Unusual kombucha flavors include pineapple basil, mango chili, and turmeric honey.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The KOMBUCHA Act would more than double the alcoholic threshold at which the popular beverage kombucha could be taxed or regulated as “alcohol,” from the current 0.5% to 1.25%.

The acronym KOMBUCHA stands for Keeping Our Manufacturers from Being Unfairly taxed while Championing Health Act. (And yes, that forced acronym only works if such three-letter words as ‘our’ are capitalized, while five-letter words like ‘taxed’ and ‘while’ aren’t.)

The House version was introduced on April 30 by a Democrat and Republican: Reps. Andrea Salinas (D-OR6) and Adrian Smith (R-NE3). The Senate version was introduced that same day by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Context

Kombucha is a fermented black tea or green tea beverage which contains trace amounts of alcohol, but nowhere near enough to get a person drunk.

You’d have to drink about 10 kombucha bottles to equal the alcohol of one beer. In the real world, you’ve never been to a party or bar or event where anyone was drinking kombucha to get intoxicated.

Yet under federal law, a beverage is taxed and regulated as “alcoholic” if it contains at least 0.5% alcohol by volume. And very rarely, kombucha can reach that level, since it can continue fermenting even after it’s bottled.

But kombucha usually doesn’t reach 0.5% alcohol by volume. And even on the rare occasions when it does, that’s still nowhere near enough to get anyone intoxicated. For comparison, beer is about 5% alcohol by volume. (And beer isn’t even considered “hard alcohol.”)

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the law should reflect actual consumer habits and various beverages’ actual intoxicating effects (or lack thereof). Here’s what one congressional Republican and one Democrat each had to say.

“Kombucha is an everyday beverage enjoyed for its probiotic benefits, and it shouldn’t be taxed the same as beer or other alcoholic drinks,” Rep. Smith said in a press release. The bill would “update outdated federal tax rules and ensure fair treatment for Nebraska’s small kombucha brewers.”

“A serving of kombucha contains about as much alcohol as an overripe banana, so there’s no reason to tax it like it’s a full-on alcoholic beverage,” Sen. Wyden said in a separate press release. “It’s past time to sober up our tax code and give kombucha producers a fair shake.”

(Rep. Salinas, meanwhile, wrote a pun-filled social media post calling the bill “fermentastic,” “steeped in success,” and “tea-riffic.”)

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the product is taxed like alcohol because… well, it does contain alcohol.

In 2015, Maine’s then-Gov. Paul LePage (R) vetoed a state bill to lower taxes on kombucha.

“Kombucha is a small sub-category of wine. It is alcohol under federal rules and Maine law,” Gov. LePage wrote in his veto message. “There is no defensible public policy reason why this category of alcohol should receive special treatment.”

Kevin Warren, the founder of BNF Kombucha in Eugene, Oregon, told Oregon Public Broadcasting that the federal legislation would presumably make the beverage more accessible to both minors and to adults who are trying to abstain from alcohol. (Though Warren didn’t explicitly advocate against the legislation overall, noting that it had both “pros and cons.”)

Odds of passage

The legislation has been introduced several times in prior Congresses, but actually seen declining cosponsorship over time – with a particularly sharp plummet starting in 2023. It’s unclear why.

No version received a committee vote.

The current Senate version has not yet attracted any cosponsors. It’s been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

The House version has also not yet attracted any other cosponsors beyond its original one Democrat and one Republican. It’s been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

Subscribe now

Share

The congressional bill could have also been called “The Big Bang Theory.”

Watch this video on Instagram

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Context and what the bill does

In April, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) denied the permit for an Independence Day fireworks display in Long Beach, called “Big Bang on the Bay.”

Launched over Alamitos Bay since 2011, the annual event is popular with the local community. But the commission denied a permit this time around due to environmental impacts on the water and aquatic ecosystem, suggesting the event switch to drones instead of fireworks.

So the Fireworks for Freedom Act would let any town or community launch fireworks between the bill’s potential enactment and New Year’s Eve – not just for July 4 specifically. No state-level government or commission would be allowed to stop it.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA41) introduced it in the House of Representatives on April 30, two weeks after the permit denial on April 15. While he does represent a district in the same state, California, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA42) represents the district where the dispute actually occurred.

So why did Rep. Calvert introduce it instead? Likely because he’s a Republican while Rep. Garcia is a Democrat, and this news story has became a right-wing cause du jour.

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that it’s practically anti-American to prohibit a fireworks display on the Declaration of Independence anniversary.

“Americans celebrate Independence Day by eating hot dogs, apple pie, and watching fireworks – and I’m not going to let left-wing lunatics stop that,” Rep. Calvert said in a press release.

“As we celebrate the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, we should be planning bigger and better fireworks shows, not canceling them,” Rep. Calvert continued. “The 4th of July is a day to celebrate our liberties and freedom. Once again, those liberties are under attack in California.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the Long Beach fireworks show has a detrimental environmental impact.

“Representatives of the Sierra Club, Puvunga Wetlands Protectors, and Eastside Voice have submitted numerous comments over the years to Commissioners and staff,” the California Coastal Commission wrote, “alleging that the event unlawfully discharges pollutants into Alamitos Bay and adversely affects bird and marine species.”

“In conjunction, the El Dorado Chapter of the Audubon Society has been monitoring bird nesting activities along Fuel Dock Road and Marina Drive adjacent to the event site for several years,” the report continued, “and has raised concerns that the annual event poses a risk to nesting birds.”

What happens next

The bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Republicans. It’s been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Subscribe now

Share

“The CEO of Starbucks defended their new $9 cup of premium coffee,” comedian Hari Kondabolu quipped on NPR’s Wait, Wait… Don’t Tell Me!, “saying it’s cheaper than gas.”

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the bills do

Several recent bills in Congress would temporarily suspend the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax, including:

1. The Gas Prices Relief Act would suspend it until October 1. Introduced in mid-March by Rep. Chris Pappas (D-NH1) in the House and Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) in the Senate.

2. Another bill also called the Gas Prices Relief Act would suspend it until January 1. Introduced on April 29 by Rep. Josh Harder (D-CA9).

3. The Gas Price Relief Act – with the word ‘relief’ singular instead of plural – would suspend it for as long as gas costs $4.00 per gallon or higher. Introduced on April 30 by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA2).

4. The Gas Tax Relief Act would suspend it for 90 days after the bill’s potential enactment. Introduced on May 12 by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY11).

5. The Gas Tax Suspension Act would also suspend the federal gas tax for 90 days after its potential enactment. Introduced on May 11 by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO).

6. The American Families Gas Tax Relief Act would suspend it for 120 days after the bill’s potential enactment. Introduced on May 13 by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL13).

7. The Diesel Prices Relief Act would specifically pause the federal diesel gas tax, currently 24.4 cents per gallon, until January 1. Introduced on May 12 by Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-VA7).

Context: in the news

After the U.S. military attacked Iran, the Middle Eastern country retaliated by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20% of the world’s oil supply flows. As a result, prices at the pump have soared since March, currently averaging $4.53 per gallon for regular gas.

For comparison, the record high was $5.01, set in June 2022 in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some believe prices could overtake that record later this summer.

Context: what’s the federal gas tax?

The federal gas tax was instituted in 1932, intended as a temporary Great Depression-era measure to ease the budget deficit. In 1941, though, the tax was made permanent.

