Congress

Senate Dems brace to vote for a bill they hate — to block Elon Musk

Published

2 years ago

March 14, 2025

Senate Democrats appear poised to vote for a spending bill they hate to avoid a worse fate: Allowing a government shutdown that could enable President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to make deeper cuts to federal agencies.

The announcement late Thursday by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that he would support the House GOP’s seven-month stopgap measure was an acknowledgment that Democrats have little choice if they want to avoid empowering Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative to unilaterally halt more federal programs under the cover of a shutdown.

“The Democrats have A or B: Keep the government open or yield the authority to the president,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), a Trump ally who speaks frequently with White House officials, said in an interview.

In a speech on the Senate floor on Thursday night announcing he would support the House-passed stopgap, Schumer said he had little choice as the Friday shutdown deadline loomed.

“Musk has already said he wants a shutdown, and public reporting has shown he is already making plans to expedite his destruction of key government programs and services,” said Schumer. “A shutdown would give Donald Trump the keys to the city, the state and the country.”

The White House would not telegraph its shutdown plans, including whether it would unilaterally halt federal programs and furlough workers. Nor would it detail the work DOGE could undertake if most of the federal government were non-operational.

But on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers were saying the quiet part out loud: By opposing the GOP’s funding plan in protest of Trump’s dismantling of government, Democrats would, in fact, be helping his cause.

“We’re cutting employees right now, because we’re trying to save costs,” Mullin continued. “And if the Democrats are going to play a game and shut it down — and then yield the power to him — it’ll be really easy for them to lift up the hood, look at all the essential and non-essential employees. Seems like to me it plays in their favor.”

Punctuating that threat, Musk on Wednesday night responded on X with a thinking-face emoji to a suggestion from another social media user that furloughed workers should not be brought back on the government payroll after a shutdown.

Handing Trump the power to decide what parts of the federal government are essential has been high on the list of risks Senate Democrats have been weighing. They essentially face a lose-lose choice between letting federal funding lapse and advancing a funding bill that cuts non-defense programs by about $13 billion while giving Trump leeway to shift federal money.

Both outcomes are the opposite of what Democrats tried to achieve during weeks of bipartisan funding negotiations, where they fought unsuccessfully for language to block Trump from halting spending Congress already approved and firing tens of thousands of federal workers.

Now Democratic senators worry that Trump and Musk could use a shutdown to fire more government employees, including military veterans, and shutter some agencies indefinitely.

At one point during a closed-door lunch meeting Thursday, Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York warned her colleagues of “serious harm” if federal funding were to lapse and that “this will not be a normal shutdown” — raising her voice so loud that her comments were audible outside the room.

“We could see more veterans lose their jobs. We could see government departments that never open up again. So that’s a bad option,” said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) on Thursday.

Kelly has said he plans to oppose the stopgap bill, however, and it remained unclear Thursday night whether enough Democrats would join Schumer to support a procedural vote necessary to move onto final passage of the legislation. With Schumer and Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania committed to voting “yes,” Republicans need six more Democrats to seal the deal — Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, has long said he’ll vote “no.”

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans have argued it would be Democrats who risked further stressing the federal workforce under a shutdown scenario.

Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, a member of Republican leadership, said Thursday that a government shutdown would “obviously” be a “clear moment to declare who’s essential and non-essential, and that’s a moment right now in the middle of the DOGE conversations.”

“Federal workers are going through a lot right now. There’s a lot of challenge for them, a lot of stress for them. Democrats are literally adding more to it,” Lankford said in an interview. “Not being pejorative, but one of the things I’ve said to my colleagues: ‘Do you really want to do this right now to federal workers and their families?’”

One former Trump administration official, granted anonymity to share their insights, said that using a shutdown to accomplish the administration’s bureaucracy-slashing goals was a “crazy” strategy but one that could not entirely be ruled out.

The person said the White House could be “very comfortable” during a shutdown, which would give broad latitude to Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, and his budget director, Russ Vought, to make unilateral decisions about spending.

“It’s going to prove their point, if you only have essential employees and things work fine,” the former official said. “You could have a painless shutdown and prove a metaphorical point that we need less government.”

Republicans have been preparing to lay blame for a potential shutdown at Democrats’ feet. Trump himself insisted to reporters Thursday that a shutdown would not be Republicans’ fault, especially after he personally lobbied members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus to vote to keep federal programs afloat.

“People were amazed that the Republicans were able to vote in unison like that, so strongly,” Trump said.

A White House official had declined earlier in the day on Thursday to offer any further specifics on the possibility of a shutdown, how the administration would handle it and what it would mean for DOGE’s ongoing work, beyond the president’s remarks.

