Congress

Shutdown staring contest heads to the Oval Office

Published

1 year ago

September 29, 2025

Congress is locked in a staring contest with less than 48 hours until the government shuts down. There’s no sign either side plans to blink.

The standoff is raising the odds that agencies will at least partially shutter for the first time since 2019, when President Donald Trump backed down from a record 34-day shutdown sparked by his demands for a border wall. Congressional leaders each insist they don’t want to barrel past the Sept. 30 deadline Tuesday night, but they are quickly running out of time to find a mutually agreeable off-ramp.

A make-or-break moment will come Monday afternoon, when Trump will meet with the top four congressional leaders at the White House. The sitdown, rescheduled after Trump abruptly cancelled a prior meeting set with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries last week, is the most significant development yet in the weeks-long stalemate.

But after spending the past week hardening their positions and trading social media barbs, all corners are offering the same cautious note: The meeting could provide a path for a last-minute U-turn away from a shutdown, or — more likely — it could all be a mirage that sends Washington careening over the funding cliff on Tuesday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said in a statement ahead of the meeting that “fundamentally, nothing has changed.” He said, however, he hoped Schumer “sees the light and listens to the same voice” that led him and nine other Democrats to vote to avoid a shutdown under similar circumstances back in March.

Schumer and Jeffries, in a joint statement, put the onus on Republicans: “We are resolute in our determination to avoid a government shutdown and address the Republican healthcare crisis. Time is running out.”

There are other signs that each side is preparing for conflict, not detente. In a bid to exert maximum pressure on the Senate, House Republicans do not plan on returning to session until after the government funding deadline — and could stay out of town through next week, too. Senate Republicans are likely to wait until Tuesday to vote again on the House-passed stopgap bill that would float federal operations through Nov. 21, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss internal planning.

Democrats, who have already rejected that punt, are so far uncowed. Jeffries is recalling his caucus to Washington Monday evening for a caucus meeting — and to hammer Speaker Mike Johnson over his decision to not bring the House back. Schumer, in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” crowed that the White House meeting was a sign that Republicans are feeling the “heat” but that if Trump uses it to “rant” and “yell at Democrats,” the visit will amount to nothing.

Trump did just that ahead of his last shutdown, in a December 2018 Oval Office meeting. At that time, he gave Democrats a political gift when he publicly took responsibility for closing agencies over his border security demands. So far he hasn’t given a repeat performance. He called Democrats “crazy” Friday and said if the government closes “they’re the ones that are shutting down.”

White House officials now insist Trump will pressure Schumer during the Monday meeting to swallow the GOP-led stopgap without making a deal — at least not right now — on any of Democrats’ health care demands.

Some Republicans remain hopeful that a shutdown can be averted by enough Democrats agreeing to help advance the GOP bill like they did in March. But if not, they warn, Trump will make a shutdown politically painful for Democrats, since the president has wide latitude to determine what agencies and programs shutter and which stay open.

“I’d be much more worried if I was a blue state,” said Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), noting Trump gets to “determine what’s essential.”

White House budget director Russ Vought fired his own warning shot last week, instructing agencies to put together plans for reductions-in-force, or mass firings, that would go well beyond the furloughs otherwise typical of shutdowns.

The Trump administration is seeking to shield Republican lawmakers as much as possible from potential political blowback, but many are worried all the same about shutdown fallout in their districts. It’s unlikely the administration will be able to completely protect key GOP constituencies. Closure plans for agencies aren’t yet finalized, according to three Trump officials, with one adding, “I think it all hinges on [Monday’s] meeting.”

Rep. Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) said Friday he’s most concerned about keeping a complex patchwork of federal farm loans and USDA services flowing to farmers should government funding lapse — right before the heart of harvest season. The White House is weighing plans to keep county Farm Service Agency offices open and other agriculture resources available, according to three other Trump officials. But the current system is fragile, meaning any disruption could delay loans and resources for farmers who are already reeling from the financial toll of Trump’s tariffs.

