Congress is back. Lawmakers have more than just a looming government shutdown fight on their hands.

An upcoming vote on the Jeffrey Epstein files and the next phase of President Donald Trump’s takeover of Washington could threaten the chances of reaching a funding deal ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline.

Here’s what to watch heading into September.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING TALKS — Senate GOP leaders and appropriators are pushing for a short-term funding patch to buy extra time for a larger deal. But that’s certain to face pushback from conservatives who want to jam Democrats with a full-year funding bill that reflects Republican priorities.

Trump increased the risk of a shutdown Friday when he moved to unilaterally claw back roughly $5 billion in foreign aid funding, further eroding already-frayed bipartisan trust. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sent a Dear Colleague letter Tuesday calling on Republicans to work across the aisle to get their support on government funding.

“Senate Republicans must decide: stand up for the legislative branch or enable Trump’s slide toward authoritarianism,” Schumer said in the letter, adding that he spoke with House Minority Hakeem Jeffries and the two are aligned.

EPSTEIN FILES — Expect the discharge petition standoff to come to a head this week. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said he and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) will start the process of forcing a vote “immediately” now that lawmakers are back.

“This has not gone away like the speaker had hoped,” Massie told Blue Light News in an interview. “If anything, now that the DOJ is releasing documents, it’s increasing the momentum.”

Rep. Riley Moore, a West Virginia Republican, indicated over recess that he will support the discharge petition, adding to Massie’s confidence that they can gather the necessary 218 signatures. The GOP dissent threatens Speaker Mike Johnson’s control over the House as the shutdown deadline approaches.

DC AND TRUMP’S MYSTERIOUS CRIME BILL — Trump wants Republicans to assemble a comprehensive crime bill, fast. Over recess, DOJ officials spoke with a small group of Republican staffers about assembling a crime package, according to two Republicans granted anonymity to discuss the early talks.

The president is also pressuring Congress to extend his 30-day takeover of the D.C. police, which expires Sept. 9. Senate Democrats are all but certain to block him.

What else we’re watching: 

— Stock trading bans: Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who has been threatening to launch a discharge petition to force action on Rep. Tim Burchett’s (R-Tenn.) ban on congressional stock trading, plans to give GOP leaders until the end of September to act on their own terms. A group of bipartisan House lawmakers say they plan to unveil a separate compromise soon, but GOP leaders have yet to sign on to any ban.

— Senate rules changes: Republicans are expected to resume talks on changing Senate rules to accelerate the confirmation of Trump’s nominees during closed-door lunches this week. Ideas under discussion include reducing debate time for most nominees, confirming nominees in groups or eliminating the need for procedural votes.

— Appropriations work resumes: House Rules will consider the fiscal 2026 Energy-Water funding bill Tuesday. A House Appropriations subcommittee will mark up the fiscal 2026 Labor-HHS-Education funding bill Tuesday as well.

Meredith Lee Hill and Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Congress returns Tuesday facing one big deadline: a possible federal government shutdown on Oct. 1 if Republicans and Democrats can’t come together on a funding deal.

But congressional leaders also have to manage a pileup of other thorny issues that could derail their plans and make September an unusually unpredictable month on Capitol Hill.

The potential fights include President Donald Trump’s push to tackle crime in Washington and elsewhere, the pending Senate pileup of his nominees, an ongoing push to ban stock trading by lawmakers and the looming expiration of key health care subsidies.

There’s also the explosive matter that forced the House to beat an early exit out of town in July: a bipartisan push to release Justice Department files related to the sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) plan to start the process of forcing a vote on their bill to compel the complete disclosure of Epstein-related documents “immediately,” Massie said in an interview.

“This has not gone away like the speaker had hoped,” Massie said. “If anything, now that the DOJ is releasing documents, it’s increasing the momentum.”

The GOP dissension over Epstein, as well as internal pressure to hold a vote on cracking down on member stock trading, pose twin threats to Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of the House as the shutdown deadline approaches.

Even a minor blowup could threaten Republican unity at a moment where Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune want to present a united GOP front in the escalating funding fight.

Thune is facing challenges of his own: Senate Republicans are gearing up to change the chamber’s rules on presidential nominations amid pent-up frustration over the pace of confirmations — even as the White House throws them into a fight over the Federal Reserve’s independence that many of them are wary about.

Both chambers will also take up the sprawling annual defense policy bill, including a politically dicey cryptocurrency-related provision favored by House GOP hard-liners. And Republicans will try to quickly act to extend Trump’s control of the D.C. police — and potentially move broader crime legislation.

