Congress

‘Sticking needles in my eyeballs’: Some Democrats couldn’t sit through Trump’s speech

Published

2 years ago

March 5, 2025

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wanted a “solemn” response to President Donald Trump’s congressional address Tuesday. His members had other ideas.

Moments after Trump began speaking, Texas Rep. Al Green rose and interrupted the president until he was ejected from the chamber. Other members held signs blasting Trump and his policies. Repeatedly they met Trump’s partisan provocations with chants and jeers. Many simply walked out of the chamber, leaving the Democratic section increasingly empty as the speech went on.

The minority party is still trying to find its footing and a winning message after losing control of government last fall, and the protests and walkouts underscored just how difficult it will be for Democratic congressional leaders to effectively harness the anger of their party’s voters, activists and elected officials.

Jeffries and other party leaders have counseled a measured approach, one focused on the impacts of Trump’s policies — particularly the cuts being undertaken by billionaire ally Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency. Lawmakers were encouraged ahead of the speech to emphasize the effects of Trump and Musk’s overhaul of the federal government and to bring guests impacted by the House GOP budget blueprint or by Musk’s actions.

Some of the Democratic protests were largely in line with that directive. The Congressional Progressive Caucus, for instance, distributed signs to its members to signal disapproval of specific Trump policies, believing their silent protest was in line with leaders’ wishes. This bloc and some of the other Democrats had given leadership a heads-up about their plans, even as they were encouraged not to bring props like signs and whiteboards.

Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), a Progressive Caucus member who walked out, said what was “important to our leadership was that we stayed focused on the message” but that there was room for Democrats, as the minority party, to make their opposition to Trump plain.

“We’re doing the best with what we have — we don’t have gavels,” said Takano.

In a statement after the speech, Jeffries called it “one of the most divisive presidential addresses in American history” but didn’t address the protests from members of his caucus. His wish for a “solemn” response invoked a word often used by his predecessor as top Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who had little patience for freelance activism at high-profile, high-stakes moments.

Parts of Trump’s speech Tuesday night were marked by spasms of raw anger. With the trauma of the Jan. 6 insurrection and the brutal beatings of Capitol officers still fresh in their minds, Democrats shouted “Jan. 6” at Trump when he praised law enforcement during the speech. Democratic lawmakers sprinted for the exits when Trump wrapped up the address, and none lingered to talk to the president as he left the House chamber.

“To be honest with you, I would have rather spent time sticking needles in my eyeballs than sitting through this speech,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “It was awful.”

Many Democrats who made gestures of protest saw their demonstrations as a way to counter the disruption wrought by Trump and his allies.

“If they’re moving different, we have to move different, and that’s how we match their energy, and that’s why I walked out,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). “I did something unprecedented today, because they are doing something unprecedented every day — making history for the wrong reasons.”

The rising tide of demonstrative behavior from the opposition party arguably began in 2009 with South Carolina GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst of “you lie” at then-President Barack Obama. More recently, Republican members such as Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Lauren Boebert of Colorado shouted during President Joe Biden’s joint addresses. But Republicans criticized Tuesday night’s protests of Trump all the same.

“The level of vitriol from the Democrats was the worst it’s ever been,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) told reporters. “It’s a new, terrible standard.”

Most Democrats, meanwhile, refrained from criticizing their colleagues who protested the president.

“I think that there should be more decorum on both sides, and I think there should be bipartisanship, but unfortunately we’re not living in that day and age,” said purple-district Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas.). “There’s a lot of emotions around this country, and we saw them tonight on both sides.”

Democrats have faced pressure from their base to mount a more determined resistance to Trump, and some of those who protested Tuesday said that they wanted to show that resistance.

“It’s worth it to let people know that there are some people who are going to stand up” to Trump, Green told reporters after getting expelled from the chamber. He shouted that Trump had “no mandate” to pursue his agenda, later explaining he was protesting proposed cuts to Medicaid and other programs.

Speaker Mike Johnson said following the speech that Green should face a congressional censure for his disruption. (Wilson was handed a reprimand, a less severe sanction, for his outburst in 2009.)

Green said he was prepared to “accept the punishment” and had no regrets about acting out.

“It is the best way to get it across to a person who uses his incivility against our civility,” he said.

Lisa Kashinsky, Mia McCarthy and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Democrats drop $5M into Kansas Senate race

Published

2 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Democrats’ top super PAC is pushing into Kansas.

The Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC is launching a $5 million statewide television ad blitz starting Saturday through Election Day — the latest sign that Democrats believe the Senate map is shifting onto red turf.

SMP had signaled in recent days it could get involved in the race, telling Blue Light News late last month it was “actively thinking” about whether to wade into the state where Democrats haven’t won a Senate seat in nearly a century but where Adam Hamilton narrowly leads GOP Sen. Roger Marshall in recent polls. Internal SMP polling that found an increasingly competitive race factored into the group’s decision to spend. It will also run digital ads.

“The gap is closing in Kansas,” SMP spokesperson Lauren French said in a statement. “We are committed to ensuring families understand Marshall’s real record of making health care and basic goods more expensive for working Kansans.”

Republicans are scrambling to shore up Marshall. Senate Leadership Fund, a top GOP super PAC aligned with Republican leadership, has booked over $10 million in ads through Election Day in the state, per ad tracking firm AdImpact.

