Democrats are hammering Rep. Jen Kiggans after the vulnerable Virginia Republican concurred with a Richmond radio host saying Hakeem Jeffries should get his “cotton-picking hands” off Virginia politics.

“Ditto, yes, yes to that,” Kiggans responded.

Christie Stephenson, a spokesperson for Jeffries, called the moment a “stunning failure of judgement for a so-called moderate Member of Congress representing a large, vibrant African American community in Virginia.”

“Extremists who endorse disgusting, vile and racist language are pathetic,” she said in a Tuesday statement. “Jen Kiggans has no interest in our nation’s progress toward a multi-racial democracy and apparently craves a return to the days of Jim Crow racial oppression in the South. That’s why MAGA Republicans in legislatures and courts across America have launched a full-scale assault on Black representation.”

Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 Democratic leader, called it “brazenly racist language” and said Kiggans should resign. No. 3 leader Pete Aguilar said she should “apologize then get the hell out of the House.” The Congressional Black Caucus also called on Kiggans to resign.

Kiggans did not apologize, suggesting Democrats were only trying to distract from their loss in the state’s court. She said, however, the host “should not have used that language and I do not -and did not – condone it.”

Kiggans is one of the House’s most vulnerable Republicans. Democrats attempted to redraw her district in their favor, but the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the map Friday, giving Kiggans’ reelection campaign new life. Now Democrats are making clear that they will use her comments to campaign against her as they battle to beat her on Election Day.

Jeffries has yet to address Kiggans directly, but he reposted Clark’s statement calling for her resignation on X Monday.

“The voters of Virginia will hold her accountable at the ballot box in November,” Stephenson said.

Administration officials are trying to win Hill Republicans’ blessing for $1 billion in security funding that could go towards parts of President Donald Trump’s ballroom project.

Secret Service Director Sean Curran is meeting Tuesday with Senate Republicans. He’ll face several senators who aren’t convinced or are outright opposed to green-lighting the money.

Expect Curran and GOP leaders to pitch the funding as necessary for White House security improvements and helping the Secret Service keep up broadly with growing threats.

The funds are part of a larger party-line spending package that would mainly support immigration enforcement. Trump has given lawmakers until June 1 to clear the legislation.

Things aren’t looking easier over in the House, where a growing number of Republicans are complaining its inclusion sends a tone-deaf message as voters struggle with higher gas and grocery prices.

“It’s a bad look. It’s bad timing. It’s bad all around,” said one House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Some House GOP leaders privately doubt the measure has the votes to pass, according to four people granted anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes discussions, but they’re hoping it gets stripped out in the Senate first.

As we scooped, conversations with the Senate parliamentarian are already under way and bipartisan meetings — known as a Byrd bath — are expected later this week. Sen. Rand Paul, who said Monday he opposed the ballroom security funding measure, predicted it’s possible that provision gets stripped out during the review.

Coming up next week: The Senate Homeland Security panel will vote on its portion of the party-line bill, which does not have the ballroom language in it. The Judiciary Committee, which does, postponed its planned markup — with Chair Chuck Grassley pointing to the panel’s drawn out rules as the reason.

The Senate Budget Committee will also need to hold a meeting next week to compile the full bill. Notably, panel member Sen. John Kennedy declined multiple times to discuss the ballroom project Monday night. The Louisiana Republican has previously tried to expand the scope of the bill beyond immigration enforcement.

Senate Republicans are aiming to begin floor consideration of the bill next Wednesday to pass it and send it to the House by Friday. That timeline has House GOP leadership already discussing the likelihood they will need to remain in session for at least part of Memorial Day weekend to finish their work.

What else we’re watching:

— DEMS GRASP FOR REDISTRICTING SILVER LINING: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — left with few alternatives for action — is hoping voters punish Republicans in the midterms for aggressively redrawing maps to help them hold onto the House in November. Jeffries guaranteed his party would win control of the chamber this fall in a letter Monday, part of a flurry of statements by Democrats trying to find a silver lining to recent court blows in the parties’ gerrymandering wars.

— TRUMP’S GAS TAX HOLIDAY FACES HEADWINDS: Bipartisan interest in a gasoline tax holiday urged by Trump is growing on Capitol Hill, but the proposal is facing pushback from key Republicans. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters Monday he has not “been a fan of that idea” in the past, adding he’d hear out colleagues who think it’s a good plan as the Iran war continues to jeopardize global oil supplies.

Andrew Howard, Pavan Acharya and Amelia Davidson contributed to this report.

The MAHA assault on junk food is not catching on in Congress, even as President Donald Trump and his legions of supporters use the populist health movement to take shots at the deep-pocketed industry.

In the name of “Make America Healthy Again,” the Trump administration is goading food makers to voluntarily swear off synthetic dyes and forgo marketing to kids. It’s blocking candy and soda from being purchased with federal food assistance in dozens of states, while cutting off SNAP dollars for retailers that don’t stock a wider variety of food than previously required.

But the campaign isn’t resonating on Capitol Hill, where both Republicans and Democrats in recent weeks have continued to side with processed food companies on key votes to rein in the industry — driven by long-entrenched political beliefs and reinforced by a barrage of lobbying cash reminiscent of the tobacco industry’s century-old playbook for controlling policy.

