Congress

Jeffries stays out of the way as Dems mutiny against senior panel leaders

Published

2 years ago

December 4, 2024

House Democrats are poised to unseat several senior committee leaders, and Hakeem Jeffries is letting it happen.

Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, 76, announced this week that he would step down from the top Democratic spot on the Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, 77, dropped his bid to continue leading Democrats on Judiciary in the face of a tough challenge from 61-year-old Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland. And Rep. David Scott of Georgia, 79, is facing multiple challenges for the top Democratic spot on the Agriculture Committee.

It’s akin to a mutiny, especially given Democrats’ typical deference to seniority in who leads panels. But party lawmakers are increasingly anxious about the incoming Trump administration and full GOP control of Congress. Many feel it’s crucial to have leaders who are proven fighters and can effectively push back on Republican priorities like harsh limits on legal immigration. It echoes the argument many used when they called on President Joe Biden to step off the ticket over the summer.

At the center of it all is Jeffries, the minority leader, and his leadership team, who also skipped the seniority line in many ways when they rose to the top ranks two years ago. They have publicly stayed out of it, loath to stand in the way of lawmakers who, like them, chafed at the party’s strict adherence to seniority.

“The caucus will guide these kinds of discussions,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the No. 3 House Democrat. “We’re confident that at this time it’s going to take a Democratic Caucus that’s firing on all cylinders to push back against extremism and to make sure we can carry forward the bipartisan principles that we’ve talked about.”

“The caucus wants to make sure the right folks are leading these committees,” he added.

Contrast that approach with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would vocally support her preferred committee heads. Several Democrats believe that, by not pushing back on challengers, leadership is tacitly endorsing the removal of the old guard.

“I think they’re trying to create a level playing field,” Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), who is challenging Scott for the ranking position on the Agriculture Committee, said of leadership in a brief interview. Scott has long faced significant concerns over his health and his ability to lead the panel.

Leaders have apparently been working the issue behind the scenes. Members of Jeffries’ extended leadership team held private conversations to hear out the lawmakers who launched bids against sitting committee chairs, four people familiar with the conversations said. And 52-year-old Rep. Angie Craig of Minnesota launched her own bid for the top Democratic spot on the Agriculture Committee after leadership didn’t waive her off, one person familiar with the conversation said.

A former member of Pelosi’s leadership team, Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, said he preferred the deference to seniority but didn’t believe that should be the only measure.

“I’m for seniority. But if seniority is all you consider, then seniority becomes something that won’t work well over the long run. So I think the burden of proof is on the person who’s saying that the senior person ought not to have it,” Hoyer said.

It’s the latest example of how leadership has maneuvered behind the scenes to pave the way for a new generation of Democrats to rise up. Lawmakers have long groused about the limited pathways to ascend in the caucus without the committee term limits that their Republican counterparts put in place.

“I think we, as Democrats, could do a better job with elevating some of our younger members who have great experience. And [you should] not have to be in Congress for 30 years before you can have a meaningful role in leadership and on policy,” said retiring Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-N.H.).

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York is 35 years old and has a reputation for publicly bucking leadership.

In addition to the drama surrounding Judiciary, Natural Resources and Agriculture, there’s also a blooming fight over who will lead Democrats on the Oversight Committee, now that Raskin is set to take the Judiciary spot. Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia has already stepped into the race to replace him, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has said she’s having conversations with leadership and committee members to possibly launch her own campaign. Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois and Ro Khanna of California are also eyeing the perch.

The race could test just how far Democrats are willing to take the shakeup — Ocasio-Cortez is 35 years old and has a reputation for publicly bucking leadership. She called the current situation “an important moment of generational change in the caucus.”

Some of the most vocal public voices for change in the party come from younger, purple-district lawmakers who’d also called on Biden to step aside after his disastrous debate against Trump.

“I came out very early saying that I thought it would be good to have an open Democratic primary in the presidential, so you could probably guess how I’m feeling,” said Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.). “There’s nothing wrong with a little healthy competition.”

“We have to look at every, every dimension of how we’ve both operated policy-wise and operated politically, campaign-wise,” echoed Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.). “And there needs to be accountability. So I think it’s time for a new generation of folks to step up, and we’ll be supporting them to do so.”

