Congress

How Bernie Sanders convinced Democrats against arming Israel

Published

2 months ago

April 28, 2026

When Bernie Sanders moved last April to block a U.S. arms sale to Israel, only 14 Democratic senators joined the Vermont independent.

What a difference a year makes: When Sanders objected to another Israeli arms sale this month, 39 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus joined him — a sea change that has raised eyebrows from Washington to Jerusalem.

In a recent interview, Sanders reflected on the sudden and massive shift, one that has some observers saying he — not Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has voted to support the arms sales — is leading Senate Democrats on Israel policy.

“That’s true,” Sanders said of the claim. “I mean we got 40 votes, and Schumer got seven. We have more support for our position than Chuck has for his.”

While Republicans and a handful of pro-Israel Democrats have so far been able to push the weapons shipments through, allies of Sanders say the momentum behind his blocking effort has sent an unmistakable signal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders that they cannot count on unquestioned U.S. support for their military campaigns targeting Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran.

One Democrat who continues to support the sales, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said the Netanyahu government should be reined in but said Sanders was pursuing “the wrong vehicle to try to achieve those changes.” And most of those who recently came to oppose the arms sales cited the Iran War and the risk of further escalation in the region — not Sanders.

But fellow Vermont Sen. Peter Welch, a Democratic co-sponsor of the two most recent blocking resolutions, said Sanders “absolutely” deserves recognition for the growing support they have found:

“Having been with him from the beginning, he has been outspoken and influential,” he said.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Were you surprised Chuck Schumer didn’t change his vote? And do you think it could change in the future?

You’ll have to talk to Chuck about that. But you’re right. I mean I think what is noteworthy — and I think people are discussing it — is that you have two major leaders of the Democratic Party, both Chuck and [DSCC Chair] Kirsten Gillibrand, being in the significant minority of the party in terms of their votes on continuing to fund military aid to Israel. [Schumer and Gillibrand did not respond to requests for comment.]

The split was reportedly a topic of discussion during a Senate Republican lunch last week. Semafor reported that Majority Whip John Barrasso argued you lead Democrats on Israel — not Schumer.

That’s true. I mean we got 40 votes and Schumer got seven votes right? We have more support for our position than Chuck has for his position. That’s obviously the case.

Were you surprised by any of the votes you got this month?

As you know, we’ve had a solid group of people who have voted with us in the past. But also what we are seeing, you know, folks who are looking at both policy and politics — people like Mark Kelly of Arizona, Cory Booker of New Jersey and a number of others — who are saying it’s time that we began to vote the way our constituents would like us to vote.

Are you doing any lobbying? Are you just calling these votes up, or are you actually talking to your colleagues behind the scenes?

Well, I think the answer is mostly no. I think the issue is so clear. Every member of the Democratic Caucus fully understands that Israel is now sadly and tragically run by a right-wing extremist government led by Netanyahu. Democrats are going home, they’re holding town meetings and people are saying, “Why the hell, when we can’t afford housing and health care, are you spending our money providing military aid to Israel, which is doing such horrible things in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon and the West Bank?”

The polling out there now is quite clear that the majority of the American people, including independents and Republicans combined, now think that we should not be giving military aid to Israel. The problem for the Democrats is that [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is enormously powerful — they’ve spent tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions and they have something like $93 million in their war chest right now. For Democrats to take on AIPAC is not easy, but they’re increasingly choosing to support what the people back home want.

What do you say to colleagues who have concerns about looking like they don’t support Israel as a state or don’t want to be seen as antisemitic?

Antisemitism is an absolutely disgusting ideology which has resulted in the deaths of many, many millions of people over the years, 6 million people under Hitler, and it needs to be combated in every way, shape or form. But I will oppose with every ounce of my fiber, anybody who suggests that taking on the racist and extremist policies of the Netanyahu government is antisemitic. That is nonsense.

All over this country, there is growing opposition to U.S. military aid to Israel. The reason for that is not difficult to understand: The American people were shocked and horrified by the Hamas terrorist attack against Israel and were prepared to support Israel going after Hamas, but what they were not prepared to do was to support Israel waging an all-out war against the Palestinian people. And then they look up one day a few months ago, and Israel gets the United States to engage in an absolutely unnecessary, unprovoked war with Iran, which is doing massive damage economically to us and people all over the world.

Do you have plans to force more of these arms-sale votes in the future? Do you think you can eventually win?