While the rate was raised several times over the years, it’s remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, despite inflation. Average prices now are more than double what they were back then; 18.4 cents per gallon in 1993 would be worth approximately 41 cents per gallon today.

Context: in the recent past

Whenever prices get high, politicians on both sides of the aisle have proposed temporarily suspending the federal gas tax, often nicknamed a “gas tax holiday” – though it’s never actually happened.

In 2008, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Democratic nominee runner-up Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) both proposed it. However, that November’s presidential election winner Barack Obama opposed it, arguing that oil companies would pocket most of the tax cut for themselves.

In 2022, during the record high gas prices, President Joe Biden proposed a gas tax holiday. However, Congress never voted for the proposal. Some Democrats opposed it for the same reason as Obama, while Republicans said the better way to decrease prices was to ramp up domestic energy production, which they accused Biden of hamstringing.

Now, President Donald Trump is proposing it too, saying at a White House event that he wanted the federal gas tax suspended “until it’s appropriate.”

What supporters say

The various bills’ supporters argue that their legislation would provide a much-needed cut at the gas station for American customers. Here’s what one congressional Republican and one Democrat each had to say.

“I know that a lot of people are directly being impacted by what’s happening with Iran right now. But President Trump has been very clear that once that’s done and finished, and he’s able to successfully complete that mission, you’ll see a massive drop in these gas prices,” Rep. Luna, a Republican, said on Fox News’ The Sunday Briefing. “So until then, we have the power of the purse and we’re going to be exercising that.”

“As Granite Staters continue to grapple with high costs on groceries, housing, and health care thanks to this administration, the last thing they need is to pay even higher prices at the gas pump as a result of Donald Trump’s war in Iran,” Rep. Pappas, a Democrat, said in a separate press release. “That is why I’m introducing legislation in the House to… provide Americans with badly-needed relief from the historic increase in gas prices we have seen.”

What opponents say

Opponents make several counterarguments, including:

• There are better ways to lower gas prices, such as by releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to combat supply shortages.

• The budget for transportation infrastructure would take a corresponding hit, such as paving roads and maintaining bridges. “A gas tax holiday is a good way to blow a hole in the collection of revenue for funding highway and transit repairs,” Brian Turmail, national spokesman for the Associated General Contractors of America, told CNBC.

• Many Democrats say President Donald Trump shouldn’t have attacked Iran in the first place, causing this whole problem. (Especially because Iran’s new leader, the son of the leader killed in the initial attack, might be worse than his father.)

What happens next

Congress has never enacted a federal gas tax holiday before – not even when it was proposed in 2008, 2022, or (at least so far) in 2026. None of the various bills have yet received a committee vote.

President Trump’s support could induce more Republicans to sign on, in theory. Yet so far, the three aforementioned bills with a Republican lead sponsor have attracted zero, one, and two cosponsors so far.

Subscribe now

Share

Although Trump’s signature is so big that perhaps it won’t even fit on the dollar bill.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The HUMBLE Presidents Act would ban the incumbent U.S. president’s signature from appearing on American money. This would apply to any president moving forward, not just Donald Trump.

The Senate version goes a little further than the House version, banning the president’s “name, signature, or likeness” not just on federal currency, but also federal property or “assets” such as the Kennedy Center or U.S. passports. By contrast, the House version only bans the president’s signature from currency.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA34) introduced the House version on April 2, then Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced the Senate version two weeks later on April 16.

The acronym HUMBLE in the Senate version’s title stands for Halting Unilateral Money and Building Labeling by Egotistical [Presidents]. The House version doesn’t appear to have an “official” title.

Context

Traditionally, paper currency bears the signatures of two people: the Treasury Secretary and the U.S. Treasurer, the subordinate official who oversees the physical production of money.

On March 26, Aidan McLaughlin broke the story for Vanity Fair that the government plans to include Trump’s signature, the first sitting president to do so.

Specifically, Trump would replace the U.S. Treasurer’s signature, although the office’s current occupant says he actually supports the move.

“The president’s mark on history as the architect of America’s Golden Age economic revival is undeniable,” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a press release. “Printing his signature on the American currency is not only appropriate, but also well deserved.”

What supporters say

The legislation’s supporters argue that self-aggrandizement has no place on such a universally-recognized and used symbol of commerce.

“No sitting president should be allowed to use the nation’s currency to personally promote themselves,” Rep. Gomez said in a press release. “Trump wants to slap his name on buildings, airports, and now the dollar bill, but U.S. currency belongs to the American people, not the president. This is the kind of thing you see from dictators and wannabe strongmen who think the country belongs to them.”

“The president of the United States serves the people, not the other way around,” Sen. Gillibrand said in a separate press release. “Right now, working families… want their president bringing down costs and putting money back in their pockets, not spending time and taxpayer dollars on self-promotion. The [bill] would force our leaders to focus on the issues that truly matter to American families, not their own personal brand.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that money is the physical embodiment of the economy and financial system, so Trump deserves to have his signature to reflect his accomplishments in those areas.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are on a path toward unprecedented economic growth, lasting dollar dominance, and fiscal strength and stability,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a press release. “There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President [Trump] than U.S dollar bills bearing his name.”

(Most economic metrics are indeed good right now: unemployment is low, inflation is picking up a bit but is still relatively low, and the stock market is high. But a few are bad: gas prices are approaching a potential record high and consumer sentiment just reached a new record low.)

What happens next

The House version has not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Democrats. The Senate version has also not yet attracted any cosponsors, not even any fellow Democrats.

This lack of cosponsorship is a bit odd. You’d think Democrats would be eager to sign on to something like this?

It’s been referred to the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Subscribe now

Share

Hopefully, Nicolas Cage wouldn’t steal the document this time, like he did in 2004’s implausible adventure movie National Treasure.

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the bill does

New legislation would convene Congress at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, the site of the Declaration of Independence’s signing on July 4, 1776, for the 250th anniversary on July 2, 2026.

Why not on July 4, the exact anniversary? Because in 2026, that date will fall on a weekend Saturday, when Congress would likely be out of session.

The legislation was introduced by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA2), who represents the district of Philadelphia containing Independence Hall itself. The legislation does not appear to have an “official” title.

Context: outside D.C.

Congress has twice convened in cities beyond Washington, D.C. for special occasions.

On July 16, 1987, Congress met at Independence Hall for the 200th anniversary of the Constitution — not the entire Congress, but 55 members of the House and Senate. C-SPAN broadcast the event on television.

On September 6, 2002, Congress met at Federal Hall in New York City, for the one-year anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. Though more than half of Congress attended, around 300 members, that still fell short of the entire body. C-SPAN broadcast that event, too.

Context: the Declaration

Written by Thomas Jefferson, later elected as the third president, the Declaration of Independence detailed colonists’ grievances against King George III and explained why they declared a revolution against his rule. Jefferson’s opening phrase became one of the most famous in American history: “When in the course of human events.”

56 delegates to the Continental Congress signed the document, including some of the most prominent men of the era like Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and Jefferson. John Hancock famously signed his name extra large, reportedly so that the king could see it all the way from England.

Today, the document is on display to the public at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. and the signing is celebrated annually as the federal holiday Independence Day.

(Although recently, historian Andrew Roberts prompted something of a reconsideration when he argued in his 2021 biography The Last King of America that King George III wasn’t actually that bad.)

What supporters say

The bill’s supporters argue that it’s fitting to mark the entire origin point of the American experiment in the room where it all began.

