Congress

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

Published

6 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

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

2 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.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

4 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.