Congress
‘I’ve been taking a ton of risk’: Inside Jim Himes’ mission to save a key spy authority
Jim Himes wants to reauthorize a controversial surveillance law. He knows it comes with big risks.
The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee has been seeking a bipartisan deal to extend Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act while Republicans are busy fighting among themselves over how to prevent the government spy power from expiring April 30.
Fearing a lapse would be an existential crisis, he’s been empowered by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to share his perspective with fellow Democrats who are skeptical of reauthorizing Section 702 without guardrails to protect Americans from being targeted by the Trump administration. And despite his own preferences for modifying the spy authority, he’s facing criticism from progressives in his district for being open to a clean extension.
Himes has also been talking to the White House — but often finds himself out of the loop of negotiations with House Republican leaders, who are more focused on trying to squeeze a deal through their ultrathin margins than find common ground with Democrats.
“There’s been a shit ton of outreach to me” on this issue, Himes, of Connecticut, said in a lengthy interview in his Capitol Hill office Thursday. “None of it has been, ‘Come to this room to negotiate this deal today.’”
The stakes are high for Himes as he navigates the difficult politics around a surveillance law viewed with deep suspicion by many progressives and conservatives. And in attempting to broker cross-party consensus around the spy law, he has embarked on a potentially thankless mission.
He’s challenging Republicans’ appetite for bipartisan dealmaking in the Trump era — and so far, he’s being largely ignored by the GOP leaders. He’s also testing whether Democrats would attach their names to any legislation that gives even the appearance of emboldening an administration they view as corrupt — and it’s getting more difficult by the day.
“I’ve been taking a ton of risk, I’ve been doing a ton of explanations,” Himes said later Thursday.
If he succeeds in stitching together some fractured coalition to extend Section 702 with meaningful guardrails, he will have pulled off a feat of political compromise rarely seen these days. But if he is unable to help land a deal and must instead back a clean extension in the interest of protecting national security, he will undoubtedly take fresh heat from progressives, perhaps in the form of a credible primary challenger.
One long-shot candidate looking to unseat Himes in the Democratic primary based on the incumbent’s FISA stance — Joseph Perez-Caputo, a local activist — has been leading constituent protests against the lawmaker back home.
“We’ve kind of watched in abject horror,” Perez-Caputo said in an interview of Himes’ scramble to land a Section 702 agreement.
A new letter from half a dozen groups in Connecticut, shared first with Blue Light News, is calling on Himes to step down as the Intelligence Committee’s ranking member, saying he has “betrayed” obligations to his constituents and the Constitution — including by “actively lobbying other Democrats and Republicans to support the administration’s FISA agenda.”
Himes is cognizant of the dynamics, recalling that he got his “head blown off” by frustrated participants during a demonstration in his district last month, adding, “there’s an immense amount of misinformation out there that needs to be addressed.”
Ultimately, Himes says, he’s driven in this fight by a sense of duty. Over the course of the Thursday interview, he insisted — repeatedly — that he prefers extending the spy authority with policy changes, like seeking judicial review for searches under the program, to continuing on with the status quo.
Rather, Himes explained, his perch on the Intelligence panel uniquely positions him to understand the scope and stakes of a Section 702 expiration. And if it were to come down to a choice between passing a clean extension or letting the program expire, a lapse would be a nonstarter.
“Three months from now, if FISA 702 is dark and there’s a bomb in Grand Central, there will be very little doubt in my mind … that that occurred because we shut down our most important counterintelligence,” Himes said.
“So I don’t blame them,” he added of those members who would prefer the program lapse than support a clean extension. “But I just see with some granularity — actually, more granularity than pretty much anybody around here — what the risks are that we face.”
Despite Himes’ entreaties, many House Democrats remain skeptical. Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts said in an interview Thursday he will vote against a reauthorization for the first time in his 25-year tenure in the House if the legislation does not institute new guardrails on warrantless government surveillance.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said he respects Himes and appreciates that he has attended caucus meetings to share his perspective on the issue. But, he said in an interview, the decision was an easy one: “We should unify now to say, ‘No, Trump does not use power responsibly.’”
Himes said his senior role on the House Intelligence Committee means he’s inclined to never trust any administration — and he “particularly” doesn’t trust this one. But he emphasized he has not, in his role on the panel, ever been presented with any evidence that President Donald Trump or senior White House officials have sought to interfere with Americans’ privacy.
“In the last 14 months,” he said, “there has not been a single example of their attempt to abuse this database. I am conscious of something that is hard to get people to understand, which is, there is no program that is more overseen than this one. None.”
