Congress

Dems churn through cash ahead of tense Michigan Senate primary

Published

2 hours ago

July 16, 2026

Democrats duking it out in Michigan’s contentious Senate primary are burning through cash ahead of the August contest — leaving the likely GOP nominee with a sizable cash on hand advantage as the general election nears.

Abdul El-Sayed led the field in fundraising, raking in nearly $4.6 million in the second quarter. The progressive spent nearly $4.4 million and entered July with $2.7 million in cash on hand, according to Federal Election Commission reports filed Wednesday.

His rival for the Democratic nomination, moderate Rep. Haley Stevens, raised nearly $2.1 million. She spent nearly as much as she hauled in and had $3.4 million in cash on hand to start the month.

Meanwhile, former Rep. Mike Rogers, who is a lock for the Republican nod, ended the second quarter with nearly $5.7 million stashed in his campaign coffers to unload against his eventual Democratic opponent. He raised nearly $2.9 million and spent just $1.4 million.

Battleground Michigan is one of the most critical contests on the Senate map. Republicans are eager to flip retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters’ seat. But Democrats need to hold it as they face an uphill battle to try to retake control of the chamber.

The Democratic Party is also looking to parse the results of their bitter and messy primary, which whittled to a classic progressive-versus-moderate clash earlier this month, for clues as to its direction in the midterms and beyond.

Democratic state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, who exited the race earlier this month after failing to get enough traction in the polls, raised nearly $2.7 million, spent $4.2 million and had $2.1 million left in the bank. She has not thrown her support behind Stevens or El-Sayed ahead of the primary, but said she would back the eventual Democratic nominee.

Congress

Todd Blanche’s chances of becoming attorney general could hinge on John Cornyn

Published

1 hour ago

July 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Todd Blanche repeatedly told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday that the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” he helped launch as acting attorney general was now, in fact, “dead.” But one Republican on the panel isn’t sold.

At his confirmation hearing to lead the Justice Department permanently, Todd Blanche had to convince Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Cornyn of Texas — two GOP senators the president undermined in their election bids — that they no longer had to worry about the fund. Critics in both parties feared was intended to pad the pockets of President Donald Trump’s supporters.

Assuming all Democrats vote in unison against confirming Blanche in committee, a single Republican “no” on the Judiciary panel would be fatal to Blanche’s chances of getting to the floor. Tillis and Cornyn, who are both leaving Congress at the end of the year, have left the door open to defecting.

Tillis, who retired after Trump attacked him over policy disagreements, wouldn’t promise he would vote for Blanche. But he walked away Wednesday saying Blanche did “a good job” and expressed confidence he might be able to persuade his colleagues to approve a measure declaring the fund “legally moot.”

Cornyn is a different matter. Having lost his reelection bid after Trump endorsed his GOP primary challenger, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, over him, the senator now seems ready to make life difficult for Trump. And Wednesday, Cornyn made clear that he truly was undecided on Blanche and wasn’t in any huge rush to make up his mind.

“I don’t have to make a decision until the vote is called, so I’m not ready to make the decision now,” he told reporters following the hearing.

A former state supreme court judge and attorney general, Cornyn added that no one has been pressing him to support Blanche at this time: “I feel no pressure,” he insisted.

But in keeping his cards close to his vest, Cornyn is exposing himself to enormous scrutiny between now and July 30 — the earliest the Judiciary Committee is likely to convene a vote on Blanche if Democrats insist delaying consideration. Senate GOP leaders want to confirm Blanche on the floor the first week of August before they leave for the month-long recess — and as one of the two swing votes on the panel, Cornyn is now without question the biggest question mark.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was confident that committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) had the situation under control.

“I gotta believe that Grassley and team whipped the vote beforehand and thought, ‘we’re in good shape on this.’ They can’t lose a single Republican vote,” Hawley said.

Grassley expressed confidence Blanche will be confirmed before the Senate leaves town in August.

“I expect that … what it takes to satisfy a couple members [in] the Republican Party will be satisfied, and he’ll be confirmed probably the last week before we go on August recess,” Grassley said.

Blanche was on Capitol Hill on the eve of his confirmation hearing having last-minute meetings with lawmakers of both parties, and he could come back again to meet with Cornyn or any other holdouts in the coming days and weeks. A Justice Department spokesperson did not return a request for comment about Blanche’s plans, however.

A White House spokesperson, asked if the administration would dispatch a lobbying effort to ensure Cornyn votes “yes,” referred back to a Truth Social post from Trump saying that “Every Republican Senator should vote to CONFIRM Todd Blanche, ASAP!”

It’s not clear, in any event, that a White House charm offensive or arm-twisting campaign would work on Cornyn. Besides any lingering anger over Trump’s endorsement of Paxton, Cornyn is ultimately stuck on Blanche’s response to his line of questioning during the hearing about the “anti-weaponization fund” which emerged from a settlement the Justice Department facilitated in response to Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit for leaking his tax information.

