Congress
Hochul talks House races, Mamdani and Albany struggles
ALBANY, New York — Gov. Kathy Hochul wants to prove she can be a strong top of the ticket this year to sweep down-ballot Democrats into office and help her party regain control of the House.
The stakes are high for the moderate Democrat, who took office five years ago Monday and has worked to build an anemic state party apparatus into something more formidable. Yet she must also contend with the success of candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America who have defeated institutional Democrats this year — victories that stand to upend the establishment’s plans to compete in purple areas of New York.
Unlike some moderate Democrats who are trying to halt the socialists’ advance, Hochul has taken a big-tent view of the party.
“I think the party is broad. It’s vast, but there are still a lot of people outside our urban areas who would view themselves as more traditional Democrats in the sense of FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton and Obama and Biden,” she told Blue Light News in an interview Monday. “But if, in certain districts, the democratic socialist brand is more appealing, and they think it stands for something that they want to support, my job is to make it all work out. I work with everybody, whoever the voters want.”
Hochul sat down with Blue Light News Monday to discuss her five years in office, how she’s pushing for House Democrats and the role New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani will play in her reelection bid.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What has been your biggest challenge in the last five years?
Overcoming inertia here in Albany. There have been so many times when I want to just be, you know, take bold action and do what’s right, and not have institutional opposition to so many of our grand plans. I’ve had to work through that. Overall, I’d say the biggest challenge is just having to navigate, and then also to have breakthroughs, and that sometimes leads to conflict.
I don’t mind conflict if the result is better for New Yorkers than the status quo. So I think it’s partially my impatience and my desire to shake up the status quo — felt sometimes it was running into a brick wall, and then I had to dismantle that brick wall.
Who’s to blame for that institutional inertia at this point? Is it part of the climate?
There’s all kinds of lobbyists and advocates and interest groups and legislators with specific agendas, and it’s the whole ecosystem of Albany. There have been dramatic improvements since it was labeled probably the most — what did they call it?
The most dysfunctional in the country.
The most dysfunctional in the country, and I think the two [legislative] leaders that we have now have worked hard to eliminate that reputation. But beyond just elected officials, there’s just a lot of institutional, strong interests out there that conspire against changing the status quo, and I am hardwired to drive for change. I’m not complaining. I did it, but if I thought about what was a challenge, that was a challenge. But we’re overcoming it. We have overcome it in many specific instances.
I know the car insurance changes were part of that frustration. Anything else kind of fell under that inertia?
Anything we wanted to do with the State Education Department. We wanted to change how we teach literacy, and it was 20 years of a debunked theory that other states had walked away from, but it was not walked away from here.
My cell phone ban — that was not embraced by institutional interests here, and there’s organizations that at first were very resistant. Teachers were on board, teachers came on board, and I was happy with that. But there’s just the administrative roles, and the parents were anxious. There’s all sorts of groups representing everybody, and I look at that as one of our greatest accomplishments. That has had the most immediate result, and of anything we could have done, that had the most immediate impact in a positive way.
That was kind of a signature policy, fair to say?
That and overall taking care of families, whether it’s making sure no child goes hungry, there’s not a single child in the state of New York who doesn’t get two out of three meals now provided by the state, breakfast and lunch. That is huge.
That and other tax credits for families have really helped drive down poverty rates among children. Proud of that. Our work in social media has been nation leading, putting in guardrails where there had been none to protect our children. So a lot of it centers around family, whether it’s what’s happening in schools, what’s happening for parents who have to pay the bills, grocery prices, the largest middle-class tax rate cut in 70 years, taking on taxes, taking on utility bills with our utility rebate, taking on costs of groceries with our inflation rebate.
We put $5,000 back in a family’s pocket with covering the school meals for your family of two kids. School meals, $1,000 tax break for children under the age of four, $500 for higher. All this combined to say, I hear you. So I think the number one issue I took on was affordability, but specifically focused on families that are struggling because that was my life story. That was my early, early years, and then, as even a young parent, it’s one income in the house. It was hard, and those experiences have really focused me on my priorities, have driven my priorities because I know that those priorities will help New Yorkers.
Is there anything that you would have done differently looking back on the last five years? Any mistakes, any regrets that you have?
