Congress

House Democrat moves to reverse Trump’s ‘Lake America’ order

Published

34 minutes ago

August 27, 2026

A House Democrat is already pushing back on President Donald Trump’s executive order renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America.”

Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said in an interview hours after Trump’s announcement that she plans to introduce a bill Monday that would nullify the name change. The one-page bill is titled the “Hands Off Our Great Lakes Act.”

“People do not understand how intertwined our two countries are,” Dingell said “And this is insane, this naming Lake Ontario ‘Lake America.’”

The name change is Trump’s latest escalation in a rapidly spiraling trade war between the U.S. and Canada. The White House imposed 50 percent tariffs on about $20 billion in Canadian imports earlier this week, inviting retaliatory levies from Ottawa.

Trump said in a Truth Social post Canada has been “Ripping Off” the U.S. for decades and that Canada is “easily the most difficult and unreasonable” country he deals with.

Trump’s renaming Lake Ontario throws another controversy into one of the country’s most consequential states ahead of the midterms. Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed has already attacked his Republican opponent Mike Rogers over the move.

Dingell said she has been working with Democratic leaders on a response to the tariffs, and separately collecting signatures on a letter to Trump that urges “your Administration to change its diplomatic approach with our closest ally, Canada, and recognize the importance of the United States-Canada relationship.” She said she has about 100 signatures from fellow House Democrats.

“I grew up in a small town called St. Clair, and when I got up and looked out my bedroom window every day, I didn’t see America. I saw Canada,” Dingell said. “We lived that close. Canada was as close to us as [the Cannon House Office Building] is to the Capitol.”

Congress

Trump’s MAGA Inc. to host first public event in battleground Michigan

Published

4 minutes ago

August 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s $400-million super PAC is taking its first steps into the general election: hosting a public event in battleground Michigan, headlined by Vice President JD Vance.

Battleground Republicans have been clamoring for Trump’s MAGA Inc. to spend in competitive races. The Michigan event is an early indicator of how the massive group might seek to use its funds to help the party keep control of Washington.

Vance will be joined in Sterling, Michigan, on Monday by GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers, 10th District nominee Mike Bouchard Jr. and gubernatorial nominee John James, along with several other Michigan Republicans, according to an event advisory from MAGA Inc.

The GOP sees Michigan’s open seat as its best Senate pickup target this fall as Rogers faces former public health leader and progressive Abdul El-Sayed, who emerged from a grueling primary earlier this month.

“MAGA Inc. will be hosting events throughout the nation to ensure that Republicans retain control of Congress in order to finish cleaning up the mess the Biden-Harris-Pelosi-Schumer Democrats left,” said Alex Pfeiffer, spokesperson for MAGA Inc. “We’re not going back to their record inflation, open borders, and surging crime.”

MAGA Inc. is sitting on more funds than any other super PAC, and Republican donors and battleground candidates have been hoping it will unleash that money to help the party keep control of the House and Senate.

So far, the group has only spent only a few million dollars out of its massive fundraising haul, and its funds have largely gone to competitive Republican primaries. Most recently, it spent $827,000 on phone calls and text messages to boost Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) in the state’s special primary.

Congress

Public workers union helped sink labor nod for Lander

Published

2 hours ago

August 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

ALBANY, New York — The Big Apple’s largest municipal workers union helped sink the New York State AFL-CIO’s endorsement of Democratic House candidate Brad Lander.

The union’s president, Henry Garrido, said in an interview Thursday that Lander’s audit of New York City’s Health Insurance Stabilization Fund as city comptroller was a factor in the opposition to his endorsement. The report, which recommended the fund’s dissolution, angered the union.

“Our members were really upset about that,” Garrido said.

Lander has also been at odds with the union after the group backed moving retirees to a Medicare Advantage Plan, which the then-comptroller opposed.

Lauren Hitt, a spokesperson for Lander’s campaign, pointed to his efforts as the city comptroller to support workers at companies like Starbucks, Amazon and eBay as well as hotels across the country. He also plans to support a federal bill in Congress meant to address unfair labor practices and make it easier to unionize.

“Brad is a relentless supporter of workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively,” Hitt said. “In just the last few months, Brad joined food service workers, nurses, residential building workers, bartenders, researchers, teachers, and many others on their picket line, demanding union recognition and fair contracts.”

The potential endorsement of another Democrat, socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier, is considered to be on hold. Garrido said he expects to meet with Avila Chevalier, whose insurgent left-wing candidacy toppled influential Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat. DC-37 endorsed Espaillat’s reelection earlier this year as well as that of Rep. Dan Goldman, who Lander defeated in the June primary.

