Congress

Republicans sit tight as Trump pushes for mail voting crackdown

Published

4 months ago

February 18, 2026

President Donald Trump is pushing Congress to end mail voting as Americans have come to know it. So far, Republican lawmakers aren’t heeding his calls.

Trump has long railed against the expansion of vote-by-mail, arguing despite scant evidence that it is rife with fraud and suggesting it was responsible in part for his 2020 election loss. Since retaking office, he has repeatedly called for action — most recently Monday night to reporters on Air Force One.

“Why would you want mail-in ballots if you know it’s corrupt?” Trump said. “It’s a corrupt system.”

But other Republicans don’t see it that way — many of their own voters have voted by mail consistently for decades. So far, the type of blanket ban on mail voting Trump wants has not gained traction on Capitol Hill as GOP lawmakers counsel for a more targeted approach.

“I support the use of mail-in voting,” said Rep. Mike Lawler, a New York Republican facing a tight reelection contest. “The idea that some states just mail out ballots without any requests is absurd, but the use of mail-in balloting, I do not have an objection.”

A sweeping elections bill the House passed last week, the SAVE America Act, included strict proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration and new photo-ID rules for casting ballots.

But it did not address voting by mail — even though Trump publicly called for a crackdown in a Truth Social post just three days before the vote: “NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPT FOR ILLNESS, DISABILITY, MILITARY, OR TRAVEL!)”

Behind the scenes, the White House pushed to include language in the bill that would prohibit mail-in voting, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the issue. But that risked losing support from some Republicans and endangering the bill’s ability to pass the narrowly divided House, and it was ultimately left out.

A White House website touting the bill still lists “No Mail-in Ballots” as one of its features.

Asked about the discrepancy, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement that Trump “has repeatedly urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to ensure the safety and security of our elections.”

Several House Republicans said in interviews over the past week they sympathized with Trump’s push to crack down on mailed ballots, but many couched their words carefully. A number hail from states like Florida that have a long history of expansive mail voting and little evidence that the practice has been abused.

Even as the president pushed to curtail mailed ballots, the RNC and state Republican parties worked to take advantage of the practice during the 2024 campaign to increase voter turnout — and they are planning to do much the same in 2026.

Instead, many congressional Republicans insist that Trump is really targeting states like California, Oregon and Utah that conduct their elections almost entirely by mail. Others emphasize the need for exceptions, as Trump has acknowledged, for cases of illness, military service and other reasons they view as legitimate, as well as the other election changes Trump is backing.

“We have to be very cautious about mail-in-ballot voting,” Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.) said in an interview. “But I think that if we get the registration process correct, then that’ll fix a lot of this.”

GOP Rep. Byron Donalds, who is running for governor in Florida, said his state’s laws should serve as a model for the country. Florida voters have to request a mail-in ballot and include identification. But there is no limitation on who can request a mail ballot along the lines of what Trump is proposing.

“In Florida, we treat ballots like they’re evidence in a trial,” Donalds said. “Other states need to follow that. … I think that’s what the White House is referencing. You just can’t have ballots out there in the ether.”

Another elections bill moving through the House, the Make Elections Great Again Act, does include provisions dealing with mail voting — including language aimed at preventing “ballot harvesting” where third parties collect ballots on voters’ behalf. It would also ban “universal” vote-by-mail where ballots are sent to all registered voters — but would not narrow who could request a mailed ballot.

That policy appears to be more in keeping with what most GOP lawmakers envision for an elections overhaul — and they insist that is what Trump in fact supports.

“If you’re sick and you can’t get to the polling [place], he wants you to have a ballot. If you’re a military member, he wants you to have a ballot,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said of the president. “Who he doesn’t want to have a ballot is the illegal alien that registered or even a lawful alien who got a driver’s license to be registered to vote and get a mail-in ballot.”

The MEGA Act is sponsored by House Administration Committee Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and was the subject of a recent hearing. But it has not yet moved through the panel or been scheduled for the House floor.

The SAVE America Act also appears likely to stall in the Senate, despite a conservative effort to utilize a so-called talking filibuster to skirt Democratic opposition there.

Trump appears to be recognizing the obstacles to his elections agenda on Capitol Hill.

In a Friday Truth Social post, he suggested he would take executive action to implement “Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not,” while also mentioning “No Mail-In Ballots, with exceptions for Military, Disability, Illness, or Travel.”

But to Republicans like Lawler, who voted for the SAVE America Act and is facing a tough reelection fight this year, the GOP’s efforts going forward would be best spent making sure “people get out and vote.”

“If they vote by mail, if they vote early, if they vote on Election Day, the objective is to get them out and vote,” he said.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

‘Trying to read the tea leaves’: Ted Cruz offers few clues on his AI agenda

Published

60 minutes ago

June 25, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Few lawmakers have as much influence over the fate of artificial intelligence legislation as Sen. Ted Cruz, but he’s keeping people guessing about how he’ll use that power.

