Congress

Ballroom won’t be funded after Senate GOP drops $1 billion Trump security request

Published

3 weeks ago

May 20, 2026

In a blow to the White House, Senate Republicans will remove a $1 billion Secret Service funding request that would help President Donald Trump’s ballroom project from their immigration enforcement funding bill amid internal objections.

“We were told that the ballroom money is out,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters after a GOP lunch meeting Wednesday, adding he’d “like to read the text.”

The decision to omit the security funding came after twin blows: Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled over the weekend that the provision didn’t comply with the strict rules governing what Republicans can put in their filibuster-skirting bill because it funded activities outside of the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction.

And several GOP senators aired public concerns about including any ballroom funding in a bill otherwise dedicated to immigration enforcement. A larger swath of Republicans were privately opposed, with the mood souring further Tuesday amid anger over Trump’s decision to endorse Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the upcoming GOP primary runoff in Texas.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told Republicans during the lunch Wednesday that both factors — the parliamentary issues and the vote count — remain obstacles to including the Secret Service security funding, according to two people granted anonymity to describe the private gathering.

Kennedy told reporters he believed the entire Secret Service provision would be omitted, as did one of the two people, another GOP senator.

Thune, after the lunch, said conversations are ongoing and that the bill text isn’t yet finalized.

Draft legislation made an explicit mention of the East Wing Modernization Project, specifying that part of the $1 billion in Secret Service funding could be used for “above-ground and below-ground security features” of the ballroom project.

That mention was a top priority for the White House, which made clear earlier this month that passage of the bill with the language included would amount to Congress granting approval to the ballroom project as a whole. The administration is currently mired in court after a federal judge ruled earlier this year that the project had not been properly authorized by lawmakers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview late last week that the White House had given them proposed legislative text related to the project.

Republicans are privately bracing for a furious Trump reaction to the decision to drop the security funding, according to two people granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. Even before Senate GOP leaders made the decision, the president called for MacDonough’s firing in a Truth Social post.

There had been signs for days, though, that the language was problematic. The administration tried to reassure senators that only $220 million of $1 billion in Secret Service money would potentially go toward the ballroom project and otherwise “hardening” the White House complex.

But GOP senators still had unanswered questions heading into Wednesday, which they viewed as the unofficial deadline for making a decision as they rush to send a bill to Trump’s desk this week.

Removing the Secret Service funding won’t solve all the political headaches Republicans are facing on the immigration bill.

Democrats are expected to propose an amendment targeting a new Justice Department “anti-weaponization” fund created as part of a settlement with Trump that could be used to compensate the president’s political allies.

Republicans believe such an amendment would get enough GOP support to be added to the bill, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose private discussions.

Congress

Senate panel approves Department of War name change

Published

3 minutes ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted this week to formally change the Pentagon’s name to the Department of War, moving a significant step closer to solidifying President Donald Trump’s rebrand of the Defense Department as permanent.

The move came during the committee’s closed-door deliberations over its defense policy bill, according to Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who announced the name change in explaining his vote against the legislation.

“It’s a juvenile move that sadly describes the reality of a president who has abandoned meaningful diplomacy in favor of starting doubtful wars in multiple locations and threatening even more,” he said in a statement.

Trump authorized the War Department moniker last year as part of a broader effort to present a more aggressive military to the world. The Pentagon has used it since, as have many Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But Congress must sign off for the name change to stick — and votes on both sides of the Capitol make it closer than ever to becoming a reality.

Details of the Armed Services vote, including who pushed for the change, were not immediately public. The committee voted 18-9 to advance the bill Wednesday evening and released initial details of the legislation Thursday.

The House Armed Services Committee approved the rebranding last week in its draft of the annual authorization legislation. The measure was adopted there in a narrow, party-line vote.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quickly praised the decision. “The Department of War will officially be restored soon,” he wrote in a social media post after the House panel’s vote.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that a full renaming of the department could cost as much as $125 million. But supporters have argued changing the name would more accurately reflect the focus and strength of the department, sending a message to potential adversaries.

The name change’s inclusion in both the House and Senate panel’s drafts of the authorization bill — which has passed Congress annually for the last six decades — signals that the rebrand has a strong chance of becoming law.

Congress

Judge finds Lander not guilty in 26 Federal Plaza obstruction case

Published

18 minutes ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — A federal judge ruled Thursday that former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander is not guilty of misdemeanor obstruction for blocking an elevator while protesting outside an immigrant holding area.

Lander was hit with the obstruction charge last September while demonstrating in support of detained immigrants at 26 Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan. He was offered a deal to drop the charge but opted instead for a trial to bring attention to the federal government’s immigration policies.

Lander said he was there with state legislators to view the facility’s conditions, not to purposefully block an elevator — and that he would have moved if asked. In reading his findings, Judge Henry Ricardo described Lander’s testimony as consistent with video evidence, noting that his movements didn’t suggest he was purposefully trying to block the elevator and that Lander appeared “tired and a bit resigned.”

