Congress
Members of Congress won a battle to increase their pay. The war will go on.
A federal court has finally weighed in on the sensitive topic of congressional member pay, ruling that lawmakers acted improperly in repeatedly canceling cost-of-living adjustments.
But members who have long groused about their stagnant compensation should not expect a raise anytime soon — if ever.
Congress has repeatedly voted to overrule a 1989 law meant to keep member salaries apace with inflation, keeping their yearly pay fixed at $174,000. But U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Eric Bruggink wrote in an opinion that those votes run afoul of the 27th Amendment, which says any adjustment to congressional pay cannot apply until after an intervening election.
While Bruggink’s ruling was preliminary, it represents a significant victory for a bipartisan group of past and current lawmakers who have been seeking back pay for years of missed salary increases. Many of the plaintiffs have publicly argued that congressional pay simply isn’t high enough to compete with private-sector opportunities for high-achieving Americans.
Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), one of the plaintiffs, said in a Thursday interview that the ruling made “clear that what we were doing is not constitutional.”
Congress has voted to deny itself an automatic cost-of-living adjustment over 20 times, including every year since 2009, as members flinch from the potential political backlash of voting themselves a raise. Even after nearly two decades of stagnation, House members make nearly $100,000 more than the median American household.
“There’s some irony in the idea that maybe what’s going to finally make this happen is Congress turning to an entire other branch of the government to do something that they themselves could choose to do, and in fact have decided not to,” said Molly Reynolds, a Brookings Institute fellow who specializes in congressional matters.
While the plaintiffs and advocates are celebrating the opinion, the litigation is set to continue for months, if not years. Bruggink said multiple questions still must be litigated that could dictate how much members might be owed, including whether the past COLA cancellations are entirely void or simply delayed in their effect.
“I wouldn’t expect members of Congress to see their next paycheck go up,” said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the nonpartisan American Governance Institute. “What this court is dealing with is the lawsuit for back pay.”
There is the possibility, however, that current and former lawmakers could be eligible for big checks. Plaintiffs have previously argued that someone like Hoyer, who has served continuously since the COLA law went into effect, is owed as much as $420,000.
Aside from the legal uncertainty, major political roadblocks remain to boosting member pay, even as Hoyer and others hope the opinion supercharges their efforts.
The House remains on track with legislation that yet again would block a cost-of-living adjustment for fiscal 2027 — even as COLA proponents argue that upping member salaries would make lawmakers less beholden to corporate interests or keen to using inside information for profit.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in an interview that she had not yet read the opinion but acknowledged the potentially toxic politics of the issue.
“The American people, they’re working hard, and their wages have just not caught up,” DeLauro said. “We shouldn’t be taking care of ourselves and not helping …the American people.”
Bruggink’s opinion was published the same day the Appropriations panel took up the annual bill dealing with congressional salaries and other Legislative Branch matters.
Hoyer brought up the court opinion during the panel’s debate, advising members that they should expect a final ruling soon. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) cast doubt, however, on any immediate impact.
“We don’t know anything really about the opinion yet,” Cole cautioned.
Eventually, the opinion could give lawmakers just enough legal cover to allow themselves a pay bump. Already this term, the push for a modest raise picked up some momentum as other anti-corruption efforts, such as a congressional stock-trading ban, gained traction.
A December 2024 appropriations package would have made lawmakers eligible for a 3.8 percent pay increase, or about $6,600. At the height of his cost-cutting fervor, Elon Musk torpedoed the effort — only to later support the adjustment on X as a measure that “might make sense.”
When he announced support for the stock-trading ban last year, Speaker Mike Johnson suggested it would be easier for Congress to rally around the ban if members made more money.
“I don’t think we should have any appearance of impropriety here,” he said. “But the other side of it, some people say: Well, look, the salary of Congress has been frozen since 2009. When you adjust for inflation, a member of Congress is making 31 percent less today than they made in that year.”
“It goes down every year,” he added. “Over time, if you stay on this trajectory, you’re going to have less qualified people who are willing to make the extreme sacrifice to run for Congress.”
The chair of the House Agriculture Committee said he’s not willing to “accept bad results” as a tradeoff for the benefits of advancements in artificial intelligence — a direct rebuttal to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
“As someone who practiced health care for 28 years, I’m never willing to accept bad results. I think we just need to do our best,” Rep. G.T. Thompson, a Pennsylvania Republican, told reporters Monday.
He was responding to Altman’s comments to Decoded by Blue Light News that people “should accept some bad things happening for the benefits of this technology and people having the agency.”
