Strong bullpen game brings Mizzou baseball series win over Vanderbilt

(The Center Square) - Washington Attorney General's Office officials described the state Supreme Court as “favorable a venue as we’re likely to get” to thwart a referendum on a new millionaire's tax, according to emails between a former court clerk who works for the AGO and other staff.

Yet, Deputy Solicitor General Karl Smith, who clerked for the court from 2009 through 2012 according to his Linkedin profile, hypothesized that justices might also "punt" to the voters about whether to uphold the tax so they could avoid having to make the decision themselves, the emails show.

“Giving the People a chance to reject it by referendum might be an attractive option to justices who want to punt on the constitutional question,” Smith wrote to Solicitor General Noah Purcell in an April 7 draft response to Let’s Go Washington’s lawsuit filed against the Secretary of State’s Office after it rejected a referendum on the millionaire’s tax.

The Secretary of State's Office emailed Wednesday afternoon to say they mistakenly released the records.

The "Office of the Secretary of State (OSOS) provided you with records in response to your Public Records Request No. 26-447," the message said. "OSOS has since determined that certain attorney-client privileged documents were inadvertently included in the records provided." The email requested that The Center Square delete and not report on the released records. But the news wire declined to do that because the records were newsworthy and expose behind the scenes actions about a significant issue that is of public interest to taxpayers. 

One of the arguments contained in the draft document was that the court should reject hearing the case because “petitioners have a plain, speed, and adequate remedies at law.”

Download PDF

Smith wrote in the draft document to Purcell that “from your email, I understood you were disinclined to make this argument, noting the Supreme Court is as favorable a venue as we’re likely to get.”

The state Supreme Court ultimately ruled against Let’s Go Washington.

Attorney Joel Ard, who represented Let's Go Washington in the case before the Supreme Court, said the court was wrong but it was not appropriate for the Attorney General's staff to have these discussions.

"We’re still in the position where we think they (state Supreme Court) got it wrong," he told The Center Square after the news wire described the documents it obtained. "It’s interesting to see the Attorney General politicizing the court.”

He added that “this isn’t the first case I’ve lost before the state Supreme Court, and of course I think they got all those wrong.”

The Citizen Action Defense Fund has filed a lawsuit against the millionaire’s tax, whose legal team includes former State Attorney General Rob McKenna and former State Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge.

CADF Executive Director Jackson Maynard said the emails show the importance of the coming election to fill open Supreme Court seats.

"It’s another peak behind the curtain," Maynard told The Center Square after being read the emails. "The fact that they are viewing the current court as a ‘favorable venue’ for them I think is telling and highlights the fact that….the majority of the court is on the ballot is really going to be important.

"The line about the referendum and whether the court might be willing to essentially use a referendum as a way to avoid decision the constitutionality of the case, just shows that unfortunately this is more of a political question rather than an issue of ensuring that the right of the people to vote on legislation is upheld,” he added. 

The Center Square requested an interview with the AGO to discuss the emails. Instead, AGO Deputy Communications Director Mike Faulk wrote in an email that the discussion was because of the court's extensive rules on referendums.

This "was part of a preliminary discussion about legal strategy in a case that is now over," Faulk wrote. "The state Supreme Court deals with far more questions about mandamus and referendum powers than any other court in the state. They are far more familiar with the governing legal principles, which is why our attorneys described it as a favorable venue."

The Center Square recently reported that the AGO staff and the millionaire’s tax prime sponsor Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, worked closely to draft the bill so that it would “force” the state Supreme Court to reconsider almost a century’s worth of legal rulings that income is property as defined in the state Constitution.

In emails obtained by The Center Square, Pedersen wrote that a key goal of the tax was to get the Supreme Court to overturn the 1933 Culliton decision, which ruled that progressive income taxes are illegal because they violate the state Constitution’s uniformity clause for property taxes based on their class. A 1930 voters pamphlet advocating for the 14th Amendment that added a definition of property into the Constitution states that the purpose for doing so was to make it possible to tax income from stocks and bonds at a separate rate than other types of property, such as land. 

