Congress

Filibuster fight comes full circle as GOP faces internal pressure on elections bill

Published

5 months ago

February 11, 2026

Senate Republicans are facing a full-circle moment on the filibuster.

Four years ago, the GOP stood united against a failed attempt by Democrats to sidestep the chamber’s 60-vote supermajority requirement and pass a voting-rights bill demanded by their party base. Now — with their own trifecta and their own elections bill at issue — Republicans are under pressure to do much the same.

The shoe-on-the-other-foot moment is being fueled by a cadre of hard-right senators arguing forcefully for tactics once embraced by Senate progressives. Many Democrats, meanwhile, are keeping silent and watching as the GOP undergoes similar internal turmoil to what they had experienced in the majority.

Only a few, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), have acknowledged the irony of the moment — noting in a statement Tuesday that the push for the GOP elections bill looks a lot like what Democrats had previously attempted.

“Once again, I do not support these efforts,” she said in a statement. “Ensuring public trust in our elections is at the core of our democracy, but federal overreach is not how we achieve this.”

But the dial on the intraparty pressure cooker is set to ratchet up Wednesday, when House Republicans are expected to pass the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate. Backed by an Elon Musk-driven public pressure campaign, the conservative hard-liners are working overtime to bend their GOP colleagues toward allowing a “talking filibuster” — a strategy they believe will ultimately allow the Senate to act on a simple-majority basis.

Much as Democrats said their voting-rights legislation dealt with existential issues of democracy that necessitated an exception to the filibuster, GOP Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and his allies argue SAVE America is essential to securing elections — including the upcoming midterms — from a purported surge of noncitizen voting.

The bill would mandate voters present proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register and would require photo ID to vote in every state, among other changes, and has garnered strong backing from President Donald Trump. The push to make Democrats hold the floor indefinitely if they want to block it has picked up support from many of Trump’s GOP allies in the Senate.

“I’m a fan of the talking filibuster … especially as Democrats have proven more and more obstructionist,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said forcing a talking filibuster is “exactly what we should do” and that he’s “making the case vigorously” for it.

But many other Senate Republicans are wary of any step that further waters down the 60-vote margin after both parties have already diluted it over the past decade. Once a majority makes an exception for one bill, Republicans argue it will effectively mark the beginning of the end for the legislative filibuster — something many of them see as a bulwark against big-government Democratic policies, not an obstacle to GOP priorities.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said he was not eager to rejoin a battle that has resulted in party-line confirmations of presidential nominees after a series of partisan escalations involving the so-called “nuclear option.”

Tillis said he did not see a substantial difference between those sorts of rules changes and instead by trying to force Democrats into a talking filibuster, which GOP proponents suggest would not require going nuclear. Both, he said, have the “same fundamental message.”

Lee has been urging his legion of X followers to reach out to his GOP colleagues, seeking to build public pressure on them to support the voting bill even if it means throwing them into a filibuster fight they don’t want.

He also gave a presentation on his talking filibuster proposal during a closed-door GOP lunch Tuesday, and the topic is expected to come up again Wednesday when Senate Republicans hold a private retreat on Capitol Hill.

Meanwhile, a band of ultraconservatives in the House, led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), is trying to focus pressure on Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Luna told reporters last week that she had received “assurances” that the Senate would allow a talking filibuster for the voting bill — something Thune denied.

The multifront push has sparked frustration among Senate Republicans, according to two people granted anonymity to speak candidly, who warned that trying to put words in Thune and other GOP senators’ mouths was only undermining her cause.

A GOP senator who granted anonymity to disclose private discussions said that while Lee gave a good presentation during Tuesday’s lunch, “a lot of people in the room are sick of Mike Lee fundraising off of it.”

“It’s a political spectacle,” the senator added. “It’s never going to happen. It doesn’t work.”

Republican senators have raised concerns that pursuing a talking filibuster strategy would require either eating up potentially weeks of floor time with no guarantee of success or pursuing strategies that would require procedural votes that would essentially require 50 GOP lawmakers to sidestep recent Senate precedent — a hurdle they wouldn’t be able to clear.

A spokesperson for Lee did not respond to a request for comment.

Republicans have been privately circulating op-eds detailing the procedural headaches they could invite upon themselves if they backed Lee’s idea. And they’ve warned that opening up the floor to unlimited amendments could set the stage for Democrats to hijack any bill and turn it into a health care bill or tariff bill or any other proposal they could get a majority to support.

