Republican infighting between two important constituencies — the agriculture sector and the MAHA coalition — is threatening passage of a bill leaders are counting on to help woo rural voters ahead of the midterms.

House GOP leaders hope this week to advance a long-stalled farm bill that would secure a slew of industry and rural investments. They see a political incentive to move quickly now to shore up farm country support in advance of the November elections, plus heed calls from President Donald Trump to “PASS THE FARM BILL, NOW!”

The farm bill traditionally comes to the floor with bipartisan support. But House Democrats this time are largely opposed to the package because it does not reverse the massive cuts to the country’s largest food aid program enacted by last year’s GOP megabill. That’s putting extra under pressure on Republicans to see it over the finish line amid intraparty disagreements over provisions related to pesticides, livestock laws and ethanol sales.

The biggest source of conflict is over a provision that would shield pesticide makers — a powerful lobbying force with agriculture state Republicans — from lawsuits. It comes as the Trump administration has also moved to protect access to a key pesticide after chemical manufacturers told the White House they were concerned about regulatory uncertainty or MAHA-driven crackdowns. Removing the measure would stoke backlash from Trump officials and farm state Republicans.

MAHA activists feel betrayed after voting for Trump in hopes that his administration would crack down on chemical exposure they blame for driving up chronic illness and disease. And now these activists are so fed up that they’ve turned to working with a group of House Democrats to strip out the language, according to four people granted anonymity to share private discussions.

Several Republicans who wield enormous power in Speaker Mike Johnson’s razor-thin majority could try to tank the entire bill If the provision isn’t removed.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), one of the main Republicans opposed to the pesticide provision, said she opposes the farm bill in its current form. Her biggest concern? “Glyphosate,” she said, referring to the widely used chemical weed killer targeted by MAHA.

Most Republicans don’t think the pocket of bipartisan opposition to the pesticide provision will be successful, arguing that the bill clarifies labeling rules and national standards for pesticides and herbicides used by farmers.

House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) said during the bill’s markup the provision is “critical for securing access to the well-regulated pesticide tools” in line with Republicans’ focus on food affordability ahead of the midterms.

Even Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in an interview that he plans to vote for the final bill despite his concerns about the pesticide language, because it includes a pilot project allowing small meat processors to bypass federal USDA inspections and sell directly to consumers.

But the Kentucky Republican is still pushing to strip out the pesticide measure, arguing that the “government is under siege” by chemical company lobbyists. And further inflaming tensions and drawing attention to divisions is that the farm bill will hit the floor the same week the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in a high-profile case on whether the maker of glyphosate-based Roundup should be preempted from failure-to-warn claims for cancer risks from pesticide use.

Massie and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) are scheduled to be among a group of speakers at a MAHA-organized rally — advertised as “The People vs. Poison” — outside the Supreme Court Monday morning.

Pingree, who has fought for years against Republicans efforts to pass similar language, has co-sponsored a bipartisan amendment to remove the pesticide language from this year’s farm bill.

“It’s good that there are Republicans on there, and one of the reasons we wanted to be sure it was bipartisan is because they’re more likely to be in a position to pressure the Rules Committee members and the chair,” Pingree said of her amendment.

Pingree’s is among hundreds of amendments House Republican leaders will need to wade through when the Rules Committee meets Monday afternoon to pave the way for floor consideration of the farm bill. Johnson and his leadership team have been working to stave off amendment votes in relation to other bills. But they may need to allow some on the farm package to, at the very least, guarantee adoption of a party-line procedural rule vote necessary to get onto the underlying measure.

Luna, the MAHA-aligned Republican, said in an interview that leaders haven’t committed to allowing a floor vote on her amendment to strip out the pesticide measure.

Pennsylvania GOP Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick and Ryan Mackenzie, and Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado and Nancy Mace of South Carolina have all introduced amendments to strip parts of or all pesticide provisions in the bill.

The farm bill is also in peril over a provision that would undo state-level guidelines on livestock sales — specifically a California ballot initiative governing pig confinement that pork producers have argued hurts their bottom lines and created regulatory inconsistencies across states.