But the cloud hanging over all of it is that end-of-the-month deadline to avert a politically risky shutdown a year ahead of the midterms with Republican control of Congress at stake.

Senate GOP leaders and appropriators want a short-term year-end patch to buy time for a larger funding deal, possibly including an extension of the health care subsidies. They’ll face pushback from some conservatives, in both chambers and potentially the White House, who want to jam Democrats with a year-long funding bill that reflects GOP funding priorities.

Trump has already thrown Congress an early curveball — and increased the odds of a shutdown — by moving Friday to unilaterally claw back roughly $5 billion in approved foreign aid funding, further eroding already frayed bipartisan trust and infuriating Democrats and some Republicans.

Here’s what to watch heading into the September sprint:

Epstein files

Massie and Khanna plan to launch a discharge petition this week — an effort to sidestep Johnson and force a House vote on their bill requiring the Justice Department to release the complete Epstein files.

The duo is planning a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday morning with victims of the deceased sex trafficker — just as GOP members and staffers meet with Trump officials for a strategy session blocks away.

Democrats on the Rules Committee, meanwhile, are expected to again force panel Republicans into tough votes by raising Epstein-related measures — a tactic that triggered a GOP mutiny and paralyzed the House floor in July.

Massie acknowledged GOP leaders could try to quash his discharge effort in the Rules Committee. “But I think this issue has reached escape velocity,” he said. “I don’t think they can get away with that on this.”

He added he is confident he can gather the necessary 218 signatures. And Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.), who told reporters last week he would vote for the bill, said the discharge petition was putting his party’s leaders in a tight spot. “I don’t think there’s too many options,” Moore said. “I think you have to take it up, right?”

House GOP leaders, meanwhile, have discussed the option of putting an alternative Epstein resolution up for a vote to head off Massie’s discharge effort, according to two Republicans granted anonymity to relay private discussions.

In the Senate, Democrats on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee invoked a little-used law and set a Sept. 2 deadline for the DOJ to hand over documents and brief panel staff. If the department doesn’t comply, Democrats believe they’ll be able to sue — and keep the issue in the headlines indefinitely.

Member stock trading

Johnson is getting a little more breathing room on another internally divisive matter that has simmered over the summer break: a ban on congressional stock trading.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is making good on her threats to launch a discharge petition that would force a vote on her favored bill, authored by Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.). But she’s signaling she won’t trigger a floor vote immediately when lawmakers return. Instead, she plans to give GOP leaders till the end of the month to bring a stock-trading bill to the floor on their own terms.

If they don’t act, “I am calling up the discharge petition,” Luna said in an interview.

Democrats have privately warned they won’t sign en masse onto a discharge of the narrower Burchett bill alone — they want a more comprehensive measure. Lawmakers say they plan to soon unveil a separate bipartisan compromise that has been months in the making.

But GOP leaders are not yet sold on any ban. Johnson, in fact, has privately argued some lawmakers need to trade stocks in order to pay for their children’s schooling and other expenses.

Presidential nominations

After four weeks out of Washington, Republicans still believe they need to deploy the “nuclear option” to speed up consideration of Trump’s nominees.

That means acting along party lines to change the chamber’s rules, and GOP senators are expected to discuss next steps during a closed-door lunch this week. But their leaders have been laying the groundwork for the move, with Thune warning at a South Dakota event last month that “we’re going to change the way we do nominations in this country.”

Ideas under discussion include reducing the amount of debate time for most presidential nominees, confirming those nominees in groups or eliminating the need for procedural votes. There’s also interest in reducing the number of nominees that require Senate confirmation, but senators believe that would require a new law — not just a rules change.

Republicans will need near-complete unity to change the rules and already GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina has said he won’t go nuclear. Facing criticism of Democrats’ nominee blockage, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said “historically bad nominees deserve a historic level of scrutiny by Senate Democrats.”

Crime

Justice Department officials spoke during the recess with a small group of GOP staff about assembling a crime bill, according to two Republicans granted anonymity to describe the early talks.

Trump said last week he wants a “comprehensive” bill dealing with what he sees as a winning issue for Republicans heading into next year’s midterms — and he wants it fast. The package would likely reflect Trump’s push to eliminate no-cash bail nationwide and codify several other of his recent executive actions, among other items.

The talks are still in the “very preliminary” stages, according to one of the Republicans. One GOP lawmaker said passing a crime package would represent a huge win for the party ahead of next year’s midterms — and would also take the focus off Republicans’ Epstein crisis.

