Congress
How Chuck Schumer plans to weather the storm
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is the target of liberal fury for a second time this year. His Democratic colleagues aren’t joining the pile-on.
The New York Democrat is facing calls to resign from his leadership post from a coalition of progressive outside groups, House Democrats and even some Senate hopefuls over the chamber’s approval of a bipartisan shutdown deal that he didn’t even vote for.
That’s a U-turn from March, when he assumed responsibility for helping advance a GOP-written government funding stopgap that sparked weeks of intense criticism and calls for his ouster from Democrats outside the Senate. This time, Schumer joined with most of the caucus to blast the agreement for not meeting Democrats’ top demand — an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.
Outside the Senate, that’s a distinction without a difference to Schumer’s critics, who believe he should have done more to stop eight Democratic caucus members from defecting. Inside the Senate, views are more nuanced.
“Chuck didn’t want this to happen. And I sat with him in rooms as he tried to stop this from occurring. This has got to be a caucus-wide conversation,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a fierce critic of the deal. “Because if this is really how 10 or 15 members are going to regularly conduct business, it’s hard for any leader to stop that from happening.”
The liberal pushback comes as Schumer, 74, faces larger questions about his long-term political future. Progressives are dreaming of a 2028 primary challenge, and he has repeatedly declined to say whether or not he will run for a sixth Senate term.
Instead, Schumer insists he’s keeping his focus on the 2026 midterm elections — and a chance of once again becoming majority leader.
While many Senate Democrats expressed frustration with the outcome of the shutdown fight, there is no appetite for an immediate Schumer ouster, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss internal caucus dynamics.
Schumer isn’t up for reelection as leader until after the 2026 midterms that he is expected to try to make a referendum on Trump and health care. He indicated earlier this year that he intends to run for the post again. So far, no one is chomping at the bit to challenge him nor is there a consensus on who, if anyone, could — though there’s also no real incentive for a challenger to emerge more than a year in advance.
“You can argue and I can make the case that Chuck Schumer has done a lot of bad things, but I think getting rid of him — who’s going to replace him?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told BLN’s Rachel Maddow, adding that he views Schumer and most of the Senate Democratic Caucus as part of the “establishment.”
Schumer is brushing off the latest wave of criticism from the left flank of his party, believing it comes with the job of being the leader.
He’s hardly the first Senate leader to get flak from his party. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the longtime Republican leader, faced frequent and withering criticism from conservative critics but remained in the top spot for years — even defeating a challenger in 2022.
One thing the two have in common: Schumer and McConnell both spent time leading their party’s campaign committees and kept close control of political operations as leaders — meaning they played a key role in electing many of the lawmakers who in turn vote on leadership races. Schumer has recruited several big names to run this year, though some primary candidates he is not backing have already called for him to resign.
After the March funding fight, Schumer made a concerted effort to prevent another crack-up ahead of the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. He kept in close touch with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and they together strategized around making health care the centerpiece of their messaging.
The two leaders were not in perfect harmony during the six-week shutdown, but they mostly sang from the same songsheet. Jeffries gave his fellow Brooklynite a quick gesture of confidence after the Senate moved forward with the deal this week.
“Yes and yes,” he said, when asked if Schumer was effective as Senate minority leader and should keep his job. He went on to praise Schumer’s “valiant fight on behalf of the American people.”
In March, he responded to a similar query with, “Next question.”
But the progressive anger at Schumer is centered around a belief that he didn’t do enough to hold his members together to try to force concessions from Republicans on health care.
“The most generous case for Schumer is to believe him — that he and 39 other members of his caucus … all believed that one thing was the correct strategy and that he was able to get undermined by eight outliers. Well, what does that say about his leadership?” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said Tuesday.
“We’ve worked very closely with his office, we did not call for him to step down in March when others like Indivisible did, but on many fronts after this saga it’s clear there is a failure of leadership and there needs to be a change,” he added.
Schumer has acknowledged he encouraged members of his caucus to talk with Republicans in the early weeks of the shutdown. But behind the scenes, he privately told the negotiators he couldn’t support the agreement they were envisioning and privately urged them to hold out to try to get more concessions, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations.