While Blanche has backed down from going ahead with setting up the fund amid bipartisan backlash, Cornyn was unsatisfied by Blanche’s answer to the question of whether that settlement will remain an “enforceable contract.”

If the contract remains enforceable, it could allow Trump to sue for a breach of that contract — keeping alive the possibility that both the anti-weaponization fund and the component of the settlement that would shield Trump, his family and their business interests from past IRS audit scrutiny.

Blanche conceded that it was.

“These settlement agreements are contracts, and so he can’t just say, ‘Well, it’s gone away,’ because the parties, notably President Trump … could bring a lawsuit to enforce it, and [Blanche] said, ‘yeah, that’s right,’” Cornyn said after the hearing.

“Part of what I wanted to do is make sure that we understood what the lay of the land was with regard to the weaponization fund — and it’s not dead. It could be revived,” Cornyn said separately Wednesday, “and I think he confirmed that.”

Democrats are putting their own pressure on Republicans to oppose Blanche, in committee and on the floor. On Thursday, they’ll host an Epstein victim whose identity was mistakenly exposed as part of the release of the Epstein files Blanche oversaw as deputy attorney general, and an ousted DOJ pardon attorney, as part of the outside witness panel coming before the Senate Judiciary Committee to testify on Blanche’s record.

At a press conference after the hearing, Senate Judiciary Democrats wouldn’t predict whether any Republicans would end up voting against Blanche — though several of them mentioned Cornyn’s line of inquiry as a pivotal moment in the proceedings.

“I think the questioning by Sen. Cornyn really got to the heart of the issue when it came to Blanche signing that forgiveness of tax liability for the president and his family,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

“It’s an outrage,” he said. “There’s nothing like that in history. Perhaps some Republicans will be convinced.”

Kelsey Brugger, Alex Gangitano and Erica Orden contributed to this report.

Congress

Vance fails to quell fiscal hawk concerns about GOP reconciliation plans

Published

5 hours ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Vice President JD Vance did little Wednesday afternoon to calm fiscal hawks concerned about House GOP leadership’s current plans to ram through a party-line policy and military spending bill that would not be fully paid for.

Inside a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill, Vance pressed House Republicans to vote in favor of a fiscal blueprint for a $95 billion package, which the House Budget Committee is scheduled to mark up Thursday morning and which Speaker Mike Johnson wants the full chamber to advance next week.

He framed the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process as a must-do endeavor, stressing it was the best vehicle for passing some elements of the GOP elections overhaul bill known as the SAVE America Act — according to five people granted anonymity to share details from inside the room.

“The president’s priority is to actually get the SAVE America Act passed,” Vance told reporters following the meeting.

He also told House Republicans in the meeting that his White House-based task force on fraud was already tackling waste in government programs to pacify members angry with leadership’s decision not to address the issue as part of reconciliation.

But many fiscal conservatives were not convinced. GOP leaders will also only be able to put a watered-down version of the SAVE America Act into the bill in the form of grants to encourage states to adopt strict voter ID and citizenship laws, to comply with the strict rules governing reconciliation.

Budget Committee Republican Chip Roy of Texas left the meeting with Vance insisting “there’s more work to do” on the budget framework before it has the support to advance out of committee, let alone on the floor.

“I think the stupidest thing to do would be to try to jam it through committee when you’ve got bigger problem[s] on the House floor,” Roy added, “and I think that might be the current state of affairs.”

House Republican leaders unveiled a budget framework Wednesday for a bill containing funding for the military conflict with Iran, farm aid and election administration — with no spending cuts or plans to pay for even part of the package. It was a blow to deficit hawks who have heard Johnson for months tout that another party-line package could include spending cuts and ways to target hundreds of billions in alleged fraud across social programs.

But Johnson changed course this week, under intense pressure to advance any reconciliation package that would include new Pentagon funding plus appease President Donald Trump’s demands for passage of the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate.

“We’ve been lied to,” Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said Wednesday, before the Vance meeting. “We were told we were going to do a ‘skinny reconciliation,’ and then … we were going to put … a lot of our key priorities in his reconciliation package.”

He was referring to the immigration enforcement-only reconciliation bill congressional Republicans passed in June to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border patrol.

“I think that the attitude that we don’t want to have the debate or the argument by opening up certain committees to the Senate is taking the weak posture, weak approach,” Burlison continued. “So to me, there’s not enough meat on the bone for me to want to support this.”

Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), asked if he had concerns the bill would add to the deficit, replied as he left the meeting with Vance: “I think we all do.”

Some Republicans believe they can still force GOP leaders to add spending offsets into the package.

“I think it still has some amount of fluidity,” said Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), “and I just need to see it in its final form.”