Other decisions since then have reaffirmed Culliton.

The rulings include:

• Jensen v. Henneford (1936)
• Power, Inc. v. Huntley, (1951), in which the court declared “it is no longer subject to question in this court that income is property.”
• Kunath v. City of Seattle (2019)

The original draft of the millionaire's tax did not include an emergency or necessity clause, which was added after Purcell recommended it to prevent a referendum. Purcell's remarks via email were used by Let's Go Washington as further evidence in their lawsuit that the bill was not necessary to enact the budget.

The Center Square reached out to the state Supreme Court’s Senior Communications Officer Lorrie Thompson by email and phone requesting an interview to discuss Smith and Purcell’s remarks, but did not receive a response.

(The Center Square) – Northern border crimes continue to be prosecuted against Canadian citizens for a range of multi-million-dollar scams targeting Americans nationwide. 

The U.S. investigations are being led by U.S. Customs and Border Protection Homeland Security Investigations, and multiple federal, state and local law enforcement agencies also working with Canadian authorities.

In the Southern District of Florida, a Canadian who overstayed his visa and was illegally living in Miami was indicted on wire fraud and money laundering charges in a $13 million cryptocurrency fraud scheme. If convicted, he faces up to 20 years in prison.

In this case, Canadian Trenton Richard David Johnston is accused of impersonating cryptocurrency-related company support personnel to gain access to victims’ digital accounts and cryptocurrency wallets. He then allegedly stole roughly $13 million, spending at least $1 million “to lease luxury vehicles, purchase high-end jewelry, and finance an extravagant nightlife and entertainment lifestyle,” according to the charges. An investigation is ongoing; victims continue to be identified. 

In a “Grandparent Scam,” nearly 50 Canadian nationals, including Russian, Muslim and Indian men, have been charged in the District of Vermont. In this case, elderly Americans were targeted in more than 40 states to be defrauded. The first 25 Canadians were indicted last year. 

All but two, who remain at large, were arrested in Canada in response to a request from the U.S. Department of Justice. All alleged perpetrators live in Québec except for the alleged ringleader, who’s from Ontario and remains at large, according to the charges.

Another nine were separately charged. Their residencies are listed in Florida, New York, Montreal, Canada, California and Guangzhou, China, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Vermont said.

Seven additional Canadians were charged and arrested this month. Several are fighting extradition to the U.S. 

The scam allegedly occurred between 2021 and 2024 through a Montreal, Québec-based call center. It involved Canadians contacting elderly Americans in Vermont and 40 other states claiming they were their relatives, usually their grandchildren, saying they’d been arrested and needed bail money. Some claimed to be their relative’s attorney stating they needed bail money and directed them not to say anything because a gag order was in place.

The elderly victims were convinced to give money to an individual posing as a bail bondsman who came to their home. Instead, they were extorted millions of dollars, investigators found. The money was wired to Canada, sometimes through cryptocurrency, in order to obscure the source and identity of the perpetrators, according to the charges.

The transnational criminal enterprise’s sole intent was “defrauding hundreds of retirees of their life savings by preying on their emotions and deceiving them into thinking that their loved ones were in peril,” Thomas Demeo, IRS-CI Boston Field Office Acting Special Agent in Charge said in a statement. If convicted, each Canadian faces up to 20 years in U.S. federal prison.

In an ongoing human smuggling case in upstate New York, the latest of three Canadian-American-Indiana human smugglers pleaded guilty this week. An American citizen pleaded guilty last year. Two Canadians have been extradited to the U.S. and are awaiting trial. 

They’re being charged in connection to the smuggling of illegal foreign nationals, primarily Romanians and Indians, across the U.S.-Canada border through the Akwesasne Mohawk Indian Territory. The AMIR, a major smuggling hub, includes part of Ontario, Canada, two counties in upstate New York and islands on the St. Lawrence River, The Center Square reported.

