Senate Dems Use ‘Jim Crow’ Filibuster Fourth Time To Block Major Bipartisan Bill
'A vote against commonsense'
Four Republican senators have taken an unexpected but welcome stand for American energy independence. They sent a letter to Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) urging him to protect the investment tax credit, a key program that helps American families install rooftop solar panels and battery storage systems. They join 21 House Republicans who signed a similar letter defending energy freedom for U.S. homeowners.
As a lifelong conservative, I’m glad to see it. The ITC isn’t a government handout. It’s a tax credit that helps homeowners cover the up-front cost of installing solar panels and battery backups. It empowers Americans to generate their own power, lower their energy bills, and reduce reliance on bloated utilities. Since its creation nearly two decades ago, every president — Democrat and Republican, including Donald Trump — has supported it.
The investment tax credit puts power — literally and figuratively — back in the hands of individuals while reducing America’s dependence on foreign energy.
But some in Congress want to kill the ITC. That would be a costly mistake, especially as tariffs and other pressures push prices higher. Eliminating the ITC would put rooftop solar and home batteries out of reach for most families.
Without these tools, more Americans will remain tied to an aging, overburdened electric grid — just as demand surges and threats like wildfires, blackouts, and cyberattacks multiply. It would also expose families to the unchecked rate hikes of monopoly utilities and weaken a policy that has fueled job growth in red states like Texas and Florida, where home solar is booming.
The conservative case for the ITC is straightforward. Conservatives believe the tax code should reward behavior that strengthens the country — buying a home, raising a family, investing in a small business. Generating your own electricity during a grid failure should be no different.
During blackouts in Texas, wildfires in California, and hurricanes in Florida, families with solar and batteries kept the lights on when it mattered most. They didn’t wait on utility companies or FEMA. They had peace of mind because they had power.
And as we saw after Hurricane Milton, it’s often conservative, Trump-voting communities that land last on the disaster recovery list.
Monopoly utilities, backed by state regulators, have no incentive to treat customers fairly. At best, they see us as ATM machines. Last year, Pacific Gas and Electric hiked rates, tacked on new fees, and raked in $2.2 billion in profits. Millions of Californians have no choice but to pay up — unless they generate their own power.
Backing the ITC isn’t a betrayal of conservative values. It’s a reaffirmation of them. It puts power — literally and figuratively — back in the hands of individuals while reducing America’s dependence on foreign energy.
I applaud the Republicans in Congress who have taken a stand for the ITC. More should join them. Because defending the ITC isn’t just good policy.
It’s good for America.
If Republicans keep squandering opportunities like budget reconciliation and other must-pass bills, they still have one more tool to cut spending without facing a Senate filibuster: the rescissions process.
To make it work, though, Trump must wield his influence more effectively. He needs to pressure establishment Republicans to support spending cuts with the same intensity he uses to push Freedom Caucus members into backing bloated budgets and debt-ceiling hikes.
If the rescissions process is going to matter, Trump must treat it like a weapon — not a bargaining chip.
Under sections 1012 and 1017 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the president may submit a request to Congress to rescind budget authority from specific accounts he deems unnecessary. That request triggers expedited consideration in Congress, with debate protected from filibuster once the proposal hits the calendar.
In the meantime, the president can freeze spending in the targeted account for up to 45 days while Congress considers the request.
Administration officials have begun dangling the rescissions process in front of conservatives as a consolation prize — hoping to win support for bloated budget bills, a record debt-ceiling hike, and a likely toothless reconciliation package. Their pitch: Whatever passes now can be clawed back later through presidential rescission requests, coordinated with House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), and without Democratic input.
On paper, the strategy has logic. Trump wants to avoid shutdowns and default drama but believes he can trim spending quietly on the back end. The problem? The same GOP establishment that resists spending cuts during appropriations will still stand in the way after the fact — unless Trump finally targets the left flank of his own party instead of the right.
In early May, the House plans to vote on the Trump administration’s first rescissions package — $9.3 billion in cuts, mostly from foreign aid and defunding NPR and PBS. That’s a good start. It should be applauded.
But let’s be honest: $9.3 billion is pocket change compared to what Congress plans to spend. The upcoming budget reconciliation bill could add $5 trillion in new debt. Even defense spending alone is set to grow by more than $150 billion.
If the rescissions process is going to matter, Trump must treat it like a weapon — not a bargaining chip. And he must finally pressure the real problem in Washington: Republicans who talk like conservatives but vote like Democrats.
Unless Trump applies real pressure on Republican holdouts — especially in the Senate — most of the rescissions package will stall. Cutting NPR and PBS may be a layup, but $8 billion of the proposed cuts target USAID and other foreign aid programs. Those enjoy bipartisan backing, including from Republicans like Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker of Mississippi.
We’ve seen this dumb movie before. In 2018, Trump sent Congress a $15 billion rescissions package. Nineteen House Republicans defected, but the bill passed 210-206 thanks to a larger GOP majority. The Senate, however, killed it — 48-50 — after just two GOP defections.
Trump tweeted about the bill two days before the House vote. But nowhere in the public record did he threaten consequences for Republican dissenters. He never punished the defectors, and he quickly abandoned the rescissions strategy. Debt piled up for the rest of his term. The moment passed. History rolled on.
This time must be different.
