Congress

‘Unforced errors’ weigh on GOP’s shutdown posture

Published

1 year ago

September 25, 2025

Republicans across the federal government are eager to hammer Democrats for making bold policy demands ahead of next week’s shutdown deadline. But they’re split on how to do it.

Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader John Thune, are trying to keep the message simple: The GOP wants to keep agencies open for a few more weeks while negotiations continue while Democrats are asking for unreasonable concessions.

Speaker Mike Johnson and the House GOP are all in on a message focusing on how the Democratic wish list would undo Republican-passed provisions barring undocumented immigrants from accessing public services.

And then there’s President Donald Trump, who delved even deeper into the culture wars Tuesday when he accused the other party of seeking to “force Taxpayers to fund Transgender surgery for minors” as part of the negotiations — an accusation that has puzzled even some fellow Republicans.

The diverging messages from GOP leaders comes after Trump reversed his decision to hold a White House meeting with top Democratic leaders — an about-face that came after Johnson and Thune privately warned him that it would undercut the party’s negotiating position.

Taken together, the visible cracks in the GOP front are raising internal concerns as party leaders face off against Democrats who are largely united behind a plan to focus on health care — particularly an extension of expiring insurance subsidies.

“There have been some unforced errors, clearly,” said one senior House GOP aide granted anonymity to speak candidly about Republicans’ strategy so far.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have seized on Trump’s cancellation of the meeting, with Schumer accusing the president of throwing a “tantrum” and Jeffries criticizing Johnson for sending House members home until after the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline.

“They’re not even pretending as if they want to find common ground,” Jeffries told reporters Wednesday in the Capitol.

Trump’s attacks accusing Democrats of seeking to force taxpayers to underwrite gender-reassignment surgery came the morning after GOP congressional leaders counseled him not to meet with Schumer and Jeffries — something he told reporters over the weekend he intended to do.

Not only were Johnson and Thune worried about losing leverage if Trump opened negotiations with the Democrats, they were initially alarmed they might not be included in the meeting, according to four people granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

In a lengthy social media post cancelling the meeting, Trump decried Democrats for refusing to vote for a shutdown-avoiding spending punt “unless they can have over $1 Trillion Dollars in new spending to continue free healthcare for Illegal Aliens (A monumental cost!), force Taxpayers to fund Transgender surgery for minors, have dead people on the Medicaid roles, allow Illegal Alien Criminals to steal Billions of Dollars in American Taxpayer Benefits, try to force our Country to again open our Borders to Criminals and to the World, allow men to play in women’s sports, and essentially create Transgender operations for everybody.”

Most of those claims are rooted in a Democratic proposal to roll back parts of the Republican-passed domestic policy megabill that Trump signed in July. That law includes new curbs meant to keep noncitizens from accessing public benefits such as Medicaid, as well as other new verification requirements and border security funding.

His arguments on transgender surgeries, however, appear to stem from Democrats’ demand for a permanent extension of Obamacare insurance subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year and are currently used by more than 20 million Americans.

Five states require insurance plans to cover gender-reassignment surgeries and related health care for transgender enrollees, and top Trump advisers and outside groups argue that a straight extension of the existing federal tax credits would continue taxpayer support for those policies. They believe that argument should be a key GOP focus ahead of the potential shutdown, according to three Trump officials granted anonymity to describe the deliberations.

But some Hill Republicans were confused and caught off-guard by Trump’s focus on transgender politics. It also served to create headaches for a handful of the most vulnerable House Republicans, who are pushing for a one-year clean extension of the insurance subsidies. They include Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), a co-author of the proposal who has strong backing from House GOP leaders.

The White House further scrambled the GOP strategy late Wednesday when it circulated a draft memo instructing agencies to create plans for mass firings of federal workers if Democrats don’t relent and a shutdown occurs. That alarmed some Hill Republicans who saw it as an unnecessary provocation that, in the words of one, “would give Democrats an excuse to vote against” the GOP-led stopgap — and muddy their message that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were unreasonable hostage-takers.

