Congress

Lawmakers are scared and ready to spend $1 billion to stay safe

Published

1 year ago

September 26, 2025

Congress is on track to spend more than $1 billion on the budget for the U.S. Capitol Police for the first time in history, with even fiscal conservatives pushing for more member security investments in the wake of the Charlie Kirk killing.

Kirk’s assassination and a broader rise in high-profile political violence has activated lawmakers around a renewed push for additional protections for themselves and their families. It’s scrambling Capitol Hill’s typical ideological factions, with some GOP budget hawks accusing Republican leadership of penny-pinching.

“They can find that money just like that for the war pimps, but for us it’s a little different,” Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who has scolded Republicans for greenlighting Ukraine aid, said in an interview.

The debate over how much money lawmakers are willing to spend on their own safety will come to a head as appropriators rush to finalize the legislative branch spending bill for fiscal 2026, which funds the operations of Congress and member security.

That the Capitol Police budget could soon clear $1 billion is telling enough, a vivid reflection of just how frightened elected officials are amid the recent surge of deadly political violence. But for many members, this sum still won’t be enough.

Both chambers took steps in the days after the Kirk assassination to move existing money around to provide lawmakers with more options for security, with promises about exploring additional changes. The main push for swift action, however, has come from the House.

Burchett was among several GOP firebrands who, less than a day before a scheduled vote on a stopgap government funding bill last week, descended on Speaker Mike Johnson’s office to demand leadership reopen negotiations on the legislation to incorporate more member security money. The package was already slated to provide a $30 million infusion to fund partnerships between Capitol Police and state and local law enforcement agencies.

He, alongside Reps. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Lauren Boebert of Colorado, ultimately backed off their threats to vote against the stopgap measure amid promises leadership would make additional investments in the coming months, including in a standalone member security supplemental.

Some of them were advocating for every House member to be able to obtain round-the-clock security details, which are currently reserved for party leaders and lawmakers deemed to be under imminent threat. Expanding them widely is potentially a multibillion-dollar undertaking.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz of Florida, the lone Democrat in Johnson’s office for the recent member security talks, wants each lawmaker to have a staffer tasked with protective security duties.

Another deficit hawk, Rep. David Schweikert (R-Ariz.), has spent more than $150,000 from his own wallet to secure his home. He isn’t blanching at investing even more federal dollars for member security, for lawmakers as well as staff. “This is about more than the vanity-filled members of Congress,” he said.

Schweikert also said he’s still reeling from being confronted in a Costco parking lot by a constituent who claimed to be irate that his granddaughter didn’t win a prize in the annual congressional art competition. He was with his two young children at the time and describes them as still being traumatized by the event.

The need for enhanced security is obvious. But, he added, “I think the more interesting question is, what’s effective?”

That very question is consuming the lead negotiators in member security funding talks, who are weighing ambitious proposals from the rank-and-file against a hesitation to throw more money at a problem that might not be so easily fixed.

“There’s a lot of members asking a lot of things,” Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that funds the legislative branch, said in an interview. “We’re running the numbers and providing the data to those who are going to be making those decisions.”

The Capitol Police now operates on a $806.5 million budget, which is already up more than 73 percent since 2020.

Valadao said it would be up to members of leadership to determine what dollar amount would constitute “that sweet spot” where “members feel safe.” Asked if he had any idea what that magic number might look like, he could only shrug.

Johnson said in a recent interview that leaders were considering making as much as $25,000 per month available as part of the legislative branch bill that would allow select members to have extra protection “on a case by case basis” if they are deemed to be under “serious threat.”

He didn’t elaborate, however, on who would get to decide which members are under the greatest threat, and using what criteria.

Meanwhile, Reps. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) — the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, respectively — are working outside of the government funding process to shift around existing resources for member security, underscoring there are programs right now that aren’t being fully utilized.

“What we have done is actually provided a lot of communication to members. Every office has a law enforcement coordinator in their office. We’re providing that information to those offices,” said Steil.

“As these concerns have become heightened, I think a lot more members have been more proactive in making sure that they understand the programs that are already available,” he continued, “as well as the expansion and extension.”

Morelle warned that protecting members against every single violent scenario is likely impossible when many perpetrators “are people who have deep, deep issues.”

“The challenge at the moment is, that there are a lot of things you can’t control, and you certainly can’t anticipate things that, in many ways, are random,” he added.

The reality is, myriad programs are already in place to support lawmakers when they’re away from the uber-secure Capitol complex. Members can, for instance, use their office funds for some security equipment, like cameras for district offices and a ballistic vest.

There’s a discussion about making changes to existing policies governing the use of a $20,000 lifetime cap lawmakers can use to install security systems at their private homes.

