House Republicans are channeling Edward Hopper this week as they try to pass President Trump’s big, «beautiful bill.»

Hopper is known for «Nighthawks,» one of the most iconic paintings in American history. The 1942 painting depicts four people in a diner in the middle of the night. A deserted streetscape commands the foreground. Two men – heads festooned with fedoras – sit separately at the counter, nursing coffee. One of the men has a cigarette tucked between his index and middle fingers. He’s positioned next to a woman with scarlet hair and a red dress. She appears to holding a bite of a doughnut or sandwich, studying it as though it were a rare artifact. She seems to debate whether she should eat it. A young counterman – attired in white with a crisp envelope hat – leans downward in search of glassware or dishes hidden underneath.

It’s the dead of night. Everyone is distant and detached. Even the couple – even though they sit side-by-side – don’t look at each other.

In Nighthawks, everyone appears as though they’re just trying to make it through the night to dawn.

It’s kind of what House Republicans are going through this week.

‘DEAD OF NIGHT’: DEMS ACCUSE GOP OF COWARDICE OVER LATE-NIGHT VOTES ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL’ BUDGET BILL

The House Budget Committee convened at 10:26 p.m. ET Sunday night to advance the tax cut and spending reduction package after a hiccup stalled the measure Friday afternoon. At 10:39 p.m. ET, the committee approved the bill 17-16 – with four House Republicans voting «present.»

Representative Jodey Arrington, a Republican from Texas and chairman of the House Budget Committee, center, speaks during a House Budget Committee meeting at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Sunday, May 18, 2025.  (Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The next stop is the House Rules Committee, the final parliamentary way station before depositing a piece of legislation on the floor.

At 12:31 a.m. ET Monday, the Rules Committee announced it would prep the bill for the floor – with a meeting at 1 a.m. Wednesday morning. That session could last all day Wednesday. Literally. The Energy and Commerce panel met for 26 consecutive hours last week to prepare its section of the budget reconciliation measure. The Ways and Means Committee huddled all night long.

The group of House Republicans pushing to state and local tax for high-tax states (known as SALT) scheduled a meeting with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for 9 p.m. ET Monday. And it’s entirely possible that the House could be debating or even voting on the measure late Thursday, the wee hours of Friday morning or even Friday night.

This is how Capitol Hill rolls when there’s a big piece of legislation on the clock. The hours are late. The meetings are long. Lawmakers convene different sessions whenever they need to – just to get the measure across the finish line.

HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO WHERE THE ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ STANDS, AND WHAT HAPPENS SUNDAY IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE

The only difference between the halls of Congress now and «Nighthawks» is that the coffee fueled the figures in the painting until dawn. It was 1942. But this is 2025. Edward Hopper would know nothing of Celsius or Red Bull.

There’s an actual parliamentary reason as to why the Budget Committee met so late on Sunday night after its stumble on Friday afternoon. And there’s a method to the Rules Committee’s 1 a.m. madness on Wednesday.

Let’s rewind.

The Budget Committee tried to blend the various provisions from nearly a dozen House committees into one unified legislative product midday Friday. That effort came up short. A total of five Budget Committee Republicans voted nay. They groused about spending cuts, green energy tax credits and the timeframe of work requirements for those on Medicaid.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) listens during a mark up meeting with the House Budget Committee on Capitol Hill on May 16, 2025 in Washington, DC. Members of the Budget Committee met to consider House Republicans’ reconciliation bill, which includes U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed tax and spending cuts. The bill faced bipartisan opposition, with five Republican members of the House Budget Committee voting against it and supporting a motion for the committee to recess for the weekend.  (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Four of the five GOP noes were truly opposed. Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Penn., voted nay so he could order a re-vote. Rules allow a member on the winning side of an issue (in this case, the nays), to ask for another vote later. Smucker supported the plan. But he then switched his vote to nay to be on the winning side. That teed up a possible re-vote.

REPUBLICANS READY LATE-NIGHT SESSION ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’ AFTER GOP MUTINY

«Calling a vote moves the process forward. I think it’s a catalyst,» said Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Tex., after the failed vote Friday.

The Budget Committee then announced it would convene at 10 p.m. ET Sunday.

