Congress

Trump is about to face an audience with the power to make or break his agenda. And it’s not Congress.

Published

2 years ago

March 4, 2025

When President Donald Trump speaks to a joint session of Congress Tuesday night, the audience with the most sway over his second-term agenda won’t be the lawmakers. It’s the Supreme Court justices.

Trump’s blitz of early executive actions have triggered a tsunami of more than 100 lawsuits — many of them heading toward the high court. Two of those actions have already made it to the justices, and their looming rulings could strike at Congress’ power to control federal spending and the independence of executive branch watchdogs.

Trump’s muscular moves to crack down on legal and illegal immigration, fire tens of thousands of government employees, shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development, end diversity, equity and inclusion programs and strip the rights of transgender people all raise significant questions about the legal limits of executive power.

“When a president’s agenda relies on unlawful actions, a lot of the action is going to be in the courts,” said Elizabeth Goitein of New York University’s Brennan Center. “There’s no question that all of this is going to be challenged. This will be a true test of the Supreme Court in many, many ways.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and a few other justices typically attend State of the Union addresses, though the full bench doesn’t always show up. The justices sit in the front row of the House floor, typically putting on their best poker faces while the members of Congress around them cheer and jeer.

In previous years, even subtle reactions by the justices have stoked controversy. And this time, the speech will be occurring while the court is facing two imminent decisions that could affect the trajectory of Trump’s term.

The two major disputes about Trump’s assertions of presidential power at the high court have the potential to deliver another jolt to his rocky relationship with the conservative justices, including the three he appointed in his first term.

One involves Trump’s ability to fire executive branch officials despite laws Congress passed to protect those appointees from removal without cause. The other revolves around Trump’s authority to oversee an abrupt and sweeping freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid. Trump is likely to discuss in his remarks Tuesday some of these efforts as part of his administration’s work to shrink the federal bureaucracy.

At the heart of both cases is Trump’s desire to test and stretch the outer boundaries of executive power — and whether Trump can bypass laws meant to limit his ability to fire people and curtail programs he doesn’t like despite Congress funding them.

The two cases have another thing in common: They have zoomed to the court on the so-called shadow docket, where the justices handle emergency requests. And more requests are likely given the scores of pending challenges to Trump policies.

Trump’s penchant for executive action driving much of the litigation stems from his desire to be seen as getting stuff done and his impatience with process and congressional negotiations. It’s also born out of necessity.

Thanks to a razor-thin GOP margin in the House and the effective veto that the Senate’s filibuster rule hands to Democrats, the prospects for Trump passing much in the way of legislation are minimal. In crudely partisan terms, Trump’s policies may stand a better chance with the six-justice conservative majority he cemented in his first term than they do across the street at the Capitol.

During his first term, Trump repeatedly trashed judges who ruled against him. His invective against the judiciary grew so pointed that Roberts issued an extraordinary statement disputing the president’s description of a jurist who ruled against the administration’s asylum policies as an “Obama judge.”

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them,” Roberts declared.

During Trump’s first term, his policies got a mixed reception at the Supreme Court. The court largely upheld his pro-business environmental policies and allowed him to spend billions of dollars on his border wall project despite failing to get funding for it through Congress. On the other hand, the court rejected Trump’s effort to end the program for so-called Dreamers.

One of his highest-profile and most controversial moves — the travel ban dubbed a “Muslim ban” by critics — was effectively slowed and watered down by litigation. The high court ultimately let part of the ban take effect and ultimately upheld the president’s authority to issue it.

“Sometimes, if you listen to the mainstream media, you’d think that the court handed him everything on a silver platter, which isn’t true. But I think [they] went his way more often than not,” said Curt Levey of the conservative Committee for Justice. “At least some of the justices didn’t seem crazy about Trump. If you were predicting it based just on ideology, probably more would have gone Trump’s way. But there seemed to be a certain desire to push back against Trump, right? Until I see otherwise this term, I’ll just assume that it’s going to be the same.”

As his first term came to a close, Trump was bitterly disappointed that none of the justices — including his three picks: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — backed any of the legal challenges to his loss in the 2020 presidential election.

“The Supreme Court, they rule against me so much,” Trump told the crowd at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021. He also complained that the justices were too worried about their standing on the “social circuit.” “And the only way they get out is to rule against Trump. ‘So, let’s rule against Trump.’ And they do that. So, I want to congratulate them,” he said sarcastically.

