Congress

Tragedy hits Congress’ favorite airport

Published

2 years ago

January 30, 2025

America’s worst air disaster in a generation happened at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, and its powerful frequent flyers are watching the aftermath intently.

Members of Congress have an intimate relationship with the airport, which is a 10-minute drive from Capitol Hill and is used by hundreds of lawmakers as a commuter hub. They’ve also taken an unusually active role in managing it, and lawmakers were quick to offer condolences, share observations, assert oversight authority and otherwise insert themselves after the deadly crash.

“It is the American airport,” said Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.), who said Reagan National isn’t just the most convenient airport for lawmakers. “It’s the place where citizens all over the country come to lobby their members of Congress, their US senators on issues of extreme importance to them.”

That observation has been used to justify decades of congressional interventions into the airport’s operations. An act of Congress governs how many flights can come in and out of it and how far they can fly. Then-Speaker Newt Gingrich and congressional Republicans renamed it for the 40th president over local objections in 1998. And it’s so frequently trafficked by lawmakers that Capitol Police are frequently on site to protect lawmakers who have sometimes been accosted there by vocal fellow flyers.

And it is now presaging an active effort by multiple congressional committees to probe aspects of the crash, which is being investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board. Leaders of the House Transportation and Senate Commerce committees have announced plans to monitor the response, as have the chambers’ Armed Services panels, given the involvement of a military helicopter.

Already the disaster has placed a spotlight on the many connections between Reagan National and Capitol Hill.

A direct-to-Reagan National route is highly coveted by many lawmakers, who frequently lobby airlines to get one for their home states and districts — as Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) did for the inbound-from-Wichita jet that crashed into an Army helicopter while on approach to Reagan Wednesday.

In the immediate aftermath of the tragedy, which is believed to have killed 67, members of the Washington-area congressional delegation were quick to revisit a fierce debate over the heavy aviation traffic at and around the airport. Local lawmakers who have fielded years of constituent noise complaints opposed an effort to add additional flight slots, arguing it would further strain the busy Washington airspace. A bipartisan group of lawmakers overruled those objections, adding five round-trip flights to benefit their constituents (and themselves).

“I’ve been praying that there wouldn’t have been something like last night, but kind of dreading in my heart that there would be,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who opposed adding the new flights. There is no direct evidence that the additional daily traffic played a role in Wednesday’s crash.

More broadly, the tragedy is prompting shock and reflection among lawmakers who might have themselves been victims had the mid-air collision happened at a different time, to a different plane.

It’s not the first time a Washington air tragedy has made an impact on Capitol Hill. After the January 1982 crash of an Air Florida jetliner, Reagan himself invited Congressional Budget Office worker Lenny Skutnik to his State of the Union address two weeks later — paying tribute to Skutnik for diving into the icy Potomac to save a stricken passenger.

Today, cars can be seen idling along the Capitol’s East Front on “fly-out” days, waiting to whisk members across the Potomac River to the Reagan National terminal. Major airlines employ staff solely devoted to handling lawmakers’ reservations into and out of the airport.

“The last time I flew out of DCA it occurred to me there was a lot of traffic in and around the area, and it felt like something like this could happen,” said Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.). “It’s devastating to see a crash like this and absorb what was supposed to be a safe flight for everyone end in such devastation.”

“I fly on American Airlines all the time, on that same approach, twice a week and so it could happen to anybody,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). “It brings to light how one little mistake can create such a tragedy, and you hate it for all the people involved, but you know, hopefully we can get to the bottom of it and find out what happened.”

To that end, various House committees received briefings from the FAA and NTSB on the incident Thursday. One House Transportation Committee member, granted anonymity to describe private discussions on the panel, said a hearing on the crash is likely to be scheduled soon.

As with all things on Capitol Hill, larger political considerations have lingered over members’ public response to the tragedy. The early suggestion from a small handful of conservatives that diversity, equity and inclusion programs could be at fault was turbocharged when President Donald Trump cited that as a possible cause at a Thursday afternoon news conference. In turn, some Democrats, including Torres, pointed to Trump’s decision to attack federal workers as a precipitating factor.

But many others cautioned against a rush to judgment. Once a cause is firmly identified, Congress could play a role in enacting legislation to prevent another similar crash — as it did after the 2009 crash of Colgan Air flight near Buffalo, New York, toughening the regulations for regional airlines and pilot fatigue standards.

Former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an ex-chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said it would be hard for Congress to avoid revisiting just how much traffic is packed into the airspace surrounding Reagan National — and Congress’ efforts to pack more flights in.

“I’m not going to say that was a cause of this, but it is an incredibly hectic corridor between the military traffic and the commercial traffic and, of course, other helicopters,” he said. “I would hope that members of Congress would back off on pressuring the airport for more and more direct flights to serve them and heed both the concerns of the airport and potentially of the FAA and air traffic control.”

