Congress

Capitol agenda: Vance, Johnson try to rally House GOP

Published

1 hour ago

July 15, 2026

House Republicans finally have a rough outline of what they’ll include in their third reconciliation bill.

And plenty of members are not happy about it.

Part of members’ frustration stems from a lack of details colliding with a staggeringly fast timeline: GOP leaders are aiming to adopt the framework for a party-line package on the floor by the end of next week.

More details should be coming soon: Budget Republicans will release the text of their framework at 9 a.m. Wednesday morning as their committee plans to mark up the measure Thursday. So far we expect the budget resolution to include $67 billion for defense spending, $11 billion in farm aid and pieces of the SAVE America Act.

But House GOP leaders and senior White House officials have a raft of other issues to resolve to get party factions on board. Vice President JD Vance Wednesday will meet with House Republicans at 3 p.m. at the Capitol and is all but certain to press members to find a path forward:

— THE FISCAL HAWKS: Fiscal hawks are frustrated the bill’s plan doesn’t include immediate and bold cuts to offset new spending.

Rep. Josh Brecheen, one fiscal hawk on the Budget panel, said he is “sympathetic” to the defense portion not having pay-fors — but declined to give his support for the $11 billion in farm aid that doesn’t not include offsets.

“They’ve got to get the votes in Budget Committee for that,” he said.

— THE MODS: Moderate Republicans, meanwhile, are more likely to support the package without any pay-fors, especially after facing political blowback for the spending cuts in last summer’s reconciliation package.

If cuts are “off the table, then we’re in a much better place,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick said.

— OTHER REQUESTS: Some Republicans are frustrated the package doesn’t go far enough in tackling issues like affordability and health care — which have become key issues in midterm elections. Others are criticizing it falls well short of the $350 billion military infusion President Donald Trump called for.

Senior Republicans believe the White House has declined to provide more specifics about the $67 billion defense portion because it will include Iran war funding that may stir opposition.

“I need to see: are they funding something that I don’t back, right?” Fitzpatrick added: “I support the military. I’m against the war.”

Opposing the war “doesn’t mean we take it out on the troops,” Fitzpatrick added.

Meanwhile, Rep. Don Bacon — while generally supportive of the supplemental funding for the military — said he is still demanding American troops return to Poland.

“If he wants my vote, he’s got to answer,” on Poland, Bacon said in an interview.

What else we’re watching:

— DEMS SHIFT STRATEGY TO CURB IRAN WAR: Democrats are turning their focus away from forcing votes on war powers resolutions and toward other levers of power to rein in the war in Iran. A prime target: the annual must-pass $1.15 trillion defense policy bill. The bill is tentatively scheduled for a House floor vote next week, while Senate Democrats, led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer unanimously sunk that chamber’s version Tuesday. In Democrats’ view, a vote against the National Defense Authorization Act amounts to a vote against authorizing the war, said a Senate Democratic aide granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

— DEMS SHIFT STRATEGY TO CURB IRAN WAR: The fate of the Senate majority could lie in the hands of 600 yet-to-be-chosen Maine Democrats next week, and Schumer — an inveterate campaign meddler — is staying on the sidelines. Schumer told Blue Light News he is not endorsing a candidate in the primary. Instead, he’s keeping his focus on the general election in November — and on defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins — ahead of the party’s nominating convention July 25 to replace Graham Platner on the ballot.

Jordain Carney, Nick Reisman and Chris Sommerfeldt contributed to this report.

Congress

Questions about spy agency loom over Jay Clayton hearing

Published

4 hours ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

At Jay Clayton’s confirmation hearing to be director of national intelligence on Wednesday, senators are likely to grill the office as much as the man.

Democrats, Republicans and former intelligence officials have in recent weeks floated a range of options to cut, curb or even eliminate the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Regardless of whether the proposals come to fruition, they underscore a stark reality: Trust in an agency that technically stands astride a hulking U.S. spy community has cratered since the rocky tenure of former DNI Tulsi Gabbard and her interim replacement, Bill Pulte.

“The consensus among many members is the ODNI was a colossal mistake, and it just gets in the way of real intelligence and national security work,” said one senior GOP congressional aide, granted anonymity, like others, to share details of private conversations among staff and lawmakers.