Luna and other Republican supporters, including Mace and Reps. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey and Andrew Garbarino and Mike Lawler of New York, say reversing the referendum would undermine states’ abilities to govern agricultural practices within their own borders.

Another policy fight — allowing year-round sales of higher blends of ethanol at the gas pump — could throw a wrench into farm bill passage plans, too. Biofuels backers and agriculture groups are lobbying members to include a bipartisan E15 amendment in the legislation, with fuel prices spike from the Iran war adding further pressure to find a solution that might bring down prices for consumers.

But GOP leaders would need to grant a waiver to be able to include such an amendment in the bill, since the issue falls outside the House Agriculture Committee’s jurisdiction. And lawmakers who represent small, independent refiners would also oppose the proposal and may vote against the whole package over it.

In the meantime, Thompson is doing a hard sell, saying in an interview that the legislation would be a “real morale boost” that would increase farmers’ borrowing capabilities and modernize programs through the Agriculture Department that haven’t been updated since 2018.

During a closed-door meeting last week, Thompson also pitched GOP hard-liners who regularly oppose the farm bill to support it this time, arguing that the direct farm subsidies they are most opposed to are not included because Republicans approved billions of dollars in new spending to bolster the so-called farm safety net as part of last year’s megabill.

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), who was the chair of the Agriculture Committee when Congress passed the 2014 farm bill, told reporters recently that lawmakers should avoid delaying the farm bill another year: The legislation hasn’t been updated since 2018 and was due to be reauthorized in 2023.

“You don’t want to roll this over into a brand new Congress,” Lucas warned “The issues that are entailed here are not that complicated. There’s some controversial things … many of those things, ultimately, in this process, fall out. That’s just the nature of the way things happen.”

Heading into White House Correspondents’ Dinner weekend, Blue Light News caught up with the buzziest new celebrities in town: the TMZ guys.

Since arriving in Washington last week, Jacob Wasserman, Charlie Cotton and Jakson Buhaj of the TMZ DC bureau have shaken up the D.C. media bubble, asking Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth what he feels in his mind and body when dropping bombs or whether lawmakers know what Grindr is.

In an interview in front of the Capitol building Friday afternoon, the trio discussed their mission, tactics and whether they’re really trying to troll us all.

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity. 

Where are you guys from and how did you get into this job?

Cotton: I’m from the capital of Australia … Canberra. I came to America and just got a job randomly at TMZ as a tour guide on our celebrity tours around Hollywood. And then I’ve been there 13 years now, doing camera stuff, doing reporter stuff.

Buhaj: I was going to go to school, and then TMZ hired me out of an ice cream shop as a [production assistant]. I did a few things for them, and Harvey [Levin] just decided he wanted me on TMZ full time. And so he was like, “Don’t go to school, come here.” And I just found myself in Capitol Hill with these guys. So it’s been quite an adventure.

Wasserman: I went to Tulane, and TMZ was my first job out of college and then just slowly built up. I’ve been there now for six and a half years. Before this I actually covered a lot of political stuff for TMZ, numerous campaign cycles. I also covered high-profile court cases, like the Sean Combs criminal trial.

The Call Your Mother and Tatte tweets — are you trolling us? 

Wasserman: Yes. That was a total joke. I have to say, I didn’t really tweet before I moved here a few days ago, and I was trying to be a little tongue-in-cheek.

I’m learning that that doesn’t necessarily land always on Twitter. I’d never been to Call Your Mother, but given the line there, I was like, Oh, of course, this is really a popular place. And since everyone was losing it, I just parlayed it to Tatte. That was it.

Cotton: We’re discovering D.C. … We’re so amazed to be here. Everything feels new and exciting, and look where we are. We’re talking to you right now outside the capital, like it’s crazy. I think that sort of energy of just excitement around politics and politicians is something that this place hasn’t had for a long time, maybe, if ever.

We want to talk to people who maybe someone from middle America has no idea who it is, but because they’ve seen a few of our interactions, they know this is going to be interesting.

And if we want informed voters, if we want people to know more, we want greater transparency, I think it’s a good thing we’re here and we’re just excited about where this very fledgling sort of thing is going to go.