The last iteration of House Democratic leadership has also played a quiet role. The influential California delegation, of which Pelosi is a senior member, has been advocating for fellow Californian Rep. Jared Huffman behind the scenes as he tried to land the top Democratic spot on Natural Resources, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

The regional splits among House Democrats has also played a role in the challenges. The Steering and Policy Committee, an internal panel that adjudicates committee assignments, is largely composed of members picked by leadership and elected by regional blocs, giving more influence to large groups like California lawmakers.

In a telling sign of how the tide has shifted against some of the senior committee leaders, the Congressional Black Caucus, which has previously backed Scott as the top Agriculture Democrat, hasn’t issued a statement of support for him so far.

Its outgoing chair, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), told reporters Wednesday that the Black Caucus had invited every Agriculture Committee candidate to a forum with the powerful bloc “for them to outline their goals and objectives for why they seek the position.”

Scott wasn’t present for the Black Caucus’ leadership elections on Wednesday.

Congress

Congressional staff visit prison facility where Ghislaine Maxwell is held

Published

7 hours ago

June 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Staff for the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees on Tuesday visited the Texas federal prison facility where Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, is being held, according to the panel’s top Democrats.

In a statement, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Robert Garcia of California — the ranking members on Judiciary and Oversight, respectively — said staff traveled there as part of the panel’s ongoing Epstein investigation in search of “answers about Ms. Maxwell’s unprecedented transfer and VIP treatment.”

Republican and Democratic staff from both committees attended a three-hour visit to the Texas facility, which included a two-hour tour and a back-and-forth with the facility staff, including the warden, according to a person familiar with the trip who requested anonymity to describe the private visit.

The warden argued that Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her part in Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme, was not necessarily given special treatment, according to that person; rather, because of her prominence, measures were required because she had to remain inside for 30 days.

The lawmakers added that they received little in the way of new details, though, and doubted the truthfulness of the information that they did receive.

“Bureau of Prisons leadership repeatedly shut down our lines of questioning or could not provide basic information about our central concerns, including Ms. Maxwell’s extraordinary treatment, allegations of sexual assault at the facility, and retaliation against inmates who tried to blow the whistle,” Raskin and Garcia said in a statement released Tuesday evening.

Maxwell was moved from a prison in Florida to the minimum security prison camp in Texas after meeting with then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss the Epstein case. During that interview, Maxwell claimed she never saw President Donald Trump in any inappropriate setting with Epstein, the late convicted sex offender.

Democrats have questioned whether her transfer to a cushier facility was part of a quid pro quo with the Trump administration facilitated by Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general and Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Justice. Although the president has said he broke off contact with Epstein years before his death behind bars in 2019, his onetime relationship with the financier has drawn scrutiny.

Raskin said last October he wanted his staff to conduct oversight of the Texas detention center. In November, Judiciary Democrats announced they had received information from a whistleblower that suggested Maxwell was receiving preferential treatment there.

In their statement Tuesday, Raskin and Garcia vowed they would continue to investigate Blanche’s “role in ensuring Ms. Maxwell remains comfortable and quiet.”

Congress

White House’s Anthropic move jolts Congress back into the AI debate

Published

8 hours ago

June 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Trump administration’s sudden moves to rein in Anthropic are giving fresh momentum to efforts in Congress to impose guardrails on cutting-edge artificial intelligence models.

Lawmakers are still seeking clear information about the government’s decision late Friday to impose an export ban on the AI company’s latest models, known as Fable 5 and Mythos 5, over cybersecurity concerns — a move that led Anthropic to suspend access to both for all users.

In roughly a dozen interviews on Capitol Hill this week, several lawmakers said they were shocked by the development and had yet to receive a formal briefing from administration officials. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whose committee has jurisdiction over AI policy, said Monday that he had seen “what’s been reported in the press,” but had not been briefed on details.

Members of both parties said they now see an opening to mobilize their colleagues around legislation that would reclaim congressional authority at a time when the executive branch remains firmly in the drivers’ seat on AI regulation.

But lawmakers have struggled to reach consensus on a complicated and politically divisive matter in an election year. And the circumstances around the Anthropic saga could further drive a wedge between Democrats, who generally favor strong regulatory review requirements of new AI models, and Republicans, who tend to be wary of such a heavy hand.

“I think we’re landing more and more in a place where everybody’s realizing you need some type of government oversight,” said Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) in an interview Tuesday. “I think we’re still struggling with what that is.”

