Congress

Ballroom, gas-tax fights illustrate GOP’s affordability pickle

Published

5 months ago

May 13, 2026

Americans are furious about the rising cost of living, and a series of internal battles on Capitol Hill this week is laying bare why Republicans are struggling to do anything about it.

House and Senate Republicans are facing divisions over a gas-tax holiday being demanded by President Donald Trump, not to mention housing and energy permitting bills that have stalled for months.

Meanwhile, a long-term immigration enforcement bill that could be the last major piece of GOP legislation before the midterms has become engulfed by the inclusion of a billion-dollar Secret Service funding request that has put a spotlight on Trump’s controversial White House ballroom project.

The scale of the political challenges facing Republicans were further underscored Tuesday with the administration’s latest cost estimate for the Iran war surpassing $29 billion and a brutal inflation report showing gas, grocery and housing prices surging last month amid the conflict.

“I don’t know that the Congress is doing a whole lot — that’s the real issue,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). “My advice to Congress would be, it might be good for us to do something on cost of living. … It seems like voters are making it very clear that they want some relief.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also offered a blunt assessment of the optics the party is facing as they try to approve the Secret Service funding, which can be used for parts of Trump’s ballroom project, as Americans deal with high gas prices

“Not good,” she said.

Secret Service Director Sean Curran met with Senate Republicans Tuesday to make the case for his agency’s staggering request, but several GOP senators said afterward that they aren’t satisfied with the explanations administration officials have so far provided.

Even some senior House Republicans are airing public doubts about the security funding — about $220 million of which could end up being spent as part of the ballroom project, according to a breakdown given to senators and obtained by Blue Light News.

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) said in an interview Tuesday he did not doubt the need for additional security for Trump and other Secret Service protectees but would “reserve judgment” on the $1 billion request as he seeks an “itemized” list of what it would fund.

“I hope it’s narrowly tailored to getting [immigration enforcement] funded and restoring the safety and security of the American people,” said Arrington, who initially wanted affordability and other measures added to the party-line bill.

Curran’s visit to Capitol Hill Tuesday was part of a White House lobbying blitz for the security funding, with Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and White House legislative affairs director James Braid making pitches to other groups of Republicans in closed-door meetings Tuesday and Wednesday.

One member granted anonymity to speak candidly said it could get “ugly” with the White House seemingly determined to get it done despite GOP lawmakers’ protests. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a key centrist, said in an interview Tuesday that the $1 billion request was simply “not happening here” in the House.

Republicans believe they’ve already taken some steps to address cost-of-living concerns, including the tax cuts included in last year’s “big, beautiful bill” that they hope Americans are beginning to feel benefits from.

But the ballroom security squabble has handed Democrats something they view as a potent political cudgel heading into November.

“Instead of listening to the American people, Donald Trump and the GOP put forward a reconciliation bill that would force Americans to pay for Trump’s billion-dollar-ballroom and tens of billions of dollars more for Trump’s masked agents while including zero — zero — dollars to bring down Americans’ costs,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor Tuesday.

The issue for congressional Republicans is that many of the ideas currently being batted around to address high prices divide their ranks, giving them an unclear path to Trump’s desk.

Senate Republicans pointed to a long-brewing permitting overhaul Tuesday as a way to potentially reduce energy costs — but the proposal has remained just out of reach for years now. And, according to two attendees, GOP senators urged Speaker Mike Johnson to pass their housing bill without changes, believing it could give the party a quick way to show voters they hear their concerns.

“I think it gets at the core issue, the heart of the matter for most voters, which is affordability,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said about the need to pass the housing bill.

The closed-door lunch came after a group of GOP senators met with Trump Monday at the White House, where they discussed the fate of a housing bill that passed the Senate on an 89-10 vote in March. Afterward, Trump went on Truth Social and urged Congress to quickly pass the legislation.

But House Republican leaders are signaling they want to make further changes, which would require it to be passed in the Senate a second time — even though White House officials are strongly pushing back on that idea.

