Congress
Barry Moore and Jared Hudson head to runoff in Alabama GOP Senate primary
Alabama Rep. Barry Moore (R-Ala.) and ex-Navy SEAL Jared Hudson will advance to a runoff in Alabama’s Republican Senate primary.
The outcome amounts to a disappointing shutout for Attorney General Steve Marshall, who, despite a long tenure in elected office, was unable to overcome Hudson’s nascent popularity and President Donald Trump’s support for Moore.
The race became unexpectedly competitive when a late surge in support for Hudson rocketed him into second place in public polling. That boost in popularity proved successful against Marshall’s deep local ties to Republican politics.
The seat became open when Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville announced he would not seek a second term in the Senate, instead opting to run for governor and return home to Alabama. Tuberville has not endorsed in the race that will determine his successor in Washington.
Moore won Trump’s early endorsement in the race, which offered him a needed advantage in the deep-red state. Other notable GOP groups entered the fray behind Moore shortly thereafter, like the powerful super PAC Club for Growth. That’s given the House Republican a significant upper hand in resources, despite having only a slight fundraising advantage over Marshall.
The runoff election is scheduled for June 16.
A sudden cut to Social Security checks — long seen as a far-off doomsday — is now an imminent problem for the next president and whomever voters send to Congress in the coming years.
The trust fund that bankrolls monthly checks to retirees is set to be drained of reserves in late 2032. That means tens of millions of Americans age 62 and older, as well as children and widowed spouses who get survivor benefits following the death of a family member, would see their monthly payments shrink by more than 20 percent — or an average of about $500 a month — unless Congress and the president act.
Capitol Hill saw a noticeable surge this summer in the sense of urgency to enact a fix, and alliances have started forming between prominent Republicans and Democrats rallying for a solution. But President Donald Trump and congressional leaders have yet to join the calls to action or back any of the numerous bipartisan bills aimed at preventing benefit cuts.
“This train wreck is going to happen,” Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.) said in an interview. “So as early as six years from now, we’re going to have to have a plan. And of course, I’m a big believer that we need to deal with it now, or we need to start the process of dealing with it now.”
Trump has yet to signal interest in a specific fix for the federal government’s single largest safety-net program, sticking instead to broad promises to safeguard benefits.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) recalled discussing the issue with Trump during his first term as president.
“He said, ‘Tom, I’ll be for this the first day of my second term,’” Cole told reporters this summer about trying to get Trump to push for a fix. “Well, we’re here.”
White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in a statement that Trump “will always protect and strengthen Social Security” and noted that the Republican megabill enacted last summer created a temporary tax deduction for people 65 and older that can be used to reduce taxes owed on Social Security benefits.
“Under his leadership, there will be zero reductions to Social Security payments,” she said, without specifying how Trump proposes to address the 2032 cliff.
Trump isn’t the only Washington power player uninterested in risking their political legacy by diving into a policy thicket where proposals include hiking payroll taxes, raising the age for benefit eligibility or letting some taxpayer cash ride the waves of the stock market.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson rarely discuss the approaching benefit cliff, nor have they called to advance any of the bills lawmakers have proposed to prevent it — prompting criticism this summer from top Democrats demanding the two GOP leaders “put forward their plan” to protect Social Security.
Meanwhile, some lawmakers have been telling voters the whole notion of a cliff is a hoax.
“Your Social Security is safe. You can write that down and take it home to mama,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said at an event this summer. “All we got to do is go take the money out of the general fund, which we always do.”
But backfilling a depleted trust fund with Treasury dollars, as Kennedy suggests, would not be automatic. Congress would need to pass a bill to do so, and winning support to siphon that cash could be difficult considering the U.S. public debt zoomed past $40 trillion this month after exceeding the nation’s annual economic output earlier this year.
“Those are the politics that are bringing us a debt crisis,” former Speaker Paul Ryan said in an interview, knocking the “populist” approach lawmakers like Kennedy are taking in assuring voters that Social Security benefits would be covered by growing the deficit.
During the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama, Ryan pushed controversial plans to invest some Social Security contributions into private savings accounts and make changes like raising the retirement age.
“Regrettably, if we had reformed it back when we were trying to in the Bush administration, we would not be at this place,” Ryan said. “But the politics got the better of us in those days.”
Ryan was a member of the bipartisan 2010 fiscal commission led by Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson but ultimately voted against the group’s final proposal, which included plans to increase the age for receiving full Social Security payments, changing the formula for benefits and taxing more wages.
Obama backed away from a deal in 2011 with then-Speaker John Boehner to enact changes to Social Security as part of a broader fiscal “grand bargain.”