SMP’s first ad attacks Marshall for joining Senate Republicans in voting to table a Democratic-led amendment last year to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Senate later approved legislation to release the files by unanimous consent. It’s the latest in a slate of ads from Democrats hitting their Republican rivals over the late, disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. Marshall’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senate Democrats’ plunge into the state comes as the midterm battle map is undergoing a major realignment. Georgia and North Carolina — primed to be two of the cycle’s premiere battlegrounds — are tilting left to the point where national Republicans are retracting spending in both states and Democrats are starting to follow suit, freeing funds on both sides to shift elsewhere.

Republicans are racing to reinforce incumbents across what was once safer red turf. SLF has also pledged $5 million to bolster Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina.

Democrats, meanwhile, are starting to spend more in red states. SMP has dropped over $2 million on digital ads in Texas. Schumer, the Senate minority leader, has included Kansas and Mississippi in his pitches to donors.

Congress

House Democratic campaign arm says it needs $17 million, and fast

Published

3 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is begging for resources, and setting a hard deadline for donors to give $17 million in order to compete in a handful of districts that Republicans carried easily in 2024.

DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said the committee needs the cash influx by Oct. 22 in order to “to take advantage of the opportunities we have” outside of the core battlefield, according to a memo shared with donors on Friday and obtained by POLITICO.

If they don’t pony up, Merz warns, the party “could be leaving winnable races on the table.”

Democrats have been clear that they have a fundraising disadvantage this cycle, but they have so far been reluctant to place a specific dollar amount on their needs, making the DCCC’s memo Friday a particularly surprising outlier.

“Here’s the tough reality though: the Republican ecosystem has amassed a massive war chest that is significantly greater than ours and is spending it,” Merz says in the memo after arguing that the members of the committee “remain confident that we will win back the majority in 25 days.”

Specifically, Merz dedicates significant portions of the memo to four districts where the committee is desperate for more money in order to compete — all of which President Donald Trump won by double-digit margins in 2024:

— Florida’s 27th District (Trump +14.6)

— Nevada’s 2nd District (Trump +13.9)

— South Carolina’s 1st District (Trump +13)

— New York’s 21st District (Trump +20.7)

The fundraising disadvantage has created headaches for both House and Senate Democrats over where, exactly, to deploy the resources they do have.

The committee tells donors that their internal polling shows all of those races within reach, but that Republicans’ big cash advantages — especially in the Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc. — will make it harder to win those and other reach seats.

Merz also name drops a handful of other deep-red districts that are “worthy of additional investment in this environment,” including seats held by GOP Reps. French Hill (R-Ark.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the chair of the Republican National Congressional Committee.

The NRCC was quick to mock the DCCC’s memo.

“No amount of money fixes candidates voters don’t want. These seats are staying red, and Republicans are on offense across the map,” NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement.

Congress

Capitol agenda: How Warren could link arms with Trump’s GOP

Published

9 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Elizabeth Warren may get her clearest shot yet to take on corporate America next year — thanks to the once unthinkable help of Republicans.

The Massachusetts Democrat is poised to chair Senate Banking if the party takes back the chamber. And while the progressive has long been a boogeyman to corporate America, lobbyists worry she’ll have powerful backup thanks to the surge of populist Republicans eager to take big swings at Wall Street and Big Tech.

One longtime financial industry lobbyist, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Warren “has a streak that is not just wanting to be a progressive gadfly, but to actually reach across the aisle to push for policy ideas.” There is “absolutely” reason for concern, the person said.

Atop the panel, Warren would also have a strong position to shape the 2028 presidential debates on both sides.

“There’s very little doubt that the agenda of the Senate Banking Committee is going to overlap substantially with the core issues that the candidates in the 2028 election cycle are going to be grappling with,” said Dennis Kelleher, the outgoing leader of the progressive group Better Markets.

As Banking chair, Warren is expected to try to recruit Republicans in a crackdown on artificial intelligence — specifically restrictions on chip giant Nvidia’s exports to China, which already has some GOP support — and a follow-up of this year’s bipartisan housing law that sought to rein in private equity’s role in the market, according to people close to the senator.

Some of President Donald Trump’s own populist ideas, like credit card interest rate caps and limits on stock buybacks for defense contractors, would provide fertile ground for Warren.

But Trump would also likely be Warren’s biggest obstacle, as he’s been resistant to embrace policy overlaps with her. He’s also been resistant to any AI restrictions.

Warren’s approach also threatens to expose rifts between GOP populists who have been ascendent under Trump and more mainstream conservatives.

Asked about the possibility of a Chair Warren, Sen. Mike Rounds, a more moderate South Dakota Republican, said he doesn’t “think anything would get done except lots of investigations and lots of accusations.”

What else we’re watching:

— LAWMAKERS CLAMOR FOR GAO v. TRUMP — Lawmakers are desperate for a government watchdog to step up and help them in their fight against the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The independent Government Accountability Office concluded earlier this week that the White House illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs — the latest in more than a half-dozen such findings GAO has published since the start of Trump’s second term. But the agency has yet to use its unique power to take the president to court to challenge those “impoundments,” and lawmakers who are tired of the administration running roughshod over their funding prerogatives want GAO to act.

— MURPHY’S DEFENSE FUNDING ULTIMATUM — Democrats should not approve Pentagon funding or the annual defense policy bill if they control Congress next year unless those bills would hasten the end of the Iran war, Sen. Chris Murphy told reporters Thursday. “We should make the end of the war a priority,” said the Foreign Relations Democrat who was returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Murphy also accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and officials of attempting a “cover-up” of the war’s damage and obscuring its true cost after he was denied entry on a base in Qatar. Given the damage to bases in the region, Murphy also told reporters that the U.S. should “reconsider its footprint” in the Middle East.

Jasper Goodman, Jennifer Scholtes and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.