As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Texas Republican has pledged to convene members to vote on bills that would regulate the AI industry. He asked GOP members of the panel several weeks ago to submit their proposals.

“This markup is designed to move legislation that has a real chance of passing into law,” Cruz said in an interview this week, adding that he was vetting bills depending on “what bipartisan agreement and consensus can be reached.”

Cruz’s aides, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the senator believes the federal government should take “targeted” action in “truly novel circumstances” where existing laws are silent — such as catastrophic risk, deepfakes and chatbots.

But they also concede that GOP committee staff is still reviewing dozens of existing bills, and what measures will make the cut for the scheduled late July markup remain in flux. Senators on the panel also say they haven’t heard from Cruz about his criteria for what AI legislation to put on the agenda.

It’s bringing real uncertainty to what Congress might accomplish on the high-stakes issue this year. It also underscores how Cruz, a one-time presidential candidate who could run again in 2028, is attempting to carefully navigate one of the most politically divisive policy debates of the midterms.

Cruz has even avoided saying whether he’ll allow the committee to vote on an emerging deal between Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and the White House that would bundle a kids’ online safety package with preemptions of specific state laws.

He said this week he “fully expects” that Blackburn’s bill, known as the Kids Online Safety Act, “will be on the next markup as a part of the package addressing AI and children’s safety.” But he declined to say whether he’ll bring up any revised bill text Blackburn brokers with the blessing of President Donald Trump.

A Blackburn spokesperson did not return requests for comment Wednesday, nor did the White House.

The outlook for how Cruz plans to legislate around AI is further clouded by his own record on the issue.

Back in 2024, Cruz was warning against broad regulation of AI, saying that “Big Tech and the Radical Left” were poised to empower the administrative state, kill innovation and cause the U.S. to lose the AI race with China. He pursued efforts to undercut a Biden administration executive order that took a more hands-on approach to regulating the industry.

As Cruz was preparing to take the gavel in the waning days of the Democratic majority, then-Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell of Washington accused him of opposing the inclusion of seven AI bills in a year-end government funding package — even though those bills had been advanced by the committee on a bipartisan basis.

Cruz’s aides disputed this characterization, saying there was no single lawmaker holding up the bills in late 2024 and House GOP leaders had issues, too. Cantwell, now the committee’s senior Democrat, said in an interview Wednesday the measures “would have helped us in regulating some of the biggest national security concerns.”

She added she’s now “trying to read the tea leaves” about what Cruz has planned for the upcoming markup. At least one Republican said he thinks Cruz has undergone a “very significant pivot” when it comes to engagement and interest around AI that could offer some clues.

“He originally had the position that we didn’t need to adopt any AI legislation whatsoever — that we should just allow the market to work,” Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a member of the committee who is heavily involved in AI policy, said in an interview. “My sense is he has adopted a different position now, and I’m gratified by that.”

As for what accounts for the shift, Young said, “you’ll have to ask him why he’s become more inclined to legislate in this space.” But he acknowledged that “many people are coming to recognize” that it would be a mistake to allow the rapidly evolving technology to go unchecked.

Cruz’s aides disagreed with Young’s characterization. They note Cruz championed a measure making it a crime to publish nonconsensual sexual images — including AI-generated content — which was signed into law last year with support from first lady Melania Trump. Cruz is also pushing legislation that would regulate chatbots, or online apps that mimic human conversation and can pose harm for children.

His aides also said Cruz continues to believe too much federal government intervention into AI policy could threaten innovation and stifle freedom of expression.

Adam Thierer, a resident senior fellow at the right-leaning R Street Institute, said Republicans at the start of the Trump administration seemed to be waiting for cues from the White House before taking a firm position. That has changed as the White House scrambles to enact its own rules governing AI while urging Congress to codify a federal regulatory framework.

Cruz tried, and failed, to include a provision in the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer that would have enacted a 10-year moratorium on the ability of states to set their own AI laws. Yet in just one year, Thierer said, the political landscape has transformed, and now preempting state AI laws is basically a nonstarter.

“It’s quite a reversal,” Thierer said. “Even limited preemption has become extraordinarily toxic because a whole bunch of people have come to believe what states are doing benefits them.”

Last fall, Cruz released an AI policy framework that aligned with Trump’s AI action plan, which laid out a “light-touch” regulatory strategy; Cruz’s aides suggested the senator plans to build on this blueprint. In December, Cruz was standing beside Trump for the signing of an executive order that would empower the federal government to evaluate and challenge state AI laws.

“I think they have a heightened sense of urgency, which is understandable because it has become increasingly urgent, and one of the major questions is whether Congress can keep pace with the accelerating rate of change in AI,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) of Republicans.