Majority Leader Steve Scalise said that while talks were ongoing on the topic of pay-fors, it was proving a challenge to identify politically palatable offsets. The main goal, he added, is to get a GOP elections overhaul bill to Trump’s desk by any means necessary.

“The Senate ultimately is where we have some challenges, and that’s been the holdup for SAVE America from the beginning,” Scalise said in an interview Wednesday. “And the real focus of this is getting SAVE America to the Senate and then ultimately to the president’s desk.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) had a message for dissatisfied holdouts.

“That play’s been called,” he said of GOP leadership’s decision to forge ahead with a narrow reconciliation measure. “It’s time to put up or shut up.“

Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Congress

In seismic shift, more than 100 House Democrats vote to end Israel aid

Published

5 hours ago

July 15, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Nearly half of House Democrats voted to cut off aid to Israel Wednesday, underscoring a seismic shift in political support for the longtime U.S. ally.

The amendment to a State Department spending bill would have eliminated $3.3 billion in funding, and thanks to strong Republican support for the Jewish state, it failed 314-104. But the vote served as a moment of reckoning for House Democrats who have had to confront years of voter outrage about Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza.

“There’s also a real sense that the status quo cannot continue,” the House’s No. 2 Democrat, Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, said in an interview before voting for the amendment.

The vote came after months of contentious primary elections where progressive candidates toppled incumbent after incumbent by publicly eschewing spending from pro-Israel groups and promising to recast America’s relationship with the nation.

The scale of Democratic support for the amendment Wednesday was an acknowledgement of the grassroots fury that has reshaped the political landscape inside the party — a transformation that has rapidly accelerated under President Donald Trump and his close ties to the hard-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Just over two years ago, only 37 House Democrats — mostly on the party’s hard-left flank — voted for a similar bid to crack down on U.S. for Israel.

This time, a much broader swath of Democrats came along — 103 of the 211 members voting Wednesday, plus another 10 who voted “present.”

The supporters included Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the esteemed former speaker, who said in a statement that she reluctantly backed the amendment because Americans “are rightly demanding an end to a perpetual cycle of war, and the Netanyahu government cannot maintain its current course.”

While the amendment in question was introduced by an isolationist Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, the vast majority of the support it received on the floor came from a divided Democratic Party.

The split went to the very top.

Clark’s support for the measure broke with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who blasted Massie’s amendment as a poorly constructed effort that could end humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

The still-sizable Democratic opposition plus the “no” votes of 215 Republicans was enough to sink the measure. But even Jeffries and other top Democrats allied with him who rejected the amendment acknowledged this week that the U.S. needs to recalibrate its relationship with Israel.

“I think that’s the goal — making sure that Israel lives up to standards that we have for other countries,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee. “That’s appropriate.”

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) voted “present” but said in an interview that he would favor a more carefully targeted effort to end military aid to Israel “and certainly condition even the defensive aid.”

He was torn, he said, because he does not “want to cut off all cooperation with Israel, all support for peace building, civil society, a diplomatic presence, things that support the Palestinian people.”

With scores of members now on the record about their opposition, and a growing contingent of Israel skeptics poised to join the House next term, fractious Israel politics will be an ongoing challenge for Jeffries next term.

The minority leader represents a significant orthodox Jewish community in his Brooklyn congressional district and has touted his strong support for Israel. The amendment episode previewed how he plans to handle the divide.

Jeffries hosted two lengthy private caucus meetings where lawmakers hashed out their disagreements and eventually advised members to “vote their conscience” during a Tuesday meeting. In a “Dear Colleague” letter he said a “meaningful change in direction is needed” especially as a 10-year security assistance agreement signed by former President Barack Obama expires later this year.

Whether his approach will satisfy incoming ultraprogressive members, some of whom have not committed to backing him as leader, remains to be seen. But left-leaning House Democrats celebrated the vote tally — and leadership’s agree-to-disagree tack — as a massive victory.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, urged his colleagues to support the amendment in his own Tuesday letter, saying that the “American people are crying out for an end to US tax dollars subsidizing Israel’s military.”

It wasn’t just progressives, though, who voted for the amendment. In a sign of the omnipresent Israel politics dominating this midterm cycle, the hawkish Rep. Seth Moulton — who is challenging progressive Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts — voted also “yes.”

“We simply cannot continue to condone Netanyahu’s actions that are against our moral conscience and our own national security interests,” he said in a statement.

Rep. Lauren Underwood — a leader of House Democrats’ campaign arm who flipped her Illinois seat blue in 2018 — voted for the amendment as well. So did Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado, a member of leadership, and Rep. Valarie Foushee of North Carolina, who weathered a primary challenge this term from the left.

“We’ve all grown frustrated with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s actions,” Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) — who has previously backed Israel aid but voted for the Massie amendment — said. “His actions have really, I think, motivated a lot of the yes votes.”