Congress

Faced with Blanche dilemma, Trump chooses revenge

Published

2 months ago

July 31, 2026

President Donald Trump has a choice: allow changes to a controversial court settlement and secure the confirmation of his former personal lawyer as attorney general, or thumb his nose at a pair of his few remaining Republican critics in Congress.

True to form, he is giving no ground — so far.

Trump’s decision Thursday to signal he would rather pull the nomination of Todd Blanche, his pick to lead the Justice Department, rather than give in to the demands of Sens. John Cornyn and Thom Tillis demonstrated that the president’s desire to thwart his enemies does not end with the demise of their political careers.

Both Republican senators will leave Congress at the end of the year after running afoul of Trump, and both have found a degree of independence since becoming untethered from needing to keep in his good graces.

But their efforts to exert leverage and seek to curtail a controversial settlement agreement reached in May between Trump and the IRS only prompted the president to double down. He announced in a Truth Social post that Blanche would remain as acting attorney general “in any event” and that he would potentially withdraw and resubmit the nomination “after Cornyn and Tillis are out of office” in January.

Tillis, who announced he would not seek reelection last year after clashing with Trump over Medicaid cuts in his home state of North Carolina, betrayed little surprise when asked about Trump’s reticence to bargain over the IRS settlement.

“Look up the definition of recalcitrant,” he said.

Cornyn, who lost his bid for renomination to a fifth term representing Texas in May after Trump endorsed a scandal-prone opponent, brushed off the accusation that he was simply seeking revenge by blocking Blanche.

He called Trump’s claim “a convenient excuse, but it’s certainly not true.” And he warned the president that trying to wait him out would be a “gamble.”

“After the midterms, who knows who’s going to be the next United States senator from North Carolina or Texas?” he said.

The subtext of Cornyn’s remark was that Republicans might have a smaller majority if they have one at all — raising the question that if Trump can’t strike a deal with members of his own party to advance his prized nominee, what will governing with Democrats possibly look like?

One of Trump’s frequent Democratic sparring partners from his first term in office — Sen. Adam Schiff of California — said the pressure from Cornyn and Tillis is only a hint of what is to come and that the president should get used to “a restoration of checks and balances.”

“I would hope what it will mean both for the remainder of this Congress and the next is that Congress will once again assume the role of being a counterbalance to the power of the executive,” said Schiff, who led Democrats’ first Trump impeachment attempt. “We largely reneged on that.”

The battle of Blanche has been especially pitched given Trump’s personal interests. Not only did Blanche represent Trump in multiple cases brought in the years before the president’s reelection, Cornyn and Tillis were seeking to curtail a deal that personally benefited him.

Both men sought to ensure a $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” set out in the agreement text could not be revived and to restrict the terms of an audit immunity agreement applying to Trump, his family and business.

It’s possible a deal could still be reached. Cornyn and Tillis met with Blanche Thursday afternoon after Trump issued his ultimatum. One person granted anonymity to describe the private meeting said the two sides were “working collaboratively now” and that it was good “they were finally all face to face.”

Ahead of the meeting, both senators insinuated that the White House — not Blanche — was the obstacle to revising the settlement and moving forward with the confirmation. Cornyn explicitly blamed Trump, while Tillis said the presidents’ advisers could be to blame.

“They’re making this a lot harder than it needs to be,” Cornyn said Wednesday. “We’ve tried to make it easy for them, and they simply refuse to take our help.”

Both said they believed there was a desire in Trump’s orbit to resurrect the payout fund at some point to direct federal settlements to the president’s political allies.

GOP colleagues also chalked up Thursday’s drama to the White House not wanting to give in — whether to protect the original settlement agreement or to deny Trump’s critics a victory.“Clearly, the White House does not want to do what Senator Cornyn and Senator Tillis were asking,” said Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska said she shared Cornyn and Tillis’ qualms about the settlement and asked Blanche in her own private meeting to put his oral commitments in writing.

“I have expressed the same concerns, and I am waiting for the same answers,” said Murkowski, an occasional Trump critic who is up for reelection in 2028.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Paul: ICE hasn’t shared information about Minneapolis shooting probes

Published

3 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Department of Homeland Security still has not shared the findings from its investigations into the January killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis, despite continued requests from the top Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the chair of the panel, said during a brief hallway interview that DHS has not yet given the committee any information from internal probes into any shootings involving immigration officers.

Asked if that included the two January shootings in Minneapolis, where immigration officers shot and killed two American citizens, Paul said: “We’ve asked for information. We’re still asking.”

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Paul’s comments come as DHS faces continued bipartisan scrutiny following several incidents where ICE or Border Patrol agents used deadly force against individuals they were trying to apprehend. Several of those individuals were U.S. citizens.

Most recently, ICE agents Saturday shot an unauthorized immigrant who faced deportation. The man, 28-year-old Wilber Rafael Garcés Pérez, survived. His lawyers claim he has been transferred into ICE custody despite still having a bullet lodged in his back.

