Congress

Trump is about to face an audience with the power to make or break his agenda. And it’s not Congress.

Published

1 year ago

March 4, 2025

When President Donald Trump speaks to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the audience with the most sway over his second-term agenda won’t be the lawmakers. It’s the Supreme Court justices.

Trump’s blitz of early executive actions have triggered a tsunami of more than 100 lawsuits — many of them heading toward the high court. Two of those actions have already made it to the justices, and their looming rulings could strike at Congress’ power to control federal spending and the independence of executive branch watchdogs.

Trump’s muscular moves to crack down on legal and illegal immigration, fire tens of thousands of government employees, shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, end diversity, equity and inclusion programs and strip the rights of transgender people all raise significant questions about the legal limits of executive power.

“When a president’s agenda relies on unlawful actions, a lot of the action is going to be in the courts,” said Elizabeth Goitein of New York University’s Brennan Center. “There’s no question that all of this is going to be challenged. This will be a true test of the Supreme Court in many, many ways.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and a few other justices typically attend State of the Union addresses, though the full bench doesn’t always show up. The justices sit in the front row of the House floor, typically putting on their best poker faces while the members of Congress around them cheer and jeer.

In previous years, even subtle reactions by the justices have stoked controversy. And this time, the speech will be occurring while the court is facing two imminent decisions that could affect the trajectory of Trump’s term.

The two major disputes about Trump’s assertions of presidential power at the high court have the potential to deliver another jolt to his rocky relationship with the conservative justices, including the three he appointed in his first term.

One involves Trump’s ability to fire executive branch officials despite laws Congress passed to protect those appointees from removal without cause. The other revolves around Trump’s authority to oversee an abrupt and sweeping freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid. Trump is likely to discuss in his remarks Tuesday some of these efforts as part of his administration’s work to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

At the heart of both cases is Trump’s desire to test and stretch the outer boundaries of executive power — and whether Trump can bypass laws meant to limit his ability to fire people and curtail programs he doesn’t like despite Congress funding them.

The two cases have another thing in common: They have zoomed to the court on the so-called shadow docket, where the justices handle emergency requests. And more requests are likely given the scores of pending challenges to Trump policies.

Trump’s penchant for executive action driving much of the litigation stems from his desire to be seen as getting stuff done and his impatience with process and congressional negotiations. It’s also born out of necessity.

Thanks to a razor-thin GOP margin in the House and the effective veto that the Senate’s filibuster rule hands to Democrats, the prospects for Trump passing much in the way of legislation are minimal. In crudely partisan terms, Trump’s policies may stand a better chance with the six-justice conservative majority he cemented in his first term than they do across the street at the Capitol.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly trashed judges who ruled against him. His invective against the judiciary grew so pointed that Roberts issued an extraordinary statement disputing the president’s description of a jurist who ruled against the administration’s asylum policies as an “Obama judge.”

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” Roberts declared.

During Trump’s first term, his policies got a mixed reception at the Supreme Court. The court largely upheld his pro-business environmental policies and allowed him to spend billions of dollars on his border wall project despite failing to get funding for it through Congress. On the other hand, the court rejected Trump’s effort to end the program for so-called Dreamers.

One of his highest-profile and most controversial moves — the travel ban dubbed a “Muslim ban” by critics — was effectively slowed and watered down by litigation. The high court ultimately let part of the ban take effect and ultimately upheld the president’s authority to issue it.

“Sometimes, if you listen to the mainstream media, you’d think that the court handed him everything on a silver platter, which isn’t true. But I think [they] went his way more often than not,” said Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice. “At least some of the justices didn’t seem crazy about Trump. If you were predicting it based just on ideology, probably more would have gone Trump’s way. But there seemed to be a certain desire to push back against Trump, right? Until I see otherwise this term, I’ll just assume that it’s going to be the same.”

As his first term came to a close, Trump was bitterly disappointed that none of the justices — including his three picks: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — backed any of the legal challenges to his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

“The Supreme Court, they rule against me so much,” Trump told the crowd at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021. He also complained that the justices were too worried about their standing on the “social circuit.” “And the only way they get out is to rule against Trump. ‘So, let’s rule against Trump.’ And they do that. So, I want to congratulate them,” he said sarcastically.

As Trump was mounting his bid to return to the White House, he often groused about the justices. In 2022, when the court refused to step in to prevent his tax returns from being turned over to a House committee, he made his bitterness clear.

“Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!” he wrote on Truth Social. “The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price. They refused to even look at the Election Hoax of 2020. Shame on them!”

At other times, Trump has been almost effusive about the court, particularly on the role the justices he appointed played in overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion after nearly half a century.

“With the help of six very wise and brave Supreme Court Justices, I was successful in terminating Roe v. Wade – Something which few thought was possible to do!” Trump wrote. (Only five justices actually joined in the decision to end Roe. Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, did not sign onto the majority opinion when the court took that momentous step in 2022.)

