Congress

The other reason Democrats are taking Trump to the mat in a shutdown battle

Published

1 year ago

September 30, 2025

Democrats who have put health care at the center of their government funding demands have another motivation for not backing down ahead of a likely shutdown: ending President Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine Congress’ funding power.

The fight to wrest control of the federal pursestrings has been ongoing for eight months, with lawmakers of both parties growing increasingly resentful of the White House’s snowballing efforts to scrap congressionally approved spending. Now the Supreme Court’s brief but potent ruling last Friday giving Trump the thumbs up to withhold $4 billion is serving as lighter fluid for Democrats’ escalating rage.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a senior appropriator, called the Supreme Court decision “an absurdity” and “a pile of garbage,” adding that the justices were in effect dabbling at “policymaking — not constitutional law.”

The battle to rein in Trump and White House budget director Russ Vought through a piece of must-pass legislation has been eclipsed by Democrats’ larger push to extend expanded Affordable Care Act tax credits that are due to expire at the end of the year.

But Democrats are seething about the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” opinion, arguing that Trump and the high court are ignoring the intent of the 1974 law designed to prevent presidents from withholding federal cash. And they see themselves as the last line of defense.

“He is unchecked at this point,” Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), another senior appropriator, said of Trump in an interview. “We have to check him. No one should have that kind of power.”

Earlier this month, Democrats put forward an alternative to the GOP-led stopgap funding patch. Their proposed bill, which Republicans have rejected, would extend the enhanced Obamacare subsidies and roll back some of the Medicaid cuts Republicans enacted as part of their megabill over the summer. It also would thwart Trump’s ability to withhold and cancel federal funding.

One provision would altogether end the fast-track process of clawing back funding on a simple-majority vote in the Senate, as Republicans did this summer in clearing Trump’s request to rescind $9 billion from foreign aid programs and public broadcasting. Democrats also included language to hamper Trump’s effort to cancel a separate $4.9 billion through a “pocket rescission,” by extending the expiration date of that cash.

“Nobody has any incentive to reach a deal if it’s not going to be honored,” Merkley said, expressing Democrats’ fear of agreeing to a funding bill the White House later flouts. “That’s what it comes down to.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said he made a similar point during a meeting Monday with Trump, calling the president’s funding moves “the other issue that was sharply drawn” during the Oval Office discussion with other top congressional leaders.

Schumer said he and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries “made the point clear” that it would be futile to negotiate a bipartisan agreement if the president can then “undo it all without any input.”

Democrats are also exasperated that the vast majority of their Republican colleagues aren’t willing to buck Trump to protect their own power to dictate how federal money is spent.

“It’s in the interest of Congress to not allow the executive to rescind funding that Congress has already approved,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said in an interview. “I would hope that everybody’s going to come to that conclusion.”

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski is among the few Republicans publicly subscribing to that view. In rolling out her own framework this month for averting a government shutdown, Murkowski also suggested language to hamper what she called Trump’s “illegal pocket rescission.”

But other powerful Republican appropriators argue that Trump would never sign a bill that impedes his moves to freeze, shift and cancel federal funding.

“I don’t know very many presidents that tie their own hands in the use of executive authority,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) told reporters this week.

Cole also contends that the battle over Congress’ funding powers “will be solved in the courts” and that “the power of the purse could pretty clearly rest with Congress as long as we do our job.”

In its Friday ruling, however, the Supreme Court largely punted on the fundamental separation-of-powers questions at stake in the funding fight. Instead, it ruled on technical grounds that Trump’s recent pocket rescission could go forward.

In the final hours before the shutdown deadline, many Republicans are characterizing Democratic outrage about Trump’s funding moves as another item on a laundry list of unreasonable demands.

“Think about what Schumer’s doing here,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said in a brief interview. “How much sense does it make for him to start complaining about pocket rescissions when he won’t even let us bring the appropriations bills to the floor?”

If Schumer and other Senate Democrats would only vote to pass the GOP-led funding patch, Hoeven said, the chamber could move on to clearing bipartisan measures to fund the government at updated totals for the fiscal year that begins Wednesday.

Ultimately, Democrats contend that their demands in the shutdown battle are closely interconnected. Beyond the extension of expiring health care subsidies, minority party leaders are fighting against the Trump administration’s cuts to health efforts like medical research and assistance for state and local health programs.

“They further have worked at decimating public health by stealing the funds that have been appropriated by Democrats and Republicans,” said House Appropriations ranking member Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.). “We need to have assurances that once we come to a deal, they’re not going to step in and say, ‘Sorry, no deal.’”

Mia McCarthy, Cassandra Dumay and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems spend big to help Hakeem’s dream

Published

2 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats watching Speaker Mike Johnson deal with a chaotically slim majority have seen enough — and they’re trying to avoid the same fate.

The party is investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority and strengthen the hand of Hakeem Jeffries, who’s widely favored as speaker if Democrats win the chamber in November.

“Another five-or-so-seat buffer would be a game-changer,” said one senior House Democrat, who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics. That lawmaker added it would help Jeffries “rise above some of the incoming bullshit he’s going to have to deal with.”