“In 1776, Philadelphia was the birthplace of American democracy,” Rep. Boyle said in a press release. “It is only right that we celebrate our nation’s 250th anniversary in the very building where the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. Our bill will bring Congress together in Philadelphia once again for a historic special session to honor 250 years of freedom.”

What opponents say

While unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition, perhaps some could object to one of the lead Democratic sponsor’s seemingly anti-Trump arguments.

“Both abroad and at home, we are seeing threats to democracy today in a way which hasn’t been the case at any point in my lifetime,” Rep. Boyle told the Philadelphia Inquirer in 2024 upon introducing a prior version of the legislation. (His phrase “and at home” clearly referenced President Donald Trump.) “So I think this takes on greater symbolic value to remind all of us of the spirit of 1776, what our founders achieved, and how precious it is in this generation that we don’t lose it.”

What happens next

The legislation has attracted 28 bipartisan cosponsors: an exactly even mix of 14 Democrats and 14 Republicans. Notably, almost half — or 13 of the 28 — hail from Pennsylvania.

It’s been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

Rep. Boyle previously introduced a prior version of the legislation in late June 2024. It attracted a slightly larger 28 bipartisan cosponsors, 20 Democrats and eight Republicans, but never received a committee vote.

This article was originally published by The Fulcrum, republished under their guidelines. I wrote it.

Subscribe now

Share

“Why is it a penny for your thoughts,” standup comedian Steven Wright quipped, “but you have to put your two cents in?”

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

With the penny discontinued last year, the Common Cents Act would require a federal price rounding policy to the nearest nickel – or five cents – for cash transactions.

So if an item cost $9.96 or $9.97, for example, the cash transaction would be rounded down to $9.95. But if it cost $9.98 or $9.99, the cash transaction would be rounded up to $10.00.

Meanwhile, if the transaction wasn’t made with cash – such as a credit card, debit card, or digital payment like Venmo, PayPal, or CashApp – the price could still remain the same.

The legislation, first introduced in 2025, would have also stopped minting the one-cent penny coin. However, the Treasury Department unilaterally stopped doing so a few months after the legislation’s introduction, on its own.

Reps. Lisa McClain (R-MI9) and Robert Garcia (D-CA42) teamed up across party lines to introduce the House version in April 2025. Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) similarly teamed up across party lines to introduce the Senate version the very next day.

Context

By 2024, a one-cent penny cost 3.69 cents to produce, more than triple the coin’s actual face value.

President Donald Trump announced that he intended to discontinue the penny, in a February 2025 Truth Social post. The Treasury Department more “officially” announced it that May, followed by the final penny’s minting that November.

To be clear, the penny wasn’t banned: it still remains legal to use. They’re hardly rare, with around 114 billion pennies in circulation. That averages about 332 for every person in the U.S. – and far more per person who actually still uses them.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that it was time for the penny to go, so cash-based prices should be adjusted accordingly to the value of the nearest coin still being minted: the nickel, or five cents.

“The [legislation] is about fiscal responsibility and good government,” lead House sponsor Rep. McClain said in a press release. “Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill to produce a coin that loses money every time it’s made. It’s time to modernize our currency policy.”

“The time has come to fully end production of the penny and save American taxpayers money,” lead Senate sponsor Sen. Lummis said in a separate press release. “The fiscal reality is undeniable: the U.S. Mint spends three cents to produce each one-cent coin. With a $36 trillion national debt, we have to implement meaningful opportunities to reduce costs, update our currency system, and codify the elimination of government inefficiencies.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the federal rounding policy would primarily hurt the low-income, while not affecting the better-off.

“Consumers who use cash to pay may face a ‘rounding’ tax, as businesses may round transactions to the disadvantage of consumers, which would likely disproportionately affect older Americans and low-income individuals,” eight Democratic House members, led by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA43), wrote in the ‘Minority Views’ section of a House report on the subject.

“On the other hand, consumers using electronic payments like credit and debit transactions would remain unaffected and have their transactions executed in exact amounts,” the eight Democrats continued. (Higher-income people are more likely to both have and use credit cards.)

What happens next

The House Financial Services Committee approved the bill in July 2025, by a 35-13 vote. Committee Republicans unanimously approved it by 25-0, while committee Democrats narrowly opposed it by 10-13.

As of this writing, the full House has not voted on it.

The Senate version has been referred to the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Again, the legislation’s component about discontinuing penny production was already accomplished, albeit by the executive branch instead of the legislative.

If the legislation doesn’t pass, a number of states from across the political spectrum are taking action to set five-cent rounding policies at the state level.

A five-cent nickel also costs far more than its face value, at 13.78 cents to produce. Yet for some reason, there seems to be fairly little push to similarly discontinue that coin.

The penny’s cost was the subject of everything from a New York Times Magazine feature article to a scene in The West Wing. Yet the nickel has faced comparatively little media or political attention.

Subscribe now

Share

What would you put in a box to represent the 2020s, for future generations to unearth?

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

What the law does

The Semiquincentennial Congressional Time Capsule Act buries a time capsule containing objects and items symbolizing modern America in the U.S. Capitol Building by July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

It’s not to be unearthed and reopened in Washington, D.C. for another 250 years, until July 4, 2276 – the Declaration’s 500th anniversary.

What will actually be in the time capsule? To be determined. But it will presumably be bipartisan, since the contents will be chosen by the Republican and Democratic leaders of both the House and Senate.

(The word “Semiquincentennial” in the law’s name means a 250th anniversary.)

Context

Congress previously created a time capsule for the Declaration’s 100th anniversary in 1876, opened as instructed on its 200th anniversary in 1976.

It included photographs of President Ulysses S. Grant and other contemporary politicians taken by photographer Mathew Brady, plus a book about temperance, which was gaining traction at the time. (The movement to prohibit alcohol eventually succeeded in 1919, but was later repealed in 1933.)

This new time capsule is separate from a different 2026 time capsule to be buried in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, where the Declaration was actually signed.

That time capsule – created by America250, a nonpartisan organization chaired by former U.S. Treasurer Rosie Rios – will include items from the 2026 Rose Parade in California, current sports memorabilia, plus winning artwork and essays from a national student contest.

The votes

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ12) introduced the House version in November 2025, then Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the Senate version in January 2026. Demonstrating its bipartisanship, the lead House sponsor was a Democrat, while the lead Senate sponsor was a Republican.

On January 27, the Senate passed it by unanimous consent. On February 9, the House passed it by voice vote. On February 18, President Donald Trump signed it into law.

Back in December 2024, in the waning days of the prior Congress, the House had also passed it by voice vote – though the Senate never took it up.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that in such a short-term media environment, a time capsule will force Congress members and the American public to think on a longer scale: centuries.

“None of us will be here when this capsule is opened. That is the point,” Rep. Watson Coleman said in a press release. “What we do in this chamber every day is history. What we choose to speak up for, and speak out against, it defines us – and it will be the legacy we leave for every governing body that holds this space for years to come.”

“This time capsule will be opened upon our nation’s 500th anniversary,” Sen. Tillis said in a separate press release. “I look forward to ensuring we provide future Americans with key insights into our enduring principles and values as Americans.”

Subscribe now

Share

It’s not just Trump and Biden – such a commission would likely have ruled against historical presidents Woodrow Wilson and William Henry Harrison too.

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

What the bill does

The Commission on Presidential Capacity to Discharge the Powers and Duties of the Office Act would create an independent committee to officially determine if a president is cognitively and medically fit to serve.