Of course, but for a couple of key wins at the high court last year, Trump wouldn’t be speaking to Congress or advancing any government agenda because he may never have returned to the presidency.

In March, the justices unanimously rejected a bid to knock Trump off the ballot in Colorado due to his role in fomenting the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. And in July, the high court split largely along ideological lines as it upended special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump by ruling that presidents enjoy broad criminal immunity for acts taken while in office. The justices’ ruling helped fuel Trump’s narrative that he was being unfairly persecuted by his enemies.

Trump’s conflicted view of the court and his tendency to harbor perpetual disappointment in the justices was at its clearest in 2023 as he addressed a National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis.

“They don’t help me much. I’ve got to tell you that. They vote against me too much,” Trump said. “It’s one of those little things in life, right?….They are outstanding people and great scholars, brilliant. And they’ve done a very good job, I always say–-except for me.”

Congress

Gottheimer readies AI bill to vet powerful AI models for risk

Published

6 hours ago

June 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Josh Gottheimer is preparing to introduce a bill mandating that some artificial intelligence companies submit their powerful new models to the government to screen for national security, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity and bioterror risks.

It comes as fear grips Washington over new AI models, such as Anthropic’s Claude Mythos, that could turbocharge existential risks posed by the emerging technology — such as enabling bad actors to engineer superviruses or create deadly bioweapons.

Gottheimer’s forthcoming legislation, details of which the New Jersey Democrat shared exclusively with Blue Light News, would run parallel to a bipartisan effort in the House to craft federal rules governing the technology, and comes as the White House considers a voluntary vetting regime for powerful new models.

Relatedly, the Trump administration decided on Friday to impose export controls on Anthropic’s latest models over national security concerns. Gottheimer told Blue Light News that threats identified from models such as Anthropic’s Mythos “highlighted how critically important it is that we have a mandatory process for the government to review advanced models”.

The coming proposal represents one of the most aggressive attempts yet by a key AI policymaker to mitigate potentially catastrophic risks posed by the fast-moving technology.

Gottheimer, a moderate self-styled dealmaker who has been eager to reach an agreement with Republicans on a national AI framework, currently co-chairs a new Democratic commission convened by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that’s been tasked with developing his party’s official AI policy agenda.

The commission swiftly blasted the discussion draft from Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) unveiled in June, saying it failed “to meet the enormity of the moment.”

That bipartisan framework would override some state AI laws and require top developers to disclose the safety and security risks of their new models. It also would tap the Center for AI Standards and Innovation — an office within the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology — to support voluntary model evaluations.

Gottheimer added that his proposal is currently under review by the House Legislative Counsel, which ensures a policy is consistent with existing laws, and is speaking with both Democrats and Republicans to rally support.

Congress

Trump escalates his war on Senate Republicans — and senators are striking back

Published

8 hours ago

June 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump is making life almost impossible for Senate Republicans — and these days fewer of them are willing to just let it slide.

Some lawmakers that were once happy to brush off impulsive and disruptive behavior by saying they hadn’t seen the president’s social media posts or that it was just “Trump being Trump” are increasingly willing to speak out against what they view as bad decisions that undermine their ability to deliver legislative wins as the midterms approach.

The latest irritation was the early-morning Truth Social post Wednesday that upended GOP hopes of quickly confirming a new director of national intelligence and reviving a surveillance bill that Trump already derailed earlier this month.

The chaos that followed Trump’s sudden U-turn on Jay Clayton’s nomination, just hours before a scheduled confirmation hearing, further loosened tongues in the Capitol hallways — even from lawmakers who tend to be reliable allies.

“The president’s timing and communication needs improvement,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) said. “I think it’s unfortunate. It throws a kicker into the system when we get going and then we have to readjust.”

Asked about frustration within the conference about the recent lack of coordination, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) added, “Well, duh.”

Kennedy added, “No, I don’t,” when asked if Trump takes senators into consideration: “He wants what he wants, and until he gets it, he just keeps pushing.”

The public frustrations are bubbling up at a crucial moment for Trump and Republicans more broadly. The president sent his wee-hours missive from France, where he was meeting with global leaders at the annual G7 conference and seeking to sell an Iran peace deal that many in his party despise.

Trump has faced recent pushback on several fronts in the Senate, with Republicans foiling plans to fund part of his White House ballroom project in a recent immigration funding deal and forcing the Justice Department to abandon plans for a $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that could compensate Trump allies.

The president’s frequent demands that the Senate abandon its longstanding filibuster rule to pass more legislation along party lines, including a controversial elections overhaul, have also gone unheeded — adding to Trump’s obvious frustration.

He has now responded on several occasions by simply infuriating GOP senators who believe they are on the precipice of delivering a legislative win — only for Trump to suddenly pull the rug out from under them.

His announcement of the DOJ payout fund, for instance, delayed and nearly killed a critical immigration funding bill. And his decision to tap Bill Pulte, a close political ally who heads a housing agency, as acting director of national intelligence blew up a brewing three-year deal on reauthorizing a key piece of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who announced his retirement last year after breaking with Trump on policy legislation, said the dynamic is “undermining our ability to produce the very results he wants.”