Trump is also pushing Congress to extend his 30-day takeover of the D.C. police, which expires on Sept. 9 — but it faces an all-but-guaranteed roadblock from Senate Democrats. He also wants $2 billion to “beautify” Washington, but lawmakers are still waiting for the administration to send over details of the request. What remains to be seen is what policy provisions Hill Republicans would seek to attach to any cash infusion for the overwhelmingly Democratic capital.

Government funding — and more

Republicans notched a huge win this spring when they were able to force Democrats to accept a full-year extension of fiscal 2024 funding levels. This time, however, the GOP is facing divisions in its ranks over their September funding strategy.

Thune has indicated he would prefer a short-term stopgap that would allow time to make progress toward a larger funding deal with Democrats at the end of the year. That strategy is backed by Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, who is up for reelection in Maine next year, and other members of the spending panel.

But some conservatives in the House and Senate are already pushing for another full-year stopgap, paired with more spending cuts and potential policy sweeteners. House GOP leaders are seriously considering the idea — and it might also have fans in the administration, which has shown little interest in trying to cut a deal with Democrats.

The White House, in fact, significantly amped up chances for a shutdown Friday, when it moved to unilaterally cancel $5 billion in State Department and international aid funding. The so-called “pocket rescission” could be just the first salvo from White House budget director Russ Vought, who is determined to assert new presidential powers to rein in spending.

The move generated immediate backlash from lawmakers who believe the administration is undermining any chance of getting a bipartisan government funding agreement. Collins, for instance, called the move “a clear violation of the law.”

But it’s Democratic leaders who are under fierce pressure to play hardball. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who took fire inside his party for assenting to the spring funding deal, offered a warning Friday: “If Republicans are insistent on going it alone, Democrats won’t be party to their destruction.”

Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries are pushing the GOP to come to the table to discuss not only government funding, but also the impending lapse of tax credits offered under the Affordable Care Act. The expiration threatens to spike health insurance premiums for millions of low-income Americans unless lawmakers act.

Many vulnerable House Republicans are also desperate to extend the insurance subsidies, and bipartisan conversations are underway in the Senate. But a growing number of House and Senate conservatives are privately warning that any extension will be offset by additional cuts to Medicaid spending — a red line for Democrats and also some GOP senators.

This week, Johnson and Thune plan to put the spending fight on the back burner. The House is set to vote on the fiscal 2026 Energy and Water funding bill, while the Senate will move forward with the annual defense policy bill.

And while internal GOP strategy talks could break out, leaders are likely to seek out a way to push the ultimate showdown later into the year. The alternative would be a long, bitter and politically perilous shutdown.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Lawmakers have been waiting all year for the Supreme Court to save them from President Donald Trump’s unprecedented moves to suspend funding Congress already approved. But they might not get closure anytime soon.

Trump began freezing federal cash the day he was sworn into a second term as president. Seven months later, the courts are littered with legal challenges to his administration’s abrupt, massive and often indiscriminate cuts to spending, contracts and personnel. None of these lawsuits, however, have yet risen to the Supreme Court in a way that would give the justices the necessary opening to settle longstanding disagreements about Congress’ control of the federal pursestrings — and whether the administration’s actions violate the law.

In recent weeks, several of the leading cases that have a shot at reaching the Supreme Court were set back due to two technical tripwires: Who can bring the lawsuits and what courts have to hear them first.

That means the high court’s justices are unlikely to wade into the substance of the issue, if they choose to at all, until at least next year. In the meantime, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill will have to navigate tense funding negotiations to avoid a government shutdown on Oct. 1 and beyond without any assurances that Trump will be forced to spend the money as stipulated.

“Whatever your prediction is about when we get a full-year appropriation … we won’t have heard from the Supreme Court — in any way that anyone can count on — when that is done,” said Georgetown University law professor David Super.

For a few days last week, one prominent case challenging Trump’s withholding of funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development seemed like it might get an emergency decision by the Supreme Court in short order. That case could have sent strong signals about how the justices view the broader question of impoundment, which refers to the president’s act of withholding congressionally appropriated cash.

But on Friday, the Trump administration dropped its request for the justices to rule in the case after a lower court effectively sent the issue back before another judge.

Meanwhile, Trump added new urgency on Friday for the high court to weigh in on impoundment of foreign aid funding: He advanced his assault on Congress’ funding power by declaring a “pocket rescission,” the seldom-used maneuver to cancel federal dollars in the final days of the fiscal year without requiring an up-or-down vote.

