Congress

Lawmakers once saw Bill Gates as a benevolent innovator. After Epstein, they aren’t sure.

Published

3 months ago

June 11, 2026

Tech mogul Bill Gates expressed remorse for his association with Jeffrey Epstein during his closed-door interview Wednesday with the House Oversight Committee. But lawmakers are unsure if his contrition will — or should — be enough to prevent irreconcilable damage to his reputation and standing as a leading innovator and philanthropist.

The Microsoft founder and global health champion made his case to committee members as part of their ongoing investigation into Epstein, a convicted sex offender who died by suicide behind bars in 2019, and the people who might have helped carry out his crimes. Over the course of hours, Gates insisted he did not know about Epstein’s misdeeds and that he never witnessed or took part in the late financier’s criminal behavior.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) said Gates described his relationship with Epstein inside the room as a “means” to support his work of pouring massive amounts of money into humanitarian causes around the world.

“He admitted that he knew of Mr. Epstein’s reputation,” she told reporters during a break in the proceedings. “He admitted that he knew that he had been convicted of [sex] crimes. But ultimately, in his words, he viewed this narrow relationship as being an acceptable means to access wealthy donors.”

Gates’ own self-professed “grave error in judgment” has cost him goodwill in Washington and beyond as a leading tech and energy figure and a benevolent humanitarian. Oversight Committee members are conflicted, however, about whether they should accept Gates’ retelling of a transactional, if morally compromised, relationship, while so many other individuals found to have been in Epstein’s orbit have been unable to recover their reputations.

Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, for instance, was forced to resign from Harvard, while Brad Karp stepped down from chairing the major law firm Paul, Weiss.

The top Democrat on the House Oversight committee, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, told reporters that members of the panel would protect no one found implicated in Epstein’s misdeeds: “We have said we want to talk to anyone. We don’t care if they’re a Republican, Democrat — how wealthy they are.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the Oversight panel, highlighted the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lives saved by Gates’ contributions.

He said he “deeply, deeply admires [Gates’] commitment to global health and to philanthropy.” But he also noted, “that reality coexists with the reality that he made some terrible, terrible mistakes in engaging with Jeffrey Epstein. … People will have to judge whether one outweighs the other.”

“In my mind,” Walkinshaw said, “those two realities and facts exist. I can’t reconcile them.”

Gates drew scrutiny for appearances in the so-called Epstein files released by the dead sex trafficker’s estate and by the Justice Department, including pictures showing him standing next to women whose identities are unknown. Gates has said he posed with the women — whom he described as Epstein employees — because Epstein asked him to.

In one email released by the Justice Department, Epstein appears to allege that he helped obtain medicine for Gates to treat a sexually transmitted infection.

“As Mr. Gates has consistently stated, and reiterated to the House Oversight Committee, he never witnessed nor had any indication of Epstein’s ongoing criminal conduct. He never visited Epstein’s island, his ranch, or Florida home, and has never victimized anyone,” a Gates spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.

“When asked about photos in which he appeared with women in Epstein’s orbit, Mr. Gates noted that none of them participated in his meetings with Epstein — they were not introduced to him by name or role and had no substantive interaction with him beyond being asked by Epstein to stand for a photograph,” the spokesperson continued. “Mr. Gates expressed sadness for the suffering endured by anyone harmed by Epstein’s crimes.”

But the evidence in the Epstein files was enough to prompt members of the Oversight Committee to express interest in interviewing Gates along with others featured in the trove, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the billionaire businessman Les Wexner.

On Wednesday, Gates recalled interacting with Epstein in the 2010s in hopes of using Epstein’s connections to support his philanthropy in public health, according to the prepared remarks published on Gates’ website. When it became clear that the potential donors connected to Epstein were uninterested in providing funding, Gates told lawmakers he cut Epstein off. Then, Gates contended, Epstein tried to use knowledge of Gates’ affairs to “pressure [Gates] to re-engage with him.”

Lawmakers did note that Gates has been cooperative and that he gave the committee some interesting names. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) told reporters that Gates had provided the names of individuals in Epstein’s circle who helped facilitate connections with Gates or his foundation.

Expanding the universe of people within Gates’ network who might have had ties to Epstein could further complicate the billionaire philanthropist’s legacy. So far, humanitarian groups are sticking with him and the Gates Foundation, the largest private provider of global health funding. These partnerships have become even more crucial after the Trump administration last year slashed billions in global health and foreign aid funds, leaving many U.S.-based and international health organizations struggling.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) noted that Gates, who appeared before lawmakers voluntarily rather than under the force of a subpoena, answered every question. He said he thanked Gates for coming in and for his philanthropy.

