Congressional Republicans are ideating about domestic policy. That’s a good thing. It’s too bad that few of the ideas are actually conservative.

Earlier this month, the Republican Study Committee released its “Reconciliation 2.0” framework, called “Making the American Dream Affordable Again.” The framework included ideas like: creating “The Don” Payment program, a zero-to-low down payment option for creditworthy borrowers; creating new tax-advantaged accounts for housing and healthcare; and establishing a parallel “MAHA” insurance marketplace.

The RSC is a caucus of conservatives, not a formal committee responsible for legislation. But some of these ideas may trickle into a reconciliation package this spring.

It’s clear that Republicans have gotten the message that affordability cannot wither any further on their watch. They aren’t going to wait around until tax returns show some gains this April or until new parents’ Trump Accounts begin to fill.

It’s also clear that there isn’t some singular driving vision for how to address voters’ concerns — adios to the limited government approach of the past. Thus the grab-bag approach of anything that might sniff of cost-reduction, including price controls and market meddling.

This isn’t the type of GOP policy I remember crafting. I called up some friends who led economic policy in Republican White Houses and presidential campaigns for their take. Many applauded the focus. Others doubted that the ideas would make it to the president’s desk. All questioned the impact on affordability.

Getting into the specifics, it’s easy to see why. For example, encouraging savings has its merits. So too do tax-advantaged savings accounts, such as HSAs and 401(k)s. But there can be too much of a good thing. Tax-advantaged savings accounts are still a form of government spending, albeit a hidden one. The result is lost government revenue (instead of increased government spending) which increases the deficit.

Not to mention that savers are already drowning in various types of savings accounts, with the Trump Accounts being the latest addition on the block. The new GOP plan floats adding Home Savings Accounts, Jumpstart Accounts and Health Freedom Accounts to the mix. How is a normal person supposed to divvy up cash between all of these? And anyway, if Americans are in an affordability crunch, they are unlikely to have much extra cash to set aside to begin with.

The GOP housing proposals are a mess. “The answer to rising home prices is not to further goose demand without expanding housing supply,” said Jessica Riedl, a senior economist in the Rubio (2016) and Romney (2012) presidential campaigns, and a long-time Republican Senate staffer. The single worst financial event the U.S. has experienced since the Great Depression was the Great Recession, the underpinnings of which were mortgages being extended where they never should have been. Removing down payments moves the country back in that direction.

Targeted financial assistance to low-income families has been shown to improve economic opportunity; but that’s different than broad stimulus and demanding lower interest rates. The plan’s proposal to tax foreign nationals who buy U.S. property as an investment is sound, but that’s hardly cutting to the heart of housing affordability in flyover country. The bigger reason housing is expensive is because of local regulations governing land use.

I am perhaps most intrigued and confused by the health care section. Doug Holtz-Eakin, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office and head of George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, described it to me as a “nothingburger.” The main proposal is essentially shifting from Obamacare subsidies (which directly reduce insurance premiums) to credits deposited in separate savings accounts. Those credits could then be used to bring consumers’ premium costs down. But the end-cost to consumers would be the same.

The ideas don’t get better from here. The big revenue generators — like eliminating the death tax and selling federal land — have hung around town for a while. They are popular, but never seem to go anywhere.

The plan also spills a lot of ink about reducing services to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. That’s red meat for the base and it must poll well, but the reality is that such immigrants are already excluded from most government programs. (And they really do contribute more to the government coffers than they take out of them.) Enough is enough.

There are some good ideas here. I like the plan’s focus on expanding access to paid parental leave. That’s long been a gaping hole in the U.S. federal safety net. It’s also cost-effective and a good fit for a pro-family party. I also like much of the energy-boosting and regulation-reducing efforts, though it’s hard to tell what’s actually new.

Other proposals feel mobbish, such as establishing a “Safe Cities Fund” to provide grants to cities and municipalities working with the Trump Administration to reduce crime (and of course, to expedite deportations).

The bottom line is that Reconciliation 2.0 is only nipping at pieces of the affordability challenge. And there’s not a driving conservative ideology behind it. Maybe voters will be glad for the GOP’s attention to affordability, but it’s my sense that what they really want is results.

