Congress

Trump loyalists face off to lead a decimated House GOP

Published

1 day ago

November 5, 2026

House Republicans are responding to the resounding rebuke of their party by launching headlong into a leadership contest where neither candidate appears willing to break with the person congressional Republicans most blame for the sweeping midterm losses: President Donald Trump.

Both Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise are known to their colleagues as close Trump allies, and neither indicated they intend to put any daylight into their relationships with the president in their initial statements declaring their intention to run for minority leader.

Jordan, the longtime conservative brawler and sitting Judiciary chair, pledged to push back on Democratic excesses including “investigating every facet of the Administration and private entities across the country.”

Scalise, the current majority leader and a fixture of GOP leadership for more than a decade, also raised the prospect of pushing back against Democratic investigations and a possible Trump impeachment while telling colleagues that the president needed a “tested negotiator working alongside him to secure administration priorities.”

Those pledges to fight Democrats on Trump’s behalf came at the same time that other members were musing both publicly and privately about the president’s rapidly waning influence — and the imperative for lawmakers to start taking steps to craft a political future without him in it.

“Let’s start being a separate branch of government,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who is retiring at the end of the year, said in a text message about the election. “We’re not an appendage of the White House.”

Few House Republicans expect Scalise or Jordan to publicly break with Trump, which would be wildly out of character for either of them. Scalise traveled with the president during the final days of the midterm campaign season, and Jordan rose from a hard-right rabble-rouser to a cable-news fixture in part by embracing Trump.

Trump, for his part, said Wednesday he’s not planning to weigh in on the upcoming GOP leadership race that erupted immediately after Speaker Mike Johnson announced he would step aside as top House Republican in the next Congress.

“We’ll stay out of it,” Trump said. “All good people. I guess right now you have two candidates, right?”

Candidates in other House GOP leadership races similarly did not mention the need for the party to chart an independent course, but most stressed party unity and prioritizing members’ nuts-and-bolts concerns.

Members, meanwhile, spent Wednesday talking privately among themselves about the historic electoral wipeout — which could see Democrats win 260 seats, more than they’ve had since the early 1990s — and Trump’s role in bringing it about.

Trump responded to the loss by arguing Republicans simply do not vote if he is not on the ballot — cold comfort for lawmakers who will never appear on a ballot with Trump again.

A House Republican, one of several granted anonymity to speak candidly about the president and the upcoming leadership race, predicted many members would start creating distance from the president “quickly” upon their return to Washington as they come to terms with a post-Trump future.

“I’ve been totally wrong on that before,” the member added. But “I just don’t see how any amount of contorting can polish up this turd.”

Another GOP lawmaker lamented that Trump had not gotten more honest feedback from fellow Republicans sooner.

“They didn’t call him out on things they didn’t like, over fear of retribution,” the member said. “And that’s a real problem.”

It’s an open question whether Jordan or Scalise would be equipped to do that. Jordan, a founder of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, pitched himself in a letter to colleagues as an expert in combating the hard-nosed investigations that Democrats are pledging to launch into Trump and other targets.

“I am battle-tested on the oversight front and I know the Democrats’ playbook,” Jordan said in a letter to colleagues. “I know what it will take to lead our Conference in the minority, to stay unified, and to coordinate and calibrate our response to the Democrats’ tactics.”

Underscoring his support on the right, Jordan won an endorsement from the leader of the hard-line Club for Growth Wednesday. David McIntosh, a former House Republican, called Jordan “principled, politically savvy, [a] prolific fundraiser, and the best communicator” for the House GOP.

Scalise, whom many members see as the more moderate option, emphasized his past fundraising and legislative efforts and focused on the battle to regain the House majority — calling it his “number one goal as Republican leader.”

A third House Republican noted Scalise has to walk a fine line between being a known quantity and part of a leadership team that stayed tied to Trump’s hip.

“If people are looking for the steady hand, again, I think he’s a guy to watch,” the member said. “But we got our asses kicked. And are they going to blame Scalise for that or the president? … Johnson already did, but does his first mate have to walk the plank, too?”

In his letter, Scalise called on House Republicans to “stand united as one team, be smart and strategic to secure conservative policy wins where we can, closely coordinate our defense against aggressive oversight and together develop a clear vision and agenda to earn back the majority in 2028.”

But as the prospect of having to turn 40 or more seats sunk in on Wednesday, Republicans took stock of whether the majority would be back in reach in two years.

A fourth GOP lawmaker said the goal of 2028 flip was not “realistic” and said Republicans were better-served to adopt a battle posture as Democrats threaten investigations and impeachments. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the likely incoming Oversight chair, told targets Tuesday night to “lawyer up.”

“Is there somebody better built for that than Jim Jordan?” the Republican said.