During the Biden administration, a record number of illegal border crossers were reported coming from Canada primarily into Vermont and upstate New York, The Center Square reported. With limited resources to combat smuggling, First Nation chiefs, including from the AMIR, traveled to Texas to learn of ways to combat border crime, The Center Square exclusively reported. 

Canadian-American AMIR member Timothy Oakes pleaded guilty to four counts of human smuggling and four counts of smuggling causing death. In this case, an entire Romanian family and Oakes’ brother drowned after a boat capsized when crossing the river during inclement weather. 

According to the charges, Oakes used his home on Cornwall Island, Ontario, as a staging area prior to smuggling foreign nationals across the river by boat, earning $1,000 per person. Others involved in the scheme allegedly transported foreign nationals from mainland Cornwall to Cornwall Island in Canada, staged them on the riverbank, transported them by boat and by car once in the U.S., according to the charges.

His sentencing is scheduled for September. He faces between five years and life in prison.

(The Center Square) – President Donald Trump’s first visit to China in nearly 10 years has been met with pomp and circumstance as Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping engage in an extensive meeting.

The leaders of the world’s two superpowers engaged in many pleasantries as they held a bilateral meeting after a formal greeting, set against the backdrop of Chinese pageantry.

Both leaders set a tone of mutual respect for each other and the two countries.

“I always believed that our two countries have more common interests than differences. Success in one is an opportunity for the other, and a stable bilateral relationship is good for the world. China and the United States both stand to gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. We should be partners, not rivals. We should help each other succeed, and prosper together, and find the right way for major countries to get along well with each other in the new era,” Xi told Trump.

Trump praised Xi as a “great leader,” underscoring the relationship between the two countries.

“You and I have known each other now for a long time. In fact, the longest relationship of our two countries that any president and president has had. And that’s to me, an honor. We’ve had a fantastic relationship. We’ve gotten along. When there were difficulties, we worked it out,” Trump told Xi.

“I would call you and you would call me, and whenever we had a problem…We worked that out very quickly, and we’re going to have a fantastic future together. Such respect for China, the job you’ve done. You’re a great leader…Sometimes people don’t like me saying it, but I say it anyway, because it’s true. I only say the truth. And I just want to say on behalf of all of the great delegation that we have, we have the greatest businessmen, the biggest and, I guess the best in the world,” Trump added.

While Trump appeared to make trade his top priority leading up to the meeting, he was accompanied by more than a dozen top business leaders from the U.S. in hopes of pushing trade issues with China.

The president headed into the meeting with a trade deficit with China of $202.1 billion in 2025, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative. China is the third-largest trade partner with the U.S.

Despite Trump hoping to elevate the trade issue, Chinese leaders entered the meeting with another agenda – Taiwan.

China’s minister of foreign affairs spokesperson, Mao Ning, posted on X, emphasizing that Xi’s top issue with Trump is that if the U.S. doesn’t support China’s stance on Taiwan, it could jeopardize the bilateral relationship.

“President Xi stressed to President Trump that the Taiwan question is the most important issue in China-U.S. relations. If it is handled properly, the bilateral relationship will enjoy overall stability. Otherwise, the two countries will have clashes and even conflicts, putting the entire relationship in great jeopardy,” Ning wrote. “’Taiwan independence’ and cross-strait peace are as irreconcilable as fire and water. Safeguarding peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait is the biggest common denominator between China and the U.S.”

China doesn’t recognize Taiwan as an independent country, causing tension, with the U.S. recognizing and supporting Taiwan’s independence.

The U.S. continues to sell weapons to Taiwan in defense of China, with the Trump administration having approved an $11 billion arms sale to Taiwan last year. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is pushing the administration to sell more weapons to the nation.