House Republican leaders, meanwhile, are much more comfortable hammering Democrats over illegal immigration — an issue they believe has the best chance of keeping their fractious conference united ahead of the looming shutdown. In interviews and social media posts, they’ve conspicuously embraced those arguments while steering clear of the transgender themes some of Trump’s top advisers are keenly focused on.

“House Republicans have already done the job of passing a clean, bipartisan bill to keep the government open,” Johnson posted on X Wednesday. “Now it’s up to Senate Democrats – who have long said shutdowns are bad and hurt people – to vote to fund the American government, or shut it down because they want to restore taxpayer-funded benefits to illegal aliens.”

Some Senate Republicans have also mentioned illegal immigration — such as Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the No. 2 GOP leader, who said last week that “Democrats would rather shut down the government than stop states from paying for free health care for illegal immigrants.” The Senate GOP campaign arm also knocked Democrats in key races, arguing they would vote with Schumer and force “American taxpayers to fund illegal immigrants’ government benefits.”

But Thune and other GOP senators have been most comfortable battling Democrats on process grounds, arguing that there is no reason to hold up a short-term funding patch and potentially shutter federal agencies over the insurance subsidies or any other policy dispute. Thune characterized Democrats’ demands Wednesday as “completely unhinged” in a BLN interview.

Asked about extending the expiring tax credits, Thune reiterated his and Johnson’s position to push off those discussions until later this year.

“It ought to be done in regular order,” he said, without repeating any of Trump’s arguments about transgender surgeries or illegal immigration.

Jeffries on Wednesday said it was Trump who was the “unhinged” one, citing his Truth Social screed Tuesday. He said the GOP has “no path forward” without Democratic cooperation.

“They’re running scared,” he said. “They have no defensible position, and that’s why, unfortunately, they’re marching us to a government shutdown.”

Congress

Sanders, AOC, Merkley propose bill to ban Flock cameras

Published

1 hour ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) on Friday released text of legislation intended to ban the use of Flock surveillance cameras and other license plate readers.

Flock has faced severe public backlash against the surveillance technology following reports that police officers misused the technology to track women, and it has the largest network of license plate readers across the U.S. Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) hosted a hearing last month probing its potential misuses, although the company’s CEO Garrett Langley did not appear.

The latest bill, unveiled Friday and named the Ban Flock Act, would bar federal agencies from using automated license plate readers or accessing data from the technology and prevent federal grants from funding states and local governments that use automated license plate readers.

“At a time of growing concern about the unchecked power of artificial intelligence, Flock is eviscerating the very notion of privacy by installing tens of thousands of cameras in communities across America without their consent,” Sanders, who has positioned himself as a leading progressive voice on AI technology, said in a statement. “We cannot allow America to become a surveillance state where a handful of AI oligarchs profit by giving the government the power to track our every movement.”

Ocasio-Cortez similarly condemned the surveillance capabilities of the technology and said the bill would “enforce our constitutional right to privacy and protect Americans from both corporate and government surveillance.”

“No one should have this unchecked surveillance power at their fingertips,” Merkley added.

Republicans have introduced similar efforts to regulate license plate readers, such as Hawley’s Stop Flock Abuse Act, which would require audits and limits on unauthorized searches.

Flock did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Dems spend big to help Hakeem’s dream

Published

4 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats watching Speaker Mike Johnson deal with a chaotically slim majority have seen enough — and they’re trying to avoid the same fate.

The party is investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority and strengthen the hand of Hakeem Jeffries, who’s widely favored as speaker if Democrats win the chamber in November.

“Another five-or-so-seat buffer would be a game-changer,” said one senior House Democrat, who like others in this report was granted anonymity to discuss internal party dynamics. That lawmaker added it would help Jeffries “rise above some of the incoming bullshit he’s going to have to deal with.”

Every extra seat would help Jeffries secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions to the two clashing blocs within his party: progressives and moderates.

