Congress

Will Michael Bennet Shift his Fight Against Trump to the State House?

Published

2 years ago

March 29, 2025

Michael Bennet seemed destined for a lifetime appointment to the Senate.

He was tapped for a vacancy in 2009, the same moment Colorado was turning perpetually blue. The Democratic son of the former staff director of the Senate Budget Committee and grandson of another political hand, Bennet brought lineage, his own impressive resume and, most significant of all, a thoughtful, affable and moderate sensibility to a chamber that once rewarded all three qualities.

Yet after accumulating 16 years, and well-positioned for another decade-plus of service having just turned 60, Bennet is poised to walk away from seniority, the Senate and Washington, the city where he was raised.

He’s frustrated with Congress, yes, but also Joe Biden’s selfishness, what Donald Trump has done to both parties and the corrosive impact of social media on politics, the media and even the once-presumed idea of shared facts.

Bennet is almost certain to run for governor in his adopted state next year, according to multiple Democrats in Washington and Denver.

In an hour-long interview this week, Bennet made little attempt to hide his intentions, telling me he’ll reveal his plans in early April.

“The central fight is whether or not we can create an economy where people feel like when they work hard they get ahead,” he said. “And I think the answer to that over the next decade is as likely to come from the states as it is from Washington.”

Reminded about his father’s staff tenure — stints with a pair of Cold War senators in addition to his committee post — the senator noted that Douglas Bennet Jr. also eventually left the Senate to run USAID and eventually NPR and Wesleyan University.

“I wish he were still alive, because I wish I could ask him his advice,” Bennet said. “And I think what he would tell me is, notwithstanding the fact that he worked here and he loved this place, he also moved on to do other things. And he might say, take what you’ve learned and find a place to be as effective as you can be.”

That Michael Farrand Bennet is no longer sure the Senate is a place to be effective is as harsh an indictment I can recall of what was once unironically called the world’s greatest deliberative body.

He’s not the only lawmaker headed for the exits. Already this year, before the first quarter even ended, Democratic Sens. Gary Peters, Tina Smith and Jeanne Shaheen announced they wouldn’t run again.

Some of this owes to simply hitting retirement age or dreading a prolonged life in the minority. But when taken together with all the lawmakers in both parties who’ve walked away since Donald Trump’s first election, it’s undeniable that what was once a political pinnacle has become a place for some that’s just not worth the hassle.

After all, the Senate was usually what governors graduated to, even if they preferred their old jobs, not an office one left for the statehouse. Look no further than the trajectory of Bennet’s colleague and former boss: Senator, and former governor, John Hickenlooper. War and peace, treaties and the Supreme Court, affairs of state, were determined in the nation’s capital. Prisons, roads and schools were left to the states.

What makes Bennet’s frustrations so meaningful, and illuminating, however, is that they go far beyond the usual bill of particulars. Sure, he’s exasperated with — and has even compiled research about! — the trend toward the consolidation of power and the diminution of the committee barons he met when he arrived in the Senate in the last years of the World War II generation.

“The duties of the senators have been sucked up basically into the leadership of the Senate,” he said, adding that “the decision-making among the four corners in the Congress has in some sense dispossessed the other actors.”

Bennet dodged questions about whether Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer should continue to lead the caucus, but was candid about the leadership void.

“I think we need a strategy, and I think we need a plan, and we need a message,” he said, adding: “And if current leadership can’t figure out how to do that, then the caucus will figure out how to do that.”

Is the current message entirely: Trump is bad?

“I think the current message is basically, yeah, Trump’s bad.”

Bennet’s obvious misery of serving in Trump-era Washington is in some ways more notable than his unhappiness with Schumer. And this gets at something that isn’t sufficiently appreciated. The departures, some voluntary and others less so, of anti-Trump Republicans have been well-documented.

But Trump has also made Congress a lot less appealing for serious-minded Democrats who want to legislate and suddenly find most of their GOP counterparts are barely coping, living a lie or in thrall to a personality cult.

“That has been a big change, that’s a big difference,” said Bennet, citing the departures of John McCain, Jeff Flake, Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker. “There are people here, but it’s also true across the country, for whom Trump’s approach to politics has become normalized.”

More to the point, he said: “I’d be lying, if I said — It’s tough when you got everybody on the other side voting for Pete Hegseth to be the secretary of defense.”