But past examples hinted at the authority the administration believes it has during a shutdown. As budget director during Trump’s first term, Vought played a key role steering the administration through a 35-day partial shutdown in 2019 sparked by a fight over border wall funding. During that shutdown, federal agencies used creative approaches to mitigate some of the public backlash.

Some of those strategies were later found to have been illegal: After the Interior Department diverted money from visitor fees to pay for operations at National Parks during the shutdown, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion concluding that the Trump administration move violated federal laws.

OMB also at that time allowed agencies to perform certain duties they would not normally be allowed to execute under a shutdown scenario. The budget office, for instance, allowed the IRS to recall staff to prepare and process tax returns and later permitted the agency to resume paying tax refunds. The Agriculture Department continued to fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits and the Fish and Wildlife Service called back furloughed staff to clean up wildlife refuges.

Former Trump White House officials point to that shutdown to demonstrate the broad purview OMB has over spending during a federal funding lapse and how it can work to make the experience as painless or painful as possible — depending on what is most helpful for the administration in power.

One unanswered question is just how aggressive a second-term Trump administration could be during a shutdown in further shrinking the federal bureaucracy. William Hoagland, who spent several decades working on the Senate Budget Committee and advising Republicans on budget matters, said lawmakers were right to fret about what might happen.

“The administration is breaking a lot of china,” he said, “and doing a lot of things that are unprecedented.”

Lisa Kashinsky, Rachael Bade and Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.

Congress

Capitol agenda: How Warren could link arms with Trump’s GOP

Published

4 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Elizabeth Warren may get her clearest shot yet to take on corporate America next year — thanks to the once unthinkable help of Republicans.

The Massachusetts Democrat is poised to chair Senate Banking if the party takes back the chamber. And while the progressive has long been a boogeyman to corporate America, lobbyists worry she’ll have powerful backup thanks to the surge of populist Republicans eager to take big swings at Wall Street and Big Tech.

One longtime financial industry lobbyist, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Warren “has a streak that is not just wanting to be a progressive gadfly, but to actually reach across the aisle to push for policy ideas.” There is “absolutely” reason for concern, the person said.

Atop the panel, Warren would also have a strong position to shape the 2028 presidential debates on both sides.

“There’s very little doubt that the agenda of the Senate Banking Committee is going to overlap substantially with the core issues that the candidates in the 2028 election cycle are going to be grappling with,” said Dennis Kelleher, the outgoing leader of the progressive group Better Markets.

As Banking chair, Warren is expected to try to recruit Republicans in a crackdown on artificial intelligence — specifically restrictions on chip giant Nvidia’s exports to China, which already has some GOP support — and a follow-up of this year’s bipartisan housing law that sought to rein in private equity’s role in the market, according to people close to the senator.

Some of President Donald Trump’s own populist ideas, like credit card interest rate caps and limits on stock buybacks for defense contractors, would provide fertile ground for Warren.

But Trump would also likely be Warren’s biggest obstacle, as he’s been resistant to embrace policy overlaps with her. He’s also been resistant to any AI restrictions.

Warren’s approach also threatens to expose rifts between GOP populists who have been ascendent under Trump and more mainstream conservatives.

Asked about the possibility of a Chair Warren, Sen. Mike Rounds, a more moderate South Dakota Republican, said he doesn’t “think anything would get done except lots of investigations and lots of accusations.”

What else we’re watching:

— LAWMAKERS CLAMOR FOR GAO v. TRUMP — Lawmakers are desperate for a government watchdog to step up and help them in their fight against the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The independent Government Accountability Office concluded earlier this week that the White House illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs — the latest in more than a half-dozen such findings GAO has published since the start of Trump’s second term. But the agency has yet to use its unique power to take the president to court to challenge those “impoundments,” and lawmakers who are tired of the administration running roughshod over their funding prerogatives want GAO to act.

— MURPHY’S DEFENSE FUNDING ULTIMATUM — Democrats should not approve Pentagon funding or the annual defense policy bill if they control Congress next year unless those bills would hasten the end of the Iran war, Sen. Chris Murphy told reporters Thursday. “We should make the end of the war a priority,” said the Foreign Relations Democrat who was returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Murphy also accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and officials of attempting a “cover-up” of the war’s damage and obscuring its true cost after he was denied entry on a base in Qatar. Given the damage to bases in the region, Murphy also told reporters that the U.S. should “reconsider its footprint” in the Middle East.

Jasper Goodman, Jennifer Scholtes and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.

Congress

Even some Republicans want this watchdog agency to sue Trump

Published

5 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Members of Congress are desperate for backup in their battle with the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The oversight agency that would lean into that fight is sitting on its hands.

