[MUSIC PLAYING]
Senators voted all night on immigration enforcement. They passed the bill after 18 hours of voting, but voted not to block the president's agreement with himself for a $1.8 billion fund. What happened to Republican objections?
I am Michelle Martin, that Steven Schief and this is up first from NPR News. [MUSIC PLAYING] How much distance is really opening between the president and lawmakers in his party?
A few Republicans are breaking with Trump over the war in Iran is anti-weaponization fund and has picked to lead national intelligence. Also, what are the terms of a plea agreement for John Bolton? The president's former national security adviser and longtime critic
admits to charges of mishandling classified information. How does his case differ from others against the president's enemies? Stay with us.
“We've got the news you need to start your day.”
[MUSIC PLAYING] News shows, new music, new movies, keeping up with pop culture sometimes feels like a full-time job. Thankfully, over at pop culture happy-hour, it's literally our job.
We break down what's actually worth watching, listening to, and pretending you already knew about. So the next time someone says, did you see that? You can say, yeah, obviously. Follow NPR's pop culture happy-hour wherever you get your podcasts.
The Senate has passed a bill overnight that funds immigration enforcement. It took them 18 hours. It was almost a party line vote, just one Republican opposed lawmakers failed to approve amendments
blocking President Trump's agreement with himself
to establish a $1.8 billion fund.
Democrats were outraged by the agreement. Many Republicans said they were, too. But most put it to block amendments that would displease the president. NPR congressional correspondent Barbara Sprunt
has been up just about all night, Barbara, good morning. Hey, good morning, Steve.
“OK, I want to talk about the amendments Michelle mentioned.”
But what is the underlying bill that just passed? Right. So if we cast back to earlier this year, Senate Democrats blocked funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Over concerns about the way it was conducting immigration enforcement, specifically after federal agents killed two protesters in Minneapolis. Eventually, at the end of April, after a long shut down, Congress funded the department, everything
except immigration enforcement. And Republicans decided to use a budget tool called reconciliation in order to fund that, to fund ice, to fund border patrol in a separate bill. And this is that bill.
It would fund those agencies for three years. Three years for the rest of Trump's presidency, Congress wouldn't have to vote in it again. This is a thing the president really wanted. And Democrats took the opportunity to offer amendments
to that. What happened? That's right. Well, you know, it's interesting. I mean, in this voter-roma scenario,
both parties can offer amendments get the other party on the record on various things. And the thing that was most interesting to me where these amendments, where there was crossover support. There was some Republican support for an amendment
to restrict funding for President Trump's ballroom. Another one of his big projects, for example. But the subject that came up again and again was the Trump administration's earlier proposal
to create that nearly $2 billion settlement fund
you were mentioning, to pay out supporters who say they've been persecuted by the government. There was a proposal from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to prevent that creation altogether. It failed, but three Republicans,
including senators and tough races in Ohio and Alaska voted with Democrats. Another proposal would have redirected the money from that fund to fraud enforcement. That had more Republican support.
And Republicans writ large voted against an amendment that would prohibit payouts from any weaponization fund to people convicted of assaulting law enforcement on January 6th. Eight Republicans did join Democrats in voting for it.
OK, all those amendments failed, the bill did pass. Why did it get to be so difficult? You know, in large part, because of the White House, there was bipartisan pushback at that anti-weaponization fund.
The acting attorney general said it's not going to move forward, which seemed to satisfy senators. But then the president told reporters, he didn't actually know if it was scrapped or not. And he said that knowing that there
are these Republican senators who are uncomfortable with the idea. So this moment for congressional Republicans is about passing this priority after all this time. But it's also a moment where there's
this increasing tension in conflict with the White House. And I don't think that's stopping anytime soon. All those seems that the tension is resolved again and again with Republicans just obeying. I just want to note, Barbara, back on Monday,
our own Eric McDaniel told us that as many as 30 Senate Republicans were ready to vote against Trump's fund. And then we get to actually voting. And one amendment had just three Republicans voting for it, leaving it shy of passing.
There were other amendments that never had quite enough votes
to pass our Republicans still trying very hard not to cross the president, even on this fund that they really didn't like.
“- You know, I think there's at least a handful”
of Republican senators this morning asking themselves
That same question, Steve.
You know, some of those GOP amendments that were crafted
were made in a way to be as attractive
“as they could beat to the full Republican conference.”
And as you said, we saw them fail to meet the threshold time and time again. - And here's Barbara Sprunk, thanks. - Thank you. - The Congressional Republicans who challenged
the president's agenda this week broke with tradition. - Most Republican lawmakers said little and military intervention in Venezuela and Iran, troops in American cities, sweeping immigration crackdowns, the dismantling of agencies
and the consolidation of power in the executive office. Now, there are small signs of pushback against the president who's been the dominant force in the Republican party for a decade. - And PR's Frank Ordonius is covering this.
Frank, oh, good morning. - Good morning, Steve. I want to emphasize small signs of pushback, but what's happening? - Yeah, a few examples.
I mean, for the last couple of days, where Trump may have pushed the envelope a little bit too far. I mean, one was when Trump tapped a housing agency official bill, Pulti, who has no experience in intelligence being tapped to be the acting director of national intelligence
a position charged with coordinating more than a dozen intelligence agencies. I mean, Pulti is better known for going after Trump's political enemies. I mean, one senator, Tom Tillis, of North Carolina,
called him in senior attack dog on CNBC. Trump also announced that he'd like to nominate his former personal attorney, Todd Blanch, as attorney general. It was Blanch, you champion that very unpopular anti-weaponization
fund that you were just talking about with Barbara. I mean, critics called it a slush fund for Trump supporters who felt victimized by the government, including those convicted of January six crimes on top of several Republicans who walked at the fund
in the Senate. I mean, just one more example, Steve, in the House for Republicans joined with Democrats to review Trump over the war in our own. - Yeah, and that's a rare one where enough Republicans
actually voted for something that would pass. Why are some Republicans finding their voices? - Well, I mean, it comes down to politics in a bit of the calendar.
