The bill allocates $75 billion to ICE and border operations, $45 billion to detain immigrants (including minors), and $69 billion for border wall construction. The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly approved President Trump’s controversial $1.3 trillion fiscal package, with a 218-214 vote after intense overnight negotiations. The bill redistributes wealth toward billionaires while cutting food aid for 5 million vulnerable Americans and stripping healthcare from 12 million.

House Speaker Mike Johnson faced a Republican rebellion, led by the conservative Freedom Caucus, which demanded guarantees on future amendments. A procedural vote was extended for hours as leaders negotiated with holdouts. Trump personally intervened, holding urgent meetings with dissenting lawmakers.

Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries staged a historic 8-hour, 44-minute filibuster to protest the bill, setting a new House record. Despite his efforts, the legislation passed, marking a key political victory for Trump ahead of his self-imposed July 4 deadline.

The bill makes Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent and adds new breaks, eliminating taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits. However, it slashes food assistance for nearly 5 million people and reduces elder care services, disproportionately impacting low-income families.

Medicaid reforms impose work requirements and cut federal cost-sharing, projected to leave 12 million uninsured over the next decade. Meanwhile, the plan adds $3.25 trillion to the national debt while granting $1.3 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires.

It allocates $75 billion to ICE and border operations, $45 billion to detain immigrants (including minors), and $69 billion for border wall construction. The bill also eases regulations on firearm silencers, drawing criticism from public safety advocates.

A temporary raise of the state/local tax deduction cap to $40,000 (reverting to $10,000 after five years) was included, along with a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. Johnson hinted at a second reconciliation package later in 2025, signaling a broader fiscal strategy.

Only two Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the bill. Trump plans to sign it by July 4, enacting one of the most polarizing fiscal overhauls in recent U.S. history. The White House claims deficit reduction, but critics dismiss these projections as unfounded.

Former US President Joe Biden denounces Donald Trump’s newly approved tax bill, criticizing its massive giveaways to the wealthy and devastating cuts to essential social programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and food assistance.

Former President Joe Biden sharply criticized the recent approval of Donald Trump’s flagship tax legislation, calling it “reckless and cruel” for delivering enormous tax breaks to billionaires while slashing vital programs that support working-class and vulnerable Americans. Biden’s condemnation echoes widespread left-wing outrage across the Americas, where progressive voices warn that the bill deepens inequality and threatens the social safety net.

At the heart of the controversy is the bill’s massive tax giveaway to the richest Americans. Analyses from left-leaning policy groups show that while all income brackets receive some tax relief, approximately 60% of the benefits flow to the top 20% of earners, with the wealthiest gaining tens of thousands of dollars annually. Meanwhile, low-income households see only minimal tax cuts, and many will actually lose ground once cuts to social programs are factored in.

The bill enacts deep cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs like SNAP, which millions of low-income families, seniors, and veterans depend on. According to the Congressional Budget Office, these reductions could result in millions fewer Americans having health insurance and receiving food aid. The legislation also threatens Medicare by proposing spending caps that could lead to significant cuts in the near future.

Furthermore, the bill includes increased spending on defense and border enforcement, including billions for expanding the border wall and hiring additional immigration agents, reflecting a hardline immigration stance that many progressives vehemently oppose.

Economic and Social Consequences: Rising Debt and Costs for the Majority

The Congressional Budget Office warns that the bill will add over $3 trillion to the national debt in the coming decade, exacerbating an already precarious fiscal situation. This growing debt burden is expected to drive up interest rates, making everyday expenses like mortgages, car loans, and credit card payments more expensive for average Americans.

Critics also highlight that the bill’s tax policies disproportionately favor states with low or no state income tax, such as Texas and Wyoming, while imposing caps on state and local tax deductions (SALT) that hurt residents of higher-tax states. This uneven treatment further entrenches regional and economic inequalities.

Prominent left-wing figures and organizations across Latin America and the US have denounced the bill. Democratic leaders like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries staged historic, marathon speeches to oppose the legislation, framing it as an attack on “children, seniors, veterans, unions, farmers, Dreamers, the working class, and the poor.”

Elon Musk, once a Trump ally, has also criticized the bill for its regressive tax cuts and for eliminating incentives for clean energy, calling it “political suicide” for Republicans.

