Congress

How Chuck Schumer plans to weather the storm

Published

11 months ago

November 11, 2025

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is the target of liberal fury for a second time this year. His Democratic colleagues aren’t joining the pile-on.

The New York Democrat is facing calls to resign from his leadership post from a coalition of progressive outside groups, House Democrats and even some Senate hopefuls over the chamber’s approval of a bipartisan shutdown deal that he didn’t even vote for.

That’s a U-turn from March, when he assumed responsibility for helping advance a GOP-written government funding stopgap that sparked weeks of intense criticism and calls for his ouster from Democrats outside the Senate. This time, Schumer joined with most of the caucus to blast the agreement for not meeting Democrats’ top demand — an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies.

Outside the Senate, that’s a distinction without a difference to Schumer’s critics, who believe he should have done more to stop eight Democratic caucus members from defecting. Inside the Senate, views are more nuanced.

“Chuck didn’t want this to happen. And I sat with him in rooms as he tried to stop this from occurring. This has got to be a caucus-wide conversation,” said Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a fierce critic of the deal. “Because if this is really how 10 or 15 members are going to regularly conduct business, it’s hard for any leader to stop that from happening.”

The liberal pushback comes as Schumer, 74, faces larger questions about his long-term political future. Progressives are dreaming of a 2028 primary challenge, and he has repeatedly declined to say whether or not he will run for a sixth Senate term.

Instead, Schumer insists he’s keeping his focus on the 2026 midterm elections — and a chance of once again becoming majority leader.

While many Senate Democrats expressed frustration with the outcome of the shutdown fight, there is no appetite for an immediate Schumer ouster, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss internal caucus dynamics.

Schumer isn’t up for reelection as leader until after the 2026 midterms that he is expected to try to make a referendum on Trump and health care. He indicated earlier this year that he intends to run for the post again. So far, no one is chomping at the bit to challenge him nor is there a consensus on who, if anyone, could — though there’s also no real incentive for a challenger to emerge more than a year in advance.

“You can argue and I can make the case that Chuck Schumer has done a lot of bad things, but I think getting rid of him — who’s going to replace him?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told BLN’s Rachel Maddow, adding that he views Schumer and most of the Senate Democratic Caucus as part of the “establishment.”

Schumer is brushing off the latest wave of criticism from the left flank of his party, believing it comes with the job of being the leader.

He’s hardly the first Senate leader to get flak from his party. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the longtime Republican leader, faced frequent and withering criticism from conservative critics but remained in the top spot for years — even defeating a challenger in 2022.

One thing the two have in common: Schumer and McConnell both spent time leading their party’s campaign committees and kept close control of political operations as leaders — meaning they played a key role in electing many of the lawmakers who in turn vote on leadership races. Schumer has recruited several big names to run this year, though some primary candidates he is not backing have already called for him to resign.

After the March funding fight, Schumer made a concerted effort to prevent another crack-up ahead of the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. He kept in close touch with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and they together strategized around making health care the centerpiece of their messaging.

The two leaders were not in perfect harmony during the six-week shutdown, but they mostly sang from the same songsheet. Jeffries gave his fellow Brooklynite a quick gesture of confidence after the Senate moved forward with the deal this week.

“Yes and yes,” he said, when asked if Schumer was effective as Senate minority leader and should keep his job. He went on to praise Schumer’s “valiant fight on behalf of the American people.”

In March, he responded to a similar query with, “Next question.”

But the progressive anger at Schumer is centered around a belief that he didn’t do enough to hold his members together to try to force concessions from Republicans on health care.

“The most generous case for Schumer is to believe him — that he and 39 other members of his caucus … all believed that one thing was the correct strategy and that he was able to get undermined by eight outliers. Well, what does that say about his leadership?” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said Tuesday.

“We’ve worked very closely with his office, we did not call for him to step down in March when others like Indivisible did, but on many fronts after this saga it’s clear there is a failure of leadership and there needs to be a change,” he added.

Schumer has acknowledged he encouraged members of his caucus to talk with Republicans in the early weeks of the shutdown. But behind the scenes, he privately told the negotiators he couldn’t support the agreement they were envisioning and privately urged them to hold out to try to get more concessions, according to a person granted anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

A core group of Democratic negotiators, however, believed no further concessions were going to happen no matter how long their caucus held out — and they were able to convince enough of their colleagues of that over the past week. Big victories in this month’s off-year elections delayed but did not destroy that conclusion.

“I know that there were number of my colleagues who thought that, well, we had this big victory on Tuesday, but that didn’t change the impact of the shutdown and I was convinced, as for the people who voted with me … that another day, another week, another month, was not going to make a difference,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.).