This committee would be permanent, meaning it would apply to any president moving forward, not just Donald Trump.

The 17 members would comprise:

• Four doctors

• Four psychiatrists

• Eight former executive branch officials, each of whom had to previously serve in one of seven specified positions:

  1. President

  2. Vice president

  3. Secretary of State

  4. Attorney General

  5. Treasury Secretary

  6. Defense Secretary

  7. Surgeon General

• A 17th member selected by the other 16 members

The first 16 members would be selected in equal measure by Republican and Democratic congressional leadership, providing exactly even bipartisanship. None of those members could be current elected politicians, federal employees, or military members.

The 17th and final member might serve to break ties, but would presumably be a more nonpartisan figure “above the fray,” since they’d have to be elected by the other 16.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD8) introduced a House version on April 14.

Context: the 25th Amendment

After President John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, a troubling what-if scenario emerged: what if the bullet had landed an inch or two away, putting Kennedy in a coma instead of killing him?

Would Kennedy still be considered “the president,” even if he was functionally brain-dead ? What if such a condition lasted for years to come?

So in 1967, only a little more than three years later, the Constitution’s 25th Amendment clarified the rules of presidential succession.

One of its provisions specifies what happens if the president is deemed “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” – even if they’re still alive. Since then, that provision has never been “seriously” invoked.

(Although Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush did it invoke it briefly when they underwent medical procedures involving anesthesia, giving the vice president the powers of the presidency for only those few hours.)

Who decides?

That still leaves the question: who decides that the president is in a condition where they’re alive but functionally unable to serve?

The question has risen to the fore in recent years. The last two presidents, Trump and Joe Biden, are the two oldest presidents in U.S. history and both experienced accusations of cognitive decline. Biden was 82 on his last day in office, the same age Trump will be on his last day if he serves until then.

In those above examples, Presidents Reagan and Bush both voluntarily agreed to give up their power for several hours. But what if the president doesn’t agree, and has to be forcibly removed from their post? The equivalent of “Mom (or Dad), I’m taking your car keys. It’s for your own good.”

The 25th Amendment allows three possibilities for who can make that judgment.

1. The president’s own inner circle: the vice president plus a majority of the Cabinet secretaries.

2. The legislative branch: two-thirds of both the House and the Senate.

3. A more nonpartisan option: an independent panel created by Congress.

In the 59 years since the amendment was ratified, Congress has never actually created such a panel. Now they might.

What supporters say

Democrats say that Trump poses an unprecedented challenge, in their view. He’s on track to become the oldest president ever, a few months older than even Biden was at the end. Also, his second-term vice president J.D. Vance and Cabinet seem particularly unwilling to publicly break from him.

Meanwhile, it’s almost impossible to imagine two-thirds of both the House and Senate voting to remove a president, whether Trump or any president. Assuming such a vote would likely be party-line or close to it, neither party has controlled a two-thirds congressional majority since the 1960s.

“Public trust in Donald Trump’s ability to meet the duties of his office has dropped to unprecedented lows as he threatens to destroy entire civilizations, aggressively insults the Pope of the Catholic Church, and sends out artistic renderings online likening himself to Jesus Christ,” Rep. Raskin said in a press release. “We are at a dangerous precipice.”

“It is now a matter of national security for Congress to fulfill its responsibilities under the 25th Amendment to protect the American people from an increasingly volatile and unstable situation,” Rep. Raskin continued.

What opponents say

Republican opponents counter that the legislation is solely meant to embarrass President Trump. Indeed, the bill’s 84 cosponsors are entirely Democratic.

Sure enough, Rep. Raskin previously introduced the legislation twice during Trump’s first term: in 2017 and 2020. If this was truly a perpetual necessity, opponents may note, then why didn’t he introduce it even once during Biden’s four years in office?

What happens next

The bill has been referred to both the House Judiciary and Rules Committees. Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled chamber.

That being said, the legislation is clearly picking up steam within the Democratic Party. Rep. Raskin’s first version attracted 67 cosponsors, then his second version dipped to 42, but now his third version has attained the most support yet: 84 cosponsors so far.

Neither of those prior versions received a committee vote, though – not even in 2020, when Democrats controlled the chamber.

Share

Subscribe now

My most recent TikTok video about the Hot Rotisserie Chicken Act is up to 35K views! Check it out here:

@abillaminuteRep. Rick Crawford (R-AR1)⁩ and ⁨Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV)⁩ introduced the HOT Rotisserie Chicken Act in Congress, to let federal food assistance (SNAP benefits) recipients buy hot rotisserie chicken Read my full article: https://www.abillaminute.com/p/hot-rotisserie-chicken-act-letting

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

“A rotisserie,” stand-up comedian Mitch Hedberg quipped, “is like a really morbid Ferris wheel for chickens… I like dizzy chicken.”

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The HOT Rotisserie Chicken Act would allow federal food aid to be spent on hot rotisserie chicken, now banned. Under current law, only cold rotisserie chicken is allowed.

The acronym HOT in the title stands for Healthy Obtainable Tasty.

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR1) introduced the House version on April 30, while Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) introduced the Senate version that same day. Even though the House and Senate lead sponsors are Republicans, the cosponsorship is bipartisan.

Context

SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), is the federal government’s primary food benefit for low-income Americans. Called “food stamps” until 2008, the program is sometimes still colloquially called by that name.

The program bans participants from buying warm or hot prepared foods, including heated soups, steamed vegetables… and hot rotisserie chicken.

Why? In the original 1964 legislation, the government wanted to encourage families to cook meals in the home – presumably, though not explicitly stated, for the wife or mother of the household to do so.

That was a very different era, though. Women’s labor force participation rate was only 38% back then, versus 57% now. People don’t have as much time to prepare their own meals anymore – see the rise of “fast casual” dining options, particularly in the past two decades.

What supporters say

Supporters argue that a program with 41 million participants should be able to purchase one of the best foods.

“It is just plain common sense to allow SNAP participants to purchase a rotisserie chicken with their benefits,” Rep. Crawford said in a press release. “Hot rotisserie chicken is healthy, widely available, popular in grocery stores, and aligned with the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans.”

“Allowing folks on SNAP to buy hot rotisserie chickens is truly just common sense,” Sen. Justice said in a separate press release. “We have to give people the option to put a healthy, protein-dense choice on the table that actually tastes good and doesn’t take an hour and a half to cook.”

What opponents say

Opponents come from both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, an April House vote on the subject saw both Republican and Democrat votes against.

“I voted against it to send a message that the amendment does not go far enough to expand SNAP eligibility,” Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN2), the House Agriculture Committee’s top Democrat, said in a press release. “There is no question that SNAP recipients need access to more hot food options, but this amendment was pushed by big grocers and retailers and the chicken industry. We can do better.”

What happens next

On April 30, the House approved the provision by a 384-35 vote, as an addition to a larger farm bill: the Farm, Food, and National Security Act.

Both parties overwhelmingly supported the provision, though opposition came from both sides: Republicans voted 187-23, Democrats voted 196-12.

The Senate could still potentially strip the provision from the larger legislation, though – if they even pass it at all. That’s why supporters also introduced it as standalone legislation.

The Senate version has attracted three bipartisan cosponsors, for an exactly equal mix of two Republicans and two Democrats. It’s been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.