“Look, we are not the manufacturing department of the Article II branch — we are the board of directors for the Article II branch,” he said. “You start treating us like that, coordinating with us like that, we won’t have these embarrassing setbacks.”

Trump’s decision to call off Clayton’s appearance before the Senate Intelligence Committee came as Republicans believed he was on track to be confirmed as soon as Thursday. That, they believed, would allow for an extension of the spy law — something administration officials had previously argued is crucial to protect Americans amid the World Cup and ongoing America 250 celebrations.

Instead, Clayton and the FISA reauthorization have become the latest tension point between Trump and the Senate, with the president again hammering Republicans for not passing the partisan elections bill known as the SAVE America Act, while also needling them about refusing to blow up the filibuster and the internal rules granting home-state senators deference on some presidential nominees.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune has expressed his own frustrations in a more understated way than others in the GOP ranks.

Normally chatty with reporters, Thune was unusually tight-lipped Wednesday, saying that Senate Republicans would have to figure out the path forward on Clayton and the surveillance law “one day at a time” and that his relationship with Trump was “fine” amid the public turmoil.

“The president has his own mind, makes his own decisions, so do we,” Thune said.

He later explained in an interview that the White House and Senate Republicans do a “fair amount of coordination.” “But sometimes you get surprised,” he added. “It’s a business model the White House employs, and we’ve had to figure out how to be adaptable.”

The White House said in a statement that Trump has worked closely with Senate Republicans on the party’s agenda over the past year, including last year’s $4.5 trillion tax cut and the immigration enforcement bill passed earlier this year.

“We look forward to continuing these close relationships and fulfilling President Trump’s priorities that Americans elected him to enact,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in the statement.

Thune and Trump developed a good working relationship at the outset of the president’s second term, a turnaround from tensions that emerged in the period after Trump’s 2020 election loss that included him calling for a primary challenge to Thune in 2022. Several Senate Republicans praised Thune Wednesday for trying to keep the conference focused and said they didn’t believe Trump’s salvos were personal.

“Hating Thune would be like hating golden retrievers. You can’t dislike Thune. I don’t think the president dislikes him,” Kennedy said, while adding that Trump is fixated on the elections bill: “I just think he wants what he wants, and he continues to push. I just don’t think in this instance he’s likely to get it.”

Several other members identified the SAVE America Act as a persistent friction point despite GOP senators showing over and over again that the bill doesn’t have the votes to pass in the Senate. They are eager for Trump, and some of their own colleagues, to turn their focus from infighting to hammering Democrats heading into November.

Senate Republicans, according to two people granted anonymity to describe a private meeting, directly criticized Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) during a closed-door lunch Wednesday over setting unrealistic expectations about passing the bill.

Without naming Lee, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) took a jab afterward at those “making unrealistic promises and then when they’re not obtained, criticizing one another.”

Cornyn, who lost his bid for renomination to a fifth term this month after Trump endorsed his opponent, also acknowledged the president was the source of “some frustration” inside the Senate GOP around “basically being able to function.”

Congress

Pence-backed think tank joins push to keep kids’ safety bills out of AI package

Published

11 hours ago

June 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

More than a dozen groups including former Vice President Mike Pence’s Advancing American Freedom are urging Senate Commerce Committee leaders to reject efforts to attach kids’ online safety measures to a national artificial intelligence framework, according to a letter shared exclusively with Blue Light News.

The groups argue that the proposed measures could undermine users’ free speech rights while creating new risk to privacy and data security. Their push comes as lawmakers weigh broader AI legislation, and follows reports last week that Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is working with the White House to shore up support for a kids’ safety package that could ultimately preempt some state laws on AI.

The Blackburn-led measure is expected to include the Senate version of the Kids Online Safety Act, which includes a “duty of care” requiring companies to design their products with an eye toward preventing harm to children, the NO FAKES Act and the App Store Accountability Act. It’s not yet clear how aggressively it would preempt state action on narrow issues such as verifying users’ ages on social media.

Think tanks including the libertarian R Street Institute, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, and industry group NetChoice, are among the 13 total signatories. They take issue primarily with ASAA, which would require app store platforms such as Google and Apple to verify users’ ages, and KOSA.

The coalition is alarmed by age verification requirements that could require users to submit personal information to digital databases vulnerable to data breaches and hacks. It also takes issue with parental consent provisions, which would “inevitably require even more intrusive data gathering to prove both the identity of the parent and his or her status as the child’s legal guardian,” the letter reads.

KOSA is also problematic, according to the coalition, because of its duty of care provision. It argues this would infringe on users’ First Amendment speech rights by “requiring online platforms to suppress certain kinds of content.”

Meta helped kill KOSA two years ago after raising similar free speech concerns with the bill to Speaker Mike Johnson, though it has since dropped its opposition because Blackburn’s package is expected to include language preempting state AI laws, as POLITICO exclusively reported Tuesday.