“I don’t know the young lady,” Garrido said. “I hear good things. I want to meet her; I want to talk with her.”

Avila Chevalier’s campaign did not immediately comment.

Declining to endorse two Democrats considered shoe-ins to win their deep blue districts concerned some labor leaders eager to present a united front ahead of the November elections.

“We want a New York delegation elected in November that will fight and do things for worker pay and embody the fighting spirit we need across the nation,” said PSC-CUNY Vice President Jen Gaboury, whose union represents public higher education workers.

Garrido, though, disputed that his union was solely responsible for sinking the endorsements, noting that Lander would still have struggled to win over the full New York State AFL-CIO, a federation of some 3,000 unions of varying political stripes. To win an endorsement, candidates needed to get backing from two-thirds of the unions that fall under the AFL-CIO umbrella.

As the umbrella organization met in Albany this week, Lander received support from unions that backed Goldman during the primary, his spokesperson said. His campaign also pointed to endorsements during his successful primary from a range of labor groups including the United Auto Workers, 32BJ SEIU and the Communications Workers of America.

Both Lander and Avila Chevalier are part of a surging left-flank that won upset races against establishment-backed Democrats in June — losses that shook New York City’s political establishment and highlighted Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s kingmaker role in predominantly left-leaning districts.

Joe Anuta contributed to this story.

Congress

Chuck Edwards defends himself ahead of censure vote: ‘Context matters’

Published

6 hours ago

August 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Chuck Edwards, who dropped his plans for reelection following a scathing House Ethics report earlier this month, lobbied his colleagues this week to oppose an expected censure resolution that would condemn him over claims of inappropriate conduct towards two female staffers.

The North Carolina Republican argued in a six-page letter obtained by POLITICO that his conduct did not amount to sexual harassment, arguing that the Ethics Committee selected specific pieces of evidence to fit a narrative. He also told fellow House members that while he did not expect them to approve of every action detailed in the report, “context matters” when it comes to the consequences.

“I am asking you to distinguish between the conduct that someone, examining isolated excerpts after the fact, might consider unconventional and conduct that actually establishes sexual harassment,” Edwards wrote. “That distinction is critical because of what the Committee did not find.”

The House Ethics Committee report released Aug. 3 recommended censuring Edwards for engaging in “persistent unprofessional and inappropriate conduct towards two young female staffers.” Edwards dropped his reelection bid two days later amid pressure from House Republican leaders.

Edwards’ letter, to which he appended a fact sheet and a 14-page response memo provided to the committee by his lawyers, is being circulated ahead of the censure vote, which could happen as soon as next week. NOTUS first reported on Edwards’ letter.

A spokesperson for Edwards did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Edwards said in the letter that his interactions with the two female employees were similar to how he treated the rest of his staff, outlining examples of similar gifts he’d given and trips he’d taken with other staffers.

The Ethics Committee’s determination that his actions “could be interpreted as romantic,” he argued, did not mean he made unwanted sexual advances.

“An affectionate friendship is not a sexual proposition. A gift is not sexual misconduct. A compliment is not sexual misconduct. Poetry is not sexual misconduct. Socializing with a colleague is not sexual misconduct. Caring deeply about someone with whom you have worked and come to know for years is not sexual misconduct,” Edwards wrote.

Edwards also said investigators failed to take into account preexisting relationships with some of the staffers from before he was in Congress.

“That history matters. Gift-giving, travel, time together outside the office, and familiarity with my home did not suddenly emerge after I became a Member of Congress,” Edwards said. “They were established features of longstanding relationships. Yet despite knowing this history, the Committee completely omitted it from its report while assigning a different meaning to similar conduct in Washington.”

Edwards’ claims seek to undermine the committee’s investigative report, which found that the two women “were uncomfortable with his behavior (which they attempted to communicate) but were put in an untenable position by virtue of his status as their boss and a Member of Congress.”

At one point, a senior staffer confronted Edwards over his dealings with the young women — which included frequent public comments about their dress and appearance as well as a series of lavish gifts.

That staffer testified that “Edwards ‘got very angry’ and said she ‘didn’t understand the unique relationship’ he had with them,” according to the report.

The panel said its findings were based on a “thorough” record that “includes not only significant testimony from multiple witnesses, but also contemporaneous text messages.”

Edwards claimed in his letter that investigators cast those messages and testimonials in a false light, writing that “conduct does not become sexual harassment merely because someone looking backward through thousands of pages can construct a theory under which it ‘could be interpreted as romantic.’”