WASHINGTON – A House panel voted Wednesday to subpoena White House advisor Kellyanne Conway in order to get her to testify about her alleged violations of the Hatch Act.

On June 13, a government watchdog issued a report calling for Conway to be removed from her job for “egregious, notorious and ongoing” Hatch Act violations because she criticized Democratic presidential candidates on television while in her official position. The act prohibits most high-level executive branch employees from engaging in partisan political conduct.

Conway was invited to testify Wednesday morning before the House Oversight and Reform Committee, which was holding a hearing over Conway’s alleged violations. On Monday morning, the White House informed the committee that Conway would not be appearing to testify before them, prompting the 25-16 vote for a subpoena when Conway did not show.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., was the only Republican to vote along with all Democrats on the committee to subpoena Conway.

Conway won’t testify: White House says Kellyanne Conway won’t testify at House hearing on Hatch Act violations

More: ‘Egregious, notorious and ongoing’: Watchdog agency urges firing of Kellyanne Conway over political remarks

Trump’s defense: Trump says he won’t fire Kellyanne Conway over Hatch Act, defends her words as ‘free speech’

Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings argued that “The Hatch Act absolutely applies to Kellyanne Conway. Period.”

“This is about right and wrong,” Cummings said about Conway. “This is about the core principle of our precious democracy – that nobody, not one person, nobody in this country is above the law.”

The lead Republican on the committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, defended Conway and railed against the committee’s subpoena vote.

“She’s being targeted because she’s good at what she does….the idea that the Democrats are going to subpoena her is just ridiculous,” Jordan said.

The committee only heard from one witness, Henry Kerner, the head of the White House Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which is separate from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office.

The violations: All the times Kellyanne Conway ran afoul of a federal watchdog over the Hatch Act

“Some have questioned why the Hatch Act should apply to someone like Ms. Conway, who is a former campaign manager for President Trump and presently serves as one of his senior counselors,” Kerner said. “But as the conduct of past administration officials in similar positions – David Axelrod, Karl Rove – has shown, being an advisor does not inherently require Ms. Conway to leverage her official authority to attack candidates of the opposing party or otherwise engage in political activity under the Act.”

According to the OSC, Conway used her official position as counselor to the president to criticize Democratic presidential candidates and weigh in on the 2017 Alabama Senate race, which would violate the Hatch Act’s prohibitions on political conduct.

More: Like what you’re reading? Download the USA TODAY app for more

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/26/hatch-act-house-oversight-votes-subpoena-kellyanne-conway/1569182001/

WASHINGTON – The man responsible for handling the diplomatic formalities and nuances of presidential meetings with foreign leaders is stepping down – and did not go with President Donald Trump on his trip to the G-20 summit in Japan – amid a probe into allegations that he harassed and intimidated staff, according to multiple media reports.

Sean Lawler, who holds the rank of ambassador within the State Department, has been Trump’s chief of protocol since December 2017. He was suspended indefinitely pending an investigation into his alleged harassment and discrimination of staff, NBC News reported.

One of the complaints against Lawler was that he would carry a whip around the office in an apparent attempt to intimidate co-workers, unnamed officials told NBC and Bloomberg. The investigation is being conducted by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General, Bloomberg reported.

White House departures: Who’s been fired and who resigned

The chief of protocol is responsible for overseeing details such as proper order of receiving lines, seating placements, the formalities of joint press conferences, the proper titles of foreign dignitaries, ensuring that their names are spelled correctly and supplying interpreters.

Sean Lawler, President Donald Trump’s chief of protocol since 2017, is seen here in his official State Department photo. (Photo: U.S. Department of State)

“As the first hand that welcomes kings, queens, presidents, and prime ministers to the United States, Ambassador Lawler serves on the front lines of diplomatic engagement, building bridges and fostering understanding between peoples and governments,” reads Lawler’s biography on the State Department’s website.

The assistant chief of protocol, Mary-Kate Fisher, will take Lawler’s place on Trump’s trip to Japan, NBC and Bloomberg reported.

