Congress

‘Warrants or bust’: House hard-liners deliver ultimatum ahead of spy powers vote

Published

7 months ago

March 18, 2026

Speaker Mike Johnson is staring down his right flank as he seeks to fulfill President Donald Trump’s demand to extend warrantless government surveillance powers long detested by the conservative hard-liners.

Johnson wants to put an 18-month extension of the spy law known as Section 702 on the House floor next week, seeking to advance it ahead of a two-week recess and its rapidly approaching April 20 expiration date.

He’s not planning to attach anything to the bill to bring ultraconservatives on board with the plan, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss private strategy. He’ll rely instead on the power of a White House endorsement for a “clean” extension to overcome threats from members like Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, who is renewing a long-running demand that intelligence officials seek judicial warrants before reviewing messages involving Americans.

“Warrants or bust,” Boebert said, adding that a clean bill “will not pass.”

Separately, Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is demanding the House attach partisan elections legislation, the SAVE America Act, to the must-pass spy bill in a bid to force Senate action on it.

Johnson started making the hard sell Wednesday, inviting members to hear from CIA Director John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Kash Patel ahead of the expected floor consideration next week.

He expressed confidence in an interview Tuesday that skeptical members would come around on extending Section 702 on the White House’s terms.

“They’ll get there,” Johnson said.

But his path to doing so is far from clear. He’ll first need to unite Republicans behind a procedural measure teeing up floor consideration for the bill, and both Luna and Boebert say they will oppose that step, known as a rule.

“I’ll be a ‘no’ on the rule … and a ‘no’ on the bill if they don’t have SAVE America attached,” Luna said Tuesday. “And I’m not the only one. There’s other people.”

“There is no way a clean extension is getting through,” said another House Republican granted anonymity to speak candidly. “A rule for that will not pass next week.”

Another path for Johnson would be to try and skip the procedural vote and opt instead for a fast-track process, but that would require a critical mass of Democrats to join Republicans to get the bill past a two-thirds majority. GOP leaders are still exploring whether they can navigate the internal opposition and, if not, how many Democrats are willing to help.

The Republican hard-liners don’t think there are enough votes across the aisle to sidestep their opposition, with House Democrats split on whether to support the clean extension. Top party leaders have not yet taken sides on the matter, and members on key committees have diverged.

Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Intelligence Committee Democrat, backs the 18-month extension, but many others in the caucus say they would need serious concessions to continue the spy program under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which targets overseas actors for warrantless surveillance but often collects communications involving Americans.

“Personally, there’s no way I will support a clean FISA extension,” said Rep. Ted Lieu of California, a member of Democratic leadership and the Judiciary Committee. “There’s no way I’m going to give the Trump administration this mass surveillance authority. It’s not just a Trump administration. It’s any administration.”

One Democrat who attended Wednesday’s briefing said the biggest problem is the “character” and “lack of trust” in the Trump officials pushing for the extension — including Patel, who once complained about surveillance practices of Democratic administrations.

“It’s like the boy who cried wolf,” the lawmaker added.

Several House Republicans also raised concerns directly to Patel and Ratcliffe during the briefing about the clean extension, according to three other people in the room.

But House GOP leaders and White House officials believe the easier path is to simply convince the Republican holdouts — especially since Trump wants the clean reauthorization.

“I think I can pass the rule,” Johnson said after the briefing Wednesday.

They face a tough sell with some members, who remember how Trump urged them to “KILL FISA” in 2024 because his campaign was “spied on” by the federal government. Beyond Boebert and Luna, more than a dozen other House Republicans are objecting to continuing the program as-is.

They include GOP Reps. Chip Roy and Keith Self of Texas, Warren Davidson of Ohio and Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who want to ensure Americans are not swept up in government surveillance without a warrant.

“They’re going to have to allow amendments, because there is a lot of appetite for reform,” Davidson said, adding that he would oppose the bill if it goes unchanged.

“There are indications that the warrantless approach is still not working,” added Self in an interview this week.

Asked if Trump will need to get personally involved in the lobbying campaign, Johnson replied, “I can handle it. We’ll get it done.”

House GOP leaders are privately arguing that a straight Section 702 reauthorization is justified given the rising threats to Americans amid the widening military conflict in the Middle East, according to four people granted anonymity to describe the whip effort.

Stephen Miller, the influential senior White House domestic policy adviser, has been a leading advocate within the administration for extending the program without changes, seeing it as critical to a variety of homeland security missions.

“This is what the president has asked for, makes the case for and that’s the play we’re going to run,” House Intelligence Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said in an interview. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, who opposed an extension in 2024, is also now supporting the straight extension.

