Congress

Senate Republicans manage to unstick immigration funding bill

Published

4 months ago

June 3, 2026

Senate Republicans launched debate on their party-line immigration enforcement bill Wednesday — a major step after nearly two weeks of delay — but they are facing lingering internal concerns over a proposed “Anti-Weaponization Fund” that could still scuttle the legislation.

Senators voted 53-46 on party lines to advance the bill, which would provide roughly $70 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other Department of Homeland Security agencies.

An updated bill released Wednesday omits $1 billion in Secret Service security funding that had been included in an earlier draft and could have been used for President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project. Blue Light News first reported the decision to drop the funding last month.

It also strips out Justice Department funding unrelated to the controversial settlement fund — a move that GOP leaders made in hopes of making it harder to include language restricting or eliminating the fund. Top Republicans have warned that adding such language could threaten to tank the overall bill.

“Right now, the goal is to get the base bill across the finish line, and so hopefully all of our members who have amendment ideas will … keep in mind the need that we’ve got to keep the bill together and make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it at the end,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said.

Democrats said they did not expect to start voting on amendments until Thursday morning, but Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso expressed confidence that Republicans would ultimately have the votes to pass the bill.

“Democrats can drag it into the middle of the night if they want to, but we’re ready to go,” Barrasso said.

But several GOP senators signaled Wednesday they are still interested in adding language to block the fund, even after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told House appropriators Tuesday that the administration would not move forward with it. While Blanche’s testimony was aimed at assuring GOP senators, his refusal to put the decision in writing and his praise for the underlying purpose of the fund — compensating Trump allies and others who were subject to allegedly politically motivated prosecutions — left some wary.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said Blanche’s comments did not assuage his concerns.

“You want to make sure it’s really dead, and I think we can make it really dead,” he said.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Blanche’s comments were “helpful” but that she would still vote for amendments to nix the fund. Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said he was waiting to see what specific amendments are offered and whether the Senate parliamentarian would rule that they could go in the filibuster-skirting immigration bill.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Wednesday he would file his own amendment to eliminate the fund, though he acknowledged the parliamentarian could rule it needs to clear a 60-vote threshold to be added in rather than a simple majority of senators.

Tillis suggested he could ultimately vote against the overall bill if it does not include language nixing the fund.

“I wouldn’t support a bill that doesn’t have that in there,” Tillis said, adding that senators would just be “codifying the policy” that Blanche articulated Tuesday.

Calen Razor contributed to this report.

Congress

Centrist Dem’s Supreme Court plan boosts momentum for revamp

Published

6 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic efforts to revamp the Supreme Court gained momentum Thursday as an influential center-left think tank released a plan to limit justices’ terms and misconduct.

Third Way’s proposal, shared first with Blue Light News, highlights growing unity across the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party for significant changes to the high court as Americans’ trust in the institution hovers at historic lows.

The group says it also wants to inject ideas to overhaul the court — including legislation to set an 18-year term limit and an enforceable ethics code — into the party’s conversations leading up to the 2028 presidential race.

“This is one of those things that we think can and should be a part of the 2028 discussion, and those folks who are running should be asked about whether they would champion Supreme Court reform,” Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, said in an interview.

Key Democratic groups have increasingly been coalescing around ideas to overhaul the court’s structure and policing in light of accusations of growing partisanship and corruption among justices. In June, a number of key Democratic House caucus leaders, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released their own resolution calling for term limits for justices and a code of ethics.

“We think that the center left has been remiss in not being forward enough on reform proposals that would make our system work better for people, which is why some folks have gone to the further left,” Erickson said.

Third Way cited public opinion polling from both the Brennan Center for Justice and FOX News indicating more than 70 percent of respondents favored term limits for justices. An 18-year cycle would ensure the appointment of two justices every presidential term.

The group also wants legislation to hold justices accountable for ethics violations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said last month he supports “dramatic reform” on the Supreme Court starting with an ethics code so justices don’t act “above the law.”

The court in 2023 adopted its own formal ethics code for the first time in history, but that policy largely lacks some of the teeth that advocates have proposed.

One idea supported by some Democrats that Third Way is not endorsing: upping the number of justices on the bench. Erickson said that idea seems more like “a mutually assured destruction path,” as parties could go back and forth adding more justices.

The path forward for any court-focused legislation in Congress in the near future, however, is very slim without majorities in both chambers and control of the White House — something Third Way acknowledged.

Still, the group’s recommendations are meant “to show that the center left can also be bold and be addressing systemic problems to appeal to voters and their level of anxiety and anger about what’s happening right now,” Erickson said.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems skip DC with wind in their sails

Published

6 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate wrapped up its work late Wednesday night, and lawmakers in both chambers won’t be back until after midterm voters pass judgment.