Every extra seat would help Jeffries secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions to the two clashing blocs within his party: progressives and moderates.

Recent spending reflects these ambitions. Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that President Donald Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact. The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” said the fund’s chair, Rep. Greg Stanton. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Before Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to limit her leadership term.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

Progressive challengers ousted a handful of Democratic incumbents in primaries this year, and they could adopt tactics from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if Democrats win just a narrow majority.

Meanwhile, newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem for Jeffries — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

What else we’re watching:

— HAWLEY’S POPULIST AI REBELLION: Sen. Josh Hawley’s push against artificial intelligence is placing an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans. Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s favoring of voluntary standards and exposes the growing rift between Republicans on how to respond to the technology. But Hawley’s influence is poised to expand as more Republicans start to echo his tone.

— GOP ADS SPUR CORPORATE HEARTBURN: A series of TV campaign ads this midterms season has highlighted a growing reality: On the right it’s become increasingly in vogue to bash big business. The ascendancy of Trump has ushered in a new era of skepticism toward multinational corporations in a party traditionally known as corporation-friendly. That puts big financial services firms, health insurance companies and tech titans — the subjects of the hottest rhetoric — at risk for becoming high-profile political punching bags for Republican 2028 presidential hopefuls.

Andrew Howard, Meredith Lee Hill, Riley Rogerson, Jessica Piper, John Hendel, Jasper Goodman and Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

Congress

The low-profile Democrat helping shape her party’s AI agenda

Published

5 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats scramble to create a viable plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one little-known lawmaker is playing a major behind-the-scenes role in shaping her party’s approach to the technology.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a North Carolina Democrat in her second term, is one of three co-chairs of a commission tasked by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to generate AI policy recommendations.

It’s a position that has given her significant power to mold Democrats’ thinking on the rapidly evolving issue, even as her fellow commission members cut more public personas through regular appearances at news conferences and in media hits: Rep. Ted Lieu of California is vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, while Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has built a reputation as a self-styled moderate dealmaker.

In an interview earlier this week, Foushee said the commission has submitted a “first draft” of its much-anticipated recommendations to Jeffries. And while Jeffries will ultimately provide feedback to inform the final report, she said she would push for there to “always be a human element” in any AI regulatory framework, with civil rights and liberties at the center.

“We have seen evidence of how technology can be used for discrimination,” said Foushee. “We’ve seen how some groups have been excluded.”

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also associates with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and centrist New Democrat Coalition, Foushee is representative of a broad, mainstream swath of House Democrats that has yet to stake a clear position on AI. And her vision for an AI regulatory model that keeps humans in control and builds in civil rights protections could provide a blueprint for her party.

She doesn’t want to stifle innovation, she explained; rather, “my focus is to make sure that we’re not leaving anybody behind.”

Foushee said she didn’t set out to lead on AI policy, but joined a bipartisan AI task force in the previous Congress given her seat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Since the task force released its recommendations in December 2024, House Republican leaders considered its mission complete, according to a senior GOP leadership aide granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. So when Speaker Mike Johnson opted not to reconstitute the panel in January 2025, Jeffries created his Democrat-only commission to fill that void, tapping Foushee as one of its commissioners.

“I was glad to be one of those that the leader thought might be helpful in leading us into the future,” she said. “So I don’t know if I would say that I was, you know, moved to do it, but certainly happy to do my part.”

Lieu, in a statement, called Foushee “unwavering in her commitment to ensuring AI systems don’t harm civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“I visited Val’s district earlier this year,” he continued, “and saw firsthand how effectively she works with local stakeholders to address the threats and unlock the possibilities of AI in her community.”

Foushee represents parts of the so-called Research Triangle encompassing Durham and Chapel Hill — the homes of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, where AI technologies are being studied. Her state is also a major hub for data centers powering the AI boom.

In her work with Lieu and Gottheimer, Foushee said “we’re all involved in everything” and that “you might say we’ve grown on each other.” Her main area of interest, though, has been to elevate civil rights and liberties protections.

She has introduced multiple bills to that end. One piece of legislation would require people to be told about when they are engaging with a chatbot instead of a human. Another would seek to expand participation in the AI research, education and workforce development among Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Foushee’s work on the commission is also being informed by her regular engagement with each of the major AI labs. In her eyes, Anthropic has been the most receptive to regulatory measures while others have favored more “pro-innovation” policies.

She was adamant, however, that Anthropic was in no way influencing the AI policies she could soon be shopping to colleagues — even though a political action committee funded by Anthropic executives spent a little over a million dollars to support her in a competitive primary earlier this year.

“Let me just say to you that no one should be worried or concerned,” Foushee said. “My work on AI has always been focused on establishing guardrails and holding corporations accountable. There is nothing that you will see in any legislation that I have introduced, led, co-led, or co-sponsored that has not been towards holding corporations accountable and protecting the American public.”

In any event, Foushee said she has had no direct outreach from Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, since he led calls last month for a slowdown of advanced AI development amid warnings it could soon pose an imminent threat to human civilization.

