Congress
Fiscal hawks set out to kill earmarks. They are very much alive.
Fiscal conservatives in Congress threatened for months to block government funding if GOP leaders didn’t shun earmarks. They succeeded in scrapping just one; the rest, almost $16 billion worth, are slated in the package the Senate needs to clear by Friday to avoid a shutdown.
Republican hard-liners on both sides of the Capitol have made things difficult this winter for their leadership, which has been scrambling to fund the government before cash runs out Friday for the vast majority of federal agencies. But they failed to significantly curtail the practice of directing federal dollars to specific projects back home.
Republicans swore off earmarks for more than a decade in 2010 amid corruption scandals and demands from conservatives empowered by the rise of the Tea Party movement that has since receded. Then in 2021, Democrats brought back the practice after the party swept control of the White House and Congress, softening the return with a rebrand as “community project funding,” new rules to prevent abuse and a cap at 1 percent of funding.
Now Republicans run Washington once again, and they’re overwhelmingly embracing the renaissance. As the Senate considers a nearly $1.3 trillion funding package this week loaded with thousands of earmarks for projects in specific congressional districts, fiscal hawks are acknowledging defeat.
“When a majority of the United States House and a large chunk of the Senate seemingly want to advance earmarks, there’s only so much you can do,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview.
“I’ve long stated I think it’s the currency of corruption, and we shouldn’t do it,” he added. “But, you know, members like to do it.”
Capitol Hill’s most vocal earmark proponents argue that, if not for the revival of earmarks, congressional leaders would not have succeeded in clinching bipartisan deals to fund the Pentagon and nondefense agencies with new budgets for the first time in almost two years.
The multibill funding package has yet to reach President Donald Trump’s desk and is now complicated by Democratic outrage over ICE funding after a federal immigration enforcement agent fatally shot another U.S. citizen in Minnesota over the weekend. But lawmakers in both parties are already touting the cash they secured for local projects as they campaign for reelection nine months out from the midterms.
“It’s not worth being in Congress if you can’t find ways to help your district,” Rep. Mike Flood said in an interview.
The Nebraska Republican secured almost $30 million in projects for his district in the current slate of funding bills, including millions of dollars to repave roads, about $750,000 for police cruisers and $500,000 for improvements to a shelter for minors who would otherwise be in juvenile detention.
Flood argues the inclusion of earmarks ultimately helped Republicans negotiate funding bills that keep federal spending mostly steady — a top priority of congressional fiscal hawks. “For all the things that people say are wrong with Congress, this process is working. And it’s working well,” he said. “And we are bringing this in under budget.”
This month members of the House Freedom Caucus threatened to tank a preliminary vote on spending bills if GOP leaders didn’t knock out at least some earmarks. They were able to kill only one: a $1 million earmark Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar secured for a community organization in her Minnesota district, in part because the address listed for the group was that of a restaurant.
House fiscal hawks made a final stand last week when they demanded, and received, a vote to nix hundreds of earmarks senators had worked to secure. That vote failed overwhelmingly, right before the House passed a funding package with a price tag of more than $1 trillion, with every earmark intact.
Rep. Ralph Norman, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said it was a “sad day” and called it “irredeemable” for a GOP-led Congress and White House to support the earmark-filled package. Norman said he now has no hope Republicans will ever do anything to get rid of earmarks.
“I wish it was different,” he said.
More than 70 House Republicans voted against killing the Senate earmarks. However, some hard-liners argue that it’s really the minority party driving the resurgence in a narrowly divided Congress.
“You need Democratic votes, right? So let’s not forget that,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a former chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “I’m not here to apologize for, or validate, a bunch of garbage Republican earmarks. But we’d have a much better time at making sure those didn’t prevail if we didn’t need the Democrat votes.”
In the Senate, where Democratic buy-in is necessary to overcome the filibuster, fiscal conservatives delayed action on funding bills for more than a month following the end of the record-breaking government shutdown in November — in part due to their earmark concerns. Now that the final slate of funding bills is before the Senate, those same lawmakers are again demanding a vote to eliminate the pet projects.
Last week Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a leader of that charge, noted that in 2021 the Senate Republican Conference voted unanimously to maintain their rule against earmarks, a nonbinding prohibition many GOP senators were quick to flout.
