Congress

An Elderly Lawmaker’s Staff Keeps Walking Back Things She Tells Reporters. Should They Keep Quoting Her?

Published

1 year ago

July 7, 2025

A few weeks ago, my Blue Light News colleague Nicholas Wu and NBC’s Sahil Kapur ran into D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton in the Capitol. Like good congressional reporters, they jumped at the opportunity to pepper a lawmaker about the news of the day. In this case, one question concerned Norton herself, a civil rights icon who is now the oldest House member: Would she run for another term next year, by which point she would be 89 years old? “Yeah, sure,” Norton said.

Coming on the heels of multiple stories about Norton’s alleged cognitive decline, the statement made news. But a few hours later, Norton’s office began unmaking that news. The Democrat “wants to run again but she’s in conversations with her family, friends, and closest advisors to decide what’s best,” a spokesperson told Wu. There was still no final decision.

It was all awkward and embarrassing — and did little to buttress Norton’s insistence that she’s as sharp as ever. And then, amazingly, it happened again. Last week, Kapur once again approached the delegate and asked about her plans. Once again, she said she’s running: “Yeah, I’m going to run for re-election.” And once again, her spokesperson quickly walked back the comment, telling Axios that “no decision has been made.”

The spokesperson, Sharon Nichols, did not offer any explanation for the discrepancy. She also didn’t respond when I asked her for details of what happened or whether journalists should take future Norton statements at face value.

That last question is relevant even if you don’t much care about the electoral plans of one non-voting delegate. For people interested in how Washington works, it’s an increasingly common issue in our era of gerontocracy: Just how are you supposed to interact with an elected official who might not be all there?

It’s an ongoing private conversation among reporters, animated by a sense that the watchdogs haven’t been zealous enough — but featuring no real agreement on how to handle these moments.

“I’m on the fence about it,” said New York Times congressional reporter Annie Karni, the author of her own recent piece about Norton’s struggles. “Is it newsworthy to be even doing this dance where you ask her a thing, she says something that makes no sense, and staff has to walk it back? Like, what are we doing? Or are we showing the problem? I don’t know what the answer is.”

“Every reporter has a story about this,” said Kristin Wilson, who was a BLN Capitol Hill producer until last year. Incidents that couldn’t be explained away sometimes made news, like the time the late GOP Sen. Thad Cochran got lost in the Capitol, or the time a colleague had to instruct late Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein to “just say aye” at a vote. When Texas Rep. Kay Granger struggled with dementia at the end of her term last year, it fell to a Dallas news site to reveal it. But many quieter interactions involving nonsensical quotes never got published. “I think we have pulled punches,” Wilson said.

Wilson recalled an incident when her team was interviewing the late GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch for a story on senators’ hideaway offices: “Hatch kind of went off on a tangent of a story, and as he’s telling the story, his aide is just like looking at me and his eyes are just massive, like he knew Hatch had just sort of gone down a bad path.”

In the end, the tangent wasn’t germane to the story. “Blue Light News is like living in a small town,” Wilson said. “And you know all these people, and you’re around them all the time. Are you going to be that person in that small town that you’re in?”

For journalists, the answer to that question is supposed to be: Yes, that’s exactly who we are! But the exigencies of managing a Hill beat that requires a daily stream of scoops makes it tough to latch onto every potentially embarrassing comment. Publishing them, after all, might enrage the staffers who tip you to those scoops — and confuse readers who just want accuracy.

It turns out Norton’s staff had good reason to think they could simply contradict their boss’ comments without it becoming a story: There’s a long history of spokespeople cajoling media outlets into cleaning up the incorrect, impolitic, or downright addled things that lawmakers say when they get buttonholed by Capitol Hill reporters.

Oftentimes, these involve non-craven fixes. “My rule of thumb was that I’m not in the business of playing gotcha,” said Todd Gillman, a former longtime Washington bureau chief for the Dallas Morning News. “People misspeak. They mix up a bill, a vote or a person. There’s a slip of the tongue. I’ve always let people clean up things like that. I’m going for substance.”

Yet the culture of cleaning up makes it harder to say no when you suspect that the slip of the tongue may actually be the substance. “Seems like the tradeoffs don’t change, though the calculus might,” Gillman told me. “Are you willing to incur some wrath for ignoring their lobbying?” Until Joe Biden’s presidency pushed the national conversation about aging officials, the answer wasn’t always self-evident.

