Congress

Thune ‘hopeful’ Senate can start voting on reconciliation bill Wednesday

Published

4 months ago

June 3, 2026

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said most Republican senators “feel pretty satisfied” with acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s comments renouncing the Justice Department’s planned “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and that he’s “hopeful” that will allow the Senate to start voting on the GOP’s stalled immigration enforcement bill Wednesday.

Thune, however, did not explicitly say that he has secured the votes to defeat amendments related to the fund, which critics fear could be used to reward political allies of President Donald Trump. Two GOP aides, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations about the bill, cautioned that multiple Republican senators are still likely to support proposals to curtail or eliminate the fund.

“The goal is to get the base bill across the finish line, and so hopefully all of our members who have amendment ideas will … keep in mind the need that we’ve got to keep the bill together and make sure we’ve got 50 votes for it at the end,” Thune said.

Congress

Barrage of lawsuits targets Trump’s funding cancellation

Published

2 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.

Congress

Centrist Dem’s Supreme Court plan boosts momentum for revamp

Published

9 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic efforts to revamp the Supreme Court gained momentum Thursday as an influential center-left think tank released a plan to limit justices’ terms and misconduct.

Third Way’s proposal, shared first with Blue Light News, highlights growing unity across the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party for significant changes to the high court as Americans’ trust in the institution hovers at historic lows.

The group says it also wants to inject ideas to overhaul the court — including legislation to set an 18-year term limit and an enforceable ethics code — into the party’s conversations leading up to the 2028 presidential race.

“This is one of those things that we think can and should be a part of the 2028 discussion, and those folks who are running should be asked about whether they would champion Supreme Court reform,” Lanae Erickson, a senior vice president at Third Way, said in an interview.

Key Democratic groups have increasingly been coalescing around ideas to overhaul the court’s structure and policing in light of accusations of growing partisanship and corruption among justices. In June, a number of key Democratic House caucus leaders, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus, released their own resolution calling for term limits for justices and a code of ethics.

“We think that the center left has been remiss in not being forward enough on reform proposals that would make our system work better for people, which is why some folks have gone to the further left,” Erickson said.

Third Way cited public opinion polling from both the Brennan Center for Justice and FOX News indicating more than 70 percent of respondents favored term limits for justices. An 18-year cycle would ensure the appointment of two justices every presidential term.

The group also wants legislation to hold justices accountable for ethics violations. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said last month he supports “dramatic reform” on the Supreme Court starting with an ethics code so justices don’t act “above the law.”

The court in 2023 adopted its own formal ethics code for the first time in history, but that policy largely lacks some of the teeth that advocates have proposed.

One idea supported by some Democrats that Third Way is not endorsing: upping the number of justices on the bench. Erickson said that idea seems more like “a mutually assured destruction path,” as parties could go back and forth adding more justices.

The path forward for any court-focused legislation in Congress in the near future, however, is very slim without majorities in both chambers and control of the White House — something Third Way acknowledged.

Still, the group’s recommendations are meant “to show that the center left can also be bold and be addressing systemic problems to appeal to voters and their level of anxiety and anger about what’s happening right now,” Erickson said.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems skip DC with wind in their sails

Published

9 hours ago

October 1, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Senate wrapped up its work late Wednesday night, and lawmakers in both chambers won’t be back until after midterm voters pass judgment.

And Chuck Schumer is growing increasingly confident they’ll hand the Senate to Democrats

“Here’s how I’d sum up the election: Can enormous amounts of Republican money beat a Democratic enormous advantage in much better candidates and a much better political climate?” the minority leader said in an interview in his office Wednesday.

“I think we win,” he added.

Schumer’s optimism — saying Democrats’ have the “wind in their sails” — reflects his members’ growing bullishness as they head home for a final sprint to convince voters to give them back the majority. The Senate recessed Wednesday night after confirming President Donald Trump’s Labor secretary, but Democrats stayed united in a string of politically tricky votes before leaving.

“It certainly feels like it’s going to be a wave election, and not for good reasons,” Sen. Chris Murphy said. “This president’s domestic and foreign policy has gone off the rails.”

There’s division among Democratic party strategists on whether to spend these final weeks focusing on the states viewed as most likely to flip — like Alaska, Ohio or Iowa — or put resources into so-called reach states like Mississippi, South Carolina or Florida.

Schumer declined to weigh in, but said that Democrats would do “whatever it takes to win” and that he expects to spend the next five weeks fundraising.

“We have lots of different paths to victory, and we’re not going to turn any of them down,” he said.

Also hanging over the midterm elections are questions about Schumer’s future — but the New York Democrat said that he is “running for re-election for leader. Period.”

Republicans, meanwhile, are still hopeful that they can hold onto their majority even if it’s narrower. Much of the midterms map runs through states that Trump won previously.

“Of course we are,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune said about keeping control of the chamber as he left the building Wednesday. “Thank you for asking.”

What else we’re watching:

— PERMITTING DEAL FACES HOUSE BUZZSAW — The Senate’s newly announced bipartisan permitting reform package is set to hit a wall in the House, where key lawmakers aren’t rushing to endorse it. House Natural Resources ranking member Jared Huffman warned Wednesday most House Democrats will not support the Senate’s permitting legislation as written, urging lawmakers to resume negotiations after the midterm elections when they are “likely to have a far better negotiating position.” And House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie, a key GOP negotiator, has yet to take a position on the Senate deal.

—RASKIN WANTS TRUMP AD PROBE — House Judiciary’s top Democrat is demanding federal inquiries into the amount of taxpayer money that was used by the Trump administration for a TV ad blitz endorsing the president ahead of the midterms. Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is poised to lead the panel if Democrats flip the chamber, and Rep. George Whitesides, wrote to the Government Accountability Office Wednesday asking them to investigate the “source, accounts and total amount of taxpayer funds used” to produce and distribute the ads. The pair of lawmakers also asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate whether the ads “constitute a violation of the Hatch Act” and to “determine who should be held accountable.”

Nico Portuondo and Chris Marquette contributed to this report.