“It’s time for Senate Republicans to follow our own rules. END ALL EARMARKS NOW!” Scott posted on social media.
The earmarks Congress has inserted in the new funding bills are the first of Trump’s presidency, since federal agencies have been running on stopgap funding patches for almost two years. Lawmakers in both parties see them as a way to protect their authority to dictate how federal money is spent as the Trump administration continues to shift and cancel billions of dollars in contravention of their wishes.
“It restores the institutional faith in Congress’ ability — albeit in a very small and minor way — to direct congressional spending and gets power back from any executive branch,” Tennessee Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, a senior Republican appropriator, said in an interview.
Many Republican lawmakers have been privately pressing GOP leaders to bring back earmarks for years, including as far back as 2016, when then-Speaker Paul Ryan halted a closed-door vote on restoring the practice.
At least under the old rules, earmarks were entwined with corruption. In the early 2000s, several lawmakers pled guilty to money laundering and bribery charges for abusing the practice. In the most high-profile of those cases, the late Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) admitted to accepting $2.4 million in bribes to secure earmarks.
Now Congress has much tighter rules governing the process, including a prohibition on steering money to for-profit organizations. Senior members of the Appropriations Committees who want to avoid a repeat of infamous earmarks scandals also closely vet the requests, said House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.).
“We scrub them pretty hard, and honestly the Democrats do, too,” he said.
In a sign House Republicans are growing more comfortable with the practice, they are now discussing whether to expand earmarks in future funding bills to include education, health and labor projects, according to Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who chairs the panel in charge of that money. Only senators are currently allowed to specify projects for funding within those jurisdictions.
“There’s interest on both sides, as long as it’s done in a way that doesn’t make both sides feel uncomfortable,” Aderholt said. “Members want to have a little bit of say-so, because we do have the power of the purse.”
Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
Rep. Max Miller is threatening legal action to block a television ad created by his Democratic challenger Brian Poindexter that includes allegations of domestic abuse.
A lawyer for Miller is demanding Cleveland-area television station WKYC stop publishing “false, malicious, and defamatory statements” in a cease-and-desist letter sent Thursday and shared with Blue Light News by the Poindexter campaign. Miller has previously denied the abuse accusations.
The ad and ensuing legal threat mark a major escalation in the race between Miller and Poindexter. For much of his campaign, Poindexter avoided directly attacking Miller’s legal troubles, highlighting instead his working-class background and affordability.
With the ad, the two candidates are litigating the accusations in the public eye and placing Miller’s family drama at the heart of the race.
Miller’s lawyer Alejandro Brito — who has repeatedly represented President Donald Trump — said WKYC’s failure to comply with the cease and desist “will leave Congressman Miller with no choice but to pursue any and all legal rights and remedies available to recover damages for the overwhelming financial and reputational harm that Defendant will cause him to suffer.”
Miller is facing allegations of abuse from his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno. They include accusations he poured hot water on Emily Moreno, held a gun to her head and broke his two-year-old daughter’s collarbone.
The 30-second Poindexter ad depicts a local sheriff listing some of those allegations, and saying, “34 years in law enforcement tells me: Max Miller does not belong in power.”
A spokesperson for Miller declined to comment. WKYC also did not return a request for comment.
In a video response shared with Blue Light News — which the campaign will use to fundraise — Poindexter rips up the letter.
“He’s threatening to sue because he doesn’t want people to hear the facts. Here are the facts,” Poindexter said. “Max Miller has been accused of abuse by three women… Max Miller used his money and fancy lawyers to get himself out of his trouble his whole life. Not this time.”
Miller is not on the House Republican campaign arm’s “Patriots” list which features the most vulnerable members who typically get the bulk of its spending. However, recent polling suggests a tight race between Miller and Poindexter, and national campaign brass has taken notice.
The Congressional Leadership Fund, a top Republican super PAC, placed a staggering $4.85 million ad buy for Miller to air Sept. 30 to Nov. 3. The NRCC also dropped $450,000 on a three week ad-buy supporting Miller that started Sept. 7.
Jensen Huang’s clout as the leader of the world’s largest company is about to be tested on Capitol Hill as debates around artificial intelligence safety intensify.
The Nvidia boss and his army of lobbyists want Congress to lay off restricting exports, particularly to China, of high-end computer chips — the building blocks necessary to power AI development. Lawmakers could include these guardrails as part of the annual defense policy bill set for negotiations this fall.
