Connect with us

Congress

Donald Trump enters his lame duck era

Published

on

Hours after witnessing his party’s worst electoral drubbing in at least six years, President Donald Trump hosted Senate Republicans at the White House and demanded they ditch their chamber’s supermajority rules.

“If you don’t terminate the filibuster, you’ll be in bad shape,” he told them over breakfast in the State Dining Room.

It was classic Trump dominance theater, like many other occasions this year where he successfully muscled recalcitrant Republicans to confirm controversial nominees, support divisive policies and enact sweeping domestic policy legislation.

But upon returning to the Capitol, the senators made it very clear: They planned to blow Trump off. One GOP senator, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, laughed out loud when asked about the anti-filibuster push.

Welcome to the dawn of Trump’s lame duck era.

Don’t expect an immediate stampede away from the president, according to interviews with GOP lawmakers and aides Wednesday — he remains overwhelmingly popular with GOP voters and is the party’s most dominant leader in a generation. Trump’s top political aide signaled Monday that the White House is not worried about a messy “family conversation” about the filibuster.

But with Tuesday’s stunning election losses crystallizing the risks to downballot Republicans in 2026 and beyond, there are growing signs that lawmakers are contending with the facts of their political lives: He’ll be gone in just over three years, while they’ll still be around.

The danger for the president is that if Trump can’t run roughshod over the thin GOP congressional majorities, it would leave him few legislative options given his scant interest in compromising with Democrats.

One Republican already liberated from reelection concerns openly vocalized frustrations Wednesday as Trump pushed for the end of the filibuster — something many in the GOP fear would backfire soon enough once Democrats regain power.

Retiring Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) called Democrats’ victory margins Tuesday “a red flag to the GOP” and blasted Trump’s refusal to engage with the other party.

“He has zero ability to work across the aisle,” he added. “He needs to face reality and learn how to talk to Democrats he can reason with.”

Other House Republicans more quietly aired frustration with Trump’s approach to the record 37-day shutdown, which headed into the end of the congressional workweek with no clear end in sight.

Many are privately signaling they’re prepared to break with Trump if he doesn’t allow Republicans to negotiate on an extension of the Obamacare insurance subsidies Democrats are demanding. Others blamed the president and his top budget aide, Russ Vought, for favoring hardball moves such as canceling blue-state transportation projects and firing federal employees that only served to cause Democrats to dig in further.

One irate senior House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly blamed Trump and Vought for spurring the shutdown with their unprecedented move to unilaterally rescind congressional funding over the summer through a so-called pocket rescission.

“That decision is why we’re in this mess,” the Republican said.

Democrats who on Wednesday finally found a bounce in their step after a year of infighting said it was no secret why Republicans were finally standing up to Trump over the filibuster after folding so many times before.

“Last night’s results look like a recipe for them to lose the House and the Senate next fall,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). “And they’re going to hand us a 50-vote majority gift-wrapped when we show up Day 1?”

Trump on Wednesday night moved to buck up his faithful. “OUR MOVEMENT IS FAR FROM OVER — IN FACT, OUR FIGHT HAS ONLY JUST BEGUN!” he wrote in a Truth Social post with an upbeat video.

That followed a day on defense, where GOP leaders conspicuously split with Trump on the reasons for the stunning Republican losses.

Both Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune played down the Democratic victories, casting them as expected losses in blue states — never mind that the margins in New Jersey and Virginia far outstripped expectations and that Democrats also won big in Georgia, Mississippi and Pennsylvania.

Trump, on the other hand, told senators at the breakfast that the shutdown played a “big role” in the GOP losses. Asked about that assessment, Johnson replied, “I don’t think the loss last night was any reflection about Republicans at all.”

What GOP lawmakers do know is that there is a dramatic difference in their party’s performance in elections where Trump appears on the ballot versus the midterm and off-year contests where he’s not — no matter how many rallies he does or endorsements he doles out.

They also know, third-term musings of questionable constitutionality aside, Trump will never run for office again — which had many acknowledging that, if not fully reckoning with, the fact it might not be a great idea to hew so closely to Trump’s agenda.

“Trump drives turnout, and if he’s not on the ballot, the turnout is way down,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.

Cornyn questioned whether the Tuesday elections “prove very much” and was one of the few GOP senators who said Wednesday he was newly open to considering changes to the filibuster after meeting with Trump. He could be considered the exception who proves the rule: Cornyn needs to stay in Trump’s good graces amid a fierce primary battle for reelection next year.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said voter dropoff in non-Trump years is “an issue for Republicans” and suggested the party should consider changing the filibuster to “do things that benefit the American public … secure the border, repair the damage done by Obamacare, transition to a system that works, secure elections.”