The bilateral meeting lasted more than two hours, and the leaders are scheduled to meet again before Trump departs from China on Friday afternoon.

Freshman Avery Adcock announced she will enter the transfer portal Wednesday. This is the first transfer from the Mizzou softball team this off-season.

Adcock made her career debut Feb. 7 against BYU as a pinch runner. She recorded no hits and three runs on the season, with no defensive play. Her most notable run of the season was against Auburn in the fifth inning, when Abby Carr hit a two-run homer to center field.

Initially from Cerulean, Kentucky, she was a four-year letter winner at Christian County High School. She was a three-time first team all-district and first team all-regional player. 

(The Center Square) – Following a report by Defending Education revealing that the nation’s largest teachers unions spent more than $1 billion on political activities, education experts are questioning whether the unions’ heavy political spending has produced any meaningful improvement in student outcomes.

The report by the non-profit Defending Education found that the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association together directed approximately $669 million toward federal political activity and another $336 million toward state and local political spending since 2015.

The totals include member dues, Political Action Committee contributions and Committee on Political Education funds, which are collected separately from standard union membership dues and fees.

In an interview with The Center Square, Lance Izumi, senior director of the Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute, said the report's findings continue to raise questions about the priorities of teachers' unions and the impact of their political spending.

“Teacher unions are an ATM machine for the Democratic Party,” Izumi said.

Izumi argued that if union-backed political spending is intended to improve public education through increased funding, measurable gains should appear in student achievement and proficiency levels. 

“If the unions say that we're funding these candidates because we're going to get more funding, and that's going to somehow make the difference to the children, then we should be able to see that when it comes to student performance indicators,” Izumi added.

Izumi also referenced results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called the Nation’s Report Card.

On the NAEP eighth-grade mathematics assessment, 27% of California eighth graders scored at or above proficiency in 2015. By 2024, that figure had fallen to 25%, according to NAEP.

On the eighth-grade reading assessment, 28% of California students scored at or above the proficient level in both 2015 and 2024, showing no improvement over the decade.

“Despite the fact that the union spent $106 million in political spending over that ten-year period by the CTA, that didn't move the needle at all,” Izumi said. “So the system didn't get any better for the children when it came to their achievement. It simply made the unions more powerful and made them kingmakers." 

Izumi also pointed specifically to spending by the California Teachers Association, which is a large and influential teachers' union.

According to data from Public Union Facts, the California Teachers Association has spent more than $236 million on political activity. Federal contribution records cited in the report showed approximately 98.4% of political donations went to Democratic candidates and organizations, compared to 1.6% for Republicans.

The Defending Education report focused on state and local political spending, where the report highlights that unions increasingly fund advocacy organizations and issue campaigns beyond traditional labor concerns.

According to the report, at the state and local level alone, teachers' unions spent more than $135.8 million to support opposition to school choice initiatives. 

“Teachers unions are, in essence, running a quasi-monopoly,” Cliff Smith, government affairs director at North American Values Institute, told The Center Square. “Competition is the one thing monopolies can't stand, since it reveals their deficiencies that they'd rather not answer for.”

The Center Square reached out to the Florida Education Association for comment but FEA Press Secretary Autumn Bell wrote in a state that no representative was available to discuss the issue.

The Center Square also reached out to the CTA, NEA and AFT unions but did not receive a response.

Mizzou women’s golf made program history Wednesday, earning its second-ever NCAA Championship berth after finishing fifth at the NCAA Stanford Regional. MU advanced for the first time since 2005.

The Tigers ended the three-day regional at 8 over par at Stanford Golf Course. Missouri shot 6 over in the first round, even par in the second round and 2 over in the final round to stay inside the cut line.

The top five teams advanced to the NCAA Championship. Stanford won the regional at 42 under, followed by Pepperdine at 4 under, Oregon State at 2 over, Arizona State at 4 over and Missouri at 8 over. Vanderbilt finished sixth at 16 over, eight shots behind Missouri.