“He regretted his brief relationship with Epstein — that’s kind of a recurring theme,” Comer said, while adding that is “just what everybody says.”

Following his transcribed interview, Gates released a statement saying he “appreciated the opportunity to meet with the House Oversight Committee.”

He added that he “support[s] the release of all the files and hope my participation contributes to getting justice for the victims.”

Carmen Paun contributed to this report.

Congress

Third Way rolls out “new economic bargain” platform for Dems

Published

3 hours ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Democratic centrist group Third Way is launching a “new economic bargain” platform as part of its ongoing effort to steer the party toward a more coherent and big-tent vision heading into 2028.

The platform consists of what it calls 20 “ambitious and ruthlessly pragmatic” ideas, shared first with Blue Light News, targeting working-class voters. The ideas include a health care Bill of Rights, ONE MORE, and government-backed car loans to lower the cost of car ownership and forcing AI companies to pay for their own expansion without passing it on to consumers.

“Now that the primaries are over, the big question for Democrats is: What are you going to run on in the general election in ’26? What are you going to legislate on in ’27? And what are you going to promise to do and deliver if you become president?” Jon Cowan, Third Way’s president, said in an interview. “And so we see this now as the pivot moment away from the primaries and toward the policy debate in the party.”

Cowan said the policy ideas provide an affirmative vision for the party, instead of just being anti-Trump, saying the agenda is aimed at “Democrats who want to be able to beat MAGA, because here’s the key thing: you can’t beat something with nothing.”

Earlier this year, the influential think tank launched a $50 million effort seeking to make sure a “combative centrist” emerges as the party’s 2028 presidential nominee.

Now, Third Way has elevated a dedicated staffer — Sasha Galbreath, a longtime House policy adviser — to establish connections between the group and staffers for potential 2028 presidential and vice presidential candidates. The group is already in conversation with at least 16 potential candidates and their staff, according to Cowan.

“The ideas primary is really only just beginning now,” Cowan said. “I think the pivot into September and the end of the primaries is actually when the real ideas primary to determine the future of the Democratic Party begins.”

Congress

Democrats’ new data center attack line

Published

5 hours ago

September 3, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Voters are in an uproar over data centers — and Democrats are trying to direct anger toward Republicans by pointing to a tax provision buried in the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill.”

Of the myriad talking points on this issue that Democrats are preparing deploy heading into the midterms, they this week began alluding to “Opportunity Zones” — an initiative designed to boost growth in areas deemed underdeveloped and which, at one point, Republicans had touted as a way to spur the construction of data centers.

“Every single House Republican but one or two voted to unleash data centers on the American people in an unfettered fashion,” said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries at a news conference Monday.

The next day, a senior House Democrat — Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts — made a similar observation on the chamber floor.

“A year ago, Republicans were bragging about giving tax breaks to Big Tech in order to build data centers,” McGovern said. “With November on the horizon, some House Republicans are acting as if they did not turbocharge the data center buildout.”

Republicans — and Opportunity Zone advocates — scoff, noting data centers are just one of many possible uses of a program that was never designed to support any one industry specifically.

“Huge stretch,” said House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who oversaw the expansion of the Opportunity Zone tax credits in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. “Opportunity Zones control, like, everything — from child daycare centers to manufacturers. Can data centers be used in them? Yes. But so can everything else.”

But the narrative has been building steam in recent weeks, tucked inside reports from Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, and the National Community Reinvestment Coalition. The message was further boosted Monday with social media posts from liberal policy influencers like Brendan Duke, an economist at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Pod Save America cohost Jon Favreau.

A Truth Social post from President Donald Trump calling for Americans to “let Data Reign” gave Democrats an opening to pounce.

Democrats’ new line of attack comes as Republicans are already grappling with a fresh dilemma: How do they respond to voter concerns about data centers driving up energy costs, when their president is publicly downplaying those worries?

The messaging tactic also arrives as Republicans are already struggling to sell voters on their 2025 tax law ahead of the midterms — and Democrats are now using data center anxiety as another way to undercut that effort.

Poll after poll show mushrooming frustrations with data centers throughout the country, including in House and Senate races necessary for the GOP to hold onto its majorities on Capitol Hill.

