Congress

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

Published

2 months 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

Chuck Edwards recommended for censure by House Ethics Committee

Published

23 minutes ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Ethics Committee recommended Monday that lawmakers censure Rep. Chuck Edwards for engaging in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers” — cataloguing multiple episodes of sexual harassment by the married lawmaker.

Censure is the most severe punishment the panel can recommend short of expulsion, requiring targeted members to submit to a public shaming on the floor. The bipartisan panel said it plans to bring a privileged resolution to a vote once the House returns to session later this month.

A spokesperson for Edwards, 65, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In a 15-page rebuttal, lawyers for Edwards said that the Ethics Committee “failed to demonstrate that either of the two staffers expressed discomfort to Representative Edwards regarding his conduct with them.” They also rejected the need for censure, noting that it has been used “sparingly in this context and directed only at matters of severe sexual misconduct.”

The panel itself released a trove of evidence including emails, text messages and photographs showing how Edwards had insinuated himself into intimate aspects of their lives.

Edwards, the committee found, made comments on the appearance of two young female staffers in his congressional office, telling them they looked “pretty” or “breathtaking” and made a comment on one staffer’s weight. He also lavished the young women with gifts, including purses valued at more than $1,000, as well as guns, shoes, flowers and one-on-one dinners.

Text messages from one of the women showed Edwards at one point sent her more than 20 containers of ice cream because, he said, she needed “a lot of cheering up!”

Sexual harassment is prohibited by House rules and federal law, and the committee found that Edwards violated “the spirit of the House’s prohibitions on sexual harassment and unwanted advances, as well as the requirement to act in a manner that reflects credibly upon the House.”

The report found Edwards brought one of the staffers to a holiday event at the White House, gave her flowers and texted her how he was “so excited about tonight” and that he pressured her to continue the night with him after the event. Edwards told the committee he accompanied that staffer to her home in Virginia because he “felt uncomfortable dumping a young lady on the street.”

Edwards also talked to that staffer and others about going to strip clubs in Washington, the report says.

The panel concluded that Edwards did not engage in sexual activity with either of the women, nor did he explicitly proposition them or other staff members for sex. Edwards, who is facing a competitive race for reelection in his western North Carolina district, cooperated with the probe, the committee said.

In one instance, the panel found, Edwards skipped House votes one night to decorate the second staffer’s Christmas tree. He also went out drinking and gambling with her. On another occasion, he recited a poem at her going-away party in his office and cried during that incident, making his staff noticeably uncomfortable.

When the second staffer left his office, Edwards helped her move back to North Carolina and sent her a handwritten letter in which he described her as “the most amazing woman” and that she had “written a complex chapter in my heart that I will never stop reading.”

Edwards told the committee that letter was not romantic.

“It was only to imply that we had a relationship on so many different levels — on a congressional level, on a professional level, on a friendship level, on a helping-one-another-out-with-our-chores-and-responsibility level,” he said.

Congress

Cornyn, Tillis confirm they will vote for Blanche

Published

5 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has a clear path to the Senate Judiciary Committee advancing his nomination to the permanent job after two GOP holdouts confirmed Monday they would vote for him.

The statement from Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) comes after the late-night announcement Sunday of a Justice Department agreement to clarify a controversial May settlement agreement between President Donald Trump and the IRS.

A successful Judiciary vote Tuesday would set Blanche up for confirmation on the Senate floor later this week, before the chamber breaks for August recess.

“We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon,” Cornyn and Tillis said in a joint statement.

The senators suggested their agreement with Blanche also satisfies the concerns of several other Republican senators off the Judiciary Committee who have raised concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” created in the original settlement, as well as provisions immunizing Trump and his family from some tax audits.

“We are pleased that the Department of Justice has issued a formal order terminating the anti-weaponization fund. Additionally, the Department has acknowledged in a binding written order that the audit settlement is limited to the plaintiffs and the scope does not extend beyond the defendants in the lawsuit, the IRS and the Treasury, addressing concerns that multiple of our Republican colleagues share,” Cornyn and Tillis said.

Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, John Curtis of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are among the other Republicans who have expressed concerns about the payout fund. Blanche recently visited Alaska and announced a flurry of settlements benefiting Alaska as he courts Murkowski’s vote.

Congress

Maryland Dems kick off latest redistricting effort after a year of infighting

Published

5 hours ago

August 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland Democrats kicked off a special session on redistricting Monday, with the battle to redraw House districts around the country showing no signs of stopping at the November midterm elections.

Democrats are gearing up for a process to ultimately draw out the state’s only Republican member of Congress, Rep. Andy Harris. But any new map wouldn’t kick in until 2028.

Instead, the state Legislature is in town this week to vote on a constitutional amendment that some party leaders believe would insulate future redistricting efforts from legal scrutiny. This, after a Maryland state court blocked a proposed 8-0 Democratic district map in 2022, charging that it ran afoul of the state Constitution.

While Democrats around the state, including Gov. Wes Moore, had called for the Legislature to enact redistricting in time for this year’s midterms, Senate President Bill Ferguson — also a Democrat — has long argued that any map redraw coming before an amendment wouldn’t pass legal muster, and that the downside risks were “catastrophic.”

“We’ve known from the beginning what is at stake, and most importantly, we have known that in this moment of American history, it is insufficient to act with haste when the consequences of missteps are so impactful,” Ferguson said at a Monday press conference. “What those consequences could have looked like: a map rejected by Maryland’s Supreme Court. A map drawn by the court that sends us backwards when we could least afford it.”

The new language aims to make clear that certain requirements around compactness and respecting natural and political boundaries apply only to legislative districts and not congressional ones, which could clear a path for the state to gerrymander.

Should lawmakers pass it, Maryland voters would still need to approve the proposed amendment in November.

Republicans have taken a major lead in the interparty redistricting war for this year’s election, particularly after redrawing maps in a handful of Southern states after the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in April.

“A legal earthquake changed the landscape this spring,” Ferguson said. “Even worse, we saw states like Tennessee, Louisiana, and South Carolina act with haste to attempt to eliminate majority-minority congressional districts. These acts changed the calculus, and that’s why we’re here.”

(Tennessee and Louisiana changed their lines for 2026, but South Carolina ultimately did not.)

The amendment, Ferguson said, “ensures that Maryland has the ability to respond if the Trump administration or any future federal administration seeks to further erode the basic standards of democracy.”