Congress

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

Published

4 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: Johnson tries to clean up Trump’s Hill mess

Published

2 hours ago

June 25, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

President Donald Trump’s obsession with the SAVE America Act has hurled Congress into indefinite gridlock.

Senators are gone until July 13 after starting their Independence Day recess a few days early.

Now House Republican lawmakers are looking toward Speaker Mike Johnson, who will Thursday head to the White House to try to convince the president to salvage the GOP’s legislative agenda.

The president’s insistence Congress pass the controversial election security legislation has ground both chambers to a halt.

The deadlock threatens to derail a host of other legislative efforts Republicans and the White House hoped to complete in the coming weeks, including a sweeping reconciliation bill filled with potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in Iran war military funding, billions of dollars in relief for farmers, fiscal 2027 funding bills and the annual defense policy bill.

“I’d like to celebrate victories, not come up with reasons why we failed,” Sen. Kevin Cramer said in an interview, joining other Republicans in venting frustration after Trump scrapped a planned signing of a major housing affordability bill Wednesday.

“We’ve demonstrated a lot of dysfunction lately,” he said.

Wednesday’s explosive lunch with Trump and GOP senators probably didn’t help.

“The president came to the Capitol to do what he thinks Senate Republican leadership can’t do: flip votes on SAVE and nuking the filibuster,” a senior Senate GOP aide told Jordain.

“He left with the same number of votes that existed when he arrived — possibly fewer.”

Now eyes are on Johnson, who has lost control of the floor as hard-liners demand the Senate pass the elections overhaul.

He’s keeping the House in session ahead of his 2 p.m. Trump meeting in hopes of salvaging plans to put several bills on the floor this week — including a pair of fiscal 2027 spending measures.

But if Johnson and Trump can’t reach a compromise, GOP leadership may cancel all votes for the remainder of the week and next week, too.

That would further imperil their plans for another party-line reconciliation bill and the $88 billion supplement funding request the White House transmitted Wednesday.

What else we’re watching:

— JOHNSON’S PITCH FOR RECON 3.0 FALLS SHORT: House GOP leaders are trying to make good on their promise to advance a long-shot, party-line package of conservative priorities by arguing it’s the only chance to pass pieces of Trump’s doomed elections bill. So far, their pitch is falling short. Members who attended a meeting with House Budget Republicans Wednesday argued the REAL ID grant program Johnson proposed was no substitute for enacting the full SAVE America Act. And fiscal hawks on the panel warned they would oppose any budget resolution unless it’s paid for on a yearly basis, and without budgeting gimmicks.

— TRUMP’S $88B ASK FOR IRAN WAR, FARM AID: The White House sent Congress Wednesday a much-awaited request for emergency funding to cover military operations in Iran, farm assistance and disaster assistance. But the proposal could complicate House Republicans’ pursuit of a third party-line spending package, which was supposed to be centered around $350 billion in defense funding that Democrats wouldn’t support. The request for tens of billions of dollars in extra war spending comes as the House Appropriations panel Wednesday advanced a $1.1 trillion base budget plan for the Pentagon. Taken together, the three efforts represent a record-breaking roughly $1.5 trillion military budget, about a 50 percent hike from this year’s level.

Jordain Carney, Mia McCarthy, Meredith Lee Hill, Connor O’Brien and Grace Yarrow contributed to this report.

Congress

The Dems already had AOC. Now they have DAC.

Published

4 hours ago

June 25, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

NEW YORK — After thrashing incumbent Rep. Adriano Espaillat in Tuesday’s Democratic primary, Darializa Avila Chevalier is poised to become Republicans’ next priority punching bag.

Also known as DAC, Avila Chevalier has said she’s skeptical of deportation, borders and prisons, tweeted about using the American flag as a napkin, and expressed sympathy for Russia during its invasion of Ukraine. Those public remarks, and many more, already have GOP politicians and operatives in full-on attack mode. They have also left some Democrats worried that Republicans have found a potent new foil for the midterms.

The path she’s taking bears an uncanny resemblance to another democratic socialist firebrand who’s moderated her rhetoric and positions substantially since ascending to Congress eight years ago.

Like DAC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated another long-term incumbent to get to the House — and also instantly became a boogeyman for the right.