Shaheen said Schumer did not try to dissuade her but would not say if he was supportive of her efforts. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said Schumer was “informed” but “he definitely did not bless it.” Schumer’s No. 2, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), told reporters that Schumer gave the eight who voted for the deal neither a “blessing or a curse.”

Schumer “handled this well,” Durbin added. “It was a hard assignment.”

In addition to keeping tabs on the negotiators, Schumer met regularly with members of the progressive wing of his caucus. Privately, he made the case that Democrats were winning the shutdown fight and that cracks were starting to emerge from Republicans, the person close to the negotiations added. He also convinced Democrats who privately wanted to vote to reopen the government weeks ago to hold out.

The progressive bloc, however, isn’t running to his defense. At the same time, its members aren’t openly criticizing him, preferring instead to sidestep questions about his leadership.

“I think Democrats need to continue the fight to lower families’ costs, and we need to be more effective in that fight,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said when asked whether or not Schumer should remain leader.

Pressed if Schumer had been doing that, Warren said, “The Democrats did not hold the line.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Democrats “will have to figure out a better strategy going forward.” But he declined to discuss Schumer, adding that “I’m not going to get into all of that right now.”

Murphy said the underlying issues “would be difficult for any leader to manage.”

“We clearly have a repeating problem in our caucus, that the minority of members are reaching deals with Republicans,” he said. “That’s a problem that the whole caucus has to solve.”

Jennifer Scholtes and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Congress

Senate passes bipartisan bill to overhaul college sports

Published

4 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate passed a sweeping bipartisan bill Monday that would overhaul the multibillion-dollar college sports industry — a major legislative victory shared by members of both parties and President Donald Trump, who wants to sign the package as soon as possible.

A high priority for Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz of Texas and the panel’s top Democrat, Maria Cantwell of Washington, the Protect College Sports Act would replace a patchwork of state laws governing student athlete compensation, transfers and eligibility with one overarching federal rulebook.

“Today the Senate has the opportunity to protect the half million college athletes and the millions more who follow in their footsteps,” said Cruz in a floor speech Monday. “Students are transferring three or four times. Pros are trying to play ball against college kids. Conflicting court decisions have created a fragmented system — one that no one intended. And young men and women are losing opportunities to compete and receive an education.”

But while the 77-22 vote would ordinarily present itself as a welcome glimpse of cross-party unity, it is now being overshadowed by a murky outlook in the House, where Republicans oppose multiple provisions of the Senate package.

Democrats, meanwhile, are smarting from a highly-charged debate over whether the legislation would exploit college athletes of color — and some are questioning why their colleagues would split from the AFL-CIO and the NAACP, two organizations core to the party’s base that oppose the legislation.

That the vote was one of the last actions senators will take before leaving Washington to campaign for the midterms also has also presented unsavory optics for many Republicans, who are desperate to show they are serious about alleviating concerns around rising gas prices and interest rates.

“Is this really what we should be spending our time on?” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), one of the most vocal opponents of the legislation, asked Monday night on the Senate floor. “Our country faces real challenges. Gas is at $5. Diesel costs are a record high. We’re at war abroad. Health care expenses are skyrocketing.”

“And,” Booker continued, “the United States Senate is spending precious time rewriting the rules of college sports while athletes’ groups, survivors of sexual assault, labor, civil rights leaders are all begging Congress to slow down and listen to their voices. What does this say about our priorities?”

In one apparent acknowledgement of the dynamics at play, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) offered an amendment that would have put limits on how much schools and conferences can increase the price of tickets for games — arguing it would help keep costs stable for fans amid a nationwide affordability crisis. Cruz objected to the proposal, arguing it would “harm schools from being able to respond when market factors change.”

Kennedy’s amendment was ultimately rejected, while senators adopted a change to the bill sought by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) to require the disclosure of foreign financing of intercollegiate athletics.

Cruz in a Senate floor speech Monday presented the Protect College Sports Act as a binary choice for his colleagues: Stand by, or turn their backs, on student athletes who are currently being undercut by bidding wars that force schools to scrap programs because they don’t make headlines or big time television contracts.

Cantwell, meanwhile, has insisted the “historic bill” is a victory for the half-million college athletes across the country — particularly women and participants in Olympic sports programs — who are losing out on money and resources as big-ticket departments like football spend big money to attract top talent.

“We need to stop stealing money out of college [and] university institutions for education, for tuition, for professors, and putting it into an arms race on sports,” she said.

These arguments are lost on members of the Congressional Black Caucus, of which Booker is a part — with its chair, Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), saying in an interview last week the bill fails to “center the lives of the athletes.”

