The People's Ledger
A Plain-English Look at What Congress is Actually Debating, Passing, and Funding
Week Ending July 11, 2026
Most of us only hear about Congress through screaming cable news segments or social media clips designed to make us mad before we’re informed. The People’s Ledger is different. It’s a quick, clear look at what lawmakers are actually debating, funding, and changing – minus the political theater.
Congress spent most of this week away from Washington for the holiday break. The House cast zero votes, and the Senate only held brief “pro forma” sessions – which is Washington’s way of opening the chamber doors for five minutes to satisfy a legal requirement, banging a gavel, and walking right back out.
But an empty Capitol building doesn’t mean the government stopped moving.
While lawmakers were back in their home districts, a major housing bill quietly became law without the president’s signature, the Senate prepared to advance a staggering $1.15 trillion defense package, the Justice Department locked horns with state election officials, and leadership began openly planning yet another temporary spending bill to keep the government open.
Washington may have been physically quiet, but the fight over who controls what, how much they spend, and how far federal power can reach continued without missing a beat.
Here’s what happened in our name last week.
1. The Biggest Story: The Housing Bill Becomes Law Without a Signature
What Happened
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (H.R. 6644) officially became law without the signature of President Trump. The bill passed the Senate 85–5 and the House 358–32. It then sat on the president’s desk for ten days (excluding Sundays).
Under Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, the president normally has three choices: sign it into law, veto it, or do nothing. When Congress is still available to receive a veto and the president takes no action within those 10 days, the bill automatically becomes law.
That’s what happened here.
What Changed
The law attempts to make housing more affordable by making it easier to build and finance more homes.
That matters because Washington has often tried to solve high housing prices by giving buyers more money. But giving people more money to compete for the same limited number of homes can push prices even higher.
This law takes a different approach. It speeds up some federal permits and environmental reviews, expands financing for modular and manufactured homes, and creates programs aimed at smaller mortgages that many banks currently avoid.
It also stops the largest institutional investors from buying more single-family homes after they reach a certain ownership limit.
Local communities will still control their own zoning rules.
The Congressional Budget Office says the law should not add to the federal deficit as written. However, some of the new programs won’t begin unless Congress provides money for them in future spending bills.
Why It Matters
This was one of the most widely supported domestic bills passed by this Congress.
At a time when Republicans and Democrats struggle to agree on almost anything, the bill passed both chambers by overwhelming margins.
It also shows how a bill can become law even when the president refuses to sign it. By allowing the ten-day deadline to pass, President Trump let the bill take effect without officially putting his name on it.
In practical terms, the law is now in place. But the president can still say he never endorsed it.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Modular and manufactured home builders, people looking for smaller mortgages, and communities that want more housing without giving up local zoning control.
Likely Losers: Very large investment companies that have been buying up single-family homes. Once they reach the new ownership limit, they could face penalties of up to $1 million if they continue purchasing them.
Publius Project Take
There’s a lot to like here, but there’s also reason to be cautious.
The best part of this law is that it acknowledges a basic economic truth: the answer to a housing shortage is more housing, not subsidies, tax credits, and cheap loans sponsored by Washington. That only makes homes harder and more expensive to build.
Cutting unnecessary federal permits and making modular homes and manufactured homes easier to finance moves in the right direction.
This law also leaves zoning decisions with local communities, where they belong. People in Virginia, for example, shouldn’t have their neighborhoods planned by federal bureaucrats in D.C. who will never see or live with the results.
My concern is that this law opens the door for future new programs that will most likely require more taxpayer funding. Pilot programs have a funny way of becoming permanent government programs once an agency, staff and budget are built around it.
I’m also leery about Congress limiting how many homes a private company can own. I understand the concern of large investment firms buying up entire neighborhoods, which can hurt families trying to purchase a home, but government interference in the market is still a problem. Congress should be more concerned about federal tax rules, monetary policy, housing subsidies, or regulations creating the problems in the first place.
What to Watch For Next
Watch the fiscal year 2027 spending bills.
Congress created several new housing programs, but it didn’t provide all the money needed to get them running.
That means lawmakers will have to decide later whether these programs actually receive funding. A program can exist on paper for years without doing much if Congress never pays for it.
2. Quietly Moving Bills: The $1.15 Trillion Defense Vehicle
What Happened
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has started the process of bringing S. 4784, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, to the Senate floor.
The Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill by an 18–9 vote. Thune then filed what is known as a cloture motion on the motion to proceed.
In plain English, Senate leaders are trying to gather the 60 votes needed to end procedural delays and begin formally debating the bill.
That wouldn’t pass the NDAA. It would simply allow the Senate to start considering it.
What Changed
The NDAA is Congress’s yearly defense-policy bill.
It tells the Pentagon what programs it may operate, what weapons it may purchase, how many people may serve, and how much money Congress is willing to authorize.
One important distinction: the NDAA authorizes spending, but it doesn’t provide all the money by itself. Congress must still pass separate appropriations bills before the money can actually be spent.
Even so, the NDAA creates the blueprint.
This version authorizes approximately $1.15 trillion for national defense – roughly $249 billion more than the enacted FY2026 level.
Among its many provisions, the bill would:
Give military personnel a 3.6% pay raise.
Extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2029 and authorize another $750 million.
Make it harder for a president to reduce U.S. troop levels in Europe or South Korea without first submitting reports and certifications to Congress.
Create a new U.S.–Israel program for joint defense research, weapons testing, technology development and industrial cooperation.
Increase cooperation with Israel on drones and underground warfare.
Require new assessments and reporting on drone threats near the American border.
Why It Matters
The NDAA is considered one of Washington’s “must-pass” bills.
Few lawmakers want to be accused of voting against military pay, troop readiness or national defense. That makes the NDAA a convenient place to attach policies that might struggle to pass on their own.
A senator may support a pay raise for servicemembers but oppose extending aid to Ukraine. Another may support rebuilding America’s weapons stockpiles but oppose deeper military cooperation with Israel.
Yet Congress rolls all of it into one enormous package and eventually demands a single yes-or-no vote.
That makes it much harder for citizens to know what their senators actually supported.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Military personnel receiving the proposed pay raise, defense contractors, weapons manufacturers, military research institutions and foreign governments receiving additional American assistance or cooperation.
Likely Losers: Taxpayers, lawmakers seeking serious spending restraint and future presidents who may want to reduce America’s permanent military presence overseas.
Publius Project Take
Providing for the national defense is one of the federal government’s clearest constitutional responsibilities. America needs a capable military. Our service members deserve proper pay, working equipment and leaders who take readiness seriously.
But “national defense” can’t become a magic phrase that ends every argument about spending.
A ~28% jump from roughly $901 billion to $1.15 trillion in a single year should require a detailed public explanation. Congress should be able to show where every major increase is going, why it’s necessary and what result taxpayers should expect.
My larger concern is how much foreign policy is being buried inside this defense bill.
The provisions involving Ukraine, Israel, Europe and South Korea are not minor housekeeping matters. They could shape American military commitments for years and make it harder for future presidents to bring troops home or change course.
Those decisions deserve separate debates and separate recorded votes.
A senator shouldn’t be able to vote for deeper foreign entanglements and then hide behind the excuse that he was simply “supporting the troops.”
We can support our military without writing a blank check. We can defend America without making every overseas deployment untouchable. And we can work with allies without tying America’s military policy permanently to another country’s priorities.
A strong national defense should protect the United States – not turn every alliance, deployment and foreign conflict into an endless American obligation.
What to Watch for Next
First, watch whether Senate leaders can get the 60 votes needed to begin debating the bill. Then watch the amendment process.
Will senators receive separate recorded votes on the overall spending level, Ukraine assistance, the U.S.–Israel technology program and restrictions on bringing American troops home?
Or will leadership protect those provisions by keeping them buried inside a bill few senators are willing to oppose?
Finally, remember that authorization isn’t the same as funding. The NDAA may approve $1.15 trillion, but the appropriations bills will determine how much money Congress actually hands over.
3. Money & Spending: Governing by Shutdown Threat
What Happened
The federal government’s current funding runs out on September 30.
Congress still has a couple of months to finish its work, but Senate leaders are already discussing another continuing resolution, usually called a CR.
A continuing resolution is a temporary spending bill that keeps the government open when Congress fails to pass a full budget on time.
In other words, lawmakers are already preparing a backup plan in case they don’t complete their main job.
What Changed
Congress is supposed to pass twelve separate spending bills each year.
Each bill covers a different part of the federal government, such as defense, transportation, agriculture, veterans’ programs, and the State Department.
That process is supposed to let lawmakers debate each department separately, cut waste, offer amendments, and vote on individual priorities.