We’d be better off if Republicans took their hands off the economy’s wheel rather than trying to grip it tighter. Reduce policy uncertainty, back off the tariffs, stop changing the rules, address the supply side and pay more attention to why wages have stalled out.

Abby McCloskey is a columnist, podcast host, and consultant. She directed domestic policy on two presidential campaigns and was director of economic policy at the American Enterprise Institute.

Related Articles

Thomas Friedman: Minneapolis and Gaza now share some of the same violent language

Julie Roland: We can’t let Pete Hegseth win his war on women in combat

Kenneth Seeskin: AI can’t do soul-searching. Here’s why we need philosophy

Aaron Coy Moulton: This time the US isn’t hiding why it’s toppling a Latin American nation

Andreas Kluth: At Davos, the world rebalanced against a bully

The post Strangest State: Escaped Exotics, Tariffs, Trickery, and Guns appeared first on The Texas Observer.

By SUSIE BLANN, Associated Press

KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — Ukraine waited for signs on Friday that Russia is abiding by a commitment that U.S. President Donald Trump said it made to temporarily halt attacks on Ukraine’s power grid, as Kyiv and other regions are gripped by one of the most bitter winters in years.

Trump said late Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin had agreed to his request not to target the Ukrainian capital and other places for one week, as the region experiences frigid temperatures that have brought widespread hardship to civilians.

“I personally asked President Putin not to fire on Kyiv and the cities and towns for a week during this … extraordinary cold,” Trump said during a Cabinet meeting at the White House, adding that Putin has “agreed to that.”

Trump didn’t say when the call with Putin took place or when the moratorium would go into effect, and the White House didn’t immediately respond to a query seeking clarity about the scope and timing of any limited pause.

A bitter winter of war

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov confirmed Friday that Trump “made a personal request” to Putin to stop targeting Kyiv for a week until Feb. 1 “in order to create favorable conditions for negotiations,” Peskov said.

Related Articles

Today in History: January 30, Catholic civil rights marchers killed on ‘Bloody Sunday’

Trump threatens tariffs on any country selling oil to Cuba, a move that puts pressure on Mexico

Venezuelan lawmakers approve easing state control of oil industry

Trump’s wide ambitions for Board of Peace spark new support for the United Nations

Trump says he asked Putin not to target Kyiv for 1 week during brutal cold spell

The mention of Feb. 1 was confusing since that is only two days away — not a week. Also, the cold weather is expected to get worse next week, with temperatures dropping even further.

Asked if Moscow agreed to Trump’s proposal, Peskov said, “Yes, of course.” But he refused to answer further questions about whether the agreement covered only energy infrastructure or all aerial strikes, and when the halt on strikes on Kyiv was supposed to start.

Over the past week Russia has struck Ukrainian energy assets in the southern Ukrainian city of Odesa and northeastern Kharkiv. It also hit the Kyiv region on Jan. 28, killing two people and injuring four.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was skeptical about Putin’s readiness for such a concession as Russia’s all-out invasion, which began on Feb. 24, 2022, approaches its four-year anniversary next month with no signs that Moscow is willing to reach a peace settlement despite a U.S.-led push to end the fighting.

“I do not believe that Russia wants to end the war. There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary,” Zelenskyy said Thursday in comments made public on Friday.

Drone and missile attacks continue

He said that Ukraine is ready to halt its attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure, including oil refineries, if Moscow also stops its bombardment of the Ukrainian power grid and other energy assets.

While there was no official word on whether those conciliatory steps had been taken, the grinding war of attrition dragged on.

Russia fired 111 drones and one ballistic missile at Ukraine overnight, injuring at least three people, the Ukrainian Air Force said. The Russian Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said that its air defenses overnight shot down 18 Ukrainian drones over several Russian regions, as well as the illegally annexed Crimea and the Black Sea.

