Connect with us

Congress

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

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems plot redistricting revenge

Published

on

Democrats are ready to play hardball after a stunning series of redistricting losses that could kneecap the party’s power in Congress for years to come.

“We’re going to win in November, and then we’re going to crush their souls as it relates to the extremism that they are trying to unleash on the American people,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday.

Jeffries will hold a caucus-wide meeting Thursday morning with House Administration’s top Democrat Joe Morelle to discuss next steps on the party’s election security strategy.

The mid-decade map redrawing war marks a reversal from years of high-minded Democratic rhetoric that included advocating for independent redistricting commissions, campaign finance curbs and more. Democratic leaders are now openly discussing overriding those safeguards as Republicans use the courts and their control of state governments to consolidate and enhance their own party’s power.

Democrats’ call to action comes after the Supreme Court’s April decision to slash the Voting Rights Act, kicking off a GOP mad dash to crack majority Black, safe Democratic seats in the South. The Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of a map last week that would’ve given Dems four new seats this year dealt another blow.

Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders laid out an ambitious plan this week to redistrict before the 2028 elections in states like New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon and Washington where their party currently holds power but cannot immediately redraw House lines.

But opportunities to redistrict in 2026 are running dry for the party, except for a potential last-ditch pick-up in Maryland, where Democrats want to eliminate Rep. Andy Harris’ district even with the state’s primary two weeks away and mail-in ballots already issued.

Prominent Democrats are heavily pressuring state Senate President Bill Ferguson to move for a map redraw now after preventing the party from trying to draw an 8-0 map months ago, Gregory Svirnovskiy reports. Ferguson’s spokesperson Wednesday said the leader told Maryland’s governor he’s “open to a conversation about next steps.”

“At this point, the Republicans are literally doing everything in their power to create all Republican congressional delegations in the South and to squeeze out every possible seat,” Rep. Jamie Raskin told Blue Light News in an interview. “So if [Ferguson’s] initial position was that he didn’t want to be part of continuing a downward spiral, that consideration should be gone.”

The party’s anger also translates to a growing appetite to remake the Supreme Court, which many House Democrats say is ushering in an era of “Jim Crow 2.0.”

Rep. Johnny Olszewski, who has introduced legislation to term-limit the justices, said in an interview that the VRA ruling was “a straw that broke the camel’s back.” And Rep. Sean Casten said there are tools to “kneecap” the Supreme Court that Congress has never used, such as stripping their power to review lower court rulings.

“I think everybody from the top of our caucus to the bottom are saying we have got to push back on them,” Casten said.

— SURVEY SAYS: Separately, new results from a Blue Light News Poll show many Democratic voters want their party leaders to fight back hard — even if it means breaking up districts designed to protect the power of Black voters and other minority communities. Read the results here.

What else we’re watching: 

— SENATE GOP COOL ON SUMMER RECONCILIATION 3.0 PLAN: Senate Republicans aren’t sold yet on their House counterparts’ plan to finish a third party-line spending package before summer recess. “We’re still working on reconciliation 2.0,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Wednesday when asked if his chamber was also planning a pre-recess timeline for a third bill.

— HOUSING BILL COMES TO HOUSE FLOOR: House GOP leadership is planning to put an amended housing bill up for a fast-track floor vote next week, despite President Donald Trump’s calls for the chamber to pass the Senate’s version as-is. Senior House lawmakers late Wednesday reached a bipartisan deal and released bill text. The final House text would maintain restrictions on Wall Street’s purchase of single-family homes — a priority for Trump — but would significantly scale back the Senate bill’s limitations on so-called institutional investors in the housing market.

Riley Rogerson, Andrew Howard, Erin Doherty, Jordain Carney, Kelsey Brugger, Katherine Hapgood and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

House Democrats prep for years of redistricting hardball after court losses

Published

on

House Democrats say they tried playing nice. Now the gloves are off.

After spending more than a decade pushing for anti-gerrymandering measures and other good-government initiatives, Democratic lawmakers said this week they are gearing up to play political hardball in the wake of stunning court losses on redistricting — potentially for years to come.

“We will beat the far-right extremists,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday. “We’re going to win in November, and then we’re going to crush their souls as it relates to the extremism that they are trying to unleash on the American people.”

It’s a marked reversal from years of high-minded Democratic rhetoric that included advocating for independent redistricting commissions, campaign finance curbs and more — even as Republicans used the courts and their control of state governments to consolidate and enhance their own party’s power.

The U-turn was already underway, but it was cemented in recent weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to allow states to eliminate majority-minority districts. Then the Virginia Supreme Court moved last week to invalidate a recent voter referendum paving the way for a Democrat-friendly map.

Several Democratic states, including New York, have been hindered by their adoption of independent redistricting commissions and other processes meant to take partisan considerations out of the drawing of congressional lines. Now Democratic leaders are openly discussing overriding those safeguards.

“All options should be on the table,” Rep. Ted Lieu (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday. “And other states that have redistricting commissions should be prepared to have conversations with their legislature and their voters in response to what we’re seeing in the South. And I think all of that is completely fair.”

The party’s anger also translates to a growing appetite to remake the Supreme Court, which many House Democrats say is ushering in an era of “Jim Crow 2.0.”

