Congress

Chuck Schumer’s critics are praising how he’s handled the shutdown. For now.

Published

12 months ago

October 9, 2025

Chuck Schumer ended the last shutdown standoff as a villain to Democrats outraged at his decision to surrender to Republicans. This time, the Senate minority leader has heeded the party base, sparking a showdown that has kept government agencies closed for eight days and counting.

So far, his former critics are impressed. But that doesn’t mean they trust him.

A Blue Light News survey of lawmakers and activists found Schumer has exceeded their low expectations heading into the current shutdown, but they’re still watching his every move closely amid persistent doubts that Senate Democrats will hold the line against the GOP.

“He hasn’t surrendered yet,” said Indivisible co-founder Ezra Levin, who called on Schumer to step down in March. “I call that progress, and we’re cheering him on now.”

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), who said in March “it may be time” for Schumer to step aside, is now pleased with the top Senate leader’s coordination with top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries — at least “at this point.”

“I think it looks great right now,” Ivey said, adding that the collaboration between the two leaders was “moving things in the right direction for both the House and the Senate Democrats.”

The guardedly positive reviews for Schumer’s leadership come as the shutdown fight enters a politically perilous new phase. Real-world impacts of the funding lapse are likely to mount in the coming days, with most federal workers set to miss a paycheck Friday and active-duty troops next Wednesday.

Air travel has been sporadically affected due to shortages in air traffic controllers, and Smithsonian museums are set to close later this week, to name a few of the mounting consequences. All but three Senate Democrats voted Wednesday for the sixth timeagainst a House-passed bill that would reopen the government.

Senior Republicans have put Schumer at the center of their shutdown blame game, asserting that it’s his fear of the Democratic base — and specifically, a possible 2028 primary challenge from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — that is prolonging the impasse.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise accused Schumer Wednesday of “throwing a tantrum”, while Speaker Mike Johnson said the New York Democrat was engaged in “desperate attempts to rehabilitate his own image” by bowing to “the Marxist flank of their party.”

“They’re coming for him,” Johnson said.

There’s some truth to those charges. One House Democrat, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the shutdown dynamics, said they would publicly call for Schumer to give up his leadership post if he folds now.

An aide to a senior House Democrat agreed that the dam could break should that happen, saying a significant number of lawmakers would be inclined to push for Schumer’s ouster.

Back in March, House Democrats united against the GOP spending bill. In the Senate, however, Democrats were divided on how to proceed on legislation that had no guardrails to prevent the White House from clawing back congressionally approved spending.

As the deadline approached to avoid a funding lapse, Schumer capitulated, saying he feared a shutdown could allow President Donald Trump to unleash more havoc on federal agencies and workers. He and nine other Democrats voted to advance the Republican bill.

That prompted a handful of House Democrats to publicly call for Schumer to step aside as leader, with some even mulling whether to back a primary challenger against him. Underscoring the House frustrations, Jeffries conspicuously sidestepped questions about Schumer’s leadership at a news conference.

Now Schumer and Jeffries are in much closer coordination, arguing in lockstep that Trump is dead set on unleashing havoc, shutdown or not. They’re also saying it is imperative for Republicans to address health care as a part of any government funding package — specifically by extending enhanced health insurance subsidies that will expire on Dec. 31 unless Congress acts.

Asked Wednesday whether he was acting out of fear of his party’s left flank, Schumer insisted to reporters that was not the case.

“The bottom line is very simple: We’re fighting for the American people,” he said. “Fifty-five percent of Trump voters, hardly a flank in our party, want [the subsidies extended]. That’s why we’re doing it. We believe that’s our job. The American people are crying out for help.”

Still, there are some divides between the two leaders. Jeffries has noticeably staked out tougher demands and a harsher tone in the shutdown fight than Schumer — arguing, for instance, that any deal on the health subsidy extension needs to be written into “ironclad” legislation. Democrats in both chambers are also demanding an end to “rescissions,” or Trump administration attempts to revoke funding for programs previously enacted by Congress.

Schumer, meanwhile, has resisted drawing red lines as many of his members signal they’d be willing to open up the government for something less than a final enacted health care deal. “I’m not going to negotiate in public,” he said Wednesday. “We have to do something. We have to extend these credits.”

That split between the two leaders has made some of Schumer’s critics distrustful, with many keeping a close eye on the thus-far-infomal bipartisan talks involving some of the Senate Democrats who voted to advance the GOP bill in March.

Wary progressives believe those senators — perhaps with Schumer’s blessing — will agree to reopen the government in exchange for no more than a verbal assurance to continue negotiating an extension to the subsidies that Republicans could renege on later.