House Republicans were likewise hounded in their districts on data centers throughout their summer recess. Now back in Washington, they are pressing Speaker Mike Johnson on whether leadership has plans to put any data center-related legislation on the floor in the next month, but have received no commitments.

One vulnerable Republican who has found himself under scrutiny is Rep. David Valadao of California, who Jeffries called out by name at his news conference as someone who voted for the 2025 megabill that Democrats claim will give way to more data center construction.

“Is Hakeem opposed to the data centers?” Valadao asked in an interview. “Does he not think the data centers, at some point, have to be developed? Is that what he’s trying to imply, or is he just trying to make a political issue out of something that probably needs to be addressed?

“I mean, obviously there are local concerns that need to be addressed,” he continued, but added, “trying to use something that a lot of people would argue is important for national security or national security interests as a political weapon sounds pretty irresponsible.”

Smith said that “Democrats will use any issue to help empower themselves to victory. They don’t have to abide by truth. They’ll say whatever they can and they’ll mislead whatever they can. So anything Hakeem Jeffries says — if it’s coming out of his mouth, it’s probably not true.”

Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, chair of the Senate Banking Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, conceived of Opportunity Zones alongside Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, to attract developers to hard-hit communities. The program offers breaks on capital gains taxes to those who invest in one of more than nearly 9,000 designated areas around the country.

Since the program went into effect as part of the GOP’s 2017 tax law, developers have used these incentives to build a range of projects — apartment complexes, warehouses, parking garages and hotels — largely in more populated areas, while rural areas went mostly ignored.

To address this disparity, Republicans in their 2025 megabill beefed up the tax advantages for projects in less-dense areas. As it turns out, some of these rural projects have included data centers.

Republican tax writers didn’t shy away from the byproduct. In an August 2025 press release celebrating passage of the megabill a month earlier, they quoted a Bloomberg Tax commentary piece that noted the expanded tax credits could be used for data centers.

An analysis from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition published this month figures that 14 percent of data centers are in Opportunity Zones, while 17 percent of those currently planned or being built are similarly situated. The organization, which focuses on low-income issues, also predicts that a large portion of the next batch of Opportunity Zones could be used for data centers because they are near key resources, like good sources of power.

“You’re seeing an increasing trend of [opportunity zones] being utilized to develop data centers,” Simon Wang, NCRC’s economic mobility specialist, said in an interview.

Wyden — who could reclaim the Finance Committee gavel next year if Democrats take the Senate majority in the midterms — has explicitly called for banning data centers from benefiting from Opportunity Zone incentives, saying they do little to help for the surrounding communities.

Spokespeople for Scott in his personal office and at the NRSC did not respond to requests for comment, as GOP Senate candidates in states like Michigan and Ohio face data center backlash on the campaign trail. Booker’s office also did not return a comment request.

Republicans are responding to Democratic criticism by ticking off the long list of other investments that have been made through the Opportunity Zone program. They also note the current crop of zones was established in 2018, long before the current data center boom began.

But if Democrats are able to further popularize their narrative, it could affect both data center expansions and the success of the Opportunity Zone initiative. State elected officials are currently deciding where to place the next batch of locations based on certain socioeconomic criteria — something that happens only once every decade — and many local leaders are now being aggressively lobbied on the issue.

“You can bet that the choices governors are making right now — that the data center industry is in their office saying, ‘Please pick this tract, and not that tract,’” said Brett Theodos, director of the Urban Institute’s Center for Local Finance and Growth.

Some Opportunity Zone advocates are playing up the benefits of such projects.

“Data center construction fuels demand for blue-collar jobs in construction, maintenance, and the building trades while generating substantial tax revenue to fund local services and reduce the tax burden on local residents,” said John Lettieri, president of the Economic Innovation Group and a longtime Opportunity Zone advocate, in an email. “Steering those kinds of economic benefits towards struggling communities is exactly what the policy was designed to do.”

But data center proponents could now face headwinds. Many states have begun canceling or phasing out their own tax incentives for data center construction; just last week, Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey signed a law ending a special data center tax credit.

Asked how data center blowback could hit Republicans in November, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, said his party had a chance to show their alliance with data center skeptics making up large swaths of the electorate.

“Trump has made it an issue by saying that he wants data centers reigning everywhere; he’s basically saying he doesn’t care about local control, he doesn’t care about local communities,” Khanna said in an interview Wednesday. “We can be on the side of local cities, rural communities, factory towns, suburbs — places that don’t want Big Tech coming and telling them what to do.”

Andres Picon contributed to this report.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

14 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”