Congress

Democrats ready to reject latest GOP shutdown offer

Published

10 months ago

November 7, 2025

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is dangling another carrot for Democrats. They still aren’t ready to bite.

In his latest pressure tactic, the South Dakota Republican is teeing up yet another vote to reopen the government Friday, the 38th day of the record-setting shutdown. But this time, he is pledging to swap out the House-passed stopgap bill for a new funding patch, likely into January, along with full-year funding for veterans programs, food aid and more.

“It’s what they asked for,” Thune said Thursday night.

But Democrats, stiffened by their party’s big election wins Tuesday that have papered over rising internal divisions, are expected to block a procedural vote yet again, according to two people granted anonymity to describe caucus dynamics, as well as interviews with several potential Democratic swing votes.

They are intent on forcing President Donald Trump and fellow Republicans to cough up a better deal and finally engage on their central demand — an extension of expiring health insurance subsidies that aren’t definitively addressed in the latest GOP offer.

“Leader Thune isn’t doing himself any favors by not coming to the table,” said Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), who has been viewed as a possible swing vote but said she would vote no Friday.

Several other Democrats professed unity coming out of a long lunch meeting Thursday — one of several they’ve held this week as they’ve wrangled over an endgame to the long shutdown.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 party leader, said Thursday that Democrats “are as unified as we have ever been,” while adding that “people understand the gravity of the shutdown.”

But those proclamations belied the behind-the-scenes tensions between a group of Democratic senators who believe the time has come to reopen the government and the caucus’ progressive bloc, which is aghast at the idea of surrendering without a health care deal, especially after Tuesday’s elections.

“They’ve got to stand up, and they’ve got to fight,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said of his fellow caucus members in a brief interview Thursday night. “They have the American people at their back. And Republicans are going to have to come to the table and recognize they just cannot double premiums for millions of Americans in this country.”

Other corners of the caucus, however, believe Sanders and his allies — who have not participated in the bipartisan talks — are simply wanting to brawl with Republicans without having a realistic plan to bring the longest shutdown on record to an end.

The progressives “have yet to articulate any sense whatsoever of how they think this ends or any proposal to get Republicans to the table other than waiting longer and longer,” said a Senate Democratic aide who was granted anonymity to comment candidly about caucus dynamics. “And in the meantime it’s the families who can afford it the least that are increasingly getting walloped by the shutdown.”

“We are not going to get a better offer,” another Democratic aide involved in the bipartisan talks added.

That’s the case the Senate Democrats who have been negotiating have been trying to make privately to their colleagues, and they believed they were gaining traction earlier this week. But the sweeping election gains Tuesday fired up other Democrats and left many wondering if Republicans would offer new concessions.

Progress has been made in recent days toward finalizing a three-bill package that would fund some federal agencies through September, one that would be attached to a stopgap bill to reopen the rest of the government for just a few months. Republicans are also discussing whether a final deal can involve rehiring thousands of federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown — a new element first reported by POLITICO Thursday.

But according to a person granted anonymity to describe the sensitive talks, there has been no new GOP offer on health care. Republicans are willing to commit to a future vote to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies by an agreed-upon date but they have not moved off their position that the government must reopen first. Nor has there been any progress in getting Trump or Speaker Mike Johnson to guarantee a path forward for any Senate-forged compromise.

“I’ve made this very clear to them that I can’t guarantee them an outcome — I can guarantee them a process,” Thune said Thursday. “We’ve had that conversation multiple times already.”

As senators left the Capitol around dinnertime Thursday, they still didn’t know what exactly Thune would be asking them to vote on Friday. To allow more time for talks to progress, the Senate won’t come into session until noon Friday, and a time hasn’t yet been scheduled for the promised vote.

If it fails as currently expected, it’s unclear what Thune might do next. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 GOP leader, said Thursday the Senate would stay in session over the weekend, but senators could head home — potentially for a scheduled weeklong Veterans Day recess — if there’s no hope of a breakthrough.