Missouri made its move late in the round. The Tigers trailed Vanderbilt by one stroke with three holes left before closing 5 under through their final stretch. Vanderbilt went 4 over during the same stretch, allowing Missouri to pull away for the final qualifying spot.

Addie Dobson sparked the rally after struggling through most of the round. Dobson sat at 6 over for the day before finishing eagle-birdie-birdie over her final three holes. She ended the tournament tied for 42nd at 10 over.

Missouri’s 860 total was the lowest regional score in program history, beating its previous mark of 877 from the 2018 Tallahassee Regional. The Tigers’ final-round 286 was also their lowest postseason round in program history.

Melanie Walker led Missouri with a 3 under finish, placing ninth individually. Walker shot 1 over in the first round, 3 under in the second and 1 under in the final round. Her 210 total tied the best 54-hole regional score in program history. She was one of three Missouri players to make an eagle during the tournament.

Ebba Liljeberg also helped the Tigers stay in front of the cut line. She finished tied for 18th at 2 over after shooting 2 over, 1 over and 1 under across the three rounds. Liljeberg moved up 10 spots in the final round. Her 215 total also became the fourth best regional score in program history. She was also one of the best players in the field on par 3s, playing them at 3 under for the tournament.

Jade Zamora finished tied for 38th at 9 over. Fleur van Beek competed in the final two rounds and shot 1 under in the second round and 2 over in the third.

Missouri played well on the par 3s throughout the regional. The Tigers tied Stanford for the best par-3 scoring average in the field at 3.01. Missouri also led all teams with three eagles.

The berth adds to one of the best seasons in Missouri women’s golf history. The Tigers entered the regional as the No. 5 seed and the No. 31 team in the country. Missouri has climbed from No. 120 to No. 31 nationally under Mizzou coach Caroline Westrup Gaeta.

Stanford dominated the regional with four players finishing inside the top five individually as the Cardinal won the team title at 42 under.

Missouri will compete in the NCAA Championship from May 22-27 at Omni La Costa Resort & Spa in Carlsbad, California.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) revoked a 2024 rule requiring it to elevate conservation to an equal status as elements like grazing, recreation, or timber in land-use decisions.

The repeal reduces the role of “conservation” in BLM’s land use decisions and reverts the agency’s decision making to the “multiple use and sustained yield” land use strategy outlined in the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

BLM announced it would consider repealing the rule in Sept. 2025, sparking controversy and debates between lawmakers, conservationists, ranchers, tribal groups and others.

The rule, titled the “Conservation and Landscape Health Rule,” was originally passed on May 9, 2024 and asserted that “Conservation is a use of public lands on equal footing with other uses and is necessary for the protection and restoration of important resources.”

The rule defined “conservation” as “the management of natural resources to promote protection and restoration.” 

A public comment period gathered 147,649 comments, according to its official page on the Federal Register. A statistical analysis  by the Center for Western Priorities, a conservation advocacy organization, found that 92% of public comments were in support of keeping the rule.

However, the rule also received pushback from lawmakers like Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, who wrote BLM a letter of strong support of rescinding the rule.

The Interior Department cancelled the rule on May 11, 2026.

Washington congressman Dan Newhouse spoke out in support of BLM’s decision, saying that the 2024 rule “threatened to restrict productive use of public lands.”

“By including conservation as a multiple use under FLPMA, contrary to Congressional intent, unelected bureaucrats threatened to lock up millions of acres across the West. Conservation is an implicit benefit of other multiple uses, it is not in and of itself a use,” Newhouse said.

The Sierra Club, a conservation advocacy organization, spoke out against the decision alongside several other organizations and policy directors. Several comments included in its petition said BLM’s decision would “weaken public land protection while prioritizing extractive industries.”