Today, not only is the Social Security cliff much closer, but the nation’s overall fiscal trajectory has worsened. In recent weeks, market watchers have blamed endless deficits for helping spike long-term Treasury bond yields — increasing borrowing costs and raising fears of a “debt spiral.”
Fixing the Social Security benefit cliff is not the same as solving the country’s larger fiscal issues. But it could be a test case for Washington’s ability to make difficult tradeoffs that will be necessary to bring deficits under control.
“My sense is that there’s pretty wide recognition of the fiscal situation — that the fiscal trajectory is unsustainable,” Congressional Budget Office director Phillip Swagel said in an interview. “And the interest in Social Security seems like the first kind of translation … into sort of realistic policy alternatives.”
The last time Social Security was headed toward insolvency, in the early 1980s, Congress didn’t enact a solution until a few months before benefits were set to be cut. A commission appointed by then-President Ronald Reagan developed proposals for overhauling the safety-net program, and lawmakers then passed a 1983 overhaul that gradually increased the age for receiving full benefits to 67 and raised taxes on those benefits, among other tweaks.
In a nod to Reagan’s approach, Cole and Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) released a bill this summer to create a bipartisan commission that would recommend a plan for staving off benefit cuts and then fast-track that proposal through Congress on an up-or-down vote. Several Republicans and Democrats are signed on to a similar bill across the Capitol led by Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), both of whom are leaving office at the end of the year.
“The senators elected this November will be here when we have to solve this. The next president who’s elected will be here when we have to solve this,” Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), a sponsor of that Senate bill, said in an interview. “So rather than wait till 2032, let’s go ahead and get this started now.”
Those bipartisan plans have critics on Capitol Hill, however. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) publicly warned Democrats this month not to allow Republicans “to slash or privatize Social Security through an unelected commission.” And backlash has emerged to other proposals that have delved into controversial policy specifics.
For instance, anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist has slammed a bill from the odd-bedfellows duo of progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and MAGA Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) that would make the nation’s highest earners pay Social Security payroll taxes on 100 percent of their earnings.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), who has pushed a similar plan for years, said in an interview that because Trump “has absolutely no interest whatsoever in solving this problem,” the issue needs to be at the center of the presidential primary debates for Trump’s successor.
“Like it or not,” Boyle said, “this will be on the plate of the next president.”
Pressure is growing on House GOP leaders to allow a floor vote before the midterms on legislation designed to shield their constituents from the costs associated with data centers, with an increasing number of Republicans worried that mounting opposition to the energy-sucking facilities could hurt them at the polls.
Reeling from voter complaints over the five-week summer recess about rising power prices linked to the nationwide data center boom — necessary to power the growing artificial intelligence demand — some Republicans are now pressing for action around a bill called the Ratepayer Protection Act.
The bipartisan measure, which advanced unanimously out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July, would require states to consider adopting a federal standard that would ensure data centers cover the costs of the grid upgrades needed to serve them.
“I’m encouraged by the momentum behind the Ratepayer Protection Act, and I’m hopeful we’ll see it come to the floor when Congress returns in September,” Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.), an original sponsor of the bill alongside Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), said in a statement Wednesday. “This legislation earned unanimous bipartisan support in committee, and we continue to see more members sign on every week.”
But GOP leaders are so far undecided on whether to bring the measure up before the November elections — driving anxiety among Republicans who fear they’re politically vulnerable on an increasingly polarizing issue.
“We’ve reached out to Majority Leader [Steve] Scalise to let him know that we’d like to see the Ratepayer Protection Act on the floor as soon as the House comes back from August recess,” said an aide for a Republican member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, granted anonymity to describe internal party dynamics. “Our constituents are demanding substantive action on data centers.”
Another House GOP aide, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, was even more blunt about the political urgency at play: “There’s not really a point in passing this bill after the election.”
When members return to Washington Monday after the August recess, the House is only scheduled to be in session for 15 days before breaking again until after the November elections. A spokesperson for Speaker Mike Johnson declined to comment on the floor agenda for the latter half of September.
A spokesperson for Scalise, meanwhile, said Wednesday night that “no decisions have been made as leadership has heard concerns from members about the bill.”
The spokesperson didn’t elaborate on those concerns, but Scalise, in earlier comments provided to Blue Light News, said the data center dilemma is ultimately “a local issue” — underscoring an aversion to strict federal regulations shared by many conservatives.
“If you want a data center in your community, it’s your choice,” he continued. “I’m from a state where we have several major data centers, and we are seeing tremendous benefits from them.”
In fact, Scalise said, increased tax revenue from Meta’s $50 billion data center has led to every teacher in Louisiana’s rural Richland Parish getting a $50,000 bonus. And in Loudoun County, Virginia, he noted that increased revenue from data centers has led to a 30 percent decrease in property taxes.