Put another way, there’s simply not going to be a robust debate over, say, the refundability of the Child Tax Credit, a Bennet priority, when every day revolves around what Trump or his administration just said or did.

He calls it “shirts and skins,” tribal politics, and he deplores the culture. But this is where I should note, clearly, what Bennet emphasized: that he’s eager to remain in the fray.

He wants to confront Trumpism, he said. And, for a 60-year-old, he is unusually conscious of his own mortality, a trait he may have because of his father’s passing at 79, his mother’s youthful escape from the Holocaust and his own treatment for prostate cancer.

I had suggested to Bennet that his own potential early exit from the Senate along with his brother James’s unhappy departure from the New York Times both had a tragic quality. Here were enormously talented siblings who would’ve flourished in an earlier, more consensus-oriented era.

“I don’t feel like I was born too late,” the senator said, after citing all the policy goals he’s still eager to enact on the economy, healthcare, education and sustaining the American dream. “I think that my expectations about where we would be and the progress that we have made turn out not to have been fulfilled. And I am becoming incredibly impatient with the notion that I could die before seeing this to-do list addressed.”

That impatience has intensified since Trump’s second election, an event that I told Bennet seemed to jar him. “It definitely did,” he acknowledged, “it definitely did.”

Which triggers his deep discontent with his own party.

Bennet has long been frustrated with Washington — he wrote a 2019 book lacerating “the pathological culture of the capital” — but Trump’s return seemed to mark a personal pivot point.

“I can’t say that I was surprised, but I find it shocking that the Democratic Party lost to Donald Trump twice, once after he took away a woman’s right to choose, you know, and with all of the convictions and everything else,” he said. “And you know what? I hate to say this, there are many things that I blame Donald Trump for but getting elected is not one of them.”

For that he blames Biden. Bennet himself barely left a mark when he ran for president in 2020 and he acknowledged Biden may have been the only Democrat who could have defeated Trump that year.

However, the Coloradoan was one of the first Senate Democrats to say publicly what was obvious to all of them: that Biden couldn’t win the election after his disastrous debate. And Bennet was one of the loudest critics of Biden’s decision to pardon his son, Hunter, on the way out of office.

His irritation doesn’t seem to have receded.

“What I would say to the American people who are frustrated that the Democratic Party has not fought hard enough to provide a compelling alternative to Donald Trump, a big piece of that was the decision that Joe Biden made to run for re-election,” said Bennet.

“The Democratic Party,” he continued, “didn’t show up as a fighting force during the Biden administration.”

But Bennet conceded that, no, he never privately urged Biden or the former president’s top aides to not run again in the first place. “I wish I had,” he said. “I wish we all had.”

Recalling a caucus meeting after the now-infamous debate, Bennet recounted telling his colleagues that “if we elect Donald Trump president, we will be the first generation of Americans to leave less opportunity, not more, for the people coming after us.”

That’s what plainly eats at Bennet. It’s not just Biden’s vanity, and the failure of the rest of the party to intervene well before last summer, but the deeper failures of Democrats and the potential implications of those failures.

Though much closer to the center than his party’s progressives, Bennet reflects the widened policy aperture of this moment and pans Democrats’ timidity from both the left and the right.

“When I think about this last election, was it important for us to make sure that we were extending the Obamacare tax credits for health care?” he asks. “Of course it was. But shouldn’t we be standing for universal health care in this country? Shouldn’t we be standing for universal mental health care, especially for our kids who have been so incredibly affected by Covid and by social media?”

Yet on education, an area of personal expertise dating to his time running Denver’s public schools, Bennet said his party needs to be bolder.

“We have to recognize that our system of public education has to be dragged from the 19th century to the 21st century, what are our ideas for that?” he said, all but rolling his eyes as he recalled that much of what Democrats say about the topic begins and ends with “forgiving student loan debt.”

And it wasn’t just 2024.

“The Democratic Party failed to make a compelling case in really a generation worth of elections,” Bennet argued.

He recognizes, however, that the great challenges of the present are less tactical than structural.

He’s no nostalgist — “I don’t mourn the analog world,” Bennet said — but he said “our tribal instincts have been concretized by the medium of the internet.” And it’s digital technology that must resolve that problem so that Americans can “have a shared understanding of the facts.”

