Congress
Rand Paul floats Musk for speaker
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is floating the ultimate Washington outsider to be speaker: Elon Musk.
“The Speaker of the House need not be a member of Congress,” Paul wrote in a post on Musk’s X platform. “Nothing would disrupt the swamp more than electing Elon Musk . . . think about it . . . nothing’s impossible. (not to mention the joy at seeing the collective establishment, aka ‘uniparty,’ lose their ever-lovin’ minds).”
The unconventional suggestion from one of the least conventional senators comes as Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) works to tamp down an outright conservative rebellion over his rejected short-term government funding patch.
President-elect Donald Trump and Musk on Thursday called for Republicans to reject the Johnson-negotiated spending legislation — with several rank-and-file members publicly airing skepticism about Johnson continuing on as speaker in next Congress, even despite Trump’s backing.
Republicans are expected to meet Thursday to discuss next steps on how to fund the government.
Staff for the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees on Tuesday visited the Texas federal prison facility where Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, is being held, according to the panel’s top Democrats.
In a statement, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Robert Garcia of California — the ranking members on Judiciary and Oversight, respectively — said staff traveled there as part of the panel’s ongoing Epstein investigation in search of “answers about Ms. Maxwell’s unprecedented transfer and VIP treatment.”
Republican and Democratic staff from both committees attended a three-hour visit to the Texas facility, which included a two-hour tour and a back-and-forth with the facility staff, including the warden, according to a person familiar with the trip who requested anonymity to describe the private visit.
The warden argued that Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for her part in Epstein’s sex trafficking scheme, was not necessarily given special treatment, according to that person; rather, because of her prominence, measures were required because she had to remain inside for 30 days.
The lawmakers added that they received little in the way of new details, though, and doubted the truthfulness of the information that they did receive.
“Bureau of Prisons leadership repeatedly shut down our lines of questioning or could not provide basic information about our central concerns, including Ms. Maxwell’s extraordinary treatment, allegations of sexual assault at the facility, and retaliation against inmates who tried to blow the whistle,” Raskin and Garcia said in a statement released Tuesday evening.
Maxwell was moved from a prison in Florida to the minimum security prison camp in Texas after meeting with then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to discuss the Epstein case. During that interview, Maxwell claimed she never saw President Donald Trump in any inappropriate setting with Epstein, the late convicted sex offender.
Democrats have questioned whether her transfer to a cushier facility was part of a quid pro quo with the Trump administration facilitated by Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general and Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Justice. Although the president has said he broke off contact with Epstein years before his death behind bars in 2019, his onetime relationship with the financier has drawn scrutiny.
Raskin said last October he wanted his staff to conduct oversight of the Texas detention center. In November, Judiciary Democrats announced they had received information from a whistleblower that suggested Maxwell was receiving preferential treatment there.
In their statement Tuesday, Raskin and Garcia vowed they would continue to investigate Blanche’s “role in ensuring Ms. Maxwell remains comfortable and quiet.”
The Trump administration’s sudden moves to rein in Anthropic are giving fresh momentum to efforts in Congress to impose guardrails on cutting-edge artificial intelligence models.
Lawmakers are still seeking clear information about the government’s decision late Friday to impose an export ban on the AI company’s latest models, known as Fable 5 and Mythos 5, over cybersecurity concerns — a move that led Anthropic to suspend access to both for all users.
In roughly a dozen interviews on Capitol Hill this week, several lawmakers said they were shocked by the development and had yet to receive a formal briefing from administration officials. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whose committee has jurisdiction over AI policy, said Monday that he had seen “what’s been reported in the press,” but had not been briefed on details.
Members of both parties said they now see an opening to mobilize their colleagues around legislation that would reclaim congressional authority at a time when the executive branch remains firmly in the drivers’ seat on AI regulation.
But lawmakers have struggled to reach consensus on a complicated and politically divisive matter in an election year. And the circumstances around the Anthropic saga could further drive a wedge between Democrats, who generally favor strong regulatory review requirements of new AI models, and Republicans, who tend to be wary of such a heavy hand.
“I think we’re landing more and more in a place where everybody’s realizing you need some type of government oversight,” said Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) in an interview Tuesday. “I think we’re still struggling with what that is.”
