Congress

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

Published

1 hour ago

October 2, 2026

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.”

Congress

‘A game-changer’: House Dems aim for a big majority that could ease Hakeem Jeffries’ headaches

Published

1 hour ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats are making moves to try to secure a big enough House majority to sideline blocs of both progressive and moderate holdouts who could cause constant headaches for Hakeem Jeffries if he becomes speaker next year.

Democrats are investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority, banking on what appears to be a strong political environment to not just win but win big. That would strengthen Jeffries’ hand.

“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 they pick up will make it easier for Jeffries to secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions. That would let him ensure they can’t “hold Hakeem hostage” on legislation, as another senior House Democrat put it.

The 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 Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024. In eight of those districts, Democrats have spent or reserved upwards of $3 million apiece, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact, which tracks political advertising.

That includes $13 million in total spending and reservations to target scandal-plagued Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) in a district Trump won by 11 points in 2024 and more than $10 million to boost Tejano singer Bobby Pulido against Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) in a district Trump won by nearly 18 points.

The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), the chair of the fund, said all of the candidates the group has endorsed have committed to backing Jeffries.

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

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 30, 2026.

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank in order to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers.

Speaker Mike Johnson has had to navigate a treacherous majority of only three votes, sometimes less depending on the day, giving ample power to the GOP’s right flank. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to serve only two more terms in leadership.

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.

As one Democratic strategist put it, “The larger the majority, the more freebies you can hand off.”

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.

They aren’t the only potential concern. Newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

A hint of that came last month, when moderate Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) twice sided with Republicans to advance slates of GOP bills and forced Jeffries to decry a “significant breach of trust.”

“A Blue Dog in a Trump plus 15 district has a different series of challenges than a progressive from a safe Democratic seat,” said Ian Russell, a Democratic ad maker and former deputy executive director of the DCCC. “The progressive from a safe Democratic seat has voters who want the Democratic Party to be successful. So they have an incentive to be constructive, even in their criticism of leadership, to be constructive, to be team players. So I think it’s unfair to the progressives to just assume that they’re going to be headaches.”

Asked by Blue Light News during a news conference Wednesday what a bigger margin would mean should he be elected speaker, Jeffries said he is focused on “working incredibly hard to win control of the House of Representatives and then to win as many seats as possible on top of that.”

A spokesperson for Jeffries declined to comment except to refer to Jeffries’ comments at the news conference. House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ main super PAC, declined to comment.

In a statement, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said the committee’s mission “is to win the majority, and win the largest majority possible.”

Jeffries and top Democrats are facing wariness from some Democrats who want to make sure they don’t overextend their limited war chest in their quest to secure a large majority — and risk not winning a majority at all.

“Don’t waste resources just because,” a third House Democrat cautioned. “Expand the battlefield where it’s smart to do so and causes the other side to spend more on defense.”

Jeffries is already working to make inroads with candidates who could complicate his potential speakership, regardless of the margin.

Melat Kiros, a Democratic socialist-affiliated candidate who waged a successful progressive challenge to Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado, has not committed to backing Jeffries, but said in an interview in September they had a “wonderful” call.

“It’s a big tent,” she said of the party, “and we all have the same goal of taking back the House and making sure that we can demonstrate to the American people that it’s our party that can actually deliver those results.”

Congress

Top Democratic appropriator wants White House to pay for airing ‘propaganda’

Published

14 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A group of Senate Democrats are rolling out a bill Thursday to cut funding from the White House budget office any time a president uses taxpayer dollars to pay for anything considered political “propaganda.”

The legislation led by Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, is unlikely to clear Congress unless Democrats win control of the House and Senate in the midterms. But the language could eventually be included in annual government funding bills and serves in the meantime as a way for Democrats to press their GOP counterparts on President Donald Trump’s ongoing use of federal funding to air campaign-style ads commending the president and his offensive against Iran.

“Congress cannot sit on its hands,” Murray said in a statement, noting that lawmakers in both parties have said in recent days that they oppose the taxpayer-funded ads the Trump administration is defending as “public service announcements.”

The bill would dock the budget of the Office of Management and Budget by $20 million every time an administration violates existing law barring the use of federal funds for “publicity or propaganda purposes.” The head of the Government Accountability Office would be charged with determining if such a violation has occurred.

Congress

Barrage of lawsuits targets Trump’s funding cancellation

Published

18 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s move to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved spending are piling up in courtrooms throughout the country as states and groups that receive federal dollars fight to keep the cash flowing.

In the final hours before the fiscal year ended late Wednesday, a half-dozen states went to federal court to challenge Trump’s latest use of a controversial “pocket rescission.” A group that helps students from migrant families go to college also filed suit, trying to preserve about $25 million in education funding Trump is seeking to claw back.

At least one federal judge so far has been sympathetic to arguments that Trump’s move, which essentially runs out the clock on Congress’ right to evaluate and potentially reject funding clawbacks, could be illegal: U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled late Wednesday to delay the expiration of $56 million for housing support services, temporarily blocking Trump from canceling the money.

The flurry of legal action comes as many lawmakers on Capitol Hill clamor for the courts to strike down Trump’s action as an illegal and unconstitutional encroachment on Congress’ power to dictate how federal cash is spent.

But the fresh lawsuits will not necessarily prompt a sweeping ruling from the Supreme Court, which allowed Trump to go ahead last year with withholding $4 billion he canceled through the same budget tactic. The high court argued in that brief unsigned order that the Trump administration had made a strong argument that outside groups may not have legal standing to sue under the decades-old impoundment law.

In the lawsuit Wednesday by six states, the suing parties argue that the president has not only flouted that 1970s law, but also the Constitution and the annual funding bills Congress has enacted over the last year.

The group suing over the cancellation of funding for educating students from migrant families laid out similar arguments, contending that the Trump administration has violated the First Amendment by discriminating based on “protected speech, expressive activities, and viewpoints that are irrelevant to funding or activities” the programs support.

Cobb’s decision, meanwhile, is only temporary. She explained in an emergency order Wednesday that she acted because the suing groups “would lose out on significant amounts of funding due to allegedly unconstitutional actions.”

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.