I would say I wish that the rules hadn’t been changed in the process for nominating chief judges. You know, we were trying to really help make history and have the first Latino chief judge. This person had tremendous judicial temperament and passed with flying colors. I was surprised that then the rules were changed in committees here to make it more challenging. So I would say that was frustrating for me. But what would I have done differently? I wish I had won. I wish I had won on that, wish my candidate had been able to get the fair hearing and be successful. But again, a lot of interests conspired against him, and that was probably the one big loss.
Lieutenant governor selections have also been kind of tough.
The selection isn’t tough. You do what [you can] with all the information you have at that moment. You do what you think is right. So the process isn’t flawed. Obviously becoming governor unexpectedly five years ago today required me to have a very, very shortened process to identify an individual that could be supportive. I had a relationship with Brian Benjamin. I thought he was an ideal candidate. I had no idea that charges would be brought and then later dropped against him. How do you foresee that when you’re going through a process and selecting someone? So there’s nothing to change there.
Antonio Delgado. I didn’t know him well. I did not know that loyalty was such a problem for him, or understanding the role is not that of the governor, and he understood later. Probably too late. But I function very well now. Having been lieutenant governor, I would say I’ve been performing lieutenant governor and governor simultaneously, which is why I do what I need to do in the Capitol. I spend a lot of time going out around the state and touching people and listening directly — literally in Rochester the other day, sitting in a diner talking to young people very anxious about data centers. These are the best conversations I have. Just sitting down, randomly starting to have conversations with people, and I learn a lot. I perform both roles for now, and am looking forward to having a new lieutenant governor who understands the role and has tremendous experience in government. I’d say it’s been handicapped not having a number two the way my predecessor had a hardworking number two.
What would you say is the biggest difference between how you’re approaching the job today versus how you initially thought it would go this time five years ago?
I’ve learned that it’s important to build coalitions around that idea. I initially thought if an idea was meritorious, that it would prevail on the merits, and that’s not how it works here.
Building coalitions, outside support, doing a lot more legwork, even on the cell phones, for example. I took a year to go around and build support for it and overcome the opposition from anxious parents or school boards that didn’t want to have opposition from their community. They just wanted to be left alone. But me spending the time and then listening more to young people about how they were struggling, it made me feel even more emboldened in the cause, brought people along with me.
I wanted to be bold and ambitious on housing. I wanted to overcome years and years of resistance to building more housing because I knew it was a huge driver of expenses for families, young people being denied the opportunity to have that first home, if ever. Maybe they’ll afford a decent apartment sharing with five people from college. So that first [housing] plan was bold. It was rejected because we didn’t have a chance to explain ourselves, and it was weaponized politically. That became an issue in a place like Long Island — government-paid-for literature going to everybody’s house, showing giant skyscrapers in a nice little multi-million dollar neighborhood. So, those are things that we couldn’t have foreseen in our first months on the job when I put together this bold agenda. But round two, the next year, we were very successful. So that was a learning curve there, but definitely have overcome it. And everything I set out to do in this year’s budget, for example, many of which I was told were dead on arrival, they all happened. We know the path.
Has the Democratic Party in the last five years gone too far to the left for the comfort of many voters — the very same voters you’ll need this year?
I have a broad perspective of the Democratic Party in this state, having been in every corner many times and understanding that the politics really is local.
Someone who gets elected in a particular Congressional district in New York City would never get elected in the North Country, or the Southern Tier, or perhaps even Western New York. I understand that. My job as the leader of the party in New York is to allow the locals to decide who they want as their candidates, and be as supportive as I can.
[That] does not mean I embrace a particular philosophy, and it doesn’t mean the rest of the party, outside of certain districts, should be labeled with that either. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in a district that want a certain brand of candidate and a label. And I’m not going to stand here as a leader of the party [and] say no. I need to win in November. Let’s stay focused on the prize. It is taking back our country, one Congressional seat at a time, and that’s why I’ve invested a lot of political capital, and fundraising time and effort, and calling candidates and helping them work through the challenges.
I was that candidate in 2011 who took a shot at a longshot run. People said I would never win, but I knew there was a path because people were fed up with what was happening in Washington. Medicare was under attack. I knew this could win in a Republican district. I didn’t have any help from the state party. My predecessor literally sent someone to Buffalo, my home in Hamburg, to tell me not to run, because the state party would not be there for me, and the national party [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] was not there for a long time. So I said I’m not letting that happen to people. [The] state party should be a vehicle to help all of our candidates who get through a process selected by primary or designee, as I was in a special election. I feel really good about the efforts we’ve undertaken.