Obviously yes. We are going to stay on this issue. There are going to be a certain group of hardcore people in both parties who are going to remain loyal to AIPAC. But I think you’re going to see significant defections in the Republican Party and maybe some more votes in the Democratic caucus as well.

Congress

A frustrated Trump unloads on Senate Republicans behind closed doors

Published

51 minutes ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Republicans hoped to use a closed-door lunch to clear the air with President Donald Trump. Instead, the president vented his frustrations with the senators for more than an hour, leaving them no closer to detente.

The meeting came at an explosive moment, with GOP lawmakers increasingly frustrated by Trump’s mercurial treatment of congressional Republican priorities. Just hours before arriving on Capitol Hill, Trump delivered his latest rug-pull — announcing he would refuse to sign a major housing bill that leaders were already touting after big bipartisan majorities passed it this week.

But senators said Trump arrived determined to prosecute his internal grudges against the Republican lawmakers who have opposed him at times — particularly those who have expressed misgivings about the Iran war and who are refusing to comply with the president’s demands for swift passage of a controversial elections bill.

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) described Trump as “mad as a murder hornet” about the Iran vote, while Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) described the scene as “very much like a hospital board meeting, when a bunch of doctors are yelling at each other.”

Marshall added that “at the end of the day, we’ll figure out a way to get along.”

Another GOP senator, granted anonymity to speak candidly, called the lunch “very intense.” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), deploying some go-to congressional lingo for heated encounters, called it “spirited,” “frank” and “candid.”

Trump and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) sparred at length over the Iran war, according to two people granted anonymity to describe the private interaction. Trump also railed over Tuesday’s successful war powers vote, lambasting Cassidy and three other GOP senators who voted for the resolution.

Cassidy acknowledged the two had a heated exchange to reporters after the lunch. After Trump questioned why Republicans would vote against him on the war, Cassidy said he told the president that the conflict was not going as well as senators were being told.

“The president said something negative about me. I received it as attempting to bully me from asking a question that I think the American people need to know, and I’m not going to be bullied,” said Cassidy, who recently lost his campaign for renomination after Trump endorsed against him.

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) also confirmed the exchange between Trump and Cassidy. He said the two “harbor bad feelings” and urged them both to move on.

The meeting also failed to reveal a way forward on Trump’s No. 1 priority, the elections bill known as the SAVE America Act.

Trump cited the need to pass the legislation in his stunning decision Wednesday morning to cancel a signing ceremony for the long-stalled housing bill. A rostrum had been erected in Statuary Hall for the occasion, and House GOP leaders were promoting its benefits at a news conference when the presidential U-turn occurred.

Senators said Trump largely reiterated his publicly stated positions on the housing bill, the GOP election bill and his demand that they eliminate the 60-vote legislative filibuster.

“He believes that the SAVE America act ought to be in front of the housing bill,” Justice said.

Sen. Rand Paul said there had been “a thorough airing” of the elections bill during the meeting, but added it’s unclear “if there is a solution.”

The announcement only served to further exasperate the Senate GOP ahead of the lunch, which had been arranged by Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), a MAGA loyalist who acted without the foreknowledge of Senate Majority Leader John Thune.

Underscoring the mood going into the meeting, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said, “I would advise them to only use plastic utensils today.”

Republicans had hoped the housing bill would give them a long-sought legislative victory that would get the party on the same page and give them a foothold to argue that they are responding to Americans’ affordability concerns heading into the midterms.

Instead, Trump’s surprise declaration, which appeared to catch even some of his own staff off guard, became the latest curveball for Senate Republicans — following a surprise request for White House ballroom security funding and the announcement of a Justice Department “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that overshadowed and delayed passage of a GOP immigration enforcement bill.

Since then, Trump also has thrown a key surveillance program into limbo and upended the confirmation plans for his own nominee for director of national intelligence.

Most persistently, he has fixated on Senate Republicans passing the SAVE America Act — including by eliminating the filibuster — even though Thune and other GOP senators have said repeatedly that there aren’t the votes to do that.

“There is a huge group of people who really appreciate what the president is doing right now and it’s the Democrat party,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said. ”And we’ve got to get our act together and stop surprising people and stop having conflicting messages.”

Congress

House Republicans no closer to a deal on ‘Reconciliation 3.0’

Published

1 hour ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House GOP leaders are trying to make good on their promise to advance a long-shot, party-line package of conservative priorities by arguing it’s the only chance to pass pieces of President Donald Trump’s doomed elections bill. So far, their pitch is falling short.