But as Ocasio-Cortez continues to moderate with an eye toward the mainstream, Avila Chevalier is storming onto the national political scene with a similar anti-establishment bent — and a very different dogma. And Republicans are trying to make her and her future democratic socialist colleagues a tool in their arsenal to defend the House this year.

“This is a very real problem in which the Democratic Party has been taken over by socialists,” said Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, who represents a suburban New York House seat that’s one of the most vulnerable in the country. “This is not something they’re going to be able to just run and hide from.”

Avila Chevalier, a doctoral student in sociology, helped organize the 2024 pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University that sent the campus into chaos and provided a national platform for the left’s discontent over Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

On the trail, Avila Chevalier said her old tweets don’t represent her current views and that she’s focused on lowering the cost of living in her district, shifting the focus to “babies, not bombs.”

Her past comments, though, have made some in the Democratic Party uneasy, despite her apologies and assertions she’s changed (she also affirmed during the campaign that she still believes all deportations are wrong, including of undocumented immigrants convicted of serious crimes like murder and rape). And while there are parallels to Ocasio-Cortez in terms of their shared rise to prominence, many view the newcomer as a few steps farther left than the four-term incumbent, who’s frequently floated as a contender for senator and president.

Liam Kerr, co-founder of centrist Democratic group WelcomePAC, told Blue Light News that Ocasio-Cortez and Avila Chevalier are both products of a broader wave of insurgent Democrats that has risen since the election of President Donald Trump.

“If AOC was this Tea Party’s Ted Cruz, yes, DAC is this Tea Party’s MTG,” he said, referring to former Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. “It’s less substance and more about a sense that this person is unhinged and indefensible.”

Ocasio-Cortez’s team declined to comment for this article. In a social media post, Ocasio-Cortez congratulated the congressional primary winners, writing that she looks “forward to working together as a delegation as we fight for working families across New York.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks with reporters outside the U.S. Capitol on June 9, 2026.

In a statement, Avila Chevalier’s campaign manager Ilona Duverge said: “We didn’t just run a campaign for better leadership in this district. We reminded people what the Democratic Party could be. After 2024, the lesson is simple: listen to your base. Working people don’t want scapegoats. They want a party that actually fights for them.”

In the waning days of the campaign, City & State dubbed Avila Chevalier “like AOC, but to the left.” When asked in a recent interview what her reaction was when she saw that, she downplayed the comparison.

“I think my reaction has been the same to all the comparisons I have gotten to anyone in political office right now,” she said. “Early on it was like, ‘Oh, are you going to be the next Zohran Mamdani?’ And I was like, ‘I’m going to be the Darializa Avila Chevalier.’ That is who I have always been. And that’s who I will be.”

Beyond Avila Chevalier, at least eight state legislative candidates backed by either the Democratic Socialists of America or New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani won in New York on Tuesday night.

Aber Kawas, a Queens community organizer who won one of those seats, is now facing renewed scrutiny for saying the long-term effects of capitalism, racism and white supremacy and Islamophobia resulted in the 9/11 attacks.

In another House Democratic primary in the city — for retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s seat — Mamdani’s longtime DSA ally, Assemblymember Claire Valdez, won in a blowout against Velázquez’s handpicked successor, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso. Reynoso is the former co-chair of the city Council’s progressive caucus, but he never joined the city’s DSA chapter, the political home of Valdez and Mamdani.

“Democrats have a Bolshevik revolution going on in their primaries,” Rep. Richard Hudson, the chair of the House Republicans’ campaign arm, told fellow Republicans in a closed-door House GOP meeting Wednesday, according to three people in the room, granted anonymity to discuss the event.

House Speaker Mike Johnson also said the “radical” wins Tuesday night should spur GOP lawmakers to dig in their heels and fundraise.

The ascent of Avila Chevalier and her socialist colleagues also planted the seeds for more Democratic establishment displacement. The co-leader of the city’s DSA chapter, for instance, expressed regret for not supporting a primary of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

When asked by a reporter Wednesday if he’s worried about a primary challenge in 2028 from a Mamdani-endorsed candidate, Jeffries replied: “When you ask me a serious question, I’ll give you a serious answer.”

The left’s rise also means the once-extreme Ocasio-Cortez is now on the ideological periphery of a new insurgent wave as she appears to position herself for higher office.

