Congress

Lawmakers are scared and ready to spend $1 billion to stay safe

Published

9 months ago

September 26, 2025

Congress is on track to spend more than $1 billion on the budget for the U.S. Capitol Police for the first time in history, with even fiscal conservatives pushing for more member security investments in the wake of the Charlie Kirk killing.

Kirk’s assassination and a broader rise in high-profile political violence has activated lawmakers around a renewed push for additional protections for themselves and their families. It’s scrambling Capitol Hill’s typical ideological factions, with some GOP budget hawks accusing Republican leadership of penny-pinching.

“They can find that money just like that for the war pimps, but for us it’s a little different,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who has scolded Republicans for greenlighting Ukraine aid, said in an interview.

The debate over how much money lawmakers are willing to spend on their own safety will come to a head as appropriators rush to finalize the legislative branch spending bill for fiscal 2026, which funds the operations of Congress and member security.

That the Capitol Police budget could soon clear $1 billion is telling enough, a vivid reflection of just how frightened elected officials are amid the recent surge of deadly political violence. But for many members, this sum still won’t be enough.

Both chambers took steps in the days after the Kirk assassination to move existing money around to provide lawmakers with more options for security, with promises about exploring additional changes. The main push for swift action, however, has come from the House.

Burchett was among several GOP firebrands who, less than a day before a scheduled vote on a stopgap government funding bill last week, descended on Speaker Mike Johnson’s office to demand leadership reopen negotiations on the legislation to incorporate more member security money. The package was already slated to provide a $30 million infusion to fund partnerships between Capitol Police and state and local law enforcement agencies.

He, alongside Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado, ultimately backed off their threats to vote against the stopgap measure amid promises leadership would make additional investments in the coming months, including in a standalone member security supplemental.

Some of them were advocating for every House member to be able to obtain round-the-clock security details, which are currently reserved for party leaders and lawmakers deemed to be under imminent threat. Expanding them widely is potentially a multibillion-dollar undertaking.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, the lone Democrat in Johnson’s office for the recent member security talks, wants each lawmaker to have a staffer tasked with protective security duties.

Another deficit hawk, Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), has spent more than $150,000 from his own wallet to secure his home. He isn’t blanching at investing even more federal dollars for member security, for lawmakers as well as staff. “This is about more than the vanity-filled members of Congress,” he said.

Schweikert also said he’s still reeling from being confronted in a Costco parking lot by a constituent who claimed to be irate that his granddaughter didn’t win a prize in the annual congressional art competition. He was with his two young children at the time and describes them as still being traumatized by the event.

The need for enhanced security is obvious. But, he added, “I think the more interesting question is, what’s effective?”

That very question is consuming the lead negotiators in member security funding talks, who are weighing ambitious proposals from the rank-and-file against a hesitation to throw more money at a problem that might not be so easily fixed.

“There’s a lot of members asking a lot of things,” Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that funds the legislative branch, said in an interview. “We’re running the numbers and providing the data to those who are going to be making those decisions.”

The Capitol Police now operates on a $806.5 million budget, which is already up more than 73 percent since 2020.

Valadao said it would be up to members of leadership to determine what dollar amount would constitute “that sweet spot” where “members feel safe.” Asked if he had any idea what that magic number might look like, he could only shrug.

Johnson said in a recent interview that leaders were considering making as much as $25,000 per month available as part of the legislative branch bill that would allow select members to have extra protection “on a case by case basis” if they are deemed to be under “serious threat.”

He didn’t elaborate, however, on who would get to decide which members are under the greatest threat, and using what criteria.

Meanwhile, Reps. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) — the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, respectively — are working outside of the government funding process to shift around existing resources for member security, underscoring there are programs right now that aren’t being fully utilized.

“What we have done is actually provided a lot of communication to members. Every office has a law enforcement coordinator in their office. We’re providing that information to those offices,” said Steil.

“As these concerns have become heightened, I think a lot more members have been more proactive in making sure that they understand the programs that are already available,” he continued, “as well as the expansion and extension.”

Morelle warned that protecting members against every single violent scenario is likely impossible when many perpetrators “are people who have deep, deep issues.”

“The challenge at the moment is, that there are a lot of things you can’t control, and you certainly can’t anticipate things that, in many ways, are random,” he added.

The reality is, myriad programs are already in place to support lawmakers when they’re away from the uber-secure Capitol complex. Members can, for instance, use their office funds for some security equipment, like cameras for district offices and a ballistic vest.

There’s a discussion about making changes to existing policies governing the use of a $20,000 lifetime cap lawmakers can use to install security systems at their private homes.

Some members want to be able to direct those funds toward making so-called capital improvements at their personal homes, such as perimeter fencing or bulletproof windows. That’s not currently allowed with lawmakers traditionally wary of using taxpayer dollars on construction projects that would increase the value of lawmakers’ residences.

Lawmakers are also permitted to use campaign funds to support security investments during political activities like rallies, including hiring personal security guards. But some members have complained about the suggestion they should be fundraising for their own protection.

“At some point they just build a consensus and let’s go with something,” Burchett suggested to party leaders. “Put it on the floor. Let’s debate it.”

Congress

The messy standoff driving a wedge between a bipartisan Senate duo

Published

54 minutes ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sens. Susan Collins and Patty Murray have long prided themselves on working together to advance government funding bills. That collegiality is now showing signs of decay.

The Maine Republican and Washington Democrat have been openly feuding about the path forward on spending measures this summer. It comes after their successful collaboration on bipartisan legislation during Murray’s two-year reign as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which continued when Collins took the gavel last year.