As Trump was mounting his bid to return to the White House, he often groused about the justices. In 2022, when the court refused to step in to prevent his tax returns from being turned over to a House committee, he made his bitterness clear.

“Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!” he wrote on Truth Social. “The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price. They refused to even look at the Election Hoax of 2020. Shame on them!”

At other times, Trump has been almost effusive about the court, particularly on the role the justices he appointed played in overturning the federal constitutional right to an abortion after nearly half a century.

“With the help of six very wise and brave Supreme Court Justices, I was successful in terminating Roe v. Wade – Something which few thought was possible to do!” Trump wrote. (Only five justices actually joined in the decision to end Roe. Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, did not sign onto the majority opinion when the court took that momentous step in 2022.)

Of course, but for a couple of key wins at the high court last year, Trump wouldn’t be speaking to Congress or advancing any government agenda because he may never have returned to the presidency.

In March, the justices unanimously rejected a bid to knock Trump off the ballot in Colorado due to his role in fomenting the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. And in July, the high court split largely along ideological lines as it upended special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutions of Trump by ruling that presidents enjoy broad criminal immunity for acts taken while in office. The justices’ ruling helped fuel Trump’s narrative that he was being unfairly persecuted by his enemies.

Trump’s conflicted view of the court and his tendency to harbor perpetual disappointment in the justices was at its clearest in 2023 as he addressed a National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis.

“They don’t help me much. I’ve got to tell you that. They vote against me too much,” Trump said. “It’s one of those little things in life, right?….They are outstanding people and great scholars, brilliant. And they’ve done a very good job, I always say–-except for me.”

Congress

Democrats drop $5M into Kansas Senate race

Published

2 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Democrats’ top super PAC is pushing into Kansas.

The Chuck Schumer-aligned Senate Majority PAC is launching a $5 million statewide television ad blitz starting Saturday through Election Day — the latest sign that Democrats believe the Senate map is shifting onto red turf.

SMP had signaled in recent days it could get involved in the race, telling Blue Light News late last month it was “actively thinking” about whether to wade into the state where Democrats haven’t won a Senate seat in nearly a century but where Adam Hamilton narrowly leads GOP Sen. Roger Marshall in recent polls. Internal SMP polling that found an increasingly competitive race factored into the group’s decision to spend. It will also run digital ads.

“The gap is closing in Kansas,” SMP spokesperson Lauren French said in a statement. “We are committed to ensuring families understand Marshall’s real record of making health care and basic goods more expensive for working Kansans.”

Republicans are scrambling to shore up Marshall. Senate Leadership Fund, a top GOP super PAC aligned with Republican leadership, has booked over $10 million in ads through Election Day in the state, per ad tracking firm AdImpact.

SMP’s first ad attacks Marshall for joining Senate Republicans in voting to table a Democratic-led amendment last year to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. The Senate later approved legislation to release the files by unanimous consent. It’s the latest in a slate of ads from Democrats hitting their Republican rivals over the late, disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. Marshall’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Senate Democrats’ plunge into the state comes as the midterm battle map is undergoing a major realignment. Georgia and North Carolina — primed to be two of the cycle’s premiere battlegrounds — are tilting left to the point where national Republicans are retracting spending in both states and Democrats are starting to follow suit, freeing funds on both sides to shift elsewhere.

Republicans are racing to reinforce incumbents across what was once safer red turf. SLF has also pledged $5 million to bolster Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina.

Democrats, meanwhile, are starting to spend more in red states. SMP has dropped over $2 million on digital ads in Texas. Schumer, the Senate minority leader, has included Kansas and Mississippi in his pitches to donors.

Congress

House Democratic campaign arm says it needs $17 million, and fast

Published

3 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is begging for resources, and setting a hard deadline for donors to give $17 million in order to compete in a handful of districts that Republicans carried easily in 2024.

DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz said the committee needs the cash influx by Oct. 22 in order to “to take advantage of the opportunities we have” outside of the core battlefield, according to a memo shared with donors on Friday and obtained by POLITICO.

If they don’t pony up, Merz warns, the party “could be leaving winnable races on the table.”

Democrats have been clear that they have a fundraising disadvantage this cycle, but they have so far been reluctant to place a specific dollar amount on their needs, making the DCCC’s memo Friday a particularly surprising outlier.