The uncertainty had weary senators questioning whether the end is truly in sight.

“We’ve been talking for days, but there’s no product,” said Delaware Sen. Chris Coons, who is among the Democrats considered most likely to support a bipartisan compromise. “I’m hopeful we can find a way through this over the weekend.”

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who has been closely engaged in the bipartisan talks, said Thursday night there is “no organized effort at this point that is bearing fruit.”

“There are attempts to find a way to bring people forward, but I’m discouraged,” he added. “I’m hoping that overnight things might change a little bit, but I’m not optimistic.”

Jennifer Scholtes, Mia McCarthy, Katherine Tully-McManus, Meredith Lee Hill and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

Congress

Chris Murphy gives $525K to party, state committees

Published

58 minutes ago

September 14, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy is giving more than $500,000 to Democratic national and state committees working to boost the party in the midterms.

Murphy will announce Monday — according to details first shared with Blue Light News — that he is investing $200,000 with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, $100,000 with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and $100,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

He is also spreading a total of $125,000 across 25 state Democratic parties.

“Donald Trump and his MAGA agenda are failing the American people. Democrats can pass a new minimum wage, reign in Trump’s illegal war, and keep his billionaire friends in check,” Murphy said in a statement. “But we need majorities to do so. That requires investment.”

Murphy’s contributions come amid speculation that the lawmaker harbors 2028 presidential ambitions. They are also landing as Democrats believe they are within striking distance of winning the Senate majority after they’ve expanded the map and Trump’s numbers threaten to drag down Republicans.

In all, Murphy has contributed more than $2.5 million over the 2026 campaign cycle, including transferring nearly $250,000 to Democratic Senate candidates and raising more than $300,000 directly for Senate candidates. He also is expected to do more fundraisers in the final stretch of the midterms, saying that his aim is to support “candidates ready to build a populist movement.”

His support could bolster the candidates he backed in the primaries — including Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan, who is running to succeed retiring Sen. Tina Smith.

Murphy is part of a group of progressive senators who endorsed some candidates, like Flanagan, who were either not supported or running against candidates backed by the DSCC or Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“His support has helped us build the momentum and resources we need to win,” Flanagan said in a statement of Murphy. “His leadership challenging the political influence of greedy corporations and fighting for working people is exactly what Washington needs more of, and I’m proud to have him in our corner as we work to bring a stronger, more people-focused vision to the Senate.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: Congress isn’t rushing after AI alarms

Published

3 hours ago

September 14, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The top executives running America’s most powerful artificial intelligence companies over the weekend agreed their industry needs to slow down — or risk humanity’s safety.

But the chance of Congress rushing to action in the coming weeks is next to zero.

One obstacle is the tight calendar before the midterms: Lawmakers return Monday, but the House is scheduled to leave by Friday and the Senate is already eyeing cutting their three-week session to two.

Another hurdle is the lack of momentum behind any plan. Senate Commerce could hold a markup of AI legislation this month, but it’s unclear a broad bipartisan AI safety bill being pushed by Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar will be finalized. Senators can’t yet agree on provisions that would hold AI labs legally accountable.

And some don’t think there’s a need to do anything right now: Senior House Republicans have largely stood in line with President Donald Trump, who has brushed aside concerns of an existential threat in light of the AI arms race against China.

— WHAT’S NEXT: Speaker Mike Johnson suggested lawmakers, Trump and tech execs as soon as Monday “go in a big room, close the door and sort this out.”

Yet Johnson in a Sunday interview on BLN threw cold water on the idea of Congress fast-tracking a legislative solution, arguing that setting industry-wide safety protocols should be the responsibility of the tech companies themselves.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, meanwhile, said AI would be “a high priority” during House Democrats’ weekly caucus meeting Tuesday.

But while he said Congress needed to “take decisive action to slow down the pace of development,” he didn’t articulate any plan for doing so.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is out with a statement Monday morning that’s also short on details — saying simply that while he understands concerns about giving China the advantage on AI, Congress needs to act to put “safe, responsible and accountable guardrails on it.” He called for legislation to cut off the flow of advanced AI chips and semiconductor technology to China to slow their development.

