In a rare move, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) is reaching across party lines to endorse his wife, Susanne Shore, who announced Thursday that she is running as a Democrat for a seat on the University of Nebraska Board of Regents.

Ricketts said in a statement that his wife would be an “outstanding voice” for the university, noting her love for Nebraska and their shared goals of making higher education more affordable and accessible.

“I usually vote straight Republican, but Susanne will be my one Democrat exception in 2026!” he said.

The former Nebraskan first lady is seeking an Omaha seat representing Douglas County after former Regent Elizabeth O’Connor resigned in January following a charge of felony DUI. Shore described herself as a “Regent-ready” candidate, pointing to her background in university administration, health care and public service.

“Our university must be an engine, not a museum,” she said in a statement. “By focusing on results over rhetoric, we can keep our university affordable, competitive and ready for the challenges of the future.”

The political split between the former two-term governor and his wife has been apparent for more than a decade. The two donate to opposing parties and have even backed candidates running against one another. Shore acknowledged the dynamic, saying differences at home are routine but respectful. In an interview with the Nebraska Examiner, Shore said Ricketts has been “nothing but supportive” of her political aspirations.

“He’s told me what it’s like to run for office, and I’ve seen it firsthand,” she said. “It does feel different to be on this side, but so far it’s been amazing.”

Shore said her husband has his own campaign to worry about. He’s facing off against Dan Osborn, an independent and former Omaha labor leader, in a competitive Nebraska Senate race.

Ricketts has been a loyal supporter of President Donald Trump and the Republican Party, backing the administration on many of its key issues. He was, however, one of the few Republicans to criticize Trump after he posted a racist video to social media depicting former President and first lady Barack and Michelle Obama as monkeys earlier this month.

“Even if this was a Lion King meme, a reasonable person sees the racist context to this,” he wrote on X. “The White House should do what anyone does when they make a mistake: remove this and apologize.”

Some of Donald Trump’s biggest loyalists in Congress are itching to rein in federal surveillance powers. So far his administration isn’t biting.

Instead, the White House is quietly pushing for a key spy authority to be extended as is into 2027, according to five people granted anonymity to discuss the private talks. The length of that “clean” extension is still under discussion, but the administration wants at least 18 months, according to three of the people.

Stephen Miller, the influential senior White House domestic policy adviser, is a leading advocate within the administration for extending the program that lets the government collect the data of noncitizens abroad without a warrant, according to two of the five people. One of the people said that Miller sees the spying statute under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, as critical to a variety of homeland security missions.

The behind-the-scenes push comes as Congress barrels toward an April 20 deadline to reauthorize Section 702, which is itself a perennial source of intraparty tension for the GOP. Even as some Hill Republicans believe that Trump supports a clean extension, others cautioned there are still two months to go and things will remain in flux until the president weighs in publicly — underscoring the fraught nature of the discussion.

But if Trump embraces the view held by Miller and other administration officials, it would be a major win for the intelligence community and its allies in Congress, who have fretted for months that Trump’s stated hatred of the broader FISA law could tank hopes of getting any reauthorization of the warrantless spy provision over the finish line.

On the other hand, it’s likely to be a major problem for Speaker Mike Johnson, a former Judiciary Committee member who frustrated conservative hard-liners in 2024 when he sided with the Intelligence Committee and cast the deciding vote to reject a new policy requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching for Americans under Section 702 surveillance.

GOP leaders are involved in conversations with House Republicans about how to reauthorize the program, but there is not yet a consensus on how to move forward ahead of the April deadline.

Ultimately, there’s no easy path to pass a clean extension in the House. One of the people with knowledge of the discussions said GOP leaders are “going to have a problem” trying to unite Republicans behind a special “rule” allowing for an up-or-down floor vote on a clean extension, which are typically party-line affairs.

But Republicans also believe that with Trump in office, a number of Democrats who previously supported leaving Section 702 intact will now support putting more fetters on intelligence agencies — making the alternative route, a two-thirds-majority bipartisan vote under suspension of the rules, all but impossible.

Asked about trying to pass a clean 702 extension, House Intelligence Committee Chair Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) said in an interview that “we’re still shopping that.”

“I have a responsibility to … run the play that the coach calls, so we’ll see,” he said, acknowledging that while he’s “not a mathematician” that it’s unlikely any bill will be able to clear the two-thirds hurdle for speedy passage.

Across the Capitol, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) has been pitching a clean 18-month extension, with some members of his panel interested in going even longer. But lawmakers have also grown frustrated after administration officials were evasive about their position in recent Capitol Hill meetings, with one person saying Wednesday they still had not been informed of the White House’s official posture.

Intelligence officials have argued in public that the 702 program is critical to stopping a wide range of national security threats, from narcotics trafficking and weapons proliferation to cyberattacks and terrorism. U.S. spy agencies are also authorized to use the authority to vet foreigners trying to enter the country or seeking certain benefits under federal immigration law.

Miller was one of the architects of the Trump administration’s policy of bombing suspected drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific under the controversial legal theory that their crews were “combatants” in an armed conflict against the U.S.