But despite Huang’s team having had some success over the past year in convincing lawmakers to peel back regulations that would hamper exports, the swift shift in the AI political landscape has led the company to start sounding out of touch — at least to some lawmakers’ ears.
One Senate Democratic aide, granted anonymity to describe private meetings, said Huang’s recent visits to congressional offices have “repeatedly been seen as tone deaf, as he’s openly dismissed or downplayed the risks of AI, including denying any likely workforce disruptions from the technology.”
“Jensen makes an argument — I’m not sure I fully buy it — that as long as the world is relying on Nvidia chips, that’s a good thing,” the Senate Intelligence panel’s top Democrat, Mark Warner, said in an interview. He’s among those who fear giving a top U.S. competitor more tools to advance AI technology, which other industry executives have recently warned could have catastrophic consequences for humanity if left unchecked.
Huang last week echoed President Donald Trump’s sentiment that no new AI laws or regulations are necessary. But even Trump this weekend seemed to concede there are some dangers to the emerging technology. In a Truth Social post, he announced an “AI Force” and an AI czar to lead it — though he offered few details about what powers it would have or whether its creation would need congressional approval.
Meanwhile, a trio of GOP senators is trying to convince their leaders to do something — anything — on AI safety, an issue they believe could tilt the midterms and 2028 elections.
Sens. John Curtis, Josh Hawley and John Kennedy aren’t coordinating their efforts, but each is making a push from the back benches to jolt more senior senators to take action, with Curtis and Hawley teaming up with Democrats on various efforts.
Curtis said in an interview lawmakers need to “show that we’re adults in the room, that we can talk about this, that we can find solutions.”
Hawley is also convening a hearing this week in the Judiciary subcommittee he chairs on AI-powered Flock cameras, and using another subcommittee gavel to investigate OpenAI over the runaway model that led to rogue AI agents escaping testing.
But any hopes of passing legislation are facing skepticism among Senate Republicans that they will ever be able to overcome Trump’s opposition to AI regulations and House GOP leaders who side with the administration, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
Kennedy said in an interview he hadn’t heard “anything” about movement in the Senate to address AI and that lawmakers who ignore the growing voter uproar around the issue were courting peril.
“We really need to send a memo around explaining we’ve got midterm elections coming,” he said. “I may send that out.”
Meanwhile, a deep dive in POLITICO’s magazine digs into the Trump administration’s complicated relationship with Anthropic and how officials’ perspective has shifted on AI this year as they discover the fearsome computing power being assembled by private companies on their watch.
What else we’re watching:
— DEMS EYE ONE MORE IRAN VOTE — Senate Democrats are hoping to rebuke Trump and the Iran war in one last war powers vote this week before the midterms. Sen. Thom Tillis is expected to flip his vote after saying he would support efforts to curtail the war if the administration hadn’t sought an authorization from Congress to continue it by mid-September. Senate Dems have attempted 14 similar votes in the past seven months with only two advancing due to GOP absences, but are now hoping increased dissatisfaction with the war will drive more defectors.
— CASSIDY SETS TEST FOR FDA PICK — Trump’s pick to lead the FDA must acknowledge the president’s claim that the measles vaccine is lethal is “absurd,” Sen. Bill Cassidy said Sunday. Senate HELP, which Cassidy chairs, is set to consider Dr. Heidi Overton’s nomination to lead the FDA on Thursday. “I need to hear that she understands that calling the measles vaccine lethal is absurd, and we need radical honesty,” Cassidy said on CBS when asked what he needs to be persuaded during the hearing.
Kelsey Brugger, Ari Hawkins, Jordain Carney, Sophia Cai, Cheyenne Haslett, Leo Shane III, Connor O’Brien and Jalen Beckford contributed to this report.
House Republicans have left Washington till November. President Donald Trump is decrying concerns about the issue as a “HOAX.” But a few Senate Republicans are trying to nudge their party into doing something — anything — about artificial intelligence.
There isn’t much binding them together aside from the “R” next to their names, but Sens. John Curtis, Josh Hawley and John Kennedy have each been closely attuned as voters suddenly grow alarmed — not only about the data centers powering the AI industry, but the recent insider warnings about potentially catastrophic consequences for humanity.