Trump must match the pressure he puts on conservatives — urging them to swallow bad front-end budget deals — with equal, if not greater, pressure on Republican incumbents who oppose back-end spending cuts. No more free passes.
He should submit a rescissions package targeting climate slush funds and dare any Republican to oppose it. Then name names. If they side with green energy programs over fiscal responsibility, they should face the threat of a primary challenger. No exceptions.
If Trump refuses to campaign forcefully for his own priorities, the rescissions process will yield nothing more than symbolic cuts — token reductions that don’t even come close to offsetting the deficit spending he’s already signed off on.
Take the current request. It proposes clawbacks like $6 million for energy-efficiency programs in Mexico, $4 million for migrants in Colombia, $4 million for legume systems research, $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, nearly $1.2 million for LGBTQ initiatives, and $1 million for a voter ID program in Haiti.
Sure, Republicans will hold press conferences, wave these absurd line items in front of cameras, and vote to rescind them. But let’s not kid ourselves: Shaving a few million dollars from programs no one knew existed doesn’t even approach the scale of the problem.
When Congress passes trillion-dollar deficits and then touts million-dollar cuts, it’s not leadership. It’s performance.
And the country can’t afford another act.
Former Republican Rep. Mike Rogers (Mich.) announced Monday that he will once again be running for a Michigan U.S. Senate seat, this time to replace retiring Democrat Sen. Gary Peters in 2026.
Rogers was previously the Republican nominee in the 2024 race to replace now-retired Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. Although Republicans managed to flip four Senate seats in the 2024 election cycle, Rogers narrowly lost to his Democratic challenger, now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin.
Similar to Rogers' first Senate bid, the Michigan race is expected to be one of the most contested. As of now, Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow is the only Democratic candidate in the running. Notably, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg clarified that he would not be running to replace Peters.
'Michigan is a battleground state, and with Mike as our candidate, I know we will add his seat to president Trump's Senate majority in 2026.'
"President Trump needs strong allies in the Senate to help him deliver on the mandate given by the American people," Rogers said. "That means bringing manufacturing jobs back to Michigan, protecting seniors’ Social Security, lowering the costs of gas, groceries, and prescription drugs, and setting our kids up for success by improving the quality of their education. Michigan, let’s get to work."
Although Democrats have had a steady winning streak in Michigan's Senate seats in past cycles, the swing state's mixed electorate makes for another pickup opportunity that Republicans have set their sights on. Rogers has also maintained support from senior Republican senators, strengthening his bid for the seat.
"Michigan is a battleground state, and with Mike as our candidate, I know we will add his seat to president Trump's Senate majority in 2026," NRSC Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) said in a statement.
"Mike Rogers is the conservative leader that Michigan needs in the U.S. Senate," Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said in a statement. "As an Army veteran and former special agent, Mike understands the importance of putting service before self. We need him in the U.S. Senate to help achieve President Trump's America First agenda and to bring manufacturing and good-paying jobs back to Michigan."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
The House narrowly passed the Senate's budget blueprint on Thursday, notching another win for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
The vote was initially set to take place Wednesday night but was later postponed by Johnson after it became clear there wasn't enough support from fiscal conservatives to pass the budget. Ultimately, the blueprint passed in a 216-214 vote, with Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Victoria Spartz of Indiana voting against it.
"If you were trying to hasten financial collapse of our country and bribe voters to go along with it, the strategy wouldn’t look much different than what Congress is doing today," Massie said. "The big beautiful bill cuts taxes while keeping spending on an increasingly unsustainable trajectory."
The House and Senate have already passed their own blueprints that included $1.5 trillion and $4 billion in cuts, respectively. With the House taking up the Senate's budget proposal, lawmakers have had difficulty reconciling the vast spending gap.
'Our ambition in the Senate is we are aligned in the House in terms of savings. We're certainly gonna do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible.'
Despite the backing of President Donald Trump's administration, fiscal conservatives disapproved of the Senate's budget, arguing that the proposed $4 billion in cuts are just a drop in the bucket in addressing the national debt. On the Senate side, lawmakers are insisting that their blueprint will give them enough wiggle room and that they are ultimately aiming to implement more aggressive cuts beyond their $4 billion target.
If the House's ambitious blueprint with $1.5 trillion in cuts were passed, committees would likely be unable to meet the required cuts, which would kill the reconciliation process altogether. Simply put, the Senate doesn't have the same appetite for cuts that the House Freedom Caucus and other fiscal conservatives do.
Nevertheless, some holdouts warmed up to the budget blueprint after Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) held a joint press conference with Johnson Thursday morning.
"Our ambition in the Senate is we are aligned in the House in terms of savings," Thune said. "We're certainly gonna do everything we can to be as aggressive as possible.”
"[This is] the first time publicly, the Senate leader has come out and actually said that we’re in the same ballpark with the House and Senate reductions," House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) said Thursday. "Obviously we were happy with the House spending reduction because we all voted for it, so I think that’s a step in a positive direction.”
Other Republicans like Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana, who were initially undecided, came around to supporting the budget after meeting with Johnson.
"I voted to pass the Trump-endorsed budget resolution before the House today so Congress can unlock the reconciliation process, which will grow the economy, increase American energy production, secure our border, and decrease spending to the same levels that House Republicans passed six weeks ago," Stutzman told Blaze News. "It is time American citizens and fixing our national debt take priority over wasteful, unnecessary spending.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!