Congress

Capitol agenda: Trump’s intel pick endangers spy powers bill

Published

4 months ago

June 3, 2026

President Donald Trump’s pick of a political ally as acting director of national intelligence could jeopardize the passage of a key government spy powers renewal just as lawmakers were closing in on a deal.

Trump’s choice of Bill Pulte Tuesday evoked the outrage of Democrats and skepticism of some Republicans on Capitol Hill. Pulte has no intelligence background and has used his current perch as a housing finance regulator to push for investigations into Trump’s perceived political enemies.

“His supposed elevation as the acting director of National Intelligence will jeopardize the effort to pass surveillance legislation that was already on life support,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday. “Why in the world should Democrats or any member of Congress trust Donald Trump, Kash Patel, or Bill Pulte with the privacy of the American people?”

Senate Republicans are this week circulating a three-year extension of the spy program and had hoped to begin procedural votes before the weekend. Senate Intelligence Chair Tom Cotton consulted with top panel Democrat Sen. Mark Warner while drafting the bill with Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, in hopes of garnering bipartisan support to ensure passage.

Warner lambasted Pulte during a Senate hearing Tuesday, saying his appointment would make it harder to convince fellow lawmakers to renew Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ahead of its looming June 12 expiration.

The Virginia Democrat said he’s “gotta go and try to convince my Democratic colleagues and frankly some of my Republican colleagues” to support an extension of Section 702 while the administration is putting “somebody in who’s shown no respect for private information, who’s got no experience in national security, to be director of national intelligence.”

Lawmakers have for months punted the legislation, which allows surveillance of foreign individuals abroad, but can inadvertently sweep up Americans’ data. The proposal obtained by POLITICO includes new guardrails and penalties for intelligence abuses but doesn’t include some of the biggest demands made by a bipartisan coalition of privacy hawks.

Pulte made headlines last year for recommending the Department of Justice investigate Democratic lawmakers, Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook and New York Attorney General Letitia James over unproven allegations of mortgage fraud. None of the allegations have led to a conviction.

Key Republicans appeared skeptical of the pick.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday morning if the administration wanted to nominate Pulte for the position permanently “he’s got a lengthy road ahead of him.”

Two senior Senate Republican aides said Pulte could not make it through the Senate. One of the two aides, who like the other was granted anonymity to share details of private conversations, said the general view was that Pulte is far less qualified for the role than his predecessor Tulsi Gabbard, who won confirmation by a slim 52-48 margin.

“This pick is an f u to the IC,” one House Republican lawmaker said, referring to the intelligence community.

Pulte’s new position isn’t the only potential FISA renewal roadblock.

There are also lingering concerns among members of both parties that could threaten passage of a long-term deal. The draft being circulated by Senate Republicans does not contain provisions demanded by privacy hawks requiring federal officials to obtain a warrant before searching for Americans in databases of intelligence obtained abroad. Nor does it prevent law enforcement from buying Americans’ information from data brokers without a warrant.

It does, however, include a three-year ban on the Federal Reserve issuing a digital currency — a gesture toward House Republican hard-liners who have pushed for a permanent ban.

What else we’re watching:

— GOP BRACES FOR POSSIBLE VOTE-A-RAMA: Senate GOP leaders are eager to get going on their immigration enforcement bill — but first they need to know they can get through a landmine of amendment votes related to Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” Thune said in an interview that he is hoping acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s appearance before House appropriators Tuesday would get members comfortable to as soon as Wednesday start the multi-step process to pass the party-line bill. Still, he said, “we’re still trying to figure out how to land the plane.”

— HOUSE VOTING CALENDAR DWINDLES: House lawmakers return to Washington Wednesday after GOP leaders canceled yet another voting day Tuesday, further adding to the divide between the two chambers of Congress in how often they are carrying out their most basic duties. The House gaveled in 241 days during the 119th Congress versus the Senate’s 284 session days, according to a Blue Light News analysis of the Congressional Record.

John Sakellariadis, Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Democratic appropriator wants White House to pay for airing ‘propaganda’

Published

44 minutes ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A group of Senate Democrats are rolling out a bill Thursday to cut funding from the White House budget office any time a president uses taxpayer dollars to pay for anything considered political “propaganda.”

The legislation led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, is unlikely to clear Congress unless Democrats win control of the House and Senate in the midterms. But the language could eventually be included in annual government funding bills and serves in the meantime as a way for Democrats to press their GOP counterparts on President Donald Trump’s ongoing use of federal funding to air campaign-style ads commending the president and his offensive against Iran.