Some members want to be able to direct those funds toward making so-called capital improvements at their personal homes, such as perimeter fencing or bulletproof windows. That’s not currently allowed with lawmakers traditionally wary of using taxpayer dollars on construction projects that would increase the value of lawmakers’ residences.

Lawmakers are also permitted to use campaign funds to support security investments during political activities like rallies, including hiring personal security guards. But some members have complained about the suggestion they should be fundraising for their own protection.

“At some point they just build a consensus and let’s go with something,” Burchett suggested to party leaders. “Put it on the floor. Let’s debate it.”

Congress

Sanders, AOC, Merkley propose bill to ban Flock cameras

Published

1 hour ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday released text of legislation intended to ban the use of Flock surveillance cameras and other license plate readers.

Flock has faced severe public backlash against the surveillance technology following reports that police officers misused the technology to track women, and it has the largest network of license plate readers across the U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) hosted a hearing last month probing its potential misuses, although the company’s CEO Garrett Langley did not appear.

The latest bill, unveiled Friday and named the Ban Flock Act, would bar federal agencies from using automated license plate readers or accessing data from the technology and prevent federal grants from funding states and local governments that use automated license plate readers.

“At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent,” Sanders, who has positioned himself as a leading progressive voice on AI technology, said in a statement. “We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.”

Ocasio-Cortez similarly condemned the surveillance capabilities of the technology and said the bill would “enforce our constitutional right to privacy and protect Americans from both corporate and government surveillance.”

“No one should have this unchecked surveillance power at their fingertips,” Merkley added.

Republicans have introduced similar efforts to regulate license plate readers, such as Hawley’s Stop Flock Abuse Act, which would require audits and limits on unauthorized searches.

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems spend big to help Hakeem’s dream

Published

4 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats watching Speaker Mike Johnson deal with a chaotically slim majority have seen enough — and they’re trying to avoid the same fate.

The party is investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority and strengthen the hand of Hakeem Jeffries, who’s widely favored as speaker if Democrats win the chamber in November.

“Another five-or-so-seat buffer would be a game-changer,” said one senior House Democrat, who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics. That lawmaker added it would help Jeffries “rise above some of the incoming bullshit he’s going to have to deal with.”

Every extra seat would help Jeffries secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions to the two clashing blocs within his party: progressives and moderates.

Recent spending reflects these ambitions. Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that President Donald Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact. The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” said the fund’s chair, Rep. Greg Stanton. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Before Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to limit her leadership term.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

Progressive challengers ousted a handful of Democratic incumbents in primaries this year, and they could adopt tactics from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if Democrats win just a narrow majority.

Meanwhile, newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem for Jeffries — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

What else we’re watching:

— HAWLEY’S POPULIST AI REBELLION: Sen. Josh Hawley’s push against artificial intelligence is placing an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans. Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s favoring of voluntary standards and exposes the growing rift between Republicans on how to respond to the technology. But Hawley’s influence is poised to expand as more Republicans start to echo his tone.

— GOP ADS SPUR CORPORATE HEARTBURN: A series of TV campaign ads this midterms season has highlighted a growing reality: On the right it’s become increasingly in vogue to bash big business. The ascendancy of Trump has ushered in a new era of skepticism toward multinational corporations in a party traditionally known as corporation-friendly. That puts big financial services firms, health insurance companies and tech titans — the subjects of the hottest rhetoric — at risk for becoming high-profile political punching bags for Republican 2028 presidential hopefuls.

Andrew Howard, Meredith Lee Hill, Riley Rogerson, Jessica Piper, John Hendel, Jasper Goodman and Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

Congress

The low-profile Democrat helping shape her party’s AI agenda

Published

7 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats scramble to create a viable plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one little-known lawmaker is playing a major behind-the-scenes role in shaping her party’s approach to the technology.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a North Carolina Democrat in her second term, is one of three co-chairs of a commission tasked by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to generate AI policy recommendations.

It’s a position that has given her significant power to mold Democrats’ thinking on the rapidly evolving issue, even as her fellow commission members cut more public personas through regular appearances at news conferences and in media hits: Rep. Ted Lieu of California is vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, while Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has built a reputation as a self-styled moderate dealmaker.

In an interview earlier this week, Foushee said the commission has submitted a “first draft” of its much-anticipated recommendations to Jeffries. And while Jeffries will ultimately provide feedback to inform the final report, she said she would push for there to “always be a human element” in any AI regulatory framework, with civil rights and liberties at the center.

“We have seen evidence of how technology can be used for discrimination,” said Foushee. “We’ve seen how some groups have been excluded.”