Several sitting members agreed, including Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), a Transportation Committee member. Burchett said in an interview that he wants to review air traffic control transcripts and reexamine Congress’ decision to allow more Reagan National flights.

“I’ve flown in there over a hundred times, I’m always amazed at the amount of traffic,” Burchett said.

But that doesn’t mean he or fellow lawmakers are ready to give up on their convenient air hub. Tuberville said he didn’t see much of an alternative to his weekly winged commute to and from Auburn, Alabama: “Beats driving.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: Republicans hope Trump won’t dominate Dallas

Published

13 hours ago

September 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Republicans are hoping President Donald Trump won’t make this week’s GOP midterm convention all about himself.

The president — with his approval rating at record lows for his time in office amid the conflict in Iran, trade wars and inflation — is slated to be at the center of the two-day spectacle in Dallas beginning Wednesday.

GOP lawmakers, candidates, donors and party officials said in interviews they are counting on Trump to draw a contrast with Democrats rather than prosecute his personal grievances.

Rep. Riley Moore said in an interview the event is a “scene-setter” that should stay laser-focused on “what’s on the line” for voters in the election:

— GOP WINS: Republicans are eager for fresh promotion of the tax cuts in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”, even if some don’t think Trump is the right spokesperson.

Though the first national TV ads funded by the president’s cash-rich political operation place him at the center, one touting provisions in the megabill was more up congressional Republicans’ alley. Several are hoping for that kind of focus at the convention.

“It’s incredibly important that we highlight what we’ve accomplished,” said Rep. Derrick Van Orden. “That’s the perfect venue for that.”

— DINGING DEMS: One consensus message Republicans want the convention oriented around is the choice between their legislative record and a Democratic Party they argue has moved way too far left.

“You’ve got Republicans that are campaigning on commonsense ideas. You’ve got Democrats that are being drawn to the absolute most extreme left of their party,” said Rep. Brian Jack, a deputy chair of the House GOP campaign arm. “So I expect each night to see that on full display.”

“The Democratic Party has taken a turn for the worse recently,” added Rep. Nick LaLota. “America needs to be quite aware of that as they make their decision here in November.”

LaLota is just one of scores of Republican members who are choosing not to travel to the convention — which has a price tag of $25,000 and up for lawmakers attending. Some of those Republicans said they have scheduling conflicts or simply want to campaign back home.

But they still have an interest in how the event goes off and what impression it gives voters.

“I’m going to look forward to listening to it on the radio as I’m driving down the road, going from one spot in my district to another,” Rep. Morgan Griffith said.

What else we’re watching:

— TRAHAN BYPASSES LEADERSHIP BID FOR AI —- Rep. Lori Trahan’s decision last week to forgo a leadership bid and instead focus on developing artificial intelligence policy surprised some of her colleagues. But in an interview Friday, Trahan brushed off the idea that efforts to broker a bipartisan AI deal thwarted her run to serve as Democrats’ vice chair. Instead, she said her work in the complex policy space had drummed up support from many House Democrats, but she ultimately wants to prioritize regulating the issue next year.

— ROUNDS AIDE’S SIDE GIG RAISES EYEBROWS — A senior staffer for Sen. Mike Rounds has quietly worked as a lobbyist for Meta and other high-profile clients. The unusual agreement for Robert Skjonsberg, who has worked for Rounds for over a decade, has raised questions from watchdog groups about ethics and possible conflicts of interest. Rounds spokesperson Dezmond Ward told Blue Light News his office’s general counsel consulted with the Senate’s ethics panel, “which provided guidance to make certain there was and is no conflict of interest.”

Mia McCarthy, Riley Rogerson, Kelsey Brugger and Jacob Wendler contributed to this report.

Congress

Republicans are hoping ‘Trump-a-palooza’ isn’t only about Trump

Published

16 hours ago

September 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump will be at the center of this week’s GOP midterm convention. Many of his fellow Republicans are hoping he doesn’t make it all about him.

The parade of lawmakers, candidates, donors and party officials now headed to Dallas for the two-day spectacle are counting on Trump to make a compelling pitch on the national stage before voters hit the polls.

According to interviews with dozens of Republicans, they are largely hoping for a two-pronged approach aimed at getting the president’s committed supporters off the sidelines: a focus on what they call Democrats’ extreme positions and the accomplishments of the Republican Congress — most of which are now more than a year old.

“Communism vs. common sense,” Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) said in an interview, calling the event a “scene-setter” that should stay laser-focused on “what’s on the line” for voters in the election.

Republicans have reasons to be wary. Trump’s approval ratings are at record lows for his time in office, and many swing-district GOP lawmakers are torn between running from an unpopular president and alienating his base of committed supporters.

