korapress
Mar 07, 2026

Blockbuster 224 - 200 vote — Democrats are never coming back from this

The U.S. House approved its farm bill on Thursday with a vote of 224-200, following months of concern regarding Republican leaders’ ability to garner sufficient support for the package. The legislation encompasses comprehensive revisions to food and agriculture initiatives within a budget-neutral framework.

The House’s successful vote signifies the furthest advancement of a farm bill in Congress since the latest reauthorization was enacted in 2018. The legislation faces significant challenges in becoming law because of policy discord within the Senate.

The decision on Thursday followed weeks of pressure from Republicans in agricultural states and farming advocacy organizations, emphasizing the necessity for predominantly bipartisan revisions to assist farmers confronting elevated production expenses, rising bankruptcies, and economic instability.

“Producers are currently facing some of the toughest times in farm economy since the 1980s farm crisis,” House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) said earlier this week. “And the simple fact is that the 2018 policies are no match for 2026 challenges.”

Support from moderate and rural Democrats was crucial for Republicans to secure policy wins for agriculture-heavy areas ahead of the midterms.

“Although it’s not perfect, it’s something I plan to support,” Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) said in an interview ahead of the vote. “Overall, I think it’s a good bill. Clearly, we need to revisit some very serious concerns that many of us have, including myself, as it pertains to cutting some food assistance that we’ll be able to revise once we’re in the majority here in the House.”

Earlier this week, Republican leaders agreed to add a proposal to the agriculture bill that would enable E15 sales all year long. This upset senators from oil-producing states who are against the E15 plan.

In the following weeks, leaders agreed to separate the farm bill and E15 and hold a separate vote on E15 on May 13. This means that the House’s farm bill can’t be forwarded to the Senate until then.

The Senate hasn’t yet introduced the language or given a schedule for moving its farm bill legislation. Fights between parties might also grind the progress to a standstill.

John Boozman (R-Ark.), who is in charge of the Senate Agriculture Committee, has said that he plans to take out some of the most controversial parts of Thompson’s farm bill to get 60 votes in the Senate. Boozman has told reporters that he wants to get the bill passed in “weeks, not months.”

In the past, bipartisan negotiations on the farm bill have stagnated recently because of conflicts over climate-smart agriculture initiatives and funds for nutrition aid.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act from the Republicans eliminated $187 billion from the country’s biggest food aid program and $65 billion from programs that help farmers.

This upset Democrats but made it possible for a budget-neutral agricultural bill this year.

House Republican leaders are also trying to pass a bill on Thursday that would fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except for its immigration enforcement agencies.

This could end the department’s 76-day shutdown.

Speaker Mike Johnson is talking about the concept with members of his conference who want to wait until Republicans pass a separate party-line plan to finance agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol before passing the bill.

The Senate passed the partial DHS funding bill in March, but House GOP leaders have been giving in to the holdouts and not sending it to President Donald Trump for more than a month.

Now, the White House and some House Republicans are putting pressure on Johnson to pass the bill before lawmakers leave town for a weeklong break. Lawmakers could cancel the break and work through this, but it’s unlikely.

Trump Picks Popular Fox News Host for TOP Position

Washington D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to reevaluate a longstanding immigration policy that denied asylum seekers entry at ports along the southern U.S. border. President Donald Trump requested the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the policy unlawful.

The Biden administration terminated the practice referred to by the government as “metering.” The Trump administration seeks to maintain flexibility while intensifying its immigration enforcement efforts.

U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer stated that the Constitution assigns authority to regulate the border to the political branches rather than the judiciary. He argued that the lower court decision improperly undermines Congress’s authority to establish asylum policy and encroaches upon the executive branch’s authority to regulate the nation’s borders.

The nonprofit immigrant rights organization Al Otro Lado, along with 13 asylum seekers who initiated the lawsuit in 2017, expressed support for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. They argued that the government’s turnback policy was an unlawful strategy to evade obligations by physically obstructing asylum seekers at ports of entry.

Sauer stated that according to the rationale of the lower court decision, Customs and Border Patrol was prohibited from obstructing the entry of an individual who arrived at the border without a prior appointment. An alien could assert arrival in the United States, necessitating inspection and processing of an asylum application.

The asylum seekers contested the government’s petition, asserting that the appellate court’s decision pertained solely to a specific group of migrants. Kelsi Brown Corkran, an attorney with the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, stated that while the current administration’s border policies are subject to impending legal challenges, none of the plaintiffs’ assertions hinge on the issue raised by the petition.

The Justice Department refrained from commenting on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider its appeal. The White House directed inquiries regarding the reinstatement of the metering policy to the Department of Homeland Security.

The Immigration and Nationality Act stipulates that individuals in the United States, irrespective of their location, have the right to apply for asylum if they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country.

Other posts