Lawmakers returned to their districts on Wednesday, earlier than anticipated. They were sent home by House Speaker Mike Johnson amid calls from the Democrats to vote on the Epstein files — which President Donald Trump reversed on his promise to release.

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my past supporters have bought into this [bullcrap], hook, line, and sinker,” Trump recently posted on Truth Social, referring to Democrats.

The push has marked an interesting alliance between Democrats and Trump supporters, who have long called for transparency in the case, concerned that a cover-up was protecting Epstein’s clients.

Republican leadership had to toggle between the issue that their conservative base championed and the president’s current decision.

Democrats insisted on releasing the files as Republican leadership tried to respond to the issue championed by their conservative base.

“We want full transparency,” Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, told CBS News on Wednesday. “We want everybody who is involved in any way with the Epstein evils — let’s call it what it was — to be brought to justice as quickly as possible.”

It’s also an ending to a session marked by some major victories for Republicans. Until they return in September, they’ll tout their wins from the session to their constituents back home, as Democrats continue their own messaging campaigns against the Republican agenda.

Though there weren’t many bills passed, the ones that were passed were largely partisan and focused on Trump’s priorities. House Republicans passed legislation on immigration. They jammed Democrats on government funding. And they finished the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” — Trump’s crowning legislative achievement.

Immigration

In the first vote of the new Congress, 48 Democrats joined every Republican to pass legislation on Trump’s foremost campaign promise: halting illegal immigration.

The Laken Riley Act passed the House in early January, before Trump even took office. While the bill’s namesake was a Republican rallying cry throughout Trump’s campaign, 11 more Democrats supported the measure than in 2024, when it was last considered.

The bill was named after Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student at Augusta University. She was murdered while jogging at the University of Georgia on Feb. 22, 2024. Her killer, Jose Ibarra, was a 26-year-old undocumented migrant from Venezuela. He entered the United States illegally during former President Joe Biden’s administration in September 2022.

Ibarra was later found guilty on all charges.

The legislation adds shoplifting, burglary, larceny, and theft to the list of charges that would require the detention and, potentially, the deportation of undocumented immigrants who commit such crimes. Before he killed Riley, Ibarra had been arrested for shoplifting but not detained.

After being amended by the Senate to include more severe crimes — assaulting a police officer or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury — the House passed the final version of the bill in late January. Some 46 Democrats supported it, including Rep. April McClain Delaney of Frederick County. Trump signed it into law on Jan. 29.

Immigration was also a focus of the Big, Beautiful Bill. It delivered $165 billion in border security funding to the Department of Homeland Security. That included $46.5 billion for the border wall; $14.4 billion for deportations; 6,000 new customs and border patrol agents; and 80,000 more beds for ICE detention facilities.

Taxes and cuts in One Big, Beautiful Bill

The One Big, Beautiful Bill took up most of Republicans’ legislative efforts during the first half of the year. It was the conservative version of the Inflation Reduction Act that became law during the Biden administration — a partisan, omnibus spending package that compiled the majority party’s policy priorities into a massive grab bag of legislation.

By using an opaque parliamentary process known as budget reconciliation, Republicans were able to pass the bill without negotiating with Democrats.

They did, however, debate amongst themselves. Moderates argued with conservatives for months over how much the bill would spend, which policies it would address, and which it would avoid. All the while, Trump and administration officials continued to apply pressure on congressional Republicans to complete the spending package before the July 4.

Ultimately, the final bill passed and became law after a group of conservatives — led by House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, an Eastern Shore Republican — negotiated a handshake agreement with the White House for future executive actions.

The bill cost $3.4 trillion. It approved $350 billion in border and defense spending, permanently extended the current tax rates while adding temporary tax breaks for overtime and tipped wages, and boosted the state and local deduction cap to $40,000. The tax portion made up the bulk of the costs.

It also cut over $1 trillion in Medicaid and SNAP funding by adding work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks. Roughly 246,000 Maryland residents are expected to lose their health care coverage by 2034.

Rescissions, crypto and Epstein

The last major pieces of the first stretch of Congress were a $9 billion rescissions package and new crypto laws to provide some structure for the growing industry.

The rescissions package was a bundle of programs, totaling $9.4 billion of congressionally appropriated funds that Trump didn’t want to spend. The package focused on clawing back funds from public broadcasting and foreign aid programs, including PEPFAR, an AIDS/HIV assistance program started under President George W. Bush.

