Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

All Hell Breaks Loose Outside Federal Courthouse in St. Paul After Feds Unseal Indictment Charging 15 Minneapolis Antifa Militants

All hell broke loose on Tuesday afternoon outside the federal courthouse in St. Paul, Minnesota, after federal prosecutors indicted 15 members of Antifa.

As TGP’s Cassandra MacDonald reported earlier Tuesday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota unsealed a federal indictment charging 15 defendants over their alleged roles in two Minneapolis-based Antifa groups that violently opposed the enforcement of federal immigration law during Operation Metro Surge.

“Today, a federal indictment was unsealed charging 15 defendants with conspiracy to impede or injure federal officers and other charges related to efforts of two Minneapolis-based ANTIFA groups that violently opposed the enforcement of federal law in our state.”

“Working closely with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, our investigation uncovered extensive planning, material support, and coordinated attacks against federal personnel and facilities,” DHS special agent Michael McCarthy said.

“It is not optional – we will enforce the law. Any attempt to undermine it through violence or intimidation will be met with DECISIVE ACTION,” Homeland Security Special Agent in Charge Michael McCarthy said.

Keep reading

Sanders Says ‘We Must’ Strip Section on US-Israeli Military Integration From Pentagon Budget

US Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday urged congressional lawmakers to strike a highly controversial provision from next year’s military spending authorization bill that is aimed at deepening integration of the US and Israeli armed forces under the guise of reducing aid.

A provision of the proposed $1.15 trillion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2027 originally titled Section 224 but now renumbered Section 219 would establish a formal “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative” requiring the US defense secretary to designate a Pentagon executive agent responsible for coordinating and expanding US-Israel defense technology collaboration.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza – has called the section his personal plan.

“Only 16% of Americans support arming Israel without restrictions. So what is Congress doing? Burying a provision in the defense bill that would give Israel more military integration than any NATO ally,” Sanders (I-Vt.) said on social media. “We must strip Section 224 from the Pentagon budget.”

Earlier this month, members of the House Armed Services Committee from both parties rejected an amendment introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) to remove the integration provision from the 2027 NDAA. The committee then advanced the broader defense package. The Senate Armed Services Committee subsequently voted to advance the proposed NDAA.

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) – an anti-interventionist libertarian who recently lost his reelection primary to a challenger backed by President Donald Trump – said Sunday that he and Khanna have submitted an amendment to strip Section 219 from the proposed NDAA. Massie’s measure requires the assent of seven of the House Rules Committee’s 13 members to get a vote.

Keep reading

FBI stopped plot to massacre crowd at White House UFC event, Kash Patel says

The FBI foiled an alleged plot to massacre Sunday’s UFC White House event attendees and arrested several suspects, according to the bureau’s director, Kash Patel.

“On June 10, FBI and our law enforcement partners became aware of a potential threat to the UFC America 250 event in Washington, D.C.,” Patel shared Tuesday on X. 

According to officials cited by Fox News, the would-be perpetrators planned to set off explosive drones on the South Lawn, forcing attendees to flee the event. The alleged conspirators then planned to gun them down by sniper fire as they were funneled out of the White House grounds.

A total of 23 people were involved in the plot, according to court and FBI documents. They were allegedly upset about “government corruption, the handling of the [Jeffrey] Epstein files, data centers taking up all the water in communities, and other government actions,” according to the affidavit.

In a private Signal chat, the suspects considered targeting Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) as well as West Virginia GOP Reps. Carol Miller and Riley Moore.

One proposed Marsha Blackburn as a potential target because she had “taken money from the Israel pro Israel lobby and supports them,” despite the fact that a large majority of congressmen have received money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

The mother of suspect Tycen Proper, 19, who was arrested on June 10, tipped off local police about her son’s “recent conduct, including firearms purchases and communicating with certain individuals online,” according to a federal affidavit.

She said in a phone interview with an FBI officer that the conspirators “claimed to be ex-military and Christian based.” The group allegedly wanted to “jumpstart” a revolution by killing “high-value targets” including “billionaires” and “capitalist elites.”