Many GOP senators aside from Tillis, who is retiring, are starting to speak out against the idea — including Sen. John Curtis of Utah, who said that “for those concerned in the House, I also oppose skirting around the filibuster.”

Sen. Kevin Cramer of North Dakota predicted that it wouldn’t go anywhere and summed up his own position as “not interested.”

One Democrat who has closely studied the issue, Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, said he relished the idea of a “talking filibuster.” During the Biden-era debates over voting legislation, he put forward a proposal of his own — albeit with rules changes that would ultimately allow debate to end.

“If they’re operating within the existing rules and looking to have an extended debate where they maintain a quorum and go day and night … I say thumbs up,” Merkley said.

Thune has vowed to put the SAVE America Act up for a Senate vote at some point after it comes over from the House, and he said he was open to discussions about getting it passed. But he reiterated Tuesday that changing the 60-vote filibuster through a party-line vote is an idea “that doesn’t have a future.”

Asked later if he knew how a “talking filibuster” could work without a prolonged floor battle — something the South Dakota Republican warned could derail other GOP priorities — Thune started laughing.

“No, I don’t,” Thune said. “It takes you back over 100 years. So, unlimited debate and unlimited amendments. … Nobody knows.”

Calen Razor and Leo Shane III contributed to this report.

Congress

House panel subpoenas Leon Black, escalating tactics in Epstein investigation

Published

2 minutes ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Oversight Committee slapped Leon Black with two subpoenas in the middle of his transcribed interview about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein — after Black refused to answer questions about potential non-disclosure agreements he had with women tied to the late, convicted sex offender.

Oversight Committee Chair James Comer announced the issuance of the subpoenas — for the NDAs and for Black to reappear for a formal deposition July 16 — after the first hour of Black’s interview had concluded with the billionaire investor insisting he would not discuss the terms of those agreements.

Black had initially agreed to appear voluntarily, but under the terms of a deposition, his testimony will be videotaped and under oath.

“We believe that information is vital to our investigation,” Comer, a Kentucky Republican, told reporters Friday. “We want to know, was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs? … Was he involved in awarding [of] funds to the women for the NDAs? What was the reason for the NDAs?”

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the panel, seconded Comer’s decision to force a deposition to compel information that he also described as central to the panel’s ongoing Epstein probe — a rare moment of bipartisanship in an investigation that has been plagued by partisan bickering.

“There’s no question that as soon as this interview started, that the witness was not going to answer critical questions,” he told reporters.

After Black had already departed from the closed-door interview, his lawyer, Susan Estrich, said that Epstein “had no involvement with any NDAs, whether they exist or not,” and said her client has never abused a woman.

“They made a premeditated political decision to serve him with subpoenas after less than an hour of questioning, and before they even asked a single question about his legitimate payments to Epstein,” she said, referring to members of the Oversight panel. “This was nothing more than a planned political stunt.”

Estrich represented the late Fox News chairman Roger Ailes when he was facing sexual misconduct accusations. Black has also battled his own allegations of sexual assault, though he has denied the accusations — along with having had knowledge of Epstein’s wrongdoing over the course of their relationship.

Several Democrats who attended the interview were aghast at Black’s lack of cooperation. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico told reporters that more than one of Epstein’s accusers had previously accused Black of committing sexual misconduct against them, too.

“Before Mr. Black left the interview, he admitted that he lived close to Epstein,” Stansbury said. “He often dined at his house. He went over for breakfast, for happy hours, attended impromptu dinners with world leaders, with academics, with scientists.”

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) alleged that Black “gush[ed] poetically about how smart and how great Jeffrey Epstein was” and accused him of walking out on the committee.

The bipartisan desire to get more information from Black comes as the committee’s Epstein investigation is set to hit the one-year mark in July, after Oversight Committee Democrats — frustrated with the Justice Department’s refusal to release the so-called Epstein files — forced a bipartisan vote to facilitate the publication of relevant materials.

That vote jumpstarted a congressional probe that has led to interviews with more than a dozen witnesses, including ex-Attorney General Pam Bondi, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates.

Comer has also asked acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to speak with his panel in the coming weeks, after Bondi accused him of being at the tip of the spear in overseeing the eventual release of the Epstein files in compliance with a law Congress passed in December.

Members will have more to ask Blanche following the Justice Department’s admission on Thursday that the DOJ had been violating the law Congress passed last November requiring the public release of the vast majority of government records relating to Epstein.

A federal judge gave Blanche one week to release certain names and other information that DOJ initially redacted from the millions of pages of the Epstein files — or provide a more detailed explanation for withholding them.

