Congress
Henry Cuellar faces opposition as he seeks to regain powerful spending post
Some Democrats are uneasy about a push to restore Rep. Henry Cuellar to a powerful committee role following a pardon from President Donald Trump, potentially complicating his bid to regain influence over federal spending.
Cuellar relinquished his post as the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Homeland Security funding in 2024 after he was indicted on federal corruption charges. But following Trump’s pardon last week, party leaders have indicated that he is now eligible to retake the post under caucus rules.
But not all of his fellow House Democrats are comfortable with a lawmaker accused of bribery and other offenses regaining direct control over more than $60 billion in annual spending, especially with a parallel Ethics Committee investigation still in motion. Compounding these concerns are Cuellar’s relatively conservative views on border policy and his potential sway over the budgets for agencies including Border Patrol and ICE.
The matter is in the hands of the 27 Democratic members of the House Appropriations Committee, who are set to take a secret ballot vote Thursday to determine Cuellar’s future on the panel.
Several have private misgivings, and the fact that the vote is even happening means at least one Democratic appropriator privately objected to Cuellar’s return as ranking member. Otherwise, he would have been approved by acclamation.
“That position is critical — it’s Homeland Security,” said a Democratic appropriator granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. “Your moral values are important — at least mine are — and I can’t look at myself in the mirror and vote for him.”
Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, who has served as the top Democrat on Homeland Security since Cuellar was indicted, could vote to keep Cuellar out so she can keep the job. Another appropriator, Rep. Grace Meng of New York, said Wednesday she was undecided on the matter.
Other wild cards include Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, who led a push to formally reprimand a Democratic colleague last month, and Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, who might vote in state solidarity with Underwood. Quigley had been leapfrogged by a more senior lawmaker who returned to the panel and has voiced criticism of Democratic leaders since then.
A spokesperson for Cuellar declined to comment.
The veteran Texas Democrat has been quietly canvassing members about regaining his role and reassuring those in his party who question the optics of wiping away an indictment sought by former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department at a time when the party is focusing on Trump’s alleged ethical violations.
Top party leaders have not weighed in directly on the matter. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday that Cuellar was likely to regain his committee leadership position, citing the caucus rules, while Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Appropriations Democrat, in a statement merely acknowledged the Thursday vote.
“We are holding a meeting tomorrow to discuss several issues, including who will serve as Ranking Member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee,” the statement said.
The dilemma comes as some Democrats are making a high-profile push to police ethical transgressions in the party ranks. Last month, almost two dozen Democrats led by Gluesenkamp Perez broke ranks to reprimand outgoing Illinois Rep. Chuy García for apparently engineering his surprise retirement announcement to ensure a favored ally would succeed him.
Democrats have railed against Trump’s use of his clemency powers, which has benefited political allies and major donors. Cuellar’s pardon puts him in the company of such figures as former Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and ex-Rep. George Santos, who are odious to Democrats.
“I’ve had nothing but good interactions with Henry in Congress, but we can’t be the party of following the law and say it’s just fine to break it and get a pardon from Trump,” said Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running for Senate.
Several other Democrats this week aired criticism of Trump’s pardons without specifically commenting on Cuellar and his bid to regain power inside the Democratic Caucus.
“President Trump’s continued efforts to pardon politicians that are either convicted or accused of corruption is just wrong,” said Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.). “And this is exactly the kind of problem that causes so many Americans to lose trust and faith in our politics.”
Kim, a former member of the House, succeeded Sen. Bob Menendez, the New Jersey Democrat who is currently serving a prison sentence for bribery and other charges.
“I don’t agree with any of the president’s pardons of members of Congress,” said Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), who is also running for Senate.
Cuellar was indicted on federal corruption charges that alleged he took some $600,000 in bribes from foreign entities. Still, the veteran lawmaker remains largely popular with his fellow Democrats, some of whom argued that with the indictment wiped away, the process had run its course.
“Under our system of laws, you’re still innocent until proven guilty,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “He was indicted but never went to trial — was never proven to be guilty, never proven to be innocent, because there was no trial, but the pardon overrides that. That’s how the ball bounces.”
Others deflected criticism to Trump, who suggested in social media posts after the pardon that he expected Cuellar to retire or switch parties and run as a Republican in a gesture of gratitude. Instead Cuellar filed for re-election as a Democrat almost immediately after the pardon came through, and with the legal cloud over his campaign lifted, it increases the chances his seat will remain in Democratic hands in 2026.