This is where things get interesting:

The key here was for the Budget Committee to finish its work before midnight Friday. Once it got rolling, the process would only consume 15 or 20 minutes. The Budget Committee approved the plan 17-16 with four Republicans voting «present.»

«We’re excited about what we did,» said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., who was one of the GOPers who voted nay Friday.

Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., arrives for a meeting of House Republicans in the Capitol Visitor Center on the budget reconciliation bill on Thursday, May 15, 2025.  (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

But Norman still wasn’t excited enough to vote yes on Sunday night. He voted present.

«There’s so much more that we have to do to rein in government and rein in the costs and the deficits,» said Norman on FOX Business Monday.

But regardless, the measure was out of the Budget Committee before the witching hour on Sunday. And then came the Rules Committee announcement – just after midnight on Monday – about a session at 1 a.m. Wednesday to ready the «big, beautiful bill» for the House floor.

There are several reasons House Rules Committee Republicans decided to huddle at 1 a.m. et Wednesday. Let’s begin with the parliamentary one.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS FACE DOWN DEM ATTACKS, PROTESTS TO PULL ALL-NIGHTER ON TRUMP’S ‘BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL’

The Budget Committee wrapped up just before midnight Sunday. The rules allow Democrats two full days to file their paperwork and viewpoints after that meeting. So, they had all day Monday and all day Tuesday. The Rules Committee needs an «hour» to announce its formally meeting. So, the «official» announcement of the Rules Committee meeting on Wednesday will go out just after 12:01:01 a.m. ET Wednesday. That triggers a 1 a.m. ET meeting on Wednesday.

Here are the other, more practical reasons.

Republicans need all the time they can get. There is talk of trying to vote on the floor late in the day on Wednesday. We’ll see about that. But the early Rules Committee meeting time makes that a possibility.

Second of all, it’s possible the Rules Committee meeting could consume the entire calendar day of Wednesday. Streams of lawmakers from both sides will file into the Rules Committee to propose various amendments. This is a protracted process.

The US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Sunday, May 18, 2025. (Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

But by the same token, meeting at 1 a.m. ET could diminish attendance. After all, who wants to show up at 1 a.m. ET for a meeting and maybe discuss your amendment at 6:30 a.m. ET? You get the idea. 

And once the bill gets out of the Rules Committee, expect late night meetings among Republicans as they try to close the deal. It’s possible the House could vote at virtually any time of day Wednesday, Thursday or Friday to pass the bill. That could be late in the evening. Or even overnight. They will vote when the bill is ready, regardless of the time on the clock.

Such is the lot drawn this week by House Republicans for the «big, beautiful bill.» Maybe they’ll have the votes. Maybe they won’t. Maybe they’ll pass more spending cuts. Maybe there’ll be a deal on SALT for state and local taxes. Maybe not. Maybe the vote comes at 3 in the afternoon. But more likely, sometime late at night.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Just like in Nighthawks, everyone on Capitol Hill is just trying to make it through the night and to the dawn.

Progolis y la inteligencia artificial

Infraestructura de datos

El banco online

Resultaba tentador, en más de un momento, discutir que un aeropuerto fuera un “no lugar”, como decía el antropólogo francés Marc Augé. El estudioso afirmaba que, en nuestra época, hay lugares que en realidad no lo son porque allí no se producen relaciones, no tienen ni hacen historia. Que son todos iguales. Que podrían estar en cualquier parte. Los aeropuertos, bueno, eran un gran ejemplo. Los hoteles all inclusive podrían ser otro.

Eso, sin embargo, parecía muy dicho desde un país rico o desde una clase social que pasa por los aeropuertos livianamente, como alguien que tiene pasaje de regreso seguro. Sostuve hace un tiempo que para quienes sabemos lo que es irse y no volver, lo que es recibir a los amores cada tanto y en esos halls -en vez de los domingos con los ravioles- los aeropuertos no son “no lugares” sin historia sino, al contrario, sitios cargados de emociones y de lágrimas. Y de vida, claro.

En eso, en discutirle, pensé ahora cuando supe lo que está pasando en el aeropuerto de Barajas, en Madrid. Más de cuatrocientas personas viven allí, tiradas unas al lado de otras. Más allá de problemas como el exceso de equipaje, ahí nomás del recreo glamoroso del free shop, más de cuatrocientos seres humanos tiran una manta, una bolsa de dormir y pasan la noche. “Viven allí”, puse recién, pero quizás “vivir” sea un verbo exagerado.