But with Thune making clear the Senate’s rules aren’t changing — “I just know where the math is on this issue,” the majority leader said — Johnson put the focus on GOP voter behavior.

“People need to understand: If you want to keep Trump’s agenda moving forward, you’ve got to come out in midterms,” he added.

Discussion has ramped up among senators about not only changing the filibuster but also trying to pass a new party-line reconciliation bill under the budget rules the GOP used to enact their megabill this summer. The suggestion came up at the White House breakfast, according to senators.

But there are huge obstacles to going down that road. The GOP still has a super-tight margin in the House, four senators can kill any party-line effort, Senate rules restrict what initiatives can be passed under budget rules and Republicans are far from united on what they would want to do with a reconciliation bill in the first place.

James Blair, political director for Trump’s 2024 campaign and the RNC who now serves as a deputy White House chief of staff, rejected the notion that lawmakers will treat Trump as a lame duck in an interview for Blue Light News’s “The Conversation.”

“I don’t think Republicans are going to do that at all,” he said. “The president, you know, sort of has his way of communicating, but the senators have their way, and it’s a family at the end of the day.”

Some GOP senators, he added, “have long relationships, and they hope somehow the Democrat fever will break one day. And I think the president’s view is, it’s not breaking.”

Dasha Burns, Mia McCarthy and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

House Democrats once again left complaining about a Senate spending deal

Published

on

For the third time in less than a year, a spending deal brokered in the Senate has House Democrats feeling left out — and grumbling about their counterparts across the Capitol.

This time, the agreement between President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leaders would spare the vast majority of federal agencies from an extended shutdown — funding most of them through the end of the fiscal year in September while punting Homeland Security funding only through Feb. 13.

But to Democrats up in arms over Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, that’s still 10 days of DHS funding too many — assuming the deal passes the House as planned Tuesday — leaving them to vent once again about the other chamber.

“There are some Senate Democrats who always signal nervousness and are so reluctant to be strong,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “We end up having to answer for what they won’t do, and it can be very frustrating.”

“We are far closer to the people,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), adding that it’s “critically important that House members be brought in” during negotiations over immigration enforcement constraints considering ICE, Border Patrol and other agencies are deployed in their districts.

The interchamber tensions between Democrats are becoming a regular feature of funding fights in the second Trump term. Lawmakers, strategists and voters alike exploded in anger last March when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and a handful of colleagues allowed a spending package to move forward amid the Elon Musk-led DOGE assault on federal agencies. In November, tempers again flared when a handful of Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to end a record 43-day shutdown.

This time, the situation is more nuanced. At stake is $1.2 trillion in full-year funding that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis; Democrats generally support the vast majority of the agreement. But the inclusion of the DHS money has been a sore spot — especially after the killing last month of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis.

A version of the DHS bill passed in the House before the Jan. 24 killing of Alex Pretti garnered only seven Democratic votes. Senate Democrats immediately declared a no-go on full-year funding for the department after the incident, and Schumer and Trump negotiated a two-week punt to allow for further talks.

Fewer than half of Senate Democratic Caucus members ultimately ended up voting for the deal, however, and support among House Democrats is considerably more scant.

Asked if House Democrats were sufficiently read in on the Trump-Schumer deal, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said “no” but added, “I don’t think that that’s surprising.”

“But I think the split among senators was kind of surprising,” the California lawmaker added. “And so … we’ll see what happens.”

The spending package is headed to the floor Tuesday, where it remains an open question if House Republicans will be able to unite on a key test vote. Late last week — facing dissension in his own ranks over having to pass a bill with only temporary DHS funding — Speaker Mike Johnson entertained using a bipartisan fast-track process.

But members of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership circle were caught unaware — with some downright livid — at Johnson’s confidence that he could pass the bill under that process — which would require a two-thirds-majority vote, meaning at least 70 Democrats would be needed to get it across the line.

Such a move generally requires tacit agreement from minority party leaders to supply the votes. But Republicans at that point hadn’t asked their Democratic counterparts for a more formal private count of how many Democrats might support the measure, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Jeffries told Johnson just hours later on a private call that Democratic leadership would not commit to delivering the required votes for a fast-track vote, forcing Johnson to gather GOP votes to jump through a procedural hurdle first. Johnson has since accused Democrats of “playing games” with the shutdown-ending package.