He’s also calling for an all-senators classified briefing from administration officials on how they plan to deal with the rapidly-evolving technology.

— ALARM BELLS: Meanwhile concern is brewing within the rank-and-file of both parties that could add political pressure:

Rep. Lori Trahan told Blue Light News in an interview Sunday it was a mistake for the House to leave town so early and that she’d push for members to stay longer to deal with the AI risk. Short of the whole House remaining in session, she’s suggesting at least a smaller group of negotiators stick around to hash out a plan.

“I just want to make sure that Congress is in a position to act quickly,” Trahan said.

She’s worried, though, that leaders won’t get behind her bipartisan legislation that would, among other things, create a possible emergency brake for AI models. It’s the only comprehensive bill of its kind that’s ready to work its way through committee.

Retiring Rep. Chip Roy is also sounding the alarm in an interview with Blue Light News about the need to “have some degree of guardrails” on technology that could fundamentally change what it means to be a “free human.”

And on the campaign trail, frontline Michigan Senate candidate Mike Rogers on Sunday pointed to the tech executives’ warnings and said he believed AI development needed to slow down to allow the government to put a national security framework in place.

“The first role of our government is to keep us safe,” he said.

What else we’re watching:

— DATA CENTER VOTE ON TAP — House GOP leaders Tuesday plan to bring legislation to the floor to curb data center costs, marking lawmakers’ biggest step yet to regulate AI infrastructure. Meanwhile, Sen. Jon Husted is “having conversations on how the Senate can follow suit,” according to an aide. The decision to proceed this coming week signals that pressure has been building on leaders to act, underscored by the fact at least five House GOP frontliners have signed on as co-sponsors since Sept. 1: Reps. Bill Huizenga, Tom Barrett, David Valadao, Jen Kiggans and Mónica de la Cruz.

— GOP REVAMPS CRYPTO BILL — Senate Republicans late Sunday released revised text of a landmark cryptocurrency bill with key changes aimed at winning over Democratic holdouts, including new, White House-blessed government ethics language covering federal officials’ engagements with digital assets. It is unclear if the changes will be enough to win enough bipartisan support to advance the measure on the Senate floor this week. It is set for a key procedural vote Tuesday afternoon. Schumer convened Democrats to discuss the measure Sunday night, before Republicans unveiled their new text.

Ali Bianco, Kelsey Brugger, Nico Portuondo and Jasper Goodman contributed to this report.

Congress

Chip Roy is leaving Congress — but not before warning his colleagues to take the threat of AI seriously

Published

20 hours ago

September 13, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Chip Roy isn’t known for his touchy-feely approach to legislating. But as the staunch conservative is preparing to leave Congress at the end of the year, he’s raising difficult, philosophical questions about whether the rapid rise of artificial intelligence could turn over human dominion to “entities that have no soul.”

The Texas Republican is grappling with how to square his small-government, anti-regulatory values with what he sees as an urgent need to bring some accountability to an industry that has answered few questions about whether the rapidly evolving technology could fundamentally change what it means to be a “free human.”

And as many of his fellow Republicans warn that regulating AI in the U.S. could cede ground to China, he keeps coming back to a nagging question: At what cost?

“All the proponents of technology will say, ’Oh, your life is better. You can do so many more things, so many advancements, curing cancer … blah blah blah.’ And I’m like, ‘yeah, but what world am I living in?’ And I think that’s a question we have to ask as we kind of work through all this stuff.”

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

We’re speaking the day after an ex-AI researcher went on social media to issue a warning about the potential extinction threat posed by unchecked AI development. What do you think is going on here?

Everybody’s feeling like they’re losing control. They don’t know what their job’s going to look like. They don’t know what their life’s going to look like. They’re being told that we need to have all these data centers and invest in those, and whatever that means, whatever the impact is, don’t worry, it’ll be better, and there’ll be plenty of water, there’ll be plenty of electricity. But you got to do it because, “beat China?”

