Congress

Government shuts down amid standoff on Capitol Hill

Published

1 year ago

October 1, 2025

The federal government shut down early Wednesday morning, setting up a potentially lengthy stand-off without a clear path forward to fund the government after top congressional leaders did not meet to try to find a last-minute deal in the hours before the shutdown.

Leaders from both parties braced for an imminent shutdown by casting blame on their opposite party one day after President Donald Trump initially signaled an openness to negotiating an extension of soon-to-expire health care subsidies in exchange for Democratic support on a funding bill — shortly before insulting Democratic leaders on social media.

The impasse means 750,000 federal employees could face furloughs, according to an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Some of those employees could be targets of the White House’s plan to permanently fire more federal employees, Trump and other administration officials warned.

“The last thing we want to do is shut it down, but a lot of good can come down from shutdowns,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, hours before the government funding lapsed. “We can get rid of a lot of things that we didn’t want, and they’d be Democrat things.”

The Office of Management and Budget formally directed agencies to begin shutting down their operations Tuesday evening, while accusing Democrats of adopting an “unteneble posture” that is “making the duration of the shutdown difficult to predict.”

No federal appropriations bills have been passed for the new fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, marking the first full federal shutdown since 2013. In his first term, Trump oversaw three partial shutdowns, the longest stretching 35 days from December 2018 to January 2019.

Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune joined House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer at the White House on Monday to meet with Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other White House officials. During the meeting, Trump expressed a willingness to discuss extending the Obamacare tax credits, a demand Democrats have made for their votes on a continuing resolution.

“I asked the Democrat representatives, ‘What do you think about coming up with a better health care?’” Trump told reporters on Tuesday.

Some Republicans have floated compromises, but insisted the government must be funded first. Vance told reporters after Monday’s meeting with Democratic leaders that any talks on health care subsidies would need to happen in the “context of an open government.”

On Tuesday, Johnson called the Democrats’ demand to extend Obamacare tax credits a “red herring.”

The distance grew further between the two sides after Trump posted an altered video featuring Jeffries wearing a fake mustache and sombrero while speaking alongside Schumer outside the White House — a heightening of Republicans’ line of attack that Democrats are withholding government funding to secure health care benefits for undocumented immigrants. The video contained fake audio of Schumer saying the only way for Democrats to get votes was to attract “illegal aliens.”

Jeffries slammed the video as “bigotry.” Trump then posted a second similar video Tuesday.

The GOP tactic fixates on a separate proposal from Democrats to roll back parts of the Republican-passed domestic policy agenda package, which includes restrictions on non-citizens from accessing federal benefits. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for health care coverage through Affordable Care Act plans, and Democrats are looking to extend subsidies in exchange for votes to open the government.

Trump re-emphasized that in an interview with Blue Light News on Monday, while also avoiding blame for the shutdown. Recent polling from PBS News/NPR/Marist has suggested voters are more likely to blame Republicans than Democrats for a shutdown, while a New York Times/Siena poll found most voters believed Democrats should not “shut down the government, even if their demands are not met.”

“I don’t worry about that,” Trump told Blue Light News, “because people that are smart see what’s happening. The Democrats are deranged.”

The White House has said it will leverage the shutdown to further its restructuring of the federal government. A memo distributed by OMB to federal agencies requested they identify programs backed by discretionary funds so the White House can permanently eliminate those that do not align with Trump’s priorities.

The move would be an unprecedented handling of a government shutdown. Non-essential federal workers typically face temporary furloughs and are brought back to work once Congress restores federal funding.

The Senate failed to pass a Republican stopgap proposal and a Democratic funding bill Tuesday evening. The GOP proposal received votes from two Democrats — Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman, Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto — and independent Maine Sen. Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats. Republicans voted down the Democratic bill along party lines.

Thune told reporters after the vote he intends to continue scheduling regular votes on the short-term continuing resolution, hoping to pressure Senate Democrats to back the measure. He added that he doesn’t want to negotiate on health care subsidies while the government is shut down.

“We need to keep the government open, we can talk about whatever else they want to talk about after that,” he said Tuesday.

No talks are currently scheduled between congressional leaders.

Johnson has yet to call the House into session, indicating an agreement is yet to arrive soon. He said in a interview on BLN Tuesday evening he expects House Republicans to return to the Capitol next week.

Jeffries has said he plans to keep House Democrats in Washington for the remainder of the week.

“This is not simply a negotiating tactic,” Jeffries said in a BLN interview Monday evening. “We are ready to find a bipartisan agreement. But that bipartisan agreement needs to address the health care crisis that exists in the United States of America.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems spend big to help Hakeem’s dream

Published

2 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats watching Speaker Mike Johnson deal with a chaotically slim majority have seen enough — and they’re trying to avoid the same fate.

The party is investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority and strengthen the hand of Hakeem Jeffries, who’s widely favored as speaker if Democrats win the chamber in November.

“Another five-or-so-seat buffer would be a game-changer,” said one senior House Democrat, who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics. That lawmaker added it would help Jeffries “rise above some of the incoming bullshit he’s going to have to deal with.”

