Congress

White House shutdown summit fails to produce a deal

Published

1 year ago

September 29, 2025

Congressional leaders left a high-stakes Oval Office meeting with President Donald Trump without a breakthrough Monday, greatly raising the likelihood of a government shutdown starting early Wednesday morning.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at the White House that “there are still large differences between us.”

“Their bill has not one iota of Democratic input,” he added, referring to a House-passed seven-week stopgap funding bill that Senate Democrats rejected earlier this month. “That is never how we’ve done this before.”

Another person granted anonymity to describe the closed-door meeting said it was a “frank discussion” but that the two sides were “too far apart” at this point.

“There’s no way right now,” the person added.

Ahead of the meeting, Trump himself cast doubt on the prospects for a deal.

“They’re going to have to do some things because their ideas are not very good ones,” he said about Democrats. “They’re very bad for our country, so we’ll see how that works out.”

The meeting, held just ahead of the Tuesday midnight shutdown deadline, was the first time Trump has held a formal meeting with the top Democratic leaders since he was sworn in for a second term in January. It’s also the first time they have spoken at all about government funding in that time

Leading up to the meeting, Schumer and Jeffries struck different tones about what would be an acceptable solution to the shutdown standoff. Jeffries staked out a hard line on health care, saying any agreement needed to “ironclad and in legislation” and suggesting any kind of handshake agreement to continue negotiating would not be enough. Schumer was more circumspect, telling reporters on Monday “we’re ready to get to work. It’s about time.”

Democrats have insisted health care be part of government funding negotiations, with the extension of Obamacare insurance subsidies forming the core of their demands. While Republicans have opened the door to negotiating on the tax credits, which are available to people receiving health care through Affordable Care Act marketplaces and expire at the end of the year, they have insisted they be dealt with separately from the pending shutdown fight.

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader, said a commitment from GOP leaders to work on extending the tax credits would be a “real mark of progress.”

“Whether it’s enough, I can’t say,” he added.

GOP leaders so far are ruling out any idea that they’d agree to ACA talks as part of an agreement to avert a shutdown.

“Most of our guys would lose their minds,” said a senior House GOP aide involved in the talks.

Republican leaders are navigating competing schools of thought within their own ranks about how to handle the subsidies and are looking for a clear sign from Trump to guide their efforts to reach a potential agreement later this year. They are also under fierce pressure from their right-flanks not to cut an 11th-hour deal with Democrats, believing they have the political upper hand heading into a potential shutdown.

Thune confirmed before leaving for the White House that the Senate will vote on Tuesday on the House-passed continuing resolution that would fund the government until Nov. 21, buying lawmakers more time to negotiate full-year appropriations bills and reach a potential deal on the insurance subsidies.

Democrats rejected that bill earlier this month, and if they reject it a second time, Thune is expected to tee it back up for another vote. Republicans are also looking at other procedural steps they could take to squeeze Democrats during a shutdown.

Senate Democrats are privately discussing multiple options for how to get out of a shutdown and keep pressure on Republicans to come to the table on the Obamacare subsidies, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose internal discussions.

Senate Democrats can also force a re-vote on their proposal that would extend funding through Oct. 31 and would reverse $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid from the GOP’s recent domestic policy megabill, along with a permanent extension of the health insurance subsidies.

It would also restrict the president’s authority to claw back congressionally approved funding, addressing Democratic frustrations over the Trump administration’s recent moves to reverse bipartisan spending bills. Further vexing Democrats was White House budget chief Russ Vought’s threat last week to engage in mass firings of federal workers in case of a shutdown.

House Democrats have publicly and privately fretted that Senate Democrats could reverse course and vote to advance GOP-backed funding legislation after most House Democrats opposed it. Helping fuel that concern, several Senate Democrats have sidestepped questions over the past week about what they might do if Republicans moved toward formal negotiations on the Obamacare subsidies.

Asked if an agreement to keep talking Is that the best Democrats can reasonably expect, Durbin said, “I’m not going to go into that. I’m just going to say if we’re not sitting down talking about ending this responsibly and helping people deal with health care, it’s going to be a rocky road.”