Many lawmakers and Congress’ top watchdog argue the gambit is illegal. But the courts won’t necessarily see the “pocket rescissions” tactic championed by White House budget director Russ Vought as meaningfully different from the other actions the Trump administration has taken this year, according to Super.

“It’s a cute term that Mr. Vought came up with. But it is essentially just sitting on the money, and that’s what they’ve been doing now,” he said.

Still, Trump’s latest attempt to assert more control over federal spending has made lawmakers of both parties desperate for certainty, even as they’re jittery over the prospect that the justices could side with Trump and erode their funding power.

After all, the court has repeatedly ruled in the president’s favor of late, including allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants, proceed with mass layoffs at the Education Department and implement sweeping elements of his mass deportation agenda.

“I’m worried,” Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in an interview.

“They’re inventing what they thought was good policy,” Merkley said of the Supreme Court justices. “That’s not their role. And so they’re violating their oath of office through the Constitution. So we’re in deep trouble when this comes to the Supreme Court.”

To some lawmakers, the Supreme Court’s eventual, inevitable role in resolving these interbranch fights could be a clarifying inflection point for the nation.

“My prediction is: When we look back on this administration, there’ll be more Supreme Court decisions defining separation of powers than in the 250-year history of the country,” said Sen. Rand Paul in an interview.

The Kentucky Republican, who chairs the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee in charge of vetting Trump’s nominees to top budget posts, told a White House official earlier this year that he doesn’t think the president “can impound direct funds indefinitely.”

“It’s a reasonable question to ask. And it’s never been all the way to the Supreme Court,” Paul said. “And of course, everybody has to adhere to what the final decision will be.”

But even then, the Supreme Court could skirt the overarching argument many lawmakers are hoping the justices settle.

“The biggest question for the next few months is whether the court has the appetite to squarely take on the basic issue — the fundamental issue — which is the administration’s broad claim that it can refuse to spend appropriated funds for policy reasons,” said Gregg Nunziata, a conservative lawyer who served as counsel for Senate Republicans and now heads the Society for the Rule of Law.

Already, the Supreme Court has dealt a major setback to lawsuits over funding the Trump administration has withheld for grants and contracts. Late last month, the justices signaled such cases need to start over in the slow-moving Court of Federal Claims, which has jurisdiction over cases involving financial damages and breached contracts.

And the USAID case — in which humanitarian groups are challenging Trump’s decision to withhold billions of congressionally appropriated dollars — now faces several new twists in its path to Supreme Court consideration too.

On Friday, a White House official said the Trump administration sees revoking USAID funding as its strongest case for canceling federal cash at the end of the fiscal year, arguing, “there’s nothing that we can do within these accounts, because of the way they’re written, to shift them to things that the president would support in the foreign aid space.”

The administration “wanted to make the case as clean as we possibly could, as we navigate the different critics that we know would arise,” the official added.

Last month, in the USAID case, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only Congress’ top watchdog, the Government Accountability Office, can sue the administration over breaking impoundment law. That ruling has derailed the effort by humanitarian groups to sue directly.

University of Michigan administrative law professor Nicholas Bagley described the courts as taking a “lawyerly, careful, minimalist” approach in their decisions on Trump’s funding moves. “And the vice is the courts don’t appear to be registering the full depth of the concern about the erosion of the appropriations power,” he added.

But the fact that those lower-court issues are hindering lawsuits from making it to the Supreme Court isn’t necessarily a failure of the judicial system, argues Zachary Price, a law professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

“It’s just a kind of mismatch between litigation timelines and the way the appropriations cycle works,” Price explained. “It’s a process that works a lot better when it’s a matter of push and pull between the branches.”

Those so far reluctant to exert real pressure on the administration to back down from its funding moves are congressional Republicans. GOP lawmakers could take steps like barring funding for White House operations if the Trump administration doesn’t spend federal cash as lawmakers mandate or reject Trump’s proposals like the $9 billion rescissions package they passed earlier this summer.

But most Republicans don’t want to appear antagonistic of the president, and they’re hoping instead that the legal system will settle a messy fight on their behalf.

“Is Congress determined to protect its own power of the purse or not?” said Philip Wallach, who studies the separation of powers at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. “Congress has a very bad habit of relying on the courts to rule and make everything clear, and fix everything for them, so that they don’t have to do it.”