Congress

Republicans hope Mullin will turn the page at DHS from Noem. Democrats aren’t buying it.

Published

6 months ago

March 17, 2026

Republicans lawmakers are hoping that Sen. Markwayne Mullin will rescue the Department of Homeland Security from tumult they felt under outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem — and looking for assurances of that at his confirmation hearing Wednesday.

While Mullin is widely expected to be confirmed, the hearing will be an opportunity for Republicans to hammer home the need to fund DHS as a partial government shutdown enters its fifth week. It will also be a chance for Democrats to press the Oklahoma Republican on any changes he may push to make with the Trump administration’s sweeping crackdown on unauthorized immigration — an approach that an increasing number of Americans disapprove of.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), whose questions helped accelerate Trump’s ousting of Noem, said he wants Mullin to show his leadership, particularly in contrast to Noem.

“I want to hear what Markwayne’s thoughts are with respect to FEMA. I want to hear what Markwayne’s thoughts are with respect to getting managerial control of the agency,” Kennedy told reporters Tuesday. “I want to hear Markwayne’s thoughts on getting money to those areas of our country that have been struck by disaster.”

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) said she’s hoping for better communication between DHS and Congress, explaining that under Noem’s leadership, it was difficult to get answers from DHS.

“In general, you couldn’t get a return phone call from the Department of Homeland Security on anything. And that’s never been the case with any other agency,” Lummis told reporters last week. “So that was a surprising faux pas.”

After President Donald Trump said he would nominate the first-term Oklahoma senator, Republicans hailed the move, with some openly saying a change was needed from Noem’s divisive and controversy-filled tenure atop the department.

Mullin already enjoys the support of some of Noem’s biggest GOP critics — including Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who both called for Noem’s departure after immigration officers in Minneapolis shot and killed two American citizens in January.

Murkowski told reporters Tuesday that Mullin is “pretty conservative,” but added that Mullin has a good sense of “the temperature of Congress and what can and cannot happen” and “what people back home are saying.”

But despite his straightforward path to confirmation, Mullin is still likely to come under fire Wednesday.

Questions continue to swirl about Mullin’s investments and businesses, as his wealth has ballooned since entering Congress. He also may have to bury bygones with the chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). At a recent fundraiser, Mullin called Paul a “snake” for opposing a minibus funding bill.

Democrats are also skeptical that Mullin will pursue any significant policy changes at DHS — in particular changes they’ve demanded to release funding such as banning officers’ use of masks in the field and requiring more training. Only one Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.), has committed to voting for Mullin, arguing he’d be a major improvement from Noem.

A number of Democrats are pessimistic that Mullin will handle immigration enforcement differently than Noem given the continued influence of White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, who also serves as Trump’s homeland security adviser, over that brief.

“It’s really Stephen Miller that’s calling the shots there,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who was one of the Democrats who voted to confirm Noem as DHS chief last year but has said he will not vote for Mullin.

“I don’t trust anybody that’s in that role if Stephen Miller’s just going to continue to dictate what happens,” Kim continued.

Mullin, who has never served on committees with direct oversight of DHS, has largely been in lockstep with the White House on immigration enforcement and other national security issues. He has been seen as an important go-between for both chambers of Congress, as well as between Capitol Hill and the White House during policy discussions.

Mullin notably defended ICE agents after the shootings of two American citizens in Minneapolis by immigration officers, saying “these patriots are doing a difficult job.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Mullin will continue the Trump administration’s main objectives at DHS, which have included reversing “Biden’s border crisis” and deporting “countless dangerous criminal illegal aliens.”

“Sen. Mullin is perfectly suited to lead the Department of Homeland Security and work closely with President Trump to continue building on his many successes,” Jackson said.

Ahead of Mullin’s hearing, his boosters are making the case that his experience in the business world will make him an effective manager at the sprawling department, which manages everything from disaster relief, to immigration enforcement, airport security, the Coast Guard and the Secret Service.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), stressed that background, saying Mullin has “led very successful businesses. He’s led athletic teams” and has been a leader already in the Senate GOP caucus.

Paul and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the top Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, both declined to offer their thoughts on Mullin before the hearing. Peters, however, assured reporters last week the Oklahoma Republican would face “robust” questions.

Among those planning to press Mullin on his views on immigration is Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Blumenthal, who has been at the forefront of pushing for changes at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol after the deaths of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, told reporters Tuesday he hadn’t yet gotten assurances in private meetings with Mullin that the Oklahoma Republican will enact changes at the agency.

“It left me with a very clear impression that he has failed to realize how important reform is and how absolutely necessary change is in that agency,” Blumenthal said of his meeting with Mullin.

Mullin has only been in the Senate for three years, and even his allies acknowledged that he has some gaps in his relationships, given his short tenure to date.

Lummis said Mullin will need to do some outreach to Democrats who have not worked with the lawmaker yet, but praised his energy.

“He bounces off the walls, just in terms of his physical energy levels. He talks fast, and he’s very articulate. He’s great on TV,” Lummis said, adding that leading DHS “probably takes someone with a fairly high amount of energy.”

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

2 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats aren’t letting rogue members off the hook for bucking their party. They hope Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won’t either.

“Obviously, there’s got to be” punishment for the two Democrats who twice this month bucked their party to advance a slate of Republican priorities, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in an interview.

“Otherwise, then,” he said, “it’s open season.”

Democrats are watching closely how — and if — Jeffries doles out consequences for Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington who have twice provided the decisive votes for GOP procedural measures this month. Jeffries and his leadership team condemned the two members when they first defected two weeks ago, slamming a “breach of trust” warranting a “serious response” but have yet to inflict any public consequences.

On Tuesday, they defied leadership a second time, infuriating House Democrats and resurrecting questions about how leadership plans to keep its caucus in line — especially if they have a slim majority next term.

“We have to all be united, and I think it’s pretty simple,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If there’s not [a punishment], I find it hard to see a path forward in the majority, which we’re all pushing for.”

Asked if leadership should punish the two aisle-crossers, Rep. Troy Carter pointed to his time as minority leader of the Louisiana state Senate: “When I had members that did not work within the confines of the philosophical views of our party, I took them off our caucus.”

“I don’t want to second-guess anybody’s timing, but I will tell you that these things cannot allow to fester,” he added. “We have to have a strict message: Either you’re with the team on those fundamental issues of governance or you aren’t.”

Multiple members, including Carter, said that removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the Appropriations Committee should be considered. (While members are just as angry at Golden, they acknowledge he’s beyond punishment given he is retiring at the end of this term.)

“I suspect that there are a number of appropriate consequences that [leaders] could implement,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “And, ultimately, it’s their decision. I certainly don’t want that to be a caucus decision. That should be a leadership decision.”

One leader, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, suggested she is open to removing Gluesenkamp Perez from Appropriations, telling reporters Wednesday morning that “team players get to sit on exclusive committees.”

After the first instance where the two Democrats defected on Sept. 1, Jeffries kicked the matter to a caucus rules panel, saying afterward he wanted to pursue action against the two members “sooner rather than later.” The panel continues to deliberate on what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures.

Jeffries said that week that he’d had a “productive” and “forward-looking” conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez, but he has said much less after Tuesday’s floor drama.

“I’ll have more to say about the issue when I have more to say about the issue,” he told Blue Light News shortly after the vote.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.