What Washington actually did this week
The latest from all three branches, in plain English.
Good morning, everyone! Congrats on making it to the end of the week.
This morning, I’m reviving an old Wake Up To Politics Friday tradition, letting you in on the biggest secret of all: what your government is actually getting done.
As always, one goal of this feature is to highlight instances of bipartisanship, which are often not as rare as people think, even in our highly polarized times. Of course, that might not have been clear if you were one of the 36.6 million Americans who tuned into President Donald Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress.
By my count, the president name-checked three specific pieces of legislation in his speech:
The CHIPS and Science Act, a Biden-era effort to boost domestic manufacturing of semiconductors (the chips that power every electronic device but are made predominantly in Asia), which passed the House, 243-187, and the Senate, 64-33, in 2022.
The Laken Riley Act, a bill requiring officials to detain undocumented migrants who have been arrested for burglary and theft, which passed the House, 263-156, and the Senate, 64-35, in January.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, a bill to criminalize the non-consensual publication of nude photos (including AI-generated images) on social media, which passed the Senate unanimously last month.
You might have noticed that all three of those roll call votes were pretty lopsided: each of the bills passed with significant bipartisan support. Not that you would have known that if you were watching Tuesday night. The first bill Trump only mentioned to call it a “horrible, horrible thing” that Congress should “get rid” of; I watched from the press gallery as Republican lawmakers applauded, even ones who had supported the measure.
And when Trump mentioned the other two, Democrats stayed planted in their seats, refusing to grant a standing ovation even to bills they supported as recently as this year.
This is one of the ways that polarized rituals like the State of the Union address mask the cooperation that often takes place, under the radar, in Washington. It’s one of the only annual political events that tens of millions of Americans watch — and even when the president mentioned truly bipartisan efforts, both Democrats and Republicans were afraid to admit that they’d supported them. And then members of Congress wonder why Americans have such a low opinion of their institution.
Here at Wake Up To Politics, I’m committed to doing what lawmakers — for various political reasons — won’t do themselves: publicizing the bills marching through the legislative process, even (especially!) when their broad-based support means no one has a partisan interest in promoting them.
And with that, let’s start our overview of the week in Washington right there, under the Capitol dome:
Congress
This week, the House approved 13 pieces of legislation. The Senate approved 6 pieces of legislation. What you should know:
* Under the Congressional Review Act of 1996, if Congress acts within 60 legislative days of when an executive branch regulation is finalized, then it can fast-track the repeal of the regulation without being subject to the Senate filibuster.
This week, the House voted to overturn Biden-era rules providing labels to appliances that are energy efficient (seven Democrats crossed the aisle); requiring oil and gas companies to submit an archeological report before engaging in most offshore drilling (nine Democrats voted for repeal and one Republican voted against); and implementing emission standards for tire manufacturing (seven Democrats voted for repeal and one Republican voted against).
The Senate voted to overturn Biden-era rules requiring wallet apps like Apple Pay and Google Pay to be regulated more like big banks (Republican Sen. Josh Hawley crossed the aisle to oppose repeal) and increasing tax reporting for crypto brokers (19 Democrats backed repeal, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer).
* The House unanimously passed a bill to give employers increased flexibility to offer health insurance plans that cover chronic diseases like heart disease, cancer, or diabetes, which 60% of Americans live with.
* Another bill passed unanimously by the House would require the Postal Service to start tracking and reporting traffic crashes involving its employees and contractors. (The Wall Street Journal has reported that safety rules “meant to guard against fatigue by limiting how many hours truckers can drive” are frequently ignored by Postal Service contractors. The Journal cobbled together police reports to find that these postal contractors have been involved in crashes killing at least 79 people since 2020.)
* The Senate unanimously passed a bill reauthorizing the Coast Guard for two years, including provisions that would boost efforts to find drug traffickers and establish a confidential reporting process for sexual harassment in the Coast Guard’s ranks.
* The Senate advanced the HALT Fentanyl Act, which would designate fentanyl-related substances as Schedule I drugs, the most highly regulated category under the Controlled Substances Act of 1971. The vote was 82-12, with 31 Democrats and all Republicans in support.