It was another partisan process that ultimately passed along party lines after the PEPFAR provision, which cost $400 million, was removed. But even though they passed the rescission, many moderate Republicans expressed concern throughout the process.

Ultimately, the package passed the House on July 18 after a prolonged delay, dragging the vote past midnight. Two Republicans joined all Democrats in opposing the claw back.

The delay was an early sign of the impending chaos that beset House Republicans over the Epstein files in the past two weeks. Since January, Democratic members have been relegated to bystander status on Capitol Hill. That changed with the rise of the Epstein debacle, which began when they tried to pass votes on the documents while Republicans tried to pass the rescissions package.

The resistance flared up the next week when Republicans tried to pass the GENIUS Act, a bipartisan cryptocurrency bill that creates a regulatory framework for stable coins. Only two Maryland members supported it in the House: Reps. Johnny Olszewski, a Baltimore County Democrat, and McClain Delaney. It became law the next day.

Even as the House progressed with its crypto plans, Republicans’ Epstein files issue became a major problem. A committee hearing on July 17 escalated into a shouting match between a Republican and a Democrat, with both hurling insults and accusations that the other wasn’t serious about protecting underage victims.

Republican leadership faced a dilemma, unable to find a path that would appease Trump, their voter base, and their own members amid the growing clamor for transparency.

“I told leadership last week, ‘If there’s ever an opportunity … to do anything realistically with the Epstein stuff, a majority of the committee’s gonna vote for it,” House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, said earlier last week.

As a result, Johnson ended the week early.

It’s unlikely that the month-long recess will do much to dampen the calls for the documents’ release. The conservative base has demanded the files for years. Democrats are using it to hammer Republicans. And a bipartisan petition demanding the Justice Department release the files will likely require a vote in September.

Once lawmakers return, they’ll have under a month until funding for the federal government runs out. The House has so far made little progress on reaching agreements on the 12 appropriations bills. It sets up a potential omnibus bill that would continue funding at the current levels, known as a continuing resolution.

Democrats broadly opposed the current spending levels prior to the previous funding deadline in March. At least one Republican, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, has promised to oppose a continuing resolution.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.

“Our state has been the proud home of the Commanders for over 20 years, and Maryland offered the team the opportunity to maintain its home here,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen told The Baltimore Sun in a statement. “Ultimately the decision on where the Commanders play remains in their hands, and I’ll continue working to spur investment and opportunity in the surrounding Prince George’s community, regardless of what decision they make.”

Trump threatened over the weekend to block the team’s anticipated return to D.C. unless they revert their mascot to the Redskins.

“I may put a restriction on them that if they don’t change the name back to the original ‘Washington Redskins,’ and get rid of the ridiculous moniker, ‘Washington Commanders,’ I won’t make a deal with them to build a Stadium in Washington,” Trump posted Sunday on Truth Social. “The Team would be much more valuable, and the Deal would be more exciting for everyone.”

The threat followed an earlier post that called for the franchise to change its name, but didn’t mention interfering in its move to the district.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser addressed the president’s comments during a press conference on Monday.

“The thing that we should focus on in D.C. is doing our part,” Bowser told reporters. “What I’m concerned about is we haven’t done our part. And so we need to complete our part so that the team can get to work, so that local businesses can get hired, so that we can start earning the tax revenue that will come when we deliver the Commanders’ stadium.”

Bowser confirmed that she would still welcome the team should the mascot revert to the Redskins.

The Commanders organization has not responded to Trump’s comments. The team, under then-owner Dan Snyder, announced it would change its name in 2020. The announcement followed years of public pressure from some fans and activists who argued the “Redskins” moniker was a form of public racism that disrespected Native Americans.

The deal struck by Commanders owner Josh Harris and Bowser to move the team already faced obstacles. The D.C. City Council has yet to vote to confirm the move. Multiple council members have been hostile to the inclusion of public funds in the proposed deal. An exclusive negotiating window between the team and the district expired earlier this month.

Trump’s preference for the old mascot could become a boon for the state’s effort to keep the team. Commanders’ owner Josh Harris could face an ultimatum if the president acts on his threat: Change the name or remain in Maryland. And, though the district is the preferred location of Harris and Commanders fans, Maryland officials have made it clear that they would welcome an opportunity to keep the team.

The Trump administration recently announced that the new FBI headquarters would be moved to the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown D.C. Construction on a new facility was previously planned for a site in Greenbelt.