In the meantime, Cruz is facing tough choices about what bills to advance.

Cantwell said Wednesday she wants to see the seven bills that passed out of committee when she was chair, which she accused Cruz of undermining, taken up again next month. And a refusal to facilitate consideration of a potential Blackburn-White House agreement could put Cruz at odds with the president.

Cruz also could end up alienating colleagues whose support he needs on other legislative priorities in the coming months — including a major bill to overhaul the college sports industry.

Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah), a member of the Commerce Committee who has his own bill targeting chatbots that would go further than Cruz’s proposal, in an interview expressed some sympathy for the chair.

“Look, it’s a tough topic, right? There’s not a lot of consensus, and so anything that he can do to even further the conversation, I welcome,” he said. “I think we need to be having these conversations. I think we need to be having the hearings. Until we do, we won’t get to the right answer.”

Congress

The Squad 2.0 is coming — and they’re ready to frustrate Hakeem Jeffries

Published

10 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Hakeem Jeffries has met his nightmare scenario: The Squad 2.0 is coming to Capitol Hill.

A trio of hard-left Democrats who won House primaries Tuesday in New York City boast among them eight protest-related arrests, three endorsements from Mayor Zohran Mamdani, two Democratic Socialist of America memberships, an average age of 41 and just one commitment to vote for Jeffries as the next speaker.

That adds up to a major governing challenge emerging for the House Democratic leader next year, when he will have to come to grips with a brash and emboldened faction of his caucus who believe they have a mandate to yank their party leftward.

”I know we all share very fierce values on things like guaranteed health care, raising wages, expanding union rights, and so I think our hope is that we use our ability in the majority to change people’s lives and make their lives better,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday, reacting to the primary night earthquake in her hometown.

Eight years ago it was Ocasio-Cortez who was shaking up a hidebound Democratic leadership, sending the sitting No. 3 party leader into retirement and inaugurating a tight-knit “Squad” of unabashed progressives.

Now the left-wing bloc is expanding and on the cusp of asserting real power. It’s a function of the tight margin Democrats are likely to have if they can eke out a majority in November, coupled with Jeffries’ relative inexperience as top leader as compared with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the obvious progressive lurch of the party’s voting base on display Tuesday night.

Brad Lander, a longtime New York City official, walloped incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman. State legislator Claire Valdez trounced a Democratic opponent who ran with establishment support to replace retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez. And, in the biggest upset of the night, activist Darializa Avila Chevalier defeated longtime Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus chair.

Jeffries and fellow House Democratic leaders have shrugged off the prospect of future caucus infighting. He told reporters this week that while he disagreed strongly with Mamdani’s endorsements, “a handful of primaries that go in one direction or the other in a given state or two aren’t going to reshape who we are as House Democrats.”

“We’ve been very clear,” Jeffries said. “What brings us together is a focus on driving down the high cost of living, fixing our broken health care systems, and cleaning up corruption.”

But the existing cadre of left-leaning House Democrats said Wednesday they are excited to have backup — even if some identify with the fractious DSA, which has been openly at odds with national Democratic Party leaders.

“Whether it’s DSA or progressive Democrats, we will have more power and more leverage,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former Congressional Progressive Caucus chair.

“We shouldn’t be moderating,” she added. “Having that ability to form a voting bloc, a bigger voting bloc, and a stronger voting bloc … allows us to continue to push for truly transformational policies that lift working people.”

The New Yorkers are all contesting deep-blue districts and are all but guaranteed victory in November, and they won’t be alone in beefing up the hard-left faction next year. Chris Rabb of Pennsylvania and Daniel Biss of Illinois are on track to join them, along with Rep. Analilia Mejia, who won a New Jersey special election earlier this year.

That’s in addition to the original squad members, Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Ocasio-Cortez.

“Our team of progressive champions is growing,” Lander said during his Tuesday night victory speech. “I believe it will continue to grow in the months ahead.”

That could spell trouble for Jeffries, who has spent the past year-and-a-half cajoling his caucus into a unified message around lowering costs and accountability for the Trump administration. The new class of progressives threaten to unravel that work, using their platforms to force Democrats into uncomfortable — and politically precarious — conversations about support for Israel, Green New Deal environmental policies, defunding the police and the ethical bounds of immigration enforcement.

Avila Chevalier has emerged as a particular flashpoint. She has argued in recent interviews that all deportations are wrong, including for people convicted of breaking U.S. laws. Her deleted social media posts — later unearthed by CNN — express a deep disdain for the Democratic establishment including one reading, “Fuck Kamala Harris.”

Avila Chevalier and Valdez have not committed to backing Jeffries as speaker should Democrats take the majority. While they have said little publicly about him, they have also done little to dispel animosity among their supporters for their fellow New Yorker.