Bitter cold is forecast for Ukraine

Forecasters say Kyiv, which recently endured severe power shortages, will see a brutally cold stretch starting Friday that is expected to last into next week. Temperatures in some areas will drop to minus 30 degrees Celsius (minus 22 Fahrenheit), the State Emergency Service said.

Russia has sought to deny Ukrainian civilians heat, light and running water over the course of the war, in a strategy that Ukrainian officials describe as “weaponizing winter.”

The possibility of a respite in energy sector attacks was discussed at last weekend’s meeting in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates, between envoys of Ukraine, Russia and the United States, Zelenskyy said.

Zelenskyy said that he had agreed to adhere to a “reciprocal approach” on energy assaults.

“If Russia does not strike us, we will … take corresponding steps,” he told reporters.

Further talks were expected on Sunday in Abu Dhabi, the United Arab Emirates, but that could change because of a spike in tensions between the United States and Iran.

No agreement on a ceasefire, Zelenskyy says

It was unclear whether and how any partial truce might work amid ongoing wider fighting and mistrust between the two countries.

“There is no ceasefire. There is no official agreement on a ceasefire, as is typically reached during negotiations,” Zelenskyy said. “There has been no direct dialogue and no direct agreements on this matter between us and Russia.”

Ukraine had originally proposed a limited energy ceasefire at talks in Saudi Arabia last year, Zelenskyy said, but it gained no traction.

Disagreement over what happens to occupied Ukrainian territory, and Moscow’s demand for possession of territory it hasn’t captured, are a key issue holding up a peace deal, according to Zelenskyy.

“We have repeatedly said that we are ready for compromises that lead to a real end to the war, but that are in no way related to changes to Ukraine’s territorial integrity,” Zelenskyy said. “The American side understands this and says that there is a compromise solution regarding a free economic zone.”

However, Ukraine demands control over such a zone, he said.

By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER, Associated Press Economics Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he will nominate former Federal Reserve official Kevin Warsh to be the next chair of the Fed, a pick likely to result in sharp changes to the powerful agency that could bring it closer to the White House and reduce its longtime independence from day-to-day politics.

Related Articles

FACT FOCUS: A look at false and misleading claims made during Trump’s first Cabinet meeting of 2026

Jury finds Wisconsin man guilty of forging threat against Trump to get witness deported

Trump threatens tariffs on any country selling oil to Cuba, a move that puts pressure on Mexico

Trump threatens Canada with 50% tariff on aircraft sold in US, expanding trade war

Trump’s pick to lead the NSA vows to follow the law if confirmed

Warsh would replace current chair Jerome Powell when his term expires in May. Trump chose Powell to lead the Fed in 2017 but this year has relentlessly assailed him for not cutting interest rates quickly enough.

The appointment, which requires Senate confirmation, amounts to a return trip for Warsh, 55, who was a member of the Fed’s board from 2006 to 2011. He was the youngest governor in history when he was appointed at age 35. He is currently a fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

In some ways, Warsh is an unlikely choice for the Republican president because he has long been a hawk in Fed parlance, or someone who typically supports higher interest rates to control inflation. Trump has said the Fed’s key rate should be as low as 1%, far below its current level of about 3.6%, a stance few economists endorse.

During his time as governor, Warsh objected to some of the low-interest rate policies that the Fed pursued during and after the 2008-09 Great Recession. He also often expressed concern at that time that inflation would soon accelerate, even though it remained at rock-bottom levels for many years after that recession ended.

But more recently, however, in speeches and opinion columns, Warsh has said he supports lower rates.

Controlling the Fed

Warsh’s appointment would be a major step toward Trump asserting more control over the Fed, one of the few remaining independent federal agencies. While all presidents influence Fed policy through appointments, Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the central bank have raised concerns about its status as an independent institution.

The announcement comes after an extended and unusually public search that underscored the importance of the decision to Trump and the potential impact it could have on the economy. The chair of the Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful economic officials in the world, tasked with combating inflation in the United States while also supporting maximum employment. The Fed is also the nation’s top banking regulator.

The Fed’s rate decisions, over time, influence borrowing costs throughout the economy, including for mortgages, car loans and credit cards.