Instead, the process has stalled over disagreements about domestic spending, the proposed $1.15 trillion defense budget, and a separate $87.6 billion emergency request tied largely to military operations involving Iran.
Rather than settling those arguments through twelve separate bills, congressional leaders will, once again, push everything into a temporary funding patch or one enormous year-end omnibus package.
Why It Matters
This is how Congress turns its own failure into an emergency.
Lawmakers miss the deadline. The government moves closer to a shutdown. Leadership then produces a massive spending bill and tells members they must vote for it immediately or be blamed for closing the government.
Members may receive hundreds or thousands of pages with little time to read them. They’re then given one choice: accept the entire package or vote against funding the government.
That isn’t careful budgeting. It’s government by manufactured crisis.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Congressional leaders and a small group of negotiators who gain enormous control over the final spending deal.
Likely Losers: Rank-and-file lawmakers, taxpayers, and the public, who lose the ability to examine and challenge each part of the federal budget separately.
Federal agencies also benefit because temporary spending bills often continue last year’s funding without forcing Congress to decide whether every program still deserves the money.
Publius Project Take
Congress has one of the clearest jobs in the Constitution: decide how public money is spent. Yet year after year, lawmakers fail to pass the regular spending bills on time and then act as though the deadline appeared out of nowhere.
It didn’t.
They know the fiscal year ends on September 30. They know how many bills have to be passed. And they know the disagreements months in advance.
The shutdown threat is no longer an unexpected emergency. It’s become a negotiating tool.
That benefits congressional leaders because it allows a handful of people to write the final deal behind closed doors. Rank-and-file members are pressured to fall in line, and the public gets almost no meaningful chance to examine what’s being funded.
A conservative approach should demand real spending restraint.
A libertarian approach should demand transparency, limited government, and accountability.
The current process delivers none of those things.
Congress should pass each spending bill separately, put members on the record, and give the public enough time to read the legislation before a vote.
And when Congress fails to do its job, members should feel the consequences – not federal workers, military families, or ordinary citizens who depend on government services.
No budget should mean no congressional pay increase, no taxpayer-funded travel, and no early recess until the work is finished.
What to Watch For Next
Listen closely to the language coming from congressional leaders.
The warning sign will be some version of:
“There simply isn’t enough time to finish all twelve spending bills.”
When that excuse starts getting used in July or August, it means lawmakers are already preparing another temporary patch or giant year-end package.
Also watch how long the proposed continuing resolution would last.
A brief extension might give Congress time to finish its work. A measure lasting until after the election would allow lawmakers to avoid difficult spending votes until voters have already cast their ballots in this year’s mid-term elections.
That’s not a scheduling decision. It’s political protection.
4. Coming to the House Floor This Week
The House returns Monday with a long list of bills on its schedule.
Most will receive little attention outside Washington. Here are four that deserve a closer look because they involve foreign aid, election money, financial privacy, and the balance of power between Washington and the states.
H.R. 8595 (Foreign Operations Spending): H.R. 8595 would provide $47.32 billion for the State Department, foreign aid, diplomatic operations, and other international programs during fiscal year 2027.
That is about $2.69 billion less than last year, a cut of roughly 6%.
Even with the overall reduction, the bill would provide:
$3.3 billion in military assistance for Israel.
$1.8 billion for countries and programs in the Indo-Pacific.
At least $500 million in military assistance for Taiwan.
It would also continue funding for other American allies, international health programs, counternarcotics efforts, and diplomatic operations around the world.
Publius Project Take
Cutting the bill by $2.69 billion is better than increasing it. But “less than last year” doesn’t automatically make a spending bill responsible.
The federal government has a legitimate role in diplomacy. We need embassies, consular services, treaty negotiations, intelligence cooperation, and ways to communicate with both friends and enemies.
Foreign aid is a different question. Every dollar sent overseas should have to pass a simple test:
What direct American interest does it serve?
What result are we buying?
How will we know whether it worked?
When does the funding end?
Writing a $3.3 billion check to Israel or a $500 million check to Taiwan shouldn’t be treated as routine housekeeping. Each commitment should be openly debated, clearly justified, and voted on separately.
Bundling dozens of countries and programs into one massive bill allows lawmakers to support foreign aid they might otherwise oppose and then claim they were merely funding the State Department.
A smaller blank check is still a blank check.
H.R. 8720 (Campaign Finance Transparency Act): This bill would tighten the rules for online political donations made with credit and debit cards.
