Congress

Fed’s Powell says Trump can’t fire him; `Not permitted under the law’

Published

2 years ago

November 11, 2024

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell had a simple response Thursday as to whether he would leave his post if President-elect Donald Trump asked him to.

“No.”

Powell, speaking to reporters after Fed policymakers cut interest rates again, tried during his press conference to avoid the political fray. Still, he made clear that he’s not going anywhere. He declared that it’s “not permitted under the law” for presidents to remove members of the independent central bank.

Despite years of criticism of the Fed chief, the once and future president said over the summer that he would let Powell finish out his term, which doesn’t end until mid-2026 — “especially if I thought he was doing the right thing.” But close advisers to Trump — who once questioned whether Powell was a “bigger enemy” to the U.S. than China’s Xi Jinping — have suggested the Fed chief should simply resign.

Trump, who says he believes the president should have a say in monetary policy, has made no secret of his preference for low interest rates and will likely resume his previous habit of tweeting barbs at the Fed chief if he thinks borrowing costs are too high. He explored the question of whether he could fire Powell during his first term, a prospect that added to market turmoil at the time.

The Fed lowered rates again on Thursday, as expected, but the timing for future cuts is less clear — in part because Trump’s policies could alter the economy’s trajectory. Bond investors pushed up yields on Wednesday as they weighed the possibility that higher tariffs and fewer immigrant workers could stoke inflation.

Powell told reporters that Fed officials always take policies — both from the executive branch and Congress — into account if they affect the economy, but “we don’t know what the timing and substance of any policy changes will be,” he said. “We therefore don’t know what the effects on the economy would be.”

Congress

Judge finds Lander not guilty in 26 Federal Plaza obstruction case

Published

7 minutes ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — A federal judge ruled Thursday that former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is not guilty of misdemeanor obstruction for blocking an elevator while protesting outside an immigrant holding area.

Lander was hit with the obstruction charge last September while demonstrating in support of detained immigrants at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan. He was offered a deal to drop the charge but opted instead for a trial to bring attention to the federal government’s immigration policies.

Lander said he was there with state legislators to view the facility’s conditions, not to purposefully block an elevator — and that he would have moved if asked. In reading his findings, Judge Henry Ricardo described Lander’s testimony as consistent with video evidence, noting that his movements didn’t suggest he was purposefully trying to block the elevator and that Lander appeared “tired and a bit resigned.”

“No offense to Mr. Lander,” the judge said.

Lander — who entered the courtroom in good spirits and holding a Knicks hat — told reporters after the verdict: “I didn’t feel tired.”

“I felt an urgency to show up that day and try to fight what ICE is doing,” he said.

After a month’s delay, Lander finally had his first day in court Wednesday — less than two weeks before the primary election — bringing immigration even more to the forefront in the waning days of his campaign against Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman.

During the six-hour trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Cohen framed it as a straightforward case — that it was well-documented Lander was sitting in front of an elevator and didn’t move after being told to do so multiple times.

Cohen pointed to Lander singing “We Shall Not Be Moved,” a well-known protest song popularized during the Civil Rights movement, while sitting in front of the elevator. But Ricardo was not swayed by that argument, reasoning that it was a chaotic moment and Lander was, in fact, moved, despite the song he was singing.

“Actions speak louder than words,” he said.

Ricardo said the government failed to prove Lander purposefully obstructed an elevator. He also said he didn’t weigh what was being protested or whether the protest was just — a stated goal for Lander in deciding to take the case to trial. Instead, Wednesday’s proceedings focused largely on elevator logistics and signage at 26 Federal Plaza, not the Trump administration’s immigration efforts.

“Do I wish that they had granted our discovery motions, sought harder to prove the case and given us the ability to hold ICE accountable? Yes, I wish that,” Lander said after the verdict.

Immigration policy has emerged as a flashpoint between Lander and Goldman, who is seeking a third term, especially as the Trump administration threatens to ramp up enforcement in the state.

Goldman, who often highlights his oversight visits at immigrant detention centers and his “triage center” to support detainees near 26 Federal Plaza, has repeatedly criticized Lander for his approach to immigration. On Wednesday, he referred to Lander’s case as “performative” and “self-promoting.” At a debate last week, Goldman chided him for the rhetorical refrain that he puts his “body on the line” for immigrants and for fundraising off of it.

