Congress

House Democrats once again left complaining about a Senate spending deal

Published

8 months ago

February 3, 2026

For the third time in less than a year, a spending deal brokered in the Senate has House Democrats feeling left out — and grumbling about their counterparts across the Capitol.

This time, the agreement between President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leaders would spare the vast majority of federal agencies from an extended shutdown — funding most of them through the end of the fiscal year in September while punting Homeland Security funding only through Feb. 13.

But to Democrats up in arms over Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, that’s still 10 days of DHS funding too many — assuming the deal passes the House as planned Tuesday — leaving them to vent once again about the other chamber.

“There are some Senate Democrats who always signal nervousness and are so reluctant to be strong,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). “We end up having to answer for what they won’t do, and it can be very frustrating.”

“We are far closer to the people,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), adding that it’s “critically important that House members be brought in” during negotiations over immigration enforcement constraints considering ICE, Border Patrol and other agencies are deployed in their districts.

The interchamber tensions between Democrats are becoming a regular feature of funding fights in the second Trump term. Lawmakers, strategists and voters alike exploded in anger last March when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and a handful of colleagues allowed a spending package to move forward amid the Elon Musk-led DOGE assault on federal agencies. In November, tempers again flared when a handful of Senate Democrats joined with Republicans to end a record 43-day shutdown.

This time, the situation is more nuanced. At stake is $1.2 trillion in full-year funding that was negotiated on a bipartisan basis; Democrats generally support the vast majority of the agreement. But the inclusion of the DHS money has been a sore spot — especially after the killing last month of two U.S. citizens by federal agents in Minneapolis.

A version of the DHS bill passed in the House before the Jan. 24 killing of Alex Pretti garnered only seven Democratic votes. Senate Democrats immediately declared a no-go on full-year funding for the department after the incident, and Schumer and Trump negotiated a two-week punt to allow for further talks.

Fewer than half of Senate Democratic Caucus members ultimately ended up voting for the deal, however, and support among House Democrats is considerably more scant.

Asked if House Democrats were sufficiently read in on the Trump-Schumer deal, Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar said “no” but added, “I don’t think that that’s surprising.”

“But I think the split among senators was kind of surprising,” the California lawmaker added. “And so … we’ll see what happens.”

The spending package is headed to the floor Tuesday, where it remains an open question if House Republicans will be able to unite on a key test vote. Late last week — facing dissension in his own ranks over having to pass a bill with only temporary DHS funding — Speaker Mike Johnson entertained using a bipartisan fast-track process.

But members of Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ leadership circle were caught unaware — with some downright livid — at Johnson’s confidence that he could pass the bill under that process — which would require a two-thirds-majority vote, meaning at least 70 Democrats would be needed to get it across the line.

Such a move generally requires tacit agreement from minority party leaders to supply the votes. But Republicans at that point hadn’t asked their Democratic counterparts for a more formal private count of how many Democrats might support the measure, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

Jeffries told Johnson just hours later on a private call that Democratic leadership would not commit to delivering the required votes for a fast-track vote, forcing Johnson to gather GOP votes to jump through a procedural hurdle first. Johnson has since accused Democrats of “playing games” with the shutdown-ending package.

Those interparty antics have helped deflect attention from internal Democratic tensions over the Senate-brokered funding deal, with Jeffries playing down any such rift Monday.

“I speak regularly with Leader Schumer, and I speak regularly with Mike Johnson,” he said when asked if House Democrats were properly consulted in the funding package negotiations. “There’s no daylight between House and Senate Democrats on accomplishing the objective, which is dramatic reform of ICE.”

Jeffries opposed the prior package, with full-year DHS funding, but would not say Monday how he intended to vote on the revised bill with the short-term stopgap.

Schumer, for his part, said he spoke with Jeffries during the negotiations that erupted in the Senate following Pretti’s killing. He said after the Senate vote Friday night that Jeffries had agreed on limiting DHS funding to Feb. 13.

“This bill was negotiated by … [Senate Majority LeaderJohn] Thune and me,” Schumer said. “But I’ve talked to Hakeem Jeffries. For instance, we talked about how long a [stopgap] should be, because we wanted to limit it greatly.”

Asked about Schumer’s comment Monday, Jeffries said, “I think what we made clear to the Senate is that the original three-month proposal was completely and totally unacceptable.”

Behind the scenes, Schumer told the White House and congressional Republicans last week that they would need to talk to Jeffries because the bill was going back to the House, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose a private conversation.

If Republicans can get the bill over the procedural hurdle Tuesday, more Democrats are expected to support it than the seven who backed the previous version. But the party remained sharply divided Monday.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Appropriations Committee Democrat, said Monday she would support the bill on the floor, while another panel leader, Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern of the Rules Committee, said he would oppose it.

“I will not vote for business as usual while masked agents break into people’s homes without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment,” McGovern said.

Others declined to forecast their plans, including members of the Democratic leadership team. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the caucus vice chair, said he planned to attend Tuesday morning’s caucus meeting before deciding.

Several Democrats said they do not expect party leaders to formally whip votes for or against the funding package, with some acknowledging that it would not be an easy decision for members who support the vast majority of the funding bill and also don’t want to see noncontroversial DHS agencies such as FEMA and TSA shut down.

And blaming the Senate for having to take a tough note, one Democrat noted, is hardly new.

“I’ve been here long enough that people always complain about the other chamber, so that’s always an easy out,” Aguilar said.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Congress

Urgent motion filed to stop carving of Trump’s name into US Institute of Peace building

Published

3 hours ago

September 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Ousted board members of the U.S. Institute of Peace are asking a federal court to block the imminent carving of President Donald Trump’s name on the headquarters of the nonpartisan institution he sought to dismantle shortly after taking office.