Political committees would have to collect the card’s security code and billing ZIP code. The name on the card would also have to match the name of the donor.
The bill would prohibit campaigns from knowingly accepting donations made with store gift cards. It would also require committees to report suspected donations made in someone else’s name.
Another major change has received less attention: the bill would remove the current $200 reporting threshold. That means political committees would have to collect and report identifying information for donors giving even very small amounts.
Publius Project Take
The basic fraud protections make sense. Political campaigns shouldn’t be accepting anonymous gift cards, cards belonging to someone else, or online donations that can’t be connected to a real donor.
If campaigns demand election integrity from voters, they should practice financial integrity themselves. But removing the $200 reporting threshold raises a legitimate privacy concern.
Someone who gives $10 or $20 to a candidate shouldn’t necessarily have his name and address placed into a searchable government database.
There’s a difference between verifying that a donation is lawful and publicly exposing every small donor.
Congress could require campaigns to verify the donor privately while keeping small contributions out of public disclosure reports.
Stop illegal money, but don’t build another government database containing the names of ordinary Americans who made small political donations.
H.R. 3535 (Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act): Federal law already prohibits foreign nationals from donating to American political candidates and campaigns.
H.R. 3535 would expand that ban to include money spent on state and local ballot initiatives, referendums, and recall elections.
That means foreign nationals couldn’t legally donate money to influence questions such as abortion laws, marijuana legalization, tax limits, election rules, or efforts to remove an elected official from office.
Publius Project Take
This is pretty straightforward.
Foreign governments, foreign corporations, and foreign nationals have no business financing American elections.
That principle should apply whether voters are choosing a president, electing a town council member, changing a state constitution, or deciding a local referendum.
The people who live under the law should be the people who decide the law.
The bill should be enforced evenly, however. The standard cannot depend on whether the foreign money helps Republicans, Democrats, environmental groups, gun-rights organizations, unions, or corporations.
No foreign money means no foreign money.
H.R. 1181 (Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act): Credit-card networks use what are called merchant category codes to identify the general type of business where a purchase was made.
H.R. 1181 would prohibit card networks and financial companies from requiring a special code that identifies a business specifically as a firearms retailer. The code wouldn’t show whether someone purchased a gun, ammunition, a holster, clothing, or something else. It would only show that the card was used at a business classified as a firearms retailer.
The bill would give the attorney general the power to investigate violations and seek a court order against companies that refuse to comply. It would also override state and local laws dealing with firearms merchant codes.
Publius Project Take
Banks and credit-card companies shouldn’t quietly become a private surveillance system for lawful purchases. Buying something at a gun store isn’t evidence of a crime. Financial companies shouldn’t be creating special lists that could later be used to track, investigate, or discriminate against customers who have broken no law.
On that point, the bill protects both the Second Amendment and basic financial privacy. But the federalism problem can’t be ignored.
The same bill that limits private financial surveillance also gives the federal government the power to override every state law on the subject and places enforcement in the hands of the attorney general. That may produce the policy some would prefer, but constitutional principles matter most when they become inconvenient.
If conservatives argue that Washington shouldn’t override state law whenever Democrats control Congress, they shouldn’t demand federal preemption simply because Republicans currently support the result.
The privacy protection is worth supporting.
The nationwide override deserves a separate debate.
What to Watch
Watch whether lawmakers receive real opportunities to amend these bills or whether leadership controls which changes may reach the floor.
Also watch the final vote totals.
The two election bills are scheduled under a procedure normally used for measures expected to receive broad support and requiring a two-thirds vote. The State Department spending bill and the firearms merchant-code bill will be considered under rules established by House leadership.
That procedural difference matters.
It tells us which bills leadership expects to pass quickly, and which ones may produce a larger political fight.
5. Civil Liberties & Constitutional Power: The Federalism Line
What Happened
The Justice Department sent warning letters to election officials in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
The letters said state and local officials could face federal criminal charges if they knowingly allow people who aren’t eligible to vote to remain on voter rolls or cast ballots.
The Justice Department also gave states five days to explain how they planned to follow federal election law.
What Changed
The federal government is increasing pressure on states over how they maintain their voter-registration lists.
That pressure comes after the Justice Department sued Maryland and other states seeking access to their full voter databases. The Maryland records include sensitive personal information such as birth dates, home addresses, driver’s-license numbers, and portions of Social Security numbers.