The House version has attracted 25 bipartisan cosponsors, for a total of 17 Republicans and nine Democrats. It’s been referred to the House Agriculture Committee.

Going even further?

Another bill, the Hot Foods Act, would allow SNAP recipients to purchase all warm or hot prepared foods, not just hot rotisserie chicken.

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY6) introduced the House version on March 31, while Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) introduced the Senate version that same day.

While it’s attracted considerably more cosponsors than the rotisserie chicken legislation, they’re almost entirely on one side. Democrats comprise 93 of the 102 House sponsors, while Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents comprise all of the Senate’s 10 cosponsors.

With such skewed partisanship, odds of passage seem much lower in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Subscribe now

Share

We could be “killed,” warned Hermione Granger in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, “or worse, expelled.”

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

What the resolutions do

In what may be an unprecedented action in U.S. history, two House members both filed resolutions to expel each other from Congress. Even more surprising, they’re from the same political party.

On April 20, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC1) moved to expel Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL7). That exact same day, Rep. Mills moved to expel Rep. Mace.

What are the accusations?

Mills

Rep. Mills faces multiple accusations, including that he allegedly assaulted a woman and threatened to leak nude photos of his ex-girlfriend.

The Washington Post reported that D.C. police were originally going to arrest Mills for assault, based on a woman’s testimony and visible bruises, but a lieutenant directed them not to after the woman recanted her story – reportedly at Mills’s own urging.

Mills is also accused of falsifying his military service records and committing campaign finance violations.

The House Ethics Committee is currently investigating him.

Mace

Rep. Mace is accused of overcharging the government for her D.C. housing reimbursement, though she blames her ex-fiancé for the discrepancies. The House Ethics Committee is currently investigating her, too.

(It gets more complicated: Rep. Mace also publicly accused her ex-fiancé of sexual assault in a scathing House floor speech last year, though he denies the allegations. A judge subsequently issued a gag order barring Mace from publicly discussing the allegations any further while a trial is ongoing.)

The expulsion resolution also accuses Rep. Mace of “disorderly behavior,” for several incidents, including one where she allegedly went on a profanity-laced tirade directed towards security agents at a South Carolina airport. The official legislative text in Congress quotes her rant by using the F-word twice – uncensored and fully spelled out.

Has this ever happened before?

This appears to be a first. No “dueling” expulsion resolutions – directed by two House members at each other – seem to have previously occurred, as far as A Bill a Minute could find.

Official resolutions to expel a House member are usually introduced a few times per year, in the modern polarized era, but A Bill a Minute was unable to locate any other such “retaliatory” measures.

Besides, expulsion resolutions rarely work – usually either because they never receive a vote, they’re voted down, or the member in question resigns first.

2026 expulsions

Indeed, so far in 2026 alone, three House members faced expulsion resolutions but resigned first.

Yet those three examples all differ from the Mace-vs.-Mills fight in a key way: they were each introduced by a member of the opposing party – a Democrat seeking to expel a Republican, or vice versa. Reps. Mace and Mills, though, are both Republicans.

What were those three recent expulsion measures and resignations in 2026?

1. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL13) introduced a resolution to expel Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA14) on April 13, for allegations of sexual assault. He announced his resignation later that same day. He also suspended his campaign for California governor, for which he polled among the leading candidates.

2. Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM3) introduced a resolution to expel Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX23) on April 14, for having a sexual relationship with his staffer. He actually announced his intention to resign the day prior, but apparently Rep. Fernandez couldn’t wait for his resignation to actually take effect. (The story turns tragic: that staffer died by suicide after lighting herself on fire.)

3. Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL17) introduced a resolution to expel Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL20) on April 20, for corruption. She resigned the next day. Her family-owned healthcare company was accidentally overpaid $5 million for Covid vaccination staffing, but instead of reporting the overpayment or returning the money, she spent it on her own campaign instead. Her federal trial, with a potential prison sentence, will start in February 2027.

What each person says

Time for a literal case of “he said / she said.”

Both representatives here accuse the other of conduct unbecoming of a member of Congress, while both also insist they won’t step down.

Mills

She said: “The evidence against Mills is overwhelming: beating women and telling them to lie about it, cyberstalking women, [and] lying about his military service,” Rep. Mace said in a press release. “Any member who votes to keep him here is voting to protect a woman beater and a fraud. He needs to be expelled immediately.”

He said: “If someone can give me a good reason, I’d be more than happy to listen to it. But until we can do that, absolutely not, no — I don’t plan to resign,” Rep. Mills said. “Why not let the investigating body and the Ethics Committee be able to do their jobs? We’re very happy to see what the outcome is.”

Mace

He said: “Such conduct, whether fully adjudicated or not, reflects a pattern of ethical lapses, abuse of public trust, workplace toxicity, staged incidents for political gain, and disorderly behavior that undermines the dignity of the House of Representatives and erodes confidence in its members,” Mills’s expulsion resolution reads.

She said: “Nowhere did I say I was retiring,” Rep. Mace posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Internet is wild. So too are my opponents spreading this nonsense,” referencing a New York Times report that she was considering resigning.

What happens next

Both expulsion resolutions have been referred to the House Ethics Committee, although neither one has attracted a single cosponsor, from either party.

Many House members who face potential or likely expulsion choose to resign instead, as the recent examples of Reps. Cherfilus-McCormick, Gonzales, and Swalwell demonstrate. At least so far, though, Reps. Mace and Mills both insist they won’t.

A House expulsion requires a two-thirds vote from the chamber. The Senate and president are not involved, since the House sets its own rules and retains power over its own members.

A few House members have previously been “successfully” expelled, although historically, the punishment is rare. Only six members have been expelled, three of them in 1861 during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy. The sixth was both recent and prominent: George Santos in 2023.

Share

Subscribe now

When baseball player Babe Ruth was asked to justify out-earning President Herbert Hoover, Ruth replied: “I had a better year.”

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

What the bill does

The COACH Act would cap a college coach’s salary at 10x their university’s tuition rate and fees.

Preexisting contracts would be grandfathered in until they expire. So if a coach signed a five-year contract extension before this bill was enacted, it would still apply for the remainder of that duration. But once it was done, this bill would take over.

The bill’s acronym COACH stands for Correcting Opportunity and Accountability in Collegiate Hiring.

Despite the bill’s title, the COACH Act, it would technically apply to any university athletics department employee. Although, in practice, it would primarily – if not exclusively – apply to coaches, particularly for football and men’s basketball.

This bill was at first part of a larger piece of legislation, the Restore College Sports Act, which would feature several reforms including creating a new organization called the American Collegiate Sports Association to replace the NCAA.

Originally introduced in April 2025, the lead sponsor broke this provision out as its own separate legislation that October.

How much would salaries be slashed?

Last season, University of Georgia football coach Kirby Smart was the highest-paid college coach in the country at $13.2 million. In the current school year, Georgia in-state residents’ tuition and fees total $11,628.

So under this bill, Coach Smart’s salary would be capped at $116,280 – a full -99% drop.

Sure, the numbers could perhaps be fudged a little bit: whether you count things like on-campus housing, undergraduate versus graduate school tuition, and for public universities whether you measure in-state versus out-of-state tuition.

But the general principle still applies: no matter how you crunch the numbers, likely no coach would cross the million-dollar salary mark.

Context

In around 40 of the 50 states, the highest-paid state employee is a public university football or basketball coach.

(In the few states where it’s not, the highest-paid public employee is usually either a college president, medical school dean, or in one case even a medical school plastic surgeon.)