And it comes up particularly often in the Capitol, one of the strangest media environments in America, a place where beat reporters can count on running into VIPs in public hallways and asking for quotes on even the most obscure matters. It’s as if Hollywood reporters could count on buttonholing Clint Eastwood every time he was at the office.

For staffers, this means a lot of work keeping track of potential messes. Brad White, who ran Cochran’s senatorial office before the Republican’s retirement amid health problems at age 80, said his colleagues’ clean-up work was more often about vernacular than mental capacity. “He would confuse some reporters because somebody would say, ‘Well, how are y’all coming on the budget negotiations?’ And he would say something that was more of a generational statement from Mississippi, like, ‘Well, we’re getting down to the lip lock.’ And nobody knew what the hell that might mean.”

All the same, as Cochran struggled, White managed around the edges. “He was an older guy,” White said. “He’d have good days and bad days, and there were days maybe that I would decide today is not the day we need to talk about this issue.” In Cochran’s case, he said, the senator was planning to resign but the timing was complicated by a budget process. “If you’ve got a member that is facing those types of issues, and you can tell that they’re working their way out, then that deserves some grace,” he said. “If you got a member that has no business being there and they’re clutching onto it like the Pope, then maybe that’s worthy of a discussion.”

To their credit, Wu and Kapur both reported the interactions with Norton as they happened, and reported the office’s statements to the contrary. It was an easy call, they both told me: The question at issue — would Norton run again? — was personal and ultimately can only be answered by her. It’s not the same as flubbing details of a 1,000-page bill.

Ed Wasserman, the former dean of the University of California’s graduate school of journalism and a longtime writer about media ethics, thinks the journalistic hand-wringing about how to describe cringey moments may actually make it harder to enlighten the public: “One of the problems is that reporters routinely handle incoherence and inconsistency by ignoring it, so a decision to convey it to readers as significant already rests on a belief that there’s some underlying dysfunction,” he said.

Wasserman said the principled position ought to be that lawmakers’ moments of confusion are news, period. Cleaning it up “is not really an option,” Wasserman said. “This is clearly performance related. And their job performance is your job to report on.”

The challenge is that it’s also a reporter’s job to cover the day’s debate about a bill or a nomination. Inserting incoherent comments from a lawmaker can confuse most readers — even if it enlightens a subset of folks interested in that particular lawmaker’s state of mind. “It’s weird that in the Capitol, people know which lawmakers you can’t really talk to substantively, and avoid them,” said Karni. “When you’re not reporting on the age issue, which I have reported a lot on, I think it’s important to just know who is not able to participate like that.”

By way of example, she cites yet another kerfuffle over yet another Norton comment: In April, the lawmaker told a reporter that she might try to become the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. The news kicked off a round of Democratic agita about aging leadership clinging to power. Hours later, her office put out a statement from Norton taking herself out of contention. The incident may have said something about Norton, but it didn’t really help the (probably larger) number of people who just want to be up to date about the committee’s future.

“Is this productive? Is this fair? She’s clearly not running for Oversight. So having her say that, it created a dumb news cycle with this kind of faux outrage,” Karni said. “You could say, ‘Are you thinking about running for president?’ And she might say, ‘I’m thinking about it.’ So what are we doing when we’re asking that question?”

It makes for a weird status quo: One set of lawmakers who can be grilled about legislative issues, another who are considered out to lunch, everyone keeping secret mental lists of who’s who, and no one feeling able to publish them because, after all, who can really prove what’s going on in someone’s head?

“The conundrum is you’re not going to be able to reach that judgment without applying certain standards that you’re not necessarily able to reach because you’re not a psychiatrist or you don’t really know them,” Wasserman said. “But at the same time, you know enough. You see what’s an indication that they’re not enough in command of the intellectual challenges of the job. … You have no reason to apologize for that. It’s your job.”

Congress

John Thune has money on his mind

Published

2 hours ago

October 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

LE SUEUR, Minnesota — The word on John Thune’s mind these days is “resources.”

In the Senate majority leader’s recollection, it was a dominant topic in his recent conversations with President Donald Trump, including at a recent visit to the White House, not to mention in his frequent conversation with Trump’s political team — and in an exclusive conversation with Blue Light News Monday during a Midwest campaign swing.