Lawler is a native of Chicago who served more than 20 years in the Navy and previously worked as the National Security Council’s director diplomatic affairs and as chief of protocol for the U.S. Cyber Command in Fort Meade, Maryland, his profile says.

Contributing: The Associated Press 

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/26/protocol-chief-sean-lawler-resigns-stays-back-for-trump-g-20-trip/1569562001/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court denied the conservative legal movement something it has long sought Wednesday, refusing to strip federal agencies of the power to interpret ambiguous regulations.

The decision was unanimous because while upholding agencies’ authority, the justices defined new parameters. Deference “is sometimes appropriate and sometimes not,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan said in her opinion.

The ruling is important because agencies run by unelected bureaucrats make decisions all the time about regulations on the environment, the workplace, food and drugs, and other matters affecting millions of Americans.

Challengers wanted that power left to federal trial judges when regulations get challenged in court. Under Supreme court precedents from 1945 and 1997, courts are encouraged to defer to administrative agencies with expertise the judges lack.

The specific case before the justices challenged the Department of Veterans Affairs’ refusal to pay retroactive disability benefits to a Marine Corps veteran of the Vietnam War with post-traumatic stress disorder. But it rose to the high court’s attention only because it was a stalking horse for a much bigger issue.

The unanimous 1997 decision in Auer v. Robbins upholding agencies’ clout was written by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who over the next two decades grew to despise it. He once told his friend and colleague, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, that Auer was “one of the worst opinions in the history of this country.”

“Nino,” Thomas has said in recounting the story, “you wrote it.”

Defending agency deference during oral argument in March, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer cited “hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of interpretive regulations” that bureaucrats are best able to define.

By way of example, Breyer noted a Food and Drug Administration regulation concerns “a single new active moiety, which consists of a previously approved moiety, joined by a non-ester covalent bond to a lysine group.”

“Do you know how much I know about that?” Breyer quipped.

More: Supreme Court’s Top Cases of 2019

The case was closely watched by both conservatives and liberals because eliminating agency deference over regulations is considered a stepping stone to a more controversial change: stripping agencies of the power to interpret ambiguous laws passed by Congress.

Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court does not overrule itself often – about once a year and considerably less than in the past. But last year, it struck down both a 1977 decision that allowed public employee unions to collect fees from non-members and a 1992 ruling that allowed retailers to sell goods tax-free beyond state borders.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/26/supreme-court-rules-conservative-effort-weaken-federal-agencies/1421582001/

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that even sex offenders deserve to have the reasons for their sentences determined by a jury, not a judge.

The justices ruled 5-4 that a federal law requiring sex offenders to return to prison based on a judge’s new findings is unconstitutional. Supreme Court precedent gives juries, not judges, the power to determine criminal conduct.

Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, one of President Donald Trump’s two nominees on the court, wrote the opinion and was joined by the court’s four liberal justices – for the fourth time this term.

It was a victory for Andre Hammond, an Oklahoma man sentenced in 2010 to more than three years in prison on child pornography charges. In 2015, a judge found him guilty of violating his supervised release and tacked on five more years in prison.

The question before the justices: Can a judge, rather than a jury, decide what facts merit a new sentence?

It was the second decision in a week involving the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a 2006 law requiring sex offenders to register and notify authorities when they move.

Last week, the court ruled 5-3 that the law properly gives the attorney general latitude in applying it to about 500,000 prior offenders. Challengers had argued only Congress can make that decision.

The Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the power of judges, rather than juries, to impose sentences based on new facts. (Photo: Patrick Semansky, AP)

That decision could be short-lived. The fifth vote was provided by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who disagreed with his liberal colleagues on their reasoning and indicated he would be willing to strike down Congress’ power to delegate that authority in a future case.

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/26/supreme-court-rules-sex-offender-child-pornography-case/1564204001/

President Donald Trump’s son Eric Trump said an employee of an upscale Chicago cocktail bar spit on him Tuesday night in an incident he believed was politically motivated.

“It was purely a disgusting act by somebody who clearly has emotional problems,” the executive vice president of the Trump Organization told Breitbart News.

“For a party that preaches tolerance, this once again demonstrates they have very little civility,” he added, apparently assuming the employee was a Democrat. “When somebody is sick enough to resort to spitting on someone, it just emphasizes a sickness and desperation and the fact that we’re winning.”

