Congress

Why Kristi Noem’s ouster could mean trouble for Pam Bondi

Published

6 months ago

March 6, 2026

Attorney General Pam Bondi was already in trouble with congressional Republicans. Now she could be facing an even more existential threat to her political future after President Donald Trump ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, showing his willingness to ax Cabinet members who lose trust within the GOP.

Bondi is under intense scrutiny for her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. As many as 20 Republicans might be prepared to back an effort to render punishment against the nation’s top prosecutor for slowwalking the materials’ release, according to the Democrat helping lead the charge. And five Republicans joined with Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Wednesday to subpoena her testimony.

The White House is signaling confidence in Bondi’s leadership. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, pointed to Trump’s remarks Thursday during an unrelated news event where he called Bondi a “terrific person” who is proving “how tough she is and I think the next three years she’s going to really prove it.”

“Attorney General Pam Bondi has worked tirelessly to successfully implement the President’s law and order agenda,” Jackson said in a statement. “The President has full faith in the Attorney General.”

Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre in a statement extolled what the attorney general has done to deliver transparency in the Epstein case and comply with the bill passed by Congress that mandated the files’ release. She said those lawmakers who remain critical of the administration “refuse to accept the truth.”

“These members know we are not hiding anything, and their laughable antics to score cheap political points at the expense of victims will not sway our mission to uphold the rule of law and keep the American people safe,” said Baldassarre, who also provided a bulleted list of “DOJ Wins” and a handful of quotes from Congressional Republicans lauding the attorney general.

And to be sure, Noem’s situation was unique. She oversaw an agency whose federal immigration enforcement agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minnesota, faced questions about whether she spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a self-promotional ad campaign and clashed with border czar Tom Homan.

But Noem’s back-to-back disastrous congressional hearings this past week laid bare the extreme lack of confidence among Republicans in the outgoing secretary’s leadership, and revealed the extent to which Trump can be influenced by the sentiment of lawmakers in his party. For Bondi, the situation is becoming increasingly dire.

Asked whether he believed Bondi continued to have support among House Republicans, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), who voted to subpoena Bondi in committee, responded, “I don’t know.”

“I just think it’s time to get some answers,” he added. “She’s in the batter’s box. I’d say … let her hit.”

Democrats are also preparing to train all their attention on Bondi now that Noem is no longer a top political target.

In a news conference Thursday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Bondi and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller — an architect of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda — have “got to go.”

“We’re going to approach those two toxic individuals with the same intensity that has now led to the termination of Kristi Noem,” Jeffries added.

Bondi is not the only other high ranking administration official who remains under the microscope on Blue Light News. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is also facing calls from Democrats to resign for not previously disclosing the full extent of his ties to Epstein, though he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

One House Republican, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, had plans to formally call for an Oversight Committee vote to subpoena his testimony — an outcome Lutnick preempted by announcing he would sit for a transcribed interview with members of the panel voluntarily.

Bondi, however, has absorbed the brunt of GOP ire. For months, her handling of the case against convicted sex offender Epstein has spurred outrage from a swath of the MAGA base, which clamored for years for the federal government to release the case materials in its possession and begin to hold powerful people to account for their crimes.

The DOJ’s decision last July to withhold further Epstein-related information, even after Bondi at one point boasted about having Epstein’s so-called client list on her desk, prompted an all-out revolt in Congress. It culminated in the passage of legislation, co-sponsored by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), forcing the department to make all the files public.

Under Bondi’s leadership, the DOJ ultimately blew past the statutory deadline to comply with the new law. Officials later claimed the department had fulfilled all its obligations, despite withholding case files and making redactions that appeared to go beyond the scope of what the bill permitted.

“I’m not impressed with Bondi on the Epstein files, and I’ll make that abundantly clear when I depose her whenever that day comes,” said Mace, who brought the motion in the Oversight hearing Wednesday to subpoena the attorney general. “She’s lost a lot of support among the base [and] up here as well.”

Senior House Republicans have since last summer been perplexed and often alarmed by Bondi’s handling of the Epstein matter, with even some members of Speaker Mike Johnson’s leadership team privately arguing her decisions fueled the House GOP rebellion over the Epstein case, according to four people granted anonymity to share direct knowledge of the situation.

GOP leaders now are aware that Bondi could stir more fallout on Blue Light News if she testifies as expected. One senior Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, described her judgement as “not good on Epstein,” adding, “it certainly hasn’t helped us.”

Among the potential political liabilities for Bondi: an ongoing bipartisan effort to try to hold her in inherent contempt. Such a measure, which has not been deployed successfully in decades, would allow the House to impose its own punishment on Bondi — including potentially permitting the chamber’s sergeant-at-arms to take her into custody.

Khanna said he and Massie had discussed that they would have “20 Republicans who may be open to a contempt filing if she doesn’t release more files … I do believe she’s in trouble.”

Under pressure, the Justice Department released more Epstein files late Thursday, including witness interviews with a woman who claimed she was sexually assaulted by Trump when she was young. The president has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and has not been charged with a crime, and the White House has said the accusations are baseless and lack credibility.

Oversight Democrats had previously announced they were looking into the potential withholding of those specific materials containing the woman’s allegation. None indicated Friday the department’s actions were satisfactory.

“The world is watching as Pam Bondi continues to aid this White House cover-up,” said the panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, in a statement Friday morning. “We look forward to having her testify under oath before the Oversight Committee as soon as possible.”

Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) said his members are “trying to get an update” on where the DOJ stands with the Epstein files. Asked whether Bondi is on shaky ground, he said, “I have no idea. You’ll have to ask the president.”

Still, some House Republicans insist Bondi maintains broad support within their conference and that the Oversight members are outliers who don’t represent the consensus view of the party.

“There are several members of that committee that are perhaps seeking higher office,” said Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas). “I don’t know if intentions are always pure.”

Mace is running for governor. The other four who voted to subpoena Bondi — Burchett and Reps. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Michael Cloud of Texas — are seeking reelection to the House.

Their actions also suggest they are making a broader political calculation — that their voters see the Epstein case as a potent issue that could carry weight heading into election season.

Boebert said Thursday she had no intention to “go after” the attorney general but is eager to find out why the federal Epstein investigation has not yet resulted in further accountability or prosecutions.

Massie, who does not sit on the Oversight panel but questioned Bondi last month at a combative House Judiciary hearing, said he believed the closed-door setting afforded by a sworn deposition would give Bondi the opportunity to provide more substantive testimony.

He suspected that his Republican colleagues would act increasingly independent of the White House in the coming months, as more lawmakers choose to retire and primary season passes. He also pointed to Noem as evidence that Trump’s cabinet members are dispensable.

“I guess it shows it’s possible that he would, you know, replace people,” Massie said.

Meredith Lee Hill, Mia McCarthy, Kyle Cheney and Erica Orden contributed to this report.

Congress

Democrats keep pressure on Hakeem Jeffries to punish rogue members

Published

7 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.

Congress

House passes Russia sanctions bill, handing Trump more leverage against Moscow

Published

9 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

The House passed the sweeping Russia sanctions bill long championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, sending the legislation to the White House for President Donald Trump’s signature after more than a year of congressional maneuvering.

The 262 to 159 vote ends a nearly two-year lull in Ukraine assistance from Congress, which had not passed any major Ukraine efforts since a 2024 emergency aid package. The bill faced a number of obstacles on the path to the Resolute Desk, including significant opposition from some House Democrats who argued that the bill would give the White House too much tariff power.

After weathering a number of storms to make it out of Capitol Hill, the legislation is all but guaranteed to get Trump’s signature.

The long-anticipated legislation issues mandatory sanctions on Russia’s leadership and energy sector — as well as new sanctions on collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and its so-called shadow fleet. Advocates of the bill, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have argued it would give the White House necessary tools to squeeze Russia economically, curbing the flow of funds to Moscow’s war machine.

But, to many Democrats’ dismay, the legislation also includes a 100% tariff on top buyers of Russian energy. Opponents of the bill have cautioned that the tariff provision would hand another cudgel for Trump to use against not only U.S. foes but also global allies — an action the White House has repeatedly taken since Trump returned to office.

“We cannot grant more tariff power that we know he will abuse,” Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) said in comments on the House floor Wednesday.

Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued that the tariffs would worsen the economic pain already felt by everyday Americans and that without a security assistance package or more air defense, they would not do enough to concretely help Ukraine.

In comments on the House floor earlier Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries outlined why he planned to withhold support for the measure.

“The manner in which this bill has been written doesn’t require the president of the United States to impose sanctions on Russia,” Jeffries said. “In fact, there are so many loopholes written into the bill, I believe, that it’s very unlikely that the sanctions relief contemplated in the legislation will ever see the light of day.”

That disagreement has caused a growing rift among Democrats in recent days. Fifty-eight House Democrats broke with Jeffries to vote yes on the measure.

In a letter addressed to House Democrats, Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) urged her colleagues to pass the legislation, warning that failing to do so would send a dangerous message to both Russian leader Vladimir Putin and other international foes.

“Congress’s failure to impose additional costs would send a dangerous signal,” Shaheen wrote. “The Kremlin is watching. Kyiv is watching. Our NATO allies are watching. So are Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang.”

Congress

Rand Paul kills Kennedy’s AI ‘kill switch’ bill

Published

10 hours ago

September 16, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Rand Paul blocked an attempt by fellow Republican Sen. John Kennedy to quickly pass legislation that would require companies to build a “kill switch” into their artificial intelligence model.

Kennedy, of Louisiana, went to the Senate floor Wednesday to try to pass his bill without holding a formal vote — a step that can be prevented by any one of his 99 colleagues. He argued that the measure was effectively a short-term step, with Congress unlikely to pass more sweeping AI legislation in the immediate future even amid fears that technological advancements could spiral out of human control.

“We are not going to get up off our ice-cold lazy butts and address this anytime soon,” Kennedy said about Congress’ inability to pass a more comprehensive bill. “But still we’ve got this risk out there that we know is real of one of these models becoming the Terminator.”

Paul, however, blocked Kennedy’s request to pass the bill through a unanimous consent agreement, saying from the Senate floor, “I think we should have as many facts as possible before we dictate rules for the whole economy.”

“I don’t oppose the spirit of this bill but I do ask that we make sure that we have all the information,” the Kentucky lawmaker added.

Paul tried to amend Kennedy’s bill to establish a group that could make recommendations on AI guardrail policies to the Senate Commerce Committee. Kennedy rejected that suggestion.

“My mama didn’t raise a fool,” he said, adding, “a committee is a way to kill this.”

Kennedy’s push for a vote comes after he told reporters Monday that he intended to roll out legislation and attempt to pass it this week, even while he acknowledged that he didn’t yet have any formal buy-in from his colleagues. He also appeared to know by earlier in the day Wednesday that he was running into a roadblock, saying in an interview that he expected Paul to offer a counterproposal.