I think the party is broad. It’s vast, but there are still a lot of people outside our urban areas who would view themselves as more traditional Democrats in the sense of FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton and Obama and Biden. But if, in certain districts, the democratic socialist brand is more appealing, and they think it stands for something that they want to support, my job is to make it all work out. I work with everybody, whoever the voters want. My job is to make it work out.
Why do you think so many younger voters are choosing a socialist candidate, or are open to socialism? We’ve seen polling show that they’re rejecting capitalism.
The world is changing so rapidly around them. It’s a frightening time. You don’t know whether AI is going to take a job that you were told you should go to school for and study STEM and study computer science and get a degree that’ll position you for the rest of your life. The rug has been pulled out from under a lot of young people for a variety of reasons. They didn’t ask for the pandemic. Everything got so expensive. Their lives were disrupted. If they had little kids, the little kids were learning from home, and they’re trying to keep it all together while they have their jobs. Mom stayed home.
This has been a wildly disruptive time for young people starting out, whether just getting out of school or a young family. And there’s a lot of anxiety. Will the jobs they thought were going to be there? Why can’t I afford to get an apartment? My parents were able to get an apartment. My parents could even buy a home in some cases. Why is that American dream on hold for me? I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything I was asked to do by society.
I feel that deeply as a parent who sees young people struggling like that, and why even child care, which was an issue when I was having babies, why is it still a problem today? Why can’t we as a society, do more to help lift this burden off of families? Why can’t we do more to stand up for them against high utility bills? Why can’t we be supportive of them? I have incredible empathy for people who are just feeling very unsettled and anxious about the future, and I think that drives them to listen to voices that are offering more. But at the end of the day, I feel the same concern. I’m a moderate Democrat who is responding to their same anxieties, and maybe they don’t see that, but that is hardcore what I’m all about — fighting for families, reducing the burdens they have on childcare and school lunches and cost of living.
Our interests are more aligned than people believe. I don’t think it’s a socialism versus capitalism debate. Most people are not thinking that. The vast majority of New York Democrats are not caught up in that struggle, and they’re just not. They don’t have the luxury of even having those thoughts. They’re trying to pay the bills at the end of the month and see whether or not their job is going to be there, or are they going to be replaced by AI?
Do you expect the mayor to be campaigning with you? Have you talked to him about campaigning? Will he be helpful on the trail?
I think he’ll be helpful. Like I said, I really carved out a very different path in this role. People understand I get the job done. I’m here to get a job done, not to look for glory for myself, or get into fights with the mayor of New York and show I can win the battle because I’m bigger state government. It’s never been about battling egos here. So many people have told me they appreciate — whether or not they support the mayor — they appreciate the fact that I understand my role is to make New York City successful. That’s why I am making the relationship work. As is he — he is working with me to build a relationship where we’re both putting New York City first, and that is something that this state has not seen, perhaps ever. If you go back through history, there’s always conflict between the governor and the mayor, almost universally. I wanted to end that, and we did with Bill de Blasio, Eric Adams, Zohran Mamdani.
How eager are you to prove Nancy Pelosi wrong this year after her comments from four years ago saying that New York didn’t come through for House Democrats?
Forgot about it. Don’t even think about it. I didn’t have the luxury of time in ‘22 to build out a state party. I inherited a skeleton. I took two solid years to bulk it up. In 2024, I already proved that I’m a leader, and I know how to win races. We won five out of seven battleground races with money that I raised, opening up 42 field offices, hiring an additional 100 staffers, and that’s how we win. So I already established I know how to win. Give me two years. Now I’ve got four. We’re going to do it again.
Thanks for your time.
Democrats are readying a long list of investigations they want to launch into Donald Trump.
Reps. Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, who would lead the Oversight and Judiciary committees, respectively, if the party takes back the House, said they’re wasting no time in preparing an all-out oversight campaign targeting Trump, his family, and his administration.
Both know that House Dems’ efforts now could provide a backbone for the accountability message the party intends to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.
“We are going to be looking at systems of bribery, kickback and financial corruption and opportunities for disgorgement and restitution to the American people,” Raskin said. “That would be No. 1.”