The incident reportedly occurred at The Aviary, a James Beard award-winning establishment co-owned by Nick Kokonas.

Eric Trump attends a French-U.S. ceremony at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial in Colleville-sur-Mer, Normandy, northwestern France, on June 6, 2019. (Photo: Mandel Ngan, AFP/Getty Images)

Kokonas made headlines earlier this year when he invited Clemson University’s NCAA championship football team to “experience what an actual celebration dinner should be” after the team was given fast food during a trip to the White House, where the staff had been impacted by a government shutdown.

More: 4 celebrities offering to treat Clemson to a real champions’ dinner

Mary Ann Ahern, a reporter for NBC5 in Chicago, first reported the incident and said Trump was seen leaving The Aviary at 8:30 p.m., CDT. Ahern said the employee had been taken into custody.

Hearing of incident at Aviary tonight, an employee allegedly spit on son of @realDonaldTrump who is visiting Chicago, offender now in US Secret Service custody

— Mary Ann Ahern (@MaryAnnAhernNBC) June 26, 2019

A Chicago Police Department spokesman, linking to a tweet from Ahern, said that local officers had assisted the Secret Service “with a law enforcement matter” but did not provide further details.

CPD was on scene and assisting the United States Secret Service with a law enforcement matter. Any and all inquiries regarding a federal protectee must be directed to the Secret Service. https://t.co/ecq5TaMiQ0

— Anthony Guglielmi (@AJGuglielmi) June 26, 2019

The alleged spitting is the latest in a string of incidents in the past two years in which members of the Trump administration, as well as Republican lawmakers, have described being confronted and harassed at restaurants by people over policy differences.

Sarah Sanders at the Red Hen: Trump spokeswoman kicked out of Virginia restaurant by owner

Kellyanne Conway alleged assault: Charges dropped after confrontation at DC-area Mexican restaurant

In June 2018, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders was asked to leave a Virginia restaurant. That same month, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen was confronted at a Mexican restaurant in Washington by protesters who were enraged at the administration’s child separation policy.

Stephen Miller, one of the chief architects and advocates of the White House’s “zero tolerance” immigration policies, has been a prime target for the administration’s critics.

Last year, Miller told The Washington Post that he threw away an $80 sushi order after the restaurant’s bartender followed him out with both middle fingers raised. And in June, a fellow patron at a Washington Mexican restaurant called him a “fascist,” according to the New York Post.

Eric Trump posted a tweet later Tuesday night touting the Trump Hotel in Chicago as “one of the most beautiful buildings in the world,” but did not mention the alleged incident.

Always love visiting ⁦@TrumpChicago⁩! It is one of the most beautiful buildings in the world! ⁦@TrumpHotels⁩ pic.twitter.com/vr60sbbb07

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) June 26, 2019

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/26/eric-trump-spit-upon-the-aviary-chicago/1568341001/

WASHINGTON – Want to know what’s going on with the 2020 Democratic primary debate? Well, you’ve come to the right place.

Ten Democrats will take the stage Wednesday evening for the first debate of the political season.

It will be the first night of a two-night event, which is being held at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami, Florida. The debates begin each night at 9 p.m. and end at 11 p.m. ET. The second night, which will feature 10 more Democratic presidential hopefuls, will take place on Thursday.

Here is what you need to know about the set-up of Wednesday night’s debate:

How to watch

TV broadcast: NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo

Free online stream: NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, Telemundo, NBC News’ Facebook, Twitter and YouTube and NBC News apps

2020 Debates: What the candidates will talk about on the national stage

Who’s onstage

From left to right:

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio

Rep. Tim Ryan of Ohio

Former Obama HUD Secretary Julian Castro of Texas

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington state

Former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland

More: Are you getting ready for the Democratic debates? Here is what you should know.

What to expect

Democrats are going to jump right into the questions.

The candidates will not deliver opening remarks. They will only have 60 seconds to answer the questions and 30 seconds to respond to follow-ups, according to NBC. There will be five segments each night, and separated by only four commercial breaks.

