Congress

Dem support of immigration bill latest sign of vanishing Trump resistance

Published

1 year ago

January 9, 2025

In 2019, at the height of the anti-Trump resistance, several Democrats running for president staked out an unapologetically progressive position on immigration.

Asked at a debate if they would support decriminalizing unauthorized border crossings, the vast majority of White House hopefuls on stage raised their hands, making the calculation that the fired-up liberal base was appalled at then-President Donald Trump’s handling of the border and wanted a radically different approach.

The Washington Post reported at the time that White House hopeful Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) supported repealing criminal penalties for people crossing the border illegally who were pursuing asylum, and more than five years later, he veered to the center and joined another ambitious group of Democrats as they said they would vote to advance a Republican-led bill that would crack down on illegal immigration.

The sharp U-turn is the latest sign of the left’s crumbling resistance movement as the second Trump era dawns on Washington. On Wednesday, eight Senate Democrats — among them many of the party’s rising stars and potential 2028 presidential candidates — said they would move legislation forward to detain undocumented immigrants charged with theft or burglary, enough to open debate in the upper chamber. Dozens of congressional House Democrats, some of whom are rumored to be eyeing higher office, backed the legislation Tuesday.

It was a stark shift from Trump’s first term, when his so-called Muslim ban and family separation policy lit a fire under an enraged base, inspiring fiery protests that Democratic senators and House members attended. The street marches are no more, and in the wake of a landslide victory by Trump powered by backlash to President Joe Biden’s management of the border and a general change in public opinion on stemming immigration, a new reality has set in among Democrats: Trumpism is here to stay. And the effort to discredit Trump’s border policies has failed.

The sharp U-turn on immigration policy is the latest sign of the left’s crumbling resistance movement as the second Trump era dawns on Washington.

“The reaction in ‘16 was dramatic. You had the Women’s March immediately after the election,” said Mark Longabaugh, a former adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) presidential campaign. “This time, there almost is a level of resignation it seems. And so you haven’t seen much in the way of resistance so far. And, in fact, I think this is a signal that at least Democratic legislators in the Congress perceive a need to move to the center or move to the right on immigration.”

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), the first Democrat in the upper chamber to sponsor the House’s bill, known as the Laken Riley Act, urged his party to back the legislation and consider how voters in his battleground state would see the issue. Trump carried Pennsylvania in November, and Republicans swept down-ballot races there, too, ousting Democratic Sen. Bob Casey, whose name was nearly political royalty in the state.

“Pretend that you’re in a parking lot at Walmart in Scranton, and it’s like, ‘Well, I’m going to vote against the bill that allows people to deport people that were charged of crimes or they have a criminal record.’ How do you think that would go over?” Fetterman said. “That’s why we lose if you want to try to make that argument.”

During the 2024 campaign, Republican Dave McCormick attacked Casey as weak on the border and sought to tie him to Biden. Once known for his moderate persona, Casey moved to the left in recent years, including by embracing the anti-Trump resistance. Casey rushed to Philadelphia International Airport in January of 2017 to join protesters rallying against the travel ban barring citizens from several predominantly Muslim countries.

Last year, Republicans and their allies spent hundreds of millions of dollars on attack ads hammering Democratic candidates on their immigration stances and linking rising crime rates to an increase in illegal migration. On Tuesday, few endangered House Democrats were ready to take another vote that could be weaponized against them in the 2026 midterms.

Nearly 50 of them, many from vulnerable districts, voted Tuesday for the Laken Riley Act. Its namesake is a Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an undocumented immigrant from Venezuela. And they will be joined by at least a handful of Senate Democrats, who have already pledged to support or at least advance it.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a rising star in his party, was one of the House Democrats who voted for the bill after previously opposing another version of it last year.

“No one seems to be reporting that these are two different bills, which is frustrating. Last year’s version included outrageous attacks on the administration, including blaming President Biden for Laken Riley’s murder,” he said. “This version stripped out all of the incendiary language attacking Democrats.”

A spokesperson for Hickenlooper, Anthony Rivera-Rodriguez, said that he “does not support the Laken Riley Act in its current form,” but “he’s interested in voting to proceed to the bill to amend it.” He declined to provide more details on how he would change the bill.

Another reason for the shift on immigration among Democrats is a broader desire for pragmatism during the next two years of united Republican control and a creeping fatigue that has snuffed out the party’s willingness to push back against a GOP agenda.