Proper admitted to helping to plan the attack during a June 11 FBI interview and said that the conspirators got in touch around March 2026 through a TikTok group called “Vanguard of the Old.”

Keep reading

UK’s Renewed Ban on Palestine Action Confirms Legal Overreach in the Designation of Terrorism

In a dispiriting ruling yesterday, the Court of Appeal in London overturned a ruling in February, by the High Court, that the government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, which was passed by Parliament last July, was unlawful.

The High Court’s ruling, in response to a judicial review submitted by Huda Ammori, one of Palestine Action’s two co-founders, repudiated the two counts on which the High Court had ruled the proscription unlawful.

Garden Court Chambers, whose barristers represented Huda Ammori at the judicial review in February, explained that these two counts were, firstly, that the Court “upheld the Claimant’s challenge that the Home Secretary failed to comply with her own policy when making the decision to proscribe Palestine Action”, and, secondly, that “proscription breached the rights of Freedom of Expression and Assembly as protected under Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The Court of Appeal shamefully reinstates the terrorism proscription

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal overturned both. The repudiation of the first was a long and detailed analysis of the home secretary’s powers regarding proscription, in which it was noticeable that, in dismissing it, the Court of Appeal not only poured scorn on the High Court, declaring that they had “adopted an excessively analytical approach to the interpretation of the Proscription Policy”, but also showed repeated and obsequious deference to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary at the time of the proscription, and her “expert” advisers from the police and the intelligence services.

At one point, for instance, the judges described how they were “required to attach special weight to the judgments and assessments of a primary decision-maker with special institutional competence” — yes, that really is a fawning description of Yvette Cooper! — and elsewhere, in deference to the executive branch of government, they noted that “The Proscription Decision lies in the area of national security which, before the Human Rights Act 1998, would have been regarded as unsuitable for judicial scrutiny at all.”

On the ECHR issues, described by the Court of Appeal as “questions of proportionality and the fair balance between the rights of individuals (free speech and freedom of assembly) and the rights of the community (national security and the rights of others)”, the Court acknowledged difficulties involving “the rights of the many law-abiding citizens wishing peacefully to protest, hold placards and otherwise support Palestine Action”, over 3,500 of whom have now been arrested — although they did also note that all of them ought to have been aware that doing so had become a “criminal act.” They also acknowledged “the ‘chilling effect’ that proscription may have upon those wishing to support the Palestinian cause, but who may be dissuaded from doing so by fear of committing offenses under the 2000 Act.”

Keep reading

The Fragile US-Iran MOU and the Limits of the Trump-Netanyahu Partnership

As the fragile ceasefire hangs over the Middle East, two longtime allies who once seemed inseparable are now locked in a tense standoff. Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, launched this war with what looked like perfect coordination. But roughly a hundred days later, it has become a messy arena of personal friction, clashing strategies, and a very public tug-of-war over how – and when – it should end. Trump wants a quick victory and a deal he can sell as a historic win back home. Netanyahu sees the conflict as a once-in-a-generation chance to crush Iran’s threats for good and is in no mood to back down easily.

It all began in late February 2026. Joint U.S.-Israeli strikes hammered Iranian targets with waves of missiles and airstrikes. In his first statements, Trump spoke of the “death of Iran’s Supreme Leader” and urged Iranians to rise up against the regime. Netanyahu set even more ambitious goals: destroying Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, weakening its proxy forces across the region, and perhaps even regime change. In those early days, the two leaders appeared completely aligned. Trump pictured the operation as something short and decisive, reminiscent of his past “maximum pressure” campaigns. He hoped it would drive down oil prices, boost the American economy, and deliver him a major political trophy.

The battlefield, however, refused to cooperate with the script. Iran proved far more resilient than expected. Fighting spilled into Lebanon, Hezbollah got involved, and Trump’s diplomatic back-channel talks with Tehran suddenly looked shaky. Almost overnight, the early harmony gave way to visible strain. Trump quickly began looking for an honorable off-ramp. For him, war was always a tool for negotiation – a means to an end. Netanyahu, however, faced intense domestic pressure in Israel. With critics nipping at his heels and a fragile right-wing coalition to maintain, he viewed the conflict as a historic opportunity to deliver decisive blows against Iran’s infrastructure and cut off support to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Reports from Israeli security cabinet meetings suggest Netanyahu even warned that Israel might continue alone if necessary, without full American backing.