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also associates with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and centrist New Democrat Coalition, Foushee is representative of a broad, mainstream swath of House Democrats that has yet to stake a clear position on AI. And her vision for an AI regulatory model that keeps humans in control and builds in civil rights protections could provide a blueprint for her party.

She doesn’t want to stifle innovation, she explained; rather, “my focus is to make sure that we’re not leaving anybody behind.”

Foushee said she didn’t set out to lead on AI policy, but joined a bipartisan AI task force in the previous Congress given her seat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Since the task force released its recommendations in December 2024, House Republican leaders considered its mission complete, according to a senior GOP leadership aide granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. So when Speaker Mike Johnson opted not to reconstitute the panel in January 2025, Jeffries created his Democrat-only commission to fill that void, tapping Foushee as one of its commissioners.

“I was glad to be one of those that the leader thought might be helpful in leading us into the future,” she said. “So I don’t know if I would say that I was, you know, moved to do it, but certainly happy to do my part.”

Lieu, in a statement, called Foushee “unwavering in her commitment to ensuring AI systems don’t harm civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“I visited Val’s district earlier this year,” he continued, “and saw firsthand how effectively she works with local stakeholders to address the threats and unlock the possibilities of AI in her community.”

Foushee represents parts of the so-called Research Triangle encompassing Durham and Chapel Hill — the homes of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, where AI technologies are being studied. Her state is also a major hub for data centers powering the AI boom.

In her work with Lieu and Gottheimer, Foushee said “we’re all involved in everything” and that “you might say we’ve grown on each other.” Her main area of interest, though, has been to elevate civil rights and liberties protections.

She has introduced multiple bills to that end. One piece of legislation would require people to be told about when they are engaging with a chatbot instead of a human. Another would seek to expand participation in the AI research, education and workforce development among Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Foushee’s work on the commission is also being informed by her regular engagement with each of the major AI labs. In her eyes, Anthropic has been the most receptive to regulatory measures while others have favored more “pro-innovation” policies.

She was adamant, however, that Anthropic was in no way influencing the AI policies she could soon be shopping to colleagues — even though a political action committee funded by Anthropic executives spent a little over a million dollars to support her in a competitive primary earlier this year.

“Let me just say to you that no one should be worried or concerned,” Foushee said. “My work on AI has always been focused on establishing guardrails and holding corporations accountable. There is nothing that you will see in any legislation that I have introduced, led, co-led, or co-sponsored that has not been towards holding corporations accountable and protecting the American public.”

In any event, Foushee said she has had no direct outreach from Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, since he led calls last month for a slowdown of advanced AI development amid warnings it could soon pose an imminent threat to human civilization.

“When … you’re not allowing for the engagement of members of Congress, and not even an opportunity to provide input or to be engaged in the conversation, it makes me wonder what those efforts are about,” said Foushee.

A spokesperson for Anthropic did not return a request for comment, while Nate Evans, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was “deeply engaged with Congress on federal policy to advance AI safety, through dozens of meetings in recent weeks with members of both parties in both chambers.”

Representatives from Anthropic and OpenAI also briefed members of the Science Committee in mid-September.

All three commission co-chairs have been tight-lipped about what their AI recommendations could entail — especially as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to sense real urgency to rein in the technology and are desperate for legislative solutions.

It also remains to be seen whether the forthcoming agenda will unify a party that has been largely aligned on the need for regulation but deeply split on the specifics.

Some progressives, led by Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas, support banning highly sophisticated AI systems and pausing AI development until a government-led vetting procedure can be implemented.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has introduced what is currently one of the only comprehensive, bipartisan bills to regulate advanced AI models — but it stops significantly short of the pauses championed by progressives and opens a thorny debate about whether to preempt state AI laws with an overarching federal framework.

Foushee said she has not signed onto Casar’s proposal to ban superintelligence, explaining she has yet to review it. She did throw cold water on another progressive-led proposal to place a moratorium on data centers, saying it should be up to local jurisdictions whether to build the controversial, energy-sucking facilities.

She has not decided whether she will co-sponsor the bill Trahan painstakingly negotiated with California Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte. Members of both parties have been cautious to associate with the package given the hyper-partisan political environment, especially in the leadup to the midterms.

But Foushee said she supports holding a committee markup of the legislation, adding that when fellow Democrats ask her about the measure, she replies, “I’m not one to say that this member should or should not say or do this, that, or the other. I’m not hell bent on any one particular approach.”

Democrats “should continue to lead but it certainly does not mean to me that there should not be a bipartisan effort to put forward a framework,” said Foushee. “When indeed we are in the majority, then that is what we plan to do.”