Congress

White House’s Anthropic move jolts Congress back into the AI debate

Published

3 months ago

June 17, 2026

The Trump administration’s sudden moves to rein in Anthropic are giving fresh momentum to efforts in Congress to impose guardrails on cutting-edge artificial intelligence models.

Lawmakers are still seeking clear information about the government’s decision late Friday to impose an export ban on the AI company’s latest models, known as Fable 5 and Mythos 5, over cybersecurity concerns — a move that led Anthropic to suspend access to both for all users.

In roughly a dozen interviews on Capitol Hill this week, several lawmakers said they were shocked by the development and had yet to receive a formal briefing from administration officials. Senate Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas), whose committee has jurisdiction over AI policy, said Monday that he had seen “what’s been reported in the press,” but had not been briefed on details.

Members of both parties said they now see an opening to mobilize their colleagues around legislation that would reclaim congressional authority at a time when the executive branch remains firmly in the drivers’ seat on AI regulation.

But lawmakers have struggled to reach consensus on a complicated and politically divisive matter in an election year. And the circumstances around the Anthropic saga could further drive a wedge between Democrats, who generally favor strong regulatory review requirements of new AI models, and Republicans, who tend to be wary of such a heavy hand.

“I think we’re landing more and more in a place where everybody’s realizing you need some type of government oversight,” said Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) in an interview Tuesday. “I think we’re still struggling with what that is.”

Disagreements over policy are being exacerbated by Democrats’ wariness to legislate on AI in a GOP-controlled Washington ahead of the midterm elections, with some viewing a potential House majority as their best opportunity to enact AI rules more closely aligned with Democratic priorities. Some Democratic lawmakers said this week that the Anthropic episode was just the latest example of the Trump administration’s erratic decision-making.

“I think this is an indicator that this administration no longer believes in a free market,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, who is in line to be the No. 2 Senate Democrat in the next Congress. “They believe in picking winners and losers.”

The administration’s decision regarding Anthropic came two weeks after Trump signed an executive order establishing a voluntary vetting regime that asks AI companies to submit their advanced models to the government 30 days before they are released to the public.

“If even this … administration is suddenly saying this is a security risk, why are we allowing these entities to put this out without testing?” asked Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Anthropic’s relationship with the White House has been strained since a standoff with the Defense Department earlier this year, when the Pentagon labeled Anthropic a supply-chain risk. While the unveiling of Anthropic’s latest model Mythos prompted the government to soften its stance toward the company, last week’s events signalled the repair may have been superficial.

“If Donald Trump thinks we need export controls on Anthropic, then how about putting export controls on the computer chips that will let China build their own version of Anthropic?” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), said Tuesday in an interview.

When asked to rate the chances of Congress passing legislation to set federal standards for AI regulations, she replied, “It would be high if it weren’t for Donald Trump.”

This all comes as Washington was already grappling with the larger question of how to regulate the AI industry to ensure the safety of models, and whether it should be up to states or the federal government to set those guardrails. The Commerce Committee in the coming weeks is expected to consider a slate of AI bills, including potentially one that would require social media platforms to put mechanisms in place to protect users who are minors.

Some members of Congress are trying to work across the aisle on the issue despite the steep odds. In the House, Reps. Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) and Lori Trahan (D-Calif.) last month unveiled a broad AI legislative framework that folds in preemption of state AI laws. Trahan, who has broken with House Democratic leadership in pursuing a bipartisan path on AI, seized on the Anthropic news to urge congressional action.

“This decision further illustrates the need for a thoughtful and durable national strategy on AI,” she posted on X. “Decisions this consequential shouldn’t turn on a single directive issued at 5 pm on a Friday. They should follow rules that are clear, fair, grounded in technical facts, and built to last beyond any one administration.”

Trahan’s spokesperson, in a statement Tuesday, said, “Whether the decision by the administration was political or actually based on a real threat posed … it underscores the fact that Congress must act urgently and in a bipartisan fashion.”

The Trahan-Obernolte proposal would stop short of calling for a mandatory review system for new frontier AI models, however, which could become difficult in the post-Anthropic era.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who is co-chair of the House Democratic Commission on AI, said in an interview that the Trump administration last week “ma[d]e it clear the importance of actually mandatory reviews when it comes to government reviews, when it comes to models and national security-related issues.”

“If there were a piece of legislation for a mandatory review,” he added, “I’d certainly support that.”

Sen. Todd Young of Indiana offered a measured response to the events of the last several days, saying the Senate Commerce Committee, of which he is a member, would work to try to get answers. He added that the recent developments could “conceivably” propel lawmakers to work together on legislation that would establish a system to review new models.

“You don’t want to just be trusting private actors to do the right thing and trusting their judgment, because the risk we’re talking about here could conceivably be catastrophic,” Young said, adding, “I think everyone wants to get this right.”

Gabby Miller contributed to this report.

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

12 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”