Talk to me about your mission and what you would see as a dream TMZ DC story. 

Buhaj: A big story could be a bill that’s being passed. A big story could be what an intern is saying about a fellow intern. A big story could be who clogged the toilet in one of the House office buildings. It could mean anything for us. So I would say, dream story? I don’t think we have anything specific in mind. I think we’re here just providing factual news to the people. That’s at the forefront of our minds right now.

Wasserman: I think TMZ plays off emotion. I mean, that can be found in a soundbite. That could be found in court documents. That could be found in a 911 audio clip.

So you guys are not officially credentialed [through the congressional press galleries]. Are you seeking credentials? What’s happening there?

Wasserman: We’ve applied. So we’re just waiting.

At the same time, even when you’re not credentialed, there’s plenty of opportunity to meet a lot of people. We’ll speak to people when they walk from the House over there to the Capitol building and tunnels. What’s been so amazing is how inviting people are and how willing they are to talk.

There’s no chasing anyone down. If anything, people are coming up to us and they recognize us now. They say, “Hey, I want to talk about X, Y and Z,” and what a great opportunity for that.

Are you getting a lot of outreach from Hill staffers who want their boss to be talking to you guys? 

Cotton: Yes. It’s amazing.

It’s amazing because we see them all, and we didn’t expect everyone to be so down. There have been a few people, Lindsey Graham included, who haven’t wanted to speak to us when we’ve given them the opportunity. And if they don’t want to speak to us, I don’t begrudge that one bit. I get it. This is new and scary.

We want to be here. We want to ask interesting questions. If there’s a direct question that needs to be asked, it just needs to be asked. But we don’t want to be rude. We don’t want to “gotcha” anyone. We just want to have conversations like this and have some laughs, some serious. … We’re just out here to learn about D.C. and the people in it.

There’s some chatter about TMZ paying for stories or tips. Is that true? Is that something you guys will be doing here?

Wasserman: Absolutely not. That’s just complete misinformation. I think people like to use that as a way to maybe sometimes discredit us.

The way that TMZ really operates is we work super hard. And although it’s just us three here, our engine is in Los Angeles and we have an incredible team of producers who work incredibly hard. Harvey Levin, Charles [Latibeaudiere], these are guys who have been working in journalism for decades. And we conduct ourselves the way that journalists go about reporting on stories, whether it be getting police reports, FOIA requests, searching through court documents. We take it really seriously.

How does covering politicians compare to covering celebrities? 

Cotton: It’s the same. We’re just doing the same thing.

We know everything about, say, “The Real Housewives.” Yet we know nothing about the members of Congress who control our lives. You know what I mean? And we pay their salaries. They’re our public servants. So why is there more scrutiny on a private citizen rather than our public servants? And we just wanted to come over here, kind of flip it on its head and do the exact same thing we’ve been doing in LA, which is cover the news fairly, truthfully, factually.

And we want people to trust us. We want people to trust that when they talk to us on camera, we’re not going to be all weird. We want people who consume our media to know that this is accurate.

Charlie, you talked about fairness. I saw some of your posts on social media from years prior. One called Lindsey Graham a “bozo.” One praised Chuck Schumer. Talk to me a little bit about that. Can you cover these people fairly?

Cotton: Absolutely. I mean, I use that expression very liberally. If you know me, I’m Australian. You know what I mean? So, yeah, absolutely I can, and I’m also not afraid to express my opinion, either.

I’m here and I’m going to cover the news how I want. I’m going to ask the questions I want to ask. That’s just that.

The ultimate merger of celebrity and politics is happening this weekend, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. How are you guys tackling that? Where can people see you guys? 

Wasserman: We are going to the Grindr party tonight. We’re going to the Substack party tomorrow.

We’re pretty tired. We’re working pretty hard. And even this morning, we were at the Pentagon. It was an early morning. So we’ll definitely pop out and show face but I don’t think it’s going to get too crazy. TBD.

Most standout interaction so far? 

Cotton: AOC hanging out of the side of a car saying, “Hey TMZ DC, hi, how are you guys?”

And we’re like, “What? Like she knows us?”