For now, Warsh would fill a seat on the Fed’s governing board that was temporarily occupied by Stephen Miran, a White House adviser who Trump appointed in September. Once on the board, Trump could then elevate Warsh to the chair position when Powell’s term ends in May.

Trump’s economic policies

Since Trump’s reelection, Warsh has expressed support for the president’s economic policies, despite a history as a more conventional, pro-free trade Republican.

In a January 2025 column in The Wall Street Journal, Warsh wrote that “the Trump administration’s strong deregulatory policies, if implemented, would be disinflationary. Cutbacks in government spending — inspired by the Department of Government Efficiency — would also materially reduce inflationary pressures.” Lower inflation would allow the Fed to deliver the rate cuts the president wants.

Since his first term, Trump has broken with several decades of precedent under which presidents have avoided publicly calling for rate cuts, out of respect for the Fed’s status as an independent agency.

Trump has also sought to exert more control over the Fed. In August he tried to fire Lisa Cook, one of seven governors on the Fed’s board, in an effort to secure a majority of the board. He has appointed three other members, including two in his first term.

Cook, however, sued to keep her job, and the Supreme Court, in a hearing last week, appeared inclined to let her keep her job while her suit is resolved.

Economic research has found that independent central banks have better track records of controlling inflation. Elected officials, like Trump, often demand lower interest rates to juice growth and hiring, which can fuel higher prices.

Trump had said he would appoint a Fed chair who will cut interest rates, which he says will reduce the borrowing costs of the federal government’s huge $38 trillion debt pile. Trump also wants lower rates to boost moribund home sales, which have been held back partly by higher mortgage costs. Yet the Fed doesn’t directly set longer-term interest rates for things like home and car purchases.

Potential challenges and pushback

If confirmed by the Senate, Warsh would face challenges in pushing interest rates much lower. The chair is just one member of the Fed’s 19-person rate-setting committee, with 12 of those officials voting on each rate decision. The committee is already split between those worried about persistent inflation, who’d like to keep rates unchanged, and those who think that recent upticks in unemployment point to a stumbling economy that needs lower interest rates to bolster hiring.

Financial markets could also push back. If the Fed cuts its short-term rate too aggressively and is seen as doing so for political reasons, then Wall Street investors could sell Treasury bonds out of fear that inflation would rise. Such sales would push up longer-term interest rates, including mortgage rates, and backfire on Warsh.

Trump considered appointing Warsh as Fed chair during his first term, though ultimately he went with Powell. Warsh’s father-in-law is Ronald Lauder, heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune and a longtime donor and confidant of Trump’s.

Who is Warsh?

Prior to serving on the Fed’s board in 2006, Warsh was an economic aide in George W. Bush’s Republican administration and was an investment banker at Morgan Stanley.

Warsh worked closely with then-Chair Ben Bernanke in 2008-09 during the central bank’s efforts to combat the financial crisis and the Great Recession. Bernanke later wrote in his memoirs that Warsh was “one of my closest advisers and confidants” and added that his “political and markets savvy and many contacts on Wall Street would prove invaluable.”

Warsh, however, raised concerns in 2008, as the economy tumbled into a deep recession, that further interest rate cuts by the Fed could spur inflation. Yet even after the Fed cut its rate to nearly zero, inflation stayed low.

And he objected in meetings in 2011 to the Fed’s decision to purchase $600 billion of Treasury bonds, an effort to lower long-term interest rates, though he ultimately voted in favor of the decision at Bernanke’s behest.

In recent months, Warsh has become much more critical of the Fed, calling for “regime change” and assailing Powell for engaging on issues like climate change and diversity, equity and inclusion, which Warsh said are outside the Fed’s mandate.

His more critical approach suggests that if he does ascend to the position of chair, it would amount to a sharp transition at the Fed.

In a July interview on CNBC, Warsh said Fed policy “has been broken for quite a long time.”

“The central bank that sits there today is radically different than the central bank I joined in 2006,” he added. By allowing inflation to surge in 2021-22, the Fed “brought about the greatest mistake in macroeconomic policy in 45 years, that divided the country.”