Congress

Republicans just took ICE spending fights off the table. It won’t end shutdown threats.

Published

4 weeks ago

June 10, 2026

Republicans just solved an immediate crisis with a party-line vote to fund immigration enforcement agencies into 2029. But that hardly improves the chances of avoiding a shutdown for the rest of the government.

Lawmakers in both parties say the odds of another federal funding lapse are unimproved, if not heightened, by the GOP’s move to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration and border security efforts for three years through the party-line budget reconciliation process.

The Sept. 30 government shutdown deadline, less than four months away, hits just weeks before the November elections that will determine which party controls the House and Senate next year. This electoral uncertainty was already complicating cross-party negotiations to fund federal agencies.

“It’s not helpful for sure,” Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, told reporters this week of the GOP’s party-line gambit. “It makes it very difficult for us moving forward.”

The Senate’s top appropriators, who are typically chummy, are at loggerheads over totals for the military and nondefense programs — prompting the cancellation this week of committee markups for the second week in a row.

Republicans’ move to stiff-arm Democrats has further soured negotiations to fund the government and raised concerns of more my-way-or-the-highway ultimatums from members on both sides.

“Does it mean that we avoid a shutdown in that area? Takes care of that,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, said about removing the need to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol past the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

“But how many other accounts do we have that we could have another kerfuffle?” she continued. “And all of a sudden we now have leverage, because we tried it once — and we pulled the trigger.”

Murkowski voted against the reconciliation bill last week — the only Senate Republican to do so.

It’s widely accepted on Capitol Hill that Congress will pass a stopgap funding bill to keep cash flowing for federal agencies past the midterms.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), who oversees annual transportation and housing spending, predicted this week that Congress will be crafting a funding patch come September. “I just hope we’re not seriously talking about a potential shutdown again,” he added. “We touched that stove once. It was pretty hot.”

Yet some are predicting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer will direct his members to band together to oppose a funding patch, as Democrats did last September in triggering a 43-day government shutdown.

“They do not want appropriation bills. They do want to shut down government,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told reporters about Democrats. “And they think they’re going to take the House and maybe the Senate and can get a better deal then.”

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins said Democrats “have made clear they are not willing to work with us” to pass government funding bills. But the Maine Republican also said she doesn’t think her party’s move to fund immigration enforcement through reconciliation “has an effect one way or another” on funding the rest of the government beyond September.

Though ICE and Border Patrol are now funded through September 2029, some Democrats say they are planning to use the dozen annual government funding bills as leverage to demand policy changes and funding cuts at those two agencies.

“I can tell you this: We’re going to try every which way to unfund these agencies,” Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), a member of the Appropriations Committee. “We have 12 bills that we have to pass. We have so many battles — this piece is one of them.”

Democrats had for months been demanding guardrails on Trump’s immigration enforcement activities as a condition of supporting enforcement funding after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota in January. When talks broke down, Republicans made the decision to act alone.

It’s not just ICE and Border Patrol that control immigration enforcement policy, though. Congress still has to fund the broader operations of DHS each year, including the office of Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who recently told lawmakers he couldn’t commit to following court orders.

“You still have to ultimately deal with the Homeland Security bills, and they’ve refused to rein in a lawless ICE operation,” Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a top Democratic appropriator, said in an interview. “That’s not changed.”

Some appropriators are holding out hope that collegiality on the House and Senate funding panels will ultimately prevail, if for no other reason than the margins of the Republican majorities in both chambers depend on it.

“You don’t have to have a master’s in logic to figure out that, at the end of the process, the bills in today’s Congress are going to have a bipartisan flavor,” Womack said, “because the numbers dictate that anybody that thinks otherwise is just simply not being intellectually honest about the situation that we happen to be in.”

After Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) proposed the idea this week of funding other controversial agencies through party-line reconciliation bills, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole immediately rejected the idea floated by one of his subcommittee chairs.

“We’re not doing that. I will just tell you flat out, that will not happen,” the Oklahoma Republican told reporters.

He also refuted the idea that the $70 billion party-line immigration enforcement package could be attractive for his colleagues to replicate going forward.

“I don’t think it’s a precedent,” Cole said. “But if it became a regular practice, I certainly wouldn’t be supporting it.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: Jeffries takes hands-off approach to Israel

Published

37 minutes ago

July 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Hakeem Jeffries is signaling how he’ll handle the issue most deeply dividing his party.

In short: very carefully.

U.S. support for Israel has emerged as a major internal Democratic fault line and portends to be a stinging headache for Jeffries next year as Israel skeptic after skeptic wins the party’s primaries.

Jeffries’ unenviable position came into starker contrast last week. The minority leader barely dodged a Democratic reckoning as his party debated whether to support a Republican-led measure to cut off aid to Israel.

