Congress

Republicans are ignoring Trump and holding out hope for a second megabill

Published

7 months ago

February 20, 2026

President Donald Trump sent a clear message to congressional Republicans this month that there’s no need to pass another party-line megabill this year. Many, however, aren’t ready to give up yet.

Trump’s comments in a Fox Business Network interview earlier this month appeared to finally settle a long-running GOP debate over whether to pursue a follow-up to the “big, beautiful bill” enacted in July, saying “we’ve gotten everything passed that we need.”

But some lawmakers are insisting that the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process offers an unmissable opportunity for Republicans to enact major conservative policy changes ahead of the midterm elections — and that there is still a window to get it done.

Those Republicans are largely brushing off Trump’s comments, refusing to take them as a death knell for their efforts.

“One day he’s okay with it, and the next day he’s not,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who is one of the loudest evangelists for passing another party-line bill before the midterms, arguing Republicans “haven’t done a damn thing” since last year’s effort.

Those attitudes threaten to extend the will-they-or-won’t-they discussion for potentially several more months as some factions keep pressure on GOP leaders to keep hope alive.

The influential Republican Study Committee, which includes scores of House conservatives, has been holding listening sessions since last August for what could go into “Reconciliation 2.0.” It put out a framework in January outlining how such a bill could fulfill an ambitious housing, health care and energy agenda. The group is not yet abandoning the effort.

“There’s always a chance until there’s not,” said Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), a former RSC chair and member of House GOP leadership.

Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas), the RSC’s current chair, said in a statement that a second reconciliation bill would be “the perfect vehicle” to unite Republicans behind “Trump’s America First agenda in 2026.”

“This is our moment, and we intend to make the most of it,” he said.

But to many senior Republicans that amounts to false hope — and a distraction from other matters on the congressional agenda in the coming months. Hopes abound for progress on bipartisan housing, permitting and transportation bills.

It was a particularly grueling process to get the first megabill through both chambers last year — and leaders had $5 trillion worth of tax cuts to dangle in front of recalcitrant members to help push it along.

House Republicans barely passed the bill on party lines in July, and their margin has only decreased since: They can currently afford no more than one defection.

“I would love a second reconciliation bill, but I can count votes,” Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said in an interview. “And we do not have the votes for a second reconciliation.”

Speaker Mike Johnson and other House GOP leaders insist they haven’t ruled out doing a second reconciliation bill and say it’s still an active discussion, even as some senior House Republicans and GOP leadership aides privately doubt they will ever have the votes to move forward.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune also hasn’t dismissed another bill — but privately there’s a hefty dose of skepticism among senators and aides that there’s much of an appetite for another big party-line heave.

Asked about Trump’s latest comments, Thune acknowledged in an interview that there’s interest among some members. But he added that Republicans have to be “realistic” about the prospects of assembling a proposal that can garner 51 GOP votes and withstand a free-for-all of politically tricky changes from Democrats.

“We have to have a reason to do it,” Thune added.

To get another bill across the finish line during a midterm year, Republicans would likely need Trump to articulate what precisely he wants in a bill and then for the president to spend weeks, and potentially months, trying to help round up the votes.

But Trump has expressed skepticism about reconciliation, further raising the likelihood that the prospects of another bill are DOA. In addition to his recent comments, he kvetched about how little can actually get done in a reconciliation bill during a meeting with Senate Republicans last fall, instead urging Republicans to break the filibuster — a nonstarter for a significant swath of the conference.

Trump rekindled that push Thursday, telling senators in a Truth Social post to pass a GOP elections bill by insisting on a “talking filibuster” that would theoretically force Democrats to hold the floor indefinitely. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill, but many Republicans aren’t interested in skirting the chamber’s 60-vote supermajority requirement for most legislation.

The intraparty division is expected to come to a head next month at the House Republican retreat in south Florida, where a second reconciliation bill will be a topic of conversation. A previous closed-door meeting of GOP lawmakers in December grew heated, with vulnerable Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) saying it would “never” happen.

Reconciliation got a brief mention during a Senate GOP retreat earlier this month, but most of the focus was on a slate of bipartisan bills that could come up this year, as well as the need to promote last year’s megabill, according to attendees who were granted anonymity to describe the closed-door event.

But some Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee — including Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — are pushing for more. Graham has told his members that he plans to move forward with a budget resolution that would tee up a second reconciliation bill aimed at beefing up military and border spending, addressing health care costs and targeting fraud in social services.

But according to his committee members, Graham hasn’t given a strict timeline for when he’ll start moving, and there’s skepticism that it will amount to much without GOP leaders’ involvement.

“I don’t know how you move forward without the majority leader’s okay,” Kennedy said in an interview. “Senator Thune wants us to only work on bipartisan bills. I love Senator Thune like a taco, but he needs to back off the crank if he believes that. There aren’t going to be any bipartisan bills — we’re right in the middle of the midterm election. Our one shot to get something is reconciliation.”

