Congress

D.C. delegate candidates pledge to raise their voice after Norton’s long fade

Published

5 months ago

May 18, 2026

The fight for voting rights, self-governance and eventual statehood for the nation’s capital has had one consistent national face for nearly three decades: House Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Now the 88-year-old Democrat is retiring after having been a diminished presence in recent years, and the candidates to replace her in Congress are debating how to redefine a job that comes with little concrete power but a significant public megaphone.

They are seeking to balance the need to be an aggressive national advocate as President Donald Trump chips away at the District of Columbia’s autonomy with the delegate’s historical role as a behind-the-scenes operator who works inside the halls of Congress to get things done on the city’s behalf.

Norton, who came of age in the Civil Rights Movement, saw success on both fronts. She helped engineer aid for the city in the 1990s and secure local control of key federal property, among other lobbying triumphs. She also occasionally garnered national attention for the city’s status — including multiple viral appearances on “The Colbert Report.”

But Norton has hardly been a cable-news fixture or social-media standout, and many of the younger candidates to replace her are hoping to change that.

“I believe that, where we are in history, the delegate needs to have a higher national profile,” Robert White, one of two D.C. Council members in the race, said in an interview. “Because people can’t support an issue that they don’t understand, so I need to make sure the rest of the nation understands D.C.”

Brooke Pinto — the other local legislator who, like White, is considered a front-runner — played up the communications demands while also saying the more prosaic parts of the job cannot be neglected.

“This seat has to be held by someone who can manage that legislative process and build those coalitions,” Pinto said, “but also can be an effective and authentic messenger to people across the city, across the country and across the world.”

Pinto, 33, and White, 44, are battling ahead of the June 16 election for the Democratic nomination — which tends to guarantee victory in the deep-blue District — alongside former federal nuclear regulator Greg Jaczko, former Norton aide Trent Holbrook and former Justice Department and DNC official Kinney Zalesne. It is the first time since 1990 that Norton won’t be on the ballot.

The victor will inherit what is both one of the most consequential political offices in the District and one of the least inherently powerful. Delegates do not get a vote on the House floor, denying them the foundation of political clout in the House, but Norton was able to carve out spheres of influence on the Oversight and Transportation committees and as a key intermediary on matters involving the city.

“Most of the power is not in law, it is in tradition,” White said. “If the next person stepping into the role doesn’t know where the power is, it’s gone, and it will take at best several decades to reaccumulate it.”

But Trump’s recent hardball moves — including commandeering the D.C. police department for a time and sending in National Guard troops to patrol the city, not to mention undermining the city’s economy by decimating the federal workforce — have put more emphasis on resistance tactics than backroom operating.

Pinto said she would bring D.C. residents into other states to educate them on the city’s unique issues, arguing there must be electoral consequences for lawmakers who fail to support D.C.

“We have to really support our friends who are pro-D.C. statehood,” she said. “And we have to make clear to people who are not supportive that they are not on this team.”

Statehood has long been the north star for D.C. activists, but it has not been a front-burner issue for national Democrats. Norton spent years pursuing efforts to gain only partial congressional voting rights for the city but later engineered a pair of successful House votes backing statehood, which was also added to the 2024 Democratic platform.

While D.C. statehood would mean adding two likely Democrats to the Senate as well as a full member of the House, party leaders have not fully embraced the issue — even when they last controlled Congress and the White House under former President Joe Biden.

Several candidates said they would be pushing their fellow Democrats to put the District closer to the top of the party’s priority list.

“D.C. issues are on the list of Democratic priorities, but they’re never at the top,” Zalesne, 59, said. “So in order to elevate our issues, we have a lot of relationship-building to do and a lot of advocacy and persuasion to do.”

Holbrook, 40, said in an interview he would “be a little bit more aggressive in calling out people who attack our home rule, especially the Democratic side.”

Zalesne is leaning heavily on her party-insider cred in her campaign, touting endorsements from Democratic Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia and Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey.

White has the backing of PACs affiliated with the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus, as well as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), while Pinto has the support of Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.).

White has also talked about campaigning in swing districts and targeting lawmakers who have gone after the city. But he is also making the case that Democratic Party leaders should embrace D.C. statehood as a way to offset recent GOP political hardball: If Democrats can invest in redistricting to gain a political edge, he argued, why shouldn’t they also promote statehood?

The new delegate will have to build close ties with a relatively new House Democratic leadership team fronted by New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who has consistently voted to protect D.C.’s autonomy but said little about expanding it.

The irony is that many of the District’s biggest congressional wins in recent decades have come only with the participation of Republicans. A longtime Norton goal — transferring the land under RFK Stadium to city control for development — occurred in 2024 with the backing of scores of GOP lawmakers.