The crisis of confidence in ODNI is a mixed bag for Clayton, the former SEC chair and current U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

There is little doubt the Senate will eventually confirm Clayton, as Democrats are eager to replace Pulte, a Trump loyalist with no prior national security experience. Republicans hope doing so will unlock Democratic votes for a powerful spy law that expired last month, when Trump forced a delay in Clayton’s prior nomination hearing. At the time, Trump said Pulte deserved more time atop ODNI, and urged the Senate to confirm Clayton’s replacement at the Manhattan prosecutors’ office first.

But Clayton’s hearing could still bring up uncomfortable issues for a man known for trying to stay above the fray politically. Gabbard and Pulte’s turns atop the intel coordination hub have left Democrats more worried than ever that the spy czar post can be abused to target the president’s political opponents, buttress legally dubious executive branch policies and sow doubt in elections.

Clayton is likely to get questions from Democrats on subpoenas the Justice Department issued last Friday to New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns with Trump’s new, Qatari-donated Air Force One. Clayton’s name appeared on the subpoenas, alarming Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a member of the Senate spy panel.

In an interview last month, Clayton also questioned whether California’s voting procedures left open “the opportunity for fraud” in the state’s June primaries — another issue Democrats could key in on.

Rachel Cohen, a spokesperson for Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Democratic support for Clayton hinges on his performance Wednesday. Clayton must show he can be an “independent voice” and “won’t assist Trump in weaponizing the intelligence community or manipulating elections,” she said.

While Democrats don’t have the votes to block Clayton’s confirmation, they can throw up some short-term hurdles, such as blocking the committee from quickly advancing his nomination to the Senate floor and then slowing it down once it gets there. But that’d likely only amount to a few weeks delay.

And, it would mean retaining Pulte, which Democrats also don’t want.

Both Democrats and Republicans who spoke with Blue Light News said the pressure to get Pulte out and renew the now-expired spy law means the scrutiny Clayton will face at the hearing could be less intense than it was for his predecessors. The office has also fallen into such low esteem that many do not expect Clayton to act as the “principal intelligence adviser to the president” — the key statutory responsibility for the DNI. Many say that role is already filled by CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

“Ratcliffe is now the principal intelligence adviser to the president,” said Fred Fleitz, National Security Council chief of staff in Trump’s first term and vice chair of the America First Policy Institute. “That’s the way the president wants it. That’s the way it should be.”

Most of the concern in Congress about Clayton has not been about whether he can be confirmed, but how quickly.

After Trump announced he intended to replace Gabbard with Pulte on an acting basis last month, Democrats were so livid they threatened to withhold support for Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a key spy law. Trump then nominated Clayton, and Warner and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, quickly struck a deal to fast-track his nomination in exchange for Democratic support for Section 702.

But Trump derailed that plan with an eleventh-hour social media post, in which he defended Pulte as “very fair” and “talented” and said he had told Clayton not to show up for the scheduled hearing.

Trump also said Clayton’s nomination should not move forward until the Senate confirmed James McDonald, his pick to succeed Clayton at SDNY, and threatened to withhold support for Section 702 unless Congress first passed a partisan voter ID bill, the SAVE Act.

It is not clear what convinced Trump to let Clayton appear before the Senate now, though the Justice Department announced last week McDonald was joining SDNY as Clayton’s deputy. The delay also guaranteed Pulte would have some time atop ODNI.

Since taking over in mid-June, Pulte has ousted several Gabbard holdovers and reassigned roughly 45 career intelligence officials, including many in the agency’s intelligence coordination hub.

While Pulte has not implemented as many changes as critics feared, Trump said this month he wants Pulte — who touted mortgage fraud investigations into Trump’s political enemies while serving as the head of the government’s housing finance regulator — to “declassify almost everything” before he leaves ODNI.

That’s one reason why there is such urgency among Democrats to see him replaced.

Though Clayton does not have direct experience in the intelligence community, he is held in far higher regard by both Democrats and Republicans, several of whom were lukewarm or quietly opposed to Pulte.

Clayton built trust with some Democrats during his time at the SEC, and has earned praise inside and outside the administration for his work at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office, one of the most prestigious in the country. While there, he handled several high-profile national security cases, including the criminal case against deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

A GOP congressional aide also noted that Clayton is reported to have a close relationship with the president, an asset that could end up making him a more effective DNI than anyone now anticipates.

“Is he a career intel official? No,” the aide said. “But he is someone who has a good rapport with the president.” The aide noted that other influential Trump aides, like peace envoy Steve Witkoff, do not have traditional national security backgrounds.

