Senate Passes Resolution Terminating Trump's Brazil Tariffs (52-48), Fails to Advance Government Funding Amid Shutdown, and Confirms Jordan Pratt to Federal Bench

The case for

Senator Kaine argued that President Trump's 50-percent tariff on Brazilian goods, justified by an emergency declaration, is an abuse of power. He stated that the alleged emergency, Brazil's prosecution of its former President, is not a threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or economy, especially given the U.S. trade surplus with Brazil. He highlighted that these tariffs act as a sales tax on American consumers, citing a 40-percent increase in coffee prices and higher ground beef costs. Senator Schumer echoed that the tariffs are a "national sales tax" and a "financial nightmare" for families, driven by Trump's attempt to meddle in Brazil's politics. Senator Wyden added that the tariffs are an "unprecedented tax on American families" costing over $2,000 annually, and are a "brazenly illegal and corrupt effort" to settle personal scores. Senator Paul emphasized that unilateral presidential taxation violates the constitutional principle of "no taxation without representation" and creates economic chaos, citing Ronald Reagan's free trade stance. Senator Murray pointed out that Trump's tariffs have raised retail prices by 5 percent, costing American households an average of $1,800 this year, and are arbitrarily imposed, citing the recent tariff on Canada over a Ronald Reagan ad.

The case against

Senator Crapo argued that S.J. Res. 81 is counterproductive to President Trump's ongoing trade negotiations and the progress already made, including new trade deals with Cambodia and Malaysia. He urged colleagues to oppose the resolution, noting that the Senate had previously rejected a similar joint resolution of disapproval on IEEPA-based reciprocal tariffs.

The case for

Senator Thune argued that the path forward for Congress is clear: reopen the government immediately under a clean continuing resolution that allows continued debate on larger issues. He stated that the House-passed H.R. 5371 is a clean resolution with no new Republican policy or partisan riders, and would be signed by the President immediately. He criticized Democrats for blocking it 12 times, suggesting they are using the shutdown for "leverage" and to show they are fighting President Trump, causing suffering for American families and federal workers. He emphasized that Republicans want to fund the government with as little drama as possible and restore regular order for appropriations.

The case against

Senator Schumer stated that the Republican CR has zero bipartisan input and does nothing to solve the ACA premium crisis, which he described as an impending healthcare crisis for millions of Americans. He reiterated that Democrats want lower healthcare costs, to fix the ACA premium crisis, and to reopen the government, and that Republicans are refusing to negotiate. Senator Barrasso accused Democrats of playing the "politics of pain" and using the shutdown for "leverage" to push for "taxpayer giveaways of healthcare" to illegal immigrants and $1.5 trillion in new spending, while also trying to eliminate funding for rural hospitals. He stated that Democrats are protecting waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption, and that negotiations will not happen while the government is closed.

The case for

No specific floor arguments in favor of the nomination were aired in the Record text, beyond the filing and agreement to the cloture motion.

The case against

Senator Durbin opposed the nomination, citing Judge Pratt's demonstrated partisanship and extreme views throughout his career. He noted Pratt's arguments supporting restrictions on abortion and voting rights, opposition to transgender rights, and arguments against firearms restrictions while working for the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and First Liberty Institute. Durbin highlighted Pratt's involvement with Project 2025 and his continued judicial activism, even after his appointment to a state bench, as evidenced by an opinion holding a Florida law allowing minors to seek abortions without parental consent unconstitutional. Durbin concluded that Pratt's record reflects an inappropriate level of partisan ideology and judicial activism for a lifetime federal position.

The case for

No specific floor arguments in favor of the nomination were aired in the Record text, beyond the filing and agreement to the cloture motion.

The case against

No opposition to the nomination was aired in the Record.

The case for

Senator Kennedy argued against the Department of the Interior's plan to kill 453,000 barred owls, calling it "bone-deep, down-to-marrow stupid" and ineffective. He stated that the plan, which aims to protect spotted owls by culling barred owls (a better hunter), won't work because hunters may mistakenly kill spotted owls, barred owls will simply move to Canada and return, and the use of lead shots could harm other wildlife. He highlighted the plan's high cost ($3,000 per bird) and argued that the real problem for spotted owls is habitat loss, not competition from barred owls. He criticized the plan as an arrogant attempt to "play God" and interfere with natural ecological phenomena, likening it to "DEI for owls" and "quotas for owls."

