Congress

Senate GOP plots how to move Trump’s $9.4B clawbacks request

Published

1 year ago

July 9, 2025

Senate Republicans are eyeing changes to the White House’s $9.4 billion request to claw back funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting as leadership plans to bring it to the floor next week.

Majority Leader John Thune can only lose three GOP senators and still get the House-passed bill to the floor and ultimately across the finish line — and the South Dakota Republican is openly acknowledging that it’s TBD what the bill looks like when and if it gets there.

That’s because Republican senators are still talking about potential tweaks to slim down the cuts President Donald Trump is seeking for global health programs and AIDS prevention efforts around the world, as well as local radio stations and public TV programming valued back home.

Senate GOP leaders have little time to spare: By the end of the day on July 18, the request Trump sent to Capitol Hill last month will expire, meaning the administration will be forced to spend the money as lawmakers originally intended if Congress doesn’t act.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine, as well as South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds, are among the Senate Republicans exploring the idea of amending the package to protect funding for public broadcasting, along with programs to stop the spread of AIDS.

“Whatever form it takes, we can’t lose these small-town radio stations across the country that are literally the only way to get out an emergency message,” Rounds told reporters Tuesday night.

Rounds noted, however, that White House budget director Russ Vought committed to working to protect funding for public radio stations if Congress clears the package clawing back a total of $1.1 billion from public broadcasting.

Alaska Republican Sens. Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski have also signaled that they want changes to the bill. Sullivan said Tuesday that he’s still seeking votes on amendments to the package but didn’t detail what those might entail.

Collins already said weeks ago that she would seek changes to the package, but she also is declining to elaborate on how much funding she is aiming to protect.

“I have already made clear I don’t support the cuts to PEPFAR and child and maternal health,” Collins said in a brief interview Tuesday night.

Further complicating any attempt to make changes to a rescissions package in a narrowly divided Republican Senate, any amendments to the president’s request to nix funding would have to be narrowly tailored to comply with chamber rules. So senators are now seeking guidance from the Senate parliamentarian on what tweaks would be allowed.

“I’m trying now to determine what amendments I might be able to vote for,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) said in a brief interview Tuesday night. “So until I know the scope of the capabilities, I’d rather be in a position of keeping my options open.”

Senate Republicans are also banking on House Republicans swallowing any changes they make to the rescissions package — similar to their strategy on Trump’s megabill — after the lawmakers across the Capitol narrowly passed the president’s clawbacks request last month without changes.

“We’ll see where it goes,” Thune told reporters Tuesday, adding that while he hasn’t done a hard vote count yet he is assuming Republicans will at least be able to get it onto the Senate floor.

Asked if he was worried about Collins or other moderates voting against the bill, Thune demurred, suggesting those conversations were still to come.

“We’ll have a lot of conversations about it, and we’ll get a better sense of where our members are,” Thune said.

Some Republican senators who generally back the package also support attempts to amend it.

“Right now, I’m lean yes,” Sen. Thom Tillis said Tuesday night about passage of the package.

But the retiring North Carolina senator said some of his Republican colleagues have also made persuasive arguments in favor of protecting money for PEPFAR, the global AIDS reduction campaign Trump is seeking to slash by $400 million.

“I’m open to it, if it makes the rescission better,” Tillis said of amending the package.

If Congress rejects the package or doesn’t clear it through both chambers by the July 18 deadline, Trump would be forced to spend the money and prevented from requesting the same cuts again.

But if the package passes, the White House will finally be able to send back to the Treasury a small slice of the billions of dollars in proposed funding cuts made in recent months. That includes reductions Elon Musk dictated as head of the Department of Government Efficiency before leaving his Trump administration role.

White House allies are also predicting a political blowup from Trump if the Senate falls short. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said that if the bill fails, the White House “will go nuts” and that it would be an “embarrassment to the president.”

“I think if the Republicans in the United States Senate do not pass the rescission package, after all the rhetoric about reducing spending, then they should hide their head in the bag, and I think the White House will provide the bag,” Kennedy added.

