Congress

Rising energy prices threaten cornerstone of GOP midterm pitch

Published

6 months ago

March 9, 2026

DORAL, Florida — The economic fallout from President Donald Trump’s decision to go to war with Iran is imperiling the GOP’s legislative sales pitch ahead of the midterms, with energy price spikes threatening at least some of the pocketbook gains Americans are seeing from the sweeping tax cuts Republicans enacted last year.

Analysts with the Wall Street advisory and investment firm Evercore ISI estimated Monday that the impact on household costs attributable to the current crisis could erase the tax benefits from the “big, beautiful bill” for at least the bottom 30 percent of Americans — even if oil prices come off their $100-plus-per-barrel highs.

Some top Republicans acknowledged rising energy prices are cause for political concern.

“The price of gas is always kind of a benchmark,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday. “I do think the fact that we’ve increased our supply here domestically will help ease it, but it’s something obviously we’ve got to pay attention to. And hopefully the operations in Iran … won’t be an extended situation.”

The impact of higher gas prices is hitting just as House Republicans gather for their annual policy retreat at Trump’s resort in Doral, Florida. The evidence could be seen just outside the gates, where regular gas was retailing at multiple stations for $3.59 per gallon — up about 70 cents from the Miami-area average on Jan. 1, according to GasBuddy.com.

The hope among Republicans gathered at the resort is that the crisis is short-lived, with several saying they believed Trump’s assurances that the supply bottlenecks caused by Iran’s effective blockade of the Persian Gulf would soon ease.

“I believe there’s a lot of emotion built into energy prices,” Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) said in an interview. “I would look for things to settle down very soon.”

But other Republicans granted anonymity to speak candidly expressed real alarm as crude oil prices surged to nearly $120 a barrel overnight before settling later in the day below $90 — still about 30 percent above recent lows.

“If you are a Republican and not concerned right now, you are stupid,” one House Republican said, adding, “Hopefully, we will square this away sooner than later.”

Another House Republican, asked if the wartime crisis threatened to overshadow the benefits of the GOP megabill, replied, “Hell yes.”

“The most sensitive thing amongst most driving Americans is the price of gasoline,” the person added, saying it threatens to send Americans “right up the wall.”

Trump is scheduled to address lawmakers in Doral shortly after markets close Monday, and they will be listening closely to his message on the hostilities in the Middle East and his plans to address high energy prices. He has announced plans to get oil shipments moving through the Gulf again, including by providing naval escorts for tankers and backstopping insurance for vessels.

White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that oil prices will “drop dramatically once the objectives of Operation Epic Fury are achieved.”

“President Trump and his entire energy team have had a strong game plan to keep the energy markets stable well before Operation Epic Fury began, and they will continue to review all credible options,” she said.

But the president so far has shown little interest in pushing his party to foremost focus on legislation tackling affordability, as some of his political aides have advised. Instead, Trump is pressing Senate Republicans to pass a sweeping GOP elections overhaul bill — adding on demands for a near-complete ban on mail voting and unrelated policy provisions like banning transgender surgeries for minors.

Hours before taking the stage in front of House Republicans at his Florida resort, he reiterated his request.

Even before the oil price shock, Trump’s agenda had come with a hefty price tag for consumers. Analysts at the Tax Foundation have already determined that the president’s trade policies cost Americans $1,000 on average last year, matching the average size of refund checks that Trump officials say will ease cost-of-living concerns.

The Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s tariffs, but those that remain are projected to cost households $600 on average this year, according to the nonpartisan think tank.

House Republican leaders are hoping to keep the annual policy retreat focused on their legislative priorities ahead of the midterms. Rep. Lisa McClain of Michigan, the GOP Conference chair, said ahead of the retreat she hoped to firm up the party’s messaging around last year’s megabill.

But going into the Doral resort Monday, members were trained on all the reasons they hoped the politically perilous price spike would be short-lived.

House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) said in an interview that reopening the Iranian-controlled Strait of Hormuz “would be even better for energy prices, although we’re seeing obviously a peak right now with the war going on.”

Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) said the supply crunch was “not an existential threat to us because of all the things we’ve done to make ourselves self reliant in terms of energy resources,” while acknowledging the “fungible” nature of the global oil market. He was hopeful about more ships navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

Rep. Carlos Gimenez (R-Fla.) said in an interview a “short-term gas price hike is … not what’s important.”

“What’s important is the long term benefits of having a peaceful Iran that means that gas prices will drop dramatically for the long term,” he said. “I’m not that concerned about it.”

Sam Sutton contributed to this report.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

7 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.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

9 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

10 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.