The rift turned sharply personal in recent days. After Israeli strikes on Hezbollah targets in Beirut, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward northern Israel. Israel responded by hitting Iranian defensive sites and missile fuel facilities. Trump was openly furious about the escalation. In an interview with the Financial Times, he declared, “I call the shots. I call all the shots. He [Netanyahu] doesn’t call the shots.” He claimed to have warned Netanyahu that if the fighting continued unchecked, Israel could soon find itself standing alone.

Accounts of a heated phone call between the two leaders have since leaked. Sources describe Trump using strong language, reportedly calling Netanyahu “f***ing crazy” and accusing him of undermining American diplomacy. People close to the White House say Trump shouted that he was saving Netanyahu, that without him Israel would be isolated and hated internationally. Netanyahu apparently postponed a planned new round of strikes on Tehran following that conversation. Back in Israel, his critics accused him of caving to Washington. Former army chief Gadi Eisenkot even released a campaign-style video featuring Trump’s voice, implying that Netanyahu does whatever the American president wants.

Trump later tried to soften the story in interviews with the BBC and various podcasts. He admitted he had been “a little upset” about the continued fighting in Lebanon because it was disrupting his negotiations with Iran. Yet multiple American and Israeli sources confirm the pressure from Washington was real and effective. Using America’s leverage – military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic cover – Trump has leaned hard on his counterpart.

The motivations driving each man run deep and differ sharply. Trump, mindful of war fatigue among American voters, is hunting for an agreement that curbs Iran’s nuclear program, frees hostages, and brings down gas prices at American pumps. He approaches foreign policy like a businessman: apply maximum pressure, strike a deal, and exit with something to show for it. This culminated in the recent U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which extends the ceasefire for 60 days, includes provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, provides for sanctions relief and release of frozen assets tied to compliance, and sets the stage for further nuclear negotiations. Netanyahu operates in a different reality. For him, anything short of severely degrading Iran’s capabilities would leave the job half-done. Any agreement reached too quickly, he believes, would be temporary and dangerous. In private sessions, he has stressed that Israel must be prepared to act in its own defense even without complete U.S. support.

The disagreement is particularly clear in Lebanon. Israeli operations in the south have complicated Trump’s diplomatic track with Tehran. Netanyahu insists that without a heavy blow to Iran’s proxies, the Islamic Republic will simply regroup and threaten Israel again. Trump, on the other hand, sees every extra week of fighting as an obstacle to the deal he wants to close. The MOU has further highlighted these tensions, with Israel expressing reservations and continuing certain operations while the U.S. pushes the broader framework forward.

Their once-warm personal relationship has also grown complicated. For years, Trump called Netanyahu a “friend” and “great partner.” Now his tone carries a sharper, almost condescending edge. Netanyahu, who has always emphasized Israel’s independent decision-making, finds himself walking a tightrope between domestic political survival and the vital lifeline of American support. Analysts describe the dynamic as much psychological as political. Trump pushes with his trademark blunt force and threats. Netanyahu resists with iron will and careful calculations about his own political future.

The consequences of this split reach well beyond the two men. If Trump brokers a relatively soft deal with Iran via the MOU, Netanyahu might view it as betrayal and launch unilateral operations anyway. Conversely, if Netanyahu drags the war out, Trump could restrict logistical and intelligence support, leaving Israel in a difficult spot. Iran is already trying to exploit the visible daylight between Washington and Jerusalem to deepen the divide. Inside Israel, the public is tired of war but many still back Netanyahu’s hard line. In the United States, the conflict remains deeply unpopular, and Trump faces growing pressure to bring it to an end.

For now, a shaky ceasefire holds under the new U.S.-Iran MOU framework, but tensions simmer just beneath the surface. Trump insists he remains in control and that Netanyahu will ultimately do what he asks. Netanyahu, in public statements, continues to stress Israel’s readiness to defend its interests with or without full dependence on Washington. The history of the Middle East is littered with wars that were easy to start but agonizingly hard to finish. The relationship between Trump and Netanyahu – once a symbol of ironclad solidarity – has become a mirror reflecting conflicting national interests and differing priorities.

