Congress
Pence urges Senate to reject RFK Jr. for HHS over abortion stance
Mike Pence is urging Senate Republicans to not confirm Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Health and Human Services secretary, calling his nomination by President-elect Donald Trump “deeply concerning.”
“I believe the nomination of RFK Jr. to serve as Secretary of HHS is an abrupt departure from the pro-life record of our administration and should be deeply concerning to millions of Pro-Life Americans who have supported the Republican Party and our nominees for decades,” Pence said in a statement Friday on behalf of his conservative nonprofit Advancing American Freedom.
During his own bid for president, Kennedy repeatedly emphasized he believes in “a woman’s right to choose” and does not support legislation banning abortion. Kennedy is a “firm supporter” of Roe v. Wade, according to his campaign website, which says “If the courts do not overturn Dobbs v. Jackson and restore abortion rights, he will support legislation to accomplish the same.”
Pence served as Trump’s vice president during his first administration, but their relationship soured after the Indiana Republican moved to certify the 2020 election for President Joe Biden. Since then, he has publicly disagreed with Trump and the Republican party on policy positions, especially leaving abortion up to the states instead of favoring a national ban.
In the statement, Pence said the agency Trump tapped Kennedy to lead makes “hundreds of decisions” daily “that either lead our nation toward a respect for life or away from it.”
“If confirmed, RFK, Jr. would be the most pro-abortion Republican appointed secretary of HHS in modern history,” Pence said in the statement.
There’s cautious optimism that Congress can pass a bill by year’s end to overhaul the federal permitting process for energy projects — even from the man who failed twice to land a deal.
“I think it’s well past 50%” that it gets signed into law, said former Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia in a recent interview. He was referring to a deal his ex-colleagues have reached with the White House on legislation that would make it easier to build out the nation’s electric grid, prohibit any administration from trying to block certain projects and set less stringent deadlines for conducting environmental reviews.
“I really think President [Donald] Trump will sign, knowing that they’ve worked it hard. Knowing that both sides have worked hard on it — I think he will,” he said. “And I believe the Republican delegation will be able to explain to him how important and how good this is.”
A West Virginia Democrat-turned-independent, Manchin long championed “permitting reform” — a bureaucratic catchphrase that was once a Republican priority known largely among energy policy wonks, but which has since evolved to become a shared bipartisan goal.
Manchin drove that evolution, popularizing the concept in 2022 when he forced Democratic leaders to promise him a vote on the topic in exchange for taking the party’s big climate law off life support.
The effort failed as climate activists and their progressive Hill allies revolted, saying Manchin’s framework would disproportionately favor oil and gas projects over renewables; a follow-up attempt in 2024 again fell short, with many House Republicans uninterested in striking a deal on transmission policy.
Manchin retired in 2025; he is currently serving on the Bipartisan Policy Center’s energy advisory council while raising money for independent candidates for elected office. He has also remained engaged in the permitting debate, saying he continues to speak with some of the senators involved in crafting the overhaul package currently on the table.
His biggest piece of advice: “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Senate negotiators released a permitting framework before breaking for recess ahead of the midterms; it builds on your past bipartisan proposals on this topic. What do you think?
I’m tickled to death. I hope they make it. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, as it has always been. Everybody wants a little bit more … but it’s something we’ve worked on for a long time.
Have you talked to any Democrats about this?
Everyone feels good about it. [New Mexico Democratic Sen.] Martin [Heinrich] feels good; I’ve talked to Martin. I’ve talked to [Colorado Sen.] John Hickenlooper, talked to [California Sen.] Alex Padilla, my friends here and there. They think it’s moving in the right direction.
Any advice for Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who may have to wrestle with conflicting viewpoints in his caucus?
I trust [Rhode Island Democratic Sen.] Sheldon Whitehouse, and he’s all gung-ho on it. I think Sheldon carries a lot of weight there. [Hawaii Democratic Sen.] Brian Schatz carries an awful lot of weight in that community. I’m sure Chuck has been kept in the loop … I’m hoping we’re good in the Senate.
The thing that bothers me is — I remember in 2024, we tried like the dickens to get it done before the election. Once there’s an election, everyone starts flexing muscles and they think they’re King Kong and just things change.
You last tried to push a deal during the 2024 lame-duck session, after Republicans had just won a governing trifecta. Why do you think it fell apart?
[House Natural Resources Chair] Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) is one of the most competent, one of the most compassionate people I’ve dealt with — and Bruce just said his people wanted a lot more. And I said, “Bruce, we’re giving you a bipartisan bill that we did in the Senate.” But at that time, he was unable to get that because House Republicans said, “we just won everything,” and they just made it impossible for him to make the deal.