“Here’s the tough reality though: the Republican ecosystem has amassed a massive war chest that is significantly greater than ours and is spending it,” Merz says in the memo after arguing that the members of the committee “remain confident that we will win back the majority in 25 days.”

Specifically, Merz dedicates significant portions of the memo to four districts where the committee is desperate for more money in order to compete — all of which President Donald Trump won by double-digit margins in 2024:

— Florida’s 27th District (Trump +14.6)

— Nevada’s 2nd District (Trump +13.9)

— South Carolina’s 1st District (Trump +13)

— New York’s 21st District (Trump +20.7)

The fundraising disadvantage has created headaches for both House and Senate Democrats over where, exactly, to deploy the resources they do have.

The committee tells donors that their internal polling shows all of those races within reach, but that Republicans’ big cash advantages — especially in the Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc. — will make it harder to win those and other reach seats.

Merz also name drops a handful of other deep-red districts that are “worthy of additional investment in this environment,” including seats held by GOP Reps. French Hill (R-Ark.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), the chair of the Republican National Congressional Committee.

The NRCC was quick to mock the DCCC’s memo.

“No amount of money fixes candidates voters don’t want. These seats are staying red, and Republicans are on offense across the map,” NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella said in a statement.

Congress

Capitol agenda: How Warren could link arms with Trump’s GOP

Published

9 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Elizabeth Warren may get her clearest shot yet to take on corporate America next year — thanks to the once unthinkable help of Republicans.

The Massachusetts Democrat is poised to chair Senate Banking if the party takes back the chamber. And while the progressive has long been a boogeyman to corporate America, lobbyists worry she’ll have powerful backup thanks to the surge of populist Republicans eager to take big swings at Wall Street and Big Tech.

One longtime financial industry lobbyist, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Warren “has a streak that is not just wanting to be a progressive gadfly, but to actually reach across the aisle to push for policy ideas.” There is “absolutely” reason for concern, the person said.

Atop the panel, Warren would also have a strong position to shape the 2028 presidential debates on both sides.

“There’s very little doubt that the agenda of the Senate Banking Committee is going to overlap substantially with the core issues that the candidates in the 2028 election cycle are going to be grappling with,” said Dennis Kelleher, the outgoing leader of the progressive group Better Markets.

As Banking chair, Warren is expected to try to recruit Republicans in a crackdown on artificial intelligence — specifically restrictions on chip giant Nvidia’s exports to China, which already has some GOP support — and a follow-up of this year’s bipartisan housing law that sought to rein in private equity’s role in the market, according to people close to the senator.

Some of President Donald Trump’s own populist ideas, like credit card interest rate caps and limits on stock buybacks for defense contractors, would provide fertile ground for Warren.

But Trump would also likely be Warren’s biggest obstacle, as he’s been resistant to embrace policy overlaps with her. He’s also been resistant to any AI restrictions.

Warren’s approach also threatens to expose rifts between GOP populists who have been ascendent under Trump and more mainstream conservatives.

Asked about the possibility of a Chair Warren, Sen. Mike Rounds, a more moderate South Dakota Republican, said he doesn’t “think anything would get done except lots of investigations and lots of accusations.”

What else we’re watching:

— LAWMAKERS CLAMOR FOR GAO v. TRUMP — Lawmakers are desperate for a government watchdog to step up and help them in their fight against the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The independent Government Accountability Office concluded earlier this week that the White House illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs — the latest in more than a half-dozen such findings GAO has published since the start of Trump’s second term. But the agency has yet to use its unique power to take the president to court to challenge those “impoundments,” and lawmakers who are tired of the administration running roughshod over their funding prerogatives want GAO to act.

— MURPHY’S DEFENSE FUNDING ULTIMATUM — Democrats should not approve Pentagon funding or the annual defense policy bill if they control Congress next year unless those bills would hasten the end of the Iran war, Sen. Chris Murphy told reporters Thursday. “We should make the end of the war a priority,” said the Foreign Relations Democrat who was returning from a trip to Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Murphy also accused Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and officials of attempting a “cover-up” of the war’s damage and obscuring its true cost after he was denied entry on a base in Qatar. Given the damage to bases in the region, Murphy also told reporters that the U.S. should “reconsider its footprint” in the Middle East.

Jasper Goodman, Jennifer Scholtes and Connor O’Brien contributed to this report.