Recent spending reflects these ambitions. Since the start of August, Democratic-aligned groups and candidates have spent or committed more than $73 million in ad dollars to GOP-held districts that President Donald Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact. The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts.

“Every single endorsed candidate supports Hakeem Jeffries for speaker of the House,” said the fund’s chair, Rep. Greg Stanton. “We will be a strong governing partner with Hakeem Jeffries to make sure that his speakership is as successful as possible.”

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Before Johnson, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to limit her leadership term.

Even with the gavel secured, a speaker has more flexibility to manage the floor if he or she can let some party colleagues peel off on tough votes.

Progressive challengers ousted a handful of Democratic incumbents in primaries this year, and they could adopt tactics from the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus if Democrats win just a narrow majority.

Meanwhile, newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem for Jeffries — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

What else we’re watching:

— HAWLEY’S POPULIST AI REBELLION: Sen. Josh Hawley’s push against artificial intelligence is placing an unmistakable marker for anti-tech rhetoric in the 2028 campaign among ambitious Republicans. Hawley’s call for AI safety legislation this week — including imposing corporate liability when AI causes harm — contrasts with Trump’s favoring of voluntary standards and exposes the growing rift between Republicans on how to respond to the technology. But Hawley’s influence is poised to expand as more Republicans start to echo his tone.

— GOP ADS SPUR CORPORATE HEARTBURN: A series of TV campaign ads this midterms season has highlighted a growing reality: On the right it’s become increasingly in vogue to bash big business. The ascendancy of Trump has ushered in a new era of skepticism toward multinational corporations in a party traditionally known as corporation-friendly. That puts big financial services firms, health insurance companies and tech titans — the subjects of the hottest rhetoric — at risk for becoming high-profile political punching bags for Republican 2028 presidential hopefuls.

Andrew Howard, Meredith Lee Hill, Riley Rogerson, Jessica Piper, John Hendel, Jasper Goodman and Victoria Guida contributed to this report.

Congress

The low-profile Democrat helping shape her party’s AI agenda

Published

7 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As Democrats scramble to create a viable plan to regulate artificial intelligence, one little-known lawmaker is playing a major behind-the-scenes role in shaping her party’s approach to the technology.

Rep. Valerie Foushee, a North Carolina Democrat in her second term, is one of three co-chairs of a commission tasked by Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to generate AI policy recommendations.

It’s a position that has given her significant power to mold Democrats’ thinking on the rapidly evolving issue, even as her fellow commission members cut more public personas through regular appearances at news conferences and in media hits: Rep. Ted Lieu of California is vice-chair of the House Democratic Caucus, while Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey has built a reputation as a self-styled moderate dealmaker.

In an interview earlier this week, Foushee said the commission has submitted a “first draft” of its much-anticipated recommendations to Jeffries. And while Jeffries will ultimately provide feedback to inform the final report, she said she would push for there to “always be a human element” in any AI regulatory framework, with civil rights and liberties at the center.

“We have seen evidence of how technology can be used for discrimination,” said Foushee. “We’ve seen how some groups have been excluded.”

A member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also associates with both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and centrist New Democrat Coalition, Foushee is representative of a broad, mainstream swath of House Democrats that has yet to stake a clear position on AI. And her vision for an AI regulatory model that keeps humans in control and builds in civil rights protections could provide a blueprint for her party.

She doesn’t want to stifle innovation, she explained; rather, “my focus is to make sure that we’re not leaving anybody behind.”

Foushee said she didn’t set out to lead on AI policy, but joined a bipartisan AI task force in the previous Congress given her seat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.

Since the task force released its recommendations in December 2024, House Republican leaders considered its mission complete, according to a senior GOP leadership aide granted anonymity to describe internal conversations. So when Speaker Mike Johnson opted not to reconstitute the panel in January 2025, Jeffries created his Democrat-only commission to fill that void, tapping Foushee as one of its commissioners.