And Smith acknowledged that Democratic constituencies might not get the same treatment from the federal bureaucracy, adding that Trump has “expanded authority during the shutdown.”

Democrats have so far brushed off those threats, believing that the White House would continue to try to shrink the size of the federal workforce regardless of whether or not there was a shutdown. They are ultimately betting that Republicans — as the party holding the White House and majorities in both congressional chambers — will bear the brunt of any political fallout.

Jeffries rallied House Democrats in a teleconferenced Friday afternoon caucus meeting, where participants aired no dissent with their leadership’s focus on health care as the deadline looms, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the off-the-record phone call.

At the heart of the Democratic demands are Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies that were expanded in 2021 under former President Joe Biden. Some Republicans, including many vulnerable incumbents, believe the beefed-up credits should be extended past the current year-end expiration date. That idea is drawing fierce pushback from hard-line conservatives, several of whom warned their leadership over the weekend not to cut a deal on the subsidies.

There’s already multiple Republican proposals for how to keep the tax credits going past Dec. 31 and spare a likely premium hike that would result in millions losing health insurance. One group of House Republicans is backing a clean, one-year extension. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has proposed a two-year extension as part of a stand-alone bill or a shorter one-year extension tied to funding the government.

A group of Senate Republicans is also working with senior White House officials and CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz as they craft a proposal that would include new restrictions meant to appeal to conservatives and, hopefully, Trump.

Thune reiterated in an NBC News interview that aired Sunday that Republicans are willing to negotiate over extending the insurance subsidies but not as part of the pending government funding fight. The Senate leader added that the subsidies will need to be changed to win GOP votes, potentially through new income limits or language to prevent potential fraud.

Complicating matters is that House and Senate Democrats haven’t articulated a unified position on what specifically they would need in order to back the GOP-led stopgap funding bill.

Jeffries staked out a new position last week when he declared that not only did any spending agreement have to involve health care, but also that such an agreement had to be “ironclad and in legislation.” That appears to close off the possibility that an off-ramp might be found if Republicans only agreed to open talks on a health care compromise with a later-in-the-year deadline, as a condition of Democrats agreeing to the current Republican plan to keep the government running.

Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have unified behind one simple principle — that Republicans have to at least talk to Democrats if they want their votes. That radio silence broke on Friday when Schumer called Thune to encourage him to set up the White House meeting. The call, first reported by POLITICO, is a glimmer of outreach between the two leaders that senators had privately been hoping for.

Schumer said in the “Meet the Press” interview Sunday that Democrats “need a serious negotiation,” leaving himself options for what specifically would generate a shutdown-avoiding breakthrough. Other top Senate Democrats have sent similar signals in recent days.

“We never said that we had to have every single thing and everything is a red line,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the No. 3 Senate Democrat, told reporters Friday, adding that she wasn’t going to negotiate through a Zoom call.

“I’m glad that [Thune’s] willing to talk, but … simply promises that maybe will happen with Donald Trump?” she continued. “My guess is Senator Schumer will say, I need something more specific here.”

Congress

Sanders, AOC, Merkley propose bill to ban Flock cameras

Published

1 hour ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday released text of legislation intended to ban the use of Flock surveillance cameras and other license plate readers.

Flock has faced severe public backlash against the surveillance technology following reports that police officers misused the technology to track women, and it has the largest network of license plate readers across the U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) hosted a hearing last month probing its potential misuses, although the company’s CEO Garrett Langley did not appear.

The latest bill, unveiled Friday and named the Ban Flock Act, would bar federal agencies from using automated license plate readers or accessing data from the technology and prevent federal grants from funding states and local governments that use automated license plate readers.

“At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent,” Sanders, who has positioned himself as a leading progressive voice on AI technology, said in a statement. “We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.”

Ocasio-Cortez similarly condemned the surveillance capabilities of the technology and said the bill would “enforce our constitutional right to privacy and protect Americans from both corporate and government surveillance.”