“Congress cannot sit on its hands,” Murray said in a statement, noting that lawmakers in both parties have said in recent days that they oppose the taxpayer-funded ads the Trump administration is defending as “public service announcements.”

The bill would dock the budget of the Office of Management and Budget by $20 million every time an administration violates existing law barring the use of federal funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes.” The head of the Government Accountability Office would be charged with determining if such a violation has occurred.

Congress

Barrage of lawsuits targets Trump’s funding cancellation

Published

4 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s move to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved spending are piling up in courtrooms throughout the country as states and groups that receive federal dollars fight to keep the cash flowing.

In the final hours before the fiscal year ended late Wednesday, a half-dozen states went to federal court to challenge Trump’s latest use of a controversial “pocket rescission.” A group that helps students from migrant families go to college also filed suit, trying to preserve about $25 million in education funding Trump is seeking to claw back.

At least one federal judge so far has been sympathetic to arguments that Trump’s move, which essentially runs out the clock on Congress’ right to evaluate and potentially reject funding clawbacks, could be illegal: U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled late Wednesday to delay the expiration of $56 million for housing support services, temporarily blocking Trump from canceling the money.

The flurry of legal action comes as many lawmakers on Capitol Hill clamor for the courts to strike down Trump’s action as an illegal and unconstitutional encroachment on Congress’ power to dictate how federal cash is spent.

But the fresh lawsuits will not necessarily prompt a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court, which allowed Trump to go ahead last year with withholding $4 billion he canceled through the same budget tactic. The high court argued in that brief unsigned order that the Trump administration had made a strong argument that outside groups may not have legal standing to sue under the decades-old impoundment law.

In the lawsuit Wednesday by six states, the suing parties argue that the president has not only flouted that 1970s law, but also the Constitution and the annual funding bills Congress has enacted over the last year.

The group suing over the cancellation of funding for educating students from migrant families laid out similar arguments, contending that the Trump administration has violated the First Amendment by discriminating based on “protected speech, expressive activities, and viewpoints that are irrelevant to funding or activities” the programs support.

Cobb’s decision, meanwhile, is only temporary. She explained in an emergency order Wednesday that she acted because the suing groups “would lose out on significant amounts of funding due to allegedly unconstitutional actions.”

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

Congress

Centrist Dem’s Supreme Court plan boosts momentum for revamp

Published

11 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic efforts to revamp the Supreme Court gained momentum Thursday as an influential center-left think tank released a plan to limit justices’ terms and misconduct.

Third Way’s proposal, shared first with Blue Light News, highlights growing unity across the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party for significant changes to the high court as Americans’ trust in the institution hovers at historic lows.

The group says it also wants to inject ideas to overhaul the court — including legislation to set an 18-year term limit and an enforceable ethics code — into the party’s conversations leading up to the 2028 presidential race.

“This is one of those things that we think can and should be a part of the 2028 discussion, and those folks who are running should be asked about whether they would champion Supreme Court reform,” Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, said in an interview.

Key Democratic groups have increasingly been coalescing around ideas to overhaul the court’s structure and policing in light of accusations of growing partisanship and corruption among justices. In June, a number of key Democratic House caucus leaders, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released their own resolution calling for term limits for justices and a code of ethics.

“We think that the center left has been remiss in not being forward enough on reform proposals that would make our system work better for people, which is why some folks have gone to the further left,” Erickson said.

Third Way cited public opinion polling from both the Brennan Center for Justice and FOX News indicating more than 70 percent of respondents favored term limits for justices. An 18-year cycle would ensure the appointment of two justices every presidential term.

The group also wants legislation to hold justices accountable for ethics violations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said last month he supports “dramatic reform” on the Supreme Court starting with an ethics code so justices don’t act “above the law.”

The court in 2023 adopted its own formal ethics code for the first time in history, but that policy largely lacks some of the teeth that advocates have proposed.

One idea supported by some Democrats that Third Way is not endorsing: upping the number of justices on the bench. Erickson said that idea seems more like “a mutually assured destruction path,” as parties could go back and forth adding more justices.

The path forward for any court-focused legislation in Congress in the near future, however, is very slim without majorities in both chambers and control of the White House — something Third Way acknowledged.

Still, the group’s recommendations are meant “to show that the center left can also be bold and be addressing systemic problems to appeal to voters and their level of anxiety and anger about what’s happening right now,” Erickson said.