The White House on Friday published a long-awaited policy wishlist for artificial intelligence regulation that it hopes Congress will codify into law.

The light-touch federal framework blends the Trump administration’s effort to create a national AI rulebook on issues like political bias within models and reducing barriers to innovation with protections for children and teens online.

It urges Congress to overrule state AI laws that the administration says “impose undue burdens,” in favor of the “minimally burdensome” federal law that it’s recommending. The Trump administration has been trying to establish preemption over state AI laws using Congress and executive order for roughly a year, arguing that the patchwork of laws harms AI innovation.

The blueprint explicitly calls on Congress to preempt any state laws that regulate the way models are developed or that penalize companies for the way their AI is used by others, and instructs U.S. lawmakers not to create any new federal agencies to regulate AI.

It also outlines some areas where the federal government’s laws wouldn’t overrule those of the states, and asks Congress to allow states to keep laws that protect children, including those that ban AI-generated child sexual abuse material.

Trump administration officials have sought to gather support from Republican lawmakers for a light-touch approach to AI regulation in recent months. It’s unlikely, however, to receive bipartisan support in Congress.

Get ready for a rare working weekend in the Senate with no break in sight.

Majority Leader John Thune is keeping senators at the Capitol the next few days to continue debating an all-but-doomed elections bill and advance nominees. Senators may have to work through the following weekend as well if the Department of Homeland Security is still shut down, threatening their planned two-week recess.

“I’m not excited about it,” one GOP senator told Blue Light News.

In the meantime, the Senate is expected to vote again Friday on a DHS funding bill that will fail.

— ‘SAVE’ action Saturday: Senators will likely vote Saturday on an amendment to the SAVE America Act that would ban transgender women from participating in women’s sports — a demand from President Donald Trump that isn’t in the House-passed bill. The amendment will almost certainly fail to reach the necessary 60 votes, given Democrats are likely unified in their opposition. Keep an eye on which Republicans vote against the amendment.

The Senate could also consider Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s procedural gambit to force a vote that’s tangentially related to TSA funding. The effort would need 60 votes, meaning it will likely fail. Republicans could try to kill it before Saturday.

— Mullin vote Sunday: The Senate will then take its first vote on Sunday to move forward with Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s (R-Okla.) nomination to become DHS secretary, after he cleared a committee vote Thursday morning.

Mullin should be on a glidepath to confirmation. Republican senators believe Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) beef is personal and doesn’t reflect a larger issue among GOP senators. The question is how many Democrats will vote for their soon-to-be former colleague as the DHS funding impasse goes on. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the sole Democrat who helped advance him out of committee.

The Senate will also vote likely Sunday to confirm Colin McDonald to be assistant attorney general for national fraud enforcement.

— Recess at risk: Next week isn’t looking much better for the Senate schedule. Absent a DHS deal, Thune said Thursday the Senate won’t leave for its two-week recess.

“We’ll find out very quickly, I think, if the Dems want to make a deal,” Thune told Blue Light News Thursday night. “I think there’s deal space there. … We just got to find out how serious the Democrats are.”

A DHS funding agreement doesn’t appear likely any time soon. A group of bipartisan senators left a meeting with White House border czar Tom Homan Thursday afternoon with few signs of progress.

Thune said Republicans are waiting to see if rank-and-file Democrats can get “permission” to negotiate a DHS agreement, suggesting GOP senators see the path out of the shutdown through the same group that solved last year’s funding fight. But another person granted anonymity to discuss Thursday’s closed-door meeting said it wouldn’t enable Republicans to pick off one-or-two Democrats at a time.

“I’m glad the White House was here, but we are a long ways apart,” Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told reporters leaving the meeting.

Congressional Republicans are confronting serious doubts they can pass Iran war funding on their own, especially as the potential price tag balloons into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The alternative — relying on a handful of Democrats to push it through the Senate — doesn’t look any more likely as Middle East hostilities expand, energy prices rise and more Democratic lawmakers dig in against an unpopular war.

In recent weeks, some in the GOP floated using the party-line budget reconciliation process to give the Pentagon a slug of new money without needing to gather 60 votes in the Senate. But the revelation that a war funding request could reach $200 billion has quickly cooled those hopes, given the political complications of finding offsets for the spending and the procedural gyrations it would require.