“There’s so much that this bill neglects,” she said, pointing specifically to health care provisions.

The all-Democratic CBC has been unanimously opposed to moving forward on any college sports bill since May, following the late April Supreme Court decision that allowed Republican-led states to eliminate majority-minority districts across the South.

In a statement at the time, the CBC said it would not support legislation “benefiting major athletic institutions that continue to remain silent while Black voting rights and Black political power are being systematically dismantled.”

Some Democrats in the Senate also lamented that the bill would set student athletes back after many have benefited from various federal court rulings entitling them to compensation for their name, image and likeness.

“This bill…only caps the money going to the players — does nothing to cap the money going to the coaches,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said on the floor Monday.

On the Republican side of the aisle, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise — who was heavily involved in working on a House version of a college sports overhaul bill that has repeatedly fallen short of support — has consistently raised concerns that the Senate measure would leave the door open to possible unionization efforts by players.

House conservatives are also expected to oppose provisions in the Senate bill that would provide $1 billion for competitive grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities without offsets; could increase litigation related to student unionization efforts; provide no cap on granting international student scholarships; and generally insert Congress into the business of college sports.

GOP Rep. Michael Baumgartner of Washington, who introduced an earlier House version of the bill, posted on social media Monday that the bill will “have a better than 50% chance in the House.” He also said that even with the president’s blessing, the legislation will need Democratic votes, pointing out the “Dem CBC will be a factor.”

But Republicans may ultimately face pressure to fall in line: Trump promoted the Senate bill as recently as this weekend in an interview with Clay Travis, founder of the digital sports column Sport & State.

Trump also suggested Speaker Mike Johnson might bring the House back before the midterms to clear the measure for his signature.

“We have to get it voted on,” he told Travis, “and we’re counting on the House — and I think the House will come through, too.”

Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.

Congress

Republicans scheme to block Trump’s funding cancellations

Published

4 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers are fuming over President Donald Trump’s latest challenge to Congress’ funding power and already plotting to stop him in the future — a move that would require Republicans to buck their own party’s standard-bearer.

Trump declared Friday that he unilaterally nixed a total of $810 million across several pots of cash Congress enacted for specific programs. It’s the second time in two years he has deployed the “pocket rescission” tactic to automatically claw back federal funds.

It’s now too late for lawmakers to stop that money from expiring when the fiscal year ends late Wednesday: The House has adjourned until after the midterms, and Congress relinquished a key piece of leverage by clearing a short-term funding patch weeks ago to keep government operations afloat through mid-December.

But lawmakers in both parties are talking about ways to prevent Trump from circumventing the congressional funding process during the final two years of his presidency.

“We’re already looking at whether there’s language we can put in the next set of appropriations bills that would prohibit this from happening,” Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters Monday evening. “But it’s going to take some legal work.”

Since lawmakers need to enact another funding bill by Dec. 11 to avert a government shutdown, they could add provisions to it barring Trump from sidestepping congressional spending mandates. Or lawmakers could add similar stipulations to whatever spending measures Congress might enact next year.

That will require bipartisan cooperation. After Trump used the same pocket rescissions tactic last year to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid, the Supreme Court allowed the administration to withhold the funding until it expired. In the months that followed, Democrats repeatedly attempted to use funding bills to thwart that kind of late-stage clawback but fell short without alliances across the aisle.

“I have been trying to get that language in there. … The Republicans objected,” Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations panel, told reporters Monday evening.

Republicans who now say they are interested in blocking Trump from employing the maneuver are also thinking about the support they would need in both chambers to override a presidential veto.

“How many votes does it take to bar him?” said South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, a senior Republican appropriator. “Depending upon the strategy that you’re talking about, it’s going to be a vetoable item. If that’s the case, then you’ve got to have two-thirds in the House and the Senate. So we have to talk about things we can actually get done.”

Some lawmakers have floated the idea of seeking to bar the president from sending a rescission package to Congress in the last quarter of the fiscal year. That could stop Trump from unilaterally canceling federal cash because such a move only works in the final weeks of the fiscal year.

Under decades-old impoundment law, the president is allowed to send Congress a request to rescind funding and must then withhold the money for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject or ignore the ask. In a legal interpretation many lawmakers challenge, Trump administration officials argue that sending a rescission request less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year ensures its expiration on Sept. 30.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, another top Republican appropriator, described the strategy as a “sneaky” ploy “designed to go around Congress … where you basically just run the clock out.”

