Schumer Uses Hours-Long Tactic to Stall Vote on Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’
A dramatic showdown unfolded in the U.S. Senate this weekend as Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer employed a rarely used procedural tactic to delay a vote on President Donald Trump’s sweeping legislative proposal, nicknamed the “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
The move forced Senate clerks to read the entire 940-page bill aloud—a process that stretched from Saturday afternoon into early Sunday morning, lasting nearly 16 hours. The marathon reading temporarily halted progress on one of Trump’s most ambitious policy efforts since returning to office, but it also underscored the deep partisan divisions that continue to define the upper chamber.
The 16-Hour Reading Marathon
Schumer’s decision to invoke the little-used rule appeared to catch some Republican lawmakers off guard. The tactic, which allows any senator to demand that the full text of a bill be read aloud before debate begins, is designed to slow down legislative proceedings — and that’s exactly what it did.
According to Fox News, Senate clerks began reading the 940-page bill shortly after noon on Saturday. By the time the reading ended, it was nearly dawn on Sunday. Lawmakers and staffers described the session as exhausting, with many senators leaving the chamber intermittently while the clerks continued the slow, steady recitation.
Schumer defended the move on social media, writing on X:
“Republicans are squirming. I know damn well they haven’t read the bill, so we’re going to make them.”
The comment drew swift criticism from Republicans, who accused the Democratic leader of political grandstanding. Several GOP senators pointed out that Democrats themselves had bypassed similar readings when passing large spending packages during previous administrations.
“It’s pure obstruction dressed up as oversight,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the current Senate Majority Leader. “This bill has been public for weeks. Everyone knows what’s in it. This is about delay, not debate.”
Inside the “Big, Beautiful Bill”
The legislation at the center of the dispute, dubbed by President Trump as the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” is a comprehensive economic and immigration package aimed at overhauling federal tax incentives, reducing regulatory barriers, and funding infrastructure and border security measures.
Trump has repeatedly championed the bill as a centerpiece of his second-term agenda, claiming it would “restore prosperity, protect American workers, and secure the border once and for all.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the legislation as “bold, transformative, and unapologetically pro-American.”
However, Democrats have argued that the proposal disproportionately benefits corporations and fails to provide sufficient funding for social programs, climate initiatives, and healthcare reform.
“This bill is a giveaway to billionaires disguised as reform,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). “It’s the same trickle-down playbook that’s failed the working class for decades.”
Political Theater or Genuine Oversight?
The reading of the bill revived memories of similar stunts from previous administrations. The last time the Senate was forced to read a full bill aloud was in 2021, when Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) demanded the same treatment for President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan. That reading also lasted through the night and was widely seen as a symbolic protest.
Political analysts say Schumer’s maneuver fits a long tradition of using procedural tools for strategic messaging.
“This wasn’t about informing senators — it was about making a statement,” said Dr. Elaine Parker, a political science professor at Georgetown University. “It’s a reminder that in a polarized Senate, every rule can become a weapon.”
Indeed, Schumer’s decision appears to have been aimed at frustrating Republican momentum ahead of the final vote. By drawing attention to the bill’s size and complexity, Democrats hoped to paint the GOP as reckless for pushing forward such a massive proposal on a tight timeline.
The Debate Phase Begins
With the full reading complete, the Senate now moves into 20 hours of debate — evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. Senate rules allow each side to use up its allotted time before the final vote, though Republicans are reportedly planning to use only a fraction of their time.
Democrats, meanwhile, are expected to use their full 10 hours, highlighting sections of the bill they claim would undermine federal labor protections and cut funding for public housing and education.
“We’re going to use every minute we have to show Americans what’s actually in this bill,” said Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ). “This isn’t about obstruction — it’s about transparency.”
Still, some analysts believe the lengthy debate will do little to alter the outcome. With a narrow majority and several Democrats facing tough reelection battles, Republicans are widely expected to have enough votes to advance the legislation.
Tensions Within the GOP
Despite strong party unity on most issues, a handful of Republican senators have expressed doubts about the bill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), a frequent critic of large spending measures, has indicated he may withhold his support unless the legislation is amended to reduce what he calls “runaway spending.”
“If we’re serious about balancing the budget, we can’t just keep adding zeros to every bill that comes along,” Paul told reporters. “This isn’t conservative governance — it’s fiscal hypocrisy.”
Similarly, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) has signaled that he remains undecided. Tillis has reportedly faced pressure from the White House after publicly criticizing the bill’s immigration provisions, which expand enforcement funding while limiting certain legal immigration pathways.
President Trump, speaking to reporters earlier in the week, appeared to single out Tillis for his reluctance.
“Some people forget who got them elected,” Trump said. “This bill is about putting America first — if anyone’s against that, maybe they need to think about who they really represent.”