One of the other challenges is litigating what exactly would go into a second reconciliation bill.

Senate conservatives have floated taking another crack at healthcare, but that would risk exposing deep GOP divisions just months before the midterms. Many of the party’s most unifying health care proposals were omitted from last year’s megabill because of the Senate’s strict rules governing reconciliation.

Some senior House Republicans have discussed attempting to codify Trump’s tariffs in another party-line bill. But that long-shot effort is now effectively dead after six Republicans voted this month to reject Trump’s levies on Canadian imports — with more such tariff votes to come.

Asked about the possibility of codifying tariffs in a party-line package, Smith reiterated in an interview, “There’s not going to be a second reconciliation bill.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Capitol agenda: China fears drive AI divide

Published

3 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans — and Congress — are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence.

And that fear of international competition is emerging as a key point of tension slowing down any path to AI safety legislation.

Even as almost two thirds of respondents in a new Blue Light News poll said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind other countries like China in an AI arms race.

A plurality, 43 percent, say it is okay for the U.S. to fall behind if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37 percent take the opposite view. Voters who backed Donald Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50 percent compared to just 34 percent of Kamala Harris voters.

Republican Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie argued the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance, and that AI legislation is too complex to rush — even if that means pushing off until next year consideration of a measure by his panel.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said Wednesday at Blue Light News’s Decoded Summit.

Meanwhile, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said competition isn’t a reason to avoid guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar said at the Decoded Summit.

Other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are trying to strike a balance. Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

Still, the emerging divisions spotlight a long road ahead for any consensus from Congress.

An attempt to quickly pass a bill requiring companies to build a “kill switch” into their AI models from Republican Sen. John Kennedy was blocked Wednesday by Sen. Rand Paul on the chamber’s floor.

And while Guthrie’s Senate counterpart, Commerce Chair Ted Cruz said Wednesday his hope was still to mark up this month a bipartisan AI safety bill from Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, lawmakers haven’t reached agreement to finalize the measure. Thune himself said Wednesday he was unsure it would happen before the midterms.

Cracks are also starting to show among the leading AI companies on what role they want Congress to play.

One example: Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck declined at Blue Light News’s summit to endorse a proposal for congressionally mandated independent AI monitoring — a day after competitor OpenAI endorsed it. The proposal is a key provision in Reps. Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan’s bipartisan AI safety measure.

The House’s early dismissal Wednesday only added to time pressure on lawmakers, who will return to a lame duck session with an already full calendar.

What else we’re watching:

— LEE BULLISH ON PERMITTING: Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee told fellow Republicans during a closed-door lunch Wednesday he is “guardedly optimistic” that negotiators will reach a long-sought deal on a bill to ease permitting approval for energy projects. “We were told today that the Democrats are going to agree to a permitting bill, and it’s going to be drafted and ready for us to vote on,” Kennedy said in an interview. Still, the top negotiators have yet to clinch an agreement, meaning the timeline could slip until after the midterms.

— SPY LAW TIMING UNCLEAR: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently warnedCongress that if it doesn’t vote on a controversial surveillance law by Nov. 20, the program could go dark, but it’s unclear congressional leadership can meet that deadline. Thune told reporters this week that there is an “interest” in trying to get Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorized, but didn’t commit to getting a vote before the midterms. With the House gone, reauthorization will wait until at least mid-November, regardless.

Riley Rogerson, Mia McCarthy, Anna Wiederkehr, Jordain Carney, John Sakellariadis and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Congress

Poll: China fears drive polarization on AI regulations

Published

6 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence. So is Congress.

A new POLITICO Poll finds that Americans broadly recognize serious risks from frontier AI models, but many — particularly President Donald Trump’s voters — also prioritize maintaining a lead over other countries, including China.

Even as 63% of the poll’s respondents said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind in order to mitigate that risk.

A plurality, 43%, say it is acceptable for the U.S. to fall behind other countries if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37% take the opposite view, saying the U.S. should not stand down, even if that requires taking risks. Voters who backed Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50% to 38%.

That split is already playing out on Capitol Hill as AI safety zooms to the center of congressional conversations. With legislation only slowly taking shape, fear of international competition stands to be a major point of tension during any bipartisan negotiations — with most lawmakers’ views divided closely along party lines.

Many Republican lawmakers said in interviews this week that pausing AI development could give China an opening to overtake U.S. capabilities. Democrats are also looking over their shoulders at Chinese advances, but they are cautioning that competition is not a reason for Congress to avoid instituting AI guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said during Wednesday’s Blue Light News Decoded Summit. “It’s an arms race that we need to end, and we need to protect the American people.”

Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in calling for a ban on “superintelligence” to stave off the existential threats to humanity — a concern that bubbled to the fore last week when a former Anthropic researcher warned AI could “kill us all.”