“I think the president is sincerely interested in trying to do whatever he can to help the team,” Thune said about his midterm conversations with the president and his advisers. “I also share with him, too, the importance of just the resources in some of these states. You know, some of the states have gotten very expensive.”

As Trump focuses on turning out his own voters — a message the president is taking into his own hands in a series of preelection rallies — Thune is making sure he also has money on his mind: “I … just conveyed to him the importance of ensuring that our candidates are well-resourced.”

Thune’s focus underscores the emerging question defining the 2026 midterms: Is there enough Republican money, and can it be spent fast enough, to counter surging Democratic campaigns and a lackluster national environment for the GOP?

It’s a narrative both sides largely agree on — Thune’s Democratic counterpart, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, said as much last week — even as each leader insists his side will prevail.

Thune declined Monday to put odds on the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the Senate but said repeatedly, “I think we can keep the majority.”

“I think all of these races are margin of error, at least the ones that we have to win,” he added. “And historically, at least if you look at polls, we tend to outperform them.”

Unlike Schumer, who is keeping a low profile in October and focusing on private fundraising, Thune is barnstorming the country — visiting a mix of deep-red and battleground states.

Minnesota was not expected to be in play for Republicans when Thune took over as leader nearly two years ago. Democratic incumbent Sen. Tina Smith had a clear path to reelection in a state that has not elected a GOP senator since 2002.

But Smith chose to retire, and Democrats nominated an unabashed progressive, Peggy Flanagan, who is now facing Michele Tafoya, the well-known former sportscaster, in November. Recent public polls have shown the race in single digits, and Thune was not shy about including it alongside Michigan and New Hampshire as a GOP pickup opportunity.

Mentioning Minnesota is one thing, but investing in it is another, and national groups affiliated with Thune have not made major investments in the state so far. Standing next to Thune at a news conference Monday, Tafoya made the case for that to change.

“We have had three or four straight weeks of really solid polls,” she said. “This is one worth investing in. We are right there.”

But they both kept things vague when asked about Washington Republicans’ potential commitment to the race — including how much cash would be necessary to overcome 24 years of futility and a bad political environment.

Both Thune and Tafoya used the same words to answer that question: “We haven’t had that conversation.”

Thune put the party’s spending decisions into a larger context: “If the president is looking for places where he can make a difference … we’re in touch on a daily basis with his team and hopefully they will — as they already have — continue to help us leverage the resources that we’ve got to bring to bear to get the best possible impact and outcome in these key states.”

Thune pointed to Minnesota as one possible state where Trump could choose to deploy his $400-million-plus war chest. But the tiny national footprint in the Gopher State pales next to the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in Texas — an expensive state Thune and Trump continue to discuss as Republicans struggle to drag Senate nominee Ken Paxton over the finish line.

Asked about the super-sized investments there, Thune declined to connect the massive spending on Paxton to tough decisions elsewhere on the map. “Dedicated donors” focused on Texas, he said, have meant GOP groups haven’t yet had to siphon funding away from other key states.

But the tough decisions are nevertheless underway. As Republican candidates play defense in a growing list of red states, the Thune-aligned Senate Leadership Fund recently pulled back spending in North Carolina — essentially surrendering a GOP-held seat to Democrats — while increasing its spending in Kansas.

Thune referred to the decision as a “pause” in financial support for nominee Michael Whatley.

The reasons for the political headwinds were on display Monday at an agriculture-focused roundtable, where Thune and Tafoya heard about the impact of Trump’s trade war with Canada, the president’s decision to import foreign beef and the high diesel prices that followed his decision to attack Iran.

Thune, a South Dakotan fluent in farm-state politics, touted Tafoya as someone who could help address some of those concerns by being a “great voice on issues like agriculture” if she makes it to the Senate.

His broader message in the interview, however, was to cast the midterm election as “choice” between the two parties rather than a referendum on the Iran war and the ensuing spike in energy prices. Democrats want “more spending,” “higher costs,” and “open borders,” he said, while Republicans had put “more money in your pockets” with their 2025 tax bill.

“Iran is temporary,” he said. “It will be behind us. Gas prices are going to come down, so who do you want to invest in for the next two years, four years?”