En Buenos Aires conocemos el tema: durante algunos años -por lo menos entre 2019 y 2023, según información periodística- hasta 150 personas durmieron en el aeroparque. Fueron desalojados en 2023 y, nuevamente, en febrero de 2024.

Entre marzo y abril, los pobladores de Barajas habían sido censados. Se supo así que el 78% son varones, casi la mitad entre 45 y 64 años. Que, del total, casi el 22 por ciento tiene más de 65 años. Y, quizás lo más impactante, que el 38 por ciento trabaja. Se levantan, cumplen una tarea, alguien les paga. Y eso no les alcanza ni para una pieza en una España con una crisis habitacional de tal magnitud que en abril hubo marchas y protestas en 40 ciudades. Encontrar donde vivir y poder afrontarlo es algo cada vez más lejano. Ni que hablar para los inmigrantes: el 74 por ciento de los que duermen en el aeropuerto son extranjeros, la mayoría de América latina.

Pensé, entonces, en que tal vez Augé sí tenía razón y ese era un “no lugar”. No porque no hubiera “relaciones”: seguro los vínculos se están armando, y tal vez lleguen a ser tan fuertes como las de los Schiffbrüder, esos que inmigrantes que se hicieron “hermanos de barco” durante largas travesías a comienzos del siglo XX. Pero quizás ese sea un “no lugar” porque el pasillo de un aeropuerto no es una vivienda, es solo la expresión de una exclusión. No hay lugar para esa gente en ese país, o en esa Europa. No hay lugar para el 74 por ciento de extranjeros ni para el 26 por ciento de españoles, no hay lugar para el 38 por ciento que intenta ganarse la vida ni para el 62 que no trabaja, ni para los jóvenes ni para los viejos. No hay lugar y ahí están, en el “no lugar”.

La respuesta de las autoridades aeroportuarias españolas -que, en definitiva, dependen del Ministerio de Transporte, es decir, del Ejecutivo nacional- ha sido la restricción, es decir, tapar el sol con un dedo. Desde hace unos días sólo dejan entrar al aeropuerto a quienes tengan tarjeta de embarque y sus acompañantes y, obviamente, a los empleados de Barajas. Eso tal vez logre que no se instalen más personas en esos salones, pero a algún lugar tendrán que ir, algo tendrán que hacer con sus cuerpos quienes sufren en carne propia una realidad económica mayor que ellos. Si no están allí, en algún lado tendrán que estar.

Porque el problema de la gente en el aeropuerto excede a la gente del aeropuerto como el problema de no poder vivir en el propio país supera a quienes meten el futuro en un bolso y van a probar suerte a otros horizontes. La Historia, la grande, se mete como titiritera en nuestras vidas y vemos cuánto nos podemos mover con el bendito libre albedrío.

Me acordé -porque entre los habitantes de Barajas hay tantos migrantes- de algo que escribe el Premio Nobel Abdulrazak Gurnah —africano, pero con largos años en Inglaterra. Su personaje, en la novela A orillas del mar llega a Europa y se choca con un agente migratorio que trata de convencerlo de que pegue la vuelta.“Era un solicitante de asilo, era la primera vez que pisaba Europa, la primera vez que pisaba un aeropuerto…”, piensa el personaje, un hombre grande. Un hombre pobre ante un empleado que ahí, en el aeropuerto, es el guardián de la puerta de Europa.“Curiosamente, la misma puerta por la que habían salido las hordas que partieron a arrasar el mundo y ante la que ahora nos postramos nosotros, suplicando que nos dejen entrar”.

Tal vez era una suerte, un lujo, pensar los aeropuertos como “no lugares”, idénticos unos a otros, de paso, ligeros. Son mucho más pesados, menos líquidos, menos gaseosos, estos cuerpos que “sobran”, sin lugar social ni material.

Hubo más de cien mil personas en las marchas por la vivienda en España. Ojo con que los “no lugares” ocupen cada vez más espacio.

(Fotos: AP Photo/Manu Fernandez)