Those interparty antics have helped deflect attention from internal Democratic tensions over the Senate-brokered funding deal, with Jeffries playing down any such rift Monday.

“I speak regularly with Leader Schumer, and I speak regularly with Mike Johnson,” he said when asked if House Democrats were properly consulted in the funding package negotiations. “There’s no daylight between House and Senate Democrats on accomplishing the objective, which is dramatic reform of ICE.”

Jeffries opposed the prior package, with full-year DHS funding, but would not say Monday how he intended to vote on the revised bill with the short-term stopgap.

Schumer, for his part, said he spoke with Jeffries during the negotiations that erupted in the Senate following Pretti’s killing. He said after the Senate vote Friday night that Jeffries had agreed on limiting DHS funding to Feb. 13.

“This bill was negotiated by … [Senate Majority LeaderJohn] Thune and me,” Schumer said. “But I’ve talked to Hakeem Jeffries. For instance, we talked about how long a [stopgap] should be, because we wanted to limit it greatly.”

Asked about Schumer’s comment Monday, Jeffries said, “I think what we made clear to the Senate is that the original three-month proposal was completely and totally unacceptable.”

Behind the scenes, Schumer told the White House and congressional Republicans last week that they would need to talk to Jeffries because the bill was going back to the House, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose a private conversation.

If Republicans can get the bill over the procedural hurdle Tuesday, more Democrats are expected to support it than the seven who backed the previous version. But the party remained sharply divided Monday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Appropriations Committee Democrat, said Monday she would support the bill on the floor, while another panel leader, Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern of the Rules Committee, said he would oppose it.

“I will not vote for business as usual while masked agents break into people’s homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” McGovern said.

Others declined to forecast their plans, including members of the Democratic leadership team. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the caucus vice chair, said he planned to attend Tuesday morning’s caucus meeting before deciding.

Several Democrats said they do not expect party leaders to formally whip votes for or against the funding package, with some acknowledging that it would not be an easy decision for members who support the vast majority of the funding bill and also don’t want to see noncontroversial DHS agencies such as FEMA and TSA shut down.

And blaming the Senate for having to take a tough note, one Democrat noted, is hardly new.

“I’ve been here long enough that people always complain about the other chamber, so that’s always an easy out,” Aguilar said.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

House Republicans eye next week for housing bill vote

Published

on

House leadership is eyeing the week of Feb. 9 for a vote on a bipartisan housing package, according to four people with direct knowledge of the planning.

Senior lawmakers have also been mulling whether to consider the widely supported bill under suspension of House rules, which would expedite passage of the legislation, said three of the people who were granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

However, plans for the bill are not locked in and could be subject to change as the House deals with a partial government shutdown.

The Housing in the 21st Century Act, which overwhelmingly advanced through the House Financial Services Committee in December, is part of a push by Congress to pass legislation that could address a growing housing affordability crisis. The bill includes 25 provisions that aim to increase the housing supply, modernize local development and rural housing programs, expand manufactured and affordable housing, protect borrowers and those utilizing federal housing programs, and enhance oversight of housing providers.

House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) said Friday that he’s pushing for the Housing for the 21st Century Act to receive a floor vote expeditiously.

”I hope that that bill can come to the House floor in just a few days. I really am pushing for that, I think it’s the right decision,” Hill said on Bloomberg Radio.

The Senate’s housing bill, the ROAD to Housing Act, passed the upper chamber as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act but may be put to a separate floor vote. If the House is able to pass its own version by a wide margin before the Senate, it could have additional leverage for negotiations with the upper chamber for a final bill. Hill and other House Republicans have said the Senate bill, which received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Senate Banking Committee, has a number of provisions that would not be acceptable among House GOP members.

Continue Reading

Congress

Bill and Hillary Clinton now agree to testify before Congress

Published

on

Bill and Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee as part of the panel’s investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, an Oversight aide said Monday evening.

It’s a remarkable reversal for the former president and secretary of state, who were adamant they would defy committee-issued subpoenas and risk imprisonment by the Trump Justice Department as the House prepared to vote Wednesday to hold them both in contempt of Congress.

After both skipped their scheduled depositions earlier this year, the Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis in January to approve contempt measures for each of them.

Although both have said they had no knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, they have maintained that the subpoenas were not tied to a legitimate legislative purpose, rendering them invalid. They also complained the GOP-led exercise was designed to embarrass and put them in jail.

It is not immediately clear when they will appear and if the House will continue to pursue the contempt votes.

Continue Reading

Trending