“I was glad to be one of those that the leader thought might be helpful in leading us into the future,” she said. “So I don’t know if I would say that I was, you know, moved to do it, but certainly happy to do my part.”

Lieu, in a statement, called Foushee “unwavering in her commitment to ensuring AI systems don’t harm civil rights and equal opportunity.”

“I visited Val’s district earlier this year,” he continued, “and saw firsthand how effectively she works with local stakeholders to address the threats and unlock the possibilities of AI in her community.”

Foushee represents parts of the so-called Research Triangle encompassing Durham and Chapel Hill — the homes of Duke University and the University of North Carolina, where AI technologies are being studied. Her state is also a major hub for data centers powering the AI boom.

In her work with Lieu and Gottheimer, Foushee said “we’re all involved in everything” and that “you might say we’ve grown on each other.” Her main area of interest, though, has been to elevate civil rights and liberties protections.

She has introduced multiple bills to that end. One piece of legislation would require people to be told about when they are engaging with a chatbot instead of a human. Another would seek to expand participation in the AI research, education and workforce development among Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other minority-serving institutions.

Foushee’s work on the commission is also being informed by her regular engagement with each of the major AI labs. In her eyes, Anthropic has been the most receptive to regulatory measures while others have favored more “pro-innovation” policies.

She was adamant, however, that Anthropic was in no way influencing the AI policies she could soon be shopping to colleagues — even though a political action committee funded by Anthropic executives spent a little over a million dollars to support her in a competitive primary earlier this year.

“Let me just say to you that no one should be worried or concerned,” Foushee said. “My work on AI has always been focused on establishing guardrails and holding corporations accountable. There is nothing that you will see in any legislation that I have introduced, led, co-led, or co-sponsored that has not been towards holding corporations accountable and protecting the American public.”

In any event, Foushee said she has had no direct outreach from Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, since he led calls last month for a slowdown of advanced AI development amid warnings it could soon pose an imminent threat to human civilization.

“When … you’re not allowing for the engagement of members of Congress, and not even an opportunity to provide input or to be engaged in the conversation, it makes me wonder what those efforts are about,” said Foushee.

A spokesperson for Anthropic did not return a request for comment, while Nate Evans, a spokesperson for OpenAI, said the company was “deeply engaged with Congress on federal policy to advance AI safety, through dozens of meetings in recent weeks with members of both parties in both chambers.”

Representatives from Anthropic and OpenAI also briefed members of the Science Committee in mid-September.

All three commission co-chairs have been tight-lipped about what their AI recommendations could entail — especially as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to sense real urgency to rein in the technology and are desperate for legislative solutions.

It also remains to be seen whether the forthcoming agenda will unify a party that has been largely aligned on the need for regulation but deeply split on the specifics.

Some progressives, led by Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar of Texas, support banning highly sophisticated AI systems and pausing AI development until a government-led vetting procedure can be implemented.

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), meanwhile, has introduced what is currently one of the only comprehensive, bipartisan bills to regulate advanced AI models — but it stops significantly short of the pauses championed by progressives and opens a thorny debate about whether to preempt state AI laws with an overarching federal framework.

Foushee said she has not signed onto Casar’s proposal to ban superintelligence, explaining she has yet to review it. She did throw cold water on another progressive-led proposal to place a moratorium on data centers, saying it should be up to local jurisdictions whether to build the controversial, energy-sucking facilities.

She has not decided whether she will co-sponsor the bill Trahan painstakingly negotiated with California Republican Rep. Jay Obernolte. Members of both parties have been cautious to associate with the package given the hyper-partisan political environment, especially in the leadup to the midterms.

But Foushee said she supports holding a committee markup of the legislation, adding that when fellow Democrats ask her about the measure, she replies, “I’m not one to say that this member should or should not say or do this, that, or the other. I’m not hell bent on any one particular approach.”

Democrats “should continue to lead but it certainly does not mean to me that there should not be a bipartisan effort to put forward a framework,” said Foushee. “When indeed we are in the majority, then that is what we plan to do.”