Last year, the three highest-paid college football coaches were the Georgia Bulldogs’ Kirby Smart at $13.2 million, the Ohio State Buckeyes’ Ryan Day at $12.5 million, and the USC Trojans’ Lincoln Riley at $11.5 million.

Meanwhile, the three highest-paid college basketball coaches were the Kansas Jayhawks’ Bill Self at $8.8 million, the UConn Huskies’ Dan Hurley at $8.0 million, and the Arkansas Razorbacks’ John Calipari at $7.7 million.

(Even though the actual March Madness champion, the Michigan Wolverines’ Dusty May, only ranked #37 at $3.7 million.)

What supporters say

Supporters argue that the price of college athletics has spiraled out of control, requiring federal intervention.

“Even in professional sports, cost controls exist,” lead House sponsor Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA5) said in a press release. “Salary caps operate within narrow antitrust frameworks recognized by Congress and the courts.”

The bill “is a simple guardrail to bring sanity back to the financial management of college sports, [creating] a narrow, lawful path for schools to set reasonable limits on coaches’ pay,” Rep. Baumgartner continued. “It’s time for Congress to step in to restore sanity to college sports.”

What opponents say

Some opponents counter that salary caps shouldn’t exist at all, that the free market economic system best decides pay rates. These same people defend Elon Musk’s new Tesla pay package that could potentially make him the world’s first trillionaire.

But even opponents who agree that college coach salaries have gotten too high may disagree that Congress should solve it.

“College football coach salaries are out of control,” The Athletic sports columnist Ian O’Connor wrote in November. “But this is not a cause for grandstanding politicians — it’s a fight for university administrators. They should take responsibility in an era of the run-amok Supercoach that needs to end now.”

What happens next

The bill has been referred to the House Education and the Workforce Committee, but has not yet attracted any cosponsors, from either party.

The aforementioned larger Restore College Sports Act has not yet attracted any cosponsors either.

Share

Subscribe now

Would you be able to serve in Congress if you had to pass this test?

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

What the legislation does

The Congressional Civics Act would require all members of Congress pass a civics exam about the U.S. political system and history. If they don’t pass, within two weeks after their election or appointment, they couldn’t serve.

The exam would comprise 25 questions, randomly drawn from an approved pool of 100 questions across these topics:

American history

1. The founding of the first colonies and factors leading to American independence

2. The American Revolution

3. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 and ratification

4. The Civil War and Reconstruction

5. World War I

6. World War II

Historical documents

7. The Declaration of Independence

8. The Articles of Confederation

9. The Constitution

10. The Bill of Rights

11. Constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War

12. Other amendments to the Constitution

American principles

13. Civil rights and civil liberties

14. Due process and the rule of law

15. Elections and the democratic process

16. Federalism: the relationship between the states and federal government

17. Separation of powers under the Constitution

Branches of government

18. Congress

19. The president and executive departments

20. The Supreme Court and federal judiciary

The exam’s actual questions and answers themselves aren’t specified in the legislation. Instead, they would later be selected (and updated in perpetuity) by the bipartisan House Administration Committee and Senate Rules Committee.

Technically, this idea is two bills: a constitutional amendment which outlines the general principles, plus the Congressional Civics Act with more specifics, as “Implementing legislation.”

Constitutional amendments have sometimes worked this way in the past, too. For example, alcohol Prohibition was broadly ratified by the 18th Amendment in 1919, but the ban’s actual specifics largely came when Congress enacted the Volstead Act later that same year.

Why a constitutional amendment?

Why is this a constitutional amendment, instead of a “regular” bill?

The Constitution itself currently outlines the requirements for serving in Congress. A House member must be at least 25, be a U.S. citizen for the past seven years, and reside in the state they serve. A senator must be at least 30, be a citizen for the past nine years, and also reside in the state they serve.

So any additions to those requirements would have to appear in the Constitution itself, rather than “normal” legislation.

(Fun fact: Joe Biden was elected Delaware senator at only 29. That was legal, because he turned 30 during the two-month transition period between his election and swearing-in.)

What supporters say

Supporters argue that legislators should actually know something about the country they’re leading.

“It is crucial that our representatives deeply understand their oath [of office],” lead House sponsor Rep Wesley Hunt (R-TX38) said in a press release. “Passing this legislation is vital to confirm that our leaders are knowledgeable about the Constitution and American history.”

“A solid grasp of this understanding is key to safeguarding American values,” Rep. Hunt continued. “Without knowledge of history, the mistakes of the past are likely to be repeated.”

What opponents say

While A Bill a Minute was unable to locate any explicit statements of opposition, opponents may counter that the legislation is being promoted as too partisan.

Rep. Hunt posted a social media video about his bill featuring several prominent progressive Democrats making inaccurate statements about U.S. history or law. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-MN5), Al Green (D-TX9), and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA7) say that crossing the border or being undocumented isn’t a crime. Actually, it is.

(Those representatives disagree that it should be a crime, but that’s a different question.)

Opponents may counter that such selective examples transform what could otherwise be considered a nonpartisan idea as a Republican idea instead.

Even though there are also examples of congressional Republicans getting facts about American civics wrong. For example, Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) told the Alabama Daily News that the three branches of government were “the House, the Senate, and executive.” It’s actually the executive, legislative, and judicial.

What happens next?

A constitutional amendment faces steeper hurdles than “regular” legislation, requiring passage by two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, and three-quarters of state legislatures. The last constitutional amendment to date was ratified back in 1992.

Is it still possible? Maybe. But this idea specifically would face a particularly uphill climb: neither the constitutional amendment nor the implementing legislation has attracted a single cosponsor, from either major party.

Share

Subscribe now

“The fact that Bondi didn’t place a seven-figure Polymarket bet on her own firing on her way out the door,” political comedy writer Jeff Maurer posted on Substack, “proves that she was incompetent.”

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Context

On the largest online prediction markets, like Polymarket and Kalshi, users can bet on all sorts of political predictions, including:

• Which famous people will testify before Congress? Current odds include Mark Zuckerberg at 49%, Anthony Fauci at 22%, Jon Stewart at 16%, and Taylor Swift at 6%.

• Who will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Current odds include God Bless the U.S.A. (Proud to be an American) singer Lee Greenwood at 36%, Fox News host Sean Hannity at 27%, and former New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick at 15%.

• Who will President Trump pardon? Current odds include Edward Snowden at 38%, Sam Bankman-Fried at 25%, Tiger King star Joe Exotic at 18%, and rapper Soulja Boy at 11%.

But what about the people with inside access to this information? For example, members of Congress or their staff who help select those called to testify, or the president and their staff who decide pardons and medals.

Has this ever actually happened?

Has such insider trading among politicians or their staff ever actually happened? It’s unclear.

In February, the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) announced its first fines related to insider trading political bets, including one against longshot California Republican governor candidate Kyle Langford. Langford bet $100 on himself to win the upcoming governor’s race in November 2026.

But that’s different than an actual current officeholder making a bet, either about themselves or a political issue for which they have inside knowledge. Federal politicians and their staff don’t currently have to reveal their bets, the way they have to reveal certain other financial information like stock purchases.

So how do we know Langford bet $100 on himself? Because in a social media stunt, he posted about it publicly on X, formerly Twitter.

What the legislation does

The Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act would ban federal politicians and their staff members from betting on public policy or political outcomes, based on nonpublic info they obtained through their jobs.