At Valdez’ Election Night party, supporters booed Jeffries and chanted, “You’re next.”

If Democrats win a slim majority, these progressives could wield considerable power. Much as the House Freedom Caucus has rocked the Republican Conference by withholding its votes on party priorities, the new progressives will have similar leverage. The AOC-centric “Squad” mostly avoided those tactics in the four years they had the majority — in part because they didn’t have the requisite numbers.

Valdez suggested she would not hesitate to deploy hardball tactics, criticizing her main primary opponent, Antonio Reynoso, on the campaign trail for not being aggressive enough. The person who represents her district in Congress, she recently told The New York Times, should “have real moral courage and conviction.”

More moderate Democrats are warning a clash is inevitable — and worrying about the political price the party as a whole could pay. House Republicans spent their morning caucus meeting salivating over the opportunity to paint their Democratic opponents as Marxists.

“I hope Jeffries is ready for the fight, because he’s got himself one now,” said one Democratic centrist, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If it’s a tight majority, you’re going to see a huge tug of war between more moderate Democrats and people who want to get stuff done, and bomb throwers who are just trying to disrupt.”

Rep. Vicente Gonzales (D-Texas) said he had a “huge concern” about having to defend against attacks based on statements and positions taken by hard-left members.

“A lot of these policies that obviously I don’t agree with, and would be very difficult for me to sell to people in South Texas, and I don’t intend to sell them, because I don’t believe in most of them myself,” he said.

The progressives won’t be alone in the new class of incoming Democrats. More moderate candidates such as former Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah and Cait Conley of New York also won House primaries Tuesday. If Democrats take the majority, it will be in part because of a cadre of centrists who will be intent on beating back the left.

Those who were around for the rise of the original Squad said they were confident the vast ideological differences would eventually get bridged.

“It will be nothing special,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar of California, the Democratic Caucus chair. “We’ll talk with them about their hopes and their aspirations to represent their districts and what committees they want to serve on. … We look forward to building a relationship.”

Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez had to weather a similar storm after the class of 2018 was sworn in. After months of crossfire on social media and the House floor, the two eventually reached a public détente. Ocasio-Cortez, notably, did not endorse any of the New York progressives, who were running against incumbents or candidates with leadership backing.

“AOC has been part of our caucus for a long time,” Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said. “You know what representative government is? It represents. It means that every voice is represented.”

Yet by the time Ocasio-Cortez came to Congress, Pelosi was 16 years into her leadership of House Democrats, had four years as speaker under her belt and decades of experience as a cold-blooded political operator.

Jeffries does not have that level of seasoning, nor is he politically rooted in the progressive wing of the caucus as Pelosi was. He built his power base through the Congressional Black Caucus and ties to New York business interests and once co-led a PAC to protect incumbents from progressive challengers.

But veterans of the Democratic left said they expect him to make peace with the incoming insurgents by any means necessary.

“I’m sure he will do what Pelosi did,” Jayapal said, “which is cajole, bribe, make deals with, get to know, build a relationship with all of these new members, and that’s going to be a big part of his task as he comes in.”

Ali Bianco contributed to this report.

Congress

GOP hard-liners outline anti-abortion, military funding demands for party-line bill

Published

12 hours ago

June 24, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Freedom Caucus sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on Wednesday outlining its demands for a third reconciliation bill, including extending a prohibition on federal funding for abortion providers and immediately paying for any new spending.

“This is our last and best chance to prove they were right to send us here to fight for them,” the House Freedom Caucus Board of Directors wrote in the letter, referring to U.S. voters who gave the GOP control of both chambers this Congress. “That is why any Reconciliation 3.0 bill must be focused on wins for the American people.”

The letter comes as House Republicans have started to move ahead on another party-line package, though without consensus on the details of what the legislation will actually include. The conference is considering provisions to fund the war in Iran alongside other policies related to affordability and health care. The bill is also expected to tackle alleged fraud in government programs as one way to offset the costs.

Several members of the conservative hard-liner group in recent weeks have warned they would only support the upcoming bill if any new spending included in it is fully paid for. Some members, like Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, have also said the pay-fors need to be immediate — not several years in the future.

In the letter, the members also told Johnson the next bill should eliminate clean energy tax credits — something they pushed for in the first reconciliation bill last year. The lawmakers are also asking for reforms to health care, the removal of certain firearm-related taxes and “responsible short-term funding for key government personnel and services” to prevent another government shutdown ahead of the midterms.

With the military funding portion of the reconciliation bill, the members requested the package should be used to “modernize our military and deliver clear America First national security priorities.”

“Together with President Trump, we must use our unified Republican majorities to advance a bold, America First agenda,” the members wrote in the letter. “We control the field — we cannot afford to leave any points on the board in reconciliation. We stand ready to work with you to accomplish this goal.”