Congress

Trump’s visa fee sparks rare bipartisan interest in immigration legislation

Published

12 months ago

October 14, 2025

President Donald Trump’s efforts to impose a massive new fee for employers seeking to hire foreign workers in high-skill fields have reenergized congressional Republicans’ efforts to pass legislation strengthening the controversial visa program.

After years of dissipating interest inside the GOP to tackle any immigration policy not directly tied to border security, the current moment appears ripe for a legislative breakthrough around expanding the use of so-called H-1B visas, which have propelled the country’s tech industry for decades.

Opponents say the 35-year-old program siphons jobs from American citizens and unfairly deflates wages. But it also has united an unlikely group of lawmakers across the ideological spectrum who want to help businesses in need of workers with specialized expertise. That contingent includes Republicans who have typically been reluctant to support legislation that would allow more immigrants into the country.

The recent presidential proclamation forcing employers to pay $100,000 to hire workers under H-1B visas — a move designed to incentivize domestic hiring practices — is instilling fear and confusion inside hospitals and universities that rely on the program. It also has sent a jolt through the Senate, where the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee recently reintroduced legislation designed to strengthen the rules for the program and prioritize applicants with advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering or mathematics.

“We need an immigration bill, badly,” said Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), a cosponsor of the bill who is working to get fellow conservatives on board with the effort. He’s also running for governor of a state with multiple major research universities.

“I think Trump, perhaps inadvertently, is strengthening our case for the bill,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), another co-sponsor of the legislation.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, however, are skeptical there is sufficient political will to make any meaningful progress on the issue. Immigration hard-liners still occupy senior positions throughout the White House and hold power on Capitol Hill; Trump has waffled on the question of whether the H-1B policy is worth preserving; and at least one key Democrat says any conservative enthusiasm now to tackle the program is too little, too late.

“There’s no appetite for immigration legislation at all,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He is set to retire in 2027 with little to show for his work over nearly three decades in office to pass legislation that would create a pathway to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants.

The American economy relies heavily on H-1B visas, with the number of people applying for slots vastly outnumbering those which are available each year. And this is not the first time lawmakers have seen a glimmer of hope around efforts to overhaul the program — only to later see it fade.

Almost a year ago, the billionaire tech entrepreneur Elon Musk was touting high-skilled immigration throughout the United States through H-1B visas, saying they were necessary to help fuel innovation. Trump, who suspended the program during his first term, suddenly appeared ready to side with Musk, lauding the initiative that he claimed to have leveraged for his own business interests.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a MAGA stalwart and Musk acolyte, also signaled an openness to revisiting the H-1B system from his perch as chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

But Musk has since that time had a public falling-out with the president, and anti-immigration hawks like White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller have Trump’s ear. Trump’s new H-1B visa fee is a reflection of the administration’s current stance.

“Anything that’s going to get done, the president’s got to sign off on it,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), “So it’s going to be something that the president feels comfortable with.”

Scott worked on a previous effort to limit the number of H-1B recipients who can receive green cards annually. Different versions of that bill passed the House and the Senate in 2019 and 2020, respectively, but the two measures were never reconciled, and the legislation was never signed into law.

Wishing to seize the moment but also cognizant of the political challenges ahead, Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in an interview shifted his comments to deliver a personal plea to Trump himself.

“The president has brought attention to the problems with H-1B’s,” the Iowa Republican said. “If the president will read your story, I’d give him this message: He’s created great credibility because he has closed down the border — great credibility on immigration issues.”

Endorsing an H-1B overhaul bill, Grassley continued, “would give him a chance to get some of these really simple things in immigration that ought to pass the Congress.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on its intentions to work with Congress on a legislative fix.

George Fishman, a senior legal fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and former Department of Homeland Security official in the first Trump administration, said Trump is being pulled in radically different directions by those advising him. Barring true interest from Trump in the matter, Fishman suspected congressional action is unlikely.

“Based on three decades of bitter experience, I’m sort of resigned to not expecting things to happen legislatively,” said Fishman, who also worked on immigration policy as a Hill aide.

Trump aside, the political dynamics around the immigration issue on Capitol Hill are broadly problematic. For years, efforts to update the nation’s outdated immigration policy have fallen short. A bipartisan Senate “gang” in 2013 managed to pass a bill that combined border security with a pathway to citizenship, but it was never taken up in the House.

Since that time, the Trump ethos around immigration has further polarized the issue, hardening even Republicans who at one point linked their personal brands to being willing to work with Democrats on it.

That includes Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who was once Durbin’s main partner in trying to pass legislation that would protect young immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents as children — the recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Graham now says he isn’t interested in doing anything to expand legal immigration until the border is properly secured — and he doesn’t trust Democrats to restrain themselves.