Perhaps because of his brother — who was hounded out of his job as the Times’ editorial page editor by liberals angered over an op-ed written by conservative Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton — or perhaps just because he’s a reader, Bennet returned repeatedly to what social media and its attendant algorithms had done to sow division and make folly of the Moynihan maxim that people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

“We have had many reactionary periods in American history,” he said. “Those have always been followed by a progressive period. Always, always. The only difference right now, between our lives and those lives, is we destroyed our journalism in America.”

The ”old political order has collapsed,” said Bennet and “the journalistic order has collapsed with it.”

But what remains, he emphasized, is his appetite for building what comes next.

“Whatever I do is not going to signify a retreat from anything,” Bennet said. “What I’m trying to figure out is where the fight can best be joined.”

Denver’s golden dome awaits.

Congress

This watchdog can bark. Congress wants it to bite.

Published

3 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Members of Congress are desperate for backup in their battle with the Trump administration over control of federal cash. The oversight agency that would lean into that fight is sitting on its hands.

The independent Government Accountability Office concluded earlier this week that the White House illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs — the latest in more than a half-dozen such findings GAO has published since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term.

But the agency has yet to use its unique power to take the president to court to challenge those “impoundments,” and lawmakers who are tired of the administration running roughshod over their funding prerogatives want GAO to act.

There’s one problem: GAO is currently run by an interim director, acting Comptroller General Orice Williams Brown, because the Senate has yet to confirm a long-term replacement following her predecessor’s retirement last year. And lawmakers fear she’s reluctant to exercise her temporary authority to take such dramatic legal action.

“They are empowered to sue,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters last week. “I think the biggest problem is that we have an acting director of the GAO, who understandably is wary of suing the administration without direct congressional approval.”

The recent rulings came on the heels of Trump’s unilateral cancellation of $810 million in other congressionally approved spending the previous week — which GAO quickly deemed illegal — as well as his decision to allow hundreds of millions more to expire as the fiscal year ended Sept. 30.

The search for a permanent GAO leader, meanwhile, appears to be at a standstill. A designated group of 10 senior lawmakers is supposed to be searching for replacement candidates to recommend for Trump’s nomination, but the members have yet to meet — nine months since former Comptroller General Gene Dodaro departed at the end of his 15-year term.

“We would like a GAO director who’s a man or a woman of integrity and going to do the job that needs to be done. That’s our focus,” said Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan, who is part of the selection group as the top Democrat on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

He said it was accurate that the group has made no progress toward recommending nominees.

The Washington Sun reported Thursday that the administration has floated the idea of Trump nominating Eric Ueland, a top official at the White House budget office and former longtime Senate aide, to head GAO. Blue Light News has not independently confirmed the potential nomination.

If Ueland is nominated, however, there is no guarantee he would have the votes for confirmation in a narrowly divided Senate, given the perception of his loyalty to the president and doubt he would challenge Trump’s funding moves.

In the meantime, lawmakers in both parties are urging the acting director to sue, while a GAO spokesperson maintains that the agency “has not made a decision to file any lawsuits at this time” and that the acting comptroller general “legally exercises all the functions and duties” of the role.

The fact that GAO is operating without a Senate-confirmed leader “is definitely stifling their ability to hold the administration accountable,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said in an interview, adding that he believed Dodaro was “clearly building toward making a case” prior to his retirement.

Dodaro said in an interview during his final days at GAO that he considered a lawsuit against the Trump administration “a last resort.” He explained that “in every case we’ve identified so far, people were already suing” and that “Congress has the ability to correct these things and to deal with the distribution of funds.”

What the former inspector general did not expect, however, is the Supreme Court’s suggestion last fall that GAO is the only entity with standing to sue the Trump administration for violating the decades-old Impoundment Control Act, which was designed to ensure presidents spend all the money Congress approves.

Dodaro said he was “surprised” by that suggestion, given his belief that “the law is very clear that GAO’s ability to sue doesn’t preclude anybody else from suing.”

A year later, the president has continued to flout Congress’ authority to dictate how federal dollars get spent. Top administration officials and some Republicans in Congress have publicly belittled GAO as a partisan and noncredible oversight agency since Trump’s return to office.

And after the federal watchdog concluded last week that Trump’s recent funding cancellation is unconstitutional, White House budget director Russ Vought claimed on social media that GAO makes its “legal assessments based on whether Democrats are in the White House.”