The case against

No opposition to the resolution was aired in the Record. Senator Kennedy noted that both the Biden and Trump administrations support the owl culling plan.

The case for

Senator Scott of Florida argued that the Sunshine Protection Act, a bipartisan, bicameral bill, would allow states to end the twice-yearly time change and make daylight saving time the national, year-round standard. He emphasized it is about states' rights, allowing each state to choose what best fits its needs. He cited benefits such as more time to enjoy the outdoors, reduced cardiac issues, stroke, seasonal depression, reduced robberies, and benefits to the agricultural and general economies. Senator Whitehouse supported making daylight saving time permanent, stating it would provide an extra hour of afternoon sunlight in winter and has previously passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Senator Tuberville highlighted the devastating health impacts of biannual time changes, linking them to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, fatal car accidents, heart attacks, weight gain, cluster headaches, and depression, arguing that shifting clocks disrupts sleep patterns and is harmful to health.

The case against

Senator Cotton objected, citing the failed 1974 experiment with year-round daylight saving time, which resulted in millions of Americans traveling to work and school in darkness, increased car accidents involving schoolchildren, and a significant drop in public support. He argued that permanent daylight saving time would make winter a "dark and dismal time" for millions, pushing sunrises to absurdly late hours (e.g., after 8:30 a.m. in Arkansas, nearly 9:45 a.m. in Williston, ND). He stated this would be especially harmful for schoolchildren and workers who rise before the sun. He also noted that top medical associations, including the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, advocate for abolishing daylight saving time, not extending it, and that economic and environmental benefits are negligible.

The case for

Senator Warren argued that President Trump's pardon of Changpeng Zhao (CZ), founder of Binance, was an act of corruption. She stated that Binance facilitated financing for terrorist organizations (ISIS, Hamas, al-Qaida), child abusers, and drug traffickers, leading to a $4 billion penalty and CZ's conviction for failing to maintain anti-money laundering programs. She alleged that the pardon came after Binance reportedly offered a crypto business deal with the Trump family and a Trump family crypto venture was used to buy a $2 billion stake in Binance, implying self-dealing and a message that wealth and connections allow one to evade the law. Senator Schiff echoed these concerns, calling it an abuse of the pardon power to reward wealthy allies and business partners, and illustrative of Trump's pattern of prioritizing loyalty and personal benefit over the rule of law.

The case against

Senator Lummis objected, asserting that Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants the President complete discretion to issue executive clemency, and Congress must respect this constitutional separation of powers. She also highlighted what she called the "hypocrisy" of Democrats, questioning their outrage given President Biden's pardon of his own son. She stated that the American people delivered a decisive mandate for President Trump, including his constitutional authority to issue pardons, and urged Democrats to accept election results and stop partisan theatrics.

The case for

Senator Peters argued that the Protecting America from Cyber Threats Act is vital because critical cybersecurity protections expired on October 1, leaving the nation more vulnerable to cyber attacks. He stated that the bill restores authorities that allow businesses and government agencies to share information about cyber threats, which is crucial for preventing widespread attacks. He cited support from nearly 80 stakeholders across various sectors, including healthcare, financial services, energy, and technology, who rely on these protections. He emphasized that delays in renewing the program will entrench information-sharing silos and set back the U.S. cybersecurity posture, making the economy and critical infrastructure more vulnerable.

The case against

Senator Paul objected. No specific reasons for his objection to this particular bill were aired in the Record text.

The case for

Senator Rosen argued that President Trump is seeking $230 million in payment from the Department of Justice for himself, which she called an "outrageous" and potentially illegal use of taxpayer money. She stated this is happening in the middle of a government shutdown and while families are worried about healthcare costs and SNAP benefits. She highlighted concerns about violations of the Domestic Emoluments Clause, misuse of government funds, and federal ethics laws, and urged officials with ties to Trump to recuse themselves. She suggested the money could instead go to SNAP benefits. Senator Schiff supported the resolution, calling it an illustration of Trump putting his wealthy allies and business partners ahead of public trust, and a "corruption of the most blatant kind."

The case against

Senator Scott of Florida objected, stating that Democrats are spending more time attacking President Trump than fighting for Americans harmed by the shutdown. He argued that Democrats are depriving military personnel, Capitol Police, federal law enforcement, and air traffic controllers of paychecks, and that 42 million SNAP recipients may lose benefits. He concluded that the American people are sick of political games at their expense.