Congress

Nikki Haley has thoughts on RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard

Published

2 years ago

November 20, 2024

Nikki Haley has a blunt assessment of Donald Trump’s choices of Tulsi Gabbard and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for high-profile roles in his administration.

Haley, who was Trump’s most significant Republican primary opponent, argued on her radio show Wednesday against confirming Gabbard as director of national intelligence and Kennedy to lead Health and Human Services.

Haley first went after Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress and 2020 presidential candidate who endorsed Trump this year before announcing she was a Republican. The nomination has raised concerns from some traditional GOP foreign policy thinkers.

“She opposed ending the Iran nuclear deal. She opposed sanctions on Iran. She opposed designating the Iran military as terrorists who say death to America every single day,” Haley said. “She said that Donald Trump turned the U.S. into Saudi Arabia’s prostitute. This is going to be the future head of our national intelligence.”

Haley added that it was “disgusting” that Gabbard, a military veteran, went to Syria in 2017 “for a photo op with Bashar al-Assad” while he was attacking his own people and has expressed skepticism that the dictator was behind chemical attacks on his own people.

Haley said DNI was “not a place for a Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese sympathizer.”

On Kennedy, Haley argued that he is “not a health guy,” despite having spent years raising concerns about the food, medicines and vaccines available to American consumers. He should face “hard questions” from senators, she said.

“He’s a liberal Democrat, environmental attorney trial lawyer who will now be overseeing 25 percent of our federal budget and has no background in healthcare,” Haley said. “So some of you may think RFK is cool, some of you may like that he questions what’s in our food and what’s in our vaccines, but we don’t know, when he is given reins to an agency, what decisions he’s going to make behind the scenes.”

Trump earlier this month announced that he won’t be asking Haley, his former U.N. ambassador, to serve in his second administration.

Congress

A bipartisan House duo’s final pitch for pre-midterm AI action

Published

29 minutes ago

July 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A bipartisan House duo is racing against the clock to build consensus around a framework for regulating artificial intelligence — and prove Congress is up to the task of setting guardrails around the rapidly-evolving technology.

Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Mass.) formally introduced legislation last Thursday with four cosponsors — two from each party — that would give the government more oversight over cutting-edge AI models as new and potentially dangerous technological advances continue to go largely unchecked.

It’s a considerably reworked version of a discussion draft the two lawmakers unveiled weeks earlier. It was highly anticipated as the most serious cross-party attempt at comprehensive AI regulatory legislation to date — and almost immediately panned by Republicans and Democrats alike.

But Trahan and Obernolte both think they’ve now found the sweet spot and are hopeful the Energy and Commerce Committee schedules a hearing or markup on the measure when the House reconvenes in September after the summer recess.

“That is the goal,” Trahan said in an interview Friday. “I think that there is real urgency. There’s earth-shattering news practically every week, and that’s only going to get more frequent and more serious as these models get more powerful.”

Obernolte said in an interview earlier in the week he “absolutely” thought the bill could move out of committee in the fall. “We’re certainly going to try and get it done this year.”

Yet when asked last week about whether he would bring up that bill — or any comprehensive AI legislation — before the midterms, Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie was noncommittal: “I’m not sure if we’ll get there before the election,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Congress has ultimately done little to legislate on AI under the Republican governing trifecta, as members remain divided on how to tackle the thorny policy area — particularly the question of how involved the federal government should be in regulating private sector innovation. The Obernolte-Trahan bill is the latest test for whether lawmakers can reach consensus on the issue before the November elections.

In the 119th Congress so far, lawmakers have managed to send to the president’s desk one bill that criminalizes the sharing of AI-generated deepfakes and “revenge porn.” The Energy and Commerce Committee has passed bipartisan bills on data centers and kids online safety but none have advanced onto in the Senate.

Across the Capitol, the Senate Commerce Committee was just forced to delay a highly-anticipated markup of AI legislation at least a week as Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) struggles to put together an agenda of bills that stand a chance of passing on the chamber floor.

In the House, Obernolte and Trahan are trying to set their proposal up for success despite the odds. In interviews, they both described how they worked hard to respond to the initially negative feedback they received from colleagues on their discussion draft.

They have seriously scaled down provisions in their latest version relating to preemption of state AI laws, seeking to strike a balance for lawmakers who are split between those who want the ability to replace local regulations with a federal framework governing AI, and those who want to leave regulatory action to the states.

“We all heard the criticism … and we narrowed the preemption [provisions] substantially,” Trahan said. “It now only touches three areas the federal bill actually covers: catastrophic risk transparency, independent verification and incident reporting. That’s it.”

“So, child safety laws are explicitly protected,” she continued. “So is the consumer protection, privacy and state procurement. All of that stays with the states.”

Obernolte acknowledged the topic of preemption makes people “emotional” but the new legislative language more precisely describes exactly “what we meant on what we were preempting … and I think that that’s giving everyone more comfort.”

