Congress

The Democrat who thinks she can land an AI deal with Republicans

Published

1 month ago

May 26, 2026

As Democrats struggle to come up with a plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one member of Congress has a high-risk idea: talk to the opposition.

Rep. Lori Trahan of Massachusetts, a four-term lawmaker and member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has been involved in conversations around the emerging technology for some time.

In the last three weeks, however, Trahan has gotten more serious about clinching a bipartisan accord. That includes meeting privately with Rep. Jay Obernolte of California, a Republican who also serves on the committee and has long held an interest in AI policy and has deep ties to the tech industry.

Her decision to carve out this partnership without the explicit blessing of her party leaders — who are instead encouraging a small group of Democrats to pursue a separate, partisan track — is already raising eyebrows.

“There’s a big difference between putting a stake in the ground on tech, and making it clear that you’re serious on tech, and undermining the caucus’s position on AI,” said a senior congressional Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly due to the sensitive nature of ongoing AI negotiations.

In an interview last week, Trahan said her engagement was a no-brainer.

“I think it’s not a mystery what I’m fighting for in these conversations,” she said. “Safety is paramount; our kids, our national security, innovation. … We think the moment requires it.”

Trahan, accompanied by, from left, Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), speaks at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol in Washington in May 2024.

But Trahan’s gambit is no sure bet. If she can strike a viable agreement with Obernolte, she will have proven that she has the political savvy ideal for an aspiring leader: She’s a co-chair of the House Democratic messaging arm and isn’t ruling out a bid for a promotion in the next Congress. If she can’t clinch a deal — or worse, if she signs off on something her fellow Democrats think gives too much away — she could alienate members of her own party in Washington and back home.

Democrats have been struggling to define where they stand on AI for months amid competing priorities. If they move to put more guardrails on AI companies, they could face retaliation from deep-pocketed, pro-AI super PACs. If they let these companies proceed unchecked, progressives warn it could put the party out of step with voters concerned about lost jobs, the energy consumption associated with data centers and infringements on personal privacy.

Trahan said Democrats can’t afford to wait or retreat: “Suppose there is a catastrophic event or suppose there is a disruption to an employer where people are laid off because you weren’t at the table, we weren’t having these conversations,” she said. “Like, how do I look folks back in the eye and say, ‘Oh yeah, we were just waiting until we had the gavels.’”

As she works with Obernotle, Trahan insisted she has sought input from fellow Democrats and received recommendations, but not “pushback.” She added she is approaching discussions with “humility” and considers herself a “team player” in the caucus.

Her caucus, however, is consumed with its own deliberations. Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the No. 4 Democratic leader, is helping lead a “House Democratic Commission on AI and the Innovation Economy,” convened by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

With Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Valerie Foushee of North Carolina serving as co-chairs, the commission is currently working to come up with an AI regulatory framework Democrats can own and campaign on ahead of the midterms — all but spurning conversations with Republicans and distancing themselves from Trahan’s efforts.

“I know very little about what she and Obernotle are discussing. I have not been read in,” Lieu said in an interview. “We’re focused on building a framework for Leader Jeffries before the end of the year on what Democrats should focus on after we flip the House.”

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) arrives for a vote at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on May 21, 2026.

“But members can do whatever they want,” he continued. “I haven’t followed [Trahan] — I literally have no idea what language even looks like or if they’ve even talked about language.”

In a potentially awkward situation depending on what comes of Trahan’s efforts, Lieu expects to become House Democratic Caucus chair in the next Congress — and Trahan is one of a handful of members angling for the vice chair slot Lieu now holds.

Regarding her leadership ambitions, Trahan said that “if there’s an opportunity for me to continue at the leadership table, I would love to have that conversation.”

Jeffries, asked about her AI pursuits, said in a brief interview, “I haven’t talked to Lori Trahan about it.”

Trahan is also taking a gamble by entering into high-stakes policy talks with a Republican who doesn’t have a great track record of landing deals with Democrats.

Lieu ran an AI policy task force with Obernolte in the previous Congress, and they introduced legislation earlier this year that would improve standards, invest in workforce development programs and deter harmful deepfakes. That bill has gone nowhere.

Meanwhile, Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) engaged in his own series of talks with Obernolte earlier this year that likewise failed to bear fruit.

“We’re all interested in trying to find a framework that makes sense,” Liccardo said in an interview. “Jay is open-minded, but he has constraints on his side of the aisle, and it makes it very difficult to find openness.”

Trahan and Obernolte have declined to publicly discuss specific policies that are under consideration in their discussions, with Obernolte not even wanting to divulge he was working with Trahan on anything related to AI: “I am neither confirming or denying that I am talking to her,” he said in an interview.