“I’d just be happy if they do something,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said Tuesday, blaming “one or two” House Republicans for the impasse: “They’ve been holding it up since God was a baby. Their reasons for holding it up run from substantive to ‘my dog ate my homework.’”

Trump, for his part, has made a series of comments that have only fueled accusations that his party isn’t focused enough on affordability.

Asked Tuesday as he left the White House for his overseas trip to China whether Americans’ finances figured into his approach to the Iran conflict, he gave an answer Democrats immediately pounced on.

“I don’t think about America’s financial situation,” he said. “I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump did, however, throw his support behind a modest cost-of-living measure Monday, saying he wanted to suspend the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gas tax to alleviate Iran-related price hikes.

House GOP leaders, however, are not thrilled with the idea. They are hoping the White House finds a way for Trump to take some steps to lower gas prices through executive actions and leave Congress out of it, according to five people granted anonymity to describe internal conversations.

There are also scores of Republicans, for instance, who publicly admonished then-President Joe Biden for floating the same idea amid in 2022 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and, in the words of one of the people, would have to “eat shit” if they go back on that position now.

Thune didn’t rule out an eventual vote on a gas-tax holiday, but he characterized proposals from Hawley and others as “trial balloons.” He suggested the move could impact highway projects without meaningfully lowering gas prices.“The question is, would it get passed on to the consumer … or would it get absorbed in the supply chain somehow?” he said.

Johnson told reporters Tuesday suspending the federal gas tax was an “intriguing” idea but added that Republicans have to work through any “unintended consequences” of such a move and will continue to discuss it.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise was also noncommittal: “Obviously we all want to see gas prices come back down, and when the Iran conflict is resolved, they will, and they’ll come down quickly. I don’t think anybody disputes that.”

“You’re seeing the president work really hard to try to get this resolved,” he added. “Hopefully it’s soon.”

But the top Republicans may be forced into action as rank-and-file backers of a gas-tax holiday, such as Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), arguing Congress needs to act quickly to pass a bill before the Memorial Day recess starts in just over a week.

That sense of urgency is not shared by other GOP lawmakers who view a gas-tax holiday as an ineffective Band-Aid — including Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.), who compared it to “taking aspirin for cancer,” and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who identified a more consequential driver of high prices.

“I think instead of suspending the tax, we should suspend the war,” he said.

Mia McCarthy, Riley Rogerson and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Capitol agenda: The unknowns of a Sherrod Brown return

Published

6 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats may be rooting for Sherrod Brown’s comeback, but they are not exactly prepared for what’d happen next.

If Brown wins on Election Day, Democrats likely face an uncomfortable choice: break longstanding party rules to restore his seniority on powerful committees like Banking, Agriculture and Finance or potentially make him start over at the bottom.

Complicating the issue: Brown will immediately need to prepare for a grueling re-election fight in 2028 and his campaign could greatly benefit from two years with a high-profile gavel. That’s because this midterm is Ohio’s special election where voters are selecting a senator to serve out the remainder of Vice President JD Vance‘s term.

Brown’s post, therefore, may not only deeply impact Democrats’ policy agenda but could also play a key role in the party’s success in winning the battleground seat in 2028.

Some members are already suggesting the party should try to find a middle ground.

“Some accommodation that recognizes he would not be a rank freshman would make sense. But that’s distinct from handing him back a leadership role at Banking,” said Sen. Chris Coons.

The Ohio Democrat served as the top Democrat on the Banking panel for a decade. He was also a longtime member of Finance as well as Agriculture, where he would also be the most senior member if his previous service counted.

To give Brown a gavel on Agriculture or Banking could set up clashes with the Democrats now expected to lead their party on the panels: Sens. Michael Bennet and Elizabeth Warren, respectively.

It would also break Senate Democrats’ caucus rules, and precedent is not on Brown’s side when it comes to making exceptions.

