Congress

The Senate’s marathon elections debate is dividing Republicans, not Democrats

Published

6 months ago

March 18, 2026

Senate Republicans want to use their party-line elections bill as a cudgel against Democrats. They need to stop sparring with each other first.

Republicans kicked off debate Tuesday on the SAVE America Act, a House-passed bill that would create new proof-of-citizenship and photo ID requirements in order for Americans to participate in federal elections. In a bid to pacify House and Senate conservatives, a fervent base flooding their social media mentions and even President Donald Trump — who views the legislation as his “No. 1 priority” — Senate Republicans are expected to spend days, if not weeks, discussing the legislation.

The chances the push will succeed in passing the bill, which Democrats uniformly oppose, are miniscule. And it’s not at all clear that spending two weeks on the bill will be enough to quell what has been an intense GOP-on-GOP pressure campaign that has sucked up much of the focus in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s vote.

“We’ll find out, you know?” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said when asked if he knew if it would be enough to satisfy Trump, who has repeatedly urged Republicans to skirt the 60-vote filibuster to pass the bill. “What I promised from the very beginning is we’ll get it up and we will have a vote. I can’t guarantee the result.”

He added that Trump and others also “want us to nuke the legislative filibuster in order to do it, and that’s also something I’ve been very clear about — there just aren’t the votes.”

Spending more than a week of floor time on a bill that is all but guaranteed to fail isn’t typically how the Senate operates. Usually, to show legislation supported by their own party can’t clear the chamber’s supermajority threshold, Senate leaders quickly move to end debate and prove it can’t get 60 votes.

But Senate Republicans are under intense pressure to show that they are fighting Democrats for “election integrity” — an issue they believe polls well for them but appears to be causing little heartburn for Democrats so far. Some believe forcing a “talking filibuster” where opponents have to hold the floor indefinitely will force the opposition to cave.

Democratic senators shrugged off the strategy Tuesday, vowing that no matter how long Republicans drag out the debate, there is no way the election bill can garner 60 Senate votes.

“If MAGA Republicans want to bog down the Senate over a debate on voter suppression, Democrats are ready. We’re ready to be here all day, all night, as long as it takes,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters. “Senate Democrats will never let this rotten bill move through this body.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an interview that Democrats will “spend the next two weeks painting them as totally out of touch.”

The Senate is expected to stay in session late into the night and into the weekend as senators hammer each other over the bill. Thune has been careful not to outline a date certain for the end of the debate, and both parties expect the process to eat up much of the next week and a half.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) predicted “late nights with us having folks on the floor as long as Republicans do … being ready for procedural motions that we’ll have to respond to in real time.”

Democrats have filed dozens of amendments to the bill, including requiring proof of citizenship to purchase an assault weapon, restoring lapsed Obamacare tax credits and tying the bill’s implementation date to the price of gas. But unlike a true “talking filibuster,” where they would be able to offer those amendments and force Republicans to take politically uncomfortable votes, Thune took steps Tuesday to keep tight control of the debate by calling up a series of Republican amendments.

Both parties have procedural curveballs they could throw. If no one is speaking, Republicans could try to move immediately to a final vote on the bill at a simple majority, while Democrats could try to adjourn or set the bill aside altogether. They are likely to pause the debate later this week by forcing a privileged vote on a resolution limiting Trump’s ability to take military action in Iran without congressional approval.

But those actions appear destined to fall short of the hardball tactics demanded by the party’s MAGA wing, including Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — who is clamoring for the Senate to stay in session until Democrats capitulate. And even some of Lee’s allies are starting to acknowledge the bill is barreling toward a 60-vote hurdle that it can’t clear.

“If we do not act on an issue that commands this level of support … we should not be surprised when the American people lose confidence in our willingness to fight for them,” Lee told fellow Republicans from the Senate floor Tuesday night.

The initial hours of debate Tuesday were nothing out of the ordinary. Senators agreed unanimously to structure the debate, rotating which party had time to speak about the bill. There were long stretches of floor silence as the evening wore into night, and the chamber adjourned as it typically does at the end of the day. The Senate won’t come back into session until noon Wednesday.