Congress crafted the legislation creating ODNI in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks and the intelligence failures leading to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The hope was that the office could improve the flow of information between powerful spy bureaucracies while providing a more balanced assessment of intelligence matters than could any single member of the U.S. spy community.

But the office never got off to a strong start, and for years lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and former intelligence officials have alleged it is a bloated bureaucracy that needlessly slows down or dilutes intelligence analysis.

For Democrats, Gabbard’s tenure added a troubling new dimension to those gripes, demonstrating how some of the unheralded authorities of the office could be misused for political purposes.

Gabbard ousted intelligence community personnel who helped craft an assessment that undercut Trump’s immigration agenda. She used her perch to declassify spy material she used to accuse former President Barack Obama and his intelligence chiefs of “treason.” Most troubling for Democrats, she stretched her office’s legal authorities beyond their seeming limit by attending an FBI raid of an elections facility in Georgia, and seizing voting machines in Puerto Rico.

Republicans took a different lesson from Gabbard’s time as DNI.

Trump repeatedly sidelined Gabbard on high-stakes military decision-making, instead relying on Ratcliffe to be his intel aide and conduit to the U.S. intelligence community.

The apparent success of that model has given fresh ammunition to ODNI skeptics like Cotton who feel Gabbard did not go far enough in reforming the intel coordination hub. Cotton last year introduced legislation to cap the office at 650 people — roughly half its current size — and move some of its functions elsewhere in the intelligence community.

For Republicans on Wednesday, the focus will be “how do you wind this [ODNI] down and get the bureaucracy out of the way,” said the senior GOP congressional aide.

The hearing may not be the only hurdle Clayton has to clear this week. A speech Trump has planned for Thursday night could also affect how quickly Clayton is confirmed. In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said the primetime address involves a “very big announcement” and pertains to “free and fair elections.” Democrats fear Trump, who has long alleged the 2020 election was rigged, plans to release new intelligence that falsely buttresses those claims.

“Trump has been laying the groundwork to justify massive interference in our midterms,” Warner tweeted Tuesday. “It’s coming on Thursday. Don’t let him fool you.”

Congress

‘I’m staying out of Maine’: Chuck Schumer sidelines himself with the Senate majority on the line

Published

4 hours ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The fate of the Senate majority could lie in the hands of 601 yet-to-be-chosen Maine Democrats. And Chuck Schumer, known for working every possible angle to give his party’s campaigns an edge, is largely helpless to do anything about it.

The sidelines are an unusual place for the longtime Senate Democratic leader. Known for his heavy-handed interventions during his successful tenure leading the party’s campaign arm, his well-documented recruiting in key battleground races this year and penchant for near-constant backchanneling via his signature flip phone, Schumer is well aware he is now facing a new political reality.

If he were to publicly back a candidate ahead of the party’s nominating convention later this month, it would likely be used against that candidate by his or her opponents. Instead, with a truncated primary timeline, Schumer is keeping his focus on the general election in November — and on defeating a longtime nemesis, veteran Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

Asked in a brief interview Tuesday if he would endorse a candidate before the July 25 convention, Schumer said, “I’m staying out of Maine.”

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader, said in an interview Schumer’s reticence makes sense: “At this point, there are so many nominees and possibilities, I can see why he’s holding back.”

One person with knowledge of Schumer’s thinking said the New York Democrat is leaving the 11-hour primary battle up to Mainers. Two other people close to Schumer, who were also granted anonymity to speak candidly about his approach, said he would stay far away from the race to replace Graham Platner and not pick a favorite — at least not publicly — in part out of concern that if he picks a candidate it could backfire.

“He doesn’t want to put his thumb on the scale,” said a fourth person, a Democratic strategist. “Anyone he wants would be toxic.”

Schumer’s previous intervention in the Granite State already fell flat this cycle. He spent months wooing Gov. Janet Mills to enter the race against Collins, assuming the four-term statewide office holder would be best positioned to appeal to the older women who have been a key element of the incumbent’s coalition.

But Mills, 78, ran a listless campaign, raised little money and watched as 41-year-old insurgent Graham Platner captured the hearts of Maine Democrats and broad national attention.

Schumer’s reliance on a known quantity is looking more prudent in hindsight — especially after Blue Light News reported this month on a woman’s accusation that Platner forced her to have sex with him. Platner has denied the allegation but ended his campaign after it emerged.