If state officials are aware of how Trump’s threat could affect the move, they aren’t making it public. The offices for Rep. Glenn Ivey of Prince George’s County and Gov. Wes Moore declined to comment. Prince George’s County Executive Aisha Braveboy did not respond to a request for comment.

“The Washington ‘Whatever’s’ should IMMEDIATELY change their name back to the Washington Redskins Football Team. There is a big clamoring for this,” Trump said in his first Redskins-related post on Sunday. “Our great Indian people, in massive numbers, want this to happen. Their heritage and prestige is systematically being taken away from them.”

“Times are different now than they were three or four years ago,” Trump added. “We are a Country of passion and common sense. OWNERS, GET IT DONE!!!”

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.

Delivering the full files regarding Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy and well-connected financier who died by hanging in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking minors, has become a new obsession for Democratic lawmakers. And it puts them in alignment with Trump supporters who have long called for transparency in the case, concerned a cover-up was protecting Epstein’s clients.

Since President Trump’s administration backpedaled on its promises to deliver the so-called “Epstein files,” there’s been an influx of amendments, speeches and social posts from Democrats hoping to capitalize on the rift between Trump and some of his loyal supporters.

“We recognize that there’s a genuine and understandable public interest in this case and the government’s handling of the case,” Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen told The Baltimore Sun. “Attorney General Bondi is the one who has raised questions about how the Epstein files have been handled. So now we’re simply calling upon her and Trump to release the files.”

Trump and administration officials have denied, downplayed and dubbed a “hoax” the possibility of new information becoming available that would shed light on Epstein’s actions and whether anyone else was potentially involved.

The Justice Department released a memo earlier this month that effectively shut down the possibility of further activity. The memo said the department had conducted an exhaustive review and found that no client list existed. The department indicated that no further information would be released on Epstein.

‘Talked about for years’

During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on July 10th, Van Hollen introduced an amendment that would require Attorney General Pam Bondi to “retain, preserve, and compile” records and evidence related to Epstein’s investigation — including, if they exist, the much-discussed client list and any connections Epstein had with government officials.

The measure was adopted unanimously by the committee.

Van Hollen acknowledged the timing was politically fortuitous. Two days before the hearing, after a reporter mentioned Epstein to Trump, the president said, “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years.”

“You’re asking — we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things, and are people still talking about this guy? This creep?” Trump added. “That is unbelievable.”

The comments deepened the divide between Trump’s priorities and his supporters on this issue.

“The amendment did hit at the moment where the public was really demanding transparency,” Van Hollen said. “There was a moment where I thought we could get everyone on record.”

‘See what sticks’

Democratic senators are now all over Epstein. Van Hollen and Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, sent a letter to Bondi on Thursday calling for the files’ release. A cadre of others made a series of floor speeches and statements demanding the administration be more transparent about what’s in the files and if Trump has ties to them.

“The White House is failing to explain to the president’s supporters why they’ve done a 180 on this issue,” Sen. Jon Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, said. “Their explanations don’t add up — especially after the attorney general and all these Trump officials were promising this massive revelation.”

Many of their Republican colleagues said they prefer to focus on other things.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told The Hill last week that Bondi has done enough to provide transparency on what government investigators know about Epstein and his illicit activities. And Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota said he would leave the matter “up to DOJ and to the FBI. I think that’s in their purview.”

In the House, Democrats have tried to force Republicans on the defensive with multiple measures. They’ve pushed amendments and have collected signatures on separate pieces of legislation that would have the Justice Department release all files they have pertaining to Epstein. Montgomery County Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, meanwhile called for Bondi, Patel and Bongino to testify at a public hearing.

“They’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks,” Rep. Rick Allen, a Georgia Republican, said of the efforts.

‘A political stunt’

A committee meeting on Thursday summed up the frustration from Republicans that the files’ release, long a conservative talking point, has been co-opted by their liberal colleagues. After Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, suggested that Republicans who voted against an Epstein-related amendment didn’t want the files to be released, he and Rep. Austin Scott, a Georgia Republican, started yelling at each other.

Scott said the amendment had been a political stunt introduced at the last minute.

“I look forward to an honest — not a political — debate on the issue of the Epstein files,” Scott said during the exchange.

Some longtime Epstein hawks have found themselves more in step with the opposing party than their own president, joining a measure co-led by Reps. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, and Trump antagonist Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, to force the Justice Department’s hand.

Epstein died six years ago. But his alleged crimes have remained a fixation of many on the right who wonder who else was involved. Epstein’s powerful social circle was well-documented, marked by some of the world’s most powerful people — Prince Andrew, and Bill and Hillary Clinton among them.