As Democrats wrestled with how to approach that politically thorny vote, Jeffries offered little guidance, preferring to let his members hash out their differences in a pair of hour-plus caucus meetings that several House Democrats repeatedly described as “intense.”

Last week’s meetings, four of those present said, were not intended to galvanize the caucus behind a leadership-driven position, but rather present an opportunity for members to air their perspectives. Lawmakers across the ideological spectrum said they appreciated having forums to deliberate, and many suggested it could offer a model for how the potential speaker could manage his caucus in a majority.

But some Democrats warned an agree-to-disagree posture might not always fly on sensitive issues, especially if the party takes back the House next year. If elected speaker, Jeffries could stave off some of the most politically divisive votes, but a Republican minority could still force Democrats to confront their own internal disagreements.

One progressive House Democrat who has been critical of party leaders, Rep. Delia Ramirez, said the meetings were the first caucus-wide opportunity to discuss Israel during her two terms in Congress.

“I don’t think it’s been an easy process for him as a leader,” Ramirez said about Jeffries. “But I do appreciate that he’s open for us to have a real dialogue, and that he hasn’t in any way suppressed the voices of the people there. He’s been really intentional about listening.”

Jeffries told members he plans to give more specific guidance once the House returns and a vote on the appropriations amendment is confirmed, but that might not be for a while. The measure, from Rep. Thomas Massie, was poised for a vote last week until unrelated Republican dysfunction delayed consideration indefinitely.

In the meantime, Jeffries declined to state his position on the measure, which is unlikely to garner enough Republican support to be adopted.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen differently to get to a place where there’s a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and we all need to focus on actually achieving a two-state solution once and for all,” Jeffries said in response to a question from Blue Light News last week.

But Jeffries has hinted a bit more to his caucus where he would ultimately land on the amendment. In one of the meetings, Jeffries read a statement opposing the amendment from the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street, according to a person in the room granted anonymity to discuss the private remarks.

What else we’re watching:

— JOHNSON WANTS TO MAKE SAVE AMERICA ‘IRRESISTABLE’ TO GOP: Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to reset his strategy to enact the SAVE America Act after an intraparty feud over the bill shut down his chamber last week. In a “Fox News Sunday” interview, Johnson pushed back on hard-liners’ protest of his proposal to meet their demands on the measure. He reiterated his desire to include the legislation in a party-line reconciliation bill. And he stated President Donald Trump will accept a version of the election security bill that doesn’t crack down on mail-in voting — an issue that threatens to cost the measure Republican support.

— WHO WANTS TO BE A TOP HILL TAX WRITER? — Lawmakers are jockeying for open seats on Congress’ powerful tax writing committees, as exits by several members in both parties next year deplete ranks. At least three Democrats and four Republicans on House Ways and Means are leaving at the end of the year. Across the Capitol, five Republicans and one Democrat plan to depart Senate Finance. Members on both panels hold sway over major party priorities, like last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Emilio Perez Ibarguen and Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.

Congress

How Hakeem Jeffries is handling the most divisive issue in Democratic politics

Published

4 hours ago

July 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats are fiercely divided over a proposed cut to Israel aid. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries hasn’t so far tried to unite them.

Lawmakers were set to weigh in on the matter last week before an unrelated Republican meltdown sent them home early for the Independence Day recess — but not before it forced a reckoning inside the Democratic ranks on an issue that has dominated party primaries this year.

Hard-left candidates Darializa Avila Chevalier and Brad Lander in New York as well as Melat Kiros in Colorado ousted incumbents after hitting them — and leaders — for taking money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Now, thanks to an appropriations amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that would cut off aid to Israel, the internal fight among Democrats is live on Capitol Hill — and Jeffries is in the middle of it.

As Democrats wrestled with how to approach the politically thorny vote, Jeffries offered little guidance, preferring to let his members hash out their differences in two lengthy private caucus meetings.

“Politics, at least in the Democratic primary, has evolved to the point where folks who don’t know this issue very well are looking for guidance,” Rep. Greg Landsman of Ohio, a pro-Israel Democrat, said in an interview last week.

Jeffries, who represents a significant orthodox Jewish community in his Brooklyn congressional district, historically has been a strong supporter of Israel. When he first ran for the House in 2012, Sen. Chuck Schumer called him a “true blue friend of Israel” in the course of endorsing him in an open-seat primary.

But the politics surrounding Israel have been transformed in the decade-and-a-half since — and especially since Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched his invasion of Gaza in the wake of the October 2023 Hamas terror attacks.

Now U.S. support for Israel has emerged as a major internal Democratic fault line and portends to be a massive headache for Jeffries next year as Israel skeptic after Israel skeptic wins the party’s primaries.

He has given some signals in recent months about how he plans to handle the shift in sentiment — in short, very carefully.