A core group of Democratic negotiators, however, believed no further concessions were going to happen no matter how long their caucus held out — and they were able to convince enough of their colleagues of that over the past week. Big victories in this month’s off-year elections delayed but did not destroy that conclusion.
“I know that there were number of my colleagues who thought that, well, we had this big victory on Tuesday, but that didn’t change the impact of the shutdown and I was convinced, as for the people who voted with me … that another day, another week, another month, was not going to make a difference,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).
Shaheen said Schumer did not try to dissuade her but would not say if he was supportive of her efforts. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Schumer was “informed” but “he definitely did not bless it.” Schumer’s No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), told reporters that Schumer gave the eight who voted for the deal neither a “blessing or a curse.”
Schumer “handled this well,” Durbin added. “It was a hard assignment.”
In addition to keeping tabs on the negotiators, Schumer met regularly with members of the progressive wing of his caucus. Privately, he made the case that Democrats were winning the shutdown fight and that cracks were starting to emerge from Republicans, the person close to the negotiations added. He also convinced Democrats who privately wanted to vote to reopen the government weeks ago to hold out.
The progressive bloc, however, isn’t running to his defense. At the same time, its members aren’t openly criticizing him, preferring instead to sidestep questions about his leadership.
“I think Democrats need to continue the fight to lower families’ costs, and we need to be more effective in that fight,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said when asked whether or not Schumer should remain leader.
Pressed if Schumer had been doing that, Warren said, “The Democrats did not hold the line.”
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Democrats “will have to figure out a better strategy going forward.” But he declined to discuss Schumer, adding that “I’m not going to get into all of that right now.”
Murphy said the underlying issues “would be difficult for any leader to manage.”
“We clearly have a repeating problem in our caucus, that the minority of members are reaching deals with Republicans,” he said. “That’s a problem that the whole caucus has to solve.”
Jennifer Scholtes and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Congress
GOP senators urge Trump to find Iran exit plan as energy prices rise: ‘The clock is ticking’
President Donald Trump promised a quick end to the war in Iran, but the ongoing conflict has kept energy costs high — and some Senate Republicans are starting to go public with their concerns.
GOP lawmakers who already feared November would be an increasingly tough battle are trying to nudge the president toward clearly defining his endgame after a surge in oil, gas and fertilizer prices. Trump warned the sticker shock might not completely recede by the time the November elections roll around, though news Friday that the Strait of Hormuz would reopen could begin to bring some relief if the agreement sticks.
Several GOP senators are warning the president could face growing pushback, including them not supporting military action against Iran after the conflict hits the 60-day mark at the end of the month, if he doesn’t articulate his plan. The White House could try to invoke a 30-day extension for national security reasons.
“I hope that we are arriving at an exit strategy here to bring this to a close to preserve our security interests and bring down the cost of gasoline,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told reporters this week, adding that the “clock is ticking” on the war.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in an interview that she and a group of other senators are in the process of drafting an authorization for the use of military force against Iran, which would lay out when and how Trump could use force. She pointed to the 60-day threshold as a possible deadline for hammering out text, saying it would be “helpful” for it to be done by then.
Even senior Republicans are warning that if the administration wants Congress to greenlight tens of billions in additional war funding, Republicans are going to need to know more about the president’s ultimate Iran strategy beforehand.
“I think our members are going to be very interested in what next steps are,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, predicting that the administration’s forthcoming Iran war spending ask “will be an important inflection point if and when the administration submits their request.”
Thune, like most congressional Republicans, has been supportive of the administration’s Iran campaign but said the impact on gas and fertilizer prices is “a big deal” back in his home state of South Dakota.
“We’re in planting season so if you didn’t buy fertilizer ahead of time, you’re really feeling it, and obviously fuel is a critically important part of production, agriculture,” Thune said this week, prior to the Strait’s reopening.
Retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) predicted his party would ultimately keep the Senate majority, but said the Iran war and the related spike in pricing could be a drag when they are already facing “headwinds.”
“The president has to help us get the vote out,” Tillis said. “But the base alone is not going to be able to do it. The way we’re going to get the other ones is addressing the energy challenges, particularly the price at the pump and some of the other affordability issues.”
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), in an interview before Friday’s announcement, predicted that prices would come down after the strait’s reopening and that it would matter the most in September, when swing voters start tuning in for the midterms.