Trahan speaks during an interview with POLITICO in her office on Capitol Hill in Washington, on May 21, 2026.

Trahan, in contrast, said, “I’ve been very happy to work with Jay. … I like the way the conversations are progressing, and, you know, I’m hopeful that we can share something soon.”

They could run into problems. Obernolte has consistently pushed for replacing existing state laws on AI with an overarching federal framework. That’s a more moderate approach than banning states from making their own AI rules without any federal guardrails — which is favored by GOP leadership — but it remains anathema to many Democrats.

Earlier this month, people familiar with Trahan and Obernolte’s talks said a potential deal would involve preempting AI safety laws like those in California and New York that require top AI developers to disclose information about new models to identify security risks.

That potential trajectory prompted alarm from blue state legislators, including in Trahan’s home state, where a data center boom has rattled locals worried about job losses, higher energy prices and environmental impacts.

Last month, Massachusetts State Sen. Michael Moore and State Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier wrote to Trahan that while they aren’t opposed to a federal framework, they don’t want to undermine existing state laws, such as on data privacy.

Trahan declined to rule out that state preemption is on the table in her talks with Obernolte but she said her subsequent conversation with Moore and Farley-Bouvier was “productive,” with the three of them “aligned on our values in terms of making sure we hold the line on safety.”

Moore, in an interview, echoed Trahan’s characterization of their phone call, but added he hadn’t yet seen a draft of her proposal and warned that he didn’t necessarily trust the Trump administration to implement it responsibly.

This isn’t Trahan’s first politically fraught policy fight. She recently said she tried to negotiate with Republicans on the so-called SCORE Act, which would among other things preempt a patchwork of state laws governing how student athletes are paid.

She wanted to help land a bipartisan bill that would level the playing field for everyone — what she calls her guiding principle in AI talks. But Trahan eventually walked away when GOP leaders decided to pursue a partisan path, culminating in a canceled floor vote on the measure last week.

As for why she thinks bipartisan AI negotiations might be different, Trahan suggested it could, if nothing else, come down to stamina.

“The stakes are too high for us to rush it,” she said, “and they’re too high for us to get it wrong.”

Gabby Miller and Brendan Bordelon contributed to this report.

Congress

Johnson-backed plan to combine Pentagon and election bills advances to floor

Published

6 hours ago

June 30, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House Rules Committee advanced a procedural measure aimed at breaking an intra-Republican deadlock Monday night. But GOP leaders are still facing a major battle Tuesday to regain control of the House floor.

The panel approved on party lines a measure to set up Republicans’ $1.1 trillion defense policy bill, a government funding bill and other GOP bills for floor debate. It would then combine the Pentagon bill, once passed, with the contentious elections overhaul known as the SAVE America Act and send it to the Senate as one piece of legislation.

That maneuver, telegraphed by Speaker Mike Johnson earlier Monday, is aimed at appeasing House GOP hard-liners who have blockaded the floor, demanding the Senate pass the elections bill that has languished there for months.

However, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, the Republican leading the blockade, said in an interview Monday before the Rules Committee acted that Johnson’s plan is not sufficient — raising the possibility she and allies could vote down the measure on the floor. Other House GOP hard-liners say there are other outstanding issues to battle over Tuesday.

Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Democrat, called the merger move “a big waste of time.” The panel voted down a motion by McGovern to remove the provision to combine the two bills in a party-line vote.

The Senate is set to debate its own version of the defense bill next month, and it is likely that the elections overhaul will be removed in negotiations between the two chambers — as McGovern acknowledged Monday and House GOP leaders privately concede.

“The Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out,” he said at the meeting. “There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the [Pentagon bill] because of this rule today.”

The defense bill faces a tight vote if Republicans can pass the procedural measure. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the measure over its massive price tag, which they contend is wasteful.

The panel is set up debate on 312 amendments to the bill. The slate includes GOP measures to codify a Trump executive order to block transgender people from serving in the military, prohibit coverage of gender-affirming care, block aid to arm Ukraine and strip Democratic-backed protections for collective bargaining for Pentagon civilian workers.

The committee also voted down Democratic proposals to slash $150 billion from the bill’s topline and limit the war against Iran.

Mia McCarthy contributed to this report.

Congress

Pentagon and elections bills could be combined in bid to unfreeze House floor

Published

8 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Speaker Mike Johnson said Monday he plans to deploy an unusual procedural maneuver in a bid to unfreeze the House floor this week, seeking to send the annual Pentagon policy bill and the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act to the Senate in a single package.