Jeffries declined to state his position on the Massie amendment last week, saying in response to a question from Blue Light News, “There’s a lot that needs to happen differently to get to a place where there’s a just and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and we all need to focus on actually achieving a two-state solution once and for all.”

He has told members he plans to give more specific guidance once a vote is confirmed. In one of the caucus meetings, Jeffries read a statement opposing the amendment from the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street, according to a person in the room granted anonymity to discuss the private remarks.

Members across the ideological spectrum said last week they appreciated having forums to deliberate, and many suggested it could offer a model for how the potential speaker could manage his caucus in a majority. But some Democrats warned an agree-to-disagree posture might not always fly on sensitive issues.

Massie’s Israel amendment is unlikely to be adopted — very few of his fellow Republicans are expected to support it — but it has fractured House Democrats along loosely ideological lines all the same.

Progressives generally support the amendment, which would also cut $3.3 billion in foreign military aid in addition to blocking funding for Israel. Meanwhile, many leadership-aligned members and moderates have said the amendment is poorly written and believe it could also restrict humanitarian support for Palestinians.

The friction led leaders to convene a pair of hour-plus caucus meetings that several House Democrats repeatedly described as “intense.” The meetings, four of those present said, were not intended to galvanize the caucus behind a leadership-driven position, but rather present an opportunity for members to air their perspectives.

The meetings were scheduled after concerns emerged about Massie’s amendment during a weekly leadership meeting last month. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), who was present, said members demanded time to openly discuss the issue, and Jeffries complied.

Balint said the message sent to leaders was, “We need to talk about it sooner rather than later.”

“This is really a very robust conversation that we need to have, whether it comes up this week or in the future,” she said. “How do we continue to address this issue when we know it’s going to be the issue that the Republicans are going to use to try to drive a wedge between us?”

One progressive House Democrat who has been critical of party leaders, Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois, said the meetings were the first caucuswide opportunity to discuss Israel during her two terms in Congress.

As minority leader, Jeffries has rallied his caucus around several discharge petitions — including one to extend expiring Affordable Care Act tax credits — and a war powers resolution to restrain the Trump administration on Iran. Those efforts have tended to divide Republicans and force uncomfortable conversations within the GOP conference.

If elected speaker, Jeffries would control the floor agenda and could stave off some of the most politically divisive votes. But even in the minority, Republicans would have the same tools at their disposal as Jeffries, which they could use to force Democrats to confront their own internal disagreements — including on Israel.

Jeffries has kept his powder dry on other contentious topics this term. As the House considered extending key surveillance powers in April, he stayed in the background, instead leaving it to Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Intelligence Committee Democrat, and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Judiciary Committee Democrat, to make their respective cases for and against.

When a 45-day extension of the spy power came to the floor, Democrats split 94-85.

But Jeffries later showed on that issue that he can galvanize his caucus when consensus emerges. After Trump appointed MAGA ally Bill Pulte to serve as acting director of national intelligence, Jeffries rallied nearly all of his caucus to oppose an extension until Pulte is no longer serving.

“There are issues where he knows that we’ve got to stick together,” said a House Democrat who was granted anonymity to discuss internal caucus dynamics. “There are issues that he knows that people have different ways of thinking, like on [Israel]. And I think that’s good that he allows us to do that, because if he would whip one way or the other, there’s some people that feel very strongly.”

Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) said Jeffries’ predecessor as top Democrat, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, also had to pick her political battles — despite her reputation as a hard-nosed leader who made firm decisions and brooked little dissent afterward. But he said he was not surprised to see a softer touch in Jeffries.

“I don’t think Hakeem is the kind of guy to bash heads,” Beyer said in an interview. “He will try to do it by persuasion, by showing the common good, by saying, ‘This is good for America.’”

Congress

The midterms are months away. The scramble to get on Congress’ tax writing committees has already started.

Published

4 hours ago

July 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A giant wave of departures is set to hit Capitol Hill’s tax writing committees in the next Congress, jumpstarting the competition to fill some critical gaps in institutional knowledge and ideological representation across two powerful panels.

On the House Ways and Means Committee, three Democrats plan to leave office next year: Reps. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, Danny Davis of Illinois and Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania. Two others — Reps. Tom Suozzi of New York and Steven Horsford of Nevada — are not guaranteed to prevail in tight races, which would create additional openings.

Four Ways and Means Republicans — Reps. Vern Buchanan of Florida, Jodey Arrington of Texas, Kevin Hern of Oklahoma and David Schweikert of Arizona — are also headed for the exits.

In the Senate, the Finance Committee is expected to lose one Democrat, Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota, as well as five Republicans: Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Steve Daines of Montana, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.

Landing an assignment on these high-profile committees is considered a coup that can often take years to achieve. Both play a role in producing major tax legislation, leading to landmark laws like last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the Affordable Care Act of 2010. And in the next Congress, it will be where Republicans work to help President Donald Trump cement his legacy of tax cuts, while Democrats build out a tax platform to run on in 2028 — their next chance to win a governing trifecta to codify their agenda.