Trump reportedly had been friends with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s but had a falling out prior to Epstein’s first arrest in the mid-2000s, when Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution. There has been no public evidence to connect the president to any of Epstein’s crimes.

Trump’s campaign promises to dismantle the “deep state” carried the expectation that his administration would release a  list of Epstein’s co-conspirators. No such list has ever been confirmed, however, and many Republicans do not believe it exists. But for those who do, a Trump presidency was their hope for it to finally be revealed.

But Trump distanced himself from those supporters in recent days, posting on Truth Social that he didn’t want the support of anyone still talking about Epstein. That post came days after the Justice Department memo was released.

Trump has since directed Bondi to release Grand Jury documents from a previous investigation into Epstein. The decision came amid threats from Trump to sue the Wall Street Journal for publishing a story last week on a previously unreported letter, allegedly from Trump to Epstein. Trump has denied the letter came from him.

“I don’t know what’s in these files, but I believe they should be public,” Rep. Johnny Olszewski, a Baltimore County Democrat, told The Sun in a statement. “After doubling and tripling down on this issue for years, some of my Republican colleagues are now running from it. That begs the obvious question of: Why?”

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.

Some felt the benefits of Democratic angst against President Donald Trump’s administration, raising bundles of money over the past three months. Others added smaller sums but retained cash-stuffed campaign accounts.

Here’s where the money stands halfway through the year for Maryland’s House members.

District 1

Rep. Andy Harris, an Eastern Shore Republican, has often found himself at the center of the House proceedings during the first months of the 219th Congress. As chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, an influential group of hardline conservatives, Harris’ support or opposition helps determine whether Republican legislation passes or fails.

He raised $323,625 over the past three months, while spending $169,014. The majority of Harris’ money came from individual contributions, accounting for roughly $260,000 of the new funds. Political groups tied to various industries added over $59,000.

The campaign sent out roughly $169,000 during the quarter, leaving $154,000 in added money. Harris now has just over $1 million in his campaign account.

Harris sits in a solid red seat. He was reelected with 59.6% of the vote in 2024.

District 2

Rep. Johnny Olszewski, a Baltimore County Democrat, is one of the freshmen lawmakers in the delegation. He was previously the county’s executive.

Olszewski raised $178,755 over the past three months, roughly a $30,000 jump from his first quarter campaign report. Over $122,920 was from individual donors; political groups added roughly $55,150.

Accounting for the $88,000 spent during the quarter, Olszewski added roughly $90,000 to his campaign account, leaving him with $353,000 on hand.

District 3

Maryland’s second freshman posted a similar haul to Olszewski. Rep. Sarah Elfreth, a Howard County Democrat, raised over $165,000 during the second quarter. It’s a $14,000 bump from her last campaign report.

Contrasted with Harris and Olszewski, Elfreth’s fundraising was more evenly distributed by individual donors and political groups. Individuals contributed roughly $95,000 while groups gave just over $70,000.

The campaign spent over $85,000 over the past three months, leaving Elfreth with roughly $80,000 in new monies. She currently has over $183,000 in her campaign account.

District 4

Amid the continuing saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, his congressman, Rep. Glenn Ivey found himself in the spotlight after his visit to El Salvador and Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States, and Ivey’s fundraising experienced a corresponding leap.

After raising only $36,000 during the first quarter, Ivey brought in roughly $118,000 over the past three months. Individual donors, specifically, gave almost seven times (over $70,000) contrasted with his first report ($13,000).

Accounting for the $64,000 spent by the campaign, Ivey ended the period with over $295,000 in cash on hand.

District 5

Maryland’s longest tenured lawmaker, Rep. Steny Hoyer, brought in roughly $232,000 as he mulls whether to run for reelection.

Elderly Democratic lawmakers are facing a reckoning from their voting base after recent deaths from sitting members who faced health issues. But if Hoyer’s constituents have concerns about his age, 86, it’s not obvious in his campaign report.

Contributions from individual donors almost doubled from the same quarter of his previous election cycle, from $47,000 to $84,000. His support from political groups remained strong, taking in roughly $140,000 from various committees.

Hoyer ended the quarter with over $636,000 cash on hand.

District 6

Maryland’s most competitive seat belongs to freshman Rep. April McClain Delaney, a Frederick County Democrat. McClain Delaney was elected over Republican Neil Parrott 53% to 47% in last year’s general election.

