Congress

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

Published

5 months ago

May 15, 2026

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.

Congress

Capitol agenda: The unknowns of a Sherrod Brown return

Published

4 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats may be rooting for Sherrod Brown’s comeback, but they are not exactly prepared for what’d happen next.

If Brown wins on Election Day, Democrats likely face an uncomfortable choice: break longstanding party rules to restore his seniority on powerful committees like Banking, Agriculture and Finance or potentially make him start over at the bottom.

Complicating the issue: Brown will immediately need to prepare for a grueling re-election fight in 2028 and his campaign could greatly benefit from two years with a high-profile gavel. That’s because this midterm is Ohio’s special election where voters are selecting a senator to serve out the remainder of Vice President JD Vance‘s term.

Brown’s post, therefore, may not only deeply impact Democrats’ policy agenda but could also play a key role in the party’s success in winning the battleground seat in 2028.

Some members are already suggesting the party should try to find a middle ground.

“Some accommodation that recognizes he would not be a rank freshman would make sense. But that’s distinct from handing him back a leadership role at Banking,” said Sen. Chris Coons.

The Ohio Democrat served as the top Democrat on the Banking panel for a decade. He was also a longtime member of Finance as well as Agriculture, where he would also be the most senior member if his previous service counted.

To give Brown a gavel on Agriculture or Banking could set up clashes with the Democrats now expected to lead their party on the panels: Sens. Michael Bennet and Elizabeth Warren, respectively.

It would also break Senate Democrats’ caucus rules, and precedent is not on Brown’s side when it comes to making exceptions.

Still, aides and lobbyists around the panels expect Democrats will be eager to give Brown some sort of perch.

Those close to him have been encouraging him to seek the Agriculture gavel. It’d allow him to deliver valuable policy wins for Ohio’s rural areas, influence the farm bill if it gets punted to next year and help guide the direction of cryptocurrency regulation.

Another possibility that avoids an intraparty clash: hand Brown a seat on Appropriations, which could potentially give him a subcommittee gavel and federal funding clout.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has avoided any firm commitments on Brown’s seniority, saying last month when asked: “Let’s win back the Senate first.”

What else we’re watching:

— OMAR RAID RAISES QUESTIONS FOR GOP: House Republicans — including Majority Whip Tom Emmer — have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of GOP boogeyman Rep. Ilhan Omar. But the raid raises thorny questions for GOP leaders about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself — regardless of party — from encroaching federal prosecutors. Lawmakers’ work communications are protected from prosecutors’ scrutiny, with few exceptions, under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause. That draws into question whether the emails, texts, and materials on Omar’s phone, which was seized in the raid, could legally be reviewed by Trump officials. So far, Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on how the House’s legal team may defend Omar.

— TRUMP’S TRICKY FARM MONEY PROMISE: Trump’s move Monday to turn out GOP voters by promising to send farmers $8 billion in taxpayer money is already facing a reality check. The internal USDA taxpayer-funded account Trump is tapping doesn’t actually have enough money in it right now to make the payments, meaning Congress will have to approve new funds or the administration will have to take it from another program, according to three Trump officials granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. Plus, farmers wouldn’t receive the payments until late November or early December at the earliest — well past Election Day, according to three people close to the plans.

Jasper Goodman, Grace Yarrow, Kyle Cheney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

This member is so frustrated with Congress he wants voters to sidestep it

Published

4 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

At the end of one of the least productive Congresses in modern history, freshman Rep. Johnny Olszewski is so sick of the gridlock on Capitol Hill that he wants voters to bypass it entirely.

“It’s been a long two years,” the Maryland Democrat said in a Tuesday interview.

“One of the things that’s made it difficult as a new member is to see not only the dysfunction, but also the missed opportunities,” he added. “There are so many issues out there that Americans support that this Congress and frankly prior Congresses have failed to act on.”

Fed up with the lack of progress on popular policies like banning congressional stock trading, equipping police with body cameras or protecting in vitro fertilization, Olszewski is introducing a constitutional amendment Thursday, first shared with POLITICO, that would create a mechanism for voters to make federal law directly.

The measure would give voters 18 months to gather signatures from at least 5% of people who participated in the most recent presidential election in 25 states. Then any qualifying direct-democracy measure would be put on ballots for the next national election and need a 60% national majority to pass.

Votes to declare war or direct federal spending would not be eligible under the proposal.

“If we were acting, there’d be no need for this to come into play,” Olszewski said. “It would create a really important backstop for the American people to say, ‘You know what … irrespective of which party is in power, Congress is failing to meet not just our everyday needs but act on issues that we overwhelmingly support and want to see acted upon.’”

The amendment — which itself would require support from two-thirds of the House and Senate as well as three-quarters of states — is an incredible longshot and would create serious implementation headaches, but Olszewski — a former civics teacher — hopes his proposal will spark a discussion about congressional reform.