“While Brad never did get the information he sought from ICE, I have all of that information from my weekly oversight visits and would be happy to brief him,” Goldman said in a statement.

Lander, who frequently conducts court watching shifts, was also arrested at 26 Federal Plaza while escorting migrants from immigration hearings last June, ahead of the mayoral primary. No charges were filed then. Lander on Thursday said he thinks the arrests are an effort “to intimidate people into not participating as part of that court watching, ICE watching movement.”

In response to a question about Goldman’s suggestion his actions are political theater, Lander claimed he wasn’t running for anything in September when he was arrested: “We were there to show up for our neighbors and the rule of law. This is much bigger than we are.”

When asked if the legal proceedings have been a distraction from his campaign, he said some of the most “meaningful work of the last year” has been “being part of a movement of Americans who are fighting back against the fascist White House and rogue ICE agents.”

Congress

Spy law on track to lapse after House rejects extension

Published

2 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House failed to extend a key surveillance law Thursday, effectively ensuring it will expire Friday night over warnings from Republican lawmakers and national security officials.

The proposal, rejected on a 218-198 vote, would have extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act through July 2. It would have been the latest in a series of punts Congress has passed in recent months.

But a Democratic uproar over President Donald Trump’s decision to tap political ally Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence tanked any chances for passage. The extension — put on the floor under a fast-track method that required a two-thirds-majority vote — failed to garner even a simple majority, winning the support of only seven Democrats.

Nineteen Republicans also voted to reject a punt of Section 702, which allows U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on targets abroad without a warrant. Surveillance under the program also sometimes captures communications with Americans, and some lawmakers in both parties want to put safeguards on how that material is searched.

The House is not expected to vote again until June 23, effectively ensuring Section 702 will expire for the first time since it was enacted in 2008.

Many Hill Republicans believe, despite the congressional failure, the Trump administration can and will continue to operate the program, possibly under a forthcoming executive order. But tech providers could mount legal challenges to the program if it expires, and national security officials fear that could temporarily limit visibility into surveillance targets under the law.

Asked if an executive order would be enough to keep Americans safe in the interim, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview, “Hopefully it is.”

“Anybody who votes ‘no’ is casting a dangerous vote to put American lives at risk,” Scalise said, adding that Trump and his national security deputies are “going to do what they have to do to keep the country safe.”

Scalise said the burden for finding a solution lies with the Senate “to figure out some kind of path.” A procedural vote in the other chamber that would have set up passage of an extension failed last week.

Negotiators there had been circling on a deal allowing for a three-year extension of Section 702 authorities, but those talks collapsed after Trump announced his intention to appoint Pulte, a housing official with no national security experience.

House Democratic leaders encouraged members to vote against the reauthorization Thursday, arguing “meaningful reforms” are necessary.

“Section 702 is a critical foreign intelligence authority, but we cannot in good conscience vote for reauthorization without significant reforms to protect both national security and the constitutional privacy rights of Americans,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other leaders said in a joint statement.

Congress

House Republicans huddle with Hegseth after Trump’s reconciliation demands

Published

2 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A group of senior House Republicans gathered at the Pentagon Thursday morning to discuss the military funding portion of another party-line reconciliation bill with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, according to four people granted anonymity to discuss the private meeting.

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington, Republican Study Committee Chair August Pfluger and others also attended the meeting.

It’s a sign conversations around “Reconciliation 3.0” are heating up after President Donald Trump signed the GOP-only immigration enforcement funding measure earlier this week.

It also comes after Trump Wednesday night called for the GOP to approve $350 billion in Pentagon spending alongside a partisan election bill known as the SAVE American Act — which has been stalled in the Senate for weeks.

But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, in response to Trump’s latest demands, noted that even some of the election measure’s most vocal Senate GOP advocates have said it can’t fit within the strict contours governing the filibuster-skirting, budget reconciliation process. And he didn’t commit to ultimately pursuing a third partisan package, either.

“We’re, as I’ve said before, open to using reconciliation if we make the calculation that we can achieve an outcome that [it’s] something we can get 50 votes for and 218 for,” Thune said, adding, “I’ve said before, at the moment I’m not sure what that is.”