The “Big and Beautiful” tax bill represents a stark choice between the interests of the ultra-wealthy and the needs of working people. As Biden and progressive voices warn, the legislation’s combination of massive tax breaks for billionaires, cuts to essential social programs, and increased militarization of the border threatens to deepen social inequality and undermine the fragile economic security of millions of Americans. The fight against this bill is part of a broader struggle for social justice and economic democracy in the Americas.

The BBC has announced that it will no longer broadcast or livestream performances deemed ‘high risk’. The British public broadcaster faced backlash after airing a set by punk-rap duo Bob Vylan at the Glastonbury Festival, during which the group chanted against the Israeli military.

The group’s lead vocalist encouraged the crowd to chant “Death, death to the IDF” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine must be, will be, inshallah, it will be free” during the performance last weekend. Videos circulating on social media show the crowd echoing the chants, with some waving Palestinian flags.

“We deeply regret that such offensive and deplorable behaviour appeared on the BBC and want to apologise to our viewers, listeners, and in particular the Jewish community,” the broadcaster said in a statement released on Thursday.

The BBC noted that the band was classified as ‘high risk’ ahead of the festival, along with six other acts, but was still permitted to perform with “appropriate mitigations.” The company admitted to “errors” in the compliance processes and confirmed that Bob Vylan’s set has been permanently removed from BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds.

The outlet pledged to provide on-site editorial policy support at major music festivals and events moving forward. It also announced plans to issue clearer guidance on the criteria for withdrawing a livestream.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he ordered the recall of John T. McNamara, the acting ambassador in Bogotá, on Thursday “following baseless and reprehensible statements from senior Colombian government officials.” The State Department also called Colombia an “essential strategic partner” but said it would pursue “other measures to make clear our deep concern over the current state of our bilateral relationship.”

In response, Petro said he would call back Ambassador Daniel García-Peña from Washington in order to “brief us on the progress of the bilateral agenda to which I committed myself from the beginning of my government.”

Although Rubio did not elaborate on the alleged “reprehensible” statements, Colombian newspaper El Tiempo on Thursday published a letter allegedly sent to the U.S. House Committee on Ethics calling for an investigation into House Republicans, including Florida lawmakers Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, Rep. María Elvira Salazar, and Rep. Carlos Antonio Gimenez. The letter was signed by 30 Colombian representatives.

In it, the congressmen expressed “deep concern” about the lawmakers’ conduct and said that “any unjustified interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country undermines” the principles of mutual respect between nations.

Representatives Díaz-Balart and Gimenez were mentioned alongside Trump advisors including Rubio in recordings leaked to the Spanish newspaper El País that purport to show Petro’s former Foreign Minister, Álvaro Leyva, seeking U.S. pressure to oust his old boss.

“I was in the United States with a top-tier figure: Mario Díaz-Balart. The Díaz-Balarts are the ones behind the Secretary of State,” Leyva allegedly told an unknown person in the recording. (Rep. Salazar was not mentioned in the recording but Colombian lawmakers accused her of making public comments aimed at delegitimizing Petro).

According to El País, the White House never considered Leyva’s proposal, and Díaz-Balart dismissed the claims, saying he meets with all kinds of groups including officials in Colombia’s current government. “I laugh at so many fabrications, nonsense, and hypocrisy. It reminds me of the saying ‘every fool with his own agenda’”, he said.

Gimenez sloughed off the accusations as a “media circus by Gustavo Petro and his henchmen” and said they shouldn’t complain if the U.S. denies later denies them visas.

Concrete evidence of an actual coup plot remains elusive and analysts see the rhetoric from Colombia’s government as problematic.

“The only proof that we have [of a coup plot] are Leyva’s recordings… We do not even have real evidence of this happening from Leyva associates, which is problematic because it is not clear if these individuals were actively conspiring, especially as many of them have strongly denied these allegations,” said Sergio Guzmán, director of Colombia Risk Analysis, a consultancy.

“The U.S. Congress doesn’t want to remain silent nor let this slide,” he added.