Pressed further on whether he agreed with Altman’s premise, Thompson replied, “No, I think we have to work harder to prevent any bad things from happening.”
Altman’s comments come in the wake of increased panic over the risks of catastrophic destruction from AI, with many industry leaders and experts arguing that guardrails are needed on the technology to prevent it from spinning out of human control.
Pressure is building on Congress to regulate the rapidly-advancing technology, but lawmakers are divided over whether the AI industry needs federal regulation or if it’s capable of governing itself.
The executives of major AI labs and tech companies gathered at the White House last week to discuss solutions with President Donald Trump, who believes overregulating AI will have national security repercussions. The group ended up signing a “morally binding” AI accord that critics say won’t do enough to prevent a worst-case scenario.
Thompson noted Monday he believes that AI will bring “tremendous solutions,” specifically in regards to finding cures for health issues like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. But he also said AI has to be led with “principle” — comparing it to how he addressed digital assets in a bill to regulate the cryptocurrency industry, which he worked on as chair of the Agriculture Committee.
“The first principle is ‘do no harm.’ So we need to protect consumers, and that means, I think, building some guardrails — some guidelines — to do that,” Thompson said. He added that the second principle is to “foster innovation.”
“I think AI has a lot to do with that,” he added. “I don’t think AI works without RI: Real Intelligence.”
LE SUEUR, Minnesota — Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday there is no “consensus” yet on advancing a bill establishing permanent daylight saving time even as President Donald Trump ramps up pressure on Republicans to pass it.
Thune addressed the matter in a Monday interview after Trump used his Truth Social account multiple times over the weekend to rail against the legislation, known as the Sunshine Protection Act — going so far as to post the personal cell phone number of one of its GOP opponents, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas.
“The president feels strongly on it like he does a lot of issues,” he said. “It’s something we’re having conversations about but there’s no clear path forward or consensus on it yet.”
While Trump singled out Cotton for scrutiny, Thune made clear the opposition to the permanent daylight saving time proposal — which would lead to very late winter sunrises in some parts of the country — ran deeper than one senator.
Cotton has publicly voiced opposition to the proposal for year, citing, among other things, the fact that children in his state would be going to school in the dark for part of the year.
Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) voiced similar objections Monday to reporters in the Capitol, saying he was mindful of “safety concerns in the more northern and rural states where children get on the school bus in very early hours.”
Thune, who spoke during a campaign swing in Minnesota with GOP Senate nominee Michele Tafoya, has himself opposed previous daylight saving bills. He said Monday that “a lot of it depends on where you are in the country” and that “your geography probably has as much to do with your position on that as anything.”
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who has aligned himself closely with Trump, is among the lawmakers who have been pushing to get the bill through the Senate. He recently told POLITICO, “I’m going to make sure it gets passed this year.”
Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.
Democrats have pulled back some of their ads in North Carolina’s Senate race, days after the top Senate Republican super PAC paused its future spending in the state.
WinSenate, a group affiliated with the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC, has removed roughly $1.1 million in North Carolina ad buys this week, according to ad tracking firm AdImpact. The group still has roughly $18.8 million in future reservations through Election Day.
“Senate Majority PAC is committed to seeing this race through to victory, and will continue to make spending decisions based on how to best build a strong Senate majority,” Senate Majority PAC spokesperson Lauren French said in a statement.
The move, combined with the GOP-aligned Senate Leadership Fund’s decision to pause future spending, are a signal that both parties are shifting resources amid an ever-expanding Senate map. Democrats are increasingly confident in their North Carolina Senate nominee, Roy Cooper, as he continues to hold a sizable lead in public polling over Republican Michael Whatley — but some privately say states like Michigan and New Hampshire need more resources.
Meanwhile, multiple Republican groups, not just SLF, have retreated from the state in recent weeks, effectively deciding that it’s no longer worth the money to boost Whatley’s campaign.
The Koch-aligned Americans for Prosperity Action left North Carolina off its $22 million list of future spending across key Senate contests, and Old North Action removed $6.5 million in ad reservations last month.
The Cooper campaign, however, is still treating the race as competitive, pointing to North Carolina’s closely divided electorate and the fact that President Donald Trump won the state in each of the past three presidential elections.
“North Carolina is a truly 50/50 state and Democrats haven’t won a US Senate race in 18 years. We can’t take anything for granted or our eye off the ball,” said Morgan Jackson, a senior adviser to the Cooper campaign. “DC is broken and we’re going to continue to run this race like we’re ten points down to ensure North Carolinians get the change they desperately need.”
-
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
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
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