Congress

Senate Republicans in no hurry to deliver Trump’s next reconciliation bill

Published

3 months ago

June 18, 2026

President Donald Trump is calling for Republicans to pass a $350 billion bill to fund the military while notching conservative policy victories — and GOP senators aren’t exactly scurrying to action.

House Republican leaders and committee chairs have been meeting for weeks about what to include in a new party-line reconciliation package. Speaker Mike Johnson has also had conversations about the House’s vision with Senate Majority Leader John Thune.

But the Senate has taken no concrete steps toward advancing a bill, and GOP senators and aides said this week it was becoming clear any “Reconciliation 3.0” would be a House-led effort. Multiple Senate Republicans — including members of leadership — say they don’t currently see a path that could marshall 50 votes behind such a measure on their side of the Capitol just months before the midterms.

“Everybody has a different concept of what they want, which is going to be the problem,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said in an interview this week.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said a third bill “doesn’t look to me like it’s got a lot of life in it,” while Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) separately warned that if his party was going to pass a third reconciliation bill, Republicans need to “saddle up and ride hard, because we’re running out of time.”

“You don’t have to be a senior at Cal Tech to know that the closer you get to the midterms, the harder it is to get anything done around here,” Kennedy added.

Republicans in the Senate aren’t entirely ruling out coalescing behind a plan, knowing they would risk sparking Trump’s wrath if they do. But they’re airing plenty of doubts, and that pessimism — combined with a lack of clear movement toward assembling policy priorities and satisfactory pay-fors — doesn’t bode well for the GOP’s ability to deliver on the president’s demands.

A handful of Senate Republicans have been going through some of the motions. Cornyn, Majority Whip John Barrasso of Wyoming and Budget Chair Lindsey Graham of South Carolina met with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week to discuss using reconciliation to bolster the Pentagon’s budget amid the ongoing conflict with Iran.

Graham, after his meeting with Hegseth, said in an X post that he will be working with Senate leaders, Budget Committee Republicans and the administration “to see if we can get this process moving as expeditiously as possible.”

He added, “In my view, time is of the essence.”

But three Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee said there was no movement toward drafting a budget resolution — a prerequisite for unlocking the filibuster-skirting power of another reconciliation bill — nor have they received details on a timeline from Graham.

In an interview Monday, Graham said only, “I love reconciliation; I want it to never end.”

The party-line bill currently under discussion would be the third one passed in this Congress, following on last year’s $4.5 trillion tax-cuts-focused megabill and the $70 billion immigration enforcement funding package finalized earlier this month — hence “Reconciliation 3.0.”

Barrasso said Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) has had conversations on potential ways to help pay for a third reconciliation package through changes to the tax code, but that claim appeared to come as a surprise to Crapo.

“I would like to do a Reconciliation Three, but we are not crafting one or anything like that,” Crapo said in an interview earlier this week. “I mean, we are always discussing tax policy.”

Their posture is being influenced by the math within their own conference: With a 53-seat majority, Thune can only afford to lose three GOP senators with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky — another senior GOP appropriator who is currently hospitalized — both predicted during a recent hearing that a third reconciliation bill would not happen. Collins separately told reporters “it would be very difficult to get a third reconciliation bill approved.”

But with the annual bipartisan appropriations process collapsing in the Senate, some Republicans see reconciliation as the only path forward to fund certain programs — as the GOP did with “Reconciliation 2.0” that funded Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for the duration of Trump’s term.

Cornyn said appropriators were skeptical of a third reconciliation bill because “it basically carves them out of the process.” But he added, “I don’t think there’s any other way to deal with things like defense spending.”

Meanwhile, Senate GOP fiscal hawks could also blow up the process by demanding pay-fors for Trump’s military funding request in the form of cuts to health care services. It’s a reality Thune acknowledged as he recently explained the challenges of advancing another reconciliation bill, noting that while most Republicans would unite around defense spending, “it certainly wouldn’t be limited to just that.”

“You’d have to have it offset and paid for,” Thune continued, “which implicates other committees of jurisdiction and creates unique challenges in terms of the vote count here in the Senate.”

Republican leaders are especially fearful of any scenario where vulnerable incumbents will have to take difficult votes related to health care so close to the elections. This conversation is also playing out in the House, where Republican leaders have signaled an interest in pursuing another reconciliation bill with hundreds of billions of dollars in new defense spending that would likely be offset by crackdowns on alleged fraud in social services programs.

Moderates are balking at many of the proposals on the table — frustrating House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), who said last week he could save hundreds of billions of dollars by cracking down on “fraud” across multiple social safety net programs if only his colleagues would join him.

“We have more than enough resources in savings … That I can tell you,” Arrington said in an interview.

One House Republican who was granted anonymity to speak freely said nobody is taking the current slate of offset recommendations seriously: “It’s fake pay-fors for defense spending no one has fully agreed to and no meaningful reforms.”

Still, House GOP leaders are expected to forge ahead with plans to unveil more of their framework after the chamber returns from recess next week. Some members want to adopt a budget blueprint and also pass the bill out of the House before the August break — a timeline many Republicans consider highly ambitious and can’t happen unless Senate Republicans are on board.

In the meantime, Barrasso is tempering expectations. He told reporters this week that while conversations are ongoing around Reconciliation 3.0, “the important thing is that we got Reconciliation 2.0 done.”

Thune also isn’t making any promises.

“As I said before on another reconciliation bill, you’ve got to have something that gets 50 and 218,” he told reporters, “and I’m not sure exactly at this point what that is.”

Meredith Lee Hill, Jennifer Scholtes and Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”