The recall of ambassadors is the most severe escalation yet in the tense relationship between Trump and Petro that has been brewing for months. Guzmán points to a number of factors deteriorating the relationship including Petro’s treatment of the opposition; lack of political protection for presidential candidates; Colombia joining the BRICS development bank, and rising coca cultivation which could lead to U.S. aid cuts to combat drug trafficking.

The analyst said that Petro’s impulsive foreign policy has made “Colombia increasingly isolated and less credible” with its ally the United States. His current Foreign Minister, Laura Sarabia, also announced her resignation on Thursday.

Senator Paola Holguín from the opposition Democratic Center party told the Miami Herald that Petro’s “repeated disrespectful statements, lack of commitment to fighting drug dealing and terrorism, and the alignment of our country with anti-democratic regimes and U.S. rivals are creating growing hardships” between the two countries.

Meanwhile, Petro’s supporters demand U.S. politicians respect Colombia’s sovereignty and its democratically elected president. “Calling him a narco-terrorist and drug addict is more than an insult; it’s also an unacceptable fallacy; it’s an affront to our nation and its sovereignty,” wrote Senator María José Pizarro Rodríguez of Petro’s Historic Pact for Colombia political party on X.

Colombia and the U.S. have built strong bonds over two centuries but the relationship has been strained in the past - namely over Cold War politics and the war on drugs. This latest diplomatic row, however, is disconcerting for those who study the relationship.

“We are very worried over the current state of the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Colombia,” said Holguín. “The U.S. has been our main commercial partner, a great ally in our fight against narcotrafficking and terrorism, and an important humanitarian supporter.”

Benjamin Gedan, Director of the Wilson Center’s Latin America Program, echoed the concerns, stating, “For decades, Colombia has been the most strategic U.S. partner in the region, so it is troubling to see yet another diplomatic crisis.”

The Army recently told Congress that 155mm production currently stands at 40,000/month. This is of course a decrease from the 50,000/m LaPlante stated last year.

We now have a likely explanation for why it fell. The new shell body production facility in Mesquite, TX is massively behind schedule. The first two of three production lines are still not fully completed, and the third is likely to miss its due date. The Army has formally notified General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems that their management of the facility is being reviewed for breach of contract. They have until July 10 to detail how they might be able to get things back on track.

As a result, the Army’s Load, Assemble and Pack capacity exceeds their ability to produce the metal parts of the projectiles. Previously there was a stockpile of shell bodies that were being drawn on by the LAP facilities, but those must have been exhausted, so projectile production has now fallen to 40,000 which is what the other metal parts plants can produce. Mesquite’s 3 lines are supposed to produce 10,000 shell bodies each.

Once again, the West’s mockery of the Russians for relying on old stockpiles is . It’s Cold War era stockpiles all the way down!

More details on the potential breach of contract: Army ‘considering terminating’ General Dynamics’ oversight of new 155mm production lines

… the service is now “considering terminating” the GD deals for all three UPLA lines, according to a June 13 letter from Army Contracting Command (ACC) to the company. “GD-OTS has failed to complete the projects on time or make meaningful progress towards meeting the required completion dates of design and installation of the three (3) UAPLs,” the Army wrote in the letter. … “Because GD-OTS has failed to meet significant milestones for UAPL 1, leading to six (6) missed First Article Test dates spanning April 2024 through June 2025, resultant schedule impacts have continued to extend [to] UAPL 2 and UAPL schedules,” the Army explained. “Specifically, for Line 3, since January 2025 alone GD-OTS’ estimate for equipment installation slipped three (3) months, thus extending total installation timeframe and subsequent line prove-out activities into 2027.”

Additionally, the service said that even after it was determined that Line 1 equipment did not meet “technical requirements of the contract,” the company continued shipping Line 3 equipment. As a result, there is a “significant risk” that similar Line 3 equipment will also not be up to snuff. Compounding the issue, on May 29 GD-OTS notified Army officials that it had halted work on UAPL 3 “on its own accord,” a decision taken without direction or concurrence from the service.

yeah that contract I signed up for? yeah I’m just not gonna do like a third of it man, I just don’t feel like doing it

“Because GD-OTS has failed to perform the UAPL Task Orders… within the timeframe required by the contractual terms, the USG is considering terminating” the deals but a final decision has not been made, the Army added. The letter does not go into detail about what other companies could be tapped to replace GD-OTS.