Congress

Republicans balk at going it alone on Iran war funding

Published

7 months ago

March 19, 2026

Congressional Republicans are confronting serious doubts they can pass Iran war funding on their own, especially as the potential price tag balloons into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The alternative — relying on a handful of Democrats to push it through the Senate — doesn’t look any more likely as Middle East hostilities expand, energy prices rise and more Democratic lawmakers dig in against an unpopular war.

In recent weeks, some in the GOP floated using the party-line budget reconciliation process to give the Pentagon a slug of new money without needing to gather 60 votes in the Senate. But the revelation that a war funding request could reach $200 billion has quickly cooled those hopes, given the political complications of finding offsets for the spending and the procedural gyrations it would require.

“It’s such a contortion to make things fit in reconciliation that there’s probably a preference for regular order,” Senate Armed Services Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) said in an interview.

The fresh doubts come on top of long-running warnings from at-risk Republican lawmakers that pursuing another party-line bill could force them into a politically painful position in the months ahead of the midterms. Spending tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on the war could lead Republicans to further slash safety-net programs as they did in last year’s “big, beautiful bill” — creating a messaging bonanza for Democrats.

“It’s not going to happen,” one House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said of a second reconciliation bill. “Certain people have to talk about it as a possibility and keep the issue alive.”

But many House Republicans argue that a party-line bill is the only viable option to deliver the war funding President Donald Trump wants.

As they quietly consider whether to send more U.S. troops to the Middle East, Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth each declined Thursday to dispute reports that the Pentagon is seeking a $200 billion request after it was first reported by the Washington Post.

“It’s a small price to pay to make sure that we stay tippy-top,” the president said in the Oval Office, adding that the military needs “vast amounts of ammunition” to fulfill its mission in Iran and elsewhere around the globe.

House GOP leaders and committee chairs discussed the possibility of adding military funding to a potential party-line bill during a closed-door meeting at their policy retreat in Florida last week.

“Can we accomplish his priorities in regular order in appropriations? I think it would be unlikely, because I don’t think Democrats are interested in supporting military spending right now,” House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), a longtime reconciliation cheerleader, said in an interview this week.

At the moment, “unlikely” is underselling the depth of Democrats’ aversion to funding the war. Even those senators who aren’t summarily ruling out support for an emergency funding bill say they would not possibly entertain it under the current circumstances.

“I’ve got to see the details,” said Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats. “To be honest, it’s going to be hard for me to support it because I think this war was a mistake, wasn’t justified, hasn’t been supported by the Congress.”

The sky-high $200 billion figure — which exceeds the Pentagon funding in last year’s GOP reconciliation bill and is higher than any supplemental funding bill enacted in the post-9/11 era — has some Republican hard-liners eager to pursue another budget reconciliation bill. Many argue it would pave the way for big cuts to domestic spending they oppose, including potentially Medicaid and other social programs.

“It would be very difficult to pass a very large supplemental without it being paid for,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus. “There are hundreds of billions of dollars we can still save in fraud, waste and abuse in reconciliation.”

Senate GOP appropriators are hoping to build bipartisan buy-in for Pentagon funding and see disaster aid and farm assistance as potential sweeteners for Democrats. Others are now floating attaching Ukraine aid, something with broad Democratic support and uneven GOP buy-in.

Still others, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), simply want to dare Democrats to vote against funding the military. “I’d hate to be the senator who denied the request … because you’ve got troops in harm’s way,” he said.

So far, most Democrats do not appear to be cowed by the threats or interested in horse-trading.

“Look, pinning us against our own interests isn’t something I’ll support,” said Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), a strong advocate for Ukraine aid.

House GOP leaders declined to tip their hand Thursday as they awaited a formal request from the White House, as well as Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget plan. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said war funding would be a matter of “negotiation” at some point, “but it hasn’t started yet.”

House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) cautioned that the discussions are “all speculative” for the time being while acknowledging reconciliation “might be the only way” to get Pentagon money through the Senate.

Across the Capitol, top Senate Republicans aren’t yet seriously considering trying to pass war funding on party lines — underscoring the longstanding split between House and Senate GOP leaders over how far they should go to pursue an election-year reconciliation bill.