Topping their long list of controversies they want to probe: Trump’s acceptance of a Qatari jet for use as his new Air Force One, and his family’s massively profitable cryptocurrency investments.
Raskin also said he intends to probe what he deems “fraudulent and vindictive prosecutions,” including those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James. Garcia, meanwhile, said he is determined to fill in gaps he sees in the GOP-led investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
White House spokesperson Olivia Wales responded to Democrats’ plans by stating the president “will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and radical Democrats who want to massively raise taxes, defund the police, and are soft on crime.”
Garcia and Raskin’s preparations in some ways resemble how their predecessors planned ahead of the 2018 midterms. But that year, Democrats tiptoed around the prospect of impeachment for fear of alienating voters, then launched a flurry of investigations aimed at Trump once they were in power.
Now, after two impeachments that failed to remove Trump from office and with a party base intent on pulling no punches, House Democrats are reluctant to take anything off the table — while also recognizing the limitations of impeachment as a check on Trump’s power.
“Nobody on the Democratic side is afraid of impeachment,” Raskin said this week, adding that he considers it a “tool in the toolbox.”
What else we’re watching:
— SCANDAL-PLAGUED CANDIDATES TEST PARTIES’ LIMITS: Democrats and Republicans this election cycle keep playing whack-a-mole as candidate after candidate becomes embroiled in controversies ranging from domestic violence to sexual misconduct. Neither party has developed a clear playbook yet for when to step in or what counts as disqualifying. But identifying that line could become a key effort in determining who controls the next Congress, as several races with problematic candidates have been or could become battlegrounds.
— LAWMAKERS BRISTLE OVER POCKET RECISSION SEASON: With less than 45 days left in the fiscal year, the time is right for pocket rescissions — the controversial tactic Trump used last year to cancel billions of dollars in foreign aid without Congress’ consent. If the White House takes that tack again, it will not be well received on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers in both parties continue to bristle over Trump’s ongoing assault on their funding power.
Chris Marquette, Riley Rogerson, Erin Doherty, Andrew Howard, Alec Hernandez and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.
Democrats haven’t yet won the House majority. But top party leaders are wasting no time in preparing an all-out oversight campaign targeting President Donald Trump, his family and administration should they flip the chamber in November.
At the center of the effort are California Rep. Robert Garcia, who is poised to lead the Oversight Committee under a Democratic takeover, and Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is in line to lead the Judiciary Committee. They are each already planning to use their potential gavels to investigate key Trump controversies — such as his acceptance of a Qatari jet for use as his new Air Force One and his family’s massively profitable cryptocurrency investments.
Garcia and Raskin both said in interviews they have a long list of administration officials that they plan to probe and possibly bring before their committees. But each said they intend to focus intently on Trump himself.
“Ideally, it’s the president’s sons and the president and the family,” Garcia said, adding a litany of other members of the Trump inner sanctum he wants to hear from. They include chief of staff Susie Wiles, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller and son-in-law and foreign envoy Jared Kushner, as well as former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Cory Lewandowski, who served as her chief of staff.
In addition to the crypto profits and the much-criticized Qatari 747, Garcia said he planned to probe federal contracts awarded to members of Trump’s family and the series of pardons Trump has granted early in his second term.
Raskin, a veteran of the investigative onslaught that took place in the second half of Trump’s first term, said he planned to focus on allegations of self-enrichment by Trump and his family — as well as illicit foreign influence on American institutions and rising authoritarianism in government.
“We are going to be looking at systems of bribery, kickback and financial corruption and opportunities for disgorgement and restitution to the American people,” Raskin said. “That would be No. 1.”
Asked to comment on Democrats’ oversight plans, White House spokesperson Olivia Wales responded with a statement outlining Trump’s legislative achievements.
“The President will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and radical Democrats who want to massively raise taxes, defund the police, and are soft on crime,” she said. “The choice has never been more clear: doubling down on President Trump’s winning agenda or far-left liberal policies and partisan gridlock.”
Raskin and Garcia are forging ahead even as voters reject some Democrats who were at the forefront of the Trump accountability effort that unfolded eight years ago. And while the preparations Garcia, Raskin and others are making now in many ways resemble how their predecessors planned ahead of the 2018 midterms, there are differences.
Democrats in the leadup to the elections that year warily tiptoed around the prospect of impeachment in fear of alienating voters, and they laid out some investigative targets that did not implicate Trump personally.
