Republican governing majority. His other campaign promises are stuck in park as he is finding even his considerable bullying power has its limits. The tape on Trump’s list of guarantees is a long one. Take, for instance, his insistence that the Russian aggression against Ukraine would melt immediately if he were elected. “Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settled,” Trump told an audience in Detroit in August of last year. But speaking to TIME last month, Trump brushed off that bold prediction: “Obviously, people know that when I said that, it was said in jest, but it was also said that it will be ended.”These days, it’s a much different tune, as he’s expressed frustration and even some surprise at Vladimir Putin’s unwillingness to compromise. On Wednesday, as he was flying to Qatar on a tour of the Middle East, Trump told reporters he was considering attending peace talks this week that Putin hasn’t committed to attending; Trump also didn’t commit to joining the session that has been proposed by Moscow. While Trump does deserve credit for progress in Gaza—the last living U.S. hostage this week found freedom after intense lobbying from Washington—the occupied territories remain a mess. Overnight airstrikes there killed at least 50 civilians, and the United Nations continues to warn that the Israeli actions risk becoming a genocide. And Israel is threatening to flatten and occupy Gaza if all of the other hostages aren’t freed by the time Trump returns to Washington from his current trip. And while it’s easy to post all-caps pledges of a balanced budget on social media, it’s another to deliver. Despite aggressive efforts to shrink federal spending through the new Department of Government Efficiency, DOGE has actually not delivered anything close to the cost-cutting promises laid out by billionaire presidential adviser Elon Musk. In fact, as The New York Times recently reported, tens of millions of dollars in canceled federal contracts were later resurrected, in some cases because they had been required by law. And now, the remainder of those trims have run into the reality of a Trump agenda that could explode the red ink on the federal ledger by anywhere from $5 to $11 trillion over the next decade.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services (HHS) Director under the Trump Administration, told Congress on Wednesday that he believes people “shouldn’t be taking medical advice from [him]”. The comments were made at a House Appropriations Committee hearing on May 14, as the committee reviewed the Trump Administration’s 2026 budget request, which was released on May 2. During the hearing, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan asked Kennedy whether, if he had a child now, he would vaccinate them for measles. “Probably for measles,” Kennedy said before backtracking. “I don’t think people should be taking advice — medical advice — from me….I think if I answer that question directly, it will seem like I'm giving advice to other people, and I don't want to be doing that.” Kennedy has been known for his controversial stances on vaccines, raising questions about vaccine safety. Since being tapped to lead HHS, he has tried to distance himself from the anti-vaccine movement and recently backed vaccination as a preventive tool during a measles outbreak. He still maintains however, that vaccines should be left to parents’ discretion, and has continued to spread misinformation about the measles vaccine. “Okay, but that’s kind of your jurisdiction, because the CDC [Center for Disease Control] does give advice,” Pocan responded. The CDC provides guidance on disease prevention, the development of best health practices, and providing access to immunizations. The hearing focused on proposed deep cuts to health services in the Administration's “Skinny Budget,” seeking $94 billion for the HHS agencies— a reduction of about 26% from the 2025 level. The budget also aims to cut programs and staff at several HHS agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC. The budget also proposes $500 million for Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, which includes downsizing the HHS from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees, and focusing on “ending America’s epidemic of chronic illness.”