Congress

Maxine Waters officially launches bid to lead House Financial Services

Published

2 hours ago

November 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Maxine Waters on Friday launched her bid to again lead Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, officially teeing up a clash for the role with at least one younger member.

The California lawmaker, who has led Democrats on the panel since 2013, wrote in a letter to colleagues obtained by POLITICO that she “will pursue a bold agenda focused on affordability, accountability, and accessibility.”

Waters, 88, is facing a challenge for the job from Illinois Rep. Sean Casten, 54, who launched a bid to topple her Thursday. Illinois Rep. Bill Foster, 71, is also considering running, though he is currently leaning against it.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Shutdown fight coming sooner than you think

Published

6 hours ago

November 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have a chance before they take power in January to undercut President Donald Trump’s Iran war checkbook. Not everyone is on board.

Lawmakers will have to pass another funding bill by mid-December to avoid a government shutdown. Though Republicans maintain their majorities until the end of the year, some Democrats — ready to flex their new influence after a midterm blowout — want any year-end spending measure to block cash for the military conflict.

But the move could spark a shutdown fight that extends into the next year and overshadows their new majority and other policy goals.

Democrats will have to weigh the pros and cons of instigating a confrontation they won’t necessarily win.

The top Democratic appropriators, at least, didn’t appear to rule out a fight.

“Democrats will absolutely not fund Trump’s war of choice with Iran that has increased costs on American families and made us less safe,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro said Thursday in a statement to Blue Light News.

Senate Appropriations Vice Chair Patty Murray, in a statement, also attributed Democrats’ midterm gains to the unpopularity of the Iran conflict: “The American people just voted overwhelmingly to put an end to this war, and we are going to look at every tool we have available to us to bring this disastrous war to an end.”

The top Democrats in both chambers — Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer — have yet to announce whether they will try to use the moment to limit resources for the war.

Jeffries said in a statement that Democrats will have “a leadership conversation” with DeLauro about the war, “but it is clear from this election that the American people are demanding accountability and an end to the war.”

Schumer said in an interview Thursday he’s working with Murray “to get something done” on government funding before the shutdown deadline, but didn’t forecast whether he’d demand a cutoff of dollars.

The party has been consistent for months in its opposition to the Iran conflict and has so far fought off Trump’s requests for a $1.5 trillion military budget and an emergency war funding package.

Still, triggering a shutdown isn’t a risk all Democrats want to take.

“I don’t know where our leadership is on this one, but I would say that definitely there’s got to be a way to wind this down instead of saying, ‘no funding,’” a House Democratic appropriator, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said in an interview.

What else we’re watching:

— BLACK DEMOCRATS WANT SOUTHERN INVESTMENT: Black lawmakers are urging national Democrats to invest in the South after a string of stunning wins were powered by a surge in Black voters. Many of these lawmakers, who have previously chided donors for not investing earlier in promising candidates, like Scott Colom in Mississippi and Angie Nixon in Florida, are actively seeking commitments for future cycles. “You cannot reap for which you don’t sow,” said Rep. Troy Carter, who is poised to chair the Congressional Black Caucus next year. Across House races Tuesday, turnout in counties that are at least 60% Black surged 21 points compared to the last midterm in 2022, according to a Blue Light News analysis of preliminary returns. That’s more than double the increase in votes cast nationally in counties where the population is less than 20% Black.

— JEFFRIES KNOCKS PERMITTING DEAL — Jeffries Thursday said the Senate permitting deal “falls short” and raised concerns about the bill’s proposed changes to bedrock environmental laws and protections for tribal sovereignty. “We must once again support the clean energy economy and combat the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now,” a spokesperson for Jeffries told Blue Light News exclusively. “However, the current Senate bill under consideration falls short in several areas, including the manner in which [National Environmental Policy Act] reform is undertaken and the failure to adequately protect tribal sovereignty.” Jeffries’ criticism complicates the bill’s path to passage during the lame-duck session, with a Senate procedural vote on the package scheduled for Monday.

Jennifer Scholtes, Riley Rogerson and Nico Portuondo contributed to this report.

Congress

Democrats’ biggest legal battle against Trump has already started

Published

6 hours ago

November 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The day after a federal judge ordered the Kennedy Center board to remove President Donald Trump’s name from the building, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s phone started blowing up.

Matt Floca, the center’s operator, sent 11 straight texts to Lutnick, Trump’s go-between on one of his second-term obsessions: a gilded redesign of the performing arts center. The conversation ballooned into a three-month-long, 180-message exchange between the two men that is now at the heart of a legal battle over the Kennedy Center’s future — and a prelude to what will likely be a defining legal and political fight over the next two years.

When preservation groups suing over the Kennedy Center demanded to see more details about what Lutnick and Floca had discussed, White House lawyers intervened, invoking executive privilege because the messages, they said, “reflect advice from the president” or the deliberations of his close advisers. Now a judge must decide whether to pierce Trump’s demand for secrecy in order to decide the Kennedy Center’s fate.

