Skip to main content
We may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on this site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Breaking: Senate Adjourns Until September 8th Without Coronavirus Bill


Those of you hoping for a second coronavirus-relief check can thank Democrats for the wait.

Those of you worried about eviction can thank Democrats for the lack of protection.

And those of you small business owners worried about funds drying up can thank Democrats for not caring.

While Republicans in Congress were more than willing to compromise in order to get relief to Americans, Democrats were not.

Republicans even compromised on issues such as enhanced unemployment benefits and funds for testing to states.

Now, the Senate has officially adjourned until September 8th with no coronavirus bill in sight.

All thanks to Democrats.

Here’s the announcement from CNBC on the Senate’s adjournment:

King5 News reports on the story:

With talks on emergency coronavirus aid having stalled out, both sides played the blame game Thursday rather than make any serious moves to try to break their stalemate. Official Washington is emptying, national politics is consuming the airwaves and the chasm between the warring sides appears too great for now.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pressed the case for funding for the U.S. Postal Service, rental assistance, food aid and rapid testing for the virus at her weekly press event, blasting Republicans as not giving a damn and declaring flatly that “people will die” if the delay grinds into September.

“Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gave a damn,” Pelosi said when asked if she should accept a smaller COVID-19 rescue package rather than endure weeks of possible gridlock. “That isn't the case."

All of the chief combatants have exited Washington after a several-day display of staying put as to not get blamed for abandoning the talks. The political risk for President Donald Trump is continued pain in U.S. households and a struggling economy — both of which promise to hurt him in the September campaign. For Democrats, there is genuine disappointment at being unable to deliver a deal but apparent comfort in holding firm for a sweeping measure instead of the few pieces that Trump wants most.

A modest Trump administration overture on Wednesday generated nothing but stepped-up carping and accusations of bad faith.

“It’s a stalemate,” White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said Thursday.

Across a nearly empty Capitol, the Senate's top Republican sought to cast the blame on Pelosi, whose ambitious demands have frustrated administration negotiators like White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.

“They are still rejecting any more relief for anyone unless they get a flood of demands with no real relationship to COVID-19," said Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell has kept the talks at arm's length, nursing deep divisions among Republicans on the topic — and assorted pieces — of the foundering relief measure.

Here's responses on Twitter to Senate's adjournment:

Thank God we have President Trump though.

He recently signed four executive orders aimed at providing Americans with relief due to the economic pressures exerted by COVID.

Here's CNET with details on the effects of Trump's executive orders:

From halting evictions to pausing payroll taxes and giving unemployed people more money to live on, what can President Donald Trump's executive actions from last weekend really accomplish? That's a question Americans seeking immediate financial assistance are hoping to answer.

The four executive "orders" (really one order and three memoranda) promise to provide more assistance to Americans hurting financially from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. But what do they cover and what do they leave out? And why do the executive actions have the Democrats riled up?

"The government is going to have to commit resources to fight this disease and the economic devastation it has wrought. Executive orders cannot do that and therefore will always be insufficient, especially those crafted in such a poor way as these," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

Critics suggest the newly signed orders fall short in key ways and they don't cover a second stimulus check. We break down all four of the new directions, how they could be of assistance, what the gaps are and why some of them might not come to fruition.

$400 unemployment benefit, with a catch
What it is: Following Trump's memorandum, the federal government would contribute $300 of the $400 payment allocated in the memo (down from the $600 of the CARES Act, which ended July 31). Individual states -- already pinching pennies amid the coronavirus outbreak -- are responsible for the remaining $100 per person per week, retroactively starting Aug. 1.

During a press conference on Monday, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that benefits could arrive for qualifying people "within the next week or two." Governors have pushed back on footing 25% of the bill, with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo calling it "laughable."

California Governor Gavin Newsom also voiced concern of the orders on Monday. Newsom said that huge budget cuts would be needed to implement Trump's plan. He estimated that matching 25% for unemployment benefits would cost California around $700 million per week.

"It would create a burden the likes which even a state as large as California could never absorb without, again, massive cuts to important services," Newsom said during a press conference.

How the unemployment benefit would be funded: Trump is unilaterally seeking to use leftover or unspent FEMA funds to pay unemployment benefits. Experts predict this year's hurricane season will see an "extremely active" series of storms. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, hurricanes can cost upward of $22 billion per storm.

Could there be a legal challenge? This executive action could be challenged legally since the Constitution gives Congress control over federal spending. As such, Trump doesn't have the legal authority to issue binding executive orders about how money should be spent during the coronavirus pandemic.

Eviction order protections: Discussed, but not renewed
The language of the executive order -- the only true order out of the four -- is complicated, but definitive. It doesn't actually halt evictions. In fact, the Aspen Institute suggests that up to 40 million Americans could lose their homes as a result of the lapsed eviction protections. That's 12% of the total US population.

"We are stopping evictions. We are not letting people be evicted," Trump said Tuesday in a press conference. The president did not specify exactly how.

The current directive leaves the decision to ban evictions in the hands of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, taking no official stance itself. It also doesn't say if it will provide financial assistance to renters, leaving that decision to Mnuchin and Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

In comparison, the CARES Act banned late fees and eviction filings until July 25 on properties backed by federal mortgage programs like Fannie Mae, or those that receive federal funds like HUD. The Republican-authored HEALS Act didn't address stipulations on evictions.


Join the conversation!

Please share your thoughts about this article below. We value your opinions, and would love to see you add to the discussion!

Hey, Noah here!

Wondering where we went?

Read this and bookmark our new site!

See you over there!

Thanks for sharing!