“I understand that any constitutional amendment is going to be difficult,” Olszewski said. “But I’m hopeful that at least for the lame duck session, this is an opportunity to create a conversation around the fact that we have been so gridlocked that we have failed to address the needs of the American people.”

Congress

The House GOP’s imminent decision on the Omar raid

Published

4 hours ago

October 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Republicans have publicly cheered on the Trump administration’s investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar. But underneath the posturing, the raid raises thorny nonpartisan questions about how aggressively Congress wants to defend itself from encroaching federal prosecutors.

The Department of Homeland Security investigators who raided Omar’s Washington home last week were searching for evidence related to the Minnesota Democrat’s immigration history. But they also emerged in possession of her personal phone, which likely includes a trove of records related to Omar’s work at the Capitol — records that both parties have a strong interest in keeping private.

Lawmakers use their cellphones and computers to communicate with aides about upcoming votes, committee hearings and drafting or filing legislation. They text and email colleagues about the work of the House. And they talk to constituents, advisers, attorneys and experts about crucial congressional decisions. The Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause makes such material absolutely immune from scrutiny by federal prosecutors, with few exceptions.

The founders adopted those protections to ensure the executive branch could not use its law enforcement power to punish or coerce opponents in Congress. That principle has united Democrats and Republicans, even in this hyperpolarized era.

Speaker Mike Johnson has yet to weigh in on the speech-or-debate implications of the Omar raid, but the House has sometimes taken weeks or months to articulate a position in other recent investigations.

A letter from Omar’s attorneys to the Justice Department, reviewed by Blue Light News, suggested that the magistrate judge who approved the search ordered investigators to contact the House’s top lawyer, Matthew Berry, giving him a chance to intervene on behalf of the institution. Berry’s office has been in contact with Trump administration counterparts in recent days, according to two people familiar with the investigation.

The people, who were granted anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the probe publicly, say investigators have not yet accessed Omar’s phone. If they choose to attempt to access it, they must first give Omar a chance to review its contents and assert speech-or-debate protections, with a court ultimately deciding which materials investigators may access.

A representative for the Justice Department declined to comment. Representatives for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Johnson and Omar did not respond to requests for comment.

The administration’s targeting of Omar comes amid a series of actions the Trump-led Justice Department has taken against Democratic members of Congress: a failed effort to indict Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, along with several House members, over comments encouraging members of the military to refuse unlawful orders; criminal charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver for allegedly assaulting an ICE officer during a visit to a New Jersey detention facility.

It also comes amid continued GOP outrage over former special counsel Jack Smith’s decision to gather some material related to Republican members of Congress in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

The House’s official legal positions are determined by an obscure five-member body known as the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, or BLAG. The BLAG is made up of the speaker, majority leader, majority whip, minority leader and minority whip. That panel, always controlled by the majority party, charts the House’s course in court. And while most of the BLAG’s recent decisions have broken 3-2 along partisan lines, speech-or-debate issues have sometimes resulted in unanimous agreement.

Berry has seen this movie before: In 2022, federal investigators seized the phone of Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to scrutinize his role in President Donald Trump’s bid to subvert the 2020 election. The Justice Department’s aggressive action drew a bipartisan response from House leaders, who demanded access to the sealed proceedings to ensure prosecutors didn’t cross any constitutional lines. And shortly after Republicans returned to the majority in 2023, Jeffries and Minority Whip Katherine Clark joined GOP leaders and supported Berry’s filing of a 36-page brief demanding robust protection of materials seized from lawmakers’ cellphones.

That case resulted in a new precedent that treats lawmakers’ personal cellphones as an extension of their private offices. It took more than a year of litigation before those investigators, later led by Smith, were able to access a subset of Perry’s records that were deemed to fall outside of Congress’ constitutional protections.

Stan Brand, a former House counsel who represented Perry in the legal battle against Smith’s team, noted that the backdrop of Omar situation is strikingly similar to one of the most significant constitutional clashes between the House and Justice Department: the 2006 raid of then-Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s congressional office by George W. Bush-era prosecutors. At the time, GOP House leaders joined Democrats in outrage over the raid.

Notably, the DHS investigators who carried out last week’s search presented Omar with a “speech or debate” waiver that she refused to sign, according to the letter from Omar’s attorneys. Courts have expressed skepticism about whether individual members can waive protections that were intended to safeguard the separation of powers for the entire institution.

“This is just one more example of excess in the Department of Justice under both Democrats and Republicans,” Brand said.

Senate Republicans have also accused the Justice Department under President Joe Biden of violating their speech-or-debate protections when Smith subpoenaed their phone records — which don’t include the content of texts or emails — from third-party telecom companies like Verizon. One GOP senator is suing Smith and the Justice Department over the matter, and DOJ has since adopted new policies for third-party subpoenas related to members of Congress.

Riley Rogerson and Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.