Every extra seat would help Jeffries secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions to the two clashing blocs within his party: progressives and moderates.

Recent spending reflects these ambitions. Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that President Donald Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact. The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” said the fund’s chair, Rep. Greg Stanton. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Before Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to limit her leadership term.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

Progressive challengers ousted a handful of Democratic incumbents in primaries this year, and they could adopt tactics from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if Democrats win just a narrow majority.

Meanwhile, newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem for Jeffries — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

What else we’re watching:

— HAWLEY’S POPULIST AI REBELLION: Sen. Josh Hawley’s push against artificial intelligence is placing an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans. Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s favoring of voluntary standards and exposes the growing rift between Republicans on how to respond to the technology. But Hawley’s influence is poised to expand as more Republicans start to echo his tone.

— GOP ADS SPUR CORPORATE HEARTBURN: A series of TV campaign ads this midterms season has highlighted a growing reality: On the right it’s become increasingly in vogue to bash big business. The ascendancy of Trump has ushered in a new era of skepticism toward multinational corporations in a party traditionally known as corporation-friendly. That puts big financial services firms, health insurance companies and tech titans — the subjects of the hottest rhetoric — at risk for becoming high-profile political punching bags for Republican 2028 presidential hopefuls.

Andrew Howard, Meredith Lee Hill, Riley Rogerson, Jessica Piper, John Hendel, Jasper Goodman and Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

Congress

The low-profile Democrat helping shape her party’s AI agenda

Published

6 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats scramble to create a viable plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one little-known lawmaker is playing a major behind-the-scenes role in shaping her party’s approach to the technology.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a North Carolina Democrat in her second term, is one of three co-chairs of a commission tasked by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to generate AI policy recommendations.

It’s a position that has given her significant power to mold Democrats’ thinking on the rapidly evolving issue, even as her fellow commission members cut more public personas through regular appearances at news conferences and in media hits: Rep. Ted Lieu of California is vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, while Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has built a reputation as a self-styled moderate dealmaker.

In an interview earlier this week, Foushee said the commission has submitted a “first draft” of its much-anticipated recommendations to Jeffries. And while Jeffries will ultimately provide feedback to inform the final report, she said she would push for there to “always be a human element” in any AI regulatory framework, with civil rights and liberties at the center.

“We have seen evidence of how technology can be used for discrimination,” said Foushee. “We’ve seen how some groups have been excluded.”

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also associates with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and centrist New Democrat Coalition, Foushee is representative of a broad, mainstream swath of House Democrats that has yet to stake a clear position on AI. And her vision for an AI regulatory model that keeps humans in control and builds in civil rights protections could provide a blueprint for her party.

She doesn’t want to stifle innovation, she explained; rather, “my focus is to make sure that we’re not leaving anybody behind.”

Foushee said she didn’t set out to lead on AI policy, but joined a bipartisan AI task force in the previous Congress given her seat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Since the task force released its recommendations in December 2024, House Republican leaders considered its mission complete, according to a senior GOP leadership aide granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. So when Speaker Mike Johnson opted not to reconstitute the panel in January 2025, Jeffries created his Democrat-only commission to fill that void, tapping Foushee as one of its commissioners.

“I was glad to be one of those that the leader thought might be helpful in leading us into the future,” she said. “So I don’t know if I would say that I was, you know, moved to do it, but certainly happy to do my part.”

Lieu, in a statement, called Foushee “unwavering in her commitment to ensuring AI systems don’t harm civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“I visited Val’s district earlier this year,” he continued, “and saw firsthand how effectively she works with local stakeholders to address the threats and unlock the possibilities of AI in her community.”

Foushee represents parts of the so-called Research Triangle encompassing Durham and Chapel Hill — the homes of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, where AI technologies are being studied. Her state is also a major hub for data centers powering the AI boom.

In her work with Lieu and Gottheimer, Foushee said “we’re all involved in everything” and that “you might say we’ve grown on each other.” Her main area of interest, though, has been to elevate civil rights and liberties protections.

She has introduced multiple bills to that end. One piece of legislation would require people to be told about when they are engaging with a chatbot instead of a human. Another would seek to expand participation in the AI research, education and workforce development among Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Foushee’s work on the commission is also being informed by her regular engagement with each of the major AI labs. In her eyes, Anthropic has been the most receptive to regulatory measures while others have favored more “pro-innovation” policies.

She was adamant, however, that Anthropic was in no way influencing the AI policies she could soon be shopping to colleagues — even though a political action committee funded by Anthropic executives spent a little over a million dollars to support her in a competitive primary earlier this year.

“Let me just say to you that no one should be worried or concerned,” Foushee said. “My work on AI has always been focused on establishing guardrails and holding corporations accountable. There is nothing that you will see in any legislation that I have introduced, led, co-led, or co-sponsored that has not been towards holding corporations accountable and protecting the American public.”

In any event, Foushee said she has had no direct outreach from Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, since he led calls last month for a slowdown of advanced AI development amid warnings it could soon pose an imminent threat to human civilization.

“When … you’re not allowing for the engagement of members of Congress, and not even an opportunity to provide input or to be engaged in the conversation, it makes me wonder what those efforts are about,” said Foushee.