“We did a lot of good reforms last time, so that’s a good start,” Jordan said in a recent interview.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus also raised concerns about the White House-backed plan and suggested there will not be enough Republican support to tee up a final vote. An extension into late 2027 would be hard to swallow, he said — preferring a shorter punt just past November’s midterm election.

Despite the internal resistance, some in Johnson’s leadership circle believe they will need to attempt a vote on the straight 18-month extension next week regardless, given Trump’s backing for it.

If it does fail, Johnson & Co. will have to work on a backup plan to pass the bill once members return from recess April 14. That would leave only a few days to get the measure through the House as well as the Senate before the April 20 deadline.

Congress

FBI raids Beverly Hills mansion tied to former Eric Swalwell donor

Published

12 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The FBI on Tuesday raided a Los Angeles area mansion connected to Stephen Cloobeck, a billionaire and former Democratic donor who was a close associate of former Rep. Eric Swalwell.

“The FBI is executing a federal search warrant” at the Beverly Hills mansion, which is listed on Cloobeck’s California business filings, a spokesperson for the FBI’s Los Angeles field office said in a statement.

No arrests are planned, and the affidavit for the search warrant remains sealed, the spokesperson said. The FBI search was related to “an ongoing criminal investigation,” a Justice Department spokesperson said in a statement, declining to provide further details.

Cloobeck, a one-time California gubernatorial candidate, dropped his bid and donated more than $1 million to back Swalwell after he declared his candidacy. But he later said he had cut ties with the former lawmaker after sexual assault allegations against Swalwell emerged.

Swalwell resigned from Congress and dropped his gubernatorial bid but has denied the allegations. The Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Swalwell that included an FBI search of his Washington home in August, the AP reported at the time.

Cloobeck was arrested in May after Los Angeles County prosecutors charged him with allegedly attempting to impede victim or witness testimony. He was later released on bail and pleaded not guilty to all counts in August.

Cloobeck and his attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department said it has not taken part in the FBI’s Tuesday raid.

Congress

Capitol agenda: Democrats face reckoning on trans issues

Published

17 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

A potential Democratic majority on Capitol Hill would face a serious split over whether to use its newfound power to protect transgender Americans.

Progressive lawmakers are pushing Democratic leaders to undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on trans people’s health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination.

But affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter the party, especially with many Democratic candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (R-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

One senior House Democrat serving on House Appropriations, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates, however, argued for a two-pronged approach to protecting trans people: passing legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals and using committee gavels to probe the Trump administration’s actions.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in an interview, while the Human Rights Campaign’s Ramiro Sarmiento said Congress “needs to use every tool it has to push back” on Trump.

Jeffries did not respond to a request for comment, but other top Democrats are responding to the conflict between affordability and civil rights by asking: Why not both?

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark said in an interview. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

What else we’re watching:

— THE GOP’S SMALL DONOR PROBLEM: The GOP’s cash advantage over Democrats this cycle has been thanks to a small group of megadonors like Elon Musk. But when it comes to the grassroots donor base, there’s a stark contrast between the parties. Small donations through major online platforms have dipped for Republicans since 2022 while they’re up for Democrats by about a third. That’s left vulnerable Republican candidates more reliant on Trump’s campaign war chest and super PACs.

— GOP CLIMATE BLOC FACES WIPEOUT: A midterm blue wave could decimate the cohort of Republicans who advocate for addressing climate change and pursuing clean-energy policies. The Conservative Climate Caucus, a House GOP group that pushes for those policies, could lose up to a third of its members in the midterms, with 11 of 66 membersin tight races and another 15 more retiring. That would shrink the pool of negotiating partners for Democrats as they plan on a renewed push for climate legislation.

Congress

Democrats’ affordability message collides with calls to defend transgender rights

Published

20 hours ago

October 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Some Democrats are fired up to use their potential majorities in Congress next year and undo President Donald Trump’s attacks on transgender Americans. Others just want to focus on the cost of gas.

Ahead of the midterms, progressive lawmakers and congressional candidates are clashing with moderates in office and on the campaign trail over whether to pursue a legislative agenda that includes protecting trans people — whose health care, participation in athletics and protections against discrimination have been targeted by the administration.

“We need to have an affirmative platform that protects and expands rights for LGBTQ people,” said Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey in an interview.

He is among nearly a dozen lawmakers and advocates who said they want Democrats to pursue a two-pronged approach: pass legislation to codify certain rights for trans individuals, and use committee gavels to compel public testimony from Trump officials on their efforts to undermine protections for trans and nonbinary people.

But the need to tackle affordability, not culture war fights, has been the overriding theme of the Democrats’ push to retake control of Congress. Many Democrats believe that their promise to lower the cost of living will be the reason they win back majorities in the House or the Senate.