“We all are agreed that we need H-1B reform,” Graham said in an interview. “Well, then Democrats will say, ‘Okay, let’s reform that, but what about the DACA folks?’ And they’ll want something there, and that’s just the way it goes.”

Grassley said he understood that reality. “We got some people on the right that think they aren’t going to vote for any [immigration] legislation until you load up 12 million people and get them out of the country.”

In the meantime, Trump’s new $100,000 fee is being challenged in court by a coalition of unions, education groups and others who argue the cost is unworkable and unjustified. A judge could strike down the proclamation, and the case is ongoing.

Until then, Grassley suggested the chaos and anxiety being caused by the presidential action could work to the advantage of the program’s proponents.

“The business groups that fought the Grassley-Durbin bill over the last 10 years, that are now upset with the $100,000 the president’s putting in on each one of these [visas] … maybe they would realize that they shouldn’t have fought our legislation,” he said.

Congress

Lummis blocks resolution denouncing Trump’s ‘public service announcements’

Published

47 minutes ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A Republican senator blocked a resolution Tuesday that would have denounced President Donald Trump’s recent campaign-style ads funded with taxpayer dollars.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming objected to Sen. Maggie Hassan’s nonbinding resolution, which said it was the sense of the Senate that the ads “should not be paid for by the United States government.” Because Hassan (D-N.H.) was trying to pass the resolution without a formal vote, any one senator could block it.

“It just tells the president that he is wrong — that these ads need to be pulled down and that they should not be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Hassan said on the floor.

Lummis however countered that Hassan’s concerns about the ads say “more about her side of the aisle” and compared Trump’s ads to President Bill Clinton’s antidrug campaign, among others. One of the ads Trump is running at taxpayer expense is virtually identical to a 2024 campaign ad.

“When a Democratic president tells Americans what to do, it’s a public service,” Lummis said. “When this president tells Americans that liberty is worth defending, it’s a problem.”

Congress

Republicans wanted Jack Smith to give them a smoking gun. They got a gaffe instead.

Published

2 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

It started with a pledge to expose a Biden-era conspiracy to take down President Donald Trump. It ended with a botched attack over basketball tickets.

Armed with subpoena power in Congress and a friendly Justice Department on their side, Republican lawmakers have spent two years promising to expose former special counsel Jack Smith as the leader of an anti-Trump witch hunt that morphed into a full-blown attempt to take down the Republican establishment.

Smith’s appearance Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee — his third time testifying under oath on Capitol Hill, the second time in public — was supposed to be a watershed moment for the GOP intent on extracting a smoking gun ahead of the midterm elections. Instead, the hearing was most memorable for the fusillade of insults hurled by the panel’s Republicans.

Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri unsuccessfully sought to implicate Smith in a plot to attend a sporting event as a cover for investigating Trump election interference claims, then called him a “dirtbag.” Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said the former prosecutor made him “want to throw up in my mouth.” And Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, comparing him to “Javert from ‘Les Mis,’” said Smith’s probe was “the most egregious abuse of power in the history of the Department of Justice.”

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley insisted the hearing was “not the end” of his investigative work, but the four-hour grilling had the feeling of finality. The Republican-led probe into Smith’s efforts to bring criminal charges against the president has already stretched for two years, and Democrats stand a chance of retaking control of Congress in the midterms.

And at least one Republican member of the panel, Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri, said he believed the investigation into Smith had run its course in Congress.

“At this point, I think we kind of know what we know,” Hawley said in an interview following the hearing. “I think at this point, it’s up to the DOJ to either prosecute him for perjury for lying under oath, which I think the House has formally referred him for … or try to have him disbarred.”

Judiciary Committee Republicans did little Tuesday to challenge the substance of Smith’s criminal case against Trump for seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election. Smith reinforced his contention that Trump mounted an unprecedented criminal assault on the transfer of power, seeking to derail Joe Biden’s victory and then capitalizing on the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the Capitol — unleashed by a mob of his supporters — to further that goal.

Smith also defended the work of his staff and decried the Trump-led Justice Department’s decision to fire them as “illegal.” And he made his most forceful case yet that the probe he led was actually fueled by Republican witnesses who broke from Trump over his handling of the 2020 election.

”It’s very hard to understand how our investigation can be viewed as partisan when the strongest witnesses, the people who were the difference between the rule of law and not, were Republicans,” Smith said.

When Sen. Darline Graham (R-S.C.) ripped into Smith for secretly obtaining her late brother Lindsey Graham’s phone records as part of his inquiry, Smith hailed him as a “patriotic public servant” and who likely would have been a featured witness in Trump’s trial — because he eventually concluded Trump’s election fraud claims were false.