Their bill would propose robust emergency shutdown authorities for AI models determined to be major national security risks, replacing the more haphazard nature of the Trump administration’s response in recent months to concerning technological developments.

It also would require large developers to publish safety reports, report safety incidents and participate in independent safety audits. Those auditors would have to then report any models to the government that pose “imminent catastrophic risk” and the Secretary of Commerce could choose to restrict their deployment.

Last week’s first documented case of an autonomous AI breach helped bolster their case that this kind of legislation is necessary, both lawmakers said, with Trahan pointing out, “we only know about these incidents because OpenAI chose to tell us — there’s no law that requires it.”

Trahan, a member of House Democratic leadership, has been working outside the structure of the three-member AI commission overseen by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries but was optimistic when asked if the proposal might eventually get their backing.

“The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive,” she said, adding she plans to spend recess talking with party leaders and the top Democrats on key committees “whether there’s a path to make this bill even better and to move it before we break for the midterms.”

Obernolte said he’s talking to GOP leaders “constantly” to “make sure that everyone knew what was going on and what we were doing.”

But he also added that he hasn’t yet asked Republican leaders for their endorsement, arguing it would be “inappropriate” for them to give the bill their blessing “at this point.”

In the hours before Obernolte and Trahan released their formal bill text, Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in an interview that while he had not spoken to Obernolte about what the two lawmakers intended to introduce, Republican leaders were interested in advancing a regulatory framework that they deemed not overly burdensome.

“We’re trying to get AI preemption … but we also want to make sure that we don’t impede innovation with heavy regulation from the government,” said Scalise.

A Scalise spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment about what the Louisiana Republican thought of the latest proposal.

House Speaker Mike Johnson has also not taken a position on the bill. His last comments about the Obernolte-Trahan effort were in June, when he said he was planning to discuss the then-forthcoming regulatory framework with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman during the tech giant’s visit to Blue Light News.

Obernolte is confident his bill with Trahan represents the emerging consensus view about where lawmakers need to go next on AI policy, even within the Republican Party that has long championed limited government regulation.

“I think that everyone would agree we need food safety inspectors, right? So sometimes the two parties disagree on just how onerous to make those regulations. … I don’t think anyone’s saying that we shouldn’t have any regulation of AI,” he said.

He also suggested perspectives may be shifting.

“I think everyone’s thoughts on this topic have evolved as the technology itself has evolved, and because AI is such a fast-moving technology, I think that Congress is going to have to stay very engaged on this,” Obernolte said. “So, even if we succeed in passing [the bill] this year and getting it signed into law, immediately in the next Congress, we’re going to have to dive into the things that have changed.”

In a sign Obernolte may still have people to convince inside his party, though, Scalise last week rejected the idea that Republican views on the subject have evolved.

“No,” Scalise said. “I mean — our Republicans, by and large, are against heavy regulation that impedes innovation in any industry.”

Congress

‘Fighting for an affordable America’: Hakeem Jeffries unveils closing midterm pitch

Published

12 hours ago

July 26, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

BETHLEHEM, Pennsylvania — Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ closing midterm pitch can be boiled down to a single word: “Affordability.”

“When you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to live a middle-class life, a comfortable life, an affordable life, live a good life,” Jeffries said at a Sunday speech. “You know what that looks like: a good-paying job, good housing, good health care, a good education for your children, and when it’s all said and done, a good retirement.”

“That’s the American dream,” he said.

The slogan “fighting for an affordable American” was plastered throughout a steelworkers’ union hall in Pennsylvania’s swingy Lehigh Valley where Jeffries kicked off the final 100 days until the midterms. He was joined by Pennsylvania’s popular governor, Josh Shapiro, who will appear on the ballot this November along with 7th District House candidate Bob Brooks, a firefighter union leader.

That Jeffries would double down on an affordability message is not a surprise. Democratic leaders have long heralded affordability and accountability as pillars of their midterm strategy. Senior Democrats have been meeting for months about how to sell an affirmative vision to voters.

Yet Jeffries’ latest commitment to a platform centered on lowering costs gives a clearer preview of how Democrats would govern in the majority and the type of legislation he would attempt to shepherd through his chamber as speaker.

“America cannot afford two more years of a MAGA Republican Congress,” Jeffries said. “As House Democrats, we will build an economy that works for everyday Americans and drive down the high cost of living in every possible area because life is too expensive.”

Speaking to reporters after the speech, Jeffries offered some more specifics about how he would seek to lower costs as speaker. He listed ending the Trump administration’s tariffs, extending Affordable Care Act tax credits, repealing the Republican’s co-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” and ending the war in Iran.

Of course, House Democrats still have to hammer out the policies behind their promises to cut costs. Centrist and progressive caucuses have already pitched their own visions that seek to tackle the same goals via different legislative means. And Jeffries’ boldest ambitions would be curbed if Democrats can’t take back the Senate.