“This action follows a broader pattern of efforts aiming to accelerate drilling and mining, weaken federal land management capacity, and advance proposals to sell off or privatize public lands. Together, these moves represent a clear rejection of the public’s demand for responsible, balanced stewardship of our public lands,” the Sierra Club wrote.

BLM’s decision about the land rule came days after another decision to repeal bison grazing permits on federal public lands in north-central Montana. 

BLM oversees about 10% of land in the U.S., according to the Associated Press.

(The Center Square) – Two small businesses that won a ruling against President Donald Trump's 10% tariff must continue paying it while courts decide whether to pause the decision during the appeal – a question that could be resolved as soon as next week.

The administrative stay imposed Tuesday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remains in effect, meaning Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun must continue paying the tariffs while the courts determine the next procedural step.

The United States Court of International Trade set a May 19 deadline for plaintiffs to respond to the administration's request to stay the court's own ruling after the Federal Circuit deferred the issue to the lower court Wednesday.

The tariffs remain in effect for all other importers regardless of how the stay dispute is resolved because the underlying ruling applied only to the three plaintiffs in the case.

American businesses have paid about $8 billion in Section 122 tariffs since the proclamation took effect in February, according to We Pay the Tariffs, a coalition of small businesses opposing the duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimated the tariffs would cost the average U.S. household between $600 and $800 annually.

Trump has faced a series of legal defeats in his effort to impose sweeping tariffs. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in February that his earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were unlawful, a decision that required the administration to refund about $166 billion in duties already collected.

Trump signed the Section 122 proclamation hours after the Supreme Court ruling, turning to a never-before-used provision of the Trade Act of 1974 to reimpose a 10% global tariff. That law has now also been struck down by the Court of International Trade, continuing a pattern of courts rejecting the president's attempts to impose broad tariffs without explicit congressional authorization.

The Court of International Trade ruled 2-1 on May 7 that Trump's proclamation was unlawful, finding the administration relied on the wrong economic benchmarks to justify the tariffs. Congress intended the 1974 statute to address specific balance-of-payments conditions, but Trump instead cited trade and current account deficits.

The administration appealed the ruling and asked both courts to pause the injunction pending appeal. The Federal Circuit temporarily froze the decision Tuesday but on Wednesday suspended consideration of its own stay request while directing the trade court to rule first.

The trade court responded within hours, accelerating its briefing schedule and confirming it would decide whether the injunction should remain in place during the appeal. Plaintiffs have until May 19 to respond.

If the trade court grants the stay, Burlap & Barrel and Basic Fun would continue paying the tariffs while the appeal proceeds. If it denies the request, the Federal Circuit could quickly reenter the dispute. The appeals court ordered the administration to immediately notify it of the lower court's decision, signaling it is prepared to act swiftly.

Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel at Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit law firm that represents the two businesses, said Tuesday he would oppose the stay request.

"There's no harm to the government from staying the injunction, because you're talking about three plaintiffs," Schwab said. "On the other hand, it is extremely burdensome on our clients to have to pay the tariffs."

The administration argued in declarations filed in court Monday that suspending the tariffs would disrupt trade negotiations and trigger a surge in imports. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer warned in his declaration that if trading partners abandon negotiations, "these negotiations may never resume."

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick similarly argued that lifting the tariffs during the appeal could cause immediate economic disruption that "cannot be repaired later."

The administration is also moving ahead with a separate round of tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Trump acknowledged Saturday on Truth Social that the alternative tariff authority is "far slower and more laborious" than the approach courts have challenged.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in April the new tariff regime could take effect in July. The Section 122 tariffs are scheduled to expire July 24.

(The Center Square) – Despite public condemnation from Democrats, House Republicans are confident that the $1 billion earmark for security upgrades to President Donald Trump’s ballroom will remain in their budget reconciliation bill.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters Wednesday that congressional Republicans are “right on schedule” to pass the filibuster-proof bill – which also appropriates $70 billion in advance funding for federal immigration enforcement agencies – by June 1.