As the saga played out in recent weeks, Schumer has refrained from stepping into the renewed primary battle. Instead, in an initial statement responding to the rape allegation, Schumer and DSCC Chair Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said Maine Democrats should have “the opportunity to choose a new candidate who can defeat Susan Collins.”

After Platner withdrew, Schumer sidestepped the primary all together, saying in a statement that “Democrats are going to defeat Susan Collins, win Maine, and take back the Senate.” It’s similar to the tack Schumer took last month as questions piled up about Platner’s background.

Behind the scenes, several Maine candidates said they have seen no evidence that Schumer or the Washington-based groups he holds major influence over — the DSCC and Senate Majority PAC — have intervened in the renomination process.

A spokesperson for Nirav Shah and a person close to Shanna Bellows, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations, said the two campaigns had not heard from Schumer or the groups. A person close to businessman Dan Kleban, also granted anonymity, said he was unaware of any outreach. A spokesperson for Troy Jackson did not respond to a request for comment.

While Schumer is keeping his distance from the primary, he’s still a character in it. Several contenders have been asked to weigh in on whether he should continue as Democratic leader. Kleban posted an article last week titled in part, “I Won’t Vote for Chuck Schumer for Leader.”

It’s not just Schumer who is tapping out as Maine Democrats choose a successor for Platner. Several senators in the progressive wing of Schumer’s caucus who had earlier backed Platner over Mills — including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) — also say they have no plans to endorse before the convention.

Several had defended Platner as damaging revelations emerged, including after a New York Times story that detailed disturbing accounts from several ex-girlfriends, then called for him to drop out in the wake of the Blue Light News report.

“They have a process,” Heinrich said of Maine Democrats. “They’re the most informed people to figure out who best to pick up the mantle.”

The DSCC for its part is letting the Maine Democratic Party lead the renomination process and is otherwise focused on defeating Collins and building resources for the eventual nominee, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss private strategy. The group has also started a fund that is expected to be transferred to the nominee once named.

It still amounts to a leap of faith given the high stakes for Senate Democrats. They started the two-year election cycle as clear underdogs given which states were set to be contested in 2026. Now they believe they are within striking distance thanks to Trump’s low approval numbers and political headwinds for the GOP including the ongoing Iran war.

But to flip the majority, Democrats need to effectively run the table — flipping four GOP seats while holding onto all of their own.

Democrats have long viewed Maine as a crucial if not strictly essential element to any path to the majority. While Schumer has touted his recruiting coups in states like Alaska, North Carolina and Ohio, they were all won by Donald Trump in 2024. Collins is the only Republican running in a state won by Kamala Harris.

If Democrats’ can’t win Maine, they would need to flip Iowa or Texas — two states they believe they’ve put on the board through recruiting but have a strong recent history of electing Republicans to federal office.

“Despite all the attacks Chuck Schumer’s been facing, the reason why Democrats are in a position to take over the Senate is because of Schumer’s candidate recruitment, fundraising and organizing,” said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic National Committee member from New York.

Those who have had a front-row seat to Schumer’s inveterate politicking over the years are taking note of the dilemma he now faces.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he was “not surprised” by Schumer staying out of the race as the party undertakes a messy sprint to pick a new nominee.

“I can imagine why he would stay out of it,” he said. “I can imagine why he would get into it.”

Andrew Howard, Jessica Piper and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Congress

What’s in store for Todd Blanche’s confirmation hearing

Published

11 hours ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The GOP-led Senate Judiciary Committee should be a friendly place for President Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, but Todd Blanche may be about to enter a minefield.

Democrats are promising to make Blanche’s Wednesday confirmation hearing an indictment of his record as Trump’s former personal lawyer — and, more recently, as the face of the haphazard rollout of the Jeffrey Epstein files and the thwarted launch of a $1.8 billion fund to pay out “victims” of “lawfare” that critics called a slush fund benefitting Trump’s allies.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Senate Judiciary Democrat, accused Blanche of “aiding and abetting the most corrupt administration in history,” and plans to push him on the “botched release of the Epstein Files, the MAGA slush fund for cop beaters, the Trump-IRS sweetheart deal, and his crypto corruption.”

Across the aisle, GOP committee members John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina will be leaving office at the end of this term and have little left to lose in bucking Trump. Both men have signaled their support for Blanche could hinge on how he answers a host of questions on the controversial settlement that led to the establishment of the “anti-weaponization fund.” Mainly, they want assurances that the fund is dead.