Ocasio-Cortez did not endorse in either Valdez or Avila Chevalier’s races. Speaking to reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday, she said her focus was on the 14 down-ballot candidates she did support: “I think I’m going to take a beat and really enjoy their success, and we’ll see what happens from there.”

Mamdani, the DSA and the left-leaning group Justice Democrats took on major roles to boost Avila Chevalier and Valdez. Mamdani’s move against Espaillat, as well as Velázquez’s successor of choice, upset Democratic power brokers.

Asked by Blue Light News on Tuesday if he believes rank-and-file DSA members are angry with Ocasio-Cortez for not endorsing in those two congressional primaries, Mamdani replied, “I think that AOC is somebody that has inspired so many across our city and our country in the fight for working people, and I think she continues to do so, and I think we’ll see that in the results.”

Mayor Zohran Mamdani at the Get Out The Vote rally on June 18, 2026, with his endorsed congressional candidates.

The mayor also expressed doubt that Avila Chevalier will morph into an effective boogeyman for Republicans in swing districts.

“We’ve heard from Republicans time and again that they are going to try and make these candidates the face of the Democratic Party,” Mamdani said Wednesday morning. “To them, I say that we are ready for that because for far too long we’ve been told that it’s not possible to fight for working people and win. These candidates have shown that they can. Let the Republicans talk about that more.”

A political consultant close to senior congressional Democrats agreed that such attacks won’t work in the current economic climate.

“In normal times, we should be concerned about attacks like that. In normal times, that probably would work,” said the consultant, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “But when the economy is this bad, it’s not going to work … [The GOP’s] best bet is to try to distract and focus on a random local candidate like Darializa, but the reality is that there’s a litany of horrific things that Republicans have done under this president and that’s what voters are going to care about.”

Andrew Bard Epstein, a top adviser to both Valdez and Mamdani, felt the same way — and then took a shot at Lawler, who faces a challenge in November from Army veteran Cait Conley.

“I don’t live in the 17th District, but I would think voters there care about costs of living and stopping chaos in the world,” Epstein said, referring to Lawler’s district. “Mike Lawler has just cosigned a disastrous war with Iran, which has raised prices and destabilized the world and has left both Iranian civilians and U.S. service members dead. They are the extremists.”

Still, some moderate Democrats are concerned. Matt Bennett, co-founder of centrist group Third Way, said he’s worried Avila Chevalier will become a “lightning rod” in the way Republicans like Greene and Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert did.

“She can live all day on cable news if she feels like it, and will have a huge social media following, and everything she does will be amplified by Republicans,” he said. “There’s a real risk of her becoming a national figure, even though she will have no impact whatsoever on actual legislating.”

Meredith Lee Hill and Ali Bianco contributed to this report.

Congress

‘Trying to read the tea leaves’: Ted Cruz offers few clues on his AI agenda

Published

5 hours ago

June 25, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Few lawmakers have as much influence over the fate of artificial intelligence legislation as Sen. Ted Cruz, but he’s keeping people guessing about how he’ll use that power.

As chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Texas Republican has pledged to convene members to vote on bills that would regulate the AI industry. He asked GOP members of the panel several weeks ago to submit their proposals.

“This markup is designed to move legislation that has a real chance of passing into law,” Cruz said in an interview this week, adding that he was vetting bills depending on “what bipartisan agreement and consensus can be reached.”

Cruz’s aides, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the senator believes the federal government should take “targeted” action in “truly novel circumstances” where existing laws are silent — such as catastrophic risk, deepfakes and chatbots.

But they also concede that GOP committee staff is still reviewing dozens of existing bills, and what measures will make the cut for the scheduled late July markup remain in flux. Senators on the panel also say they haven’t heard from Cruz about his criteria for what AI legislation to put on the agenda.

It’s bringing real uncertainty to what Congress might accomplish on the high-stakes issue this year. It also underscores how Cruz, a one-time presidential candidate who could run again in 2028, is attempting to carefully navigate one of the most politically divisive policy debates of the midterms.

Cruz has even avoided saying whether he’ll allow the committee to vote on an emerging deal between Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and the White House that would bundle a kids’ online safety package with preemptions of specific state laws.

