Congress

White House wants a reprieve in spy-powers fight that is splitting the GOP

Published

7 months ago

February 19, 2026

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.”

Congress

Capitol agenda: China fears drive AI divide

Published

3 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans — and Congress — are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence.

And that fear of international competition is emerging as a key point of tension slowing down any path to AI safety legislation.

Even as almost two thirds of respondents in a new Blue Light News poll said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind other countries like China in an AI arms race.

A plurality, 43 percent, say it is okay for the U.S. to fall behind if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37 percent take the opposite view. Voters who backed Donald Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50 percent compared to just 34 percent of Kamala Harris voters.

Republican Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie argued the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance, and that AI legislation is too complex to rush — even if that means pushing off until next year consideration of a measure by his panel.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said Wednesday at Blue Light News’s Decoded Summit.

Meanwhile, the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus said competition isn’t a reason to avoid guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar said at the Decoded Summit.

Other lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are trying to strike a balance. Rep. John Moolenaar, chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

Still, the emerging divisions spotlight a long road ahead for any consensus from Congress.

An attempt to quickly pass a bill requiring companies to build a “kill switch” into their AI models from Republican Sen. John Kennedy was blocked Wednesday by Sen. Rand Paul on the chamber’s floor.

And while Guthrie’s Senate counterpart, Commerce Chair Ted Cruz said Wednesday his hope was still to mark up this month a bipartisan AI safety bill from Majority Leader John Thune and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, lawmakers haven’t reached agreement to finalize the measure. Thune himself said Wednesday he was unsure it would happen before the midterms.

Cracks are also starting to show among the leading AI companies on what role they want Congress to play.

One example: Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck declined at Blue Light News’s summit to endorse a proposal for congressionally mandated independent AI monitoring — a day after competitor OpenAI endorsed it. The proposal is a key provision in Reps. Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan’s bipartisan AI safety measure.

The House’s early dismissal Wednesday only added to time pressure on lawmakers, who will return to a lame duck session with an already full calendar.

What else we’re watching:

— LEE BULLISH ON PERMITTING: Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee told fellow Republicans during a closed-door lunch Wednesday he is “guardedly optimistic” that negotiators will reach a long-sought deal on a bill to ease permitting approval for energy projects. “We were told today that the Democrats are going to agree to a permitting bill, and it’s going to be drafted and ready for us to vote on,” Kennedy said in an interview. Still, the top negotiators have yet to clinch an agreement, meaning the timeline could slip until after the midterms.

— SPY LAW TIMING UNCLEAR: The Office of the Director of National Intelligence recently warnedCongress that if it doesn’t vote on a controversial surveillance law by Nov. 20, the program could go dark, but it’s unclear congressional leadership can meet that deadline. Thune told reporters this week that there is an “interest” in trying to get Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorized, but didn’t commit to getting a vote before the midterms. With the House gone, reauthorization will wait until at least mid-November, regardless.

Riley Rogerson, Mia McCarthy, Anna Wiederkehr, Jordain Carney, John Sakellariadis and Josh Siegel contributed to this report.

Congress

Poll: China fears drive polarization on AI regulations

Published

6 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Americans are divided on whether it’s acceptable to fall behind other countries in the race to develop advanced artificial intelligence. So is Congress.

A new POLITICO Poll finds that Americans broadly recognize serious risks from frontier AI models, but many — particularly President Donald Trump’s voters — also prioritize maintaining a lead over other countries, including China.

Even as 63% of the poll’s respondents said there’s a real possibility that AI could destroy humanity, they’re split on whether it’s acceptable to slow down and potentially fall behind in order to mitigate that risk.

A plurality, 43%, say it is acceptable for the U.S. to fall behind other countries if that means developing AI more responsibly and securely, while 37% take the opposite view, saying the U.S. should not stand down, even if that requires taking risks. Voters who backed Trump in 2024 favor the competition-first position by 50% to 38%.

That split is already playing out on Capitol Hill as AI safety zooms to the center of congressional conversations. With legislation only slowly taking shape, fear of international competition stands to be a major point of tension during any bipartisan negotiations — with most lawmakers’ views divided closely along party lines.

Many Republican lawmakers said in interviews this week that pausing AI development could give China an opening to overtake U.S. capabilities. Democrats are also looking over their shoulders at Chinese advances, but they are cautioning that competition is not a reason for Congress to avoid instituting AI guardrails.

“The AI race is not an arms race that you win,” Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said during Wednesday’s Blue Light News Decoded Summit. “It’s an arms race that we need to end, and we need to protect the American people.”

Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has teamed up with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in calling for a ban on “superintelligence” to stave off the existential threats to humanity — a concern that bubbled to the fore last week when a former Anthropic researcher warned AI could “kill us all.”

Senior Republicans are denigrating proposals like Casar’s, arguing that the U.S. cannot risk Chinese AI dominance. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), chair of the powerful House committee overseeing the tech industry, said as much at the summit.

“We absolutely can’t surrender,” he said. “And I think that’s what it would be if we stopped AI development.”

Guthrie further argued AI legislation is too complex to rush and that the Energy and Commerce Committee he leads might not take up AI legislation before next year. That sentiment is in line with Speaker Mike Johnson, who said this week that the U.S. must “maintain our edge over China.” Meanwhile, Trump has called the AI panic a “HOAX” and said that federal regulations would allow China to leapfrog the U.S.

Some Republicans have been almost flippant about the dilemma policymakers face in reconciling a potentially dangerous technology with their fear of Chinese competition.

“If there are going to be killer robots, I’d rather they be American killer robots,” Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said in a recent POLITICO interview. Like Guthrie, Cruz chairs a committee overseeing tech matters.

Among the bipartisan group of lawmakers who have locked arms in warning about the Chinese threat on other fronts, the familiar partisan divide is still emerging on AI regulation.

“We can lead in innovation and lead in safety,” said Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), who sits on the bipartisan Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. “So if Trump or anyone else comes at it that we can only do one but not the other, he’s not looking at the history of the United States of America.”

Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, a moderate Republican China hawk, said he is “very reluctant to hinder AI” via regulation.

“They’re going to have to make the good case why we need it,” he said. “We don’t want to hinder our AI research. We can’t afford to fall behind China.”

Some, however, are being careful to strike a balanced tone as the AI safety conversation kicks into high gear.

Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), chair of the House China panel, acknowledged lawmakers “do have a responsibility for public safety” while saying it was also important to “beat China when it comes to the AI race.”

“There’s economic benefits to that,” he said. “There’s national security issues, but we want to have common sense and a deliberative process.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member and a co-chair of House Democrats’ AI commission, said China is “not waiting for anyone else.”

“So you can’t just leave the race, but you need to make sure you do it in the right way,” he added.

Opinions are sharper when it comes to Trump’s upcoming meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week and whether he should even broach some type of cooperation on AI safety.

“I don’t trust him,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said when asked if Trump should engage with Xi on AI. “I trust Trump.”

But many Democrats say it’s a mistake to engage in an AI arms race, with some explicitly reaching for analogies with the nuclear arms race that ended in Cold War treaties with a former global rival — the Soviet Union — limiting bomb tests and missile deployments.

Rep. Ted Lieu of California, another co-chair of the Democratic AI commission, said Trump could start small by asking Xi to “commit that they’re never going to let AI launch a nuclear weapon by itself.”

“There are things that we can do to get other countries to follow the lead the U.S. has taken in AI,” he said.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

14 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.