Congress

This House Republican has become Mike Johnson’s biggest internal headache

Published

12 months ago

October 14, 2025

California Rep. Kevin Kiley was already one of Speaker Mike Johnson’s loudest Republican critics — even before the government shutdown started earlier this month.

Now two weeks into the standoff, Kiley made clear in an interview Tuesday he has no plans to quiet down on Johnson’s handling of the shutdown, the future of crucial health insurance subsidies and the GOP’s controversial redistricting campaign that has suddenly put Kiley’s own political future in doubt.

Having already called Johnson’s strategy of keeping the House out of session during the shutdown “embarrassing,” Kiley reiterated Tuesday that it was the “wrong decision” and threatens to prolong the impasse.

Rank-and-file members could add pressure to find “some sort of agreement” that would end the shutdown, Kiley said. “When people are just not here, and those conversations aren’t taking place,” he added, that allows the two sides’ rigid positions “to calcify.”

Kiley, who was in Washington Tuesday and appeared at an otherwise sparsely attended pro forma afternoon session, added that the no-show strategy also means House Republicans are “again falling behind” on the full-year spending bills that could be part of a lasting solution to the shutdown: “All the things we were supposed to be getting done and working on are not getting done.”

So far Johnson has shown no sign of budging. He reiterated on a private House Republican call Tuesday members are to stay in their districts on a 48-hour notice to return, and members of his circle have argued members such as Kiley are among a small minority of GOP dissidents.

But Kiley has emerged as an outspoken and fearless critic who has been willing to break ranks at a crucial moment for the GOP leadership. The 40-year-old former state legislator from the Sacramento area says he is simply trying to represent his constituents and push for a solution to the damaging showdown.

“You’re not going to, you know, persuade anyone to do things differently, to keep your feelings quiet,” he said, comparing Johnson’s closure of the House to the cancellation of the legislative session in California during the early Covid crisis.

A Johnson spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on Kiley’s criticism.

Inside the House GOP, however, some see payback for what appears to be an existential threat to Kiley’s congressional career: the partisan redistricting fight now playing out across the country.

After President Donald Trump persuaded Texas Republicans to redraw their House maps ahead of the 2026 midterms, California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched a campaign to do the same in his own state. Should a Democratic-backed ballot measure pass next month, Kiley and several of his GOP colleagues in the state’s delegation are almost certain to be drawn out of their seats.

Kiley has urged Johnson and fellow House Republicans to pass legislation barring the redrawing of maps outside of the usual decennial Census-driven process. “Just because a party thinks that they can gain an advantage by redrawing lines all of a sudden doesn’t mean they should do it,” he said.

But Johnson has so far refused to act.

“It’s extremely disappointing to me that he did not do the right thing in advocating for our members and protecting the House as an institution,” Kiley said of Johnson, noting that the two have spoken about the topic.

Still, Kiley’s criticism of the speaker has gone well beyond the redistricting dispute and even the tactical decision to keep the House out of session — a move Johnson has undertaken in a bid to force Senate Democrats to pass the stopgap spending bill Republicans, including Kiley, voted for last month.

Kiley has also broken with the bulk of his Republican colleagues in saying the GOP should broach a deal with Democrats on extending key health insurance subsidies as a way to end the shutdown. That’s something Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune have explicitly ruled out as part of any shutdown solution.

“There is going to need to be a deal on that issue — I don’t think that there’s any doubt about that,” Kiley said of the subsidies, which are set to expire Dec. 31. “So insofar as there needs to be a deal anyway, if we can try to reach at least the beginnings of one now as a way to get out of the shutdown … I don’t know why we shouldn’t at least explore that possibility.”

He also waded into another sensitive matter by pushing for Johnson to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), whom Johnson has refused to seat until the shutdown ends. Once a member, she had pledged to be the 218th signature on a discharge petition forcing a floor vote to release Justice Department documents related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Kiley has not signed the discharge petition but said he would be “inclined” to vote for the bipartisan Epstein bill should it come up for a vote.

Democrats have dealt with internal dissension, as well: Rep. Jared Golden of Maine and Sens. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada have backed the GOP-led House stopgap bill. But none has been anywhere as vocal as Kiley in criticizing their leadership.