People here know us and respect us and appreciate that we’re here. And sometimes in LA I haven’t felt that, but here I felt it so much. And it’s been a breath of fresh air. And I really hope that we can deliver on people’s faith.

Buhaj: I can’t talk about it yet because it’s not out, but you’re gonna have to stay tuned. … But to give you guys a hint, there are congressmen here that are very hospitable.

Wasserman: Jonathan Jackson was a great interaction I had the other day. I ran into him again at the airport, and he came up to me and he was like, “Hey, how’s it going?” We were just kind of joshing around. So that was great. And I’m happy that he feels like he could do that with me. And it’s not going to be a weird thing.

Which members have surprised you? 

Buhaj: Tim Burchett.

The stuff that we talked about in an interview was crazy. It’s just you’re sitting there in that office and you’re like, “I can’t believe these words are coming out of the congressman’s mouth.”

Nothing bad, but he’s just so open about, “There’s blatant corruption here on Capitol Hill.” It’s something he wants to weed out. It was very refreshing to have an interview with a public representative who was just so open about everything.

Cotton: Two words: Shomari Figures.

I actually interviewed him for the first time yesterday, but we’re just trying to meet everyone. And he’s just so cool. He obviously looks like a dreamboat. He told me yesterday that he’s the pound for pound best athlete in Congress and I believe it.

I didn’t know Shomari Figures existed until like a few days ago. And now I do. And now I am punishing myself because I should have known because here’s this amazing guy doing amazing things.

What is the best food that you’ve encountered in Washington so far? 

Cotton: There’s this coffee place called Cameo. It’s really good. … The coffee in D.C. hits.

Buhaj: I’m a coffee snob. I can name like 50 coffee spots in LA. I can name probably five or 10 across the city that I’ve been through already. Right off the bat, I’m not saying you guys don’t do it right, but LA just does it better.

Wasserman: The Peruvian chicken in Longworth.

Cotton: I want them to serve Peruvian chicken at my wake one day.

Buhaj: Honorable mention is the Barcelona Wine Bar. There’s actually some pretty good food over there. I was pretty impressed.

Jim Himes wants to reauthorize a controversial surveillance law. He knows it comes with big risks.

The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee has been seeking a bipartisan deal to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while Republicans are busy fighting among themselves over how to prevent the government spy power from expiring April 30.

Fearing a lapse would be an existential crisis, he’s been empowered by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to share his perspective with fellow Democrats who are skeptical of reauthorizing Section 702 without guardrails to protect Americans from being targeted by the Trump administration. And despite his own preferences for modifying the spy authority, he’s facing criticism from progressives in his district for being open to a clean extension.

Himes has also been talking to the White House — but often finds himself out of the loop of negotiations with House Republican leaders, who are more focused on trying to squeeze a deal through their ultrathin margins than find common ground with Democrats.

“There’s been a shit ton of outreach to me” on this issue, Himes, of Connecticut, said in a lengthy interview in his Capitol Hill office Thursday. “None of it has been, ‘Come to this room to negotiate this deal today.’”

The stakes are high for Himes as he navigates the difficult politics around a surveillance law viewed with deep suspicion by many progressives and conservatives. And in attempting to broker cross-party consensus around the spy law, he has embarked on a potentially thankless mission.

He’s challenging Republicans’ appetite for bipartisan dealmaking in the Trump era — and so far, he’s being largely ignored by the GOP leaders. He’s also testing whether Democrats would attach their names to any legislation that gives even the appearance of emboldening an administration they view as corrupt — and it’s getting more difficult by the day.

“I’ve been taking a ton of risk, I’ve been doing a ton of explanations,” Himes said later Thursday.

If he succeeds in stitching together some fractured coalition to extend Section 702 with meaningful guardrails, he will have pulled off a feat of political compromise rarely seen these days. But if he is unable to help land a deal and must instead back a clean extension in the interest of protecting national security, he will undoubtedly take fresh heat from progressives, perhaps in the form of a credible primary challenger.

One long-shot candidate looking to unseat Himes in the Democratic primary based on the incumbent’s FISA stance — Joseph Perez-Caputo, a local activist — has been leading constituent protests against the lawmaker back home.