The reticence among some Senate Republicans, according to three people granted anonymity to disclose private thinking, is that there isn’t yet a clear proposal that could get 50 GOP votes. Conservatives, they say, are floating an array of proposals that don’t have broader buy-in and could run afoul of the Senate’s strict reconciliation guidelines. And they expect a second bill would reopen the party’s old wounds over offsetting spending cuts.

“I’ll try and insist that we pay for it,” said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), one of the party’s loudest deficit hawks.

But without a party-line package, Senate Republicans will have to convince enough Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold, and they appear to be nowhere close.

“This administration needs to tell Congress definitely what they’re doing and how long this is going to take,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Appropriations Democrat. “We’re not going to write them a blank check.”

Katherine Tully-McManus and Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

FBI raids Beverly Hills mansion tied to former Eric Swalwell donor

Published

11 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The FBI on Tuesday raided a Los Angeles area mansion connected to Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire and former Democratic donor who was a close associate of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“The FBI is executing a federal search warrant” at the Beverly Hills mansion, which is listed on Cloobeck’s California business filings, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Los Angeles field office said in a statement.

No arrests are planned, and the affidavit for the search warrant remains sealed, the spokesperson said. The FBI search was related to “an ongoing criminal investigation,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement, declining to provide further details.

Cloobeck, a one-time California gubernatorial candidate, dropped his bid and donated more than $1 million to back Swalwell after he declared his candidacy. But he later said he had cut ties with the former lawmaker after sexual assault allegations against Swalwell emerged.

Swalwell resigned from Congress and dropped his gubernatorial bid but has denied the allegations. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Swalwell that included an FBI search of his Washington home in August, the AP reported at the time.

Cloobeck was arrested in May after Los Angeles County prosecutors charged him with allegedly attempting to impede victim or witness testimony. He was later released on bail and pleaded not guilty to all counts in August.

Cloobeck and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it has not taken part in the FBI’s Tuesday raid.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Democrats face reckoning on trans issues

Published

16 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A potential Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would face a serious split over whether to use its newfound power to protect transgender Americans.

Progressive lawmakers are pushing Democratic leaders to undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on trans people’s health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination.

But affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter the party, especially with many Democratic candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

One senior House Democrat serving on House Appropriations, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates, however, argued for a two-pronged approach to protecting trans people: passing legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals and using committee gavels to probe the Trump administration’s actions.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview, while the Human Rights Campaign’s Ramiro Sarmiento said Congress “needs to use every tool it has to push back” on Trump.

Jeffries did not respond to a request for comment, but other top Democrats are responding to the conflict between affordability and civil rights by asking: Why not both?

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark said in an interview. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

What else we’re watching:

— THE GOP’S SMALL DONOR PROBLEM: The GOP’s cash advantage over Democrats this cycle has been thanks to a small group of megadonors like Elon Musk. But when it comes to the grassroots donor base, there’s a stark contrast between the parties. Small donations through major online platforms have dipped for Republicans since 2022 while they’re up for Democrats by about a third. That’s left vulnerable Republican candidates more reliant on Trump’s campaign war chest and super PACs.

— GOP CLIMATE BLOC FACES WIPEOUT: A midterm blue wave could decimate the cohort of Republicans who advocate for addressing climate change and pursuing clean-energy policies. The Conservative Climate Caucus, a House GOP group that pushes for those policies, could lose up to a third of its members in the midterms, with 11 of 66 membersin tight races and another 15 more retiring. That would shrink the pool of negotiating partners for Democrats as they plan on a renewed push for climate legislation.

Congress

Democrats’ affordability message collides with calls to defend transgender rights

Published

19 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Some Democrats are fired up to use their potential majorities in Congress next year and undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender Americans. Others just want to focus on the cost of gas.

Ahead of the midterms, progressive lawmakers and congressional candidates are clashing with moderates in office and on the campaign trail over whether to pursue a legislative agenda that includes protecting trans people — whose health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination have been targeted by the administration.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey in an interview.