He said this week he “fully expects” that Blackburn’s bill, known as the Kids Online Safety Act, “will be on the next markup as a part of the package addressing AI and children’s safety.” But he declined to say whether he’ll bring up any revised bill text Blackburn brokers with the blessing of President Donald Trump.

A Blackburn spokesperson did not return requests for comment Wednesday, nor did the White House.

The outlook for how Cruz plans to legislate around AI is further clouded by his own record on the issue.

Back in 2024, Cruz was warning against broad regulation of AI, saying that “Big Tech and the Radical Left” were poised to empower the administrative state, kill innovation and cause the U.S. to lose the AI race with China. He pursued efforts to undercut a Biden administration executive order that took a more hands-on approach to regulating the industry.

As Cruz was preparing to take the gavel in the waning days of the Democratic majority, then-Commerce Chair Maria Cantwell of Washington accused him of opposing the inclusion of seven AI bills in a year-end government funding package — even though those bills had been advanced by the committee on a bipartisan basis.

Cruz’s aides disputed this characterization, saying there was no single lawmaker holding up the bills in late 2024 and House GOP leaders had issues, too. Cantwell, now the committee’s senior Democrat, said in an interview Wednesday the measures “would have helped us in regulating some of the biggest national security concerns.”

She added she’s now “trying to read the tea leaves” about what Cruz has planned for the upcoming markup. At least one Republican said he thinks Cruz has undergone a “very significant pivot” when it comes to engagement and interest around AI that could offer some clues.

“He originally had the position that we didn’t need to adopt any AI legislation whatsoever — that we should just allow the market to work,” Rep. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a member of the committee who is heavily involved in AI policy, said in an interview. “My sense is he has adopted a different position now, and I’m gratified by that.”

As for what accounts for the shift, Young said, “you’ll have to ask him why he’s become more inclined to legislate in this space.” But he acknowledged that “many people are coming to recognize” that it would be a mistake to allow the rapidly evolving technology to go unchecked.

Cruz’s aides disagreed with Young’s characterization. They note Cruz championed a measure making it a crime to publish nonconsensual sexual images — including AI-generated content — which was signed into law last year with support from first lady Melania Trump. Cruz is also pushing legislation that would regulate chatbots, or online apps that mimic human conversation and can pose harm for children.

His aides also said Cruz continues to believe too much federal government intervention into AI policy could threaten innovation and stifle freedom of expression.

Adam Thierer, a resident senior fellow at the right-leaning R Street Institute, said Republicans at the start of the Trump administration seemed to be waiting for cues from the White House before taking a firm position. That has changed as the White House scrambles to enact its own rules governing AI while urging Congress to codify a federal regulatory framework.

Cruz tried, and failed, to include a provision in the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer that would have enacted a 10-year moratorium on the ability of states to set their own AI laws. Yet in just one year, Thierer said, the political landscape has transformed, and now preempting state AI laws is basically a nonstarter.

“It’s quite a reversal,” Thierer said. “Even limited preemption has become extraordinarily toxic because a whole bunch of people have come to believe what states are doing benefits them.”

Last fall, Cruz released an AI policy framework that aligned with Trump’s AI action plan, which laid out a “light-touch” regulatory strategy; Cruz’s aides suggested the senator plans to build on this blueprint. In December, Cruz was standing beside Trump for the signing of an executive order that would empower the federal government to evaluate and challenge state AI laws.

“I think they have a heightened sense of urgency, which is understandable because it has become increasingly urgent, and one of the major questions is whether Congress can keep pace with the accelerating rate of change in AI,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) of Republicans.

In the meantime, Cruz is facing tough choices about what bills to advance.

Cantwell said Wednesday she wants to see the seven bills that passed out of committee when she was chair, which she accused Cruz of undermining, taken up again next month. And a refusal to facilitate consideration of a potential Blackburn-White House agreement could put Cruz at odds with the president.

Cruz also could end up alienating colleagues whose support he needs on other legislative priorities in the coming months — including a major bill to overhaul the college sports industry.

Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah), a member of the Commerce Committee who has his own bill targeting chatbots that would go further than Cruz’s proposal, in an interview expressed some sympathy for the chair.

“Look, it’s a tough topic, right? There’s not a lot of consensus, and so anything that he can do to even further the conversation, I welcome,” he said. “I think we need to be having these conversations. I think we need to be having the hearings. Until we do, we won’t get to the right answer.”