Members of the board who were removed by the administration filed an emergency motion Thursday in Washington in a dispute that has echoes of Trump’s effort to place his name on the Kennedy Center.

The motion was filed as an emergency petition, alleging that a contractor has already been selected to carve Trump’s name into the Constitution Avenue headquarters that the administration sought to shutter as part of the Elon Musk-led DOGE effort to shrink the government.

The former board members said in their motion that they had asked Kenneth Jackson, the DOGE official serving as acting president of the USIP, to ensure the carving would not happen as they pursue litigation to preserve an independent nonprofit created by Congress under President Ronald Reagan to provide research and training aimed at promoting democracy around the world.

“The building — which was largely funded by private donations to USIP as a tax exempt nonprofit corporation — is a work of expressive architecture designed to be ‘symbolic of USIP’s’ independent ‘mission,’” the emergency motion said. “Alteration of the design to impose a different message would cause irreparable harm.”

Trump’s name was added to the exterior of the building in December, shortly before the president hosted a signing ceremony at the institute with the presidents of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The bolted-on affixture is removable, and is featured next to the institute’s name, which is engraved into the facade.

The institute has been locked in a legal battle with the Trump administration as it hopes to reinstate its former president ousted by Trump last year. In May 2025, a federal judge ruled that the administration’s actions to dismantle the nonprofit was “unlawful” but the ruling was stayed by a federal appeals court panel a month later.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The USIP’s emergency motion comes days after Trump announced the Kennedy Center would be closing following a court ruling that blocked his name from being added to the building. Trump has threatened to tear down the center, and was seen on Wednesday viewing a large printout that appeared to say “Kennedy Center DEMOLISH.” The Kennedy Center, which USIP referred to in its motion, is seen as a bellwether for other institutions that Trump has sought to rebrand in his image.

“Notwithstanding the importance that the President and his supporters place on attaching his name to notable buildings,” the motion said, “Appellants will suffer no harm or prejudice whatsoever if they are precluded from carving the President’s name into the USIP building unless and until this litigation concludes in their favor.”

Congress

Republicans give Warsh room on interest rates

Published

7 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Federal Reserve just made congressional Republicans’ lives even harder in the run-up to the November midterm elections. But they’re holding their fire on Fed Chair Kevin Warsh.

The Fed this week hiked interest rates for the first time since Warsh took over as the central bank’s leader. The central bank’s unanimous decision to increase borrowing costs threatens to worsen the growing problems Republicans face around voters’ views of the economy and the high cost of living.

But some GOP lawmakers indicated they were relieved to see Warsh’s willingness to buck President Donald Trump after he faced withering criticism during his confirmation process from Democrats, who said he would do the president’s bidding in the role.

“The Fed has to be independent. They showed that they were independent,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who is up for reelection. “That should give confidence to the markets.”

Republicans’ willingness to give Warsh room — despite its potential political downsides for them — highlights their deference to the new Fed chief.

“It’s not good,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who lost a primary earlier this year to a Trump-backed opponent. “But it’s a fact that they need to get inflation under control. But the timing is not optimal.”

The decision to hike rates comes amid an uneasy dynamic where the Fed is taking action to tamp down rising inflation while Trump wants to see the economy boosted by cheaper borrowing costs. Republican lawmakers, meanwhile, are caught between supporting Trump’s economic agenda and voicing confidence in Warsh’s ability to bring inflation under control.

Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), a staunch supporter of the president who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, said that while she and Warsh “may have a different opinion on how we achieve a place where ultimately interest rates are low” and that she’d “love to see [lower rates],” she “trust[s] what [Warsh] is doing, and appreciate[s] the independence of the Fed.”

Warsh was tapped by Trump for the job in January with the hope that he would lower rates. However, since he was nominated, the U.S. entered into a conflict with Iran, high tariffs continued and gas prices soared, among other inflation and affordability concerns.

Trump-aligned lawmakers are cautioning against moving too aggressively to increase borrowing costs — but they are doing so gently.

Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) said in an interview that Warsh is “under a tremendous amount of pressure,” pointing to other Fed officials’ support for a hike.

“I understand the concerns about inflation, but I do think there’s a significant component of inflation that will be addressed as we address the situation in the Middle East,” Hagerty said.

Congress

Senate Democrats press Hegseth for Iran war price tag

Published

9 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Forty-six members of the Senate Democratic caucus are demanding that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth provide a detailed accounting of the Iran war’s costs, arguing that the Pentagon has failed to explain how it has spent, and plans to spend, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars.

The letter, led by Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, was signed by every member of the Senate Democratic caucus except Sen. John Fetterman. Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who caucus with Democrats, were also included.

The senators asked the Pentagon to provide a breakdown by Sept. 30 of all direct and indirect costs incurred to date in the conflict, as well as a breakdown of the administration’s $67 billion supplemental request. The senators also sought a detailed plan for how $34 billion of leftover funds allocated to the Pentagon in Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill will be spent.

The letter also requests that the department specify which portions of the requested funds are intended to reimburse past expenses, and which are meant for future operations.

“Despite asking for tens of billions of additional taxpayer dollars, you have so far failed to provide basic information on how this money has and will be spent,” the senators wrote. “Congress must have access to this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities. It is the bare minimum that any American would expect in balancing their own household budget.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The demand comes as the war enters its seventh month with no agreement to end the conflict. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office said the conflict would reach about $2 billion to $3 billion a month, noting that the first five months cost the U.S. $38 billion — the most comprehensive look at the conflict ahead of the midterm elections.

Fetterman has repeatedly broken with his party over the conflict, supporting President Donald Trump’s decision to strike Iran in February and voting against a measure seeking to limit Trump’s war powers. His distance from Democrats was underscored last week when he made a surprise video appearance at Trump’s Republican midterm convention in Dallas.

Fetterman’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.