What is decided in the Oval Office and in the prime minister’s office in Jerusalem will shape not only the outcome of this war but potentially the future pattern of U.S.-Israel relations for years to come. The region waits, watching closely.

Keep reading

Trump Moves to Expand Weapons Manufacturing, Strengthen National Defense

Following months of escalating tensions with Iran, President Donald Trump is pushing to boost domestic weapons manufacturing, invoking emergency powers as his administration eyes billions in new military spending from Congress.

A memo went public on Tuesday showing that Trump actually signed the order back on June 11. It activates the Defense Production Act—a relic of the Cold War that lets the government cut through red tape, jump to the front of the line for manufacturing, and fix supply chain bottlenecks.

“I hereby find that conditions exist which may pose a direct threat to the national defense or its preparedness programs,” Trump wrote. “In particular, systemic constraints in the munitions industrial base, including limited production capacity, fragile supply chains, long-lead dependencies, and related production bottlenecks, may impair the ability of the United States to produce, sustain, and expand the availability of munitions, missiles, and equipment required for the national defense.”

The move comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth lobbies lawmakers to approve roughly $350 billion in additional Pentagon funding. Administration officials argue the money is needed to restore weapons inventories and strengthen military readiness after extensive operations tied to the conflict with Iran.

Following meetings with Hegseth on Capitol Hill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said the discussions centered largely on defense procurement and ensuring the military has the resources necessary to acquire critical weapons systems. The Defense Production Act grants presidents broad authority during national emergencies, including the ability to require companies to give priority to government contracts. The law has previously been used during national crises ranging from natural disasters to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The administration is also preparing a formal request for supplemental defense funding, though questions remain about whether Congress will approve the full amount sought by the White House.

Some Republicans have expressed support for boosting military spending, while others want more information about the long-term costs associated with operations involving Iran. Democrats, meanwhile, have indicated they are unlikely to support a major funding package without additional briefings from administration officials and greater clarity regarding U.S. objectives in the region.

“As long as we are at war with Iran, I will not allow a supplemental to serve as the de facto authorization for the war. And I’ve been debating this with Republican colleagues,” Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said.

Keep reading

The Mladenov Distraction: Behind the Screen, Netanyahu Is Annexing Gaza ‘Step-by-Step’

Gaza requires urgent international attention.

What is happening in the besieged and devastated Strip at the moment by far exceeds an unfolding humanitarian disaster; it is a calculated geopolitical reshaping. Israel is actively executing a plan to permanently occupy the vast majority of Gaza, with consequences that require little elaboration considering what we already know about the ongoing genocide.

Currently, much of the international debate centers on a single official: Bulgarian diplomat Nickolay Mladenov. The former United Nations Special Coordinator has been designated by the United States as the Executive Director of the Trump administration’s newly established ‘Board of Peace’ – an international council founded to oversee the implementation of Washington’s 20-point Gaza roadmap.

The issue, however, is much bigger than a single Washington-backed bureaucrat. A growing number of Palestinians and political analysts accuse Mladenov of manufacturing the very conditions that continue to obstruct progress on the agreement’s transition to its second phase.

Under the framework, the official transition to this second phase – which Trump and the Board of Peace declared to have begun in January 2026 – demands sweeping, one-sided Palestinian concessions, most notably the total disarmament of armed factions.

This demand is a recipe for the failure of the entire project, especially given that Israel has completely failed to implement the most basic requirements of the agreement’s first phase. It has refused to halt its routine military incursions, has failed to withdraw its forces to the originally mandated ‘Yellow Line‘ demarcation, and continues to deny entry permits to the technocratic committee slated to assume civil governance of the Strip.

Mladenov’s insistence on Palestinian disarmament before the agreement can advance – without a single guarantee of Israeli compliance – conveniently flips the narrative. It cynically reframes systematic starvation and the blockade of medical and construction supplies as a Palestinian failure to honor commitments.