Still, aides and lobbyists around the panels expect Democrats will be eager to give Brown some sort of perch.

Those close to him have been encouraging him to seek the Agriculture gavel. It’d allow him to deliver valuable policy wins for Ohio’s rural areas, influence the farm bill if it gets punted to next year and help guide the direction of cryptocurrency regulation.

Another possibility that avoids an intraparty clash: hand Brown a seat on Appropriations, which could potentially give him a subcommittee gavel and federal funding clout.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has avoided any firm commitments on Brown’s seniority, saying last month when asked: “Let’s win back the Senate first.”

What else we’re watching:

— OMAR RAID RAISES QUESTIONS FOR GOP: House Republicans — including Majority Whip Tom Emmer — have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of GOP boogeyman Rep. Ilhan Omar. But the raid raises thorny questions for GOP leaders about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself — regardless of party — from encroaching federal prosecutors. Lawmakers’ work communications are protected from prosecutors’ scrutiny, with few exceptions, under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That draws into question whether the emails, texts, and materials on Omar’s phone, which was seized in the raid, could legally be reviewed by Trump officials. So far, Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on how the House’s legal team may defend Omar.

— TRUMP’S TRICKY FARM MONEY PROMISE: Trump’s move Monday to turn out GOP voters by promising to send farmers $8 billion in taxpayer money is already facing a reality check. The internal USDA taxpayer-funded account Trump is tapping doesn’t actually have enough money in it right now to make the payments, meaning Congress will have to approve new funds or the administration will have to take it from another program, according to three Trump officials granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Plus, farmers wouldn’t receive the payments until late November or early December at the earliest — well past Election Day, according to three people close to the plans.

Jasper Goodman, Grace Yarrow, Kyle Cheney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

This member is so frustrated with Congress he wants voters to sidestep it

Published

6 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

At the end of one of the least productive Congresses in modern history, freshman Rep. Johnny Olszewski is so sick of the gridlock on Capitol Hill that he wants voters to bypass it entirely.

“It’s been a long two years,” the Maryland Democrat said in a Tuesday interview.

“One of the things that’s made it difficult as a new member is to see not only the dysfunction, but also the missed opportunities,” he added. “There are so many issues out there that Americans support that this Congress and frankly prior Congresses have failed to act on.”

Fed up with the lack of progress on popular policies like banning congressional stock trading, equipping police with body cameras or protecting in vitro fertilization, Olszewski is introducing a constitutional amendment Thursday, first shared with POLITICO, that would create a mechanism for voters to make federal law directly.

The measure would give voters 18 months to gather signatures from at least 5% of people who participated in the most recent presidential election in 25 states. Then any qualifying direct-democracy measure would be put on ballots for the next national election and need a 60% national majority to pass.

Votes to declare war or direct federal spending would not be eligible under the proposal.

“If we were acting, there’d be no need for this to come into play,” Olszewski said. “It would create a really important backstop for the American people to say, ‘You know what … irrespective of which party is in power, Congress is failing to meet not just our everyday needs but act on issues that we overwhelmingly support and want to see acted upon.’”

The amendment — which itself would require support from two-thirds of the House and Senate as well as three-quarters of states — is an incredible longshot and would create serious implementation headaches, but Olszewski — a former civics teacher — hopes his proposal will spark a discussion about congressional reform.

“I understand that any constitutional amendment is going to be difficult,” Olszewski said. “But I’m hopeful that at least for the lame duck session, this is an opportunity to create a conversation around the fact that we have been so gridlocked that we have failed to address the needs of the American people.”

Congress

The House GOP’s imminent decision on the Omar raid

Published

6 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Republicans have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar. But underneath the posturing, the raid raises thorny nonpartisan questions about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself from encroaching federal prosecutors.

The Department of Homeland Security investigators who raided Omar’s Washington home last week were searching for evidence related to the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration history. But they also emerged in possession of her personal phone, which likely includes a trove of records related to Omar’s work at the Capitol — records that both parties have a strong interest in keeping private.