“When … you’re not allowing for the engagement of members of Congress, and not even an opportunity to provide input or to be engaged in the conversation, it makes me wonder what those efforts are about,” said Foushee.

A spokesperson for Anthropic did not return a request for comment, while Nate Evans, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was “deeply engaged with Congress on federal policy to advance AI safety, through dozens of meetings in recent weeks with members of both parties in both chambers.”

Representatives from Anthropic and OpenAI also briefed members of the Science Committee in mid-September.

All three commission co-chairs have been tight-lipped about what their AI recommendations could entail — especially as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to sense real urgency to rein in the technology and are desperate for legislative solutions.

It also remains to be seen whether the forthcoming agenda will unify a party that has been largely aligned on the need for regulation but deeply split on the specifics.

Some progressives, led by Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas, support banning highly sophisticated AI systems and pausing AI development until a government-led vetting procedure can be implemented.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has introduced what is currently one of the only comprehensive, bipartisan bills to regulate advanced AI models — but it stops significantly short of the pauses championed by progressives and opens a thorny debate about whether to preempt state AI laws with an overarching federal framework.

Foushee said she has not signed onto Casar’s proposal to ban superintelligence, explaining she has yet to review it. She did throw cold water on another progressive-led proposal to place a moratorium on data centers, saying it should be up to local jurisdictions whether to build the controversial, energy-sucking facilities.

She has not decided whether she will co-sponsor the bill Trahan painstakingly negotiated with California Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte. Members of both parties have been cautious to associate with the package given the hyper-partisan political environment, especially in the leadup to the midterms.

But Foushee said she supports holding a committee markup of the legislation, adding that when fellow Democrats ask her about the measure, she replies, “I’m not one to say that this member should or should not say or do this, that, or the other. I’m not hell bent on any one particular approach.”

Democrats “should continue to lead but it certainly does not mean to me that there should not be a bipartisan effort to put forward a framework,” said Foushee. “When indeed we are in the majority, then that is what we plan to do.”

Congress

‘A game-changer’: House Dems aim for a big majority that could ease Hakeem Jeffries’ headaches

Published

5 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats are making moves to try to secure a big enough House majority to sideline blocs of both progressive and moderate holdouts who could cause constant headaches for Hakeem Jeffries if he becomes speaker next year.

Democrats are investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority, banking on what appears to be a strong political environment to not just win but win big. That would strengthen Jeffries’ hand.

Every extra seat they pick up will make it easier for Jeffries to secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions. That would let him ensure they can’t “hold Hakeem hostage” on legislation, as another senior House Democrat put it.

The spending reflects these ambitions.

Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024. In eight of those districts, Democrats have spent or reserved upwards of $3 million apiece, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact, which tracks political advertising.

That includes $13 million in total spending and reservations to target scandal-plagued Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) in a district Trump won by 11 points in 2024 and more than $10 million to boost Tejano singer Bobby Pulido against Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) in a district Trump won by nearly 18 points.

The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), the chair of the fund, said all of the candidates the group has endorsed have committed to backing Jeffries.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” Stanton said in an interview. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 30, 2026.

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank in order to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers.

Speaker Mike Johnson has had to navigate a treacherous majority of only three votes, sometimes less depending on the day, giving ample power to the GOP’s right flank. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to serve only two more terms in leadership.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

As one Democratic strategist put it, “The larger the majority, the more freebies you can hand off.”

They aren’t the only potential concern. Newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

A hint of that came last month, when moderate Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) twice sided with Republicans to advance slates of GOP bills and forced Jeffries to decry a “significant breach of trust.”

“A Blue Dog in a Trump plus 15 district has a different series of challenges than a progressive from a safe Democratic seat,” said Ian Russell, a Democratic ad maker and former deputy executive director of the DCCC. “The progressive from a safe Democratic seat has voters who want the Democratic Party to be successful. So they have an incentive to be constructive, even in their criticism of leadership, to be constructive, to be team players. So I think it’s unfair to the progressives to just assume that they’re going to be headaches.”

Asked by Blue Light News during a news conference Wednesday what a bigger margin would mean should he be elected speaker, Jeffries said he is focused on “working incredibly hard to win control of the House of Representatives and then to win as many seats as possible on top of that.”

A spokesperson for Jeffries declined to comment except to refer to Jeffries’ comments at the news conference. House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ main super PAC, declined to comment.

In a statement, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said the committee’s mission “is to win the majority, and win the largest majority possible.”

Jeffries and top Democrats are facing wariness from some Democrats who want to make sure they don’t overextend their limited war chest in their quest to secure a large majority — and risk not winning a majority at all.

“Don’t waste resources just because,” a third House Democrat cautioned. “Expand the battlefield where it’s smart to do so and causes the other side to spend more on defense.”

Jeffries is already working to make inroads with candidates who could complicate his potential speakership, regardless of the margin.

Melat Kiros, a Democratic socialist-affiliated candidate who waged a successful progressive challenge to Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado, has not committed to backing Jeffries, but said in an interview in September they had a “wonderful” call.

“It’s a big tent,” she said of the party, “and we all have the same goal of taking back the House and making sure that we can demonstrate to the American people that it’s our party that can actually deliver those results.”