In 2018, Senate Republicans, who had a slightly narrower majority, rejected an effort during the first Trump administration to revoke congressionally approved spending. Trump officials say they tailored their latest request to make it as politically palatable as possible, but they’ve also flirted with leapfrogging Congress and trying to rescind funding on their own if the Senate falls short.

Cassandra Dumay, Mia McCarthy and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Congress

Top House Judiciary Democrat escalates scrutiny of Paramount merger in new letter

Published

4 minutes ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats are ramping up their scrutiny of Paramount Skydance’s bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery — and previewing their plans to crack down on the merger if they win the majority next year.

In a new letter Wednesday, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland — the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee — invited Paramount CEO David Ellison to appear for a transcribed interview “to tell Congress and America your story and answer the Committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels and streaming services.”

As a member of the minority party, Raskin has no power to force Ellison’s cooperation. A spokesperson for committee Republicans did not immediately return a request for comment about whether they were also interested in hearing from Ellison.

But should Democrats win back control of the House in the midterms, Raskin is expected to become the committee chair, and he would at that time have the power to exercise subpoena authority to compel Ellison’s testimony.

Raskin previewed his plans to ramp up oversight of the Paramount merger earlier this week, telling Blue Light News that the investigation is a “priority” and that “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their role in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

A spokesperson for Paramount did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but Paramount Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim, during a California policy summit Tuesday hosted by Blue Light News, said the company has been “transparent” and responsive to lawmaker’s concerns.

In his letter Wednesday, however, Raskin said that Ellison has not responded to four letters Judiciary Democrats have sent over the past year seeking clarity on the proposed $110 billion merger, which has sparked opposition from Democrats worried about antitrust violations, corruption and national security implications.

“The House Committee on the Judiciary is committed to scrutinizing how the antitrust laws are being enforced to promote the public interest; how market power abuses may be harming not only competition but consumers, workers, and the public generally; and whether the federal antitrust agencies are successfully promoting free competition and innovation — or whether they are using their governmental powers to distort the market and undermine freedom of speech and freedom of the press, in violation of the First Amendment,” Raskin wrote.

Congress

NRSC pushes Republicans to endorse Darline Graham

Published

4 minutes ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is officially throwing its support behind Sen. Darline Graham ahead of the primary runoff — and it wants other South Carolina Republicans to follow.

On Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, NRSC officials called the primary’s top finishers who didn’t make the runoff in South Carolina’s snap Senate primary — Rep. Russell Fry (R-S.C.), former Gov. Mark Sanford and businessman Mark Lynch — and urged them to endorse Sen. Darline Graham, according to two people with knowledge of the outreach, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

On Wednesday morning, NRSC Chair Tim Scott — South Carolina’s senior senator — publicly threw his support behind Graham, who secured a first place finish in Tuesday’s primary with early support from President Donald Trump.

“I voted for Darline in yesterday’s primary, and I’ll vote for her again in the runoff,” Scott said in a post on social media. “I’m proud to endorse Darline Graham for the U.S. Senate, and I encourage South Carolina Republicans across our state to join me in voting for her in the runoff.”

Scott hadn’t publicly endorsed Graham before Wednesday, though he told Blue Light News earlier this month that Graham “will win” the race.

“If I were going to endorse in the South Carolina GOP Senate primary, I wanted to do so with confidence,” he said in his Wednesday morning post. “After watching Darline Graham in the Senate and on the campaign trail, I’m confident she’s the real deal.”

Key to both Graham and Norman’s paths to victory in the two-week runoff sprint will be how quickly they can consolidate their former opponents’ support behind them. A similar push to secure backing from ex-rivals proved decisive for Attorney General Alan Wilson in his governor’s primary runoff win over Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette earlier this summer.

In a statement conceding the race on Tuesday night, Fry congratulated Graham and Norman but did not throw his support behind either candidate. Sanford similarly declined to endorse in an interview with a local television station, but left the possibility on the table.

Noel Fritsch, a spokesperson for Lynch, who also ran against then-Sen. Lindsey Graham, said that the Upstate businessman had already thrown his support behind Norman because the House Republican is “the only one capable of or interested in draining the swamp.”