Trump has already tested the bounds of executive privilege, and is all but certain to push the envelope even further as he tries to fend off congressional Democrats’ aggressive oversight agenda for the next two years. How the courts resolve those disputes will shape the future of the Kennedy Center, the future of Trump’s second term and even the future of the presidency.

“They could really damage some of their institutional sort of positions that they might want to use against Congress if they try to litigate them,” said Jonathan Shaub, a member of the White House Counsel’s office under President Joe Biden and author of a forthcoming book on executive privilege. “They’ve got to do some real thinking. … It doesn’t seem like there has been that kind of larger strategic thinking yet.”

Executive privilege isn’t mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has clearly established that presidents’ private discussions with advisers must be able to stay secret — unless other weighty interests justify overriding that confidentiality. It’s most commonly invoked in matters of national security or foreign affairs, where courts are especially reluctant to encroach on the president’s need for private discussions and advice.

But Trump’s decision to take a direct role in the redesign of the Kennedy Center, as well as a Washington, D.C. golf course, are stretching the boundaries of presidential secrecy in new ways. The Justice Department has floated the prospect of executive privilege assertions in cases challenging Trump’s effort to punish law firms, authorize military strikes on alleged drug boats and penalize the BBC for a piece about the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. He tried unsuccessfully to assert it while he was out of office, to ward off Congress’ Jan. 6 investigation.

And legal battles over executive privilege are poised to explode next year, when a Democratic Congress pursues investigations into Trump, along with his appointees, family members and allies. Democrats are mindful that Trump wielded privilege effectively in his first term, stymying their most far-reaching probes for years.

That history is coloring their thinking as they prepare an onslaught of subpoenas to unearth the details of Trump’s most controversial second-term decisions. House Democrats are already discussing an investigative battle plan that factors in Trump’s tendency to stonewall, according to one person with knowledge of the conversations, granted anonymity to share private discussions. Democrats will have to start the process quickly if they have any chance of winning a dragged-out privilege fight

“The House must have the ability to prevail when the law and facts are on its side and overcome what are likely to be extremely broad invocations of executive privilege,” said Thomas Spulak, who was a top lawyer for the House in the 1990s.

Trump’s proclivity to fight every battle on every front — and his time-honored tactic of running out the clock on his investigators — could force courts, including the Supreme Court, to develop new, permanent rules for executive privilege. And though prior administrations were concerned about protecting the institution of the presidency, Trump has made clear he is willing to push his battles to the limit, even if it results in legal precedents that hamstring his successors.

“If they’re really planning on taking the more extreme stance in litigation and pushing it to the appellate courts, I think there’s a very real chance that they get adverse appellate decisions,” said Shaub, now a law professor at the University of Kentucky.

Some legal experts say the new Democratic majority might be able to work around these protracted legal battles by targeting people and organizations outside the administration who have fewer claims to government secrecy.

“If they’re asking for documents or information from third parties who are private parties, even if the White House asserts executive privilege, I think that it’s going to be an uphill battle, to say the least, for the White House,” said Jessica Roth, a law professor at Yeshiva University.

But the Justice Department appears ready to fight on that front, too. It recently issued guidance suggesting that the president’s conversations with outside advisers are subject to executive privilege and it has asserted that protection in a suit over the president’s attempts to punish law firms that had worked for Democrats or employed lawyers he saw as his enemies.

On Wednesday — a day after Democrats dominated the midterms — four Justice Department attorneys told U.S. District Judge Amir Ali they plan to make broad claims of executive privilege to try to block access to White House records about negotiations with law firms. A longtime Trump confidant and legal adviser, Boris Epshteyn, shouldn’t have to give testimony in the case or even detail whether he has an attorney-client relationship with Trump or others in the administration, a DOJ attorney argued.

“We shouldn’t even be putting third parties in a position where they have to respond,” DOJ lawyer Michael Velchik said. “There are separation of powers concerns when plaintiff seeks to depose or see information from individuals that they allege are close advisers to the president.”

DOJ has also argued to Ali that under a 2004 Supreme Court precedent involving Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force, the records and testimony the American Bar Association is seeking in the suit should be sought first from the law firms who negotiated with the administration.

Democrats are openly telegraphing their targets for aggressive investigations next year that will seek to peer behind the Oval Office curtain. Lawmakers slated to lead those investigations have foreshadowed reviews of his controversial pardons, his family’s business ventures, his role in the Justice Department’s targeting of his political adversaries, his handling of the Epstein files and a slew of other targets.

The balance between the need for secrecy and the needs of investigators has remained ill-defined ever since the Nixon-era Supreme Court enshrined it as a concept. Congress and criminal investigators have tested it repeatedly, but those skirmishes have rarely resulted in the type of sweeping court rulings that set precedents for future disputes.