“Nothing else seems to compare to this president and the abuse of the pardon power to get things he wants, including potentially people switching their party affiliation,” said Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio).
Cuellar’s allies quietly insist he shouldn’t be sidelined given his unique ability to win a South Texas district that Republicans have targeted for years — and recently redrew in hopes of ousting him. Now, with the pardon, even some Republicans acknowledge he’s in prime position to remain in Congress — and potentially hold a gavel next year if the majority flips.
“He’s going to have a very merry Christmas,” said Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas).
Calen Razor and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report
Sen. Jon Ossoff is honing a new line of attack against his opponent for reelection, GOP Rep. Mike Collins, by zeroing in on an ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations that Collins’ congressional office misused taxpayer dollars.
“Congressman Collins must cooperate with this investigation, he must commit to testifying and he must explain to the public and the press why he has refused to cooperate, why he has obstructed, and why he has stonewalled this investigation to date,” Ossoff, a Georgia Democrat, said during a Tuesday morning press conference.
His comments come at a pivotal moment on two fronts. On the campaign trail, the midterms are fast approaching and Ossoff is fighting to hang onto his seat — and Democrats, in turn, are counting on the incumbent to help the party reclaim the Senate majority in one of this election cycle’s most closely-watched races.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, there’s been a renewed focus in recent months on the need to hold members accountable for misconduct, and a bipartisan effort to overhaul the congressional ethics process is currently underway.
The Office of Congressional Conduct — a nonpartisan, quasi-independent entity tasked with vetting and reviewing ethics complaints to then pass onto the House Ethics Committee — in January released a report saying it found “substantial reason to believe” that Collins’ office used official funds for unauthorized purposes. Those purposes, according to the report, included appearing to hire and pay “a district intern who had a preexisting personal romantic relationship with the office of chief of staff who did not perform duties commensurate with her compensation.”
Collins’ chief of staff at the center of the accusations, Brandon Phillips, is no longer on payroll.
The Office of Congressional Conduct further noted in its report that Collins “refused to cooperate” with its review and recommended the House Ethics Committee issue the lawmaker with a subpoena. Ossoff on Tuesday argued that Collins needs to “cooperate fully with this matter” and that “this is not going away.”
A Collins’ campaign spokesperson, Meyer Siegfriend, said in a statement Tuesday afternoon that “Rep. Collins has fully cooperated with the House Ethics Committee on this bogus, politically motivated complaint and looks forward to the committee fully clearing him in short order” — something Ossoff “would know if [he] weren’t too busy abandoning Georgia to suck up to liberal activist donors in the Hamptons.”
The Office of Congressional Conduct did not immediately respond to a request for comment and the Ethics Committee, which is now conducting its own inquiry, does not comment on pending cases.
ALBANY, New York — Gov. Kathy Hochul wants to prove she can be a strong top of the ticket this year to sweep down-ballot Democrats into office and help her party regain control of the House.
The stakes are high for the moderate Democrat, who took office five years ago Monday and has worked to build an anemic state party apparatus into something more formidable. Yet she must also contend with the success of candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America who have defeated institutional Democrats this year — victories that stand to upend the establishment’s plans to compete in purple areas of New York.
Unlike some moderate Democrats who are trying to halt the socialists’ advance, Hochul has taken a big-tent view of the party.
“I think the party is broad. It’s vast, but there are still a lot of people outside our urban areas who would view themselves as more traditional Democrats in the sense of FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton and Obama and Biden,” she told Blue Light News in an interview Monday. “But if, in certain districts, the democratic socialist brand is more appealing, and they think it stands for something that they want to support, my job is to make it all work out. I work with everybody, whoever the voters want.”
Hochul sat down with Blue Light News Monday to discuss her five years in office, how she’s pushing for House Democrats and the role New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani will play in her reelection bid.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
What has been your biggest challenge in the last five years?
Overcoming inertia here in Albany. There have been so many times when I want to just be, you know, take bold action and do what’s right, and not have institutional opposition to so many of our grand plans. I’ve had to work through that. Overall, I’d say the biggest challenge is just having to navigate, and then also to have breakthroughs, and that sometimes leads to conflict.
I don’t mind conflict if the result is better for New Yorkers than the status quo. So I think it’s partially my impatience and my desire to shake up the status quo — felt sometimes it was running into a brick wall, and then I had to dismantle that brick wall.
Who’s to blame for that institutional inertia at this point? Is it part of the climate?