He is among nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates who said they want Democrats to pursue a two-pronged approach: pass legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals, and use committee gavels to compel public testimony from Trump officials on their efforts to undermine protections for trans and nonbinary people.

But the need to tackle affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of the Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many Democrats believe that their promise to lower the cost of living will be the reason they win back majorities in the House or the Senate.

Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter a new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, especially with some candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

Rep. Marc Veasey, a moderate Texas Democrat who is retiring this year, said “cultural issues” including transgender rights are “something we should dive into once [Trump] is gone.”

“The American public is going to want to see our caucus focus on costs as long as he continues to affect the markets negatively with his tariffs and wars,” he said.

Progressive advocacy groups and their Hill allies say they can’t wait. Democrats, they argue, should hold hearings on the DOJ’s decision last summer to subpoena more than 20 doctors and clinics who’ve provided gender-affirming care to obtain potentially patient-identifying information, advocates say, leading some hospitals to stop providing youth gender affirming care.

They also want Democrats to challenge the Education Department’s move last month to officially rescind anti-discrimination protections for transgender students instituted under former President Joe Biden. They’re pushing, too, for an investigation of the Justice Department’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for incarcerated people and policy against placing prisoners in populations consistent with their gender identity — a move which has faced legal challenges.

In terms of legislation, Democrats are sure to encounter limitations so long as long as Trump is in office. The president is opposed to the cornerstone piece of LGBTQ+ advocates’ agenda, the Equality Act, which would amend civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. It might not even have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster and get to Trump’s desk.

Democrats likewise are sure to run into resistance in trying to attach pro-transgender policies to must-pass legislative vehicles, such as government spending bills or the annual defense policy package. The same goes for any attempts to overrule or modify the administration’s suggested changes to the 2030 Census, which include a proposal to remove questions about sexual orientation.

That reality should not be a deterrent, argued Ramiro Sarmiento, national press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights advocacy group.

“Congress needs to use every tool it has to push back against the dismantling of protections at the federal level,” said Sarmiento.

He, along with Ian Thompson, senior legislative advocate at the ACLU, and Tyler Hack, founder and executive director of the Christopher Street Project — a hybrid PAC and nonprofit focused on building support for transgender rights in Congress — said their organizations have already begun preliminary conversations with several Democrats about the moves they could make to reverse or combat anti-trans-rights initiatives by Trump administration.

Those Democrats include longstanding LGBTQ+ rights champions like Markey and Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, plus progressive candidates like Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan and New York’s Claire Valdez and Brad Lander.

Hack conceded that trans protection issues are not what “most Americans are thinking about” but added, “Unfortunately, they are the issues that the White House is thinking about, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to be a check on their powers.”

The advocates say Trump’s executive orders and the GOP agenda have had drastic impacts on transgender Americans and their families, including by limiting their access to health care and identification documents that reflect their gender identity. It’s led some families with trans children to make plans to leave the country.

“I believe our role in Congress is to stand up for the little guys who are being picked on by bullies like Donald Trump and the Republicans,” Markey said about Democrats’ obligations.

They’re going up against Democrats who want nothing to do with any transgender-related fight as Republicans pummel their party for being out of touch and “woke.” GOP ads in nearly every battleground race have targeted their Democratic opponents over their party’s support for trans rights.

That has prompted numerous Democrats to run rebuttal ads, such as veteran Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s recent spot stating “boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

Alaska Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola told voters at a recent campaign event her “hope is that we don’t have to spend one second on a conversation about trans anything” in the next Congress, according to a Washington Sun report.

One senior House Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other culture war flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not respond to requests for comment on their plans for tackling trans-related issues in the coming Congress.

Advocates argue that issues of gender identity and equality are, in fact, pocketbook issues and cannot be simply shunted aside.

“When you are putting in place, for example, policies that say that you can’t get a driver’s license that accurately reflects who you are, or that you can’t use a public restroom, what you are telling people is they can’t work, they can’t hold a job or participate in the public life of our country,” the ACLU’s Thompson said. “Those have very significant economic consequences.”

Several senior House Democrats — Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 leader, Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the No. 4 leader, and Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat — said much the same in interviews.

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” Clark said. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

Riley Rogerson and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.