“If we’re going into September and, even more, October … with super high — you know gas prices over $4 — I mean it’s going to be a problem,” Cramer said.
There were early signs of celebration from Senate Republicans Friday over the announcement that the strait had reopened, even if it’s potentially only temporarily.
“Very glad to hear the Strait of Hormuz is open, at least for the remainder of the ceasefire,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on X.
Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), also took a victory lap: “Will Dems be making comments about the massive drop in oil prices?” he asked.
Trump has suggested that he is eager to negotiate a deal to end the conflict. And GOP lawmakers have largely deferred to Trump so far — including defeating attempts in both chambers this week to limit the president’s ability to carry out additional military action without Congress.
But even with oil shipments through the strait set to resume now, some Republicans say generally, they want to see the president focusing more on affordability issues.
“I would like to see the president spend 70 percent of his time talking about all the things that we and he have done to reduce the cost of living and 30 percent of his time on other important stuff,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said in an interview.
Congress
GOP hard-liners threaten to tank FISA vote
House GOP hardliners are threatening to tank the FISA rule shortly on the House floor as Speaker Mike Johnson tries to force through a five year extension, according to four people granted anonymity to speak about plans not yet public.
They’re livid over the “inexplicable 5 year extension, the fake warrant requirement, and the walk back of the promise from this afternoon to include CBDC,” according to one of the people, referring negotiations to prohibit a central bank digital currency.
Congress
‘The original sin:’ Hill Republicans blame White House for slow-walking FISA sales pitch
A messy GOP battle over a key government spy authority boiled over in the House this week — but the crisis was months in the making.
White House officials and Republican Hill leaders have tried to pressure GOP hard-liners into approving a clean, 18-month extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that President Donald Trump demanded. But amid a GOP rebellion on Capitol Hill, Speaker Mike Johnson Thursday afternoon punted a vote on the measure for the second day in a row.
The program expires Monday night. Senators went home for the weekend as Johnson continued to pursue a compromise with the holdouts for an extension as long as three years with reforms, and raced to hold a vote.
Now, the finger-pointing among Republicans is rampant and temperatures are running high.
A band of House ultraconservatives — who have long been concerned that warrantless government surveillance of foreign individuals could sweep up data on Americans — shot down Trump and GOP leaders’ long-held plans for the 18-month extension with no reforms earlier this week.
“A clean extension ain’t going to move on the floor,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the head House GOP holdouts, warned earlier this week.
In interviews with more than two dozen Republican lawmakers and aides on Capitol Hill involved in the talks, many of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely about the contentious policy debate, the consensus is that the White House is largely responsible for the current breakdown as GOP factions snipe and assign blame.
“This is why we shouldn’t wait until the last minute on these things,” one House Republican fumed Thursday. A congressional GOP aide added, “The White House was too late to come to a decision. That was the original sin.”
A senior White House official disputed the characterization from some Hill Republicans that the administration had taken too long to plead their case. They pointed to a briefing in the Situation Room months ago with Republican lawmakers, during which “the president heard arguments on both sides of the issue.”
The official added, “We’ve had multiple briefings from senior officials, both on the House and Senate side, about the desirability of this program. Again, going back months ago.”
Trump told House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that he wanted a clean extension, without reforms, in February. The president arrived at this position, a second White House official said, after “the administration completed a policy process through the interagency and advised POTUS that a clean extension was the best course and solicited views on length from Blue Light News.”
There was also coordination between the White House and Capitol Hill, according to three people familiar and the senior White House official: Johnson requested the reauthorization run for 18 months, and Trump agreed.
The administration succeeded in convincing Jordan, who had previously pushed for changes to Section 702, to publicly support a clean extension following a White House meeting on the subject.
But ultraconservatives on Capitol Hill were harder to convince, with some House Republicans correctly predicting two months ago they were going to have issues as the vote drew nearer. Trump has forced those hard-liners to cave in recent months on other fights, but the spy powers legislation was one area where members have not been as willing to relent.
While Trump officials made outreach to members at least two months ago, Hill engagement ramped up in the days leading up to the scheduled vote. That has included appeals to lawmakers from CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Deputy CIA Director Michael Ellis and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan Caine, according to five people. Ellis has made personal phone calls to members, according to two people familiar with the pressure campaign.