There’s all kinds of lobbyists and advocates and interest groups and legislators with specific agendas, and it’s the whole ecosystem of Albany. There have been dramatic improvements since it was labeled probably the most — what did they call it?
The most dysfunctional in the country.
The most dysfunctional in the country, and I think the two [legislative] leaders that we have now have worked hard to eliminate that reputation. But beyond just elected officials, there’s just a lot of institutional, strong interests out there that conspire against changing the status quo, and I am hardwired to drive for change. I’m not complaining. I did it, but if I thought about what was a challenge, that was a challenge. But we’re overcoming it. We have overcome it in many specific instances.
I know the car insurance changes were part of that frustration. Anything else kind of fell under that inertia?
Anything we wanted to do with the State Education Department. We wanted to change how we teach literacy, and it was 20 years of a debunked theory that other states had walked away from, but it was not walked away from here.
My cell phone ban — that was not embraced by institutional interests here, and there’s organizations that at first were very resistant. Teachers were on board, teachers came on board, and I was happy with that. But there’s just the administrative roles, and the parents were anxious. There’s all sorts of groups representing everybody, and I look at that as one of our greatest accomplishments. That has had the most immediate result, and of anything we could have done, that had the most immediate impact in a positive way.
That was kind of a signature policy, fair to say?
That and overall taking care of families, whether it’s making sure no child goes hungry, there’s not a single child in the state of New York who doesn’t get two out of three meals now provided by the state, breakfast and lunch. That is huge.
That and other tax credits for families have really helped drive down poverty rates among children. Proud of that. Our work in social media has been nation leading, putting in guardrails where there had been none to protect our children. So a lot of it centers around family, whether it’s what’s happening in schools, what’s happening for parents who have to pay the bills, grocery prices, the largest middle-class tax rate cut in 70 years, taking on taxes, taking on utility bills with our utility rebate, taking on costs of groceries with our inflation rebate.
We put $5,000 back in a family’s pocket with covering the school meals for your family of two kids. School meals, $1,000 tax break for children under the age of four, $500 for higher. All this combined to say, I hear you. So I think the number one issue I took on was affordability, but specifically focused on families that are struggling because that was my life story. That was my early, early years, and then, as even a young parent, it’s one income in the house. It was hard, and those experiences have really focused me on my priorities, have driven my priorities because I know that those priorities will help New Yorkers.
Is there anything that you would have done differently looking back on the last five years? Any mistakes, any regrets that you have?
I would say I wish that the rules hadn’t been changed in the process for nominating chief judges. You know, we were trying to really help make history and have the first Latino chief judge. This person had tremendous judicial temperament and passed with flying colors. I was surprised that then the rules were changed in committees here to make it more challenging. So I would say that was frustrating for me. But what would I have done differently? I wish I had won. I wish I had won on that, wish my candidate had been able to get the fair hearing and be successful. But again, a lot of interests conspired against him, and that was probably the one big loss.
Lieutenant governor selections have also been kind of tough.
The selection isn’t tough. You do what [you can] with all the information you have at that moment. You do what you think is right. So the process isn’t flawed. Obviously becoming governor unexpectedly five years ago today required me to have a very, very shortened process to identify an individual that could be supportive. I had a relationship with Brian Benjamin. I thought he was an ideal candidate. I had no idea that charges would be brought and then later dropped against him. How do you foresee that when you’re going through a process and selecting someone? So there’s nothing to change there.
Antonio Delgado. I didn’t know him well. I did not know that loyalty was such a problem for him, or understanding the role is not that of the governor, and he understood later. Probably too late. But I function very well now. Having been lieutenant governor, I would say I’ve been performing lieutenant governor and governor simultaneously, which is why I do what I need to do in the Capitol. I spend a lot of time going out around the state and touching people and listening directly — literally in Rochester the other day, sitting in a diner talking to young people very anxious about data centers. These are the best conversations I have. Just sitting down, randomly starting to have conversations with people, and I learn a lot. I perform both roles for now, and am looking forward to having a new lieutenant governor who understands the role and has tremendous experience in government. I’d say it’s been handicapped not having a number two the way my predecessor had a hardworking number two.
What would you say is the biggest difference between how you’re approaching the job today versus how you initially thought it would go this time five years ago?
I’ve learned that it’s important to build coalitions around that idea. I initially thought if an idea was meritorious, that it would prevail on the merits, and that’s not how it works here.