The food and beverage industry has spent a record $113 million in lobbying since Trump returned to office last January, reflecting a more than 30 percent increase from 2024 to 2025.

“They have a stranglehold,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a recent interview of the food industry’s influence over Congress. “I don’t want to be dramatic, but that was the case with the tobacco industry.”

Before the House defeated a farm bill amendment last month that would have blocked SNAP food assistance from being used to buy soda, the Appropriations Committee voted against the release of a federal report on junk food marketing to kids. Meanwhile, neither chamber has taken action on any of the dozens of bills lawmakers have crafted to ban synthetic food colors, overhaul product labeling or encourage schools to serve healthier meals.

“The truth is, the amount of money and political heft that the food industry exerts on our political leaders right now is far more than tobacco — and maybe more than tobacco ever has,” Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University law professor focused on global health, said in an interview. “And while the MAHA movement talks a big game, it doesn’t do much.”

“This is killing our children,” he added, “and Congress should be ashamed of itself.”

Mars and Hershey spent a total of $430,000 on lobbying in the first quarter of this year, with the National Confectioners Association shelling out another quarter-million dollars.

Ahead of the House soda vote last month, the American Beverage Association spent nearly $1 million on lobbying in the first three months of this year, in addition to more than $2 million from Coca-Cola and another $1.8 million from PepsiCo.

Only the Confectioners Association responded to requests for comment, arguing in a statement that SNAP restrictions aren’t needed for candy and chocolate because they make up about 2 percent of SNAP purchases — “significantly less” than other junk food. The group also said that it’s difficult to “create a bright-line definition for candy” that doesn’t also block purchase of granola bars, trail mix and energy bars.

The amendment to ban soda purchases ultimately went down on a 238-186 vote, with 55 Republicans joining 183 Democrats in opposing it.

Trump administration officials were not pleased.

“It is absolutely astounding that anyone with a straight face can say that they are OK using taxpayer dollars to buy sugary drinks to be even more unhealthy, to then go on the government health care program,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said on Newsmax last week.

Congress also continues to withhold a Federal Trade Commission report on how the food industry markets unhealthy products to children. Lawmakers have used the congressional funding process to stave off the report’s release since 2014, with proponents arguing that it includes outdated nutritional guidance and that the FTC should first reduce “regulatory burdens” and do a cost-benefit analysis.

Wasserman Schultz made an attempt in the Appropriations Committee last month to compel the Trump administration to divulge its research through an amendment to the measure that funds the FTC, the Treasury Department and other agencies. It failed.

As House lawmakers prepare to debate a slew of other government spending bills on the floor in the coming weeks, Wasserman Schultz is now working with Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) — chair of the hard-right House Freedom Caucus and the appropriations panel that funds USDA — on tweaking the FTC funding measure to secure the release of the research once and for all.

Harris, who for years has tried to get Congress to block SNAP dollars from being used to buy unhealthy food, said in an interview he believes the food industry’s grip on U.S. policy is slipping.

“It’s moving in our direction,” he said. “And I think the food manufacturers — I think they’re realizing that.”

That shift isn’t yet reflected in vote outcomes, however. Ahead of the failed House vote on banning soda purchases with SNAP dollars, opponents argued it would be overly confusing for consumers and grocers if changes were made to the list of foods allowed to be purchased with federal benefits.

While dozens of Republicans voted against that amendment, Democrats were the most vocal about their reasons for opposing new restrictions, arguing the GOP only wants to use nutrition policy to castigate low-income Americans, not help them.

“The people to blame are not poor people,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a leader on food assistance policy in Congress, said in an interview. “The people to blame are the big corporations that are pushing junk food.”

McGovern notes that Republicans enacted $187 billion in cuts to SNAP food assistance in the tax-cuts-focused megabill they enacted last summer, while axing nutrition initiatives including programs that gave schools and food banks money to buy food from local farms and ranchers.

At the same time, some advocates contend that the Trump administration, for all its MAHA bluster, isn’t actually interested in imposing restrictions on the industry as it seeks voluntary commitments — not federal mandates — to get rid of synthetic colors and limit the marketing of junk food to kids.

This means food companies are now looking to Congress to preempt the growing labyrinth of state regulations on ingredients, in hopes that lawmakers will create new federal food standards that set a lower bar for labeling additives or banning ultraprocessed food in schools.

Last month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told lawmakers that while he would support a ban on TV ads for junk food, he would try encouraging industry cooperation first.

That tack could resonate with small-government conservatives, including Harris, who suggested “it’s one thing not to spend federal dollars” on promoting junk food and another to curb advertising by private companies.

But consumer advocates bristle at the suggestion that an antiregulatory approach to junk food is a wise idea and are questioning how big of a stomach even Congress’ self-described MAHA supporters have for taking on powerful business interests.

“They don’t want to go out on a limb for their buddies in the industry,” Thomas Gremillion, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said in an interview. “But are they going to actually rock the boat to help reduce food marketing to kids, for example? No, I’d be very surprised.”