“No one should have this unchecked surveillance power at their fingertips,” Merkley added.

Republicans have introduced similar efforts to regulate license plate readers, such as Hawley’s Stop Flock Abuse Act, which would require audits and limits on unauthorized searches.

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems spend big to help Hakeem’s dream

Published

4 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats watching Speaker Mike Johnson deal with a chaotically slim majority have seen enough — and they’re trying to avoid the same fate.

The party is investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority and strengthen the hand of Hakeem Jeffries, who’s widely favored as speaker if Democrats win the chamber in November.

“Another five-or-so-seat buffer would be a game-changer,” said one senior House Democrat, who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics. That lawmaker added it would help Jeffries “rise above some of the incoming bullshit he’s going to have to deal with.”

Every extra seat would help Jeffries secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions to the two clashing blocs within his party: progressives and moderates.

Recent spending reflects these ambitions. Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that President Donald Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact. The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” said the fund’s chair, Rep. Greg Stanton. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Before Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to limit her leadership term.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

Progressive challengers ousted a handful of Democratic incumbents in primaries this year, and they could adopt tactics from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if Democrats win just a narrow majority.

Meanwhile, newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem for Jeffries — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

What else we’re watching:

— HAWLEY’S POPULIST AI REBELLION: Sen. Josh Hawley’s push against artificial intelligence is placing an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans. Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s favoring of voluntary standards and exposes the growing rift between Republicans on how to respond to the technology. But Hawley’s influence is poised to expand as more Republicans start to echo his tone.

— GOP ADS SPUR CORPORATE HEARTBURN: A series of TV campaign ads this midterms season has highlighted a growing reality: On the right it’s become increasingly in vogue to bash big business. The ascendancy of Trump has ushered in a new era of skepticism toward multinational corporations in a party traditionally known as corporation-friendly. That puts big financial services firms, health insurance companies and tech titans — the subjects of the hottest rhetoric — at risk for becoming high-profile political punching bags for Republican 2028 presidential hopefuls.

Andrew Howard, Meredith Lee Hill, Riley Rogerson, Jessica Piper, John Hendel, Jasper Goodman and Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

Congress

The low-profile Democrat helping shape her party’s AI agenda

Published

7 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats scramble to create a viable plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one little-known lawmaker is playing a major behind-the-scenes role in shaping her party’s approach to the technology.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a North Carolina Democrat in her second term, is one of three co-chairs of a commission tasked by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to generate AI policy recommendations.

It’s a position that has given her significant power to mold Democrats’ thinking on the rapidly evolving issue, even as her fellow commission members cut more public personas through regular appearances at news conferences and in media hits: Rep. Ted Lieu of California is vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, while Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has built a reputation as a self-styled moderate dealmaker.

In an interview earlier this week, Foushee said the commission has submitted a “first draft” of its much-anticipated recommendations to Jeffries. And while Jeffries will ultimately provide feedback to inform the final report, she said she would push for there to “always be a human element” in any AI regulatory framework, with civil rights and liberties at the center.

“We have seen evidence of how technology can be used for discrimination,” said Foushee. “We’ve seen how some groups have been excluded.”

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also associates with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and centrist New Democrat Coalition, Foushee is representative of a broad, mainstream swath of House Democrats that has yet to stake a clear position on AI. And her vision for an AI regulatory model that keeps humans in control and builds in civil rights protections could provide a blueprint for her party.

She doesn’t want to stifle innovation, she explained; rather, “my focus is to make sure that we’re not leaving anybody behind.”

Foushee said she didn’t set out to lead on AI policy, but joined a bipartisan AI task force in the previous Congress given her seat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Since the task force released its recommendations in December 2024, House Republican leaders considered its mission complete, according to a senior GOP leadership aide granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. So when Speaker Mike Johnson opted not to reconstitute the panel in January 2025, Jeffries created his Democrat-only commission to fill that void, tapping Foushee as one of its commissioners.

