Congress

Trump is causing a midterm headache for this New Jersey congressmember

Published

7 months ago

March 2, 2026

Tom Kean Jr. faces the same problem as every other vulnerable Republican in the midterms: Donald Trump.

But the president is making it extra hard for Kean, a soft-spoken House member who has a cavalcade of Democrats seeking to oust him in his wealthy suburban New Jersey district, which includes the Bedminster golf course that doubles as a summer retreat for Trump.

It seems immaterial to Trump in his war against blue-state Democrats over immigration and more. The administration just purchased property in a Republican town for his aggressive immigration efforts and last month paused funding for a new tunnel linking New Jersey and New York, which is crucial for commuters in Kean’s district.

Both moves put Kean, a scion of New Jersey’s most famous political family, in a bind.

Even people close to the two-term congressmember acknowledge that Kean has not separated himself from a president who is deeply unpopular at home — especially in a year where Republicans are trying to hold their razor-thin majority in the House.

“It was already going to be tough because midterms are tough for the party in power. And I think on issues like this, Tom would be safe to carve a little space between him and the president,” said Mike DuHaime, a veteran strategist of many Republican campaigns.

But DuHaime, a longtime friend of Kean, acknowledged that the congressmember’s brand of behind-the-scenes advocacy may not work now. “I don’t know that it has been enough yet. Since Tom has gone to the national level, he has been less prone to kind of stick out from the majority,” he said.

Kean’s balancing act

New Jersey’s 7th Congressional District is winnable by either party. In 2024, Kean won reelection by five points and Trump carried the district by 1. But in 2025, when Democrat Mikie Sherrill won a landslide victory in the governor’s race over Republican Jack Ciattarelli, she carried the district by a little more than 1 point.

Like many Republicans in swing districts, Kean, who is running for his third term, finds himself in a balancing act when it comes to how closely to run with the president. While he is not one of Trump’s most vocal defenders in Congress — and has taken credit for negotiating with him to restore property tax deductions — Democrats have repeatedly sought to tie the two together, including pointing to votes Kean has made in support of tariffs. Trump endorsed Kean for the first time this cycle.

“Tom Kean Jr. has a tougher voting record than he did last cycle,” said Rebecca Bennett, one of several Democrats competing to challenge Kean. “This is the first time he’s running with a Republican president in office.”

Kean consultant Harrison Neely pushed back on the criticism, saying that he “leads, focuses on results over rhetoric, and puts the needs of New Jersey first every time.”

“Congressman Kean will be reelected because voters see an independent leader who delivers results,” Neely said in a statement. “He has stood up for New Jersey and fought for middle class tax relief including fully restoring the SALT Deduction, held his ground to keep the Gateway Tunnel moving, and delivered tens of millions of dollars and counting for first responders and community projects across the district.”

National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Maureen O’Toole echoed that sentiment, saying he “has always put New Jerseyans first” and accusing Democrats of lying about Kean’s record. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Democrats last year won Assembly seats long held by Republicans in two districts that partially overlap with Kean’s. That includes the 21st District, which Kean represented for two decades. His successor, Republican state Sen. Jon Bramnick, who unsuccessfully ran for governor last year with an anti-Trump platform, watched both his Republican running mates lose to Democrats.

“It’s so obvious when you look at the poll of Trump, you look at the Jack Ciattarelli catastrophe, you look at losses in my district that we haven’t lost in decades,” Bramnick said, stressing he was commenting on Trump hurting Republicans in New Jersey generally and not specifically on Kean. “I’ve got Republicans who tell me ‘You’re just anti-Trump.’ No, no no. I am anti-losing.”

‘Trying to soften the blow’

During the gubernatorial race, Trump threw a wrench into Ciattarelli’s messaging by announcing that the Gateway project — which centers on replacing of the decaying century-old rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York City — was “terminated.” Since then, his administration has sent mixed messages on its future and has fought to hold up its already-appropriated funding, leading to Sherrill and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul successfully taking him to court to release the money.

But as the Trump administration continues to fight to freeze the funds, Kean has offered only mild criticism, saying he sympathizes with Trump’s concerns about potential cost overruns — the latest in a string of shifting justifications for the funding freeze. “Where I differ is that I believe Gateway is too important to delay and that we can advance the project while still protecting taxpayers,” he said.