The slimmer margin makes her campaign’s finances more noteworthy than members in safer seats — though immense personal wealth makes her less reliant on outside fundraising. Her husband, former Rep. John Delaney, was reported to be worth over $200 million in 2017.

McClain Delaney raised over $330,000 in the second quarter; however, the majority of that was a $200,000 self-donation. From outside fundraising, McClain Delaney raised over $120,000. Her campaign spent over $184,000 during the period.

Her campaign has $323,000 cash on hand.

District 7

Maryland’s second-oldest congressional lawmaker had a slow fundraising period. Rep. Kweisi Mfume, a Baltimore City Democrat, brought in just over $49,000, while his campaign spent roughly $36,000 during the quarter.

While it’s a low number, it’s not abnormal for Mfume, as it’s in line with previous fundraising quarters for the campaign during the last election cycle. He only raised roughly $17,000 during this year’s first quarter.

Despite the low numbers, Mfume’s campaign account remains well-stocked. He currently has over $666,000 cash on hand.

District 8

The state’s strongest fundraiser was Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat. Raskin holds a powerful seat as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and maintains a large national following, which grew during his previous stint as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee.

Raskin reported an impressive $1.2 million haul from the second quarter. The bulk of the funds came from individual donors — over $1.13 million. Political committees contributed an additional $47,000.

The campaign spent roughly $735,000 during the period. Raskin has held town halls and rallies in several states to message against President Donald Trump’s administration and legislation passed by House Republicans.

Raskin ended the quarter with over $5.89 million in his campaign account.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.

Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Prince George’s County Democrat, raised roughly $232,000 during the second fundraising quarter, according to Federal Election Commission filings. After expenses, the cash influx gives the 86-year-old congressman over $636,000 in cash on hand for his campaign. He started the quarter with over $573,000.

The sum is roughly $60,000 less than Hoyer’s fundraising numbers during the same quarter of the previous election cycle, when he raised over $291,000 and went on to win reelection to his long-held seat. While the quarterly report won’t be among the largest in Congress — Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Montgomery County Democrat, raised roughly $1.2 million, for example — it’s a fair amount for a long-tenured member in a safe blue seat.

The fundraising boost comes during a precarious moment for veteran Democratic leaders like Hoyer.

Age has remained a top-of-mind issue for Democratic voters since former President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign fell apart last year after he struggled to answer questions during a debate with the then-presumed GOP nominee, Donald Trump, leading to Vice President Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic nominee.

It’s only become more prescient since Trump’s election. Three Democratic lawmakers have died since March. Each was at least 70 years old.

As a former member of the party’s leadership, Hoyer remains an influential member of the Democratic caucus, the House Appropriations Committee, and serves as the ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Hoyer’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

The age debate isn’t strictly about age, but health — whether aging lawmakers are healthy enough to fulfill the responsibilities of a member of Congress. Reps. Gerry Connolly of Virginia and Raul Grijalva of Arizona both suffered from cancer. Turner died after experiencing a medical emergency.

Their deaths reinvigorated questions about the party’s emphasis on experience in leadership, particularly given the energy needed to keep up with the frenetic pace of the Trump administration.

Being a Democratic lawmaker under Trump hasn’t been relaxing. The president has blitzed a series of immense structural changes to the federal government that Democrats have decried, while Republican lawmakers have passed new policies that Democrats have detested — most recently, the partisan “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that extended current tax rates while enacting cuts to social programs.

Donations from political committees accounted for $140,500 of Hoyer’s new funds, with contributions ranging from $1,000 to $7,500. Individual donations made up $84,700. The campaign spent over $169,000 during the past three months.

Hoyer has held his seat since 1981. He is one of the oldest members of Congress and spent years as the second-ranking House Democrat before stepping down from his post of Majority Leader in 2023, saying that, “The timing was right.”

In August of last year, Hoyer suffered a mild stroke. Despite the health scare, he went on to win reelection, defeating Republican Michelle Talkington with 68% of the vote. He received 72% of the vote during the Democratic primary, defeating three younger challengers.

At least one Democrat will challenge Hoyer in 2026: political newcomer Harry Jarin. Jarin’s campaign disclosures weren’t available prior to publication.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.

An under-the-radar provision inside President Donald Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act” will reduce the amount of gambling losses someone can deduct on their taxes.

Previously, federal law allowed people to deduct 100% of their losses from betting. The new law will cap deductions at 90% — leaving a tax gap for gamblers to cover. Prior to the spending package passing last week, the law had remained unchanged for decades.