While the Senate and House versions share a title and are mostly the same, they differ in a few key ways. Here are three:

1. The Senate version specifically covers the president and vice president, while the House version does not. The House version says it applies to any “elected official of the federal government,” but that doesn’t necessarily include the president and vice president – indeed, Gerald Ford was never elected as either president or VP.

2. The Senate version sets a dollar amount fine for a violation: either $500 or twice the value of the profit made through the illegal bet, whichever is higher. The House version doesn’t specify the penalty.

3. The Senate version requires covered political officials and their staff members to publicly report any covered bets for which they profited $250 or more. The House version does not.

The House version was introduced on January 9 by Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY15). The Senate version was introduced two and a half months later on March 25 by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

What supporters say

The legislation’s supporters argue that just as insider trading is illegal, sending no less than Martha Stewart to jail in 2004, it should be illegal in our politics too.

Here’s what both a Republican and Democratic Senate cosponsor had to say about it.

“Public service should never be a pathway to personal profit based on insider information,” Sen. Todd Young (R-IN) said in a press release. “Recent activity in prediction markets has raised real concerns that individuals with access to sensitive, nonpublic information could exploit that advantage for financial gain.”

“No one should be profiting off the information and knowledge gained as a public servant, period,” Sen. Slotkin said in the same press release. “This bill is an important first step in placing common sense rules around prediction markets, and it has real teeth to ensure those who break these rules face real consequences.”

A noteworthy private sector figure also supports the bill: Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour.

“Kalshi is supportive of the bill Ritchie Torres is looking to introduce to affirm the ban on insider trading on prediction markets,” Mansour wrote on LinkedIn in January. “From day one, we firmly believed in the regulatory-first approach because it is the right thing to do: financial markets come with risks, and regulation helps mitigate these risks.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that the legislation wouldn’t tackle any of the actual most prominent recent cases regarding apparent insider trading.

“Rep. Torres’s legislation [reflects] a recognition that prediction markets have outpaced the legal frameworks designed to govern them,” Columbia University law professor Joshua Mitts and University of Haifa law professor Moran Ofir wrote in a recent paper. (With the unforgettable title From Iran to Taylor Swift: Informed Trading in Prediction Markets.)

The bill’s “limitation to federal officials trading on government policy information… would not have reached the documented trades in the Venezuelan, Nobel Prize, Google Year in Search, or IDF [Israel Defense Forces] cases, none of which involved a U.S. federal official.”

Other opponents counter that so-called insider trading is actually a good thing in this case, because it makes the listed odds far more accurate.

“Nobody is under the impression that nobody knows the answer, right? Like, of course, there’s people who are working on it that know when it’s going to come,” Polymarket founder and CEO Shayne Coplan said in an interview with Axios.

“And I think what’s cool about Polymarket is that it creates this financial incentive for people to go and divulge the information to the market and the market to change.”

What happens now?

Although the lead House and Senate sponsors each happen to be Democrats, this is a bipartisan effort – at least in the upper chamber.

The Senate version has currently attracted four cosponsors: an exactly even mix of two Democrats and two Republicans. It’s been referred to the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

The 43 current House cosponsors, though, are all Democrats. It’s been referred to both the Administration Committee plus the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The reason for the discrepancy between the House version’s partisanship versus the Senate version’s bipartisanship is unclear.

But many House Republicans may be hesitant to support the bill because the Trump administration has generally supported prediction markets and opposes most regulations on them. Indeed, Donald Trump Jr. joined Kalshi in 2025 as a strategic advisor.

Subscribe now

Share

One more thing: just last night, in a complete coincidence, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver ran a 33-minute segment about prediction markets, touching on some of these same topics. He didn’t mention the Public Integrity in Financial Prediction Markets Act, though.

Military members with top-secret info may have profited from bets on January’s Venezuela raid and February’s Iran bombing. Should that be illegal?

Watch this video on YouTube

Watch this video on TikTok

Watch this video on Instagram

Context

Online “prediction markets,” like Polymarket and Kalshi, let users bet on just about anything: who will be cast as the next James Bond, who will be elected president in 2028, even whether Jesus will return in 2026. (Current odds, as of this writing: 4%.)

In January, an anonymous Polymarket trader earned more than $400,000 correctly betting when Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro would be out of power.

Another anonymous Polymarket user earned more than $500,000 correctly betting when the U.S. would strike Iran, shortly before the actual bombing in late February.

(Although you shouldn’t trust that person’s predictions on everything: a few days prior, they also lost money betting Hamnet would win the Academy Award for Best Picture, when One Battle After Another won instead.)

A few weeks into the Iran conflict, traders bet more than $500 million about the price of crude oil within 15 minutes before President Donald Trump announced a delay attacking Iran’s energy infrastructure, which sent the price of oil way down.

In response, the White House warned staff not to place bets about the Iran war, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Perhaps these people just guessed about the Maduro raid, the Iran bombing, and the price of oil, getting really lucky? It strains belief.

Although just last month, Pennsylvania eighth grader Otto Schellhammer predicted the world’s last remaining perfect March Madness bracket, despite admitting he didn’t know much about basketball.

What the legislation does

Two similar pieces of congressional legislation would prohibit wagers about assassinations, terrorism, and war.

The DEATH BETS Act stands for Discouraging Exploitative Assassination, Tragedy, and Harm Betting in Event Trading Systems.

The Senate version was introduced on March 10 by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), then the House version was introduced a week later by Rep. Mike Levin (D-CA49) on March 16.

The BETS OFF Act stands for Banning Event Trading on Sensitive Operations and Federal Functions.

The House version was introduced on March 17 by Rep. Greg Casar (D-TX35), while the Senate version was introduced that same day by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT).

What supporters say

Supporters argue that while betting is all fine and well for football or baseball scores, or next week’s Billboard #1 song, some things just should just be beyond the pale.

“When events that involve good and evil, life and death become just another financial product, morality no longer matters and the soul of America is fundamentally corrupted,” Sen. Murphy said in a press release. “This bill will stop the transformation of our society into a rigged video game casino.”

“America is facing a crisis of corruption, and [this] bill is about cracking down on one of the most dangerous new forms… infecting our government,” Rep. Casar said in the same press release. “Too often, prediction markets are becoming yet another place for rich and powerful people to cash in on insider information.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that even such seemingly-sordid bets can serve a value to the public, so the solution is regulation rather than prohibition.

“No one wants policymakers going to war to cash in on bets… but this is an argument for contract design and targeted restrictions, not blanket bans,” University of Chicago law professor M. Todd Henderson and NYU Law School fellow Max Raskin wrote in a Washington Post opinion column.

“Society relies on the fact that while making money is often an incentive to do great things, making money is generally not a motivator for people to do horrific things,” Henderson and Raskin continued. “The crazed violence of terrorists and school shooters is usually not motivated by money.”

What happens now?

Between the two bills, the BETS OFF Act has more cosponsors.

The Senate version has attracted two cosponsors, both Democrats. It’s been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The House version has attracted six cosponsors, also all Democrats. It’s been referred to the House Financial Services, Judiciary, and Agriculture Committees.

Wait… why the Agriculture Committee, of all things?

Prediction markets are regulated by the CFTC, or Commodity Futures Trading Commission – which falls under the Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction. This is an accident of history, as the CFTC was originally created to enforce an agricultural law: the Grain Futures Act of 1922.