It’s unclear how long the fight over Gateway funding will last — potentially making it less salient of an issue in the campaign come November, as opposed to in the gubernatorial race when such debates happened right as voters hit the polls. But a potentially more enduring issue also hovers over NJ-07.

ICE last week purchased a massive warehouse in Roxbury, a heavily-Republican town in the district, to use as a detention center. Left-leaning residents had shown up to town council meetings en masse to protest the purchase during the weeks of rumors that led up to it, and the town’s all-Republican government also opposed it on the grounds that it would strain local infrastructure. Shockingly, the town’s government criticized Kean for failing to stop it, saying in a joint statement that he “did not engage to the level we had hoped to provide the advocacy our residents deserved.”

Days later, Kean introduced legislation to create a grant program for the Department of Homeland Security to reimburse local governments for expenses related to federal facilities.

“The overwhelming majority of residents, along with the state and the country, support getting criminal illegal migrants off our streets and stopping the flow of Fentanyl,” Kean said in a statement. “We need to, and will, keep a level head as we continue to work constructively to deliver results.”

Brian Varela, another Democrat running to challenge Kean, pointed out that by introducing the bill, Kean is “not even coming out against the detention center.”

“He’s just trying to soften the blow and improve his image coming out of all this,” Varela said.

The ICE facility is especially politically troubling for Kean, said pollster Patrick Murray, who sees a “pincer movement” of heightened Democratic enthusiasm in the district’s denser eastern suburbs and potentially depressed Republican enthusiasm in its exurban western portions. Trump’s approach to immigration is largely unpopular among New Jerseyans, according to a recent survey conducted by the Stockton Polling Institute.

“Republican voters are feeling the negative impacts of the Trump administration and he’s not standing up to it. That’s going to cost him,” Murray said.

Congress

Capitol agenda: China fears drive AI divide

Published

30 minutes ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans — and Congress — are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence.

And that fear of international competition is emerging as a key point of tension slowing down any path to AI safety legislation.

Even as almost two thirds of respondents in a new Blue Light News poll said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind other countries like China in an AI arms race.

A plurality, 43 percent, say it is okay for the U.S. to fall behind if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37 percent take the opposite view. Voters who backed Donald Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50 percent compared to just 34 percent of Kamala Harris voters.

Republican Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie argued the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance, and that AI legislation is too complex to rush — even if that means pushing off until next year consideration of a measure by his panel.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said Wednesday at Blue Light News’s Decoded Summit.

Meanwhile, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said competition isn’t a reason to avoid guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar said at the Decoded Summit.

Other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are trying to strike a balance. Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

Still, the emerging divisions spotlight a long road ahead for any consensus from Congress.

An attempt to quickly pass a bill requiring companies to build a “kill switch” into their AI models from Republican Sen. John Kennedy was blocked Wednesday by Sen. Rand Paul on the chamber’s floor.

And while Guthrie’s Senate counterpart, Commerce Chair Ted Cruz said Wednesday his hope was still to mark up this month a bipartisan AI safety bill from Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, lawmakers haven’t reached agreement to finalize the measure. Thune himself said Wednesday he was unsure it would happen before the midterms.

Cracks are also starting to show among the leading AI companies on what role they want Congress to play.

One example: Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck declined at Blue Light News’s summit to endorse a proposal for congressionally mandated independent AI monitoring — a day after competitor OpenAI endorsed it. The proposal is a key provision in Reps. Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan’s bipartisan AI safety measure.

The House’s early dismissal Wednesday only added to time pressure on lawmakers, who will return to a lame duck session with an already full calendar.

What else we’re watching:

— LEE BULLISH ON PERMITTING: Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee told fellow Republicans during a closed-door lunch Wednesday he is “guardedly optimistic” that negotiators will reach a long-sought deal on a bill to ease permitting approval for energy projects. “We were told today that the Democrats are going to agree to a permitting bill, and it’s going to be drafted and ready for us to vote on,” Kennedy said in an interview. Still, the top negotiators have yet to clinch an agreement, meaning the timeline could slip until after the midterms.