And Chuck Schumer is growing increasingly confident they’ll hand the Senate to Democrats

“Here’s how I’d sum up the election: Can enormous amounts of Republican money beat a Democratic enormous advantage in much better candidates and a much better political climate?” the minority leader said in an interview in his office Wednesday.

“I think we win,” he added.

Schumer’s optimism — saying Democrats’ have the “wind in their sails” — reflects his members’ growing bullishness as they head home for a final sprint to convince voters to give them back the majority. The Senate recessed Wednesday night after confirming President Donald Trump’s Labor secretary, but Democrats stayed united in a string of politically tricky votes before leaving.

“It certainly feels like it’s going to be a wave election, and not for good reasons,” Sen. Chris Murphy said. “This president’s domestic and foreign policy has gone off the rails.”

There’s division among Democratic party strategists on whether to spend these final weeks focusing on the states viewed as most likely to flip — like Alaska, Ohio or Iowa — or put resources into so-called reach states like Mississippi, South Carolina or Florida.

Schumer declined to weigh in, but said that Democrats would do “whatever it takes to win” and that he expects to spend the next five weeks fundraising.

“We have lots of different paths to victory, and we’re not going to turn any of them down,” he said.

Also hanging over the midterm elections are questions about Schumer’s future — but the New York Democrat said that he is “running for re-election for leader. Period.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are still hopeful that they can hold onto their majority even if it’s narrower. Much of the midterms map runs through states that Trump won previously.

“Of course we are,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said about keeping control of the chamber as he left the building Wednesday. “Thank you for asking.”

What else we’re watching:

— PERMITTING DEAL FACES HOUSE BUZZSAW — The Senate’s newly announced bipartisan permitting reform package is set to hit a wall in the House, where key lawmakers aren’t rushing to endorse it. House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman warned Wednesday most House Democrats will not support the Senate’s permitting legislation as written, urging lawmakers to resume negotiations after the midterm elections when they are “likely to have a far better negotiating position.” And House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, a key GOP negotiator, has yet to take a position on the Senate deal.

—RASKIN WANTS TRUMP AD PROBE — House Judiciary’s top Democrat is demanding federal inquiries into the amount of taxpayer money that was used by the Trump administration for a TV ad blitz endorsing the president ahead of the midterms. Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is poised to lead the panel if Democrats flip the chamber, and Rep. George Whitesides, wrote to the Government Accountability Office Wednesday asking them to investigate the “source, accounts and total amount of taxpayer funds used” to produce and distribute the ads. The pair of lawmakers also asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads “constitute a violation of the Hatch Act” and to “determine who should be held accountable.”

Nico Portuondo and Chris Marquette contributed to this report.

Congress

Raskin leads calls for federal investigation into Trump PSA’s

Published

6 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee is demanding federal inquiries into the amount of taxpayer money used to furnish a television ad blitz propping up President Donald Trump ahead of the midterms.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who is poised to lead the panel if Democrats win the majority in November, joined California Democratic Rep. George Whitesides in sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Special Counsel. It asks the GAO to investigate the “source, accounts, and total amount of taxpayer funds used by the Executive Office of the President to produce and distribute this advertisement across major television markets and official White House social media channels.”

The lawmakers also ask the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads “paid for by millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, constitute a violation of the Hatch Act, and determine who should be held accountable.”

The ads, which so far have run during NFL games and flagship Sunday news shows, depict Trump in a powerful and effective light, with glimpses of him posing for the camera, denigrating the free press and denouncing communism. Each includes the phrase, “paid for by the U.S. government.”

“These ads constitute an illegal use of taxpayer funds, perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that they are virtually identical to the ones Donald Trump used during his 2024 presidential campaign, and in fact use the same footage and the same inept ideological messaging,” Raskin and Whitesides contend.

Other congressional Democrats have also reached out to the administration in recent days to express outrage and ask basic questions about how the ads were derived and funded.

Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Chris Murphy of Connecticut — the top Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and the appropriations subcommittee on Homeland Security, respectively — have written to Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin regarding reports that the agency has redirected $20 million in funding originally intended for Customs and Border Protection to “bankroll the obscene political ads.”

A White House spokesperson called the TV spots “public service announcements” and said they are designed to remind “Americans to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending, at home, at our borders, and abroad. The ad is educational and unapologetically patriotic. We should be proud of our country.”

A spokesperson for DHS said the agency “follows all applicable rules for contracting decisions and keeps all decision makers informed” and that “all contracting decisions are made in accordance with applicable law.”

The Office of the Special Counsel confirmed it received the letter and declined comment.

A spokesperson for GAO did not respond to a request for comment.