The new reporting law “sets up an odd scenario,” according to James Karmel, a professor at Harford Community College who studies the gambling industry.

“If you’ve got to pay taxes on 100% of your winnings, but you can only deduct 90% of the losses — that sets up kind of a dilemma,” Karmel told The Baltimore Sun. “You’ve got to be exceptionally fortunate, lucky, to win more than you’re losing in that situation.”

Under the new law, a player who loses $50,000 in bets would owe $5,000 in taxes to the IRS on the lost money.

“They’d literally be paying taxes on money they don’t have,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, said on the Senate floor on Thursday. “This makes no sense.”

Although the impact on the industry is hard to predict, Karmel said professional gamblers who rely on betting for their income are most likely to be hit hard by the new rate.

“I believe the biggest impact will be on professional gamblers,” Karmel said. “For them, it’s their livelihood, so it’s a big change in the tax structure of their income.”

Amateur players could also face some pain on tax day, but it would be proportionate to their wagers: The more one gambles — and loses — the more they’ll experience the consequences of the new law.

Maryland has a growing betting economy, with six casinos, a lottery, and mobile sports betting, which was legalized in 2022. Betting, including the lottery, generated $1.93 billion in revenue for Maryland last year, according to the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Commission. That doesn’t include the $5.4 billion the commission handled in sports bets.

Karmel was dubious that the new law would significantly impact the overall industry in Maryland — “I don’t think it’s big enough to really cut down, say, on the number of people gambling,” he said — with it having more individualized repercussions.

“It’s more of a nuisance to some more of the dedicated casino players,” Karmel said. “But for most of the casino gamblers in Maryland, I don’t think it’s going to have a big impact.”

The provision went largely undetected until the spending package had already passed the House. Some congressional lawmakers are already working to undo it.

Masto tried to pass a bill via unanimous consent in the Senate on Thursday that would return the deduction rate to 100%. But any lawmaker could object and cause it to fail. Sen. Todd Young, an Indiana Republican, said that, while he supported Cortez Masto’s proposal, he would object unless a separate tax carveout could also be included in the bill.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, objected to Young’s request, and the bill failed.

“It is a shame that we cannot pass this common-sense fix,” Cortez Masto said after the objections. “Gaming exists across the country.”

“There are so many people that are gonna be impacted by this,” Cortez Masto added. “And it just does not make sense.”

Even if no one had objected, the House would still have to pass the bill and Trump would have to sign it to replace the new law.

Rep. Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, has introduced a bill to return the deduction rate to 100%. The legislation has bipartisan support — Rep. Troy Nehls, a Texas Republican, has cosponsored it.

“This common-sense legislation will bring fairness back to gaming taxation, making sure that gamblers can fully deduct losses when they report their winnings,” Titus said when she released the bill. “It gives everyone –from recreational gamblers to high-stakes gamblers — a fair shake. We should be encouraging players to properly report their winnings and wager using legal operators.”

The change was a procedural move, according to CNN, intended to help the bill align with the budget and receive approval from the Senate parliamentarian. The provision would raise more than $1 billion in tax revenue over the next 10 years.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com

A procedural switcheroo on Thursday saw the Senate Appropriations Committee approve a measure to reserve $1.4 billion in funds for use at the Greenbelt site for the new FBI headquarters, only to later reject the government funding bill to which the amendment was added. The move left the committee at a stalemate and the destination of the $1.4 billion to be determined.

President Trump’s administration recently requested that the $1.4 billion be used to help move the bureau to the Ronald Reagan Building, his preferred destination for the new headquarters. Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen opposed the request. On Thursday, he introduced an amendment to prevent the money from being used for anything but the Greenbelt site.

It passed. But now, Republicans are refusing to move forward with the overall bill, which funds the departments of Justice and Commerce, along with NASA and other agencies, for the upcoming year. It is one of 12 bills the Senate needs to pass to fund the federal government for 2026.

“The majority consensus [is] that the executive branch just can’t wake up one day and undermine years of congressional action,” Van Hollen said after the hearing. “This issue goes beyond FBI headquarters.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was the only Republican to support the amendment.

The stalled bill is still a win for Van Hollen and lawmakers who want to see the bureau’s next headquarters built in Maryland. It’s the only thing preventing the bill from advancing out of committee to the full Senate, so it’s a point of political leverage for Van Hollen. But there’s no clear compromise.