“Today” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie, NBC Nightly News host Lester Holt, “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow and “Noticias Telemundo” host José Diaz-Balart will be the moderators for the evening.

Candidates will, however, get to leave voters with one last message as the debate closes because closing statements will be delivered by the Democratic hopefuls.

Like what you’re reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/06/26/dnc-debate-night-one-how-to-watch/1561816001/

Can six minutes of fast talk on a crowded stage ignite a presidential campaign?

Twenty Democratic contenders hope so.

The first chapter of the Democratic presidential contest has had an everybody-in-the-pool spirit: Seven senators and five representatives and two governors and three mayors and even a self-help author announced bids for the nomination to challenge President Donald Trump. A former Pennsylvania congressman just became the 24th hopeful in a field that already set records for size and diversity.

The second chapter of the campaign is being launched at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts in Miami on Wednesday and Thursday in back-to-back debates.

Democratic debate No. 1: What you need to know

The first NBC Democratic presidential primary debates for the 2020 elections will take place June 25, 2019, in Miami at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts. (Photo: Drew Angerer, Getty Images)

The campaigns of most of these contenders are likely to be history by the time the opening Iowa caucuses convene next February. As University of Michigan debate expert Aaron Kall notes, the opening debates will be “integral” in determining who survives until then.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, leading in national and state polls, is preparing to respond to attacks that he represents the party’s past rather than its future, that he is a well-liked figure but one with baggage. Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are unveiling far-reaching policy proposals on college affordability and taxes as they vie to win the favor of the party’s most liberal voters. Pete Buttigieg, a fresh face who has had a fast rise into the top tier, faces new scrutiny into how he handled allegations of police brutality in his job as mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Who’s running?: Meet the candidates for president in 2020 in an interactive guide

When do we vote?: The full schedule for the 2020 presidential election primaries

Avoiding an ‘oops’ and looking strong

Other candidates, scrambling for traction, have been strategizing in practice sessions on how to deliver a viral moment of insight or humor that could prompt voters to take a serious look at them – and how to avoid the sort of gaffe that might undercut their prospects.

Exhibit A: Rick Perry.

In the 2016 Republican primaries, the contest that most closely resembles the big field and broad horizons of the Democratic race this time, Perry saw his brief front-runner status eroded by one weak debate performance, then demolished by a second. “Oops,” as the then-Texas governor memorably put it when he couldn’t remember the third federal agency he had proposed to abolish.

In the first of those GOP debates during the last presidential election, a crisp showing by former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina boosted her fundraising and her status, for a time moving her from the undercard slate to the main event.

Who’s not here?: Bullock, Moulton and Messam didn’t qualify for the debate

Primary debates get lower TV ratings than general election debates, when the landscape has been set between the parties’ nominees, but they have more power to change voters’ choices within those parties. In a study at the University of Missouri, 40% of those who watched a primary debate supported the same candidate when it was over as they did when it began.

One in three switched from one candidate to another, and one in four went from being undecided to endorsing someone.

“The dynamic that’s so different in a primary debate is that people’s opinions aren’t constrained by their partisanship,” says communication professor Benjamin Warner, who conducted the study with Mitchell McKinney. “Everybody is a member of your team” and open for consideration. Though the impact isn’t set in stone, it does show some resilience. “The initial impression they make in the first debate is a little bit resistant to change,” he says.

In other words, a candidate will never have a second chance to make a first impression.

Not a lot of time for talking

They also won’t have the luxury of time to make their case.

Answers are limited to 60 seconds and responses to 30 seconds. During each two-hour debate, featuring 10 candidates and a total of five moderators, the contenders can count on getting only six minutes or so to talk. Some will get more time to respond if they are the target of attack.

Just how many attacks are launched, and with what ferocity, is one key thing to watch.

Debate matchups: Biden vs. Sanders and other things to watch in the first debates

Joe Biden (Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

As the early front-runner, Biden, who is on the debate stage Thursday, is likely to be the prime target. There are risks to those who might take him on, especially among Democratic voters concerned about damaging the person who could end up as the party’s standard-bearer. That means Biden’s recent controversies, including his comments about his work as a young senator with segregationist colleagues, are more likely to be raised by the longest-shot contenders positioned at the edges of the stage.