The White House did not provide a comment about its position on extending the program. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond to a request for comment.

Beyond the surveillance policy itself, any 702 extension will face other problems getting through the House: Trying to pass a bill under a rule would give an opportunity to Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) and her allies to make good on their threat to attach a partisan voting bill, the SAVE America Act. If that effort were successful, it would kill the ability for Republicans to get the Democratic votes they will inevitably need to pass the legislation in the House.

Lawmakers at the heart of the debate know they are quickly running out of time to figure out a strategy. The House is planning to be out of session for three of the coming eight weeks before Section 702 expires.

“April 20 is the deadline, so we’ve got to work fast,” Crawford said, adding that “obviously the White House has vested interest in retaining 702, authority. It’s a national security issue. So, you know, it’s very important to them.”

Crawford and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) are in talks over a potential compromise effort that could put new guardrails on Section 702 surveillance. They’ve participated in a joint meeting at the White House and held staff dinners to try and feel out a compromise — which would be a huge relief for Johnson if it could come together.

But the two panels have historically diverged, particularly on the warrant issue. There’s already skepticism that Jordan or his panel’s members will drop their demands to require warrants in relation to Americans caught in the surveillance data just because the White House is pushing for a clean extension.

Jordan indicated to POLITICO late last year that he was hoping to get a warrant requirement written into law, along with a separate proposal banning data brokers from selling information to law enforcement without a warrant.

But he was more general in comments last week, where he noted there are ongoing conversations about possible additional changes Congress could make while also offering a more measured assessment of the overall program.

“We know 702 is important,” Jordan said. “We know it needs to get reauthorized. We’re committed to getting that done. We just want to do it in the best way possible so that you can get the bad guys, know what the bad guys are doing overseas, but also protect Americans, and I’m confident we’ll get there.”

But some hard-liners in both chambers are as insistent as ever on the need for a warrant requirement.

Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) asked Attorney General Pam Bondi about it during her appearance last week before the House Judiciary Committee. And Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said Congress “has no business” reauthorizing Section 702 without adding a warrant requirement for searches involving U.S. persons — a provision that supporters of the program believe would be unworkable.

Lee and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, are planning to revive a bill that would extend Section 702 with changes, including a warrant requirement for searching the content of communications involving Americans, according to a person granted anonymity to disclose the unannounced effort.

“I think a lot of members still want to be able to have some semblance of a warrant requirement when it comes to FISA 702 uses,” Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) said. “I don’t really see that changing anytime soon.”

Les Wexner, a billionaire businessman and former client of Jeffrey Epstein, said in a statement shared Wednesday with members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee he had no contact with Epstein after the sex offender’s first conviction — nor did he have any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

“I completely and irrevocably cut ties with Epstein nearly twenty years ago when I learned that he was an abuser, a crook, and a liar,” Wexner, the Ohio-based founder of L Brands, said in the statement obtained by Blue Light News. “And, let me be crystal clear: I never witnessed nor had any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activity.”

Wexner, in compliance with a congressional subpoena, testified behind closed doors in New Albany, Ohio, as part of the Oversight panel’s investigation into Epstein and the Justice Department’s handling of the case.

A longtime Republican donor, Wexner has become a central figure in the fallout over the so-called Epstein files after he was listed in DOJ materials as a potential secondary co-conspirator — though the memo also said there was “limited evidence regarding his involvement,” and he has not been charged in the case.

House Democrats, speaking during the deposition, sought to portray Wexner as a key enabler of Epstein’s crimes.

Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight panel, said Epstein’s victims had expressed concern about the “enormous amount of money” Wexner transferred to Epstein — potentially over a billion dollars, Garcia claimed.

“There is no single person that was more involved in providing Jeffrey Epstein with the financial support to commit his crimes than Les Wexner,” Garcia told reporters in Ohio. “Mr. Epstein would not be the wealthy man he was without the support of Les Wexner.”

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) said that throughout the deposition, Wexner claimed to know less and less about his relationship with Epstein.

“There was a deep trust between these two men,” he said. “There was a deep friendship there.”

No Republican lawmakers were present for the deposition, with Committee Chair James Comer unable to attend due to previously scheduled oral surgery, according to a spokesperson.

According to the statement provided to the House panel, Wexner said his formal relationship with Epstein began after Epstein offered to provide financial advice as a personal favor — a gesture Wexner said he has come to believe was a move to gain his trust. Wexner later hired Epstein in an official capacity to oversee his personal finances and gave him power of attorney.

“Over the course of many years, [Epstein] carefully used his acquaintance with important individuals to curate an aura of legitimacy that he then used to expand his network of acquaintances, and apparent credibility, even farther,” said Wexner’s written statement.

As the case against Epstein in the 2000’s ballooned and it became clear that Epstein had been stealing from Wexner’s family, the two men severed ties entirely, Wexner said. Epstein transferred some money back to Wexner’s family but never admitted to wrongdoing, Wexner added.

Wexner also maintained he had never been unfaithful to his wife over more than three decades together.