“No offense to Mr. Lander,” the judge said.

Lander — who entered the courtroom in good spirits and holding a Knicks hat — told reporters after the verdict: “I didn’t feel tired.”

“I felt an urgency to show up that day and try to fight what ICE is doing,” he said.

After a month’s delay, Lander finally had his first day in court Wednesday — less than two weeks before the primary election — bringing immigration even more to the forefront in the waning days of his campaign against Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman.

During the six-hour trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Ariel Cohen framed it as a straightforward case — that it was well-documented Lander was sitting in front of an elevator and didn’t move after being told to do so multiple times.

Cohen pointed to Lander singing “We Shall Not Be Moved,” a well-known protest song popularized during the Civil Rights movement, while sitting in front of the elevator. But Ricardo was not swayed by that argument, reasoning that it was a chaotic moment and Lander was, in fact, moved, despite the song he was singing.

“Actions speak louder than words,” he said.

Ricardo said the government failed to prove Lander purposefully obstructed an elevator. He also said he didn’t weigh what was being protested or whether the protest was just — a stated goal for Lander in deciding to take the case to trial. Instead, Wednesday’s proceedings focused largely on elevator logistics and signage at 26 Federal Plaza, not the Trump administration’s immigration efforts.

“Do I wish that they had granted our discovery motions, sought harder to prove the case and given us the ability to hold ICE accountable? Yes, I wish that,” Lander said after the verdict.

Immigration policy has emerged as a flashpoint between Lander and Goldman, who is seeking a third term, especially as the Trump administration threatens to ramp up enforcement in the state.

Goldman, who often highlights his oversight visits at immigrant detention centers and his “triage center” to support detainees near 26 Federal Plaza, has repeatedly criticized Lander for his approach to immigration. On Wednesday, he referred to Lander’s case as “performative” and “self-promoting.” At a debate last week, Goldman chided him for the rhetorical refrain that he puts his “body on the line” for immigrants and for fundraising off of it.

“While Brad never did get the information he sought from ICE, I have all of that information from my weekly oversight visits and would be happy to brief him,” Goldman said in a statement.

Lander, who frequently conducts court watching shifts, was also arrested at 26 Federal Plaza while escorting migrants from immigration hearings last June, ahead of the mayoral primary. No charges were filed then. Lander on Thursday said he thinks the arrests are an effort “to intimidate people into not participating as part of that court watching, ICE watching movement.”

In response to a question about Goldman’s suggestion his actions are political theater, Lander claimed he wasn’t running for anything in September when he was arrested: “We were there to show up for our neighbors and the rule of law. This is much bigger than we are.”

When asked if the legal proceedings have been a distraction from his campaign, he said some of the most “meaningful work of the last year” has been “being part of a movement of Americans who are fighting back against the fascist White House and rogue ICE agents.”

Congress

Spy law on track to lapse after House rejects extension

Published

3 hours ago

June 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House failed to extend a key surveillance law Thursday, effectively ensuring it will expire Friday night over warnings from Republican lawmakers and national security officials.

The proposal, rejected on a 218-198 vote, would have extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act through July 2. It would have been the latest in a series of punts Congress has passed in recent months.

But a Democratic uproar over President Donald Trump’s decision to tap political ally Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence tanked any chances for passage. The extension — put on the floor under a fast-track method that required a two-thirds-majority vote — failed to garner even a simple majority, winning the support of only seven Democrats.

Nineteen Republicans also voted to reject a punt of Section 702, which allows U.S. intelligence agencies to spy on targets abroad without a warrant. Surveillance under the program also sometimes captures communications with Americans, and some lawmakers in both parties want to put safeguards on how that material is searched.

The House is not expected to vote again until June 23, effectively ensuring Section 702 will expire for the first time since it was enacted in 2008.

Many Hill Republicans believe, despite the congressional failure, the Trump administration can and will continue to operate the program, possibly under a forthcoming executive order. But tech providers could mount legal challenges to the program if it expires, and national security officials fear that could temporarily limit visibility into surveillance targets under the law.

Asked if an executive order would be enough to keep Americans safe in the interim, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview, “Hopefully it is.”

“Anybody who votes ‘no’ is casting a dangerous vote to put American lives at risk,” Scalise said, adding that Trump and his national security deputies are “going to do what they have to do to keep the country safe.”

Scalise said the burden for finding a solution lies with the Senate “to figure out some kind of path.” A procedural vote in the other chamber that would have set up passage of an extension failed last week.

Negotiators there had been circling on a deal allowing for a three-year extension of Section 702 authorities, but those talks collapsed after Trump announced his intention to appoint Pulte, a housing official with no national security experience.

House Democratic leaders encouraged members to vote against the reauthorization Thursday, arguing “meaningful reforms” are necessary.

“Section 702 is a critical foreign intelligence authority, but we cannot in good conscience vote for reauthorization without significant reforms to protect both national security and the constitutional privacy rights of Americans,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and other leaders said in a joint statement.