Critics believe the department has been seeking to protect powerful people implicated in Epstein’s crimes — including potentially President Donald Trump, who has not been charged with wrongdoing and has denied misconduct.

Congress

Online safety coalition urges House to reject KIDS Act compromise

Published

2 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A coalition of children’s safety advocates is urging House leaders to reject a bipartisan compromise on online safety, arguing it weakens protections for minors and lets tech companies avoid accountability.

In a letter first shared with Blue Light News, the groups urged Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) to oppose the bipartisan package — known as the KIDS Act — ahead of a potential House vote as soon as next week.

Led by Design It For Us, ParentsTogether, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation and the Young People’s Alliance and signed by 90 other organizations, the coalition said the deal struck by Energy and Commerce lawmakers fails to address its chief concern: the omission of a “duty of care” provision that would require tech companies to mitigate harms they know their products cause to young users.

“The Committee rejected our concerns and opted to negotiate a version that let Big Tech off the hook and rush this legislation to the House floor,” they wrote.

The warning comes after the groups previously raised similar concerns when the committee approved a version of the KIDS Act along party lines in March.

The Senate’s version of the Kids Online Safety Act — an expected component of Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s ongoing negotiations over online safety regulations — includes the “duty of care” language. Some House members have raised concerns that it could incentivize social media platforms to overzealously censor content to avoid litigation.

“It pains us that, given how hard we have fought for a strong federal solution to online child protection and for a strong bill to move to the House floor, the KIDS Act is the bill the House is championing,” they wrote, urging lawmakers to oppose the bill.

Parents RISE, a coalition of parents who have experienced child loss or mental health difficulties due to tech platforms, sent a second letter to the same parties laying out similar qualms. “We did not create Social Media Victims Remembrance Day so that our children’s names could be used as cover for a bill that protects the very companies that harmed them,” they wrote.

Tech industry group NetChoice has come out against the KIDS Act over censorship concerns.

Spokespeople for Johnson, Jeffries, Guthrie and Pallone did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Leon Black tells House Oversight he had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes

Published

2 hours ago

June 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Leon Black told the House Oversight Committee on Friday that he had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes during the years he paid the convicted sex offender tens of millions of dollars, according to a copy of the billionaire investor’s prepared remarks.

“I don’t understand why people — including members of this committee — would accept baseless speculation about me without regard to the facts and spin such ugly and vicious narratives that are demonstrably false,” Black said in his opening statement, obtained by Blue Light News.

Lawmakers, however, filed into Black’s scheduled transcribed interview Friday morning already suspicious of their witness. House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) told reporters he believed Black’s testimony had “the potential to be the most groundbreaking” of anything the panel has heard so far in its long-running Epstein investigation.

Comer also said the committee had reason to believe that Black had signed nondisclosure agreements with some of Epstein’s victims.

Black, a co-founder of Apollo Global Management, did acknowledge in his prepared remarks that he was aware of Epstein’s 2008 sex crime conviction at the time of their association but that “Epstein told me that it was an isolated incident resulting from a fake ID.”

“Five years after his conviction, I gave Epstein a second chance, as did many others,” he continued. “I wish I had not.”

Black also told lawmakers that he knew Epstein for 18 years before he began paying him in 2013 for tax and estate planning. At that time, Black said, he saw Epstein surrounded by some of the world’s most powerful people — among them former President Bill Clinton, tech mogul and philanthropist Bill Gates and then-White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler.

And he appeared to suggest that he saw Epstein as legitimate, in part, because of those who chose to associate with him: “Epstein appeared to me and to many others to have redeemed himself: [H]e served on several prestigious boards, hobnobbed with leading people in academia, the arts, business executives, and numerous world leaders.”

Clinton and Gates have already spoken with Oversight investors about their ties to Epstein; Ruemmler has agreed to sit for an interview with the panel in July.

Black said he ultimately fired Epstein in 2018 “after growing tired of his relentless pursuit of more and more money from me for professional services, his mistruths and misrepresentations … and his failure to repay most of a $30 million demand loan that I had made to him.”

He also acknowledged the allegations of sexual misconduct that have been levied against him in litigation, which he called “demonstrably baseless” and “entirely fabricated.”

In one recent case, the judge found that the law firm that had been representing Black’s accusers and the plaintiff in the case were “engaged in serious, sanctionable misconduct in this case.” However, the lawsuit — brought by a woman who claimed to have been raped by Black when she was 16 — was allowed to proceed.

“There are numerous allegations of real abuse by women — by survivors — against Mr. Black,” Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, told reporters Friday morning.