White House deputy chief of staff James Blair, White House Legislative Affairs chief James Braid and other legislative affairs officials have also been calling individual House Republicans and working through negotiation details, according to six other people with direct knowledge of the conversations.
Noticeably absent from this outreach is Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Her office plays a statutory role in overseeing Section 702 and has historically been a key proponent of the powerful spy powers.
Gabbard in early February expressed concerns to Trump about reauthorizing the statute without additional privacy guardrails, as Blue Light News reported earlier Thursday, though her appeal appears to have been unsuccessful.
And while the administration’s position on Section 702 came into focus in February, there were signs earlier in the month that its position had not fully crystallized. Officials meeting with the Senate Intelligence Committee at that time refused to divulge the White House’s stance on extending the surveillance power and adding reforms, according to five people with knowledge of the meeting. The exchange frustrated Republicans and Democrats on the panel, who are generally supportive of the surveillance program.
Due to a quirk in the law, the administration will still be able to operate the program for nearly a year even if it is not renewed, and privacy advocates have argued that Monday is a false deadline. But without the law on the books, communications providers like Google and AT&T, which the government tasks to surveil foreign messages, could stop complying with those orders.
But White House officials want an extension codified now, all the same. They have been arguing in conversations with lawmakers that the country is at war and national security is paramount amid threats from Iran. Therefore, they say, hardliners should fall in line to back the clean extension without delay, according to five people involved in the conversations.
“The program is critical for the United States military to listen to the conversations of foreign terrorists abroad while we are engaged in a military operation in Iran. That’s what we’ve been telling individuals, as well as the elevated threat levels around the world, as well as the threat from Mexican drug cartels,” the senior White House official said.
Two groups of House GOP hard-liners, after being summoned by Trump Tuesday night, met with officials at the White House. But some of the Republicans declined the invitation.“I’ve heard everything that the executive has to say on FISA,” Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.) said in an interview that evening. That meeting, however, marked a shift: Those House Republicans who went to the White House alongside GOP leaders — among them Roy and Reps. Keith Self of Texas, Byron Donalds of Florida, Clay Higgins of Louisiana, Morgan Griffith of Virginia and Warren Davidson of Ohio — took the opportunity to begin negotiations about a framework for a possible agreement around the use of warrants to access certain information.
The discussions included how the White House and GOP leadership needed to make good on a months-old promise to advance legislation that would ban a central bank digital currency. Enough House GOP holdouts late Thursday evening were threatening to still tank the procedural vote to advance the extension if the White House didn’t address the digital currency matter, according to four people with direct knowledge of the matter. “Unless it’s included, there’s enough votes to kill the rule,” Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) said in an interview Thursday afternoon. But other Republicans, White House officials and Senate GOP leadership are warning that attaching the measure directly would tank the FISA bill.
In exchange for making these concessions, GOP leaders and the White House have been pushing for a Section 702 extension that’s longer than 18 months and closer to three years.
The senior White House official also said Thursday the administration has “focused in on potentially having conversations about reforms to the program that we think would strengthen protections for American civil liberties … those conversations are ongoing.”
Jordan, meanwhile, has been helping build support for a clean extension by privately telling some Republicans that, if they can pass this 18-month clean extension now, they could potentially work on warrant reforms later, according to three people with direct knowledge of the discussions. That’s raised some eyebrows internally among House Republicans.
The House delays are leaving barely any time for the Senate to act. Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Thursday that he’s already started having conversations with his own members about what they would need to clear a FISA extension Monday.
Ultimately, even if GOP leaders strike a deal on changes to the current proposed extension, it could risk support for reauthorization among key Democrats, who Republicans will need to pass the final legislation in a narrowly-divided House. While some House Democrats are expected to help Republicans get the final bill across the finish line — including top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut — Democratic leaders have so far declined to shore up the votes for any fast-tracked process.
“I am deeply skeptical of a straightforward extension,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Thursday, adding he told Johnson a few days ago there was “great Democratic skepticism” on a clean extension.
One Democratic Hill aide said Johnson and Trump did far too little to coordinate their pitch with Democrats, who carried a razor-thin vote to re-up the law in 2024.
“They never came to us,” the aide said.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?