Smith similarly hailed Former Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and former Vice President Mike Pence as heroic figures who were crucial witnesses against the president. Smith ultimately dropped his case after Trump prevailed in the 2024 election. Though he said he remained confident in his ability to secure a conviction at trial, Smith emphasized that Justice Department policy forbids criminal prosecution of a sitting president.

When they weren’t lobbing personal attacks at Smith, Republicans homed in on what they described as procedural flaws of Smith’s investigation. They criticized him for subpoenaing phone records of members of Congress, like Lindsey Graham, who communicated with Trump and his administration during the post-2020 election timeframe.

They hit Smith for securing court orders that prevented telecom companies from alerting lawmakers to those subpoenas, and challenged his respect for the constitutional protections members of Congress are afforded to avoid scrutiny from federal prosecutors. That line of questioning produced one of the only bipartisan moments of the hearing: a pitch by Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) for legislation that would limit the ability of prosecutors to obtain secrecy orders when they issue subpoenas in sensitive probes.

Lee is poised to be the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee in the next Congress if Republicans maintain control of the chamber.

Smith used his appearance, as well as friendly questions from the panel’s Democrats, to parry GOP criticism of his tactics. He followed all Justice Department policies and laws, he insisted, and said he had respect for the separation of powers — including Congress’ constitutional protection from executive branch scrutiny.

Smith said he never targeted GOP lawmakers but pursued critical evidence of Trump’s actions and state of mind that would have been necessary to prove his case in court, and he repeatedly returned to an overarching contention: that he had enough evidence to convict Trump of “one of the most serious crimes that’s ever happened in our nation’s history.”

He also reminded lawmakers what he couldn’t say: anything at all about his charges against Trump for hoarding classified information at Mar-a-Lago. Smith’s findings in that probe remain sealed from public view by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, who has ordered the Justice Department to keep it secret.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said subpoenaing that report would be one of Democrats’ first actions should they have the majority in the next Congress.

Ultimately, Smith’s hearing Tuesday may end up being best remembered for a high-profile gaffe by Schmitt, who accused Smith of secretly traveling to Atlanta at the very moment local prosecutor Fani Willis — who had also charged Trump over the 2020 election scheme — was facing damaging questions about her conduct. As proof, displayed on an elaborate poster, Schmitt offered text messages suggesting that Smith attended a basketball game on Feb. 3, 2024 — the same day the Atlanta Hawks played the Golden State Warriors.

Schmitt revelled as a clearly flummoxed Smith struggled to discern what Schmitt was talking about.

“I don’t think you know that we have this stuff,” Schmitt said. “So I’ll give you a second to process it so you don’t perjure yourself.”

After a few moments, Smith did recall having attended a basketball game — but not in Atlanta. It wasn’t the Hawks his colleagues were discussing in a series of texts, Smith explained, but the Hawkeyes, whose star Caitlin Clark was playing in Maryland that day.

“It was because Caitlin Clark was coming to Maryland to play, and so we went to the game,” Smith said.

Immediately after the exchange, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) fact-checked Schmitt in real-time, confirming the date of the Iowa-Maryland game and suggested that her colleagues’ reliance on “false information based on confusion about the name of a team” warranted an apology.

“You don’t call someone a dirtbag when you haven’t done your own research and you don’t have your facts straight,” Klobuchar said after the hearing. “And it just shows how completely out of control this whole thing was.”

Schmitt did not immediately respond to a request for comment on his allegations.

Kelsey Brugger contributed to this report.

Congress

Cruz blocks Senate Democrats’ bid to pass AI safety bill

Published

4 hours ago

September 29, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A Democratic trio attempted to pass an artificial intelligence bill via a unanimous consent request on Tuesday but were blocked on the Senate floor.

Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) sought to pass their Artificial Intelligence Risk Management and Security Act using the procedural mechanism, which allows expedited consideration of legislation but fails if one senator opposes it.

“The whole world has recognized that we’ve got to do something,” Warner said in a speech on the floor. “We should not miss the moment to put a safety protocol in place now.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) objected to the bill, preventing any chance of passage.

“Congress must not legislate on the issue of artificial intelligence hastily or in a closed manner,” he said on the floor, adding that it gave some in the government too much power to dictate the technology that could be permitted to be released.

As some lawmakers grow concerned over dire warnings from AI labs’ top executives about the technology’s risk to humanity, Congress’ attempts to legislate AI guardrails have largely stalled.

In the past few weeks, two other AI-related bills, the Ratepayer Protection Act and AI Emergency Button Act, were also nixed in an attempt to pass them unanimously.

Warner, Schatz and Kim’s new bill would have established a new safety board within the Commerce Department to vet models before they are deployed and set safety standards for the industry. It would also have created a reporting process for safety and security incidents.