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the Foreign Affairs Committee who is also privy to classified information not shared with the majority of his colleagues, had a similar point of view.
“I don’t want it to be on my conscience that something happens that we could have stopped,” Meeks said in an interview. “That’s the responsibility that Jim has and the burden at times of being the ranking member, and the former chair, of Intel.”
Some Republicans downplayed Himes’ role in the FISA talks as GOP leaders go down a partisan path. House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford questioned how much Himes is backchanneling with Republicans, while noting he considers the ranking member a friend.
“We try to be considerate of him and his concerns, and I think he extends me that courtesy as well,” the Arkansas Republican said in an interview Thursday. “So we have a good working relationship. And I think that’s helpful.”
As the April 30 deadline to extend the FISA spy authority draws nearer, Himes is continuing to make the rounds with colleagues of both parties but also think strategically about what could pass the House, and how.
He and the senior House Judiciary Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, have been workshopping possible backup plans with policy changes that could attract more Democratic support in case Republicans fail to pass their partisan bill.
He’s now also interested in finding a set of reforms that could get the support of a two-thirds majority of the House so that the legislation could advance under an expedited floor procedure known as a suspension, which doesn’t first require clearing a party-line “rule” vote.
Himes said there was a “real opportunity” to pass a bill under suspension last week, when Speaker Mike Johnson instead attempted, unsuccessfully, to pass an 18-month extension bill through the regular order process in the middle of the night. But Johnson’s failure, Himes continued, only emboldened Democrats to stand back and watch the GOP flounder.
Calling himself an “emissary” during that overnight vote, Himes was frank: “A bunch of members at two in the morning, watching the speaker fall flat on his face, does not help me.”
House lawmakers are set to vote on the sweeping Russia sanctions bill that senators overwhelmingly voted to approve in August, but now faces a tough test in the House where Democrats fear the bill will give President Donald Trump too much tariff power.
The Senate-passed and White House-backed measure is finally getting consideration from the House, after GOP leaders omitted it from their agenda when lawmakers returned from August recess. Many House Democrats — including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — have voiced opposition for fear that it would give Trump expansive and risky new tariff authorities.
House GOP enthusiasm for the measure has also been tepid, after a boost following the sudden death of its champion, Sen. Lindsey Graham, wore off.
The House Rules Committee scheduled a meeting to consider the bill Monday afternoon.
Advocates of the legislation argue the bill would give Trump the tools he needs to pressure Russian leader Vladimir Putin to end the war on Ukraine. The bill would issue mandatory sanctions on Russian leadership and its energy sector — as well as collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and so-called shadow fleet.
But it would also give Trump the ability to hit top buyers of Russian oil with 100% tariffs, a move that Democrats say is dangerous given the White House’s eagerness to slap tariffs on U.S. friends and foes alike.
“Donald Trump already has ample authority to impose sanctions on the companies, individuals, and vessels propping up a Russian war machine that continues its deadly attacks on Ukraine,” Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a joint statement with Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earlier this month. “Congress does not need to greenlight new tariff authority for the President to impose those sanctions on Russia today.”
Backers of the bill were quick to encourage its passage after the vote was announced on Friday.
“Great news that the House will vote on the much-needed Russia sanctions bill,” Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wrote on social media. “Ukrainian civilians continue to be killed by Putin’s war machine, and this bill hits the Kremlin’s coffers hard. Now is the time to pass it and force Putin to the negotiating table.”
The measure passed in an 86-11 vote in the Senate in August.
House GOP leaders have picked Tuesday as the day to vote on legislation intended to shield Americans from the potential costs associated with the data center boom, according to two people granted anonymity to share private scheduling plans.
The upcoming floor action comes after a healthy number of vulnerable Republicans signed onto the measure in recent days, a sign that fears about the issue’s political volatility ahead of the midterms are continuing to grow as voters complain about rising energy prices as a result of data center proliferation.
The bipartisan Ratepayer Protection Act, which aims to compel tech companies to pay for the infrastructure associated with data center development, passed unanimously out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this summer. Senior Republicans, however, said last week they were still weighing whether to bring the bill to the floor before the House recesses until after the November elections.
The decision to proceed this coming week signals that pressure has been building on leaders to act, underscored by the at least five House GOP frontliners who have signed on as cosponsors since September 1: Reps. Bill Huizenga and Tom Barrett of Michigan, David Valadao of California, Jen Kiggans of Virginia and Mónica de la Cruz of Texas.
Valadao, in an interview a week before he signed on as a cosponsor, called such measures “fine” but balked at the idea House Democratic leaders were trying to politicize data centers right before an election.