While GOP leaders have been keenly focused on presenting a united front against Democrats’ shutdown demands — and have placed calls to some unhappy members — Kiley said he hasn’t gotten similar pressure from party brass.

“No such requests,” he said, adding that they would not stop him from speaking out in any case.

Congress

Republicans wanted Jack Smith to give them a smoking gun. They got a gaffe instead.

Published

44 minutes ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

It started with a pledge to expose a Biden-era conspiracy to take down President Donald Trump. It ended with a botched attack over basketball tickets.

Armed with subpoena power in Congress and a friendly Justice Department on their side, Republican lawmakers have spent two years promising to expose former special counsel Jack Smith as the leader of an anti-Trump witch hunt that morphed into a full-blown attempt to take down the Republican establishment.

Smith’s appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee — his third time testifying under oath on Capitol Hill, the second time in public — was supposed to be a watershed moment for the GOP intent on extracting a smoking gun ahead of the midterm elections. Instead, the hearing was most memorable for the fusillade of insults hurled by the panel’s Republicans.

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri unsuccessfully sought to implicate Smith in a plot to attend a sporting event as a cover for investigating Trump election interference claims, then called him a “dirtbag.” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said the former prosecutor made him “want to throw up in my mouth.” And Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, comparing him to “Javert from ‘Les Mis,’” said Smith’s probe was “the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the Department of Justice.”

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley insisted the hearing was “not the end” of his investigative work, but the four-hour grilling had the feeling of finality. The Republican-led probe into Smith’s efforts to bring criminal charges against the president has already stretched for two years, and Democrats stand a chance of retaking control of Congress in the midterms.

And at least one Republican member of the panel, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, said he believed the investigation into Smith had run its course in Congress.

“At this point, I think we kind of know what we know,” Hawley said in an interview following the hearing. “I think at this point, it’s up to the DOJ to either prosecute him for perjury for lying under oath, which I think the House has formally referred him for … or try to have him disbarred.”

Judiciary Committee Republicans did little Tuesday to challenge the substance of Smith’s criminal case against Trump for seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election. Smith reinforced his contention that Trump mounted an unprecedented criminal assault on the transfer of power, seeking to derail Joe Biden’s victory and then capitalizing on the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol — unleashed by a mob of his supporters — to further that goal.

Smith also defended the work of his staff and decried the Trump-led Justice Department’s decision to fire them as “illegal.” And he made his most forceful case yet that the probe he led was actually fueled by Republican witnesses who broke from Trump over his handling of the 2020 election.

”It’s very hard to understand how our investigation can be viewed as partisan when the strongest witnesses, the people who were the difference between the rule of law and not, were Republicans,” Smith said.

When Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) ripped into Smith for secretly obtaining her late brother Lindsey Graham’s phone records as part of his inquiry, Smith hailed him as a “patriotic public servant” and who likely would have been a featured witness in Trump’s trial — because he eventually concluded Trump’s election fraud claims were false.

Smith similarly hailed Former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and former Vice President Mike Pence as heroic figures who were crucial witnesses against the president. Smith ultimately dropped his case after Trump prevailed in the 2024 election. Though he said he remained confident in his ability to secure a conviction at trial, Smith emphasized that Justice Department policy forbids criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

When they weren’t lobbing personal attacks at Smith, Republicans homed in on what they described as procedural flaws of Smith’s investigation. They criticized him for subpoenaing phone records of members of Congress, like Lindsey Graham, who communicated with Trump and his administration during the post-2020 election timeframe.

They hit Smith for securing court orders that prevented telecom companies from alerting lawmakers to those subpoenas, and challenged his respect for the constitutional protections members of Congress are afforded to avoid scrutiny from federal prosecutors. That line of questioning produced one of the only bipartisan moments of the hearing: a pitch by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) for legislation that would limit the ability of prosecutors to obtain secrecy orders when they issue subpoenas in sensitive probes.

Lee is poised to be the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress if Republicans maintain control of the chamber.

Smith used his appearance, as well as friendly questions from the panel’s Democrats, to parry GOP criticism of his tactics. He followed all Justice Department policies and laws, he insisted, and said he had respect for the separation of powers — including Congress’ constitutional protection from executive branch scrutiny.