“It’s such a contortion to make things fit in reconciliation that there’s probably a preference for regular order,” Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an interview.

The fresh doubts come on top of long-running warnings from at-risk Republican lawmakers that pursuing another party-line bill could force them into a politically painful position in the months ahead of the midterms. Spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on the war could lead Republicans to further slash safety-net programs as they did in last year’s “big, beautiful bill” — creating a messaging bonanza for Democrats.

“It’s not going to happen,” one House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said of a second reconciliation bill. “Certain people have to talk about it as a possibility and keep the issue alive.”

But many House Republicans argue that a party-line bill is the only viable option to deliver the war funding President Donald Trump wants.

As they quietly consider whether to send more U.S. troops to the Middle East, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth each declined Thursday to dispute reports that the Pentagon is seeking a $200 billion request after it was first reported by the Washington Post.

“It’s a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy-top,” the president said in the Oval Office, adding that the military needs “vast amounts of ammunition” to fulfill its mission in Iran and elsewhere around the globe.

House GOP leaders and committee chairs discussed the possibility of adding military funding to a potential party-line bill during a closed-door meeting at their policy retreat in Florida last week.

“Can we accomplish his priorities in regular order in appropriations? I think it would be unlikely, because I don’t think Democrats are interested in supporting military spending right now,” House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), a longtime reconciliation cheerleader, said in an interview this week.

At the moment, “unlikely” is underselling the depth of Democrats’ aversion to funding the war. Even those senators who aren’t summarily ruling out support for an emergency funding bill say they would not possibly entertain it under the current circumstances.

“I’ve got to see the details,” said Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “To be honest, it’s going to be hard for me to support it because I think this war was a mistake, wasn’t justified, hasn’t been supported by the Congress.”

The sky-high $200 billion figure — which exceeds the Pentagon funding in last year’s GOP reconciliation bill and is higher than any supplemental funding bill enacted in the post-9/11 era — has some Republican hard-liners eager to pursue another budget reconciliation bill. Many argue it would pave the way for big cuts to domestic spending they oppose, including potentially Medicaid and other social programs.

“It would be very difficult to pass a very large supplemental without it being paid for,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “There are hundreds of billions of dollars we can still save in fraud, waste and abuse in reconciliation.”

Senate GOP appropriators are hoping to build bipartisan buy-in for Pentagon funding and see disaster aid and farm assistance as potential sweeteners for Democrats. Others are now floating attaching Ukraine aid, something with broad Democratic support and uneven GOP buy-in.

Still others, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), simply want to dare Democrats to vote against funding the military. “I’d hate to be the senator who denied the request … because you’ve got troops in harm’s way,” he said.

So far, most Democrats do not appear to be cowed by the threats or interested in horse-trading.

“Look, pinning us against our own interests isn’t something I’ll support,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a strong advocate for Ukraine aid.

House GOP leaders declined to tip their hand Thursday as they awaited a formal request from the White House, as well as Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget plan. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said war funding would be a matter of “negotiation” at some point, “but it hasn’t started yet.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) cautioned that the discussions are “all speculative” for the time being while acknowledging reconciliation “might be the only way” to get Pentagon money through the Senate.

Across the Capitol, top Senate Republicans aren’t yet seriously considering trying to pass war funding on party lines — underscoring the longstanding split between House and Senate GOP leaders over how far they should go to pursue an election-year reconciliation bill.

The reticence among some Senate Republicans, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private thinking, is that there isn’t yet a clear proposal that could get 50 GOP votes. Conservatives, they say, are floating an array of proposals that don’t have broader buy-in and could run afoul of the Senate’s strict reconciliation guidelines. And they expect a second bill would reopen the party’s old wounds over offsetting spending cuts.

“I’ll try and insist that we pay for it,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of the party’s loudest deficit hawks.

But without a party-line package, Senate Republicans will have to convince enough Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold, and they appear to be nowhere close.

“This administration needs to tell Congress definitely what they’re doing and how long this is going to take,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Appropriations Democrat. “We’re not going to write them a blank check.”

Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.