Congress

Republicans clash over policy wishlist as they seek to boost their midterm message

Published

4 months ago

May 8, 2026

With six months before the midterm elections, many congressional Republicans are hoping they’re not done legislating yet.

A party-line bill funding immigration enforcement and White House security measures is now on a path to passage. But many in the GOP are already making a wishlist for yet another bill they want to pass under the fast-track budget reconciliation process.

The imperatives, they say, are clear: Their party needs to do more to address cost-of-living matters before voters go to the polls in the fall.

“The American people universally want us to do more than what we’ve already done,” Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said in an interview.

Affordability, he added, “is the No. 1 issue that people are dealing with right now.”

It won’t be that easy. Not only are there different perspectives in the GOP over how to address high prices, the discussion over party-line legislation is tied up with a host of unrelated issues that could easily derail the delicate reconciliation process.

Those include funding for the ongoing war in Iran, tackling social service spending and a controversial elections bill that has stalled in the Senate — all of which have been subject of intraparty clashes this year.

While doubts have long persisted about the ability of the GOP’s thin House and Senate majorities to pass a followup to last year’s “big, beautiful bill,” the progress on the immigration enforcement bill has raised expectations that a third bite at the apple might be possible.

But nothing has motivated GOP lawmakers like the prospect of going into campaign season without having a robust agenda to run on — especially with the Iran conflict pushing fuel prices up about 50 percent in recent months.

Rep. John Rutherford (R-Fla.) said he doesn’t want the war “to sideline us because of the fuel prices back here in America,” adding that “we’ve got to move quickly.”

“If we can get these affordability things fixed,” he said, “the American public will keep us in the majority.”

Here are five major areas of active GOP discussions:

Affordability sweeteners

If Republicans can agree on anything, it’s centering any additional reconciliation bill on addressing cost-of-living concerns. If the legislation comes together, it will likely be a grab-bag affair.

With a bipartisan housing bill stalled out for now, GOP lawmakers are discussing incorporating components of that measure into the party-line package that would benefit first-time home buyers, according to four people granted anonymity to share details of private conversations.

Members are also discussing allowing “portable mortgages” and other ideas aimed at addressing borrowing rates — something a top Trump pollster told Republicans to focus on as far back as December.

Many Republicans are also eager to address rising health care costs, even if the topic stands to prompt fierce GOP infighting.

“Health care reform should be a part” of any new bill, Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) said in an interview. “That’s another thing that’s driving costs.”

While Republicans allowed enhanced Obamacare tax credits to expire last year and are highly unlikely to revive them, Wittman said other smaller-bore GOP policy ideas in the health care space could make it into law.

A ‘fraud’ crackdown

The most sweeping and controversial piece of the GOP reconciliation push surrounds an effort to root out alleged fraud in social service programs that many conservatives claim could amount to tens of billions of dollars.

House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) is cheerleading for the crackdown, which would focus on programs administered by states. Arrington is also eyeing some Obamacare cuts aimed at making the program more “efficient.”

An effort to roll back Medicaid and food-aid spending generated huge internal problems during last year’s megabill debate, but Arrington said the GOP could not skip a chance to crack down on wasteful spending.

“It’s all over the people’s government, and we’ve got to do what we did in SNAP and Medicaid, and make sure that the tax dollars are flowing to the people who need them — to American citizens who depend on these programs,” he said.

But there is wariness among more vulnerable Republican members who could be subject to a barrage of campaign attacks about safety-net cuts.

“Don’t mix a lot of other stuff in there that could put members in a precarious position back home,” Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) said in an interview, calling for a “very narrow” bill instead.

Iran war money

With Democrats unlikely to consent to any war funding, especially with hostilities unresolved, many Republicans want to add tens of billions of military dollars to a reconciliation bill to prevent a Senate filibuster.

Arrington, a fiscal hawk, said he expected Republicans to include “around $100 billion” to replenish military munitions amid the Iran conflict, along with additional defense funding.

“And then I think probably everything north of that is, how do we make our military more nimble, more effective, and how do we plan for deterrence and readiness in the future?” he added.

A larger Pentagon package could get more Republicans on board, but it would also force them to scramble for steep spending cuts to pay for it. A handful of at-risk Republicans are nervous about that idea, with some floating a separate package with new Ukraine aid as a way to entice some Democrats.

More tax cuts

The megabill was centered on massive tax cuts, and House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) is not about to pass up another chance to do more.

Some GOP lawmakers, including Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, are eyeing a cut on capital gains taxes by allowing taxpayers to adjust those gains for inflation.

Smith and Arrington, along with other committee chairs and senior Republicans, tried unsuccessfully to press Speaker Mike Johnson to expand the scope of the pending immigration enforcement bill to include tax cuts and other policies.

“Opening the tax code should be part of this exercise,” Arrington said.

Parts of SAVE America Act

With the elections bill known as the SAVE America Act stalled in the Senate for the foreseeable future, some Republicans want pieces of the legislation to be included in a third reconciliation package.

Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he plans to draft a fiscal blueprint for what’s being touted as “Reconciliation 3.0” with those pieces in mind. House Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) has also circulated a list of election integrity proposals that could be added to another party-line bill.

But the conservative hard-liners who are pushing for the SAVE America Act are highly skeptical that any meaningful provision of that bill could survive the strict Senate budgetary rules governing what can be included in a reconciliation bill.

They instead want the Senate to take up the elections measure as is — even if it means discarding the filibuster.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

32 minutes ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”