“Obviously it has to be addressed — making sure that we’re protecting our natural resources like water in my district,” he said. “Obviously, with California and their regulatory process, they’ve made energy more expensive than anywhere else in the country. So those are major concerns that need to be addressed, and I think those pieces of legislation will make sense.”
But, he added, allowing Democrats “to turn this into a political issue, I would say, is pretty irresponsible.”
The total number of cosponsors on the bill, championed by Reps. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) and Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), to 42 Democrats and Republicans combined.
The Tuesday vote will take place under an expedited procedure that requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to secure passage.
Mia McCarthy and Amelia Davidson contributed to this report.
He’s promising to pay you $5,000. He’s asking you to swear an oath. He’s telling you you’ll “go to hell” if you don’t vote November 3.
President Donald Trump spent the last two days in Dallas trying every which way to convince his GOP base to turn out for the midterms and re-elect a Republican Congress.
We’ll know in 53 days if it worked.
Republicans who attended the party’s midterm convention said they hope it drives Americans to the polls this November. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said in an interview he’s confident the GOP holds the House majority but acknowledged it’ll come down to Republican voter turnout.
“Do we have some headwinds? Absolutely. Is this the greatest environment we’ve ever run in? No,” Emmer said. “If our people show up, we’ll do just fine. If they sit back at home, we’re going to have some bumps that we got to deal with.”
Trump began the convention by surprising even senior Republicans with a pledge to distribute $5,000 checks to Americans if they re-elect a GOP House and Senate majority. Republicans are now left grappling with the practicality of the proposal and whether to make promises to voters on the campaign trail.
Then the president ended evening No. 2 leading the crowd in swearing an oath that they would bring their family and friends to the polls to vote for Republicans in November.
“You know what happens if you don’t vote? You go to hell,” Trump told Dallas’ American Airlines Center. “Go out and vote, go out and vote!”
Republicans’ messaging heavily focused on painting Democrats as a socialist party the country can not afford to elect into power. It was reminiscent of Democrats’ message going into the 2024 election warning Americans they couldn’t afford to elect Trump again, rather than leaning into specific policy agendas.
Obviously, that didn’t prove to be a winning strategy — and Republicans are hoping they don’t make the same mistake.
“That’s a good question,” Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania said at the convention when asked if he’s worried the party is too focused on its opponents. But he was confident GOP policies on taxes, regulations and education that were enacted in the past two-years are drastically different from what Democrats are proposing.
“We’ll see, but I do think you got to do all the above,” Rep. Jim Jordan responded to the same question. “We did what we said we would do.”
Read also: How Republicans are privately talking about their Senate map at the convention
What else we’re watching:
— GOP LEADERS CAVE TO DATA CENTER VOTE: House GOP leaders will put legislation on the floor next week marking Congress’ most significant step yet to regulate data center infrastructure that’s driving bipartisan outrage nationwide. Leaders had been weighing whether or not to move forward with the measure — known as the Ratepayer Protection Act — on the floor, with Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s office claiming late last month that some of his members had problems with the proposal that still needed to be worked out. That Scalise and others have now caved is a sign of the political pressure the party is feeling on the matter as Election Day draws near.
— RAND PAUL’S PRICEY FLIGHT — One of the Senate’s biggest fiscal hawks has spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on private jets. Six staffers for Sen. Rand Paul traveled by private jet as part of a bipartisan congressional investigation over several months in 2024 into the attempted assassination of then-presidential candidate Trump — costing taxpayers nearly $18,000, according to Senate expenditure records reviewed by Blue Light News. The expense is not illegal or against Senate rules, but it fits a pattern Paul has shown over the years of spending lavishly on travel while simultaneously crusading against out-of-control federal spending.
Meredith Lee Hill, Jason Beeferman, Kelsey Brugger and Chris Marquette contributed to this report.
- At 9/11 ceremony, Giuliani and Mamdani … shake hands?
- Court deals first blow to Trump’s coal rescue campaign
- House sets vote on Russia sanctions bill
- House eyes Tuesday vote on bill to curb data center costs
- This climate problem isn’t on the UN agenda — data centers
- Democrats revamp their midterm playbook for GOP’s anti-trans attacks
- Capitol agenda: Trump tells Republicans to vote or ‘go to hell’
- Rand Paul and his staff travel by private jet with taxpayer dollars while preaching fiscal restraint
- Ted Cruz on his 2028 lane, JD Vance and the GOP’s future
- How Republicans are privately talking about their Senate map at the convention
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
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 Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
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 Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words