That is likely a recipe for a continued standoff between the two chambers over the SAVE America Act, which has stalled in the Senate for months due to internal GOP divides. Under Johnson’s plan, the annual defense policy bill, which typically passes every year with large bipartisan majorities, could become a collateral victim of the impasse.

Asked in brief interview if he had talked to Senate Majority Leader John Thune about his plans, Johnson replied, “I have to do my job in the House, and they’ve got to do their job in the Senate, so we’ll see what happens.”

Johnson is seeking to placate House conservative hard-liners, led by Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who have threatened to oppose the procedural measures that give Republicans control of the floor unless they agree to tougher tactics meant to force the Senate into passing the elections bill.

House GOP leaders discussed the plan to merge the two bills over the weekend as Luna pushed to amend the defense bill directly.

She did not say in an interview Monday whether Johnson’s gambit would suffice: “We want it baked together, not able to be stripped out,” she said.

But the Senate is free to work its own will, and members of that chamber are likely to reject any defense bill that has the partisan elections bill attached. That would set the stage for GOP leaders to strip it out when the House and Senate hash out the differences between their competing Pentagon bills later this year.

Johnson, meanwhile, is pushing a separate plan to pass a slimmed-down version of the SAVE America Act through the party-line budget reconciliation process — an option hard-liners have all but rejected.

“I don’t think that that can be done,” Luna told reporters Monday.

He’s also facing another complication: The version of the SAVE America Act he is proposing to attach to the Pentagon bill doesn’t include the latest demands for the bill from President Donald Trump — including a near-total ban on mail voting that is opposed by many Republicans.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report.

Congress

Top Trump officials face bipartisan questions in first all-member Iran briefings

Published

9 hours ago

June 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawmakers of both parties questioned Secretary of State Marco Rubio and top Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff Monday in the first broad congressional briefings on President Donald Trump’s Iran deal.

While Democrats asked some of the sharpest questions, participants in an afternoon conference call with House members said, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) at one point pressed the administration officials on the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

According to two people granted anonymity to disclose the private remarks, Witkoff and Rubio repeated assurances the administration has privately made to select lawmakers in prior briefings — that the goal is to negotiate a final deal that would prohibit Iran from keeping its highly enriched uranium.

The memorandum of understanding Trump signed earlier this month, they said, was meant to launch those negotiations. Witkoff, the people said, added that the technical team involved in that part of the talks was traveling from Switzerland to Qatar, where talks between the U.S. and Iran are set to happen Tuesday.

Democrats, meanwhile, pushed the administration for more details on what financial benefits Iran could reap under the memorandum — including proceeds from previously sanctioned oil sales.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) went back and forth with Rubio and Witkoff over the lifting of the oil sanctions, two other people granted anonymity on the House call said. The officials eventually cut off the conversation and ended the call.

At another point, Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) raised concerns about Witkoff’s business interests in the Middle East as he’s negotiating with Iran, prompting a sharp defense from Rubio, those people said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer asked Rubio and Witkoff about the oil sanctions during a separate all-senators call Monday, saying in a statement afterward that they “confirmed to me that Iran will reap billions in oil revenue while retaining dangerous leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.”

“If this is the administration’s defense behind closed doors, Secretary Rubio should make it under oath, in public, before the Foreign Relations Committee,” Schumer added, calling the briefing “delayed, deficient, and devoid of details.”

An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly countered on Schumer’s characterization, noting that he had previously gotten a briefing of the deal as part of a group of top leaders engaged on national security matters. Schumer, the official said, had the opportunity to ask multiple follow-up questions on the Senate call.

A separate group of White House officials briefed top congressional leaders and key committee chairs in a classified briefing in the Capitol later Monday.

The administration has faced bipartisan skepticism over multiple provisions of the memorandum of understanding — particularly the lifting of oil sanctions and a $300 billion reconstruction fund that many Senate Republicans fear will help fuel Iran’s military and regional proxies.

Rubio and Witkoff sought to ease concerns about the slow reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — the critical trade route whose closure has sparked higher fuel and fertilizer costs. Both officials said more mine removal is required, and Witkoff indicated that Iran broke the terms of the Trump-signed deal by launching a drone attack on a passing ship over the weekend.

They also sought to assure lawmakers that Iran has received no money under the memorandum — especially not directly from American sources. Administration officials have previously pledged in smaller briefings that the reconstruction fund won’t include U.S. funds.

Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) called the Senate briefing a “productive conversation” but said “much of what I heard today is similar to what I heard last week” during a dinner at Vice President JD Vance’s residence.