“There are tremendous benefits for communities who embrace data centers … They’re good customers, they’re good neighbors and studies prove that they don’t add to the cost of the grid,” Scalise said. “They’re paying their own way.”
Johnson, from Louisiana like Scalise, has similarly highlighted the economic potential of data centers while stressing the importance of maintaining local control. He told CBS Colorado in a recent interview that “my constituents are delighted to have [data centers]” and that they have “welcomed them with open arms.
In February, Amazon announced a $12 billion data center project in Shreveport, the most populous city in Johnson’s district. The company announced another $6 billion expansion there in August.
But there are signs some of Johnson’s constituents are more wary of data center projects: At a recent town hall dubbed “The Truth About Data Centers,” residents voiced concerns about the facilities and their potential impacts on their community.
The political winds across key swing states and districts also appear to be quickly shifting against data centers. Backlash has prompted Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers to announce last week that he would support a one-year data center moratorium in his state as he battles Democratic contender Abdul El-Sayed.
Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio), who is in a competitive race against former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown, has pledged he’ll work to make sure the Senate passes the version of the Ratepayer Protection Act he has sponsored in his chamber.
In the House, the Ratepayer Protection Act could end up being an easy way for Johnson and Scalise to demonstrate that Republicans are responding to voters’ calls to take the issue seriously.
The measure wouldn’t go so far as to impose a pause on data center construction but would still infuse a level of accountability on operators. It also would codify the principle behind the Trump administration’s voluntary agreement with data center developers that they should shoulder energy costs.
“Throughout August, members have heard directly from constituents that data center development and affordability are among their top concerns,” Evans said in his Wednesday statement. “This bill tackles both by ensuring hardworking families and small businesses aren’t forced to foot the bill for the massive energy demands of data centers.”
Regardless of whether the bill eventually becomes law, Francesca Hsie — deputy director for electricity at center-left think tank Third Way — said the Ratepayer Protection Act could have the effect of “signaling to states” the need to take up regulation.
Whether imagined or real, she said, public perception is that data center expansion is “inextricably linked” to rising energy costs, “and because of that, I think the public is really wanting politicians to show some sort of engagement or regulation of how buildout is happening.”
Owen Dahlkamp contributed to this report.
A number of hawkish lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are urging the Trump administration to focus its effort to cut off Iran’s economic lifeline on one primary target: Chinese banks.
Since Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pledged Monday to sanction Tehran’s “enablers,” one big question has been whether the White House is willing to risk taking on Beijing, Iran’s biggest trading partner.
On Capitol Hill, at least, the appetite appears to be there — particularly in terms of going after Chinese financial institutions.
“Any country complicit in providing an economic lifeline to Iran’s terrorist regime, including China, must be held accountable,” said Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), a member of the House Select Committee on China. Sanctions on Chinese banks that do business with Iran would send “a clear message to China and every other nation that enabling Tehran’s malign actions will come at a cost,” he said.
As part of the push to widen sanctions on countries with economic ties to Iran, the Treasury Department expanded its ability Monday to penalize foreign companies that operate in or support five sectors of Iran’s economy: digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping.
Bessent stressed Monday the need to sanction those who “facilitate the flow of its finances” to keep the regime afloat and said “no one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions” when asked if he’s willing to sanction Chinese banks.
But the Treasury Department did not target any Chinese banks in its initial list of sanctioned entities. The administration instead targeted several Hong Kong and China-based companies implicated in illicit Iranian oil transfers and assistance with Tehran’s missile technology development program.
Bessent said Monday that he’ll sanction a major foreign financial institution by the end of the week as part of the new effort, but declined to provide details.
Going after Chinese banks would not only antagonize Beijing at a time when the U.S. is trying to hold on to a fragile trade truce with China, it also risks destabilizing the global finance sector.
That risk is one the U.S. may have to take, said Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.), a member of the House subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific.
The administration should “hold accountable any financial institution that knowingly helps the Iranian regime evade sanctions, finance terrorism, or fund activities that threaten Americans and our allies — that includes any Chinese institution the facts show are facilitating Iran’s illicit oil trade,” Olszewski said.
That rare consensus reflects how fatigue with the Iran war — now entering its sixth month — is fueling bipartisan support for increasingly creative and aggressive moves to end it.
While President Donald Trump declared the Strait of Hormuz “very functioning” on Wednesday, ongoing Iranian attacks on shipping are throttling traffic through a waterway that was the gateway for 25 percent of global crude oil exports from the region before the war.
There are still plenty of lawmakers on Capitol Hill who are wary of provoking Beijing, including those whose districts suffered from Beijing’s freeze on agricultural imports and suspension of critical mineral exports during the U.S.-China trade war last year.