Disagreements over policy are being exacerbated by Democrats’ wariness to legislate on AI in a GOP-controlled Washington ahead of the midterm elections, with some viewing a potential House majority as their best opportunity to enact AI rules more closely aligned with Democratic priorities. Some Democratic lawmakers said this week that the Anthropic episode was just the latest example of the Trump administration’s erratic decision-making.
“I think this is an indicator that this administration no longer believes in a free market,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is in line to be the No. 2 Senate Democrat in the next Congress. “They believe in picking winners and losers.”
The administration’s decision regarding Anthropic came two weeks after Trump signed an executive order establishing a voluntary vetting regime that asks AI companies to submit their advanced models to the government 30 days before they are released to the public.
“If even this … administration is suddenly saying this is a security risk, why are we allowing these entities to put this out without testing?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Anthropic’s relationship with the White House has been strained since a standoff with the Defense Department earlier this year, when the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a supply-chain risk. While the unveiling of Anthropic’s latest model Mythos prompted the government to soften its stance toward the company, last week’s events signalled the repair may have been superficial.
“If Donald Trump thinks we need export controls on Anthropic, then how about putting export controls on the computer chips that will let China build their own version of Anthropic?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said Tuesday in an interview.
When asked to rate the chances of Congress passing legislation to set federal standards for AI regulations, she replied, “It would be high if it weren’t for Donald Trump.”
This all comes as Washington was already grappling with the larger question of how to regulate the AI industry to ensure the safety of models, and whether it should be up to states or the federal government to set those guardrails. The Commerce Committee in the coming weeks is expected to consider a slate of AI bills, including potentially one that would require social media platforms to put mechanisms in place to protect users who are minors.
Some members of Congress are trying to work across the aisle on the issue despite the steep odds. In the House, Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Calif.) last month unveiled a broad AI legislative framework that folds in preemption of state AI laws. Trahan, who has broken with House Democratic leadership in pursuing a bipartisan path on AI, seized on the Anthropic news to urge congressional action.
“This decision further illustrates the need for a thoughtful and durable national strategy on AI,” she posted on X. “Decisions this consequential shouldn’t turn on a single directive issued at 5 pm on a Friday. They should follow rules that are clear, fair, grounded in technical facts, and built to last beyond any one administration.”
Trahan’s spokesperson, in a statement Tuesday, said, “Whether the decision by the administration was political or actually based on a real threat posed … it underscores the fact that Congress must act urgently and in a bipartisan fashion.”
The Trahan-Obernolte proposal would stop short of calling for a mandatory review system for new frontier AI models, however, which could become difficult in the post-Anthropic era.
Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who is co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI, said in an interview that the Trump administration last week “ma[d]e it clear the importance of actually mandatory reviews when it comes to government reviews, when it comes to models and national security-related issues.”
“If there were a piece of legislation for a mandatory review,” he added, “I’d certainly support that.”
Sen. Todd Young of Indiana offered a measured response to the events of the last several days, saying the Senate Commerce Committee, of which he is a member, would work to try to get answers. He added that the recent developments could “conceivably” propel lawmakers to work together on legislation that would establish a system to review new models.
“You don’t want to just be trusting private actors to do the right thing and trusting their judgment, because the risk we’re talking about here could conceivably be catastrophic,” Young said, adding, “I think everyone wants to get this right.”
Gabby Miller contributed to this report.
Todd Blanche is mounting a charm offensive with Republican senators as his nomination as attorney general inches forward. So far, he seems to be saying the right things.
The scheduling of a confirmation hearing next month and positive early reviews from GOP swing votes are raising expectations that the acting Justice Department head and former personal lawyer to President Donald Trump could be permanently installed later this year.
In his meetings Tuesday with Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, as well as key senators off the panel, Blanche sought to assuage lingering concerns about the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” the department recently proposed as it settled a Trump lawsuit against the IRS.
The fund, which could have funnelled up to $1.8 billion in payouts to Trump political allies, was withdrawn after a bipartisan outcry on Capitol Hill, and Blanche assured senators during the closed-door sitdowns that it’s gone for good.
“We had an extensive discussion on the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which he has assured me with no equivocation at all that he is not for it, will not pursue it, that it will not exist,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters, calling it a “very good meeting.”