President Donald Trump's announcement that he plans to end the U.S. sanctions imposed on Syria, which have been in place for over 45 years, was met with jubilant celebrations in the Syrian capital of Damascus. People in the streets cheered and waved Syrian flags. Disclosing the news on the first leg of his Middle East tour, during the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh on Tuesday, Trump said he would be lifting sanctions “in order to give them [Syria] greatness.” Advertisement He described the sanctions as “brutal and crippling,” but also noted their important function before the collapse of the Bashar Assad regime in December 2024. On Wednesday morning, before departing for Doha, Qatar, Trump met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa. They were accompanied by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan joined remotely via telephone. While travelling to Doha on Air Force One, Trump shared with reporters his impression of al-Sharaa, calling him a "young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter… He’s got a real shot at holding it together.” Read More: Trump Meets With Syria’s President After Announcing Plans to Lift U.S. Sanctions on Country Shiraz Maher, a writer and lecturer of war studies at King’s College London, says that Trump’s announcement shows “an explicit vote of confidence in the new Administration. It gives Syria a new opportunity.”I see this as something that Obama tried to do, leading from behind, removing obstacles, and giving Syria an opportunity to do it their way.” In a post-meeting update shared on X, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump urged al-Sharaa to sign the Abraham Accords to normalize relations with Israel. He also encouraged al-Sharaa to remove foreign terrorists from Syria and help the United States prevent the resurgence of ISIS. The Abraham Accords, established during Trump’s first term, involve a number of Arab and Muslim states normalizing diplomatic and economic ties with Israel. Since the collapse of the Assad regime in December, Israel has conducted airstrikes within Syria, recently near Damascus, citing violence in Druze areas. Israeli forces have also reportedly expanded military operations beyond the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights in the southwest corner of Syria.

President Donald Trump has doubled down on his highly-criticized plan to accept a luxury Boeing jet from Qatar, claiming that the “free” gift will save the United States money that can instead be spent to “Make America Great Again.” “The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME! It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years,” Trump said in a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, late on Tuesday, May 13. Advertisement “Only a FOOL would not accept this gift on behalf of our country,” he added, after stating that the gifted jet—a Boeing 747-8 worth an estimated $400 million—will be used as a “temporary Air Force One” whilst the U.S. waits for its official jet to be ready. Trump further explained his stance during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, which aired on Tuesday night. He said he’s still waiting to receive the Air Force One jet that he signed off on during his first term—a wait he predicts will last another two years—and that Qatar offered to help provide a plane in the interim. He claimed that other countries have far superior planes to the current Air Force One: “We’re the United States of America and I believe we should have the most impressive plane.” "Some people say you shouldn't accept gifts for the country, my attitude is: 'Why wouldn't I accept a gift? We're giving to everyone else,’” Trump argued. “I get nothing, I get to fly it like any other President would," he added, stating the Qatar-gifted jet will be "decommissioned" once the U.S.-ordered Air Force One plane is ready. (Two modified Boeing 747 planes serve as Air Force One.)Of the pre-ordered jet that’s currently under construction, Trump said: “We’re painting it red, white, and blue. Just like the American flag.” Trump’s planned acceptance of this gift has raised legal and ethical concerns from both Democrats and Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Tuesday that he would be placing a blanket hold on Justice Department nominees awaiting Senate confirmation until the White House provides a full accounting of the deal. “This is not just naked corruption, it’s the kind of thing that even Putin would give a double take,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts told TIME: “He’s going to turn Air Force One into Bribe Force One. Congress has to be involved with such a clear threat to our national security.” Republicans such as Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas also voiced their concerns over the gift from the Qatari royal family, highlighting the security risks of accepting the jet and the potential high costs of checking the Boeing for foreign surveillance devices.