Trump announced Wednesday he would not sign a major housing affordability measure until Congress passes the so-called SAVE America Act, which Speaker Mike Johnson and members of his senior leadership tried to leverage during their meeting later that same morning with Republicans on the House Budget Committee.

According to four people with direct knowledge of the closed-door discussions, however, fiscal hawks on the panel warned they would oppose any budget resolution — necessary to unlock the filibuster-skirting reconciliation process — unless it’s paid for on a yearly basis, and without budgeting gimmicks.

Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a key Budget Committee Republican, told reporters as he left the meeting that he would vote against any budget blueprint that is not fully paid for in current savings “dollar for dollar” and “year for year.”

And Rep. Erin Houchin (R-Ind.), another Budget Committee member, said that while the committees instructed to contribute policies to the reconciliation bill could include Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, it’s “too early” to talk about what will be in the budget resolution or any timeline for consideration.

It essentially guarantees that House Republicans will fail to meet an ambitious deadline of adopting a budget resolution before the July 4 holiday, let alone passing a reconciliation bill ahead of the monthlong August recess.

A failure to proceed would be a blow to Republicans who have argued there are few other opportunities to notch conservative wins in advance of the midterms — not to mention deliver on Trump demands, from the SAVE America Act to funding his ongoing military operation in the Middle East.

Johnson has remained bullish that Republicans will be able to move ahead on “Reconciliation 3.0” — follow-ups to last summer’s tax and spending megabill and the immigration enforcement bill Congress cleared earlier this month.

He is specifically floating the possibility that Republicans could, in that next reconciliation bill, create a grant program providing money to states to encourage the adoption of REAL ID requirements in order to vote.

Johnson said he made this case directly to Trump, too, before the president ultimately canceled his scheduled ceremonial signing of the landmark housing package in protest over the lack of Hill momentum on the elections bill.

“House Republicans will pull together a reconciliation bill … that will have that,” Johnson told reporters of the grant program Wednesday. “That’s what we’re going to do.”

But members who attended the meeting Wednesday argued the REAL ID grant program was no substitute for enacting the full SAVE America Act, which has passed the House but does not have the support to move forward in the Senate.

Roy, for instance, said the grant program is “not the SAVE America Act.”

Still, House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) mirrored Johnson’s optimism Wednesday, saying he believed House Republicans could come to an agreement on viable offsets by the end of this week and perhaps on what policies to include by the end of next.

There are enough fraud-tackling initiatives that could cover the cost of any “Reconciliation 3.0” legislation in full, Arrington insisted, while also doubting the entire package would be paid for given intraparty disagreements about how deep to cut into social safety net programs.

“We know the money’s there. The question is, do we have the political will as a conference to do those things,” Arrington said. “We need everybody on the same page.”

There are other major policy disagreements, too, that show few signs of being quickly resolved.

After Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth briefed members of the Republican Study Committee on Wednesday afternoon of the Pentagon’s $350 billion funding request as part of another reconciliation bill, Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) suggested he would support such a cash infusion — but wanted the administration to agree to replace the brigade in Eastern Europe.

Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), meanwhile, has said he wants the funding to be audited before agreeing to vote for it.

Some Republicans are pushing for defunding Planned Parenthood to be a part of any future reconciliation package, too — a politically charged demand for vulnerable incumbents to swallow.

“When we have something, I’ll start calculating the odds, but so far they haven’t put anything together,” House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said in an interview this week. “It’s all a pretty vague concept.”

Congress

White House tells Republicans to expect war funding request by end of week

Published

3 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump administration officials have told key Hill Republicans they should expect a request for an Iran war supplemental funding package by the end of this week.

The request is expected to be about $80 billion, according to five people familiar with the matter who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations.

But House GOP appropriators believe the Senate will likely add additional non-military items, such as disaster relief or farm aid. House GOP leaders are worried the push for a supplemental bill will undercut their effort to pass another party-line reconciliation bill with GOP priorities and extra defense funding.

Congress has long awaited President Donald Trump’s request to cover the cost of the military campaign in the Middle East. But the measure, which would need at least some bipartisan support to pass the Senate, will face an uphill fight to become law.

Many Democrats who oppose the war are almost certain to object to funding a conflict they disagree with and regard as illegal because Trump didn’t seek congressional approval.

The roughly $80 billion price tag, though, is significantly less than the approximately $200 billion the Trump administration was reportedly weighing in recent months.

The supplemental request would likely be dedicated to replenishing stocks of missiles fired off in the early stages of the war and cover other costs of military operations in the Middle East in recent months.