Blanche’s private assurances come ahead of his scheduled July 15 appearance before the Judiciary Committee, where he is certain to be grilled on the fund and his handling of other matters involving Trump. With Democrats on the panel unlikely to support Blanche’s confirmation, he will need to win over all 12 panel Republicans in order to advance to a floor vote, which could take place as soon as the first week of August.
The payout fund is a major issue Blanche will have to address, but it will not be the only one. The IRS settlement also included a provision indemnifying the president and his family against future tax audits, which has raised hackles with at least one Senate Republican.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said Blanche had committed to giving him a “further briefing on the tax audit issue involving President Trump and his family.” He otherwise said the two had a “positive” meeting.
More generally, Blanche has faced criticism over his close personal ties to Trump, having represented the president in various criminal cases across the country. He was on Trump’s legal team for both federal prosecutions out of former special counsel Jack Smith’s office and for the Stormy Daniels hush money case brought by local prosecutors in Manhattan.
That background has fueled the perception that Blanche has been unduly loyal to Trump in his stewardship of the Justice Department, and some Senate Republicans have indicated that they want to push Blanche on whether he understands the difference between being attorney general and being Trump’s personal lawyer.
But the mere fact that Blanche once represented Trump in a personal capacity is unlikely to derail his chances for confirmation. Every Republican present confirmed Blanche to be deputy attorney general last year knowing that history.
His actions since joining the Justice Department have garnered more scrutiny, however — especially the IRS settlement. He publicly defended the $1.8 billion fund before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee last month in the face of deep skepticism from Democrats and Republicans alike, including Collins.
Two days later, Blanche faced a brutal reception during a closed-door lunch where dozens of Republican senators grilled him over the fund. The controversy threatened to derail a GOP immigration enforcement bill, and it ultimately delayed its passage for more than a week.
Blanche subsequently helped break the stalemate when he told House appropriators that the administration would not move forward with the fund. Those remarks helped publicly assure Senate Republicans, who had been underwhelmed by his appearance at the Senate GOP lunch.
Some senators indicated he still has more assuring to do.
“I like Todd … but I think he’s going to have a rigorous confirmation,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), another Judiciary member. “I think he’ll ultimately be confirmed, but I’ve got some hard questions for him.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has been careful not to guarantee Blanche will be confirmed, noting he first has to get out of the Judiciary Committee where multiple GOP senators are keeping things close to the vest.
“If he can get a strong vote coming out of the Judiciary Committee, then my expectation is, we would be able to process him on the floor,” Thune told reporters this week. “You’ve got a couple people on that committee that he’ll have to convince, but I know that he’s prepared to do that.”
A critical Republican on the panel — retiring Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina — will meet with Blanche next week.
Tillis has previously tanked Trump nominees over concerns relating to the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, including Ed Martin’s nomination to be U.S. attorney in D.C. But the senator gave no initial indications this week of disqualifying marks in Blanche’s background regarding the insurrection and its aftermath.
“I haven’t seen anything that, you know, from a Jan. 6 perspective would be a problem,” Tillis said Tuesday. “So now we’re just going through all the other vetting.”
Pressed on the payout fund, he added: “It will be an issue if the weaponization fund isn’t effectively dead by the confirmation hearing because I’ve got a real problem with it being out there.”
With a month to go until Blanche’s hearing and at least another week before he gets a committee vote, further Justice Department activity involving Trump adversaries could continue to weigh on his nomination. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s disclosure this week that he and his wife are under federal investigation have newly fanned concerns that Blanche is pursuing a retribution campaign at Trump’s behest.
Tillis said he expects to question Blanche at the hearing on the apparent targeting of Trump’s political enemies, including former FBI Director James Comey, who is under indictment in North Carolina for allegedly threatening Trump.
“I want to hear about what the details behind that Comey investigation are,” he said. “Because look, I know that the Biden administration was guilty of weaponization. I don’t believe the proper response is a mirror image.”
Blanche is also certain to face tough questioning next month on another matter: his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Ousted Attorney General Pam Bondi told Congress last month that Blanche oversaw the process of releasing Justice Department files concerning Epstein, the late convicted sex offender. The botched redaction process, which in some cases led to release of private material related to Epstein’s victims or the withholding of information about people who were not victims, has been the subject of bipartisan scrutiny.
House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) has requested Blanche speak with his committee next month about the files’ release, which could put him in lawmakers’ crosshairs just weeks or days before a potential confirmation vote.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words