“We’ve kind of watched in abject horror,” Perez-Caputo said in an interview of Himes’ scramble to land a Section 702 agreement.

A new letter from half a dozen groups in Connecticut, shared first with Blue Light News, is calling on Himes to step down as the Intelligence Committee’s ranking member, saying he has “betrayed” obligations to his constituents and the Constitution — including by “actively lobbying other Democrats and Republicans to support the administration’s FISA agenda.”

Himes is cognizant of the dynamics, recalling that he got his “head blown off” by frustrated participants during a demonstration in his district last month, adding, “there’s an immense amount of misinformation out there that needs to be addressed.”

Ultimately, Himes says, he’s driven in this fight by a sense of duty. Over the course of the Thursday interview, he insisted — repeatedly — that he prefers extending the spy authority with policy changes, like seeking judicial review for searches under the program, to continuing on with the status quo.

Rather, Himes explained, his perch on the Intelligence panel uniquely positions him to understand the scope and stakes of a Section 702 expiration. And if it were to come down to a choice between passing a clean extension or letting the program expire, a lapse would be a nonstarter.

“Three months from now, if FISA 702 is dark and there’s a bomb in Grand Central, there will be very little doubt in my mind … that that occurred because we shut down our most important counterintelligence,” Himes said.

“So I don’t blame them,” he added of those members who would prefer the program lapse than support a clean extension. “But I just see with some granularity — actually, more granularity than pretty much anybody around here — what the risks are that we face.”

Despite Himes’ entreaties, many House Democrats remain skeptical. Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts said in an interview Thursday he will vote against a reauthorization for the first time in his 25-year tenure in the House if the legislation does not institute new guardrails on warrantless government surveillance.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said he respects Himes and appreciates that he has attended caucus meetings to share his perspective on the issue. But, he said in an interview, the decision was an easy one: “We should unify now to say, ‘No, Trump does not use power responsibly.’”

Himes said his senior role on the House Intelligence Committee means he’s inclined to never trust any administration — and he “particularly” doesn’t trust this one. But he emphasized he has not, in his role on the panel, ever been presented with any evidence that President Donald Trump or senior White House officials have sought to interfere with Americans’ privacy.

“In the last 14 months,” he said, “there has not been a single example of their attempt to abuse this database. I am conscious of something that is hard to get people to understand, which is, there is no program that is more overseen than this one. None.”

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee who is also privy to classified information not shared with the majority of his colleagues, had a similar point of view.

“I don’t want it to be on my conscience that something happens that we could have stopped,” Meeks said in an interview. “That’s the responsibility that Jim has and the burden at times of being the ranking member, and the former chair, of Intel.”

Some Republicans downplayed Himes’ role in the FISA talks as GOP leaders go down a partisan path. House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford questioned how much Himes is backchanneling with Republicans, while noting he considers the ranking member a friend.

“We try to be considerate of him and his concerns, and I think he extends me that courtesy as well,” the Arkansas Republican said in an interview Thursday. “So we have a good working relationship. And I think that’s helpful.”

As the April 30 deadline to extend the FISA spy authority draws nearer, Himes is continuing to make the rounds with colleagues of both parties but also think strategically about what could pass the House, and how.

He and the senior House Judiciary Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, have been workshopping possible backup plans with policy changes that could attract more Democratic support in case Republicans fail to pass their partisan bill.

He’s now also interested in finding a set of reforms that could get the support of a two-thirds majority of the House so that the legislation could advance under an expedited floor procedure known as a suspension, which doesn’t first require clearing a party-line “rule” vote.

Himes said there was a “real opportunity” to pass a bill under suspension last week, when Speaker Mike Johnson instead attempted, unsuccessfully, to pass an 18-month extension bill through the regular order process in the middle of the night. But Johnson’s failure, Himes continued, only emboldened Democrats to stand back and watch the GOP flounder.

Calling himself an “emissary” during that overnight vote, Himes was frank: “A bunch of members at two in the morning, watching the speaker fall flat on his face, does not help me.”