Adding to the prestige: Members of Senate Finance and Ways and Means are typically among the best funded, given the scope and reach of the committees’ purviews and the special interests eager to curry favor.

Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) said in a recent interview he has met with more than 10 Republicans who are vying to get onto his panel. Among the lead contenders are Reps. Vince Fong of California, Brian Jack of Georgia and Tony Wied of Wisconsin, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private GOP dynamics.

The committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, said “it’s going to be a hot spot next year” if his party wins back control of the House in the midterms.

Selection for new members of Ways and Means won’t take place until after the elections, and for each party the process is overseen by a slate of lawmakers representing leadership and different geographical regions.

Jockeying is particularly active right now among House Democrats, who are feeling bullish about winning the majority in November and could, in that scenario, gain as many as 10 or more seats on the panel.

Neal said the work of populating the committee on his side of the dais is “really only speculative until you win,” but that “you want to make sure it’s a reflection of the caucus.”

That could create an opening for additional progressive members to join, given the success of far-left candidates in primary elections this cycle plus the planned retirement of Doggett, one of the longest-serving liberal voices on the committee.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas could use this gap to his advantage. While he would not comment on his active interest in joining Ways and Means, two people familiar with caucus dynamics — granted anonymity to speak candidly — said he’s going for it.

“My focus as Progressive Caucus chair is on helping make sure that we have progressive members well represented across all of the exclusive committees,” Casar said in an interview.

Another progressive from the southwest, Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez of New Mexico, is also angling for a spot, according to two people familiar with the active conversations.

One Democrat widely considered a frontrunner is Kentucky Rep. Morgan McGarvey, a vice chair of the Progressive Caucus who represents a blue district that includes Louisville. He has co-sponsored legislation on clean energy tax incentives and other affordability tax credits, and would help fill out the southern region’s representation.

Rep. Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, is also seen as having a competitive edge. She can boast having worked on legislation with Ways and Means Republican Blake Moore of Utah that would set up low-income housing tax credits for servicemembers.

In signs these two members have been playing the long game, McGarvey and Strickland have donated three years in a row to the annual fundraising dinner Neal hosts on behalf of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. A member’s willingness to spend generously on the party can tip the scales in their favor.

Six other Democrats contributed to Neal’s dinner this year for the first time — a sign they, too, could be seeking promotions to the panel. Those members are Reps. Tim Kennedy of New York, Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan, Rep. Andrea Salinas of Oregon, Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, Johnny Olszewski of Maryland and Hillary Scholten of Michigan.

Ways and Means has not historically been stacked with frontliners because committee members are regularly forced to take politically difficult votes. McGarvey and Strickland have a leg up in this regard because they represent safe Democratic districts.

But it could undermine the ambitions of three more vulnerable Democrats vying to fill a hole in midwestern representation on the panel due to Davis’ retirement: Scholten, McDonald Rivet and Rep. Emilia Sykes of Ohio.

Those three members, however, have experience pushing for tax credits that would benefit their manufacturing-heavy region. And they are women at a time when Democrats should be taking gender into account when making committee assignments, said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), who spent four years trying to get onto Ways and Means before finally winning a slot in 2019.

If Democrats flip the House, four of the six subcommittees could be chaired by women, said Beyer, “which would be unprecedented.”

Also weighing on Democrats could be that three of the departing Ways and Means Democrats are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, potentially giving an edge to Strickland, Amo and Sykes.

Across the Capitol, at least four Republicans are looking to serve on the Senate Finance Committee. According to one person granted anonymity to describe internal party dynamics, those lawmakers include Sens. John Curtis of Utah, Bernie Moreno of Ohio, David McCormick of Pennsylvania and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska.

These GOP contenders, and any others, will be evaluated by the so-called Committee on Committees, which is incidentally chaired by the top Republican on Senate Finance, Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho.

Crapo, in an interview, explained the first pick always goes to Senate Majority Leader John Thune; the second senator must be selected based on seniority. Lawmakers will be chosen according to this alternating pattern until all the open GOP seats on the Finance Committee are filled.

But nothing is settled until after the midterm elections, Crapo said, “and at that time, we can make the decisions. The leader … sometimes consults with me, and sometimes doesn’t, with regard to his pick. But none of that’s going on right now.”

Crapo did acknowledge there’s always quiet jockeying: “It never stops. …There are always members of the Senate who are not on the committee who are letting their desires be known.”

On the Democratic side, no senators are currently making their interest in joining the Finance Committee publicly known. But the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, in an interview mirrored Crapo’s assessment of the competitive landscape.

“Without getting into details,” Wyden said, “there’s always lots of interest and I’ll leave it at that.”

Brian Faler contributed to this report.