Disagreements over policy are being exacerbated by Democrats’ wariness to legislate on AI in a GOP-controlled Washington ahead of the midterm elections, with some viewing a potential House majority as their best opportunity to enact AI rules more closely aligned with Democratic priorities. Some Democratic lawmakers said this week that the Anthropic episode was just the latest example of the Trump administration’s erratic decision-making.

“I think this is an indicator that this administration no longer believes in a free market,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is in line to be the No. 2 Senate Democrat in the next Congress. “They believe in picking winners and losers.”

The administration’s decision regarding Anthropic came two weeks after Trump signed an executive order establishing a voluntary vetting regime that asks AI companies to submit their advanced models to the government 30 days before they are released to the public.

“If even this … administration is suddenly saying this is a security risk, why are we allowing these entities to put this out without testing?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Anthropic’s relationship with the White House has been strained since a standoff with the Defense Department earlier this year, when the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a supply-chain risk. While the unveiling of Anthropic’s latest model Mythos prompted the government to soften its stance toward the company, last week’s events signalled the repair may have been superficial.

“If Donald Trump thinks we need export controls on Anthropic, then how about putting export controls on the computer chips that will let China build their own version of Anthropic?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said Tuesday in an interview.

When asked to rate the chances of Congress passing legislation to set federal standards for AI regulations, she replied, “It would be high if it weren’t for Donald Trump.”

This all comes as Washington was already grappling with the larger question of how to regulate the AI industry to ensure the safety of models, and whether it should be up to states or the federal government to set those guardrails. The Commerce Committee in the coming weeks is expected to consider a slate of AI bills, including potentially one that would require social media platforms to put mechanisms in place to protect users who are minors.

Some members of Congress are trying to work across the aisle on the issue despite the steep odds. In the House, Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Calif.) last month unveiled a broad AI legislative framework that folds in preemption of state AI laws. Trahan, who has broken with House Democratic leadership in pursuing a bipartisan path on AI, seized on the Anthropic news to urge congressional action.

“This decision further illustrates the need for a thoughtful and durable national strategy on AI,” she posted on X. “Decisions this consequential shouldn’t turn on a single directive issued at 5 pm on a Friday. They should follow rules that are clear, fair, grounded in technical facts, and built to last beyond any one administration.”

Trahan’s spokesperson, in a statement Tuesday, said, “Whether the decision by the administration was political or actually based on a real threat posed … it underscores the fact that Congress must act urgently and in a bipartisan fashion.”

The Trahan-Obernolte proposal would stop short of calling for a mandatory review system for new frontier AI models, however, which could become difficult in the post-Anthropic era.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who is co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI, said in an interview that the Trump administration last week “ma[d]e it clear the importance of actually mandatory reviews when it comes to government reviews, when it comes to models and national security-related issues.”

“If there were a piece of legislation for a mandatory review,” he added, “I’d certainly support that.”

Sen. Todd Young of Indiana offered a measured response to the events of the last several days, saying the Senate Commerce Committee, of which he is a member, would work to try to get answers. He added that the recent developments could “conceivably” propel lawmakers to work together on legislation that would establish a system to review new models.

“You don’t want to just be trusting private actors to do the right thing and trusting their judgment, because the risk we’re talking about here could conceivably be catastrophic,” Young said, adding, “I think everyone wants to get this right.”

Gabby Miller contributed to this report.

Congress

Todd Blanche is trying to charm his way to confirmation

Published

10 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Todd Blanche is mounting a charm offensive with Republican senators as his nomination as attorney general inches forward. So far, he seems to be saying the right things.

The scheduling of a confirmation hearing next month and positive early reviews from GOP swing votes are raising expectations that the acting Justice Department head and former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump could be permanently installed later this year.

In his meetings Tuesday with Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, as well as key senators off the panel, Blanche sought to assuage lingering concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” the department recently proposed as it settled a Trump lawsuit against the IRS.

The fund, which could have funnelled up to $1.8 billion in payouts to Trump political allies, was withdrawn after a bipartisan outcry on Capitol Hill, and Blanche assured senators during the closed-door sitdowns that it’s gone for good.

“We had an extensive discussion on the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which he has assured me with no equivocation at all that he is not for it, will not pursue it, that it will not exist,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters, calling it a “very good meeting.”