A Legislative Battle With Broader Implications
The political drama surrounding the “Big, Beautiful Bill” is just the latest example of escalating tension between Senate Democrats and the Trump administration. Since regaining control of the White House in early 2025, Trump has faced fierce resistance from Democratic lawmakers, particularly on fiscal policy, immigration enforcement, and executive authority.
For Trump, passage of this legislation would be a major political win — one that could redefine his second term and bolster his argument that he’s fulfilling campaign promises to strengthen the economy and secure the border.
For Democrats, delaying or derailing the bill could serve as a rallying point ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, giving them an opportunity to frame themselves as defenders of working-class Americans against corporate interests.
“This fight isn’t just about one bill,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). “It’s about who government works for — billionaires and lobbyists, or everyday people.”
Looking Ahead
With 20 hours of debate now underway, Senate leadership expects a final vote within the next several days. If the bill passes, it would head to the House of Representatives, where it is expected to face further partisan clashes before reaching the president’s desk.
Despite the delays and political theatrics, most observers believe the bill’s passage is ultimately inevitable — though likely after a few more rounds of heated debate.
“Schumer’s tactic bought time, but not enough to change the outcome,” said Dr. Parker. “In the end, this is Trump’s bill to lose — and at this point, he’s still winning.”
Conclusion
Senator Schumer’s 16-hour reading stunt may have frustrated Republicans and slowed down proceedings, but it also highlighted the deep procedural gamesmanship that has come to define modern Washington politics.
Whether seen as an act of oversight or obstruction, the move underscored a familiar truth: in today’s Senate, even the most mundane rules can become the stage for high political drama.
As the chamber prepares for its next round of debate, the “Big, Beautiful Bill” stands as both a legislative and symbolic test — of Trump’s power, Schumer’s strategy, and the Senate’s ability to govern through gridlock.
Schiff Could Face Fines, Prison Time if Classified Leak Allegations Proven
A Democrat whistleblower’s allegations, backed by newly declassified FBI interview reports, are now threatening to upend the political career of Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
If the whistleblower’s account is accurate and prosecutors pursue the case, Schiff could face not only career-ending political consequences but also staggering financial penalties and lengthy prison terms. As Tolman noted, the legal exposure could multiply quickly: “It depends on the counts in the indictment… The fine is up to $250,000 for every leak that’s charged.”
The claims date back to Schiff’s time in the U.S. House, when he served as the ranking member — and later chairman — of the House Intelligence Committee during the Trump–Russia investigation.
According to Just The News, the whistleblower, who worked for Democrats on the committee for more than a decade, repeatedly told the FBI starting in 2017 that Schiff had authorized leaking classified intelligence to the media to damage then-President Donald Trump.
The whistleblower said that in an all-staff meeting, Schiff declared that “the group would leak classified information which was derogatory to President of the United States Donald J. Trump” and that the leaks “would be used to indict President Trump.”
The whistleblower claimed he immediately objected, telling Schiff the plan was “unethical and possibly treasonous,” but was assured by others that “we would not be caught leaking classified information.”
The source also told federal agents that Schiff believed he had been promised the position of CIA Director if Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election. The whistleblower identified Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) as a likely conduit for the leaks and said he was abruptly fired after raising the issue with the FBI.
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, the whistleblower says FBI leadership, including Director Christopher Wray, did nothing. He claims to have repeated the same account to agents from the bureau’s St. Louis office in 2023, again with no action taken.
Now, former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman is warning of the potential penalties Schiff could face if prosecutors were to bring charges. In a conversation with political commentator Benny Johnson, Tolman explained that leaking classified information carries steep financial and criminal penalties.
Yeah. I mean, the fine is up to $250,000 for every leak that’s charged, so it depends on the counts in the indictment,” Tolman told Johnson. “Also, keep in mind, some of the punishment hinges on the purpose of the classified leak or the possession of classified documentation illegally. The purpose becomes very important.”
Tolman said the context of the leak could prove decisive in determining punishment.
“I believe this was, in essence, the beginning of a conspiracy to take down a president, to impact his ability to lead,” he said. “There are other statutes — conspiracy statutes, interference with official proceedings, et cetera. A lot of people have a question about treason — ‘Is it treason?’ You probably don’t satisfy the elements for treason, but there are some related crimes that could come into play.”
Tolman added that if prosecutors found an intent “to undermine the United States,” the penalties could reach “up to 20 years in federal prison.”
The FBI’s inaction on the allegations fits into what critics describe as a pattern under Director Wray of shielding politically connected figures. Kash Patel, a former Trump administration official, has accused the bureau of ignoring serious misconduct while aggressively targeting political opponents.
Patel has pointed to the FBI’s use of confidential informants ahead of the Jan. 6 protests as proof that the agency had foreknowledge of events but failed to act appropriately.
Schiff has not yet issued a public response to the newly surfaced allegations. In the past, he has denied leaking classified material and characterized such claims as partisan attacks meant to discredit his oversight work.