A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. She ruled that federal law didn’t require Maryland to hand its complete, unredacted voter file to the Justice Department.
The ruling didn’t say Maryland could ignore federal election law. It said the Justice Department hadn’t shown that the law gave it the right to obtain all that private information.
That’s an important distinction.
Why It Matters
Only eligible American citizens should vote in federal elections.
States also have a legal duty to keep their voter rolls accurate and current. Federal law establishes rules for maintaining those lists and gives the Justice Department a role in enforcing them.
But elections are still largely administered by state and local governments.
That division of power acts as a safeguard. It prevents one national office from controlling every voter list, every eligibility decision, and every part of the election system.
The federal government may enforce federal law. It may investigate actual violations. It may take states to court when it believes they are failing to meet their legal duties.
What it may not do is simply claim whatever power or private information it wants without showing where the law gives it that authority.
Who Wins or Loses
Likely Winners: Citizens who want accurate voter rolls without surrendering their private information, and states defending their authority to administer elections within federal law.
Likely Losers: Federal agencies attempting to collect complete state voter databases without first proving that the law gives them that power.
There could also be a broader loser: public trust.
If states ignore real problems with voter eligibility, citizens will lose confidence in the election system. If Washington uses election integrity as an excuse to gather massive amounts of private data, citizens will distrust the federal government.
Neither outcome strengthens the republic.
Publius Project Take
There shouldn’t be anything controversial about saying that noncitizens can’t vote in American elections.
They can’t, and states should take reasonable steps to identify unlawful registrations, remove ineligible names, and prosecute anyone who knowingly casts an illegal ballot.
Election integrity isn’t voter suppression. Every illegal vote weakens the lawful vote of an American citizen.
But supporting election integrity doesn’t require giving the Justice Department unlimited access to the personal information of millions of lawful voters.
A database containing names, home addresses, birth dates, driver’s-license information, and partial Social Security numbers creates serious privacy and security risks. Once that information is gathered in one place, citizens have little control over how it is used, shared, or protected.
Conservatives should be especially careful here.
They can’t spend years warning about federal databases, government surveillance, and political abuse of law-enforcement agencies – and then abandon those concerns because an administration they support claims it needs the information.
The Constitution doesn’t change depending on which party controls the Justice Department.
Washington should enforce clear federal laws against illegal voting. States should prove that they’re properly maintaining their voter rolls. But federal officials should have to identify a lawful reason, follow due process, and obtain only the information genuinely needed for the investigation.
The goal should be secure elections without creating a national voter-surveillance system.
We can protect the ballot and protect the citizen at the same time.
What to Watch For Next
Watch how states respond to the Justice Department’s letters.
Some states will cooperate. Others may argue that the warnings are vague, politically motivated, or an attempt to intimidate state election officials.
Also watch for more lawsuits over voter data.
The central question will be whether the Justice Department can point to a specific federal law authorizing each demand or whether it’s simply trying to create new power through warning letters and lawsuits.
Finally, watch what happens to the data states have already provided.
Citizens deserve to know:
What information was turned over?
Which federal agencies can access it?
How will it be used?
How long will it be kept?
What happens when a lawful citizen is wrongly identified as ineligible?
Keeping voter rolls accurate is a legitimate government responsibility.
Building a national database of American voters without clear limits is something else entirely.
6. What to Watch Next Week
The Trillion-Dollar Hurdle: The first question is whether Senate leaders can gather the 60 votes needed to begin debating the $1.15 trillion defense bill.
If they clear that hurdle, watch what happens next.
Will senators be allowed to vote separately on aid to Ukraine, military cooperation with Israel, overseas troop levels, and the overall price of the bill?
Or will all of those issues remain tied together in one enormous package?
Those votes will show whether senators are willing to defend each policy on its own—or whether they prefer to hide controversial decisions inside a bill labeled “national defense.”
The House Rules Mutiny: House leaders are preparing to bring several bills to the floor, including the State Department and foreign-aid spending bill.
But some Republican members have repeatedly joined Democrats in voting down the procedural rules needed to begin debate.
They are using those votes to pressure leadership into taking action on the SAVE America Act.
That means the House could once again become stuck before lawmakers even reach the bills themselves.
Watch whether leadership reaches a deal with the holdouts or whether the internal fight shuts down House business for another week.
The CR Foundation: Congress has until September 30 to fund the government.
That may sound like plenty of time, but leaders are already discussing another temporary spending bill.