Across the Capitol, the hardball tactics weren’t any more effective. Some House Republicans vowed to block any Senate bill to pressure their counterparts into passing the elections overhaul, but two Senate bills already cleared the chamber this week.

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, are struggling to resolve internal divisions. Some of those are tactical, but others are substantive. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has declared her opposition to the bill as a federal overreach into traditionally state-run elections. And Trump’s push to largely ban mail-in voting is a fierce point of contention that came up during the GOP’s closed-door lunch Tuesday, according to three attendees granted anonymity to describe the private discussion.

Amid backlash from several GOP senators, Republicans reworked a mail voting amendment with the White House’s blessing to try to assuage concerned members. The change includes a state-defined “hardship” exemption from in-person voting, according to a copy of the updated proposal obtained by Blue Light News. The amendment is expected to get a vote as part of the Senate’s marathon debate, while internal discussions continue about two other Trump-requested additions: restricting trans women from competing in women’s sports and banning gender-affirming surgeries for minors.

That would still fall short of the talking filibuster demanded by Lee, an army of online supporters and Trump, who spoke with Lee Monday about the bill. The Utah Republican said Monday night, “If your senators don’t support using the talking filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, you might need to replace them.”

Asked about Lee’s comments, Thune urged his party to redirect their fury.

“I prefer to have our fights with Democrats,” Thune said. “And I’m always someone who believes it’s far better for us to have a majority in the United States Senate.”

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

2 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House Democrats aren’t letting rogue members off the hook for bucking their party. They hope Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries won’t either.

“Obviously, there’s got to be” punishment for the two Democrats who twice this month bucked their party to advance a slate of Republican priorities, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) said in an interview.

“Otherwise, then,” he said, “it’s open season.”

Democrats are watching closely how — and if — Jeffries doles out consequences for Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington who have twice provided the decisive votes for GOP procedural measures this month. Jeffries and his leadership team condemned the two members when they first defected two weeks ago, slamming a “breach of trust” warranting a “serious response” but have yet to inflict any public consequences.

On Tuesday, they defied leadership a second time, infuriating House Democrats and resurrecting questions about how leadership plans to keep its caucus in line — especially if they have a slim majority next term.

“We have to all be united, and I think it’s pretty simple,” said one House Democrat who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “If there’s not [a punishment], I find it hard to see a path forward in the majority, which we’re all pushing for.”

Asked if leadership should punish the two aisle-crossers, Rep. Troy Carter pointed to his time as minority leader of the Louisiana state Senate: “When I had members that did not work within the confines of the philosophical views of our party, I took them off our caucus.”

“I don’t want to second-guess anybody’s timing, but I will tell you that these things cannot allow to fester,” he added. “We have to have a strict message: Either you’re with the team on those fundamental issues of governance or you aren’t.”

Multiple members, including Carter, said that removing Gluesenkamp Perez from the Appropriations Committee should be considered. (While members are just as angry at Golden, they acknowledge he’s beyond punishment given he is retiring at the end of this term.)

“I suspect that there are a number of appropriate consequences that [leaders] could implement,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said in an interview. “And, ultimately, it’s their decision. I certainly don’t want that to be a caucus decision. That should be a leadership decision.”

One leader, Whip Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, suggested she is open to removing Gluesenkamp Perez from Appropriations, telling reporters Wednesday morning that “team players get to sit on exclusive committees.”

After the first instance where the two Democrats defected on Sept. 1, Jeffries kicked the matter to a caucus rules panel, saying afterward he wanted to pursue action against the two members “sooner rather than later.” The panel continues to deliberate on what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures.

Jeffries said that week that he’d had a “productive” and “forward-looking” conversation with Gluesenkamp Perez, but he has said much less after Tuesday’s floor drama.

“I’ll have more to say about the issue when I have more to say about the issue,” he told Blue Light News shortly after the vote.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.