“I think Congress needs to save ourselves,” Murkowski told reporters Monday. “I don’t think that our strategy should be just hoping for a good decision out of the courts. I think we have a role here, and it’s up to us to exercise it.”

“Easier said than done,” she added.

Some Republicans argue that it’s futile to enact another law to reinforce the limits they believe are already clearly laid out in the original impoundment law Congress enacted in the 1970s, which was designed to prevent presidents from withholding money lawmakers approve.

“So if we pass another law that basically says the same thing, then that’s going to change it?” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), a member of the Appropriations Committee, said in an interview.

“The Impoundment Control Act was set up to make sure that Congress had the power of the purse and the funds were expended. The executive is interpreting it differently,” he continued. “That’s why I don’t know how you resolve it without the court stepping in.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday that he is also assuming “that it’s going to continue to get litigated.”

He wouldn’t say whether he agrees with top appropriators like Collins who argue that Trump’s move is against the law.

“There’s that argument, for sure,” Thune said. “And I think as an appropriator she feels strongly that these are decisions made by appropriators and that the administration doesn’t have this authority. But again, that is probably something the courts probably decide.”

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Congress

Taxpayer-funded ads are the latest Trump headache for beleaguered GOP senators

Published

5 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Republicans want to spend this week insulating themselves from a deteriorating political environment before getting back on the campaign trail. Instead, they’re fending off some final curveballs from President Donald Trump.

White House decisions to use air campaign-style ads with taxpayer funds while separately rescinding about a billion dollars in congressionally approved spending are the latest pre-midterm frustrations for GOP senators — who spent much of Monday fielding off-message questions about the president’s latest actions.

The distractions come as Republicans grow increasingly anxious that the economic fallout from the Iran war could doom their majority in November. They decided to spend a few extra days in Washington to take affordability-related votes they hope their vulnerable members can use back home.

Instead, they’re being quizzed on the propriety of federally funded ads promoting Trump, which ran during weekend football games and other programming.

“I will just tell you that right now in Utah, they’re worried about affordability, and they don’t want to be worried about how their taxpayer dollars are being spent,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said of how his constituents could regard the ads.

The ads and the spending cuts created twin — though not necessarily overlapping — circles of pushback inside the Senate GOP.

Appropriators, in particular, fumed over White House budget director Russ Vought’s Friday night announcement of fresh “pocket rescissions” that Congress cannot vote to overrule. A budget office spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins — who is now campaigning for reelection in part on her hefty influence over federal spending — called Trump’s action “illegal” and told reporters Monday that she and allies would work to ban similar steps in the future. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) warned the latest rescission would “make it very hard” to get government funding deals in the future.

The bigger reaction among Senate Republicans Monday was to the taxpayer-funded ad campaign. One spot is virtually identical to a 2024 Trump campaign spot; another includes images of the president and a caption including that “America will never be a communist country.”

The Trump administration has not disclosed the amount being spent on the ads or where the funding is being drawn from but is defending them as “public service announcements.”

A White House official granted anonymity to speak candidly noted that Trump is not on the ballot in November. A White House spokesperson said the ads are about “reminding Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending” — not midterm politics.

Still, Republicans from Senate Majority Leader John Thune on down distanced themselves from the ads.

“It’s a great message. I like the message. But it shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Thune told reporters.

Other Republican senators tried to toe a similar line — disagreeing with the decision without directly criticizing Trump. Rounds, who is up for reelection, said that “it’s not something that I would have done.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) gave a similar response over the weekend, saying that no public official “should spend public money on private ads for themselves.”

Asked if using public funds for the ads was appropriate, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said, “No, it’s not even a close question.”

The bristling inside the GOP comes after some of them previously questioned Department of Homeland Security-funded ads that heavily featured then-Secretary Kristi Noem. GOP senators privately viewed the ads as an effort by Noem to promote herself, and they believe they factored into Trump’s decision to move her into another job.

The latest ads put Republicans in an even tighter spot given the president’s direct involvement and the political winds blowing against them — especially as they prepare for votes later this week aimed at convincing voters they are in touch with their concerns.

“I hate them,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), who announced last year that he would retire after policy splits with Trump. “Again, these are taxpayer dollars. People say it wasn’t that much money. Well, you go talk to people that are struggling and figure out whether or not they think it was that much money.”

Yet other GOP senators — including members of leadership such as Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and James Lankford of Oklahoma, as well as Sen. Steve Daines of Montana — gave a tried-and-true response to the Trump controversy du jour.

“Here’s the honest truth … I didn’t see it,” Daines told reporters, laughing as explained he was watching his grandkids over the weekend. “I really didn’t.”

Chris Marquette and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.