Rep. Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.), who has introduced legislation to term-limit the justices, said in an interview that the ruling was “a straw that broke the camel’s back.” And Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said there are tools to “kneecap” the Supreme Court that Congress has never used, such as stripping their power to review lower court rulings.

“I think everybody from the top of our caucus to the bottom are saying we have got to push back on them,” Casten said.

What was especially gutting to Democrats about the two court decisions was that they believed they had battled Republicans to a draw after President Donald Trump kicked off the unusual mid-decade line drawing spree by pressuring Texas legislators to eliminate as many as five Democratic House seats there.

The Virginia referendum last month was seen as a capstone, with voters essentially endorsing a map that would add four Democratic seats. Jeffries won plaudits for spending heavily to get that result and took a public victory lap only to see it all reversed.

Despite the setback, Jeffries has mostly gotten a pass from fellow House Democrats, who say that the GOP efforts in other states had to be countered despite the risks.

“My feeling is, given what was happening around the country, there was no choice but to launch the effort in Virginia,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), who is retiring after seeing his district radically redrawn.

Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders laid out an ambitious plan this week to redistrict before the 2028 elections in states like New York, New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon and Washington where their party currently holds power but cannot immediately redraw House lines.

“This is not a war we started,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said. “But as Democrats it’s important that we also get aggressive in that fight.”

The focus on 2028 comes as opportunities to redistrict in 2026 run dry — except for a potential last-ditch pick-up in Maryland, where Democrats want the legislature to eliminate Republican Rep. Andy Harris’ district, even with the state’s primary two weeks away and mail-in ballots already issued.

In light of the court rulings, Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) said, there’s “enormous pressure to do something, and I think we should.”

Other House Democrats are calling for new investments in state-level races to support legislators who will commit to redistricting efforts ahead of 2028 and the post-2030 Census redraw.

“Democrats are going to be moving to do what Republicans did 15 years ago and that is to focus on state legislatures,” Rep. Kwesi Mfume (D-Md.) said in an interview. The “smartest thing to do,” he added, “would be to control the process.”

The appetite for even more aggressive redistricting could even mean a new push to redraw maps again in California, where voters last year approved a Democratic-drawn map that handed the party five new favorable districts. The hope is that Democrats can squeeze more blue seats out of the state ahead of 2028.

“We were meeting fire with fire. Texas did five seats, California did five seats,” Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), the Congressional Black Caucus chair, said in an interview. “Now … we’ve got to look at all options. We’re not taking anything off the table.”

Continue Reading

Congress

House releases amended housing bill text, schedules vote for next week

Published

on

Senior House lawmakers late Wednesday reached a bipartisan deal on housing affordability legislation and scheduled a floor vote for next week.

The final House text would maintain restrictions on Wall Street’s purchase of single-family homes — a priority for President Donald Trump — but would significantly scale back the Senate bill’s limitations on so-called institutional investors in the housing market.

If the House passes its legislation, the bill would have to go back to the Senate for final approval before it reaches Trump’s desk — even as the White House has pushed the lower chamber to pass the Senate’s 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act as-is.

House leadership is aiming to pass the bill under suspension of rules, a fast-track procedure that limits debate, prohibits further amendments on the floor and requires a two-thirds majority. House Financial Services Chair French Hill said earlier on Wednesday that bill text would be posted once an agreement was reached and fully expected the support of ranking member Maxine Waters.

The bill text contains changes to language aimed at limiting the ability of large institutional investors to purchase housing by narrowing the definition of “single-family home,” which could make it possible for private equity firms and other large companies to purchase more homes than the previous version allowed, which is in line with draft text previously reported by POLITICO on Saturday.

The definition of a single-family home would now exclude manufactured housing and homes that have been renovated for sale, among others, according to the text.

The House bill would also strip a controversial Senate provision that would require single-family homes built by large institutional investors as long-term rentals to be sold after seven years to individual homebuyers. The housing industry and affordable housing advocates have opposed the language, arguing that it could disincentivize investment in a large segment of housing stock. There is no requirement for private equity firms to sell single-family homes they currently own or obtain in the future, whether newly built long-term single-family rental homes or otherwise, according to the bill text.

Notably, the House’s amended version of the bill will preserve a five-year ban on the Federal Reserve issuing a digital dollar, which GOP hardliners strongly opposed, arguing that a temporary ban is worse than no ban at all. Members of the House Freedom Caucus previously said they would not vote for the Senate’s housing bill due to the sunsetting ban on a central bank digital currency.

The legislation also contains 12 community banking provisions, which has been a priority of Hill this Congress. The deregulation provisions were excluded from the Senate’s bill and aim to be less burdensome for community banks.

Portions of the Senate’s 21st ROAD to Housing Act that were fully removed include language that would eliminate the cap on the number of properties eligible for HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration program; a permanent authorization of the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery program; and the requirement that Federal Housing Administration mortgage disclosures include cost comparison information for veteran homebuyers so they are aware of their Veteran Affairs benefits.

Additionally the House preserved the Build Now Act, which would increase funding through HUD’s CDBG program for communities that build more housing than previously and decrease funding if the housing growth rate is below its previous median rate for that locality. This has been a legislative priority for Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) and was included in Senate crypto bill text released Monday.

Continue Reading

Trending