Democrats attribute the clash to Collins’ pursuit of President Donald Trump’s demands for a record military budget that eclipses domestic spending, as she fights to retain her Senate seat in November. Republicans say Murray is playing midterm politics by trying to prevent Collins from landing a deal before Election Day, when Democrats hope to regain House and Senate majorities — and the upper hand in year-end funding talks.

“It’s not personal, but it is very frustrating,” Collins said last week, while insisting she and Murray are still on good terms.

All Murray would say about the state of their relationship was, “We’re talking.”

While that impasse doesn’t necessarily heighten the odds of a government shutdown this fall, it could delay any meaningful Senate appropriations action until after the elections. The outcome of congressional races — including Collins’ toss-up contest against Democrat Graham Platner — could change the power balance in government funding negotiations.

“It certainly looks to me like the Democrats don’t want to give Susan Collins a victory,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in an interview. “I really think it’s intensely political. She is a very reasonable legislator. If you can’t make a deal with Susan Collins, you don’t want to make a deal.”

Part of Collins’ campaign-trail pitch to Mainers is that she gets results in Washington, and her inability to advance the dozen annual appropriations bills through her committee undercuts that narrative.

Collins isn’t refuting the idea that Democrats might want to deprive her of legislative success as she competes against Platner in one of the closest and most-watched races in the country.

“That’s certainly a viable theory, which is pretty pathetic,” she said in an interview.

This month Collins publicly accused Murray of sending government funding offers that have “made it clear that Democrats are abandoning the appropriations process.” Murray, meanwhile, suggested Collins was at fault for the stalemate by divulging she hadn’t responded to Murray’s latest offer in more than two weeks.

It’s a major tone shift for the two lawmakers, who have earned a reputation for trying to stay out of the partisan fray since they became their party’s top leaders on the Appropriations Committee in 2023. They’ve consistently resisted broadcasting behind-the-scenes friction during tough negotiations and succeeded in reaching cross-party compromises to advance funding bills each year — even after the record government shutdown last fall.

But they’re now at loggerheads over funding totals for the military and domestic programs, along with votes on hot-button Trump policies. Senate Republicans are seeking a military funding boost more than four times larger than any increase in domestic spending, as Trump calls for a record $1.5 trillion defense budget.

“We do not have an agreement,” Murray said, because Republicans “are set on increasing defense in an increasingly huge way that we’ve never had to deal with before.”

GOP senators also want to avoid any amendment votes that could sink approval of appropriations bills, including some related to the Justice Department’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” administration officials have promised not to pursue.

The result is that Collins has yet to hold a committee markup on a single government funding bill with just three months left before federal dollars expire. And some Republican appropriators acknowledge it’s possible the panel won’t vote on any of the spending measures this year given the deadlock.

“Obviously Susan is up this year. And Democrats, at every level and every opportunity, are playing politics with it,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview. “The appropriations process used to be fairly bipartisan. … Murray and the Democrats have turned it into a partisan game.”

Some Democrats openly sympathize with Collins’ predicament in trying to represent politically moderate Maine while holding one of the most influential positions on Capitol Hill during Trump’s second term and unified Republican control of Congress.

“The chair of the committee is being squeezed in every direction,” Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a senior Democratic appropriator, said in an interview.

Many Senate Republicans don’t “give a damn” about funding domestic efforts like public education and biomedical research, Baldwin continued. “I believe that the chairwoman does care about those issues. But you know, she’s in an unenviable position.”

Since Trump was reelected, Collins has worked to negotiate funding bills that spend far more on domestic programs than the president sought. The result has been essentially flat funding for nondefense programs and a 17 percent increase in military spending, which includes the billions of dollars Republicans enacted along party lines last year.

“Chair Collins is very devoted to, or interested in, following through to help the president get more money for the Department of War and munitions, et cetera,” said West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a top Republican appropriator. “And I think Senator Murray is on the opposite page.”

“Rather than legislate and work these things out,” Capito added, “I think it’s been decided on the other side to just be obstinate and not participate and not negotiate.”

Trump is calling this year for boosting Pentagon spending by more than 40 percent while slashing domestic programs by 10 percent. Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, a senior Democratic appropriator who has served in Congress for more than 40 years, calls it “a massive change” in the way government funding has been divvied up for decades — by negotiating matching dollar-for-dollar increases in both military and nondefense funding.

“We’re so far apart. We haven’t faced anything like that in recent memory,” Durbin said in an interview. “And to accept the premise of it — what’s left for nondefense is terrible.”

Collins could proceed with markups this summer without an agreement with Democrats, as the House Republican majority has done for years. But Republican senators would need to be willing to vote on controversial amendments Democrats might offer — including proposals that defy Trump.

Senate Republican appropriators faced that issue last summer, when the panel unexpectedly adopted an amendment barring the Trump administration from repurposing cash intended for relocating the FBI headquarters. That outcome prompted several GOP senators to withdraw support for the funding bill.

“The challenge is that, if you have every Democrat voting against reporting the bill out — and then they also are offering poison pills — it’s hard to move those bills,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), chair of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said in an interview.

During the two years Murray chaired the full committee, Moran recalled, “We had members who wanted to offer what would probably be considered poison pills by Democrats. And Senator Collins talked Republicans out of doing so, to move the process.”

The two sides could easily reach an agreement on amendments and policy stipulations, some Democrats contend, if only Collins and Murray could bridge the divide between the president’s military funding demands and their own domestic priorities.

“Senator Collins is carrying out the administration’s wishes,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, another senior Democratic appropriator, said in an interview. “And Senator Murray is noting that a reckless increase in defense spending is not in the best interest of Americans.”

“So they’re both advocating for their viewpoint,” Merkley added. “That’s what we do in a democracy.”

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

8 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

10 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.