Van Hollen insists the funds shouldn’t be used for the Trump administration’s preferred site. Republicans disagree. Adamantly.

“We’re for it,” Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican, said of the Trump administration’s plan for the FBI headquarters. “So we can’t support a bill that doesn’t allow that to go forward.”

Though Collins sent the committee to a recess, multiple members told The Sun that the committee would not reconvene until a later date.

As a rule, appropriations hearings are relatively routine. Thursday proved the exception, with a handful of huddles and some procedural gymnastics that Republicans used to prevent Van Hollen’s amendment from fully succeeding.

The full committee originally passed the overall bill at the start of the hearing; Van Hollen’s amendment was not included. All Republican committee members supported the bill.

But once Van Hollen’s amendment was approved later in the hearing, Republicans flipped against their own legislation.

Murkowski, a moderate lawmaker who has clashed with the Trump administration, voted for the amendment. Then she canceled out her support of the amendment by joining her Republican colleagues’ opposition to the overall bill.

Committee Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, dismissed the committee to a recess once Republicans had the votes to tank the bill. Members leaving the hearing said Collins will determine the next steps.

There’s a simple way Republicans could break the deadlock: convince Murkowski to oppose Van Hollen’s amendment. Her vote would kill the amendment, and the bill could advance to be debated by the full Senate.

Van Hollen hopes that doesn’t happen.

“She believes firmly in this principle: That Congress should not be surrendering its decision-making powers to an executive, regardless of who’s president,” Van Hollen said when asked about his confidence in the solidity of her vote.

Van Hollen had proposed the amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill to prevent the Trump administration from utilizing the money to move FBI headquarters to the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C. Roughly $500 million of the funding had been set aside by the Senate Appropriations Committee over a period of years to be used at the selected site for the new FBI headquarters. Over $800 million had been set aside for the headquarters in additional accounts.

Greenbelt was previously selected as the next site for the new FBI headquarters in 2023. Currently housed in a decrepit building in downtown D.C., the site was chosen by the General Services Administration over two other locations — one in Landover; the other in Springfield, Virginia.

The decision ended a yearslong competition for the new headquarters. But Trump has criticized the selected site, arguing that the agency should remain closer to the Robert F. Kennedy Building, where the Department of Justice is housed.

“They were going to build an FBI Headquarters three hours away in Maryland, a liberal state,” Trump said in March. “But that has no bearing on what I’m about to say, but we’re going to stop it, not going to let that happen.”

In a joint statement with the GSA, the bureau announced on July 1 that the headquarters would instead be moved to the Reagan Building.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com

The measure passed 15-14. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, joined her Democratic colleagues in supporting the amendment, which Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen proposed.

Van Hollen had proposed the amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill to prevent Trump’s administration from utilizing the money to move FBI headquarters to the Ronald Reagan Building in downtown Washington, D.C. Roughly $500 million of the funding had been set aside by the Senate Appropriations Committee over a period of years to be used at the selected site for the new FBI headquarters.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com

Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen held a subcommittee markup on Wednesday night to address President Donald Trump’s recent request to use roughly $1.4 billion in funds to move FBI headquarters.

The money was previously allocated for the agency’s move to a new FBI headquarters in Greenbelt. The senator said he would offer an amendment during the full committee meeting on Thursday that would restrict use of the funds except to the Greenbelt site.

“If for any reason we don’t prevail at this juncture, this is a very long fight,” Van Hollen told The Baltimore Sun after the markup. “Presidents come and go. Congresses remain.”

Despite being the top Democrat on the subcommittee, who played a key role in authoring much of the bill with an intent for the FBI to move to Maryland, Van Hollen said he would oppose it if it’s not amended.

“It has been a long-standing position of the Appropriations Committee that we were setting aside that money with the understanding that it would go to the winner of a competition,” Van Hollen said during the markup. “That is why I’m objecting to this bill at this point.”

“This is a bigger issue than just the FBI,” Van Hollen said. “It’s the FBI building today; it could be any other project tomorrow.”

Trump announced a plan to keep FBI headquarters in downtown Washington, D.C. on July 1. It was previously planned to move to a site in Greenbelt, which won a yearslong competition over sites in Landover and Springfield, Virginia. The General Services Administration selected Greenbelt as the FBI’s new home in November 2023.

During the markup, Van Hollen said that despite the administration already naming the Reagan Building as the FBI’s new headquarters, it has yet to conduct studies to determine if the location meets the agency’s security or mission requirements.