Building coalitions, outside support, doing a lot more legwork, even on the cell phones, for example. I took a year to go around and build support for it and overcome the opposition from anxious parents or school boards that didn’t want to have opposition from their community. They just wanted to be left alone. But me spending the time and then listening more to young people about how they were struggling, it made me feel even more emboldened in the cause, brought people along with me.
I wanted to be bold and ambitious on housing. I wanted to overcome years and years of resistance to building more housing because I knew it was a huge driver of expenses for families, young people being denied the opportunity to have that first home, if ever. Maybe they’ll afford a decent apartment sharing with five people from college. So that first [housing] plan was bold. It was rejected because we didn’t have a chance to explain ourselves, and it was weaponized politically. That became an issue in a place like Long Island — government-paid-for literature going to everybody’s house, showing giant skyscrapers in a nice little multi-million dollar neighborhood. So, those are things that we couldn’t have foreseen in our first months on the job when I put together this bold agenda. But round two, the next year, we were very successful. So that was a learning curve there, but definitely have overcome it. And everything I set out to do in this year’s budget, for example, many of which I was told were dead on arrival, they all happened. We know the path.
Has the Democratic Party in the last five years gone too far to the left for the comfort of many voters — the very same voters you’ll need this year?
I have a broad perspective of the Democratic Party in this state, having been in every corner many times and understanding that the politics really is local.
Someone who gets elected in a particular Congressional district in New York City would never get elected in the North Country, or the Southern Tier, or perhaps even Western New York. I understand that. My job as the leader of the party in New York is to allow the locals to decide who they want as their candidates, and be as supportive as I can.
[That] does not mean I embrace a particular philosophy, and it doesn’t mean the rest of the party, outside of certain districts, should be labeled with that either. But it doesn’t mean that there aren’t people in a district that want a certain brand of candidate and a label. And I’m not going to stand here as a leader of the party [and] say no. I need to win in November. Let’s stay focused on the prize. It is taking back our country, one Congressional seat at a time, and that’s why I’ve invested a lot of political capital, and fundraising time and effort, and calling candidates and helping them work through the challenges.
I was that candidate in 2011 who took a shot at a longshot run. People said I would never win, but I knew there was a path because people were fed up with what was happening in Washington. Medicare was under attack. I knew this could win in a Republican district. I didn’t have any help from the state party. My predecessor literally sent someone to Buffalo, my home in Hamburg, to tell me not to run, because the state party would not be there for me, and the national party [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] was not there for a long time. So I said I’m not letting that happen to people. [The] state party should be a vehicle to help all of our candidates who get through a process selected by primary or designee, as I was in a special election. I feel really good about the efforts we’ve undertaken.
I think the party is broad. It’s vast, but there are still a lot of people outside our urban areas who would view themselves as more traditional Democrats in the sense of FDR and Kennedy and Carter and Clinton and Obama and Biden. But if, in certain districts, the democratic socialist brand is more appealing, and they think it stands for something that they want to support, my job is to make it all work out. I work with everybody, whoever the voters want. My job is to make it work out.
Why do you think so many younger voters are choosing a socialist candidate, or are open to socialism? We’ve seen polling show that they’re rejecting capitalism.
The world is changing so rapidly around them. It’s a frightening time. You don’t know whether AI is going to take a job that you were told you should go to school for and study STEM and study computer science and get a degree that’ll position you for the rest of your life. The rug has been pulled out from under a lot of young people for a variety of reasons. They didn’t ask for the pandemic. Everything got so expensive. Their lives were disrupted. If they had little kids, the little kids were learning from home, and they’re trying to keep it all together while they have their jobs. Mom stayed home.
This has been a wildly disruptive time for young people starting out, whether just getting out of school or a young family. And there’s a lot of anxiety. Will the jobs they thought were going to be there? Why can’t I afford to get an apartment? My parents were able to get an apartment. My parents could even buy a home in some cases. Why is that American dream on hold for me? I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything I was asked to do by society.
I feel that deeply as a parent who sees young people struggling like that, and why even child care, which was an issue when I was having babies, why is it still a problem today? Why can’t we as a society, do more to help lift this burden off of families? Why can’t we do more to stand up for them against high utility bills? Why can’t we be supportive of them? I have incredible empathy for people who are just feeling very unsettled and anxious about the future, and I think that drives them to listen to voices that are offering more. But at the end of the day, I feel the same concern. I’m a moderate Democrat who is responding to their same anxieties, and maybe they don’t see that, but that is hardcore what I’m all about — fighting for families, reducing the burdens they have on childcare and school lunches and cost of living.