That has candidates like Pinto appreciating the tightrope Norton walked for so many years, even as they pledge to inject more energy into the office she held.

“I really want to build on that legacy, and I also recognize that in 2026 … with a hyperpartisan political environment, we also have to do things a little bit differently,” Pinto said.

Congress

Capitol agenda: The unknowns of a Sherrod Brown return

Published

2 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats may be rooting for Sherrod Brown’s comeback, but they are not exactly prepared for what’d happen next.

If Brown wins on Election Day, Democrats likely face an uncomfortable choice: break longstanding party rules to restore his seniority on powerful committees like Banking, Agriculture and Finance or potentially make him start over at the bottom.

Complicating the issue: Brown will immediately need to prepare for a grueling re-election fight in 2028 and his campaign could greatly benefit from two years with a high-profile gavel. That’s because this midterm is Ohio’s special election where voters are selecting a senator to serve out the remainder of Vice President JD Vance‘s term.

Brown’s post, therefore, may not only deeply impact Democrats’ policy agenda but could also play a key role in the party’s success in winning the battleground seat in 2028.

Some members are already suggesting the party should try to find a middle ground.

“Some accommodation that recognizes he would not be a rank freshman would make sense. But that’s distinct from handing him back a leadership role at Banking,” said Sen. Chris Coons.

The Ohio Democrat served as the top Democrat on the Banking panel for a decade. He was also a longtime member of Finance as well as Agriculture, where he would also be the most senior member if his previous service counted.

To give Brown a gavel on Agriculture or Banking could set up clashes with the Democrats now expected to lead their party on the panels: Sens. Michael Bennet and Elizabeth Warren, respectively.

It would also break Senate Democrats’ caucus rules, and precedent is not on Brown’s side when it comes to making exceptions.

Still, aides and lobbyists around the panels expect Democrats will be eager to give Brown some sort of perch.

Those close to him have been encouraging him to seek the Agriculture gavel. It’d allow him to deliver valuable policy wins for Ohio’s rural areas, influence the farm bill if it gets punted to next year and help guide the direction of cryptocurrency regulation.

Another possibility that avoids an intraparty clash: hand Brown a seat on Appropriations, which could potentially give him a subcommittee gavel and federal funding clout.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has avoided any firm commitments on Brown’s seniority, saying last month when asked: “Let’s win back the Senate first.”

What else we’re watching:

— OMAR RAID RAISES QUESTIONS FOR GOP: House Republicans — including Majority Whip Tom Emmer — have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of GOP boogeyman Rep. Ilhan Omar. But the raid raises thorny questions for GOP leaders about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself — regardless of party — from encroaching federal prosecutors. Lawmakers’ work communications are protected from prosecutors’ scrutiny, with few exceptions, under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That draws into question whether the emails, texts, and materials on Omar’s phone, which was seized in the raid, could legally be reviewed by Trump officials. So far, Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on how the House’s legal team may defend Omar.

— TRUMP’S TRICKY FARM MONEY PROMISE: Trump’s move Monday to turn out GOP voters by promising to send farmers $8 billion in taxpayer money is already facing a reality check. The internal USDA taxpayer-funded account Trump is tapping doesn’t actually have enough money in it right now to make the payments, meaning Congress will have to approve new funds or the administration will have to take it from another program, according to three Trump officials granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Plus, farmers wouldn’t receive the payments until late November or early December at the earliest — well past Election Day, according to three people close to the plans.

Jasper Goodman, Grace Yarrow, Kyle Cheney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

This member is so frustrated with Congress he wants voters to sidestep it

Published

2 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

At the end of one of the least productive Congresses in modern history, freshman Rep. Johnny Olszewski is so sick of the gridlock on Capitol Hill that he wants voters to bypass it entirely.

“It’s been a long two years,” the Maryland Democrat said in a Tuesday interview.

“One of the things that’s made it difficult as a new member is to see not only the dysfunction, but also the missed opportunities,” he added. “There are so many issues out there that Americans support that this Congress and frankly prior Congresses have failed to act on.”

Fed up with the lack of progress on popular policies like banning congressional stock trading, equipping police with body cameras or protecting in vitro fertilization, Olszewski is introducing a constitutional amendment Thursday, first shared with POLITICO, that would create a mechanism for voters to make federal law directly.

The measure would give voters 18 months to gather signatures from at least 5% of people who participated in the most recent presidential election in 25 states. Then any qualifying direct-democracy measure would be put on ballots for the next national election and need a 60% national majority to pass.

Votes to declare war or direct federal spending would not be eligible under the proposal.

“If we were acting, there’d be no need for this to come into play,” Olszewski said. “It would create a really important backstop for the American people to say, ‘You know what … irrespective of which party is in power, Congress is failing to meet not just our everyday needs but act on issues that we overwhelmingly support and want to see acted upon.’”

