Congress

Mass firing threats don’t faze Democrats

Published

12 months ago

October 7, 2025

President Donald Trump said Monday he’s on the verge of enacting mass firings of federal workers. But Democrats say it won’t make them budge in the increasingly rancorous shutdown standoff.

The mass layoffs, dreamed up by White House budget director Russ Vought, would be the most significant pressure point yet as the shutdown enters a seventh day Tuesday — if Trump follows through. Already he has blown past Vought’s own prediction that firings would start by the end of last week, and no action was taken in the immediate aftermath of a fifth failed Senate vote Monday to reopen the government.

But ahead of that vote, Democrats projected defiance and argued the White House threats are hollow — not because they don’t believe the administration won’t follow through, but because they think it would be swinging the meat-axe regardless.

“They were firing people right and left before the government shutdown,” said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, when asked about the threats.

Proceeding with “reductions in force,” as Vought has threatened, would go well beyond the typical shutdown furloughs, where federal workers are hired back once the government reopens. But they would be in keeping with the Trump administration’s sledgehammer approach to the federal bureaucracy since January.

Trump officials have made no secret they are using the threats as a cudgel in the shutdown fight: One of his top economic advisers, Kevin Hassett, said Sunday the administration was closely watching how Democrats voted Monday night — in effect, daring them to risk their own constituents’ livelihoods.

More than 20 percent of the federal workforce resides in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. But even Democrats representing the capital’s suburbs shrugged off the threat.

“[Federal workers] know that he’s going to move forward with firing as many federal government employees as he possibly can,” Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) told reporters. “And this is a threat that they don’t think is any different from what he’s been doing before, and I think they’re right.”

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was more direct in a gaggle with reporters last week, calling Trump’s plans “Mafia-style threats and blackmail.”

They have backing from federal worker unions, who have generally encouraged Democrats to keep up their fight against Trump as lawmakers urge Republicans to come to the negotiating table on health care. Democrats also believe that the threat of a steep premium hike for Affordable Care Act insurance plans will resonate with voters in the midterms.

Two of the biggest unions, the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, filed a federal lawsuit last week seeking to block Vought from proceeding with any layoffs during a shutdown — arguing that mass firings are among the nonessential activities that must be curtailed during an appropriations lapse.

Asked about the threats Monday, Trump said if the shutdown continues, “It could, at some point it will” trigger layoffs

The firings aren’t the only pressure point bearing down on lawmakers and the administration. Most civilian federal workers will miss their first payback Friday, while active duty military members could go without pay starting Oct. 15.

Durbin acknowledged that there might be a “tripping point” where the fallout from a shutdown forces a resolution but could not say what it might be.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters shortly after Monday night’s vote that if there are layoffs “it falls on Donald Trump’s shoulders.”

“He’s doing it, not Democrats,” the New York Democrat said. “And the American people know that.”

Democrats have been buoyed by polling that shows voters holding Trump and Republicans more responsible for the shutdown than Democrats — for now. That has given Democrats confidence in their positions, with some saying they have been emboldened by the mass-firing threats.

“Having been in many budget negotiations, I know that the person to make the first threat is usually the one with the least leverage,” said Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.).

Trump suggested Monday he was already in talks with Democrats about their health care demands, but top Democratic leaders quickly batted down that claim while emphasizing that they stand ready to negotiate.

“I do not know of any Democrats who have spoken to President Trump or members of his administration on this issue of reopening the government, enacting a bipartisan spending agreement, and addressing the Republican health care crisis,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters Monday, while Schumer similarly told reporters that it was his “understanding” that Trump had not spoken to any Democrats.

Some Republicans, like Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville, have defended Trump and Vought’s threats, saying layoffs are necessary to address a “bloated” federal bureaucracy. “We’ve got to find some way to cut back on the debt we have,” Tuberville added.

But others have reacted to the mass firing threats with unease. They worry that the Trump administration’s bald attempts to focus political pain on Democrats and their constituencies muddles their attempt to keep the shutdown blame game focused solely on Schumer and Senate Democrats — and makes a solution to the standoff harder to find.

“I think that digs us a deeper hole,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said last week in reference to Vought’s campaign targeting blue states. “I think if you do that, you’re going to create a bad faith environment.”

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Democratic appropriator wants White House to pay for airing ‘propaganda’

Published

10 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A group of Senate Democrats are rolling out a bill Thursday to cut funding from the White House budget office any time a president uses taxpayer dollars to pay for anything considered political “propaganda.”