“A handshake agreement is capitulation,” Levin said. “Health care and rescission language is the demand, and it’s broadly popular. No reason to cave for less.”

Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) told reporters last week, “The American people cannot live on promises.”

For now, however, Democrats are reveling in moments of GOP disunity this week exposed by splits on handling the expiring insurance subsidies as well as the Trump administration’s escalating threats against federal employees, including mass firings or the withholding of back pay for furloughed workers. That has only hardened Democrats’ resolve to continue the shutdown.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who broke with Schumer on the March vote and called on Democrats at that time to “stand up and take some risks,” said this week that he has been pleased by the new tone set at the top.

“A lot of people wondered whether we would be bullied again, and we have not been,” he said. “So I think Sen. Schumer understands the gravity of this moment.”

“The Senate is doing exactly what we need them to do,” added purple-district Rep. Derek Tran (D-Calif.).

But Rep. Jimmy Gomez, another California Democrat, said he was content to watch Schumer manage the politics of his own chamber, saying those threatening to oust him as leader were “just all posturing.”

“It’s easy for us to say that,” he said. “If their own delegation starts turning on them — New York — that’s a different story.”

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Congress

Lummis blocks resolution denouncing Trump’s ‘public service announcements’

Published

3 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A Republican senator blocked a resolution Tuesday that would have denounced President Donald Trump’s recent campaign-style ads funded with taxpayer dollars.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming objected to Sen. Maggie Hassan’s nonbinding resolution, which said it was the sense of the Senate that the ads “should not be paid for by the United States government.” Because Hassan (D-N.H.) was trying to pass the resolution without a formal vote, any one senator could block it.

“It just tells the president that he is wrong — that these ads need to be pulled down and that they should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Hassan said on the floor.

Lummis however countered that Hassan’s concerns about the ads say “more about her side of the aisle” and compared Trump’s ads to President Bill Clinton’s antidrug campaign, among others. One of the ads Trump is running at taxpayer expense is virtually identical to a 2024 campaign ad.

“When a Democratic president tells Americans what to do, it’s a public service,” Lummis said. “When this president tells Americans that liberty is worth defending, it’s a problem.”

Congress

Republicans wanted Jack Smith to give them a smoking gun. They got a gaffe instead.

Published

4 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

It started with a pledge to expose a Biden-era conspiracy to take down President Donald Trump. It ended with a botched attack over basketball tickets.

Armed with subpoena power in Congress and a friendly Justice Department on their side, Republican lawmakers have spent two years promising to expose former special counsel Jack Smith as the leader of an anti-Trump witch hunt that morphed into a full-blown attempt to take down the Republican establishment.

Smith’s appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee — his third time testifying under oath on Capitol Hill, the second time in public — was supposed to be a watershed moment for the GOP intent on extracting a smoking gun ahead of the midterm elections. Instead, the hearing was most memorable for the fusillade of insults hurled by the panel’s Republicans.

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri unsuccessfully sought to implicate Smith in a plot to attend a sporting event as a cover for investigating Trump election interference claims, then called him a “dirtbag.” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said the former prosecutor made him “want to throw up in my mouth.” And Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, comparing him to “Javert from ‘Les Mis,’” said Smith’s probe was “the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the Department of Justice.”

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley insisted the hearing was “not the end” of his investigative work, but the four-hour grilling had the feeling of finality. The Republican-led probe into Smith’s efforts to bring criminal charges against the president has already stretched for two years, and Democrats stand a chance of retaking control of Congress in the midterms.

And at least one Republican member of the panel, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, said he believed the investigation into Smith had run its course in Congress.

“At this point, I think we kind of know what we know,” Hawley said in an interview following the hearing. “I think at this point, it’s up to the DOJ to either prosecute him for perjury for lying under oath, which I think the House has formally referred him for … or try to have him disbarred.”

Judiciary Committee Republicans did little Tuesday to challenge the substance of Smith’s criminal case against Trump for seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election. Smith reinforced his contention that Trump mounted an unprecedented criminal assault on the transfer of power, seeking to derail Joe Biden’s victory and then capitalizing on the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol — unleashed by a mob of his supporters — to further that goal.

Smith also defended the work of his staff and decried the Trump-led Justice Department’s decision to fire them as “illegal.” And he made his most forceful case yet that the probe he led was actually fueled by Republican witnesses who broke from Trump over his handling of the 2020 election.

”It’s very hard to understand how our investigation can be viewed as partisan when the strongest witnesses, the people who were the difference between the rule of law and not, were Republicans,” Smith said.

When Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) ripped into Smith for secretly obtaining her late brother Lindsey Graham’s phone records as part of his inquiry, Smith hailed him as a “patriotic public servant” and who likely would have been a featured witness in Trump’s trial — because he eventually concluded Trump’s election fraud claims were false.

Smith similarly hailed Former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and former Vice President Mike Pence as heroic figures who were crucial witnesses against the president. Smith ultimately dropped his case after Trump prevailed in the 2024 election. Though he said he remained confident in his ability to secure a conviction at trial, Smith emphasized that Justice Department policy forbids criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

When they weren’t lobbing personal attacks at Smith, Republicans homed in on what they described as procedural flaws of Smith’s investigation. They criticized him for subpoenaing phone records of members of Congress, like Lindsey Graham, who communicated with Trump and his administration during the post-2020 election timeframe.

They hit Smith for securing court orders that prevented telecom companies from alerting lawmakers to those subpoenas, and challenged his respect for the constitutional protections members of Congress are afforded to avoid scrutiny from federal prosecutors. That line of questioning produced one of the only bipartisan moments of the hearing: a pitch by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) for legislation that would limit the ability of prosecutors to obtain secrecy orders when they issue subpoenas in sensitive probes.

Lee is poised to be the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress if Republicans maintain control of the chamber.

Smith used his appearance, as well as friendly questions from the panel’s Democrats, to parry GOP criticism of his tactics. He followed all Justice Department policies and laws, he insisted, and said he had respect for the separation of powers — including Congress’ constitutional protection from executive branch scrutiny.

Smith said he never targeted GOP lawmakers but pursued critical evidence of Trump’s actions and state of mind that would have been necessary to prove his case in court, and he repeatedly returned to an overarching contention: that he had enough evidence to convict Trump of “one of the most serious crimes that’s ever happened in our nation’s history.”

He also reminded lawmakers what he couldn’t say: anything at all about his charges against Trump for hoarding classified information at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s findings in that probe remain sealed from public view by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who has ordered the Justice Department to keep it secret.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said subpoenaing that report would be one of Democrats’ first actions should they have the majority in the next Congress.

Ultimately, Smith’s hearing Tuesday may end up being best remembered for a high-profile gaffe by Schmitt, who accused Smith of secretly traveling to Atlanta at the very moment local prosecutor Fani Willis — who had also charged Trump over the 2020 election scheme — was facing damaging questions about her conduct. As proof, displayed on an elaborate poster, Schmitt offered text messages suggesting that Smith attended a basketball game on Feb. 3, 2024 — the same day the Atlanta Hawks played the Golden State Warriors.

Schmitt revelled as a clearly flummoxed Smith struggled to discern what Schmitt was talking about.

“I don’t think you know that we have this stuff,” Schmitt said. “So I’ll give you a second to process it so you don’t perjure yourself.”

After a few moments, Smith did recall having attended a basketball game — but not in Atlanta. It wasn’t the Hawks his colleagues were discussing in a series of texts, Smith explained, but the Hawkeyes, whose star Caitlin Clark was playing in Maryland that day.

“It was because Caitlin Clark was coming to Maryland to play, and so we went to the game,” Smith said.

Immediately after the exchange, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) fact-checked Schmitt in real-time, confirming the date of the Iowa-Maryland game and suggested that her colleagues’ reliance on “false information based on confusion about the name of a team” warranted an apology.

“You don’t call someone a dirtbag when you haven’t done your own research and you don’t have your facts straight,” Klobuchar said after the hearing. “And it just shows how completely out of control this whole thing was.”

Schmitt did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his allegations.

Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.

Congress

Cruz blocks Senate Democrats’ bid to pass AI safety bill

Published

6 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A Democratic trio attempted to pass an artificial intelligence bill via a unanimous consent request on Tuesday but were blocked on the Senate floor.

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sought to pass their Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act using the procedural mechanism, which allows expedited consideration of legislation but fails if one senator opposes it.

“The whole world has recognized that we’ve got to do something,” Warner said in a speech on the floor. “We should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected to the bill, preventing any chance of passage.

“Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner,” he said on the floor, adding that it gave some in the government too much power to dictate the technology that could be permitted to be released.

As some lawmakers grow concerned over dire warnings from AI labs’ top executives about the technology’s risk to humanity, Congress’ attempts to legislate AI guardrails have largely stalled.

In the past few weeks, two other AI-related bills, the Ratepayer Protection Act and AI Emergency Button Act, were also nixed in an attempt to pass them unanimously.

Warner, Schatz and Kim’s new bill would have established a new safety board within the Commerce Department to vet models before they are deployed and set safety standards for the industry. It would also have created a reporting process for safety and security incidents.