But the pressure from even some on Blue Light News to take on Chinese banks highlights a more general anger in Congress about China’s reluctance to use its influence on Tehran to push Iranian leadership toward striking a peace deal with the U.S. That’s despite Xi’s offer to “be of any help whatsoever” in ending the conflict when the two leaders met in Beijing in May.
“There is real, bipartisan frustration building on Capitol Hill” about China’s role in enabling the Iranian regime, said Jon Stivers, a former senior adviser to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who now serves on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.
Chinese state banks serve as conduits for transactions in which Iran sells oil to China’s “teapot refineries,” which purchase around 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude.
The transactions involve China-based smaller provincial banks that then transfer the funds to large state-owned banks that have Hong Kong subsidiaries, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission said in a November report.
The Treasury Department declined to elaborate on whether it’s in contact with Beijing on possible sanctions. “We won’t detail specific conversations with foreign counterparts,” Treasury said in a statement.
The Chinese embassy declined to comment on whether the administration is in contact with Beijing regarding possible sanctions on Chinese banks.
Beijing has called the sanctions threat “economic warfare” and hinted it’s ready to punch back.
New U.S. sanctions will “fuel tensions and lead to risk spillover, which will disrupt the global economic and financial order, and harm the legitimate rights and interests of other countries,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said Tuesday.
Some lawmakers argued that the key is not to avoid sanctioning banks because of the risk, but to prepare for potential economic blowback.
“Chinese banks that help Iran evade sanctions should be held accountable, but accountability has to come with strategy,” said Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), a member of the House Select Committee on China. “We also can’t ignore the risk of Chinese retaliation — Beijing has shown its willingness to weaponize its dominance of rare earths.”
Addressing that danger should go hand in hand with sanctions on Chinese banks, said Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), a member of the House Select Committee on China.
“The bigger fight is making sure China’s Communist Party can never hold America’s supply chains hostage in the first place,” Nunn said.
The administration is likely also weighing the benefits of sanctioning Chinese banks against the risk that it may threaten Trump’s summit with China’s leader Xi Jinping in Washington next month. Bessent avoided naming “China” during his press conference Monday despite multiple questions from reporters about whether the threatened sanctions would hit Beijing.
There’s a danger that sanctions on one or more of China’s four largest state-owned banks — Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China and Agricultural Bank of China — could spark negative ripple effects across international finance institutions. They hold an estimated $25 trillion in combined assets.
“We’ve always called it the nuclear economic weapon — to really stop the Chinese would be to hit the big banks like Bank of China — with sanctions,” said Dennis Wilder, former National Security Council director for China in the George W. Bush administration.
Bessent alluded to that risk when he said he’ll give potential sanction targets time “to remedy bad behavior” prior to possible sanctions. “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” he asked.
In recent years, the administration has only taken small steps toward going after Chinese financial institutions. The Treasury Department warned two Chinese banks earlier this year that they face U.S. sanctions “if we can prove that there is Iranian money flowing through your accounts,” Bessent said.
Over the last 14 years the U.S. government has imposed sanctions on two smaller Chinese banks with relatively limited links to the global financial sector. The Treasury Department targeted Bank of Kunlun for its “relationships with U.S.-designated Iranian banks” in 2012 and Bank of Dandong for enabling “illicit North Korean financial activity” in 2017, severing them from the U.S. financial system.
China’s large state banks have global operations involving debt payments and currency transfers that U.S. sanctions could disrupt. Bessent even threatened that institutions linked to money laundering for Tehran “will be removed from the U.S. dollar system.”
Those affected by U.S. sanctions on a large Chinese state-owned bank would “likely include major banks and customers in the U.S., Europe, Japan and elsewhere,” said Erik Woodhouse, former deputy assistant secretary of State for counter threat finance and sanctions.
Yet lawmakers eager to kneecap China are undeterred.
The administration “has already sanctioned Chinese refineries, shipping companies, procurement networks, and other entities that help sustain Iran’s illicit economy,” said Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), a member of the House Select Committee on China. “I support any efforts to expand that pressure to foreign entities providing Iran with the financial lifeline it uses to fund terrorism and destabilize the region.”
- Will Kevin Warsh Squander a Huge Opportunity?
- The Social Security benefit cliff is here. Washington is struggling to wake up.
- The primaries testing Democratic 2028ers
- House GOP leaders under pressure to act on data centers before the midterms
- Lawmakers press Treasury to target Chinese banks over Iran
- House GOP leaders eye quick vote on Senate-passed stopgap
- Senate Democrats urge Netanyahu to stop surge of violence in West Bank
- Pentagon claims to have found ‘hidden’ files on final days of the Afghanistan war
- Iowa’s last Democrat on how he can win in Trump country
- Trump’s trade moves add to GOP’s midterm anxieties
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words