In reality, Mladenov holds no real cards; he is merely a cog in a larger machinery controlled by Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli Prime Minister has made it explicitly clear that he has no intention of following any peace roadmap, planning instead for the permanent, incremental takeover of Gaza.

Speaking at a conference in an occupied West Bank settlement on May 28, Netanyahu explained his strategy with total clarity, abandoning all diplomatic doublespeak: “We are currently squeezing Hamas; we now control 60% of the territory of the Strip – you know this. We were at 50, we moved to 60. My directive is to move to…” he said, pausing as an audience member shouted “100!”

Netanyahu smiled and responded: “Let’s go step by step. First of all, 70. Let’s start with that. We’re pressing them from all sides, we’ll deal with the remnants.”

This is the actual blueprint of the Israeli government, declared openly to domestic audiences. The admission was so brazen that even US Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed frustration at Netanyahu’s candor. Testifying before Congress on June 2, Rubio remarked, “We have a plan – it doesn’t call for that,” referring to further Israeli territorial expansion.

Yet, Rubio quickly reverted to Washington’s standard line: “And at the end of the day, we understand that what we want, and I think what the Israelis would ultimately want, is a Gaza that is governed by a non-Hamas entity.”

Keep reading

Schiff: Dems Will Subpoena Private Sector People that Worked with Trump

Tuesday on MS NOW’s “The Briefing,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said that if Democrats win the majority in the midterms, they will subpoena private-sector people who worked with President Donald Trump in his second term.

Host Jen Psaki asked, “Should the Senate be, should the Democrats be in the majority and decide to investigate or look into Patel? I mean, you are one of the many people who have been targeted by Trump’s Justice Department under Trump’s direction, as we’ve all seen it. One another person, who announced yesterday that he was being targeted is, of course, Governor Gavin Newsom. I know you spoke with some of my colleagues about that last night, but I wonder, as we’re thinking about because we’ve been talking about the Georgia races tonight, we’ve been talking about politics as we think about if Democrats have the majority next year, you’re on the Judiciary Committee. Trump is still going to target his political enemies. He’s not going to stop. He’s going to have people in the Department of Justice that does that. What changes what kind of Senate majority do to kind of hold them to account or even stop that?”

Schiff said, “Well, we’ll of course, to oversight of the administration. But judging from his first term, when we subpoenaed, for example, administration officials in the Russia Ukraine investigations, they basically stonewall the subpoenas. In fact, Trump was impeached in that first impeachment, not just for trying to extort Zelensky to get him to help cheat in the election, but also because he was stonewalling, congressional subpoenas. So I don’t think we can expect a whole lot from the administration, but we can subpoena the private sector and they will need to comply. So all of the crypto deals and meme coin deals, the UFC fight, all the back channeling on the Paramount SkyDance, and Warner Brothers mergers, whether there are promises made of changing editorial content, all of that kind of corruption, potential corruption, we will be able to look into.”

Keep reading

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

Keep reading

Senate Shoots Down Resolution to Limit Trump’s Military Authority Over Iran

By a single vote, the Senate shot down a proposal on Tuesday that would have reined in President Donald Trump’s ability to use military force against Iran without Congress’s approval.

The vote fell just one vote short of advancing with 48-47. Republican Senators Susan Collins, Bill Cassidy, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul voted with the Democrats. On the flip side, Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) crossed the aisle to vote alongside the Republican majority against the bill.

Introduced by Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), the resolution sought to require congressional approval for continued U.S. military action involving Iran. Warnock had urged Republicans to vote for it, arguing that Congress shouldn’t just sit back and let the president make all the decisions on foreign wars.

The vote occurred as lawmakers pressed the White House for details about an agreement Trump announced Sunday between Washington and Tehran that he has promoted as a path toward ending months of fighting.

“The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!” Trump declared on Truth Social.

Members of Congress are still completely in the dark about the agreement, leading to a push on the administration for transparency. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said lawmakers are demanding more details on how the arrangement actually works. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, agreements related to Iran’s nuclear program must be submitted to Congress for review before sanctions relief can take effect.

Although the measure did not advance, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats are continuing discussions surrounding a separate proposal sponsored by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and are attempting to secure additional Republican support before bringing it up again.

Keep reading