Smith said he never targeted GOP lawmakers but pursued critical evidence of Trump’s actions and state of mind that would have been necessary to prove his case in court, and he repeatedly returned to an overarching contention: that he had enough evidence to convict Trump of “one of the most serious crimes that’s ever happened in our nation’s history.”

He also reminded lawmakers what he couldn’t say: anything at all about his charges against Trump for hoarding classified information at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s findings in that probe remain sealed from public view by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who has ordered the Justice Department to keep it secret.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said subpoenaing that report would be one of Democrats’ first actions should they have the majority in the next Congress.

Ultimately, Smith’s hearing Tuesday may end up being best remembered for a high-profile gaffe by Schmitt, who accused Smith of secretly traveling to Atlanta at the very moment local prosecutor Fani Willis — who had also charged Trump over the 2020 election scheme — was facing damaging questions about her conduct. As proof, displayed on an elaborate poster, Schmitt offered text messages suggesting that Smith attended a basketball game on Feb. 3, 2024 — the same day the Atlanta Hawks played the Golden State Warriors.

Schmitt revelled as a clearly flummoxed Smith struggled to discern what Schmitt was talking about.

“I don’t think you know that we have this stuff,” Schmitt said. “So I’ll give you a second to process it so you don’t perjure yourself.”

After a few moments, Smith did recall having attended a basketball game — but not in Atlanta. It wasn’t the Hawks his colleagues were discussing in a series of texts, Smith explained, but the Hawkeyes, whose star Caitlin Clark was playing in Maryland that day.

“It was because Caitlin Clark was coming to Maryland to play, and so we went to the game,” Smith said.

Immediately after the exchange, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) fact-checked Schmitt in real-time, confirming the date of the Iowa-Maryland game and suggested that her colleagues’ reliance on “false information based on confusion about the name of a team” warranted an apology.

“You don’t call someone a dirtbag when you haven’t done your own research and you don’t have your facts straight,” Klobuchar said after the hearing. “And it just shows how completely out of control this whole thing was.”

Schmitt did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his allegations.

Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.

Congress

Cruz blocks Senate Democrats’ bid to pass AI safety bill

Published

3 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A Democratic trio attempted to pass an artificial intelligence bill via a unanimous consent request on Tuesday but were blocked on the Senate floor.

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sought to pass their Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act using the procedural mechanism, which allows expedited consideration of legislation but fails if one senator opposes it.

“The whole world has recognized that we’ve got to do something,” Warner said in a speech on the floor. “We should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected to the bill, preventing any chance of passage.

“Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner,” he said on the floor, adding that it gave some in the government too much power to dictate the technology that could be permitted to be released.

As some lawmakers grow concerned over dire warnings from AI labs’ top executives about the technology’s risk to humanity, Congress’ attempts to legislate AI guardrails have largely stalled.

In the past few weeks, two other AI-related bills, the Ratepayer Protection Act and AI Emergency Button Act, were also nixed in an attempt to pass them unanimously.

Warner, Schatz and Kim’s new bill would have established a new safety board within the Commerce Department to vet models before they are deployed and set safety standards for the industry. It would also have created a reporting process for safety and security incidents.

Congress

Darline Graham rips Jack Smith for obtaining her late brother’s phone records

Published

5 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Darline Graham sought to take up her brother’s mantle Tuesday, going after former special counsel Jack Smith for obtaining the late-Sen. Lindsey Graham’s phone data.

“You should be ashamed of yourself,” the South Carolina Republican told Smith as he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, adding that the anguish the prosecutor caused her brother “makes me sick.”

Lindsey Graham, until his unexpected death in July, was among the most vocal in his outrage over revelations that Smith secretly collected electronic data from GOP lawmakers as part of the Biden-era investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

The late senator was also unapologetic in his support for a provision tucked into a government funding package, which was later repealed, allowing senators to sue the federal government for $500,000 or more if they discover their electronic records were seized without notification — language specifically designed to compensate Smith’s targets.

But Smith replied that Lindsey Graham was not a target of his investigation and was not suspected of wrongdoing — in fact, he considered Darline Graham’s brother “a patriotic public servant” who likely would have been a “witness” in his case against Trump for attempted election subversion.

“Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making,” Smith told Darline Graham. “He found them to be false.”