Paul had asked DHS earlier this year to share more information about its reviews of the shootings, and did not schedule a confirmation hearing for the administration’s ICE director nominee as he awaited those findings. The White House ultimately pulled that nomination last week as the nomination stalled.

Congress

GOP Armed Services chair blasts White House welcome of Chinese leader

Published

3 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker lambasted the White House decision to invite Chinese leader Xi Jinping for a state dinner this week, calling the foreign head of state “a brutal, unelected and oppressive dictator” who cannot be trusted.

Wicker, typically a staunch defender of President Donald Trump and Republican loyalist, targeted most of his criticism at Xi and Chinese policy during a Senate floor speech Tuesday. But the comments were nonetheless a surprise rebuke of the president’s courting of Beijing amid broader concerns, such as the durability of U.S. security commitments to the Indo-Pacific, including in deterring a potential invasion of Taiwan from the Chinese mainland.

The Mississippi Republican urged Trump to press the Chinese premier on a variety of sensitive topics — including purported support for Iran, its military buildup and human rights abuses.

“Had the White House asked me for advice, I would have suggested the president not invite Xi Jinping to Washington for such a lavish welcome here in the United States, based on all of the troubling issues we have with President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party,” he said.

“I know the president tends to discuss trade and artificial intelligence with the Chinese leadership, and rightfully so,” he said. “Perhaps some progress will be made. But … during every minute of dialog, our commander in chief should keep in mind that his guest is a brutal, unelected and oppressive dictator who seeks to dominate his neighbors and whose massive military arsenal is aimed directly at the United States of America.”

The senior Republican’s comments on the Senate floor were delivered just a few hours before Xi’s expected arrival in Washington. Trump has scheduled a formal welcome ceremony for Xi and his wife at the White House on Thursday, along with talks between the two leaders throughout his three-day visit.

Trump is facing bipartisan criticism over the state visit by Xi. Wicker’s comments followed similar attacks on Chinese leadership from Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ted Budd (R-N.C.).

“President Trump has been clear that under his leadership, the United States must engage with China, given the reality of our economic relationship,” Budd said. “But we can’t forget that China is also a competitor and an adversary.”

Congress

Appeals court’s Capitol steps ruling may signal trouble for Trump on media ban

Published

8 hours ago

September 22, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A federal appeals court ruling Tuesday on demonstrators’ access to the steps of the Capitol could bode poorly for President Donald Trump’s attempt to ban three media organizations from the White House.

The majority opinion, written by Trump appointee Neomi Rao, concluded that the East Steps of the Capitol are a “nonpublic forum” — just like most areas of the White House grounds, including the press facilities. While the government may impose restrictions on access to those nonpublic areas, the limits must be “viewpoint neutral,” apply “objective, workable standards” and not permit officials to exercise “unbridled discretion over a forum’s use,” the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel concluded.

“A regulation that grants the government arbitrary control over who may speak invites the suppression of disfavored viewpoints and undermines the First Amendment’s core protections,” wrote Rao, who was joined in the majority by Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee.

The ruling, on the eve of a hearing over restoring White House accessfor Blue Light News, BLN and MS NOW, reaffirms the D.C. Circuit’s longstanding First Amendment precedents at an inopportune time for Trump. The president has explicitly described his ban on the three outlets as a punishment for publishing what he calls “fake news.”

“Fake News people and publications that only write negatively, and who violate our National Security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown ‘sources,’ shouldn’t be allowed access to the most important Office anywhere in the World,” Trump said on social media Monday.

The outlets have said their access was revoked because the White House objected to their reporting and that the ban “threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

The D.C. Circuit would hear any appeals in the litigation over Trump’s media ban, and Trump has in fact already said he anticipates filing an appeal, presuming that he will be dealt a defeat in district court.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The D.C. Circuit’s Tuesday ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Patrick Mahoney, a clergyman who sought to hold prayer vigils and demonstrations on the East Steps of the Capitol several months after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack, which resulted in new access restrictions. His permit was denied in part based on Capitol Police regulations that prohibit public demonstrations on the steps unless they are sponsored by a member of Congress.

Though the case has inched through the courts for years, Tuesday’s ruling resolves a key question, labeling the Capitol’s East Steps a “nonpublic forum” for which congressional authorities may restrict public access — in part because lawmakers use those steps to enter and exit the building.

But allowing members of Congress to sponsor gatherings on the steps creates an arbitrary system, the majority concluded.

“Because the protection of unpopular speech and advocacy is central to the First Amendment, we cannot leave it to the selective enforcement of members,” Rao wrote.

Notably, Rao’s opinion cites a D.C. Circuit ruling last year that concluded “it would be unreasonable to control access to White House press facilities through standardless discretion.”

The third judge on the panel, Clinton appointee Judith Rogers, dissented, but her opinion was even more protective of free-speech rights.

Rogers said she agreed with her colleagues that the “selective exception” for demonstrations sponsored by lawmakers was unconstitutional. However, she said she would have held that the lower portion of the Capitol steps was a public forum where the government was obligated to permit protest activity.