Curtis is a Utah moderate who has been among the few in his party to take seriously scientists’ warnings about climate change. Hawley is a populist Missouri conservative who has long been skeptical of Silicon Valley business titans. And Kennedy’s simple-Louisiana-country-lawyer persona belies a relatively sophisticated understanding of frontier AI developments.
The trio is not coordinating efforts, but their individual actions were part of a clear push from the GOP’s back benches over the past week to get party leaders to wake up and address an issue they believe could tilt the upcoming midterms and certainly the presidential and congressional races in 2028.
“We might want to be on the side of voters — just a thought,” Hawley said, noting that while he has his own “views” on how Washington should respond, party leaders have offered members no guidance on how to approach the topic.
Hawley is taking matters in his own hands this week by convening a hearing in the Judiciary subcommittee he chairs on AI-powered Flock cameras. He’s also using another subcommittee gavel to investigate OpenAI over the runaway model that saw hundreds of rogue agents escape testing and hack another tech company.
Both Curtis and Hawley have teamed up with Democrats, who have generally been more aggressive in calling for AI safety measures — particularly since a former OpenAI and Anthropic employee went public saying advanced models could “could kill us all by the end of the decade.”
Hawley and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — who both sit on the Judiciary and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee — pushed congressional leaders last week to hold a vote on their “risk evaluation” legislation, arguing that “frontier AI demands frontier legislation.”
Curtis, meanwhile, joined with a fellow Commerce Committee member, Sen. Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), to call for “immediate public hearings” to “work through solutions that maintain America’s competitive edge in development while ensuring that these technologies serve human interests and remain fully under human control.”
Curtis said in an interview lawmakers need to “show that we’re adults in the room, that we can talk about this, that we can find solutions.”
“I don’t want to say we’re making it too hard, but I think we’re making it too hard,” Curtis said. “And what I mean by that is, there’s a lot of false narratives out there — we need to just jump on this immediately and clamp it down, or we need to not touch it, and all of that only I think causes anxiety back home.”
Both efforts could be seen as attempts to jolt more senior senators who are in positions to advance AI-related legislation. So far they are treading carefully amid skepticism among Senate Republicans that they will ever be able to overcome Trump’s opposition on AI regulations and recalcitrance among House GOP leaders, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
They include Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who indicated in an interview that he had no plans to hold hearings or take other action related to AI.
“I think that I’d be getting into the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee,” Grassley said, directing further questions to Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Cruz has been more deeply engaged than Grassley in AI matters, but his plans for action remain uncertain. He said last week he is still hoping to hold a committee vote on AI safety legislation this month before the Senate leaves for the final stretch of pre-midterm campaigning.
Cruz is engaged in negotiating a revised version of an AI safety bill that Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) first introduced in 2023. But multiple Commerce Committee Republicans said they have so far heard zilch behind the scenes about what the committee could do, and some doubt they will be able to get an agreement in time to act before the Senate leaves — possibly as soon as the end of this week.
While Thune himself has been the most engaged on AI issues among top GOP leaders, he still advocated for a “light touch” on industry regulation last week while acknowledging the “considerable amount of interest” among lawmakers in taking action.
Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said — as Hawley suggested — that he isn’t giving members guidance on how to talk about AI.
“People have opinions and they’re going to make their opinions known and talk to their voters,” he said.
And then there’s Kennedy, who recently said the industry is run by “high-IQ stupid people” and was the rare Republican who attended a briefing put together by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) last week to meet with AI experts to talk about potential safeguards for the technology.
He took his AI concerns straight to the Senate floor Wednesday, seeking to pass legislation this week that would require companies to install so-called “kill switches” for their AI models. In a speech before seeking unanimous consent to pass the bill, he delivered a homespun but technically detailed summation of the OpenAI swarm attack and the risks posed by “recursive self-improvement.”
His bill was blocked by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who instead proposed creating a panel to make recommendations about potential guardrails.
Kennedy said appointing a committee would be “the weenie way out” after warning his colleagues from the Senate floor that Americans were growing “very skeptical” of AI and the tech titans behind it.
“They’ve seen this vampire movie before,” he said.
In a separate interview, Kennedy said he hadn’t heard “anything” about action in the Senate to address AI and that lawmakers who ignore the growing voter uproar around the issue were courting peril.
“We really need to send a memo around explaining we’ve got midterm elections coming,” he said. “I may send that out.”
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words