Lawmakers use their cellphones and computers to communicate with aides about upcoming votes, committee hearings and drafting or filing legislation. They text and email colleagues about the work of the House. And they talk to constituents, advisers, attorneys and experts about crucial congressional decisions. The Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause makes such material absolutely immune from scrutiny by federal prosecutors, with few exceptions.

The founders adopted those protections to ensure the executive branch could not use its law enforcement power to punish or coerce opponents in Congress. That principle has united Democrats and Republicans, even in this hyperpolarized era.

Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on the speech-or-debate implications of the Omar raid, but the House has sometimes taken weeks or months to articulate a position in other recent investigations.

A letter from Omar’s attorneys to the Justice Department, reviewed by Blue Light News, suggested that the magistrate judge who approved the search ordered investigators to contact the House’s top lawyer, Matthew Berry, giving him a chance to intervene on behalf of the institution. Berry’s office has been in contact with Trump administration counterparts in recent days, according to two people familiar with the investigation.

The people, who were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the probe publicly, say investigators have not yet accessed Omar’s phone. If they choose to attempt to access it, they must first give Omar a chance to review its contents and assert speech-or-debate protections, with a court ultimately deciding which materials investigators may access.

A representative for the Justice Department declined to comment. Representatives for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Johnson and Omar did not respond to requests for comment.

The administration’s targeting of Omar comes amid a series of actions the Trump-led Justice Department has taken against Democratic members of Congress: a failed effort to indict Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with several House members, over comments encouraging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders; criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer during a visit to a New Jersey detention facility.

It also comes amid continued GOP outrage over former special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to gather some material related to Republican members of Congress in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

The House’s official legal positions are determined by an obscure five-member body known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG. The BLAG is made up of the speaker, majority leader, majority whip, minority leader and minority whip. That panel, always controlled by the majority party, charts the House’s course in court. And while most of the BLAG’s recent decisions have broken 3-2 along partisan lines, speech-or-debate issues have sometimes resulted in unanimous agreement.

Berry has seen this movie before: In 2022, federal investigators seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to scrutinize his role in President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. The Justice Department’s aggressive action drew a bipartisan response from House leaders, who demanded access to the sealed proceedings to ensure prosecutors didn’t cross any constitutional lines. And shortly after Republicans returned to the majority in 2023, Jeffries and Minority Whip Katherine Clark joined GOP leaders and supported Berry’s filing of a 36-page brief demanding robust protection of materials seized from lawmakers’ cellphones.

That case resulted in a new precedent that treats lawmakers’ personal cellphones as an extension of their private offices. It took more than a year of litigation before those investigators, later led by Smith, were able to access a subset of Perry’s records that were deemed to fall outside of Congress’ constitutional protections.

Stan Brand, a former House counsel who represented Perry in the legal battle against Smith’s team, noted that the backdrop of Omar situation is strikingly similar to one of the most significant constitutional clashes between the House and Justice Department: the 2006 raid of then-Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office by George W. Bush-era prosecutors. At the time, GOP House leaders joined Democrats in outrage over the raid.

Notably, the DHS investigators who carried out last week’s search presented Omar with a “speech or debate” waiver that she refused to sign, according to the letter from Omar’s attorneys. Courts have expressed skepticism about whether individual members can waive protections that were intended to safeguard the separation of powers for the entire institution.

“This is just one more example of excess in the Department of Justice under both Democrats and Republicans,” Brand said.

Senate Republicans have also accused the Justice Department under President Joe Biden of violating their speech-or-debate protections when Smith subpoenaed their phone records — which don’t include the content of texts or emails — from third-party telecom companies like Verizon. One GOP senator is suing Smith and the Justice Department over the matter, and DOJ has since adopted new policies for third-party subpoenas related to members of Congress.

Riley Rogerson and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.