— SPY LAW TIMING UNCLEAR: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently warnedCongress that if it doesn’t vote on a controversial surveillance law by Nov. 20, the program could go dark, but it’s unclear congressional leadership can meet that deadline. Thune told reporters this week that there is an “interest” in trying to get Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorized, but didn’t commit to getting a vote before the midterms. With the House gone, reauthorization will wait until at least mid-November, regardless.

Riley Rogerson, Mia McCarthy, Anna Wiederkehr, Jordain Carney, John Sakellariadis and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Congress

Poll: China fears drive polarization on AI regulations

Published

4 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence. So is Congress.

A new POLITICO Poll finds that Americans broadly recognize serious risks from frontier AI models, but many — particularly President Donald Trump’s voters — also prioritize maintaining a lead over other countries, including China.

Even as 63% of the poll’s respondents said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind in order to mitigate that risk.

A plurality, 43%, say it is acceptable for the U.S. to fall behind other countries if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37% take the opposite view, saying the U.S. should not stand down, even if that requires taking risks. Voters who backed Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50% to 38%.

That split is already playing out on Capitol Hill as AI safety zooms to the center of congressional conversations. With legislation only slowly taking shape, fear of international competition stands to be a major point of tension during any bipartisan negotiations — with most lawmakers’ views divided closely along party lines.

Many Republican lawmakers said in interviews this week that pausing AI development could give China an opening to overtake U.S. capabilities. Democrats are also looking over their shoulders at Chinese advances, but they are cautioning that competition is not a reason for Congress to avoid instituting AI guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said during Wednesday’s Blue Light News Decoded Summit. “It’s an arms race that we need to end, and we need to protect the American people.”

Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in calling for a ban on “superintelligence” to stave off the existential threats to humanity — a concern that bubbled to the fore last week when a former Anthropic researcher warned AI could “kill us all.”

Senior Republicans are denigrating proposals like Casar’s, arguing that the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House committee overseeing the tech industry, said as much at the summit.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said. “And I think that’s what it would be if we stopped AI development.”

Guthrie further argued AI legislation is too complex to rush and that the Energy and Commerce Committee he leads might not take up AI legislation before next year. That sentiment is in line with Speaker Mike Johnson, who said this week that the U.S. must “maintain our edge over China.” Meanwhile, Trump has called the AI panic a “HOAX” and said that federal regulations would allow China to leapfrog the U.S.

Some Republicans have been almost flippant about the dilemma policymakers face in reconciling a potentially dangerous technology with their fear of Chinese competition.

“If there are going to be killer robots, I’d rather they be American killer robots,” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a recent POLITICO interview. Like Guthrie, Cruz chairs a committee overseeing tech matters.

Among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have locked arms in warning about the Chinese threat on other fronts, the familiar partisan divide is still emerging on AI regulation.

“We can lead in innovation and lead in safety,” said Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), who sits on the bipartisan Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “So if Trump or anyone else comes at it that we can only do one but not the other, he’s not looking at the history of the United States of America.”

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a moderate Republican China hawk, said he is “very reluctant to hinder AI” via regulation.

“They’re going to have to make the good case why we need it,” he said. “We don’t want to hinder our AI research. We can’t afford to fall behind China.”

Some, however, are being careful to strike a balanced tone as the AI safety conversation kicks into high gear.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House China panel, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

“There’s economic benefits to that,” he said. “There’s national security issues, but we want to have common sense and a deliberative process.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member and a co-chair of House Democrats’ AI commission, said China is “not waiting for anyone else.”

“So you can’t just leave the race, but you need to make sure you do it in the right way,” he added.

Opinions are sharper when it comes to Trump’s upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week and whether he should even broach some type of cooperation on AI safety.

“I don’t trust him,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said when asked if Trump should engage with Xi on AI. “I trust Trump.”

But many Democrats say it’s a mistake to engage in an AI arms race, with some explicitly reaching for analogies with the nuclear arms race that ended in Cold War treaties with a former global rival — the Soviet Union — limiting bomb tests and missile deployments.

Rep. Ted Lieu of California, another co-chair of the Democratic AI commission, said Trump could start small by asking Xi to “commit that they’re never going to let AI launch a nuclear weapon by itself.”

“There are things that we can do to get other countries to follow the lead the U.S. has taken in AI,” he said.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

12 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.