The amendment — which itself would require support from two-thirds of the House and Senate as well as three-quarters of states — is an incredible longshot and would create serious implementation headaches, but Olszewski — a former civics teacher — hopes his proposal will spark a discussion about congressional reform.

“I understand that any constitutional amendment is going to be difficult,” Olszewski said. “But I’m hopeful that at least for the lame duck session, this is an opportunity to create a conversation around the fact that we have been so gridlocked that we have failed to address the needs of the American people.”

Congress

The House GOP’s imminent decision on the Omar raid

Published

2 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Republicans have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar. But underneath the posturing, the raid raises thorny nonpartisan questions about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself from encroaching federal prosecutors.

The Department of Homeland Security investigators who raided Omar’s Washington home last week were searching for evidence related to the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration history. But they also emerged in possession of her personal phone, which likely includes a trove of records related to Omar’s work at the Capitol — records that both parties have a strong interest in keeping private.

Lawmakers use their cellphones and computers to communicate with aides about upcoming votes, committee hearings and drafting or filing legislation. They text and email colleagues about the work of the House. And they talk to constituents, advisers, attorneys and experts about crucial congressional decisions. The Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause makes such material absolutely immune from scrutiny by federal prosecutors, with few exceptions.

The founders adopted those protections to ensure the executive branch could not use its law enforcement power to punish or coerce opponents in Congress. That principle has united Democrats and Republicans, even in this hyperpolarized era.

Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on the speech-or-debate implications of the Omar raid, but the House has sometimes taken weeks or months to articulate a position in other recent investigations.

A letter from Omar’s attorneys to the Justice Department, reviewed by Blue Light News, suggested that the magistrate judge who approved the search ordered investigators to contact the House’s top lawyer, Matthew Berry, giving him a chance to intervene on behalf of the institution. Berry’s office has been in contact with Trump administration counterparts in recent days, according to two people familiar with the investigation.

The people, who were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the probe publicly, say investigators have not yet accessed Omar’s phone. If they choose to attempt to access it, they must first give Omar a chance to review its contents and assert speech-or-debate protections, with a court ultimately deciding which materials investigators may access.

A representative for the Justice Department declined to comment. Representatives for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Johnson and Omar did not respond to requests for comment.

The administration’s targeting of Omar comes amid a series of actions the Trump-led Justice Department has taken against Democratic members of Congress: a failed effort to indict Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with several House members, over comments encouraging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders; criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer during a visit to a New Jersey detention facility.

It also comes amid continued GOP outrage over former special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to gather some material related to Republican members of Congress in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

The House’s official legal positions are determined by an obscure five-member body known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG. The BLAG is made up of the speaker, majority leader, majority whip, minority leader and minority whip. That panel, always controlled by the majority party, charts the House’s course in court. And while most of the BLAG’s recent decisions have broken 3-2 along partisan lines, speech-or-debate issues have sometimes resulted in unanimous agreement.

Berry has seen this movie before: In 2022, federal investigators seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to scrutinize his role in President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. The Justice Department’s aggressive action drew a bipartisan response from House leaders, who demanded access to the sealed proceedings to ensure prosecutors didn’t cross any constitutional lines. And shortly after Republicans returned to the majority in 2023, Jeffries and Minority Whip Katherine Clark joined GOP leaders and supported Berry’s filing of a 36-page brief demanding robust protection of materials seized from lawmakers’ cellphones.

That case resulted in a new precedent that treats lawmakers’ personal cellphones as an extension of their private offices. It took more than a year of litigation before those investigators, later led by Smith, were able to access a subset of Perry’s records that were deemed to fall outside of Congress’ constitutional protections.

Stan Brand, a former House counsel who represented Perry in the legal battle against Smith’s team, noted that the backdrop of Omar situation is strikingly similar to one of the most significant constitutional clashes between the House and Justice Department: the 2006 raid of then-Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office by George W. Bush-era prosecutors. At the time, GOP House leaders joined Democrats in outrage over the raid.

Notably, the DHS investigators who carried out last week’s search presented Omar with a “speech or debate” waiver that she refused to sign, according to the letter from Omar’s attorneys. Courts have expressed skepticism about whether individual members can waive protections that were intended to safeguard the separation of powers for the entire institution.

“This is just one more example of excess in the Department of Justice under both Democrats and Republicans,” Brand said.

Senate Republicans have also accused the Justice Department under President Joe Biden of violating their speech-or-debate protections when Smith subpoenaed their phone records — which don’t include the content of texts or emails — from third-party telecom companies like Verizon. One GOP senator is suing Smith and the Justice Department over the matter, and DOJ has since adopted new policies for third-party subpoenas related to members of Congress.

Riley Rogerson and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.