President Donald Trump has issued a flurry of executive orders aimed at reshaping immigration policy, only to see many of them tied up or halted by federal judges. Now, he’s looking to the Supreme Court to break that pattern. On Thursday, the Justices will hear arguments in a high-stakes case that sits at the intersection of two fiercely contested areas of law: birthright citizenship and the power of federal courts to block presidential actions nationwide. While the case is ostensibly about Trump’s executive order ending automatic citizenship for the U.S.-born children of non-citizens, legal observers agree the real fight is over the judicial tool that has repeatedly thwarted Trump’s agenda: universal injunctions. Advertisement The Trump Administration is not directly asking the court to review the constitutionality of its citizenship order, but is rather urging the Court to curtail or eliminate the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, which have frozen Trump’s policy in place while litigation unfolds. Trump’s lawyers argue that universal injunctions exceed the constitutional authority of individual judges and prevent the government from implementing policy while cases wind through the courts. Broader relief, they say, should come only through mechanisms like class-action lawsuits—not sweeping injunctions issued by single district judges. “These injunctions have reached epidemic proportions since the start of the Trump Administration,” the Justice Department wrote in a March filing, noting that more were issued in February 2025 alone than during the first three years of the Biden Administration. Trump’s executive order, issued on his first day back in office, would deny citizenship to babies born on American soil if both parents lack U.S. citizenship or lawful permanent residency—even if they are in the country legally on temporary visas. But legal experts say the order violates the doctrine of birthright citizenship guaranteed under the 14th Amendment and more than 120 years of court precedent set by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1898 ruling United States v. Wong Kim Ark. “This order is blatantly unconstitutional,” says Rachel Rosenbloom, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston who is writing a book about the history of efforts to restrict constitutional birthright citizenship. “Many historians and legal scholars, and all of the district court judges who have looked at this order have said there's simply no way that this order is constitutional.”

President Donald Trump’s plan to accept a $400 million luxury aircraft from the Qatari government has ignited a full-blown firestorm among congressional Democrats, who are treating the proposal not just as a potential constitutional violation, but as a rallying cry they hope can break through with disaffected voters. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is leading the charge, announcing Tuesday that he would place a blanket hold on all Justice Department nominees awaiting Senate confirmation until the White House provides a full accounting of the deal and Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before Congress. “This is not just naked corruption,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “It’s the kind of thing that even Putin would give a double take.” Advertisement Schumer presented a list of questions and demands for the Trump Administration to respond to before he lifts his hold on nominees, focusing primarily on the national security implications of the President accepting a customized Boeing 747-8 jet for use as Air Force One, and then transferring the aircraft to his presidential library: "President Trump has told the American people this is 'a free jet.' Does that mean the Qataris are delivering a ready-on-day-one plane with all the security measures already built in? If so, who installed those security measures, and how do we know they were properly installed?" Schumer asked. For months, Democrats have been searching for a clear, galvanizing issue following their defeat in the 2024 election. More so than Trump's deportations or sweeping government cuts, many now believe this could be it. “He’s going to turn Air Force One into Bribe Force One,” Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts tells TIME. “Congress has to be involved with such a clear threat to our national security.” Those national security concerns appear to be partly rooted in questions about Qatar’s current and past allegiances. For years, the Qatari government sent millions of dollars a month into the Gaza Strip, which helped prop up the Hamas government. In 2017, Trump publicly accused Qatar of funding terrorism and backed a Saudi-led blockade of the country. Democrats are betting that voters, fatigued by Trump’s provocations but unsure what line he cannot cross, will see the jet deal as a glaring example of personal enrichment and compromised national interests. Last month, the Trump Organization finalized a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar featuring Trump-branded villas and a course constructed by a Saudi firm—the first such foreign venture since Trump returned to office. Democratic Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York called the Qatari’s offer “the most valuable ever conferred on a president by a foreign government,” and described the arrangement as a “flying grift.” In a letter to federal ethics and oversight officials, Torres called for an immediate ethics review and policy reforms to prevent foreign gifts from being converted into private assets by current or former presidents. “In the cruelest irony,” Torres wrote, “Air Force One will have something in common with Hamas: paid for by Qatar.” Advertisement Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, led the prosecution of Trump’s second impeachment after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He plans to introduce a resolution calling on Trump to come to Congress to request approval for accepting the $400 million aircraft, according to The New Republic. Raskin plans to cite Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, which says that no one in the federal government can take an emolument in office without the consent of Congress. Even some Republicans have expressed misgivings with Trump’s plan to accept the Qatari’s offer. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas warned of espionage risks, and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said she’d be “checking for bugs.” Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley flatly wrote on social media that “taking gifts from other countries is never a good practice.” But others insisted that the story was not resonating outside of Washington.