Will they talk Trump or policy?

Another key: How big a presence is Trump on stage?

Biden is likely to try to pivot from an attack by a Democratic competitor to a conversation about the imperative to defeat Trump’s bid for a second term. Since Biden announced his candidacy, he has argued he is the Democrat best able to compete with the president in such battleground states as Pennsylvania and Michigan. Trump may be bolstering the idea that Biden is the likely nominee by aiming most of his own fire at the former vice president, questioning why former President Barack Obama hasn’t endorsed him.

Opposition to Trump and his agenda unites the Democratic field, to be sure. But the other 19 Democrats on the debate stage aren’t ready to move on to the general election until the battle over the Democratic nomination has been waged.

USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll: What do Democrats want to hear about? Hint: Not Trump.

One more thing to watch: How fierce is the Democrats’ policy divide?

The Democratic Party doesn’t face the bitter fractures of the past, over the civil rights movement or the Vietnam War, for instance. But the candidates do divide on some major proposals, including the so-called Green New Deal to combat climate change and “Medicare for All” to overhaul the health care system.

Half the candidates – including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Kamala Harris of California – have endorsed the idea of some form of Medicare for All, although not always with precise explanations of what that would include. Others, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, have raised questions about the impact on American workers covered by private insurance. They could speak up.

And while Sanders proudly declares himself to be a democratic socialist, former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a former business entrepreneur and capitalist, has argued that socialist policies and the label itself put Democrats at risk among swing voters.

He could speak up, too. Quickly.

‘Off and running’: A look at President Trump’s campaign for reelection in 2020

Expanding the map: Why candidates are already campaigning beyond the first primary states

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/06/26/democratic-debates-20-candidates-two-nights-defining-moments/1558254001/

WASHINGTON – For the first time in more than three years, President Donald Trump will not be at the center of the nation’s biggest political showdown.

Many Republicans hope it stays that way.

As 10 Democrats climb on stage Wednesday for the first presidential debate of the 2020 election, Trump will be half a world way, en route to the annual G-20 summit in Japan. When a second group of Democrats debate a day later, the president will be meeting with world leaders to discuss thorny issues such as Iran, North Korea and global trade.

Republican strategists say the timing offers Trump a rare opportunity to rise above the fray of national politics as Democrats battle with each other and court the party’s liberal base voters. But those strategists also predict that Trump – who has already toyed with the idea of live-tweeting his reaction to the debates – will be unable to resist the temptation to weigh in.

“He’s going to directly engage the Democrats and even call out some of them individually,” said Kevin Madden, a GOP consultant. “Trump will be a bigger part of that stage than any one of the individual candidates and that’s exactly how he wants it.”

President Donald Trump speaks to supporters as he formally announced his 2020 re-election bid. (Photo: John Raoux, AP Images.)

Will Trump attack?

The Miami debates, broadcast both nights at 9 p.m. EDT, will momentarily snap the nation’s attention to the crowded field of Democrats vying to take on Trump next year. But the president’s record and combative style will hang over the discussion, and his campaign apparatus has been gearing up to counter Democratic broadsides.

How to watch:Everything you need to know about the Democratic debates

The question is whether Trump will add his voice to that effort.

“President Trump will likely watch many of these debates and declare winners and losers among the Democratic primary contenders,” said Ron Bonjean, a GOP strategist with close ties to Republicans on Capitol Hill. “He isn’t going to allow any of the candidate’s popularity rise without putting his branding on them.”

The first debate will feature candidates such as Sen. Cory Booker, who Trump has claimed “ran Newark, New Jersey, into the ground” as a former mayor of that city. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who will also be on stage, has been blasted by Trump for claiming Native American heritage. The president has accused New York City Mayor and candidate Bill de Blasio of being responsible for high taxes and crime in New York.

Trump campaign: A look at Donald Trump’s un-Trumpian campaign

Poll: What do Democrats want to hear about at the debates? (Hint: It’s not Trump.)