Do you think House Republicans will be more amenable this time around, even though they haven’t yet signed off on the agreement brokered in the Senate?
I don’t think they’re going to have the trifecta after this November election. I don’t think they’ll have the House and the Senate; let’s say that one of them flips. It would be advantageous for the president to say, “God, let’s take what we got right now, move forward. Let’s make it happen.” That would be very smart of them … to have that part of the legacy.
So you think a Democratic clean sweep in the midterms could boost the chance of passing a permitting bill?
I really do. Because if [Republicans] have the trifecta again after this … the House would have no incentive at all. And it looks like the toxic atmosphere that we have, and the power of the parties — that’s not the foremost thing that they are worried about. They are worried about their party power.
But what about the Democrats who don’t trust the Trump administration to make good on promises to allow clean energy projects to move forward?
The hardcore left have to realize that we need all the energy we possibly can muster up. You can’t get rid of coal. Coal will be probably eliminated because of the pure cost of it today, but natural gas is a major component of what’s needed for our country. Nuclear is coming on now. We’ve got to have the infrastructure, and I think if you’re coming from the environmental community or coming from the fossil community, we both realize that.
Is there anything you wish you had done differently in 2024?
If anything, I hope my friends on both sides understand: You work on what you can, agree on what you can, agree on what you know that both sides will accept and pass that. The lame duck is going to be the last best chance you have to get something moving in the right direction.
SANDUSKY, Ohio — After four years in a GOP-controlled chamber rocked by a speaker revolt, unchecked factional conflicts and routine floor meltdowns, Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur stood before a crowd of campaign supporters and described a different kind of House majority.
Standing beside her inside a lakeside surf bar was Rep. Katherine Clark, the No. 2 party leader who, Kaptur said, would restore “a sense of order” to the House if Democrats prevail in the midterms — putting Clark in line to be the first woman to serve as majority leader.
“To handle a couple hundred members of Congress is no kid job,” Kaptur said. “And I just cannot wait. We have so much disorder in the House now.”
That was a small nod to Clark’s emerging reputation as the Democratic Caucus’ enforcer — a tall, steely lawyer from Massachusetts who is unafraid of stern conversations on the House floor as minority whip — and the much bigger job she could have ahead of her.
If a Democratic majority materializes, it will include committed progressives like Clark herself, as well as “majority-maker” moderates and a crop of new leftist lawmakers, some of whom identify as democratic socialists. Clark and the party’s top leader, Hakeem Jeffries, are intent on squelching any infighting and keeping the House focused on an affordability and accountability agenda that will pave the way for a presidential win in 2028.
To that end, Clark has spent the recent weeks traveling the country and building relationships with a broad range of current and potential future lawmakers — including this northern Ohio swing.
“This isn’t going to be my-way-or-the-highway from any one given group,” she said in an interview, describing what she’s heard. “We’re not always going to agree. People disagree with calls I make as the whip all the time, but the point is to understand the caucus, pull us together on those common values and threads.”
The members, in turn, credit Clark with listening while recognizing the challenge of managing an ideologically diverse group of Democrats with diverging views on what exactly governing means.
“Part of doing that job well is getting to know the members,” said Rep. Emilia Sykes, whom Clark visited in her Akron-area district. “What makes them tick? Where you can push them to where you need them to be or not need them to be, and you only get that from getting to know people well.”
Kaptur, a moderate who would be the longest-serving House Democrat if she can win reelection, said she believed Clark is well equipped to “keep order in the House, get our business done on time.”
It’s a notable vote of confidence from a member in a working-class swing district quite unlike the highly upscale, highly educated, highly liberal Boston suburbs Clark herself represents — and especially because she has not been shy in recent months about expressing her views on flashpoint issues.
When Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced an amendment to end State Department aid to Israel, Clark was the top-ranking Democrat to agree — breaking with Jeffries and telling POLITICO at the time it was an opportunity “to say clearly that the status quo is not acceptable.”
About half of House Democrats sided with Clark, exposing a significant fault line that Republicans are sure to exploit if they land in the minority.
When asked about how the caucus would handle the Israel issue in the majority, Clark declined to outline a position, deferring to Jeffries and calling the topic an “ongoing discussion.”
“It’s not an easy one,” she said, “but I think that Hakeem has been clear that we, as the new Congress, are going to come together and decide where we want to move with that, and I think that’s the right approach.”
On another major left-wing litmus test for leaders — promoting “Medicare for All” legislation — Clark has a long history of support. Jeffries has also supported the measure but has faced criticism for not committing to putting the legislation up for a vote.