I’m a free market guy. I’m a limited government guy. I’m a guy that believes that the government can’t solve problems very well, but I’ve tried to have some conversations with folks about this in terms of responsibility. Is this not unlike nuclear proliferation?

Did you think you’ve had to rethink your free market inclinations at all?

None of this makes me rethink free market. The free market is the best thing you could possibly have to provide as many options as possible without government interference. However, what I want people in this space to acknowledge is, this is a unique issue. This is not the simple transition from a horse and buggy to a car. This is an earth shattering potential human replacement on multiple levels. And with no clear direction for what it means, and then ultimately no clear understanding of who’s in charge of what is supposed to be a tool for humanity — but can ultimately make humans the tools of the technology.

One researcher has put it at a greater than 10% chance that AI could end civilization. Do you take that seriously and, if so, does that mean Congress should act sooner rather than later?

I think that certainly raises eyebrows and opens eyes to, “wait, what are we talking about here?” And the biggest problem is that most of the people in the industry cannot just unilaterally deny it. They cannot answer the question of, “what does it do for the dignity of work and the ability of humans to continue to work and produce with their hands and through their own toil and production?”

At what point can the genie not go back in the bottle?

I am of the mindset that the genie cannot go back in the bottle. I am of the mindset that technology and entrepreneurs are our best hope for figuring out how to manage all of this — not government. But I do think government can provide some safety valves, right? If everything is digitized and AI is sort of running things, if everything goes sideways, what do I do? We have to be philosophical about what it means to live. Not all advancements make the world better; they make it different, and some of them do make it better, right? Was it better to grow up in the ’90s or in 2026 as a kid? I don’t know.

If your ultimate backstop as a human is that God gave us life and dominion over your world, why should I have to answer to a world that chose an AI-driven world? Why? I mean, you have to live in the world you’re in, but shouldn’t I have an option as a free human?

You’re talking about your faith — what role could Christians play here?

Do I think that there is a God question in this entire AI debate? I absolutely do. Do I think that God gave man dominion over the world, and that we owe it to ourselves and our posterity and to God to try to make sure that we maintain that dominion and not turn that over to, essentially, entities that have no soul and have no ability to understand humanity? You cannot turn leadership and decision-making over to soulless entities, and I think that that is a central question to everything that we’re going to be debating on this topic.

Do you think this will be a big issue in faith circles?

Yes. I don’t think people have caught up to it yet, but I do think that’s going to be a growing issue in faith circles, in Christian circles.

The White House’s position has largely been about the need for the U.S. to beat China.

So I’ll be honest. I don’t know what the proper role of government is here. The Big Tech bros need better answers if they want us just to all say, “oh yeah, just let the market figure it out.” Well, then give me my answers. So far the Big Tech bros’ answer has been: “but China.” And “but China” is not a policy prescription. It’s a fear mechanism.

It seems like you are really wrestling with the role of government here.

Yes. And all of us should be wrestling with it. And our predisposition as free market conservatives should be that the market is going to produce the best and most efficient and most effective solutions for all of these problems. But the people that are running the industries, they owe us an understanding that they’re doing that. Government has a role to have hearings. Government has a role to raise questions. Government has a role to maybe demand certain levels of safety or security, or maybe government has a role to demand some certain level of escape valve.

The reactions to the warnings from the AI researchers have come overwhelmingly from Democrats. Do you think we could see Republicans start to say, “oh, maybe progressives who want to ban superintelligence are right?”

I do not believe “we’re going to shut it all down” is either plausible or the best solution. I do think we must have some degree of guardrails and that the same laws and rules that apply to humans are going to have to apply to a world of AI, and there are other existential questions that have to be raised.

If you’re sitting as a red coat and a blue coat in the revolution, staring across the field, you know that if you walk out there, you’re gonna get shot, or you might get shot, and you got to be willing to risk it. And you’re risking your life. What is a robot risking? I think that’s a big deal.