Trump told Fox News last week he is considering tweeting during the debates. White House aides did not respond to questions about whether the president will watch the debates.

“I wasn’t thinking about it, but maybe I will now,” Trump told Fox News when asked if he will react in real time. “Instead of fake news, I’ll make them correct news. And that’s OK.”

Trump backed off in ’16

Trump was a prolific tweeter during the first Democratic debate in 2016, posting nearly two dozen messages, many of them with a “#DemDebate” hashtag. At one point he said immigration was receiving more attention from candidates than veterans. He polled his followers for who was winning. He complained about the number of commercials.

Get rid of all of these commercials. #DemDebate

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2015

“Everybody’s talking about my doing twitter during the likely very boring debate tonight,” he wrote hours before the October 2015 debate got underway.

But his strategy appeared to shift months later. Trump posted no tweets about the Democrats during their final four debates, which took place in the spring of 2016 – after he had placed second in the Iowa caucuses and won the New Hampshire primary.

For all the expected focus on Trump, Democratic voters told a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll that they want to hear about health care, immigration, the economy, climate change, education and taxes instead. Trump, including efforts to get him out of the White House, ranked eighth in priority for Democrats.

Fewer than 1% cited “election interference” as a top priority.

GOP, campaign gear up

The traditional approach past presidents have taken is to mostly avoid reacting to debates, instead allowing the candidates to beat each other up on national television. In instances where the president’s record is attacked, the campaign or the national party would generally take the lead on countering.

“The president should let his campaign and the RNC handle real-time responses to the debate,” said GOP consultant Matt Mackowiak. “He has very little influence on Democratic primary voters. When he attacks a candidate like (Joe) Biden, it forces Democrats to rally around his target.”

062119-democratic-debate-issues_Online (Photo: USA TODAY)

Republican aides said the RNC and the campaign are both gearing up to monitor pre- and post-debate commentary, blast emails to donors and journalists, and to place Trump supporters at “strategic locations” around the debates. RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel is set to travel to Miami, as are Trump campaign operatives.

Still, RNC and campaign aides didn’t respond to questions about Trump’s plans.

“The established approach of most incumbents is to avoid providing a field of opponents the attention they crave, choosing instead to ignore them and leave them to fight among themselves and bruise each other up,” Madden said. “But Trump is not most incumbents, and he has zero interest in the established approach.”

President Donald Trump applauds after awarding Army Staff Sgt. David Bellavia the Medal of Honor at the White House in Washington, June 25, 2019. Bellavia is a Iraq veteran who cleared an insurgent strongpoint and allowed members of his platoon to move to safety. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster, AP)

2020 Elections: What you need to know about the 2020 election so far

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/06/26/democratic-debate-donald-trump-able-stay-sidelines/1556960001/

WASHINGTON – The nation’s federal debt is projected to reach “unprecedented levels” over the next 30 years if lawmakers do not change current laws, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Currently, the nation’s level of debt is the highest level since shortly after World War II, according to the CBO. The federal debt is projected to equal 78% of the gross domestic product by the end of the year. At the end of 2007, federal debt stood at 35% of GDP.

The CBO predicts that federal debt “would reach 92 percent of GDP by the end of the next decade and 144 percent by 2049,” which would be the highest level of debt in the nation’s history.

“The prospect of such large deficits over many years, and the high and rising debt that would result, poses substantial risks for the nation and presents policymakers with significant challenges,” CBO director Phillip Swagel said in a statement Tuesday.

More: Treasury watchdog to review delay of Harriet Tubman $20 bill design

The CBO warned that if lawmakers prevented a cut in discretionary spending in 2020 and an increase in individual income taxes in 2026, even larger increases in debt would result.

Despite the projection announced by the CBO Tuesday, the federal debt and deficits are projected to be lower over the next three decades than what the agency had projected last year.

The agency’s current extended baseline projections predict that debt will equal 141% of GDP in 2048, which is 11 percentage points lower than the CBO projected last year.

Like what you’re reading?: Download the USA TODAY app for more

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/06/25/cbo-federal-debt-projected-reach-unprecedented-levels-next-30-years/1566356001/