Congress

Peter Navarro, Trump’s embattled trade adviser, on hand for Bondi’s Hill hearing

Published

12 months ago

October 7, 2025

Poised to face tough questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats about President Donald Trump’s weaponization of the Justice Department against perceived enemies, Attorney General Pam Bondi has brought a retort: Trump’s economic advisor Peter Navarro.

Bondi is testifying Tuesday at the panel’s annual oversight hearing of the DOJ, with Navarro in attendance in the Capitol Hill meeting room. A former aide in Trump’s first administration and now the president’s current trade advisor, Navarro has continued on a crusade against the Justice Department for his four-month prison sentence during the Biden administration, when he failed to comply with a subpoena from the Democratic-led committee investigating the Capitol attacks on Jan. 6, 2021.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced he had obtained documents around the FBI’s handling of the Navarro case, including a request for physical surveillance of Navarro on the day the FBI arrested him and a timeline of that surveillance. Navarro was ultimately arrested publicly in 2022 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. Grassley called the treatment “unnecessary.”

“They were playing politics with law enforcement powers, and will go down as a historic betrayal of public trust,” Bondi said of the former Biden administration. “This is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system.”

The revelations appeared designed to preempt Democratic criticism of Trump’s broad campaign to leverage the DOJ against the president’s political adversaries. The Justice Department in the Trump administration has opened investigations into Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) — who, as a member of the House, managed Trump’s first impeachment trial — and New York Attorney General Letitiah James — who had pursued a civil lawsuit against the Trump organization.

Last month, former FBI Director James Comey was charged with obstruction and lying to Congress.

Schiff, a now member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will question Bondi later Tueday.

Grassley also continued to decry what he believed was an “unconstitutional breach:” the FBI’s decision under former President Joe Biden to request telephone records for Republican members of Congress as part of the investigation into Trump’s efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Republican Senators announced this new information Monday, arguing it constituted an unjustified weaponization of law enforcement against the GOP.

The judiciary panel includes several lawmakers who were targets of that FBI probe, which was narrowly tailored around the date of the certification of the 2020 election results and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol. The FBI did not obtain the content of their calls.

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.