Democrats are still reckoning with their widespread losses last November, a process that has hamstrung their ability to mount an organized resistance movement. And a couple dozen Democratic members were elected on pledges to make meaningful improvements to border security. Their votes on Tuesday make good on that promise, regardless of whether the threat of future Republican attacks motivated their decision.

And there’s precedent for that stance. Democrats in the pre-Trump era had supported similar legislation to deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Former President Bill Clinton signed a measure that required removal of non-citizens convicted of a long list of felonies while President Barack Obama’s administration deported more than 2.5 million people through immigration orders, the vast majority of whom had criminal records.

Other Democratic senators who signaled a willingness to join Fetterman in supporting the bill included Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and newly elected Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). Kelly, Fetterman and Gallego are rumored future presidential contenders. Hickenlooper, Peters and Ossoff are up for reelection in 2026.

The majority of the House Democratic caucus voted against the bill. But the 48 who voted yes is an increase from the 37 who voted for the bill when it came up for a vote last March. And the potential for Democratic support in the Senate means it could ultimately become law.

The bill targets a specific set of undocumented immigrants accused of certain crimes, and that narrow focus makes it more likely to pick up Democratic votes. But eight years ago, it would have been hard to conceive of so many Democrats bucking their party on a Republican-led immigration bill.

“In the past, I couldn’t even get people to say border security. And now you’re here: border security, border security. I think the parties slowly move in that direction,” said Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), who represents a border district in South Texas. “You can be for strong border security and still be respectful.”

Nicholas Wu and Daniella Diaz contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate Republicans want a say on Trump’s Iran deal

Published

5 hours ago

June 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump is touting a deal that would end the monthslong war with Iran — and potentially ease some of the political headwinds bearing down on Republicans.

GOP lawmakers still have lots of questions.

The absence of publicly released text for the “memorandum of understanding” Vice President JD Vance reportedly signed with Iranian officials Sunday left an information vacuum on Capitol Hill, where senators of both parties were left airing concerns about what the deal might entail.

Even most Republicans agreed: More information needs to come to Congress soon, and any agreement touching on the future of the Iranian nuclear program would have to eventually be subject to a congressional vote.

“If you want a deal to last, it can’t be an executive agreement,” said Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.). “We’ve got to have a vote of Congress to be able to solidify [it] long term.”

The bipartisan scrutiny of the long-brewing agreement is a legacy of the last Iran nuclear deal, consummated more than a decade ago by then-President Barack Obama amid a bipartisan uproar over trading sanctions relief and cash concessions to the Iranian regime in return for curbs on its nuclear ambitions.

Trump withdrew from the deal in his first term, and now he is back with an agreement that — pending release of the text and final negotiations yet to come — could end up looking like Obama’s deal. That has raised the hackles of both defense hawks who despised the original agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and Democrats who believe Trump never should have left it in the first place.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of those defense hawks, told reporters that he was “pulling for a deal,” while also making note of serious discrepancies in the terms that have emerged thus far.

“The MOU being described by us sounds really very good; the MOU being described by Iran sounds awful,” Graham said.

“If they can enrich [uranium] anywhere at all, then it’s the same as JCPOA. If they can’t enrich, then that makes it a good deal,” he continued, adding in a separate conversation that he was “skeptical that Iran will ever go there” to cease enrichment.

The Trump administration said it expects release of the memorandum of understanding no later than Friday.

The possibility that Congress would take any kind of vote on the agreement is also a legacy of the 2015 deal. Amid bipartisan concern about the Obama administration’s pursuit of nuclear talks, the GOP-controlled House and Senate that year passed legislation allowing for congressional review of any agreement dealing with the Iranian nuclear program.

That law, however, does not require Congress to approve a deal — it rather gives it the ability to kill a deal via a disapproval resolution that could be subject to presidential veto. That means each chamber would have to effectively muster a two-thirds majority to block Trump, something it did not come close to doing in 2015.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is “probably some expectation” that his chamber would ultimately vote on the agreement while declining to weigh in on the particulars.

“I just don’t know enough about it yet, and I don’t think even the people who follow this stuff closely up here know that much about it,” he said, adding that he expected Vance or other administration officials to brief members on the deal at some point.

The lack of specificity was par for the course on Capitol Hill Monday, with many senators expressing exasperation that text of the signed agreement has not yet been released.

“If it’s a secret deal, then how can I take it seriously?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters.

The agreement reportedly includes reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping, but it’s not clear to what degree Iran will be required to abandon its nuclear program. Vance indicated in a series of interviews that the administration will attempt to ensure Iran does not develop or obtain a nuclear weapon but left details regarding civilian nuclear facilities and potential uranium enrichment unaddressed.