Our interests are more aligned than people believe. I don’t think it’s a socialism versus capitalism debate. Most people are not thinking that. The vast majority of New York Democrats are not caught up in that struggle, and they’re just not. They don’t have the luxury of even having those thoughts. They’re trying to pay the bills at the end of the month and see whether or not their job is going to be there, or are they going to be replaced by AI?
Do you expect the mayor to be campaigning with you? Have you talked to him about campaigning? Will he be helpful on the trail?
I think he’ll be helpful. Like I said, I really carved out a very different path in this role. People understand I get the job done. I’m here to get a job done, not to look for glory for myself, or get into fights with the mayor of New York and show I can win the battle because I’m bigger state government. It’s never been about battling egos here. So many people have told me they appreciate — whether or not they support the mayor — they appreciate the fact that I understand my role is to make New York City successful. That’s why I am making the relationship work. As is he — he is working with me to build a relationship where we’re both putting New York City first, and that is something that this state has not seen, perhaps ever. If you go back through history, there’s always conflict between the governor and the mayor, almost universally. I wanted to end that, and we did with Bill de Blasio, Eric Adams, Zohran Mamdani.
How eager are you to prove Nancy Pelosi wrong this year after her comments from four years ago saying that New York didn’t come through for House Democrats?
Forgot about it. Don’t even think about it. I didn’t have the luxury of time in ‘22 to build out a state party. I inherited a skeleton. I took two solid years to bulk it up. In 2024, I already proved that I’m a leader, and I know how to win races. We won five out of seven battleground races with money that I raised, opening up 42 field offices, hiring an additional 100 staffers, and that’s how we win. So I already established I know how to win. Give me two years. Now I’ve got four. We’re going to do it again.
Thanks for your time.
Democrats are readying a long list of investigations they want to launch into Donald Trump.
Reps. Robert Garcia and Jamie Raskin, who would lead the Oversight and Judiciary committees, respectively, if the party takes back the House, said they’re wasting no time in preparing an all-out oversight campaign targeting Trump, his family, and his administration.
Both know that House Dems’ efforts now could provide a backbone for the accountability message the party intends to continue into the 2028 presidential election season.
“We are going to be looking at systems of bribery, kickback and financial corruption and opportunities for disgorgement and restitution to the American people,” Raskin said. “That would be No. 1.”
Topping their long list of controversies they want to probe: Trump’s acceptance of a Qatari jet for use as his new Air Force One, and his family’s massively profitable cryptocurrency investments.
Raskin also said he intends to probe what he deems “fraudulent and vindictive prosecutions,” including those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Leticia James. Garcia, meanwhile, said he is determined to fill in gaps he sees in the GOP-led investigation into the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
White House spokesperson Olivia Wales responded to Democrats’ plans by stating the president “will continue to draw a sharp contrast with his commonsense agenda and radical Democrats who want to massively raise taxes, defund the police, and are soft on crime.”
Garcia and Raskin’s preparations in some ways resemble how their predecessors planned ahead of the 2018 midterms. But that year, Democrats tiptoed around the prospect of impeachment for fear of alienating voters, then launched a flurry of investigations aimed at Trump once they were in power.
Now, after two impeachments that failed to remove Trump from office and with a party base intent on pulling no punches, House Democrats are reluctant to take anything off the table — while also recognizing the limitations of impeachment as a check on Trump’s power.
“Nobody on the Democratic side is afraid of impeachment,” Raskin said this week, adding that he considers it a “tool in the toolbox.”
What else we’re watching:
— SCANDAL-PLAGUED CANDIDATES TEST PARTIES’ LIMITS: Democrats and Republicans this election cycle keep playing whack-a-mole as candidate after candidate becomes embroiled in controversies ranging from domestic violence to sexual misconduct. Neither party has developed a clear playbook yet for when to step in or what counts as disqualifying. But identifying that line could become a key effort in determining who controls the next Congress, as several races with problematic candidates have been or could become battlegrounds.
— LAWMAKERS BRISTLE OVER POCKET RECISSION SEASON: With less than 45 days left in the fiscal year, the time is right for pocket rescissions — the controversial tactic Trump used last year to cancel billions of dollars in foreign aid without Congress’ consent. If the White House takes that tack again, it will not be well received on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers in both parties continue to bristle over Trump’s ongoing assault on their funding power.
Chris Marquette, Riley Rogerson, Erin Doherty, Andrew Howard, Alec Hernandez and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
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 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 Dictatorship12 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words