“I was glad to be one of those that the leader thought might be helpful in leading us into the future,” she said. “So I don’t know if I would say that I was, you know, moved to do it, but certainly happy to do my part.”

Lieu, in a statement, called Foushee “unwavering in her commitment to ensuring AI systems don’t harm civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“I visited Val’s district earlier this year,” he continued, “and saw firsthand how effectively she works with local stakeholders to address the threats and unlock the possibilities of AI in her community.”

Foushee represents parts of the so-called Research Triangle encompassing Durham and Chapel Hill — the homes of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, where AI technologies are being studied. Her state is also a major hub for data centers powering the AI boom.

In her work with Lieu and Gottheimer, Foushee said “we’re all involved in everything” and that “you might say we’ve grown on each other.” Her main area of interest, though, has been to elevate civil rights and liberties protections.

She has introduced multiple bills to that end. One piece of legislation would require people to be told about when they are engaging with a chatbot instead of a human. Another would seek to expand participation in the AI research, education and workforce development among Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Foushee’s work on the commission is also being informed by her regular engagement with each of the major AI labs. In her eyes, Anthropic has been the most receptive to regulatory measures while others have favored more “pro-innovation” policies.

She was adamant, however, that Anthropic was in no way influencing the AI policies she could soon be shopping to colleagues — even though a political action committee funded by Anthropic executives spent a little over a million dollars to support her in a competitive primary earlier this year.

“Let me just say to you that no one should be worried or concerned,” Foushee said. “My work on AI has always been focused on establishing guardrails and holding corporations accountable. There is nothing that you will see in any legislation that I have introduced, led, co-led, or co-sponsored that has not been towards holding corporations accountable and protecting the American public.”

In any event, Foushee said she has had no direct outreach from Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, since he led calls last month for a slowdown of advanced AI development amid warnings it could soon pose an imminent threat to human civilization.

“When … you’re not allowing for the engagement of members of Congress, and not even an opportunity to provide input or to be engaged in the conversation, it makes me wonder what those efforts are about,” said Foushee.

A spokesperson for Anthropic did not return a request for comment, while Nate Evans, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was “deeply engaged with Congress on federal policy to advance AI safety, through dozens of meetings in recent weeks with members of both parties in both chambers.”

Representatives from Anthropic and OpenAI also briefed members of the Science Committee in mid-September.

All three commission co-chairs have been tight-lipped about what their AI recommendations could entail — especially as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to sense real urgency to rein in the technology and are desperate for legislative solutions.

It also remains to be seen whether the forthcoming agenda will unify a party that has been largely aligned on the need for regulation but deeply split on the specifics.

Some progressives, led by Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas, support banning highly sophisticated AI systems and pausing AI development until a government-led vetting procedure can be implemented.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has introduced what is currently one of the only comprehensive, bipartisan bills to regulate advanced AI models — but it stops significantly short of the pauses championed by progressives and opens a thorny debate about whether to preempt state AI laws with an overarching federal framework.

Foushee said she has not signed onto Casar’s proposal to ban superintelligence, explaining she has yet to review it. She did throw cold water on another progressive-led proposal to place a moratorium on data centers, saying it should be up to local jurisdictions whether to build the controversial, energy-sucking facilities.

She has not decided whether she will co-sponsor the bill Trahan painstakingly negotiated with California Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte. Members of both parties have been cautious to associate with the package given the hyper-partisan political environment, especially in the leadup to the midterms.

But Foushee said she supports holding a committee markup of the legislation, adding that when fellow Democrats ask her about the measure, she replies, “I’m not one to say that this member should or should not say or do this, that, or the other. I’m not hell bent on any one particular approach.”

Democrats “should continue to lead but it certainly does not mean to me that there should not be a bipartisan effort to put forward a framework,” said Foushee. “When indeed we are in the majority, then that is what we plan to do.”