The White House circulated talking points to Hill Republicans Monday touting the deal including that “Iran will never have a nuclear weapon” and “energy prices … are coming down,” according to a copy of the document reviewed by Blue Light News. The administration also argued in the memo that the agreement “beats” the Obama-era agreement.

In the absence of further details, senators mainly agreed that they wanted a chance to formally review and vote on the deal — even as some Republicans predicted the administration would find a way to avoid that happening.

“I don’t expect that to happen,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said about a vote. “They’ll try to write it around the treaty requirements, so I don’t expect we’ll vote on it.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the administration should send the deal to Congress “if they want it to be something other than a political agreement, like the JCPOA was.”

Most congressional Republicans have been eager for Trump to find a way out of the nearly four-month war, which has driven up energy prices ahead of the November elections. Thune predicted Monday that a deal would “have a very positive impact on the economic situation in the country and that obviously will translate into the political situation in the country.”

Some of Trump’s most vocal allies on Capitol Hill praised the agreement Monday.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said has had conversations with senior White House officials and he was “very hopeful.” Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who is likely the next Senate GOP campaign chair, added on X: “President Trump deserves our trust and support as he works to bring peace to the Middle East.”

Democrats were largely keeping their powder dry Monday on how they would handle a vote on the agreement. Some could find it hard to oppose a deal that ends hostilities on negotiated terms roughly similar to what was secured under a Democratic president in 2015.

But plenty of Democrats questioned what was gained by the conflict.

“We still don’t know the details,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on the Senate floor. “The American people need to know exactly what’s in the deal. … We know this for certain: We are worse off than before Trump began his foolish war of choice.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Thune is ‘hopeful’ Mitch McConnell will return this week

Published

9 hours ago

June 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday he hopes his predecessor as top Republican, Mitch McConnell, returns this week from a hospitalization.

Thune said he had not yet spoken directly with the 84-year-old Kentuckian but is getting “readouts from his staff.”

Asked about McConnell’s condition or if he knew if he would be back this week, Thune told reporters, “I’m hopeful that he’ll be back this week.”

A McConnell spokesperson said Sunday that he had been admitted to the hospital but did not provide details on his condition or why he was hospitalized — a break from recent prior instances where the seven-term senator was hospitalized.

A former McConnell staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity was told the senator was doing much better Monday without any further details on what put him in the hospital.

Daniel Desrochers contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate to confirm Jay Clayton as soon as Thursday

Published

11 hours ago

June 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate could vote as soon as Thursday on Jay Clayton’s nomination to serve as director of national intelligence — a lightning speed pace that will necessitate buy-in from all 100 senators.

Confirming Clayton could help shore up enough votes from Democrats to extend a government surveillance program that expired last Friday over opposition to Trump’s pick for acting director, Bill Pulte.

“He will come out of the committee Thursday, at least hopefully, and then if we get consent, we can move,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview Monday about Clayton, who Trump only nominated for the job late last week.

Democrats “ought to be happy with Clayton,” said Thune, adding that he’s a “good” and “solid” pick.

Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, floated Sunday to CBS News that Clayton could be confirmed this week if every senator cooperates.

Senate Intelligence will hold a hearing Wednesday on Clayton’s nomination. If every member of the panel agrees, he could then get a committee vote Thursday. Confirming Clayton on the Senate floor hours later would require getting agreement from every senator to speed up the process. Opposition from a single member will punt Clayton’s confirmation to next week.

Confirming Clayton Thursday would, crucially, limit — and potentially circumvent — Pulte from becoming acting director of national intelligence, which Trump has slated to take place Friday, June 19.

The president’s decision to put Pulte in charge after Tulsi Gabbard’s departure at the helm of the Office of National Intelligence sparked bipartisan pushback, with Democrats saying they will withhold support for extending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while Pulte is in the acting role. Congress allowed the key government spy authority lapse last Friday without a deal.

Trump threw another curveball into a FISA extension over the weekend when he posted on social media that he was against reauthorizing Section 702 unless a GOP elections bill is attached. That bill, known as the SAVE America Act, does not have the votes to get through Congress.

Thune threw cold water Monday on tying the two issues together.

“Yeah, he’s, as you know, passionate about getting that done and wants to use every opportunity to take a shot at it,” Thune said of Trump and his desire to enact the elections bill.

But, Thune said, “we can’t get FISA done” if the policies are linked.