“They have not shown how it’s going to meet the security requirements. They have not shown how much it’s going to cost,” Van Hollen said. “They really haven’t done any of the years of work that went into the selection process for the new FBI headquarters.”

The Trump administration said it plans to look into the security requirements, but they have yet to conduct any surveys or studies.

Sen. Jerry Moran, the Kansas Republican who chairs the subcommittee, called Van Hollen’s advocacy for the Greenbelt, “yeoman’s work.” Nevertheless, Moran and two other Republican senators voted to advance the bill to the full committee as is.

Prior to the shift in planning for the $1.4 billion, Van Hollen’s office wasn’t alerted to the plan to reprogram the allocated funds to the Reagan Building. Trump had previously criticized the plan to move the agency’s headquarters to Greenbelt.

“The Trump administration tried to kill this project during the first four years. They did not succeed in doing that,” Van Hollen said. “If the FBI starts moving into the Ronald Reagan Building, the message is: Don’t get comfortable.”

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com

“We’re gonna send some more weapons,” President Trump said Monday night. “We have to; they have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now.”

The decision to send weapons followed a pause on sending munitions to Ukraine that was implemented by the Pentagon last week and a productive phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday, when Trump told Zelensky that he wanted to help defend Ukraine’s airspace. The president’s statement this week effectively reversed the decision to pause shipments. He said on Tuesday that he did not know who ordered the pause.

In response to Trump’s comments, Rep. Andy Harris, an Eastern Shore Republican, posted on X that, “President Trump is right: Ukraine must be able to defend itself.”

The shift could return the war in Ukraine to the slim group of policy positions that can align the full Maryland delegation with Trump.

Democrats in the delegation have repeatedly criticized Trump for his friendliness with Putin and Russia while condemning his frostiness toward Zelensky. They’ve also continued to call for supplying Ukraine with the weapons needed to defend itself as Republicans have shied away from becoming overly involved in the war.

“While Trump said he’d end the war in Ukraine as soon as he took office, all he did was throw the Ukrainian people under the bus by offering unilateral concessions to Russia — further emboldening Putin to continue his relentless attacks,” Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen told The Baltimore Sun in a statement Tuesday. “That’s why it’s all the more important that the United States continues to provide offensive and defensive support to Ukraine. Anything less from the Trump Administration is a betrayal of the Ukrainian people and our values — and a gift to Putin.”

Although Harris is a longtime ally of Ukraine, he has also aligned with Trump as the party has moved toward isolationism. While Harris’ reasoning has been rooted in concerns about the fiscal viability of billions in military aid, he has also expressed frustration with Zelensky, specifically after a White House visit between Trump and the Ukrainian president went awry.

That dynamic could be shifting. In recent weeks, Trump has become exasperated with Putin’s continued aggression towards Ukraine, frequently disrupting Trump’s monthslong pursuit of a ceasefire. That was especially clear last week, when Russia launched its largest aerial attack of the war on Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities hours after a phone call between Trump and Putin failed to make progress.

“We get a lot of bull[crap] thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday.

Where Trump leads, Republicans tend to follow. That’s even more true when it’s an issue they’re already inclined to support, like Harris with Ukraine.

“They’re under attack, and sending additional weapons is the right move,” Harris continued in his post. “Strengthening Ukraine’s ability to fight back helps deter further aggression and keeps American service members off the front lines.”

With ancestral ties to Ukraine — he is the son of a Ukrainian mother who fled Eastern Europe after World War II — Harris was initially involved in Congress’ support of the war effort, serving as a co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.

Both parties emphatically condemned the attack when Russia first invaded Ukraine. But as the war dragged on, and as more Republicans flirted with isolationism, a faction of the party turned against financing more of the Ukrainian war effort. That eventually divided the Maryland delegation.

When former President Joe Biden pressed Congress to approve more money for Ukraine, the parties split. Democratic members favored a more robust aid package, one large enough to fund the war for an extended period. Some Republicans agreed with them. Harris was among the group that didn’t.

Maryland’s lone conservative in Congress preferred a different framework: A package of border reform and roughly $10 billion in Ukraine aid — a fraction of what Democrats and some Republicans had called for.

Congress eventually passed a bipartisan defense package that sent $60 billion to Ukraine, $26 billion to the Middle East, and $8 billion to Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific. Harris voted against the package, citing fiscal concerns. Afterward, he stepped down from his role as caucus co-chair.

Have a news tip? Contact Ben Mause at bmause@baltsun.com.