Once in power, though, they launched a flurry of investigations aimed at Trump — including the president’s tax returns, his acceptance of foreign “emoluments” and later his effort to leverage aid to Ukraine for political favors. In virtually every case, the administration stonewalled Democratic investigators.
Now, after two impeachments that failed to remove Trump from office and with a party base intent on pulling no punches, House Democrats are reluctant to take anything off the table — while also recognizing the limitations of impeachment as a check on Trump’s power.
“Nobody on the Democratic side is afraid of impeachment,” Raskin said this week, adding that he considers it a “tool in the toolbox.”
The larger project for Democrats if they win power in November is to use subpoena power and public hearings to provide a backbone for the accountability message they intend to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.
Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries emphasized the wide-reaching scope of oversight inquiries during his campaign kickoff speech last month, in which he unveiled House Democratic midterm messaging that included a pledge to “hold the crooks accountable.”
“Anyone,” Jeffries said, “who is stealing from the American people, screwing over the American people, or shortchanging the American people is going to be held accountable beginning on Day 1.”
While the Oversight and Judiciary panels would be the leaders of the investigatory push in a Democratic House, other committees are set to target Trump as well in a bid to deliver the bold action Democratic primary votes have demanded.
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), a member of the Ways and Means Committee, said he expected the oversight subpanel would be a highly sought-after assignment should Democrats win gavels — with a potential “big” emphasis, he said, on probing Trump family corruption.
He added he was “very concerned” about how the Trump administration has managed the IRS and Social Security, particularly after the Department of Government Efficiency upended federal agencies last year.
“We certainly will exercise our oversight responsibility,” said Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, who is expected to return as Ways and Means chair in a Democratic majority.
Garcia and Raskin, meanwhile, have other pet priorities beyond the personal benefits Trump and his family have allegedly garnered in office.
Raskin said he intends to probe what he deems “fraudulent and vindictive prosecutions” including those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James.
“The prosecution function has been utterly tainted and the Judiciary Committee obviously can’t let that go,” he said.
He has also set his sights on Paramount Skydance’s proposed $110 billion buyout of Warner Bros. Discovery, a deal Democrats have blasted not only as an antitrust violation but also a threat to national security and free speech.
Previewing his intentions for the majority, Raskin requested a transcribed interview with Paramount Skydance CEO David Ellison in a letter last week. While he cannot haul Ellison, a close Trump ally, before the committee now as a member of the minority party, Raskin said his inquiry into Paramount would be a “priority” if Democrats win subpoena power.
Garcia, meanwhile, said he is determined to fill in gaps he sees in the GOP-led investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. He said he wants to bring key witnesses back to testify under oath, potentially in public hearings “because most of them were not called under oath and most of them were not called under subpoena.”
That could include big names in the world of finance, such as Leon Black, the co-founder of Apollo Global Management, and Jes Staley, a former top executive at JPMorgan Chase — both of whom had substantial communications with Epstein and met with the committee privately.
“I think we’re going to have, in the majority, public Epstein hearings,” Garcia said.
The Epstein investigation is similar to the Trump corruption probe in that it would potentially span multiple committees, and Garcia and Raskin both praised each other and said they are planning to work in concert on both issues.
Raskin said he doesn’t envision any issues with coordination between two panels
“There’s enough Trump family corruption to go around,” he said. “I don’t think we have to worry about that. We will just be dividing it up.”
Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.
Republican lawmakers are still locked in a power struggle with the White House over control of federal cash, long since President Donald Trump swept back into office with unprecedented orders undermining Congress’ power of the purse.
Earlier this month, GOP senators overwhelmingly agreed to a bipartisan government funding bill that would temporarily block the Trump administration from finalizing a federal rule to let political appointees steer money toward grants “aligned with the president’s agenda.” The House could clear that bill next month, and Trump is expected to sign it to avert a shutdown before the midterms.
And while the days of widespread funding freezes might be over, the Trump administration continues to create new rules for federal grants and then deny funding based on them — only to be repeatedly shot down in court this summer.
Lawmakers in both parties have also blasted White House budget director Russ Vought this year for delaying the release of cash for congressionally backed programs for antipoverty services, foreign assistance, banking in underserved areas and more.
“Congress has appropriated money, and you don’t have the authority to impound it,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chastised Vought this spring over the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars the Trump administration is supposed to send quarterly to states.
