1 month ago
3
PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: The cost of accommodating asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is now projected to be $20.3 billion, triple the initial $6 billion estimate by the Home Office.
👥 Who’s Involved: The British government, the National Audit Office (NAO), Serco, Mears, Clearsprings, and Britain’s Home Office.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
📍 Where & When: United Kingdom, contracts signed in 2019.
💬 Key Quote: A Home Office spokesman blamed the prior Conservative (Tory) government for “disastrous contracts that were wasting millions in taxpayer money.”
⚠️ Impact: Rising costs are attributed to an increase in asylum seekers housed in hotels, with significant profits for private providers and ongoing challenges for the government.
IN FULL:
According to a report by Britain’s National Audit Office (NAO), the financial burden on taxpayers for accommodating asylum seekers is now expected to reach the equivalent of $20.3 billion. This figure is a significant increase from the $6 billion initially projected by the Home Office—roughly equivalent to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—when contracts were signed in 2019.
The NAO report highlights that the rising costs are largely driven by the increased number of asylum seekers in hotels. The number of asylum seekers in hotels rose from approximately 47,000 in December 2019 to an anticipated 110,000 by December 2024. Despite hotels accommodating around a third of the asylum seekers, they consume three-quarters of the budget for accommodation.
Contracts were originally signed with three private companies—Serco, Mears, and Clearsprings—to manage asylum accommodation. Between September 2019 and August 2024, these companies reportedly made a combined profit of $511 million. Clearsprings, in particular, saw its contract in the south of England balloon from $0.9 billion to an expected $9.3 billion.
The Home Office, now under the control of Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, has faced criticism for its handling of the situation. A spokesman pointed fingers at the previous Conservative government for what they termed “disastrous contracts,” which have led to a significant waste of taxpayer money.
A senior Home Office source attributed the rising accommodation costs to the increase in people crossing the English Channel on small boats, a situation exacerbated by people-smuggling gangs. Despite the surge of migrants crossing the English Channel in recent years, and the migrants plainly not being in danger in France and the other Western European countries they launch from, a report from last year indicated very few have been deported. For instance, as little as 0.5 percent of those who entered illegally in 2023 were ever deported.
PULSE POINTS:
❓What Happened: Republican lawmakers have introduced a bill to eliminate federal income taxes on overtime pay with the aim of fulfilling one of President Donald J. Trump’s key campaign promises.
👥 Who’s Involved: Senators Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), President Trump, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
📍 Where & When: The two Republican lawmakers filed their bill on May 6, 2025; President Trump frequently mentioned the policy while campaigning for the White House in 2024.
💬 Key Quote: “President Trump campaigned and won on a promise to cut taxes for millions of Americans working overtime—and we are delivering on that promise,” said Senator Tommy Tuberville.
⚠️ Impact: The proposal could provide workers an estimated $1.34 trillion in tax relief by 2034.
IN FULL:
Senators Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) have introduced the Overtime Wages Tax Relief Act, a new legislative proposal to eliminate federal income taxes on overtime pay. The two lawmakers emphasize that the bill is intended to partially fulfill President Donald J. Trump’s campaign promise to cut overtime, tips, and Social Security income taxes.
“President Trump campaigned and won on a promise to cut taxes for millions of Americans working overtime—and we are delivering on that promise,” Sen. Tuberville said on Tuesday when unveiling the legislation. Meanwhile, Sen. Marshall indicated that the duo hoped to fold their proposal into the larger budget reconciliation bill, enacting a number of President Trump’s policy priorities as it works its way through Congress.
The bill would create a new income tax deduction for overtime wage earners, allowing individuals to deduct up to $10,000 and married couples up to $20,000. Notably, the deduction would phase out for individuals earning above $100,000 and couples earning above $200,000, decreasing by $50 for every $1,000 earned over these thresholds. Additionally, the legislation broadly defines overtime to include numerous professions such as law enforcement, healthcare, and trade workers.
Currently, the Fair Labor Standards Act mandates that employers pay eligible workers “time-and-a-half” for hours worked beyond 40 per week, which is subject to federal income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes. The proposed legislation seeks to change this by offering tax relief to those working overtime.
Already, the plan to eliminate taxes on overtime is receiving bipartisan support, with Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien backing the legislation. “More working people need more money in their pockets—that must be a shared priority across our nation. This bill will help make it happen, especially when more workers are electing for more overtime to ensure they can make ends meet,” O’Brien said, adding: “Workers, union and nonunion alike, should not be taxed for their initiative and extra labor.”
Late last month, President Trump, during a rally in Michigan, doubled down on his plans to reduce taxes for working-class Americans, stating: “In the coming weeks and months, we will pass the largest tax cuts in American history, and that will include no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.”
show less
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win on Tuesday, overturning a lower court ruling that blocked his ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military.
Back up: In January, President Trump signed an executive order that banned transgenders from serving in the military. In March, U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of this order.
Your free, daily feed from The National Pulse.
The details: In a brief order released Tuesday afternoon, the Supreme Court granted Trump’s emergency request to overturn the lower court ruling, after the administration argued it hindered the U.S. military readiness.
- The three liberal justices—Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson—would deny Trump’s request.
What Americans think: A recent poll found that most Americans, 54 percent, approve of Trump’s ban on transgender troops.
What happens next: Litigation over the constitutionality of Trump’s order will continue. But while that plays out, his ban can go into effect.
Why Trump’s right on the issue: It is longstanding Department of Defense policy that service members are “[f]ree of medical conditions or physical defects that may reasonably be expected to require excessive time lost from duty for necessary treatment or hospitalization.” The military isn’t an office computer job. It’s the literal line of defense between us and our enemies. There is no room for radical gender ideology.
Be sure to subscribe to the Wake Up Right newsletter!
show less
The Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a major win on Tuesday, overturning a lower court ruling that blocked his ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. military. show more
English (US) · .jpg){kind=link}