Blanche’s private assurances come ahead of his scheduled July 15 appearance before the Judiciary Committee, where he is certain to be grilled on the fund and his handling of other matters involving Trump. With Democrats on the panel unlikely to support Blanche’s confirmation, he will need to win over all 12 panel Republicans in order to advance to a floor vote, which could take place as soon as the first week of August.

The payout fund is a major issue Blanche will have to address, but it will not be the only one. The IRS settlement also included a provision indemnifying the president and his family against future tax audits, which has raised hackles with at least one Senate Republican.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said Blanche had committed to giving him a “further briefing on the tax audit issue involving President Trump and his family.” He otherwise said the two had a “positive” meeting.

More generally, Blanche has faced criticism over his close personal ties to Trump, having represented the president in various criminal cases across the country. He was on Trump’s legal team for both federal prosecutions out of former special counsel Jack Smith’s office and for the Stormy Daniels hush money case brought by local prosecutors in Manhattan.

That background has fueled the perception that Blanche has been unduly loyal to Trump in his stewardship of the Justice Department, and some Senate Republicans have indicated that they want to push Blanche on whether he understands the difference between being attorney general and being Trump’s personal lawyer.

But the mere fact that Blanche once represented Trump in a personal capacity is unlikely to derail his chances for confirmation. Every Republican present confirmed Blanche to be deputy attorney general last year knowing that history.

His actions since joining the Justice Department have garnered more scrutiny, however — especially the IRS settlement. He publicly defended the $1.8 billion fund before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee last month in the face of deep skepticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, including Collins.

Two days later, Blanche faced a brutal reception during a closed-door lunch where dozens of Republican senators grilled him over the fund. The controversy threatened to derail a GOP immigration enforcement bill, and it ultimately delayed its passage for more than a week.

Blanche subsequently helped break the stalemate when he told House appropriators that the administration would not move forward with the fund. Those remarks helped publicly assure Senate Republicans, who had been underwhelmed by his appearance at the Senate GOP lunch.

Some senators indicated he still has more assuring to do.

“I like Todd … but I think he’s going to have a rigorous confirmation,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), another Judiciary member. “I think he’ll ultimately be confirmed, but I’ve got some hard questions for him.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been careful not to guarantee Blanche will be confirmed, noting he first has to get out of the Judiciary Committee where multiple GOP senators are keeping things close to the vest.

“If he can get a strong vote coming out of the Judiciary Committee, then my expectation is, we would be able to process him on the floor,” Thune told reporters this week. “You’ve got a couple people on that committee that he’ll have to convince, but I know that he’s prepared to do that.”

A critical Republican on the panel — retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina — will meet with Blanche next week.

Tillis has previously tanked Trump nominees over concerns relating to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including Ed Martin’s nomination to be U.S. attorney in D.C. But the senator gave no initial indications this week of disqualifying marks in Blanche’s background regarding the insurrection and its aftermath.

“I haven’t seen anything that, you know, from a Jan. 6 perspective would be a problem,” Tillis said Tuesday. “So now we’re just going through all the other vetting.”

Pressed on the payout fund, he added: “It will be an issue if the weaponization fund isn’t effectively dead by the confirmation hearing because I’ve got a real problem with it being out there.”

With a month to go until Blanche’s hearing and at least another week before he gets a committee vote, further Justice Department activity involving Trump adversaries could continue to weigh on his nomination. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s disclosure this week that he and his wife are under federal investigation have newly fanned concerns that Blanche is pursuing a retribution campaign at Trump’s behest.

Tillis said he expects to question Blanche at the hearing on the apparent targeting of Trump’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey, who is under indictment in North Carolina for allegedly threatening Trump.

“I want to hear about what the details behind that Comey investigation are,” he said. “Because look, I know that the Biden administration was guilty of weaponization. I don’t believe the proper response is a mirror image.”

Blanche is also certain to face tough questioning next month on another matter: his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi told Congress last month that Blanche oversaw the process of releasing Justice Department files concerning Epstein, the late convicted sex offender. The botched redaction process, which in some cases led to release of private material related to Epstein’s victims or the withholding of information about people who were not victims, has been the subject of bipartisan scrutiny.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has requested Blanche speak with his committee next month about the files’ release, which could put him in lawmakers’ crosshairs just weeks or days before a potential confirmation vote.