The legislation led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, is unlikely to clear Congress unless Democrats win control of the House and Senate in the midterms. But the language could eventually be included in annual government funding bills and serves in the meantime as a way for Democrats to press their GOP counterparts on President Donald Trump’s ongoing use of federal funding to air campaign-style ads commending the president and his offensive against Iran.

“Congress cannot sit on its hands,” Murray said in a statement, noting that lawmakers in both parties have said in recent days that they oppose the taxpayer-funded ads the Trump administration is defending as “public service announcements.”

The bill would dock the budget of the Office of Management and Budget by $20 million every time an administration violates existing law barring the use of federal funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes.” The head of the Government Accountability Office would be charged with determining if such a violation has occurred.

Congress

Barrage of lawsuits targets Trump’s funding cancellation

Published

14 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s move to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved spending are piling up in courtrooms throughout the country as states and groups that receive federal dollars fight to keep the cash flowing.

In the final hours before the fiscal year ended late Wednesday, a half-dozen states went to federal court to challenge Trump’s latest use of a controversial “pocket rescission.” A group that helps students from migrant families go to college also filed suit, trying to preserve about $25 million in education funding Trump is seeking to claw back.

At least one federal judge so far has been sympathetic to arguments that Trump’s move, which essentially runs out the clock on Congress’ right to evaluate and potentially reject funding clawbacks, could be illegal: U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled late Wednesday to delay the expiration of $56 million for housing support services, temporarily blocking Trump from canceling the money.

The flurry of legal action comes as many lawmakers on Capitol Hill clamor for the courts to strike down Trump’s action as an illegal and unconstitutional encroachment on Congress’ power to dictate how federal cash is spent.

But the fresh lawsuits will not necessarily prompt a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court, which allowed Trump to go ahead last year with withholding $4 billion he canceled through the same budget tactic. The high court argued in that brief unsigned order that the Trump administration had made a strong argument that outside groups may not have legal standing to sue under the decades-old impoundment law.

In the lawsuit Wednesday by six states, the suing parties argue that the president has not only flouted that 1970s law, but also the Constitution and the annual funding bills Congress has enacted over the last year.

The group suing over the cancellation of funding for educating students from migrant families laid out similar arguments, contending that the Trump administration has violated the First Amendment by discriminating based on “protected speech, expressive activities, and viewpoints that are irrelevant to funding or activities” the programs support.

Cobb’s decision, meanwhile, is only temporary. She explained in an emergency order Wednesday that she acted because the suing groups “would lose out on significant amounts of funding due to allegedly unconstitutional actions.”

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

Congress

Centrist Dem’s Supreme Court plan boosts momentum for revamp

Published

21 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic efforts to revamp the Supreme Court gained momentum Thursday as an influential center-left think tank released a plan to limit justices’ terms and misconduct.

Third Way’s proposal, shared first with Blue Light News, highlights growing unity across the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party for significant changes to the high court as Americans’ trust in the institution hovers at historic lows.

The group says it also wants to inject ideas to overhaul the court — including legislation to set an 18-year term limit and an enforceable ethics code — into the party’s conversations leading up to the 2028 presidential race.

“This is one of those things that we think can and should be a part of the 2028 discussion, and those folks who are running should be asked about whether they would champion Supreme Court reform,” Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, said in an interview.

Key Democratic groups have increasingly been coalescing around ideas to overhaul the court’s structure and policing in light of accusations of growing partisanship and corruption among justices. In June, a number of key Democratic House caucus leaders, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released their own resolution calling for term limits for justices and a code of ethics.

“We think that the center left has been remiss in not being forward enough on reform proposals that would make our system work better for people, which is why some folks have gone to the further left,” Erickson said.

Third Way cited public opinion polling from both the Brennan Center for Justice and FOX News indicating more than 70 percent of respondents favored term limits for justices. An 18-year cycle would ensure the appointment of two justices every presidential term.

The group also wants legislation to hold justices accountable for ethics violations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said last month he supports “dramatic reform” on the Supreme Court starting with an ethics code so justices don’t act “above the law.”

The court in 2023 adopted its own formal ethics code for the first time in history, but that policy largely lacks some of the teeth that advocates have proposed.

One idea supported by some Democrats that Third Way is not endorsing: upping the number of justices on the bench. Erickson said that idea seems more like “a mutually assured destruction path,” as parties could go back and forth adding more justices.

The path forward for any court-focused legislation in Congress in the near future, however, is very slim without majorities in both chambers and control of the White House — something Third Way acknowledged.

Still, the group’s recommendations are meant “to show that the center left can also be bold and be addressing systemic problems to appeal to voters and their level of anxiety and anger about what’s happening right now,” Erickson said.