“We will fully fund both border security and immigration enforcement for the balance of President Trump's term,” Johnson said. “Democrats are chomping at the bit to regain power and reopen our borders and allow violent criminal illegal aliens to continue to roam our streets… and we're not going to let them do that. So we're eager to quickly finish this reconciliation process and get this bill to the president's desk.”

Democrats have accused Republicans of being “out of touch” for providing an extra $1 billion to the Secret Service, a sum that would ultimately pay for security upgrades in the White House ballroom, currently under construction.

“There’s a theme here: Republicans are ready to spend, spend, spend — just not on anything that makes life more affordable,” House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., said in Wednesday news conference. “Republicans are turning their backs on the people they represent.”

Johnson, however, said Democrats’ comments were “a gross misstatement of what's going on here in the bill.”

He argued that the recent shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which took place in a ballroom of the Washington, D.C. Hilton hotel, proves the need for security at the White House venue.

“The Secret Service put in an urgent request for additional security measures. It's not for the ballroom – it's for security measures,” Johnson said. “And we've needed some of these security measures for a long time. And that's what this is all about, so there's a false narrative out there about it.”

The budget reconciliation bill specifies that “[n]one of the funds made available… may be used for non-security elements” of the project, referring to the construction of the ballroom itself.

“[I]t should be something that's bipartisan. The ballroom is totally privately funded – the president has dedicated like $400 million for that project,” Johnson added. “And by the way, it's going to be a donation to the country. You're aware the ballroom will be there long after he leaves, and he'll only get a few months of its use, so he's doing it for the country.”

Though Johnson projected optimism that the $1 billion earmark would remain in the bill, it could still get stripped if the Senate parliamentarian finds it violates the Byrd Rule.

Some vulnerable Republican lawmakers have also expressed hesitancy to approve a controversial provision that Democrats say they fully intend to capitalize on as the midterm elections approach.

(The Center Square) – A coalition of conservative and free-market groups urged Congress this week to reject a bill that would permanently allow year-round sales of E15 gasoline nationwide.

The coalition sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries opposing H.R. 1346, the Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act. The groups argued the bill would expand federal intervention in energy markets instead of increasing consumer choice.

The letter says the legislation would “further entrench a federally managed fuel mandate regime that has distorted energy markets, burdened consumers, harmed independent refiners, and expanded corporate welfare for politically connected ethanol interests.”

The groups also wrote that Congress “should not mistake an expansion of ethanol mandates for genuine free-market energy reform.”

The coalition targeted the federal Renewable Fuel Standard in the letter. 

The groups argued the ethanol industry still relies on “federal mandates, subsidies, waivers, tax preferences, and regulatory favoritism” after two decades of government support.

The letter says the Renewable Fuel Standard acts as a hidden tax on Americans because refiners must purchase Renewable Identification Number compliance credits through what the groups called a “volatile and opaque regulatory system.”

The coalition also raised concerns about E15 fuel.

“Ethanol contains significantly less energy per gallon than conventional gasoline, resulting in lower fuel economy for consumers,” the groups wrote. “Higher ethanol blends are also incompatible with many older vehicles, boats, motorcycles, and small engines, creating risks of misfueling, equipment damage, and additional consumer costs.”

The letter argues the Renewable Fuel Standard contributes to higher grocery prices and agricultural market distortion because it diverts corn and other crops away from food and feed markets.

The coalition urged Congress to reject the bill and instead pursue reforms that would “phase down and ultimately repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard.”

Jason Isaac, president of the American Energy Association, criticized the proposal.

“Year-round E15 is another welfare program that benefits politically connected ethanol interests at the expense of consumers and independent refiners,” Isaac said in a separate statement. “Americans deserve affordable, reliable fuel options driven by market demand, not federal mandates, subsidies, and regulatory carveouts.”

Groups that signed the letter included the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Heartland Institute, Texas Public Policy Foundation, and Conservative Partnership Institute.