Congress

What Republicans could offer Democrats on health care after the shutdown

Published

12 months ago

October 14, 2025

A menu of options is starting to emerge around what a compromise might look like for extending a suite of Affordable Care Act tax credits, which have become a focal point in the current government funding standoff.

With the shutdown about to enter its third week, Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune continue to insist that any negotiation over the future of the enhanced Obamacare subsidies will need to happen after the government reopens.

Behind the scenes, however, Republicans on Capitol Hill and inside the Trump administration are discussing potential pathways to prevent the tax credits from expiring at the end of the year.

According to two people granted anonymity to share details about private discussions, some members of the House GOP leadership circle are having early, informal conversations with officials from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs and the Domestic Policy Council to develop a framework for a deal.

As they await President Donald Trump’s buy-in, members of House Republican leadership have discussed imposing minimum out-of-pocket premium payments for ACA enrollees, according to one of the people familiar with the internal conversations.

Ultimately, whatever they come up with has to be something not only Democrats can accept but also Republicans, who are sharply divided over whether to extend the credits at all. Some GOP lawmakers say the subsidies are fueling waste, fraud and abuse; others see political peril in letting them lapse, causing premiums to skyrocket and millions to lose health insurance.

“About 90 percent of members of our conference, they feel strongly … that Obamacare itself and the subsidies have failed,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Friday. “It’s helped insurance companies pack their bottom line, but it’s crushed families who are paying higher premiums.”

But the increased back-channeling inside the GOP is a strong sign the administration is preparing for eventual negotiations on the tax credits and possible wider health policy changes.

“I think what we’re seeing is the dam breaking here,” said House Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) on a call with reporters Friday.

Here are some of the policy options currently under consideration among Republican negotiators that could become the basis for an agreement — or, at the very least, an opening offer.

New income limits

Conservatives complain that the expansion of the tax credits under former President Joe Biden removed income caps on the credits, which had previously restricted the subsidies to individuals making below four times the poverty line.

Key GOP negotiators in the House indicate openness to imposing new income caps. They include Reps. Jen Kiggans of Virginia and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who are touting bipartisan legislation to extend the subsidies for a year.

Influential Democrats — such as Senate Appropriations ranking member Patty Murray of Washington and House Ways and Means ranking member Richard Neal of Massachusetts, have not rejected this proposal out of hand. Murry, for instance, has noted that the vast majority of beneficiaries of the credit make below $200,000 already.

Several Republicans in the bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus have likewise privately floated a $200,000 income cap.

Minimum out-of-pocket premiums

Paragon Health Institute, an influential conservative health policy think tank, has been hammering Republicans with data indicating there are millions of “phantom enrollees” in the ACA — individuals who don’t know they’re enrolled in plans because the premiums are fully subsidized by taxpayers. This has sparked interest among conservatives in mandating a minimum out-of-pocket payment to unlock eligibility.

“It doesn’t have to be big, but if you get a notice for a five-buck premium, all of a sudden, you’re like, ‘Wait a minute, what?’” said Sen. Dan Sullivan in an interview. The Alaska Republican is part of a “working group” of GOP senators trying to come up with a conservative framework for extending the subsidies.

Cutting off enhanced tax credits for new enrollees

Allowing current enrollees continued access to the enhanced tax credits could emerge as a palatable compromise and blunt the impact of premium hikes set to take effect this fall. The “grandfathering” of the subsidies would likely be accompanied by other guardrails to root out waste and fraud in the health plans.

But Melanie Egorin, a professor at the University of Virginia and a former Health and Human Services official under the Biden administration, points out that policy would be particularly tough as the labor market softens and people lose their Medicaid coverage due to new work requirements enacted through the GOP megabill over the summer.

“Creating a grandfathering [mechanism] in a time where the economy is not looking so great for many Americans, feels really unfair,” she said in an interview.

New abortion restrictions

Democrats and Republicans disagree in the first place whether the tax credits truly subsidize plans that cover abortion. But influential anti-abortion groups, such as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, have mounted fierce campaigns to convince lawmakers and the public the plans make the procedure more affordable.

Conservatives sympathize with the argument, but the anti-abortion messaging campaign has in many ways made the policy fight more intractable. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, the top Democratic negotiator on the issue, and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the senior Democrat on the tax-writing Finance Committee, have already indicated that abortion restrictions are a nonstarter for any deal on the larger issue.

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.