Spokespeople for Norman, Graham and Fry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the NRSC’s outreach, nor did Sanford respond.

Asked for comment, an NRSC spokesperson pointed to Scott’s social media post.

Congress

Capitol agenda: GOP mum on returning Miller’s campaign cash

Published

4 hours ago

August 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Max Miller gave more than $70,000 in campaign cash to over a dozen congressional Republicans in the cycle’s most competitive races.

So far, most of those members aren’t saying whether or not they will return it.

The Dependable Conservative Leadership PAC kicked money to 16 vulnerable GOP candidates for Congress, according to FEC filings. The PAC is aligned with Miller, who has continued his reelection bid while denying allegations of domestic abuse.

The donations put these members in a politically delicate position as they have welcomed the cash in their fights to hold onto their seats this November — and help the party protect its fragile majorities in both chambers.

Spokespeople in the congressional and campaign offices for 13 of the 16 candidates who took the Miller-aligned money did not respond to requests for comment on if they planned to return the funding.

Only the campaign for Rep. Brad Finstad said it had already returned its contribution.

Meanwhile, a campaign spokesperson for Rep. Mike Lawler said the incumbent Republican had no plans to relinquish the money. He instead slammed Democratic challenger Cait Conley for attending a fundraiser hosted by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 after allegations of involvement in a prostitution ring.

And Derrick Van Orden, asked Tuesday night about the contribution he received from Miller during about an interview about the results of his state’s primary elections, refused to discuss the matter, calling the accusations against Miller “allegations” he had heard about “the day before yesterday.”

The recipients of Miller’s campaign cash who didn’t respond to inquiries include: Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Ryan Mackenzie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Zach Nunn, Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Nick Begich III, Tom Barrett, Juan Ciscomani, Gabe Evans, Tom Kean Jr., Jen Kiggans, and David Valadao.

Sen. Jon Husted is also staying quiet about whether he’ll return the cash. He previously said Miller should not run for reelection after Emily Miller — Max Miller’s ex-wife and Ohio GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno‘s daughter — accused her former husband of assaulting herself and their young child.

Democrats are already seizing on the matter, with a campaign spokesperson for Mackenzie’s opponent, Bob Brooks, saying in a statement the GOP incumbent is “open for business for whoever’s willing to pay up, no questions asked.”

Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday Democrats are “shameless hypocrites who conveniently look the other way when their vulnerable members are bankrolled by scandal-plagued Democrats like [former Rep.] Eric Swalwell.”

The NRCC also claimed that some of the Democrats who said they’d give away Swalwell campaign contributions have, in fact, not returned the money as promised.

Unlike Miller, Swalwell resigned in April and ended his gubernatorial bid in California amid intense pressure from inside his own party over sexual assault allegations he denies.

What else we’re watching:

— NANCY PELOSI CORRECTS THE RECORD ON BIDEN: For the first time, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi disclosed what she told President Joe Biden before he withdrew his 2024 presidential reelection bid. “I only said to President Biden, ‘I’ve come to question the polling that you have and how your campaign is being conducted. I think there has to be a better campaign to win the White House,’” she shared Tuesday. Pelosi’s comments — shared on stage with Jonathan Martin at Blue Light News’s The California Agenda: Sacramento Summit — shed new light on the scramble that led to Biden dropping his campaign. But she pushed back on the narrative that she puppeteered the president’s withdrawal. She added she advised Biden to hear from outside pollsters and told him, “I think the public would like to hear that you’ve had testing that demonstrates that you can serve.”

— JEFFRIES VAGUE ON IMMIGRATION AGENDA: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries Tuesday said Democrats are “committed to an accountability agenda” on immigration should they take the majority. But the New Yorker offered few specifics on what immigration policies a future House Democratic majority might pursue. “We’ll have a conversation about what dramatic change looks like” after November, Jeffries said, adding that what “unites the entirety of the House Democratic caucus family” is that “immigration enforcement should be fair, just and humane in this country.”

Riley Rogerson and Joey Fox contributed to this report.