Now Republicans are watching for clues about whether Vought, between now and Sept. 30, will claim the authority to nix appropriations in the final weeks of the fiscal year through what’s known as a pocket recession. He used the move last year to unilaterally cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid through the legally dubious maneuver.
“Pocket rescissions would be a very interesting way to curry favor with the legislative branch — especially the one part of the legislative branch which has delivered on all of the administration’s shit,” Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, a senior Republican appropriator, said in a recent interview.
Indeed, the White House needs the support of GOP appropriators in both chambers to advance Trump administration priorities.
Those top lawmakers have already taken some modest steps to stop the White House from shirking Congress’ intent on spending by inserting stricter language into bipartisan funding bills Trump signed into law for the current fiscal year. That included new rules for shifting money between accounts and more explicit instructions for how dollars should be spent.
Some Republican lawmakers have also been resisting the administration’s push this summer to enact billions of dollars for the military and agriculture programs through another party-line budget reconciliation package. Top House Republican appropriators slammed the White House in June for pursuing a “risky and uncoordinated” strategy to enact funding for the Iran war through a party-line bill that’s not guaranteed to pass.
Relying on the reconciliation process to skirt the Senate filibuster is a key step to achieve the “paradigm shift” Vought has touted throughout Trump’s second term, designed to make funding negotiations “less bipartisan” so Republicans don’t have to agree to nondefense increases in order to get enough votes to boost military budgets.
“At what point did we stop legislating?” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another senior appropriator, said last month after Vought privately pitched Senate Republicans on the latest party-line plan, which would inherently take funding power away from the appropriations committees.
Murkowski was also among the Senate Republicans who chided the White House for not seeking input from lawmakers before forging ahead with its plan to put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants and minimize the role of the objective peer-review process for selecting recipients of those dollars.
“There was no consultation at all,” she said. “When you start issuing grants based on political connections, that’s not good for the system here.”
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) publicly called on Vought to extend the public comment period for the plan last month, to no avail.
She also continues to pan the pocket rescission gambit, saying in a recent interview that the administration should “go through the proper process with the Appropriations Committee” if it wants to rescind money intended for a specific program.
Under a decades-old law, the White House is allowed to send Congress a request to revoke funding, then withhold the cash for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore the proposal. Republicans last summer voted to approve Trump’s request to rescind $9 billion for public media and foreign assistance.
Then Trump used that same law weeks later to send Congress a request to rescind $4.9 billion in foreign aid — this time with less than 45 days left before the end of the fiscal year. Vought immediately declared the funding canceled, arguing that the administration had to withhold the funding until it expired at the end of September, regardless of congressional action.
The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comment on whether the White House plans to execute new pocket rescissions in the coming weeks. But Trump’s new pick for deputy director at the agency, Hal Duncan, told lawmakers this summer that the agency isn’t ruling out any “fiscal tools.”
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole said White House officials have given him no assurances that they won’t deploy the tactic again this year and that his reaction would hinge on the type of funding eliminated.
“It would depend on what it is — it really would,” the Oklahoma Republican said last month.
In courtrooms throughout the country, federal judges continue to weigh in on whether Trump is illegally encroaching on Congress’ funding power.
Last month a federal judge declared that the administration can’t cancel grants based on new rules or goals established after the fact. The Trump administration later admitted in a different case that it canceled $7.6 billion “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state.” Then a federal judge halted changes to teen-pregnancy prevention grants, concluding that it’s unlawful “to impose conditions … that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained.”
The Supreme Court has yet to conclusively rule on the president’s spending tactics, and many Democrats on Capitol Hill argue Republicans shouldn’t rely on the courts to defend Congress’ authority. GOP leaders have repeatedly bucked Democratic calls for action, including to reverse the cancellation of specific grants, nullify Trump’s pocket rescission last fall and head off a future end-run around Congress by barring rescissions requests in the last months of the fiscal year.
“When are our Republican colleagues going to assert our legislative authority?” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, a top appropriator, said in an interview. “I mean, why in the hell did they run for Congress?”
Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a senior appropriator in line to be the No. 2 Democrat in the next Congress, was more charitable.
“I just think there’s a bipartisan desire to get back to the way the Constitution is supposed to operate,” he said in an interview, “where we decide how the money is spent.”
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words