Listen for phrases such as:
“There’s not enough time to finish all twelve spending bills.”
“A short-term extension is the only responsible option.”
“We must keep the government open.”
Those phrases usually mean Congress is preparing to delay the real decisions and carry last year’s spending forward.
Also watch how long any temporary bill would last.
A brief extension could give lawmakers more time to finish the regular budget.
An extension lasting until after the election would allow them to avoid difficult spending votes until voters have already gone to the polls.
The Questions to Keep Asking
As these fights develop, citizens should keep asking:
Will lawmakers receive separate votes on the biggest decisions?
Will the public have enough time to read the bills?
Will Congress finish its work before the deadline?
Or will leaders wait until the last moment and demand another take-it-or-leave-it vote?
Next week will tell us whether Congress plans to debate these issues openly - or once again govern by deadline and pressure.
The Ledger’s Bottom Line
Congress called this a quiet recess week.
It wasn’t.
A major housing bill became law. The Senate moved closer to debating a $1.15 trillion defense bill. The Justice Department increased pressure on state election officials. And congressional leaders began laying the groundwork for another temporary spending deal because they may once again fail to pass the budget on time.
All of this happened while most Americans were paying attention to something else.
That is how Washington often works. The loudest political fights grab the headlines while the decisions that actually change the law, spend our money, and expand government power move quietly in the background.
Citizenship can’t mean watching campaign commercials, picking a side, and voting every two years.
Self-government requires us to pay attention between elections - especially when Congress is out of town and the cameras are pointed somewhere else.
For every bill, every dollar, and every new claim of government power, we should keep asking:
How much will it cost?
Where does the Constitution give the government the authority to do it?
Who will be held responsible if it fails?
Those are not Republican questions or Democratic questions.
They are the questions free citizens should always ask of anyone exercising power in their name.
Salus Populi Suprema Lex.
The welfare of the people shall be the supreme law.
Sources and Further Reading
Congressional Schedule and Floor Activity
U.S. Senate Daily Press, “July 6, 2026 Pro Forma Session.”
U.S. Senate Daily Press, “Upcoming Senate Schedule and S. 4784 Cloture Notice.”
Office of the House Majority Leader, “Weekly Schedule for the Week of July 13, 2026.”
U.S. House of Representatives, “Bills Scheduled for the Week of July 13, 2026.”
The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act
H.R. 6644, 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, enrolled bill text.
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, “The Facts: The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.”
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, “Section-by-Section Summary of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act.”
Associated Press, “Trump Allows Housing Bill to Become Law Without His Signature.”
The Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Bill
S. 4784, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027.
Senate Armed Services Committee, “FY2027 NDAA Executive Summary.”
Senate Armed Services Committee, “Committee Completes Markup of the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act.”
U.S. Senate Daily Press, “Cloture Filed on the Motion to Proceed to S. 4784.”
Federal Spending and the Shutdown Debate
Congressional Research Service, The Congressional Appropriations Process: An Introduction.
American Action Forum, “FY2027 Appropriations Progress Report.”
Axios, “GOP Senators Dread a Pre-Election Shutdown Fight.”
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, “Upcoming Congressional Fiscal Policy Deadlines.”
Bills Coming to the House Floor
H.R. 8595: State Department and Foreign-Aid Spending
H.R. 8595, National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2027.
House Appropriations Committee, “FY2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Bill Summary.”
H.R. 8720: Campaign Finance Transparency Act
H.R. 8720, Campaign Finance Transparency Act.
House Administration Committee, “H.R. 8720 Committee Markup Materials.”
H.R. 3535: Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act
H.R. 3535, Stop Foreign Funds in Elections Act.
Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate for H.R. 3535.”
H.R. 1181: Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act
H.R. 1181, Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act.
House Rules Committee, “H.R. 1181 Floor Consideration Materials.”
Election Administration, Voter Data, and Federalism
U.S. Department of Justice, “National Voter Registration Act of 1993.”
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “Authority to Obtain and Share Statewide Voter-Roll Data.”
Reuters, “Justice Department Warns State Officials About Noncitizen Voting.”
Associated Press, “Administration Increases Pressure on State Election Officials.”
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, United States v. Maryland State Board of Elections.
NBC Washington, “Federal Judge Dismisses DOJ Lawsuit Seeking Maryland Voter Data.”
Reuters, “Appeals Court Rejects Federal Demand for Michigan Voter Rolls.”