A federal court ruling Monday suggesting that Blanche could face discipline for his handling of that settlement has only raised the stakes for Cornyn, who said that while he “wan[ted] to do the right thing,” he also “want[ed] an attorney general who will enforce the law and who won’t be just a lawyer for the president. I haven’t finally decided yet.”

While Tillis said his “posture right now is a ‘yes’” vote on Blanche, he cautioned that he still had “issues” with the fund that must be addressed.

Assuming members of the Judiciary Committee vote along party lines to advance Blanche’s nomination to the full Senate, a single GOP defection could derail his path. It means that Blanche is under enormous pressure to perform Wednesday without any missteps — and any unforced errors could make it harder for Republican leaders to confirm him before the month-long August recess.

There have been signs in recent days that Blanche has been seeking to smooth things over for himself ahead of his confirmation hearing. He was on Capitol Hill Tuesday for meetings with lawmakers, including Durbin, who said Blanche told him he “made a mistake” in his handling of the now-defunct “anti-weaponization fund.”

Blanche has also been working to make inroads with GOP senators off the Judiciary Committee, too. In the past week, he’s embarked on a multi-day tour of Alaska, home to moderate GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski, where he announced a nearly $200 million settlement between the Justice Department and Anchorage over a port expansion project.

Murkowski said Tuesday she still has some “specific follow ups” for Blanche.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who faces a competitive reelection campaign this November, said Tuesday she has “not made a decision” on Blanche, explaining that she was waiting to see what comes from the hearing.

Blanche — who can afford to lose only two Republican votes on the Senate floor, assuming the vote is along party lines — will answer questions from lawmakers Wednesday. A panel of outside witnesses will testify Thursday about Blanche’s character.

Republicans have invited former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who served under President George W. Bush; John Adler, president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; and Jennifer Bos, who has advocated for tough immigration policies after her daughter was murdered by an undocumented immigrant.

Democrats are calling Danielle Bensky, a survivor of Epstein’s sex crimes whose name was inadvertently revealed as part of the release of the Epstein files. They’re also calling former DOJ pardon attorney Liz Oyer.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats want to gin up more consternation about the way Blanche handled the public disclosure of the Epstein case files in the Justice Department’s possession when he was deputy attorney general.

After a series of blunders by his predecessor Pam Bondi, Blanche served as a public face of a rollout that was marred by redaction errors and criticized by some lawmakers — and Epstein victims — as improperly protective of Trump and other powerful men mentioned in the files.

According to an aide for a Democrat who serves on the Judiciary Committee — granted anonymity to share private party strategy — Democrats intend to ask Blanche about his trip to Florida last summer to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, the only convicted Epstein co-conspirator, who is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Following her meetings with Blanche, Maxwell was transferred to a lower-security prison — a move Blanche has defended as stemming from security concerns, but which others argue was a reward for saying she never witnessed any wrongdoing from Trump throughout the president’s onetime friendship with Epstein.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) plans to ask Blanche about his role in pardoning rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and “his failure to investigate violations of law involving the pardons.”

Blanche may also face scrutiny over the Justice Department’s politically charged prosecutions and investigations of Trump’s perceived foes, including former FBI Director James Comey, former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Senate Judiciary Democrats’ strategy could also be informed by their counterparts across the Capitol. The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, sent a letter to Blanche Tuesday demanding he respond to recent accusations made by federal judges that Trump Justice Department attorneys are violating court orders, providing misleading or false information to the courts, or withholding crucial information during sensitive litigation.

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is prepared to counter Democrats by focusing his opening statement Wednesday on highlighting “the outpouring of bipartisan support for Blanche’s nomination, in contrast to Democrat smear tactics,” according to a Judiciary GOP aide.

But while these Democratic lines of inquiry could make things uncomfortable for Blanche, all eyes will be on the Republican members of the committee, particularly Cornyn and Tillis.

Blanche will have to thread a delicate needle as to why he canceled plans for the anti-weaponization fund only after public outcry and private revolt by Senate Republicans — and what his intentions for the effort would have been, otherwise.

He also has so far refused to make a declaration in writing that he will not seek to revive the fund at some later date, which could be a problem for skeptical Republicans.

“I have to say — I have to know with certainty that that fund … it’s just got to be ended,” Tillis said Tuesday. “ It’s bad optics. It’s bad policy … It’s got to go.”

Jordain Carney, Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein contributed to this report