The independent Government Accountability Office concluded earlier this week that the White House illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs — the latest in more than a half-dozen such findings GAO has published since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.

But the agency has yet to use its unique power to take the president to court to challenge those “impoundments,” and lawmakers who are tired of the administration running roughshod over their funding prerogatives want GAO to act.

There’s one problem: GAO is currently run by an interim director, acting Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown, because the Senate has yet to confirm a long-term replacement following her predecessor’s retirement last year. And lawmakers fear she’s reluctant to exercise her temporary authority to take such dramatic legal action.

“They are empowered to sue,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters last week. “I think the biggest problem is that we have an acting director of the GAO, who understandably is wary of suing the administration without direct congressional approval.”

The recent rulings came on the heels of Trump’s unilateral cancellation of $810 million in other congressionally approved spending the previous week — which GAO quickly deemed illegal — as well as his decision to allow hundreds of millions more to expire as the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

The search for a permanent GAO leader, meanwhile, appears to be at a standstill. A designated group of 10 senior lawmakers is supposed to be searching for replacement candidates to recommend for Trump’s nomination, but the members have yet to meet — nine months since former Comptroller General Gene Dodaro departed at the end of his 15-year term.

“We would like a GAO director who’s a man or a woman of integrity and going to do the job that needs to be done. That’s our focus,” said Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, who is part of the selection group as the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

He said it was accurate that the group has made no progress toward recommending nominees.

The Washington Sun reported Thursday that the administration has floated the idea of Trump nominating Eric Ueland, a top official at the White House budget office and former longtime Senate aide, to head GAO. Blue Light News has not independently confirmed the potential nomination.

If Ueland is nominated, however, there is no guarantee he would have the votes for confirmation in a narrowly divided Senate, given the perception of his loyalty to the president and doubt he would challenge Trump’s funding moves.

In the meantime, lawmakers in both parties are urging the acting director to sue, while a GAO spokesperson maintains that the agency “has not made a decision to file any lawsuits at this time” and that the acting comptroller general “legally exercises all the functions and duties” of the role.

The fact that GAO is operating without a Senate-confirmed leader “is definitely stifling their ability to hold the administration accountable,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in an interview, adding that he believed Dodaro was “clearly building toward making a case” prior to his retirement.

Dodaro said in an interview during his final days at GAO that he considered a lawsuit against the Trump administration “a last resort.” He explained that “in every case we’ve identified so far, people were already suing” and that “Congress has the ability to correct these things and to deal with the distribution of funds.”

What the former inspector general did not expect, however, is the Supreme Court’s suggestion last fall that GAO is the only entity with standing to sue the Trump administration for violating the decades-old Impoundment Control Act, which was designed to ensure presidents spend all the money Congress approves.

Dodaro said he was “surprised” by that suggestion, given his belief that “the law is very clear that GAO’s ability to sue doesn’t preclude anybody else from suing.”

A year later, the president has continued to flout Congress’ authority to dictate how federal dollars get spent. Top administration officials and some Republicans in Congress have publicly belittled GAO as a partisan and noncredible oversight agency since Trump’s return to office.

And after the federal watchdog concluded last week that Trump’s recent funding cancellation is unconstitutional, White House budget director Russ Vought claimed on social media that GAO makes its “legal assessments based on whether Democrats are in the White House.”

Potentially bolstering GAO’s arguments in a lawsuit, lawmakers added provisions to the government funding bills Trump signed into law this year designed to protect their own power of the purse, though Republicans bucked Democratic demands to enact the most aggressive constraints — including to block Trump’s ability to cancel federal dollars at the end of the fiscal year.

Some Republicans are now embracing more stringent methods to stifle Trump’s funding moves, however, after he slashed hundreds of millions dollars through the “pocket rescissions” tactic last month.

“I’m very disappointed in their action here, and it will have to be rectified,” Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, said about Trump’s latest funding cancellation in an interview.

But he also said he doesn’t know if GAO or another entity should sue: “I’m not sure who should do it. All I know is I want a different result than what we have right now.”

Congress

This watchdog can bark. Congress wants it to bite.

Published

7 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Members of Congress are desperate for backup in their battle with the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The oversight agency that would lean into that fight is sitting on its hands.

He said it was accurate that the group has made no progress toward recommending nominees.

Dodaro said he was “surprised” by that suggestion, given his belief that “the law is very clear that GAO’s ability to sue doesn’t preclude anybody else from suing.”

“I’m very disappointed in their action here, and it will have to be rectified,” Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, said about Trump’s latest funding cancellation in an interview.

But he also said he doesn’t know if GAO or another entity should sue: “I’m not sure who should do it. All I know is I want a different result than what we have right now.”