Brooks also shared his own vision to — as he said it in his speech — put “out the dumpster fire that we’re seeing in D.C. right now.” He named banning corporate PAC money, blocking congressional stock trading, raising the minimum wage, passing the union friendly PRO Act, setting term limits for lawmakers, cutting health care costs and ending overseas wars.

The Lehigh Valley venue was located in precisely the type of divided district that Democrats are banking on painting blue this cycle, one that will test both Shapiro and Jeffries’ political clout. Both are directing significant campaign resources to boost Brooks as Democrats try to take back control of the House.

Republican Rep. Ryan MacKenzie won the seat in 2024 by a single percentage point and the stakes of his victory loomed especially large with his predecessor Rep. Susan Wild in the room Sunday.

“It shows exactly how important PA-07 is, right?” Brooks said in an interview after the event. “They chose us out of all the races, and … to have now the support of Leader Jeffries coming in and getting behind me, like it just shows the emphasis on the race itself and what Pennsylvania can do for the national agenda.”

Brooks, Shapiro and Jeffries often framed their criticism of the Trump administration through the lens of rising costs brought on by alleged corruption, the war in Iran and Republicans’ 2025 party-line megabill that cut over $1 trillion in health spending.

But Jeffries also wants to ban stock trading for the president, vice president and Congress, release the Jeffrey Epstein files, “clean up” the Supreme Court and pass a sweeping voting protection bill.

“So the day the American people put Democrats back in charge of Congress, here is our promise to you: We are going to hold the crooks accountable,” Jeffries said. “Anyone who is stealing from the American people, screwing over the American people, or shortchanging the American people is going to be held accountable.”

If Jeffries has his druthers, the next 100 days will be almost all about affordability, how President Donald Trump and House Republicans are upping costs and how he and House Democrats would lower them for health care, groceries, child care, gas, utilities and more.

It might not be so simple, as insurgent left wing candidates attempt to commandeer that message with far less unifying issues for the Democratic party — U.S. support for Israel chief among them. In August, Democrat-on-Democrat infighting is taking place in primary contests involving Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz in Florida, Ed Case in Hawaii, Shri Thanedar in Michigan and John Larson in Connecticut.

But on Sunday, Jeffries wasn’t concerned with litigating intraparty bickering. He was laser focused on championing a message he believes every Democrat can run on and win.

“The Democratic party is not a cult of personality. We’re a coalition of public servants,” Jeffries said. “Our diversity of thought, perspective and life experience, like what Bob brings to the table, is a strength, not a weakness. We are one big tent united by a shared commitment to fighting for an affordable America.”

Congress

Comer: 1 NDA produced by Leon Black to House Oversight ‘unacceptable’

Published

2 days ago

July 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Oversight Committee on Friday received one non-disclosure agreement involving billionaire founder of Apollo Global Management Leon Black, an associate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, but the panel deemed it insufficient and promised to follow up with his attorney.

The panel had provided extra time for Black to produce the non-disclosure agreements, but his attorneys only turned over one.

“Leon Black isn’t acting in good faith,” a spokesperson for Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said. “The Committee agreed to extend the deadline two weeks for full production of all NDAs and his attorney has deliberately chosen to only produce one. This is unacceptable and the Committee will follow up with his attorney.”

Susan Estrich, Black’s lawyer, said she sent the committee one NDA between Black and Guzel Ganieva, an agreement she said Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019, was aware of. Ganieva and Black had an intimate relationship that resulted in Black making a payment to Ganieva for approximately $9.5 million. Ganieva filed a lawsuit against Black alleging sexual misconduct and defamation, which was dismissed by a judge in 2023.

“The responsive information includes the only confidentiality agreement that predated Epstein’s death and the only one of which Epstein was aware. Epstein was not involved with drafting this agreement,” Estrich said in a statement. “This confidentiality agreement with Guzel Ganieva resolved her attempts to extort Mr. Black.”

“The New York State Supreme Court dismissed Ms. Ganieva’s baseless lawsuit against Mr. Black with prejudice and that decision was affirmed by an appellate court,” the statement continued. “Ms. Ganieva expressly acknowledged that she never met Epstein.”

The House Oversight Committee’s subpoena demanded all NDAs for which Black is a party to, or that relate to Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — a convicted sex offender and Epstein accomplice — that Black may have in his possession.

That information “is vital” to the panel’s inquiry, Comer said when he issued the subpoena after Black refused to answer questions about the agreements. “We need the NDAs to be able to move forward with the investigation,” Comer said at the time.

Black told the committee in June that he paid Epstein $158 million between 2013 and 2017 for “highly valuable and legitimate tax and estate planning services for my family office.”

Estrich said, “to imply misconduct because of the existence of a confidentiality agreement is entirely unjustified” and argued the agreements “are routinely used in business.” She also noted that “to the extent that Mr. Black may have executed confidentiality agreements in his business and private endeavors, they are not relevant to the legitimate purpose of the Committee’s work.”

Estrich added that Black “had no awareness of the criminal activities that led to Epstein’s arrest in 2019” and that Black “never abused a woman.”