Many centrists fear any pivot away from that pledge would splinter a new Democratic majority on Capitol Hill, especially with some candidates openly rejecting some trans rights initiatives during their campaigns.

“You have to focus on what people care about,” Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) said in an interview. “Right now that’s affordability, and they want some relief. That’s what we should talk about.”

Rep. Marc Veasey, a moderate Texas Democrat who is retiring this year, said “cultural issues” including transgender rights are “something we should dive into once [Trump] is gone.”

“The American public is going to want to see our caucus focus on costs as long as he continues to affect the markets negatively with his tariffs and wars,” he said.

Progressive advocacy groups and their Hill allies say they can’t wait. Democrats, they argue, should hold hearings on the DOJ’s decision last summer to subpoena more than 20 doctors and clinics who’ve provided gender-affirming care to obtain potentially patient-identifying information, advocates say, leading some hospitals to stop providing youth gender affirming care.

They also want Democrats to challenge the Education Department’s move last month to officially rescind anti-discrimination protections for transgender students instituted under former President Joe Biden. They’re pushing, too, for an investigation of the Justice Department’s restrictions on gender-affirming care for incarcerated people and policy against placing prisoners in populations consistent with their gender identity — a move which has faced legal challenges.

In terms of legislation, Democrats are sure to encounter limitations so long as long as Trump is in office. The president is opposed to the cornerstone piece of LGBTQ+ advocates’ agenda, the Equality Act, which would amend civil rights laws to explicitly prohibit gender identity discrimination. It might not even have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster and get to Trump’s desk.

Democrats likewise are sure to run into resistance in trying to attach pro-transgender policies to must-pass legislative vehicles, such as government spending bills or the annual defense policy package. The same goes for any attempts to overrule or modify the administration’s suggested changes to the 2030 Census, which include a proposal to remove questions about sexual orientation.

That reality should not be a deterrent, argued Ramiro Sarmiento, national press secretary at the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-LGBTQ+ civil rights advocacy group.

“Congress needs to use every tool it has to push back against the dismantling of protections at the federal level,” said Sarmiento.

He, along with Ian Thompson, senior legislative advocate at the ACLU, and Tyler Hack, founder and executive director of the Christopher Street Project — a hybrid PAC and nonprofit focused on building support for transgender rights in Congress — said their organizations have already begun preliminary conversations with several Democrats about the moves they could make to reverse or combat anti-trans-rights initiatives by Trump administration.

Those Democrats include longstanding LGBTQ+ rights champions like Markey and Reps. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, plus progressive candidates like Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan and New York’s Claire Valdez and Brad Lander.

Hack conceded that trans protection issues are not what “most Americans are thinking about” but added, “Unfortunately, they are the issues that the White House is thinking about, and it’s the responsibility of Congress to be a check on their powers.”

The advocates say Trump’s executive orders and the GOP agenda have had drastic impacts on transgender Americans and their families, including by limiting their access to health care and identification documents that reflect their gender identity. It’s led some families with trans children to make plans to leave the country.

“I believe our role in Congress is to stand up for the little guys who are being picked on by bullies like Donald Trump and the Republicans,” Markey said about Democrats’ obligations.

They’re going up against Democrats who want nothing to do with any transgender-related fight as Republicans pummel their party for being out of touch and “woke.” GOP ads in nearly every battleground race have targeted their Democratic opponents over their party’s support for trans rights.

That has prompted numerous Democrats to run rebuttal ads, such as veteran Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s recent spot stating “boys should not play in girls’ sports.”

Alaska Democratic Senate nominee Mary Peltola told voters at a recent campaign event her “hope is that we don’t have to spend one second on a conversation about trans anything” in the next Congress, according to a Washington Sun report.

One senior House Democrat, who was granted anonymity to discuss a private conversation, recalled personally asking Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries not to focus on trans issues or other culture war flashpoints if the party wins the House.

Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not respond to requests for comment on their plans for tackling trans-related issues in the coming Congress.

Advocates argue that issues of gender identity and equality are, in fact, pocketbook issues and cannot be simply shunted aside.

“When you are putting in place, for example, policies that say that you can’t get a driver’s license that accurately reflects who you are, or that you can’t use a public restroom, what you are telling people is they can’t work, they can’t hold a job or participate in the public life of our country,” the ACLU’s Thompson said. “Those have very significant economic consequences.”

Several senior House Democrats — Minority Whip Katherine Clark, the No. 2 leader, Rep. Ted Lieu of California, the No. 4 leader, and Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat — said much the same in interviews.

“If we are telling people that we no longer value equality in this country, it’s really hard to build a fair economy,” Clark said. “You can’t silo these issues out.”

Riley Rogerson and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.