Senior Republicans are denigrating proposals like Casar’s, arguing that the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House committee overseeing the tech industry, said as much at the summit.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said. “And I think that’s what it would be if we stopped AI development.”

Guthrie further argued AI legislation is too complex to rush and that the Energy and Commerce Committee he leads might not take up AI legislation before next year. That sentiment is in line with Speaker Mike Johnson, who said this week that the U.S. must “maintain our edge over China.” Meanwhile, Trump has called the AI panic a “HOAX” and said that federal regulations would allow China to leapfrog the U.S.

Some Republicans have been almost flippant about the dilemma policymakers face in reconciling a potentially dangerous technology with their fear of Chinese competition.

“If there are going to be killer robots, I’d rather they be American killer robots,” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a recent POLITICO interview. Like Guthrie, Cruz chairs a committee overseeing tech matters.

Among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have locked arms in warning about the Chinese threat on other fronts, the familiar partisan divide is still emerging on AI regulation.

“We can lead in innovation and lead in safety,” said Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), who sits on the bipartisan Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “So if Trump or anyone else comes at it that we can only do one but not the other, he’s not looking at the history of the United States of America.”

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a moderate Republican China hawk, said he is “very reluctant to hinder AI” via regulation.

“They’re going to have to make the good case why we need it,” he said. “We don’t want to hinder our AI research. We can’t afford to fall behind China.”

Some, however, are being careful to strike a balanced tone as the AI safety conversation kicks into high gear.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House China panel, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

“There’s economic benefits to that,” he said. “There’s national security issues, but we want to have common sense and a deliberative process.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member and a co-chair of House Democrats’ AI commission, said China is “not waiting for anyone else.”

“So you can’t just leave the race, but you need to make sure you do it in the right way,” he added.

Opinions are sharper when it comes to Trump’s upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week and whether he should even broach some type of cooperation on AI safety.

“I don’t trust him,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said when asked if Trump should engage with Xi on AI. “I trust Trump.”

But many Democrats say it’s a mistake to engage in an AI arms race, with some explicitly reaching for analogies with the nuclear arms race that ended in Cold War treaties with a former global rival — the Soviet Union — limiting bomb tests and missile deployments.

Rep. Ted Lieu of California, another co-chair of the Democratic AI commission, said Trump could start small by asking Xi to “commit that they’re never going to let AI launch a nuclear weapon by itself.”

“There are things that we can do to get other countries to follow the lead the U.S. has taken in AI,” he said.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

14 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats aren’t letting rogue members off the hook for bucking their party. They hope Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won’t either.

“Obviously, there’s got to be” punishment for the two Democrats who twice this month bucked their party to advance a slate of Republican priorities, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in an interview.

“Otherwise, then,” he said, “it’s open season.”

Democrats are watching closely how — and if — Jeffries doles out consequences for Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington who have twice provided the decisive votes for GOP procedural measures this month. Jeffries and his leadership team condemned the two members when they first defected two weeks ago, slamming a “breach of trust” warranting a “serious response” but have yet to inflict any public consequences.

On Tuesday, they defied leadership a second time, infuriating House Democrats and resurrecting questions about how leadership plans to keep its caucus in line — especially if they have a slim majority next term.

“We have to all be united, and I think it’s pretty simple,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If there’s not [a punishment], I find it hard to see a path forward in the majority, which we’re all pushing for.”

Asked if leadership should punish the two aisle-crossers, Rep. Troy Carter pointed to his time as minority leader of the Louisiana state Senate: “When I had members that did not work within the confines of the philosophical views of our party, I took them off our caucus.”

“I don’t want to second-guess anybody’s timing, but I will tell you that these things cannot allow to fester,” he added. “We have to have a strict message: Either you’re with the team on those fundamental issues of governance or you aren’t.”

Multiple members, including Carter, said that removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the Appropriations Committee should be considered. (While members are just as angry at Golden, they acknowledge he’s beyond punishment given he is retiring at the end of this term.)

“I suspect that there are a number of appropriate consequences that [leaders] could implement,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “And, ultimately, it’s their decision. I certainly don’t want that to be a caucus decision. That should be a leadership decision.”

One leader, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, suggested she is open to removing Gluesenkamp Perez from Appropriations, telling reporters Wednesday morning that “team players get to sit on exclusive committees.”

After the first instance where the two Democrats defected on Sept. 1, Jeffries kicked the matter to a caucus rules panel, saying afterward he wanted to pursue action against the two members “sooner rather than later.” The panel continues to deliberate on what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures.

Jeffries said that week that he’d had a “productive” and “forward-looking” conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez, but he has said much less after Tuesday’s floor drama.

“I’ll have more to say about the issue when I have more to say about the issue,” he told Blue Light News shortly after the vote.