Clark, too, stopped short of guaranteeing a vote.
“Medicare for All means different things to different people, and I think what the specific legislative vehicle is, is yet to be decided,” Clark said. “Which particular bill or model we go for is yet to be determined, and every idea is one that’s on the table.”
Making a plan to confront tough issues is one thing, getting members to stick with the team is another, and Clark has been tested recently on that front.
After two Democrats — Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Jared Golden of Maine — joined with Republicans on a key procedural vote last month, essentially helping Speaker Mike Johnson out of a pickle, Clark reacted sharply — suggesting that Gluesenkamp Perez should lose her seat on the coveted Appropriations Committee. (Golden is retiring.)
The move was in line with her job as party whip, and it channeled the fury of many rank-and-file Democrats. But no punishment has been publicly announced for Gluesenkamp Perez amid a larger review of caucus rules around party discipline, and Jeffries told reporters last month there was “no daylight” between Democratic leaders on the matter.
Clark’s predecessor as No. 2 Democratic leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said that while “whip” might be in the job title, managing a legislative caucus can require a soft touch. He repeated advice he’d been given by one of his own political mentors.
“Don’t go through life in the rearview mirror,” he said. “What happened yesterday happened yesterday. What happens today makes a difference. … If you’re the minority leader or the whip, you need somebody the next day all the time.”
Asked if she is the “enforcer” on the Democratic leadership team, Clark emphasized she is not the sole disciplinarian but acknowledged that managing a caucus can require a firm hand.
“There are times when each of us takes on that role, and certainly in the whip position, that’s part of my job,” she said, adding that her general approach “is one of understanding where people are.”
Others have recognized her ability to play hardball, however. Rep. Sara Jacobs of California, who attended an Akron women’s conference with Sykes, told attendees that Clark has been an effective advocate in negotiations over child care funding.
“She’s fierce when she needs to be,” Jacobs said.
Clark herself cited caregiving — for children, the aging and the disabled — as a place she is looking to make a mark. Blocs of moderate and progressive Democrats have both outlined plans to tackle the issue in the next Congress.
“These are the issues that I can bring in a very different way to the leadership table and help influence the policies that are coming to the floor,” she said. “So there’s a lot to learn from predecessors, but no woman’s ever been a majority leader, and I really look forward to being able to bring a unique lens to that work.”
Two prominent Senate Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to review the disbarment of John Eastman for helping orchestrate the plot to overturn the 2020 election for President Donald Trump.
It’s the latest effort from Senate Judiciary Committee members to mitigate the fallout from the election subversion effort that ended in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.
Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, who is poised to be the top Republican on the panel next Congress, and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, wrote in a brief filed with the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the decision to Eastman’s license to practice law in California was a result of political activists weaponizing the bar disciplinary process against attorneys on “the disfavored side of public controversies.”
“An unpopular or even losing legal argument does not equal professional unfitness,” Lee and Cruz wrote.
The senators also argued that a state’s disagreement with an attorney’s reasonable judgment can’t be grounds for punishment and could have a chilling effect: “Zealous advocacy will disappear if professional survival depends on whether bar regulators later agree with an attorney’s legal analysis.”
Eastman, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, was identified by Biden-era special counsel Jack Smith as a co-conspirator in Trump’s alleged criminal plot to hang onto power in 2020. The attorney was criminally charged in Georgia and Arizona for his role in the scheme, and in April he was disbarred.
Lee, in correspondence uncovered by the now-disbanded House committee to investigate the attacks on Jan. 6, told Trump lawyer Cleta Mitchell that “Jan. 6 is a dangerous idea … Not just for the republic itself, but also for the president.” The senator was outlining that no court or state legislature had backed Trump’s effort to prove he had, in fact, won the election contest against Joe Biden and didn’t see Congress as a fitting backstop.
Smith testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September, where Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called for Smith to also be disbarred.
Kyle Cheney contributed to this report.
- Joe Manchin says he’s ‘tickled to death’ — over a deal on permitting reform
- Why Democrats are looking to Katherine Clark to bring ‘order’ to the House
- 2 Senate Republicans tell Supreme Court to review John Eastman’s disbarment over Jan. 6
- Whatley campaign is currently dark on TV as GOP groups retreat from North Carolina
- ‘I think Alaska’s turning blue’: Republicans fret Sullivan’s path to reelection
- Minnesota worries it’s not getting back $259 million Trump froze
- Capitol agenda: Some Republicans write off the House
- Google’s biggest AI problem is the power grid
- In private, top Republicans believe the House is a lost cause
- Ossoff says he has ‘zero interest in running for president’
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words