Subscribe now

Share

One more thing: just last night, in a complete coincidence, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver ran a 33-minute segment about prediction markets, touching on some of these same topics. He didn’t mention either the DEATH BETS Act or the BETS OFF Act, though.

Easter traditions: chocolate bunnies, egg rolling contests out on the lawn… and the day off?

View this video on YouTube

View this video on Instagram

View this video on TikTok

What the legislation does

The Easter Monday Act would officially make “Easter Monday” a federal holiday. In the next three years, that would mean: March 29 in 2027, April 17 in 2028, and April 2 in 2029.

The legislation was introduced in 2025. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) introduced the Senate version that April 10. Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV2) introduced the House version one week later: that April 17. That was mere days before Easter actually occurred last year: April 20.

If enacted, it would become the 12th annual federal holiday, alongside the other 11: New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Juneteenth, Independence Day (July 4), Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

Context: Easter

In Christianity, Easter celebrates the resurrection of Jesus on the third day after his burial, which is commemorated on Good Friday.

However, unlike Christmas, which celebrates the birth of Jesus and is always on December 25, Easter’s date fluctuates. Specifically, it’s always celebrated on the first Sunday after an astronomical phenomenon called the Paschal Full Moon. Because that phenomenon can occur across a range of weeks, Easter can take place anywhere from March 22 to April 25.

(This year, it was April 5.)

What supporters say

Supporters argue that one of the biggest days on the calendar should have the day off.

“81% of Americans celebrate Easter. But our current holiday schedule makes it way too difficult for families to celebrate together,” Sen. Schmitt posted on X, formerly Twitter. “Easter falls on the longest unbroken work stretch of the calendar. March and April are the only back-to-back months without a federal holiday.”

(Indeed: Presidents’ Day is in February, then Memorial Day is in May. The 81% stat came from a 2024 survey by the National Retail Federation. The organization’s 2025 survey found a slightly-smaller but still overwhelming 79% celebrate Easter.)

“Nor is this some boutique left-wing micro-holiday, commemorating ‘Trans Visibility’ or ‘Indigenous Mourning,’” Sen. Schmitt continued. “This is not partisan. It’s not a ‘Republican’ or ‘Democrat’ holiday. It’s an American holiday, allowing a fuller celebration of the defining moment of the faith that shaped our nation and civilization.”

What opponents say

Opponents may counter that the legislation would violate the separation of church and state or the First Amendment’s “establishment of religion” clause.

However, there is some precedent for this, since Christmas has been a federal holiday since 1870. Few people argue against this: that’s just the federal government acknowledging the reality that few people in a majority-Christian nation would go to work or school that day, not that the government is declaring Christianity to be the “official religion,” per se.

Even just on a practical level, though, some may argue against this legislation on more nitpicking grounds: Easter Monday isn’t that important in the Christian tradition. Easter Sunday is really the holiday, not so much Easter Monday.

What happens now?

The House bill has attracted one Republican cosponsor, Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC6), and was referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The Senate bill has not yet attracted any cosponsors and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This article was originally published by The Fulcrum, republished under their guidelines.

Note: I wrote this article for The Fulcrum in April. Starting imminently, I’ll publish my own content exclusively to A Bill a Minute.

Subscribe now

Share

In 1989, Donald Trump released a Monopoly-style board game featuring money depicting his own face. Now, that’s poised to imminently happen in real life.

View this video on YouTube

View this video on Instagram

View this video on TikTok

What the legislation does

Trump is scheduled to appear on coins starting this summer, an unprecedented move in living memory. Democratic legislation in Congress would ban a sitting president or living ex-president from appearing on U.S. money.

There are currently four living ex-presidents: Joe Biden, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. The legislation would ostensibly apply to them too, although none are currently scheduled to appear on U.S. money, as Trump is.

In the House, Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY15) introduced the TRUMP (The Restrict Ugly Money Portraits) Act last September.

In the Senate, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the similar Change Corruption Act two months later, last December. (“Change” in the bill’s title works as a double entendre, meaning both “alter” and the colloquial term for loose coins.)

Context: the news

In March, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts – consisting entirely of Trump appointees – approved a new coin design depicting him. Trump is shown glowering with his fists on a table, based on his picture displayed at the National Portrait Gallery.

Why is there a new coin design, anyway?

In 2020, Congress enacted the Circulating Collectible Coin Redesign Act, authorizing a new dollar coin to honor the Declaration of Independence’s 250th anniversary in 2026.

However, the Congress of 2020 didn’t specify who or what this design would actually depict, instead leaving the decision up to the Treasury Department of 2026.

(The coin actually does contain some non-Trump elements more directly related to the Declaration’s anniversary, like a bald eagle and the phrase “Liberty: 1776-2026.”)

Is this legal?

Is this legal? Apparently, yes – due to a technicality dating back 160 years.

Back in 1866, a federal government official named Spencer Clark exploited a loophole to put an image of his own face on American money.

Congress enacted a law calling for a new money design to depict William Clark, of the explorer duo “Lewis and Clark.” But by referencing “Lewis and Clark,” they only implied his first name rather than saying it directly. Since the law technically only required the bill to depict someone with the last name “Clark,” Spencer Clark decided to put himself instead.

Many Americans were appalled, calling this too similar to the British monarchy from which the U.S. had broken away. (Indeed, the current monarch, King Charles III, appears on the £5, £10, £20, and £50 British banknotes.)

So Congress enacted a law banning any living person from being featured on “bonds, securities, notes, fractional or postal currency of the United States.” Essentially: bills.

But that left a loophole: a living person could still be featured on American coins.

What supporters say

The modern legislation’s supporters argue that no current or living president should appear on American money, whether it’s Trump or even presidents Democrats support, like Obama.

“Like tattoos, presidents don’t always age well… regardless of anyone’s political party or viewpoint,” Rep. Torres said in a press release. “If you can’t appear on the U.S. dollar while you’re alive, you shouldn’t appear on any U.S. coins. Even North Korea doesn’t do that.”

(That’s true: the only real person currently on North Korean currency is the country’s founder, Kim Il-sung, who died in 1994.)

“President Trump’s self-celebrating maneuvers are authoritarian actions worthy of dictators, not the United States of America,” Sen. Merkley said in a separate press release. “We must reject his efforts to dismantle our ‘We The People’ republic and replace it with a strongman state.”

What opponents say

Opponents counter that Trump’s depiction is perfect for the money.

“As we approach our 250th birthday, we are thrilled to prepare coins that represent the enduring spirit of our country and democracy,” U.S. Treasurer Brandon Beach said. “And there is no profile more emblematic for the front of such coins than that of our serving President, Donald J. Trump,”

Opponents also note history is on their side: 100 years ago, in 1926, President Calvin Coolidge appeared on a coin while he was still in office. (Although it hasn’t happened since.)

What happens now?

The House version has attracted one Democratic cosponsor, Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-CA16), and was referred to the House Financial Services Committee.

The Senate version has attracted five Democratic cosponsors and was referred to the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

In December, nine Democratic senators wrote to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, urging him to reject a potential Trump coin design. It’s unclear why four Democrats signed onto that letter but haven’t yet cosponsored the legislation: Sens. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Adam Schiff (D-CA).

This article was originally published by The Fulcrum, republished under their guidelines.

Note: I wrote this article for The Fulcrum in March. Starting imminently, I’ll publish my own content exclusively to A Bill a Minute.

Subscribe now