* The House voted 224-198 to censure Rep. Al Green for interrupting President Trump during his address to a joint session of Congress. 10 Democrats joined all Republicans in voting for the measure. Green was the 28th lawmaker to be censured in House history; as per tradition, he was required to present himself to the well of the House as the censure resolution was read aloud. (He and other Democrats sang “We Shall Overcome” as he did so.)
White House
Prent Trump signed 10 executive orders this week. What you should know:
* Trump signed orders pausing the 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico for any products that are covered by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a free trade deal inked during Trump’s first term. According to the White House, that will suspend the tariffs for at least 50% of imports from Mexico and 36% of imports from Canada (although more will likely be included). Most automative parts are covered under the USMCA.
The order does not formally provide a date when the pause will end, although Trump has said it will last one month. Trump also signed orders keeping the de minimis exemption — which allows products valued under $800 to enter the U.S. duty-free — in place for Canada and Mexico until the Commerce Secretary deems otherwise. (Trump’s original tariff orders would have ended the exemption.)
* Trump signed an order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a United States Digital Asset Stockpile ahead of a White House Crypto Summit set to be held today. Without Congress, Trump is limited in what he can do in this regard, which means the strategic reserve will be made up of Bitcoin that the government has seized as part of legal proceedings. (Currently, U.S. policy is to sell the coins. The government is believed to hold around $17 billion in Bitcoin.) The stockpile will similarly be made up of other non-Bitcoin cryptocurrencies seized by the government.
The order also directs the Treasury and Commerce Secretaries to “develop strategies” for acquiring additional Bitcoin, although it makes clear that the strategies should be “budget neutral” and not impose any costs on taxpayers.
* Another order designated English as the official language of the United States. The move was largely symbolic: it formally revoked a Clinton-era executive order requiring agencies to provide assistance to non-English speakers, but it also makes clear that “nothing in this order…requires or directs any change in the services provided by any agency.”
* Trump also signed an order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie by suspending security clearances held by the firm’s lawyers, and “to the extent permitted by law,” terminate contracts with the firm, refrain from hiring its employees, and limit their access to federal buildings “when such access would threaten” national security. The order also directs the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to review whether “large, influential, or industry leading law firms” are violating discrimination law; it does not explicitly call for an investigation of Perkins Coie, but the order makes clear the president’s opinion that “Perkins Coie racially discriminates against its own attorneys and staff, and against applicants.”
The order cites Perkins Coie’s role in bringing the so-called “Steele dossier” to light, as well as its work with “activist donors including George Soros.”
* Finally, as promised during his speech to Congress, Trump named a National Wildlife Refuge in Texas after Jocelyn Nungaray, a 12-year-old who was killed by undocumented migrants.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court released two opinions and several orders. What you should know:
* The justices struck down a pair of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) water pollution regulations, in a ruling that split along ideological lines — except for Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the liberal justices in dissent. “The case was notable because it created unusual alliances,” the New York Times points out. “Liberal San Francisco found itself on the same side as mining and petroleum trade groups like the National Mining Association, American Farm Bureau Federation, and American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers in opposing the EPA.”
* In a 7-2 decision, the justices ruled against two veterans who were challenging their denial of benefits related to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
* Finally, the court ruled 5-4 against immediately allowing the Trump administration to freeze foreign aid, keeping in place a district court judge’s order blocking the freeze. Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberals in voting against the administration.
Great update, thank you!
Also must add, as a law nerd, this kind of "observation" really grinds my gears: '“The case was notable because it created unusual alliances,” the New York Times points out.' Of course it's true that there are real ideological divisions in the Supreme Court. But it's a gross oversimplification to assume those divisions will always overtly apply to the decision of any given case, or that ideology necessarily drives legal analysis toward one result or the other. This particular case is a great example. (And, side note, it's downright laughable that any justice would feel personally beholden to side with the president who appointed them. The justices generally have an excellent grasp of separation of powers, and they know that their tenure will outlast the president as long as they are in good health and choose to stick around. You might be able to court favor with a justice, *cough Thomas cough*, but they're damn hard to bully.)
I greatly appreciate these updates simply because beneath all the shouting softer, adult voices are getting things done.