Congress

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

Published

2 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

6 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.”

Congress

‘A game-changer’: House Dems aim for a big majority that could ease Hakeem Jeffries’ headaches

Published

6 hours ago

October 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats are making moves to try to secure a big enough House majority to sideline blocs of both progressive and moderate holdouts who could cause constant headaches for Hakeem Jeffries if he becomes speaker next year.

Democrats are investing in deep-red districts that could pad a future majority, banking on what appears to be a strong political environment to not just win but win big. That would strengthen Jeffries’ hand.

Every extra seat they pick up will make it easier for Jeffries to secure the speaker’s gavel without having to make concessions. That would let him ensure they can’t “hold Hakeem hostage” on legislation, as another senior House Democrat put it.

The 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 Trump won by at least 10 points in 2024. In eight of those districts, Democrats have spent or reserved upwards of $3 million apiece, according to a Blue Light News review of data from AdImpact, which tracks political advertising.

That includes $13 million in total spending and reservations to target scandal-plagued Rep. Max Miller (R-Ohio) in a district Trump won by 11 points in 2024 and more than $10 million to boost Tejano singer Bobby Pulido against Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) in a district Trump won by nearly 18 points.

The NewDem Action Fund, the political arm of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, is spending in some even redder districts. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), the chair of the fund, said all of the candidates the group has endorsed have committed to backing Jeffries.

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

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on Sept. 30, 2026.

Tight majorities are misery-makers for speakers. Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy gave numerous concessions to his party’s right flank in order to assume the role — only to later be ousted by those same lawmakers.

Speaker Mike Johnson has had to navigate a treacherous majority of only three votes, sometimes less depending on the day, giving ample power to the GOP’s right flank. And former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to cut a deal with moderates to secure her post in 2018 by promising to serve only two more terms in leadership.

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.

As one Democratic strategist put it, “The larger the majority, the more freebies you can hand off.”

They aren’t the only potential concern. Newly elected moderates, particularly from rural districts that swung heavily for Trump in 2024, could end up as a bigger problem — as they were for Pelosi when she was speaker.

A hint of that came last month, when moderate Reps. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) twice sided with Republicans to advance slates of GOP bills and forced Jeffries to decry a “significant breach of trust.”

“A Blue Dog in a Trump plus 15 district has a different series of challenges than a progressive from a safe Democratic seat,” said Ian Russell, a Democratic ad maker and former deputy executive director of the DCCC. “The progressive from a safe Democratic seat has voters who want the Democratic Party to be successful. So they have an incentive to be constructive, even in their criticism of leadership, to be constructive, to be team players. So I think it’s unfair to the progressives to just assume that they’re going to be headaches.”

Asked by Blue Light News during a news conference Wednesday what a bigger margin would mean should he be elected speaker, Jeffries said he is focused on “working incredibly hard to win control of the House of Representatives and then to win as many seats as possible on top of that.”

A spokesperson for Jeffries declined to comment except to refer to Jeffries’ comments at the news conference. House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ main super PAC, declined to comment.

In a statement, DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton said the committee’s mission “is to win the majority, and win the largest majority possible.”

Jeffries and top Democrats are facing wariness from some Democrats who want to make sure they don’t overextend their limited war chest in their quest to secure a large majority — and risk not winning a majority at all.

“Don’t waste resources just because,” a third House Democrat cautioned. “Expand the battlefield where it’s smart to do so and causes the other side to spend more on defense.”

Jeffries is already working to make inroads with candidates who could complicate his potential speakership, regardless of the margin.

Melat Kiros, a Democratic socialist-affiliated candidate who waged a successful progressive challenge to Rep. Diana DeGette in Colorado, has not committed to backing Jeffries, but said in an interview in September they had a “wonderful” call.

“It’s a big tent,” she said of the party, “and we all have the same goal of taking back the House and making sure that we can demonstrate to the American people that it’s our party that can actually deliver those results.”