The midterm results carry personal stakes for Thune, who is expected to run for leader again in internal Senate GOP elections that are expected to take place just days after the midterms, regardless of the outcome.

Thune remains well-liked within the Senate GOP conference, and no other senator has raised his or her hand to run against him. But some conservatives, in and out of the Senate, have privately questioned whether Trump would publicly turn on Thune if Republicans lose their majority.

Asked about that possibility, Thune said, “I can’t control that.” He added that “the Republican conference” would ultimately make the decision.

“What the president does or doesn’t do … you just move forward and let the chips fall where they may,” he said. “All I can say is, I’m with him and his team to do the things I think are good for the future of the country.”

When Blue Light News pointed out Trump defended Thune at last month’s GOP midterm convention after some in the crowd booed the mention of his name, he laughed.

“Yeah, I know,” he said. “It’s the little things, right?”

Congress

GOP committee chair rebuts Sam Altman: ‘I’m never willing to accept bad results’ from AI

Published

12 hours ago

October 5, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The chair of the House Agriculture Committee said he’s not willing to “accept bad results” as a tradeoff for the benefits of advancements in artificial intelligence — a direct rebuttal to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

“As someone who practiced health care for 28 years, I’m never willing to accept bad results. I think we just need to do our best,” Rep. G.T. Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, told reporters Monday.

He was responding to Altman’s comments to Decoded by Blue Light News that people “should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency.”

Pressed further on whether he agreed with Altman’s premise, Thompson replied, “No, I think we have to work harder to prevent any bad things from happening.”

Altman’s comments come in the wake of increased panic over the risks of catastrophic destruction from AI, with many industry leaders and experts arguing that guardrails are needed on the technology to prevent it from spinning out of human control.

Pressure is building on Congress to regulate the rapidly-advancing technology, but lawmakers are divided over whether the AI industry needs federal regulation or if it’s capable of governing itself.

The executives of major AI labs and tech companies gathered at the White House last week to discuss solutions with President Donald Trump, who believes overregulating AI will have national security repercussions. The group ended up signing a “morally binding” AI accord that critics say won’t do enough to prevent a worst-case scenario.

Thompson noted Monday he believes that AI will bring “tremendous solutions,” specifically in regards to finding cures for health issues like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. But he also said AI has to be led with “principle” — comparing it to how he addressed digital assets in a bill to regulate the cryptocurrency industry, which he worked on as chair of the Agriculture Committee.

“The first principle is ‘do no harm.’ So we need to protect consumers, and that means, I think, building some guardrails — some guidelines — to do that,” Thompson said. He added that the second principle is to “foster innovation.”

“I think AI has a lot to do with that,” he added. “I don’t think AI works without RI: Real Intelligence.”

Congress

John Thune says ‘no clear path forward’ for clock-change bill

Published

13 hours ago

October 5, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

LE SUEUR, Minnesota — Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is no “consensus” yet on advancing a bill establishing permanent daylight saving time even as President Donald Trump ramps up pressure on Republicans to pass it.

Thune addressed the matter in a Monday interview after Trump used his Truth Social account multiple times over the weekend to rail against the legislation, known as the Sunshine Protection Act — going so far as to post the personal cell phone number of one of its GOP opponents, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

“The president feels strongly on it like he does a lot of issues,” he said. “It’s something we’re having conversations about but there’s no clear path forward or consensus on it yet.”

While Trump singled out Cotton for scrutiny, Thune made clear the opposition to the permanent daylight saving time proposal — which would lead to very late winter sunrises in some parts of the country — ran deeper than one senator.

Cotton has publicly voiced opposition to the proposal for year, citing, among other things, the fact that children in his state would be going to school in the dark for part of the year.

Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) voiced similar objections Monday to reporters in the Capitol, saying he was mindful of “safety concerns in the more northern and rural states where children get on the school bus in very early hours.”

Thune, who spoke during a campaign swing in Minnesota with GOP Senate nominee Michele Tafoya, has himself opposed previous daylight saving bills. He said Monday that “a lot of it depends on where you are in the country” and that “your geography probably has as much to do with your position on that as anything.”

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who has aligned himself closely with Trump, is among the lawmakers who have been pushing to get the bill through the Senate. He recently told POLITICO, “I’m going to make sure it gets passed this year.”

Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.