There is little evidence Trump is content to let rank-and-file Republicans run away from him. The first pair of national midterm ads funded by his cash-rich political operation put Trump at the very center.

One ad begins with businessman Dana White extolling Trump as “the toughest, most resilient person that I’ve ever met.”

The other is more up congressional Republicans’ alley, with a Trump voiceover running through a litany of tax cuts included in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Even if not all agree Trump is the party’s best spokesperson at this point, they are eager to see a new effort to promote the tax cuts, which were enacted in July 2025, and want to see them touted anew in Dallas.

“It’s incredibly important that we highlight what we’ve accomplished,” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) said in an interview. “That’s the perfect venue for that.”

“It’s a great opportunity for us to brag about what the Republican Party has done the last year and a half,” added Rep. Craig Goldman (R-Texas). “So certainly talking about the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While Van Orden and Goldman are attending the convention, which kicks off Wednesday and ends Thursday, many other lawmakers and candidates are staying back in their districts. Some of those Republicans said they have scheduling conflicts or simply want to campaign back home.

But there are also qualms about Trump’s obsession with priorities that many of them consider off-message ahead of the midterms — such as pressuring Congress to take up the GOP elections bill known as the SAVE America Act.

As GOP lawmakers begged Trump to get serious about tackling the high cost of living, the president has instead openly scoffed at “affordability” as an issue concocted by Democrats to hurt Republicans.

He refused for months to help pass a major legislative package over the summer designed to help lower housing costs, and his trade wars and ongoing conflict with Iran have contributed to persistent inflation. A recent import deal designed to address rising beef prices came at the cost of upsetting American cattlemen.

Speaker Mike Johnson brushed off a question last week about the risk of having candidates show up at a Trump-focused event given his disapproval ratings.

“It was the president’s idea, which is why he’s getting credit for it, and it’s rightfully so,” Johnson said. “I think it’s going to be an extraordinary opportunity for us to get a couple of nights on national television to talk about our extraordinary record of achievement.”

Other Republicans said the president was well positioned to send a message of “promises made, promises kept.”

“Politics 101 is just telling folks what you’re going to do, and then come to Washington and do it, and then go back and tell them what you did,” said Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.). “When you look at President Trump’s agenda, securing the border, we’ve done that. That he wanted to make the tax cuts permanent, we’ve done that.”

“Peace through strength — and I think we have moved in that direction,” he added. “Obviously, we got detoured to this journey over in Iran.”

If there is one consensus message Republicans want the convention oriented around, it’s the choice between the legislative record Trump will be touting and a Democratic Party that they argue has moved way too far to the left — especially as progressive candidates, some of them democratic socialists, continue to win key primaries.

Rep. Brian Jack (R-Ga.), a deputy chair of the House GOP campaign arm, said “you’re going to see on full display each night a contrast that we’ve never seen before in politics.”

“You’ve got Republicans that are campaigning on commonsense ideas. You’ve got Democrats that are being drawn to the absolute most extreme left of their party,” he said. “So I expect each night to see that on full display.”

RNC national press secretary Natalie Baldassarre also said in a statement that the event would “put front and center Democrats’ desire to abolish police and prisons, raise costs, and strip away our freedoms,” while also promoting “Republicans’ historic achievements.”

“The Democratic Party has taken a turn for the worse recently,” added Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who is in a competitive race and not attending the convention. “America needs to be quite aware of that as they make their decision here in November.”

LaLota is just one of scores of Republican members who are choosing not to travel to the convention — which has a price tag of $25,000 and up for lawmakers attending — but who have an interest in how the event goes off and what impression it gives voters.

Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) called the midterm convention — the first held since Democrats did them in the late 1970s and early 1980s — “an interesting concept” and said he would be paying close attention to the size of the television audience. But he said he would be back in his safe red district campaigning.

“I’m going to look forward to listening to it on the radio as I’m driving down the road, going from one spot in my district to another,” he said.

Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

The House Democrat who’s making AI regulation her No. 1 priority

Published

16 hours ago

September 8, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Lori Trahan’s decision last week to forgo a leadership bid to instead focus on developing artificial intelligence policy surprised some of her colleagues. It also left some of them wondering whether her thwarted attempt to work across the aisle on the subject was what doomed her prospects.

In an interview Friday, the Massachusetts Democrat brushed off the idea that efforts to broker an AI deal with a Republican backfired. She said the opposite was true: Many House Democrats told her she should run for caucus vice chair because of her work in this complex policy space.

“Look, I spent August really thinking it through, and it came down to a simple question that I think a lot of people don’t ask themselves enough, and that’s just: What I’m most passionate about?” Trahan recalled.