A spokesperson for Anthropic did not return a request for comment, while Nate Evans, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was “deeply engaged with Congress on federal policy to advance AI safety, through dozens of meetings in recent weeks with members of both parties in both chambers.”

Representatives from Anthropic and OpenAI also briefed members of the Science Committee in mid-September.

All three commission co-chairs have been tight-lipped about what their AI recommendations could entail — especially as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to sense real urgency to rein in the technology and are desperate for legislative solutions.

It also remains to be seen whether the forthcoming agenda will unify a party that has been largely aligned on the need for regulation but deeply split on the specifics.

Some progressives, led by Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas, support banning highly sophisticated AI systems and pausing AI development until a government-led vetting procedure can be implemented.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has introduced what is currently one of the only comprehensive, bipartisan bills to regulate advanced AI models — but it stops significantly short of the pauses championed by progressives and opens a thorny debate about whether to preempt state AI laws with an overarching federal framework.

Foushee said she has not signed onto Casar’s proposal to ban superintelligence, explaining she has yet to review it. She did throw cold water on another progressive-led proposal to place a moratorium on data centers, saying it should be up to local jurisdictions whether to build the controversial, energy-sucking facilities.

She has not decided whether she will co-sponsor the bill Trahan painstakingly negotiated with California Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte. Members of both parties have been cautious to associate with the package given the hyper-partisan political environment, especially in the leadup to the midterms.

But Foushee said she supports holding a committee markup of the legislation, adding that when fellow Democrats ask her about the measure, she replies, “I’m not one to say that this member should or should not say or do this, that, or the other. I’m not hell bent on any one particular approach.”

Democrats “should continue to lead but it certainly does not mean to me that there should not be a bipartisan effort to put forward a framework,” said Foushee. “When indeed we are in the majority, then that is what we plan to do.”

Congress

‘A game-changer’: House Dems aim for a big majority that could ease Hakeem Jeffries’ headaches

Published

6 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats are making moves to try to secure a big enough House majority to sideline blocs of both progressive and moderate holdouts who could cause constant headaches for Hakeem Jeffries if he becomes speaker next year.

Democrats are investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority, banking on what appears to be a strong political environment to not just win but win big. That would strengthen Jeffries’ hand.

Every extra seat they pick up will make it easier for Jeffries to secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions. That would let him ensure they can’t “hold Hakeem hostage” on legislation, as another senior House Democrat put it.

The spending reflects these ambitions.

Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024. In eight of those districts, Democrats have spent or reserved upwards of $3 million apiece, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact, which tracks political advertising.

That includes $13 million in total spending and reservations to target scandal-plagued Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) in a district Trump won by 11 points in 2024 and more than $10 million to boost Tejano singer Bobby Pulido against Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) in a district Trump won by nearly 18 points.

The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), the chair of the fund, said all of the candidates the group has endorsed have committed to backing Jeffries.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” Stanton said in an interview. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 30, 2026.

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank in order to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers.

Speaker Mike Johnson has had to navigate a treacherous majority of only three votes, sometimes less depending on the day, giving ample power to the GOP’s right flank. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to serve only two more terms in leadership.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

As one Democratic strategist put it, “The larger the majority, the more freebies you can hand off.”

They aren’t the only potential concern. Newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

A hint of that came last month, when moderate Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) twice sided with Republicans to advance slates of GOP bills and forced Jeffries to decry a “significant breach of trust.”

“A Blue Dog in a Trump plus 15 district has a different series of challenges than a progressive from a safe Democratic seat,” said Ian Russell, a Democratic ad maker and former deputy executive director of the DCCC. “The progressive from a safe Democratic seat has voters who want the Democratic Party to be successful. So they have an incentive to be constructive, even in their criticism of leadership, to be constructive, to be team players. So I think it’s unfair to the progressives to just assume that they’re going to be headaches.”

Asked by Blue Light News during a news conference Wednesday what a bigger margin would mean should he be elected speaker, Jeffries said he is focused on “working incredibly hard to win control of the House of Representatives and then to win as many seats as possible on top of that.”

A spokesperson for Jeffries declined to comment except to refer to Jeffries’ comments at the news conference. House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ main super PAC, declined to comment.

In a statement, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said the committee’s mission “is to win the majority, and win the largest majority possible.”

Jeffries and top Democrats are facing wariness from some Democrats who want to make sure they don’t overextend their limited war chest in their quest to secure a large majority — and risk not winning a majority at all.

“Don’t waste resources just because,” a third House Democrat cautioned. “Expand the battlefield where it’s smart to do so and causes the other side to spend more on defense.”

Jeffries is already working to make inroads with candidates who could complicate his potential speakership, regardless of the margin.

Melat Kiros, a Democratic socialist-affiliated candidate who waged a successful progressive challenge to Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado, has not committed to backing Jeffries, but said in an interview in September they had a “wonderful” call.

“It’s a big tent,” she said of the party, “and we all have the same goal of taking back the House and making sure that we can demonstrate to the American people that it’s our party that can actually deliver those results.”