I mean, Trump was obviously never really a consensus builder.
He always led through fear of retribution. And his ability to kind of unify these swaths of the Republican party as well as bringing into the fold, new voters was a reason he won in 2016 in 2024. But we're in a definitely different period right now,
even from just two years ago, much of that is due to the war in Iran that Trump initiated. And polls show Americans, including some Republicans, are souring on the president's leadership, particularly the economy.
I mean, gas prices as we've reported have risen to more than $4 a gallon. And that's making everything more expensive. - Just as the midterms are coming. - Yeah, exactly.
And all this plays into the midterms. I was talking with John McHenry, a veteran Republican strategist. He told me it's normal to accept a little distance from the president at this point after the primers.
- Part of what's going on, though, is that we are largely through the primaries where the president can do the most damage to people who cross them within his own party
“and moving onto the general where I think”
some people either feel a little bit more vulnerable or feel like they need to, you know, any year that doesn't look great for Republicans right now, want to establish their own records. - Is the president a lame duck then?
- Well, I mean, I think that's a little bit early to say. I mean, he's come back so many times before, after the 2020 election, after the January 6 riots. And frankly, Steve, a lot could change in the next few months, especially if the war in Iran ends
and gas prices go down. I mean, Trump could be looking better politically if the economy proves. - And if you're a Frank Hordon, yes, thanks so much. - Thank you, Steve.
(upbeat music) - John Bolton, agreed to plead guilty. - Bolton, when served as President Trump's National Security Advisor, he later became a tough critic of the president.
It's plea for Ms. Handling classified information when resolved the criminal case that Justice Department brought against Bolton last year. - And Pierre Justice correspondent Ryan Lucas has the unclassified version of this story.
He's in our studio studio 31, Ryan, thanks for coming by. - Good morning, Steve. - What were the charges against Bolton? - So, like Bolton was indicted in October on 18 criminal counts for retention and transmission
of national defense information. In the allegations in the indictment date to his time as National Security Advisor,
as you said in Trump's first term.
Now, prosecutors say that Bolton regularly took handwritten notes about what he was doing on a daily basis as National Security Advisor. So things that he was hearing in meetings with US intelligence officials, military officials,
and talks with foreign leaders. And then he would send that very sensitive information, some of it highly classified to two family members, either in text messages or in email. And I will also say that FBI agents discovered digital
or printed copies of some of that at his home. - Okay, so lots of evidence to back up the allegations. What is the agreement then?
“- So, first off, it's important to say that this is”
a tentative plea deal. It still have to be signed off on by a judge. But a person familiar with the matter tells me that under the plea deal, Bolton would plead guilty
To a single count of retaining classified information.
He would also face a line of a little more than $2 million.
And he could face anywhere from zero prison time to up to five years in prison. But that is much, much less than if he had taken this case to trial and been found guilty. Now, a judge, as I said, has to still approve any plea deal
and ultimately it's the judge who's going to decide on Bolton's sentence. Now, he reached out to the Justice Department, it declined to comment other than referring me to a court notice scheduling a rearrangement for Bolton
at the end of the month. And that is something that often signals that a plea deal has been agreed to.
“- People will remember the backstory here.”
The FBI searched President Trump's residence when he was out of office a few years ago. He was found to be keeping classified information on a stage, you know, bathroom. The case against him was thrown out by a judge
that he appointed. Now, is there some irony that Trump's justice department that he closely controls would pursue Bolton over classified information? - Well, look, Bolton has said that he thinks
that he is being targeted for political reasons for being a very outspoken critic of President Trump. That is, that is Bolton's view. But look, former prosecutors, former senior intelligence officials, who I have spoken with,
think that this case against Bolton has real legal merit.
“The investigation, it's important to say began”
under the Biden administration, it's continued under Trump. The indictment is 26 pages long. It has detailed allegations in it. And it's important to say that the process that lead to Bolton's indictment was normal.
And that is very different from, say,
the first prosecution of former FBI director James Komey
or New York State Attorney General Littisha James. Remember, they were indicted last year after Trump publicly called on the Justice Department to go after them. - Right.
- Career prosecutors thought those cases were weak. They were overruled.
“And ultimately, those cases were tossed after court”
from that prosecutor who secured them was unlawfully put in place. So the list of the President's perceived enemies who have been targeted by the Justice Department is long. And one of the side effects of the Justice Department
that has seen his targeting political enemies is that even when investigation is legitimate, it can be perceived by the public as being driven by politics and revenge. - Ryan, thanks for the insights
and for going through the differences that I really appreciate. - Thank you. - And Perez Ryan Lucas. (upbeat music)
- And that's a first for this Friday, June 5th.
I'm Steve Innski. - And I'm Michelle Martin. Today's episode of First was edited by Kelsey Snell, Rebecca. - Much luck on it. You can not off.
Mohamed Elbar DC and Taylor Haney. It was produced by Ziac Butch and the Adhumas. Our director's Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Zovangin Hogan. Our technical director is Carly Strange.
And our executive producer is Jay Shayler. We hope we'll join us again on Monday. (upbeat music) (upbeat music)