It turned out that the chance to help Democrats formulate a vision for how to regulate a rapidly evolving industry was what she couldn’t pass up.

“When I commit to something,” she said, “I go all in.”

There’s no guarantee Trahan will be successful, with members of both parties reluctant to work together and slamming each other over the issue on the campaign trail. But Trahan isn’t retreating or shying away from her work with Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.).

She spoke with Blue Light News about how she sees the AI landscape from a political and policy perspective, capping off a week of major developments in Washington — including the introduction of an aggressive plan to pause development of superintelligence models, an escalation in Democratic attacks on Republicans for the rise of data centers, President Donald Trump’s vow to “Let Data Reign,” and new reporting about a tech industry giant’s attempts to talk Trump out of onerous regulations.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries came out swinging this past week in trying to pin the proliferation of data centers on Republicans. What do you think of Democratic messaging on this?

I do think that the Republicans are having trouble reconciling what the president is saying with what their constituents are demanding, and that, I’ll just say, people aren’t imagining this. They’re already feeling it … in their electric bill. They see it when a new data center gets proposed down the road.

They’re obviously reading headlines about AI models that break out of their own labs, and I think those worries are legitimate. So I don’t think the folks are necessarily antitechnology, but they want to know that somebody’s watching this — that the most powerful technology in human history isn’t running on the honor system, and right now, it basically is.

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar has made a huge push for Democrats to be, as he put it, “AI populists.” What do you think of progressives trying to carve out a lane for themselves on AI, and what has your work with them on this issue been like?

I think for a long time, the hardest part of this job was convincing people that this is an issue that couldn’t wait. I think that part is largely over, right? AI is advancing at a staggering pace, and the risks are scaling right alongside the capabilities. So I think after a summer of breaches … members on both sides, they’re just done waiting, and I think you’re seeing a wave of proposals … I think that just reflects a new sense of urgency in Congress that I couldn’t be happier to see.

Casar and Sen. Bernie Sanders announced a plan to ban the development of AI “superintelligence” and pause work on cutting-edge models until an agency is stood up to monitor risk. What is your reaction to the proposal?

My team and I are still reviewing the bill, obviously gathering feedback from the safety community, so I’m not going to prejudge the details. Of course, I share the concern driving it. I mean, these companies are losing control of their own models, and they’ve said so themselves.

I’m always a little cautious about outright bans, moratoriums, or blanket pauses because you really only get one shot at something like that, and if you time it wrong, you can end up worse off. … You trigger a backlash that chokes off the chance to put sensible, durable guardrails in place in the future.

A permanent ban with no path to passage, that doesn’t protect anyone. … But right now I get most nervous that we’re not passing the bill that can pass, that matches sort of where we are right now, which is, models escaping their environment and us relying on the honor system from these companies.

You are referring to your bill with Obernolte, which would establish a national framework for regulating advanced AI models. What’s happening with it? You were pushing for committee action before the midterms. That seems all but impossible now.

The calendar isn’t on our side before the midterms … so I have shifted my focus to before the end of the year. I think that’s the realistic window to get this done this year. Jay and I are working our respective sides of the aisle. … I talked to a lot of rank-and-file members on both sides of the aisle, and they’re all scratching their heads, wondering why we’re not taking this up.

So why do you think it hasn’t moved?

I don’t sit in the minds or the rooms of Republican leadership. … I am worried that they are comfortable with the president sort of managing this through executive fiat rather than putting something in place that is durable and predictable.

I’m hoping that with internal pressure and with external pressure, that the leadership, Speaker [Mike] Johnson and Leader [Steve] Scalise, will take this up and debate it at a minimum.

What is your reaction to the phone call our colleagues reported on, where Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg urged Trump to scrap a plan to stand up a federal AI regulator?

I think that there are a lot of members of Congress who have ideas in terms of how this gets regulated.

Reasonable people can disagree on what regulatory construct we come up with. What I don’t think the American people agree with is that Mark Zuckerberg and President Trump are going to figure that out on a phone call.

Democrats have been fairly scattered on AI policy this Congress, and that could make it difficult for the party to unify around a policy platform while still negotiating with Republicans. How are you thinking about the next Congress?

I’m excited about next Congress just because I know when Democrats are in the majority, we’re going to get to work. … I think the fact that Democrats are talking about it a ton and we’re not under the thumb of the leader of our party, so that we can’t say or reflect any of the concerns that we hear back at home, it’s how it should be.

The fact that we’re able to have those conversations and we’re all coming from diverse places is a good thing. I think that’s what the American people want to see. They want to see us engage in every corner of the country in terms of concerns around AI and have a debate about it.

That’s not happening right now. Right now, we’re mostly just hearing from the president having a phone call with a rich tech executive or using export controls at his discretion.