Potentially bolstering GAO’s arguments in a lawsuit, lawmakers added provisions to the government funding bills Trump signed into law this year designed to protect their own power of the purse, though Republicans bucked Democratic demands to enact the most aggressive constraints — including to block Trump’s ability to cancel federal dollars at the end of the fiscal year.

Some Republicans are now embracing more stringent methods to stifle Trump’s funding moves, however, after he slashed hundreds of millions dollars through the “pocket rescissions” tactic last month.

“I’m very disappointed in their action here, and it will have to be rectified,” Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican, said about Trump’s latest funding cancellation in an interview.

But he also said he doesn’t know if GAO or another entity should sue: “I’m not sure who should do it. All I know is I want a different result than what we have right now.”

Congress

Grassley slams Democrats for ‘falling over themselves’ to defend Jack Smith

Published

3 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley is firing back at Democrats on his committee who have criticized the GOP’s treatment of former special counsel Jack Smith — saying it was Democrats who acted in an embarrassing manner at a recent hearing with Smith by “falling over themselves” to defend the “unlawful and unconstitutional actions” of the Biden-era prosecutor.

The Iowa Republican’s letter to top Judiciary Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, obtained exclusively by Blue Light News, also accuses Democrats of withholding records from Republicans in the past and refusing to engage in legitimate oversight of Smith’s activities.

“You see, your side can’t argue about Rules when your side doesn’t play by them,” Grassley wrote to Durbin.

Grassley’s letter was transmitted less than 24 hours after Durbin demanded Grassley apologize on behalf of his fellow committee Republicans for antagonizing Smith, who brought criminal charges against President Donald Trump for seeking to overturn the 2020 election and mishandling classified documents.

Durbin specifically called out Missouri GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt, who falsely accused Smith of attending an NBA game in Atlanta with the subtext that it was used to conspire with local prosecutors on criminal charges against Trump. Durbin said the minority should have had access to those records before the hearing.

He also scolded Grassley and his team for not sharing those underlying records that Schmitt, as well as fellow Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, referenced during the hearing relating to a call that took place between Smith and the Public Integrity Section of the Justice Department about a decision to bring an updated indictment against Trump in the 2020 election subversion case.

In his letter responding to Durbin, Grassley took the opportunity to call out committee Democrats for instances where he believes they ran afoul of Senate rules by withholding or leaking information about nominees — such as during the confirmation battle for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and the much more recent fight to seat Emil Bove as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 2025.

And he criticized Democrats for not joining him in a litany of investigative pursuits — from Smith to alleged corruption among former President Joe Biden’s family members — and insisting that the heart of his work is based in respect for whistleblowers who come forward to expose injustice.

“By now it should go without saying that my Democratic colleagues had every chance to assist in my constitutional duty to conduct oversight of these matters,” he wrote. “They all failed to lend a hand or request to join my oversight.”

Grassley also told Durbin that his staff is currently “working to obtain an agreement to provide you access” to records referenced by Schmitt and Hawley during last month’s hearing with Smith, “and spending considerable time in doing so.

“In fact,” Grassley continued, “my staff have already reached out to yours to schedule a meeting next week to review records as well as the ones you’ve recently written me about.”

He added, however, that “some records will not be shared with you until a later date,” as he intends to continue his investigation into Smith.

“The investigation is active, the hearing is not the end of my work,” said Grassley, who believes Smith weaponized the judicial system to damage Trump and, among other things, illegally obtained lawmaker phone records in the process.

In a post on X Thursday, Grassley said Smith “should apologize for taking the bank records of 42 Iowans & 4,782 Americans.”

Spokespeople for Smith and Durbin did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Congress

Mike Rogers opens the door for AIPAC support in Michigan Senate race

Published

10 hours ago

October 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Michigan GOP Senate nominee Mike Rogers signaled he would accept support from AIPAC as he remains locked in a tight contest against Democrat Abdul El-Sayed.

Rogers was asked during a debate Thursday whether he would welcome public backing from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee — and he pointedly did not rule it out.

“Anybody that wants to help my campaign stop” El-Sayed, he said, “I’ll take all of that help.”

AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, uncorked more than $30 million against El-Sayed in Democrats’ bruising primary. El-Sayed turned the deluge into a cudgel, railing against the group’s heavy spending to rally progressives to his side as support for Israel cratered among Democrats amid the war in Gaza.

The group does not appear to have spent on television ads since, according to tracker AdImpact.

The debate moderator asked Rogers about an Axios report from August that said allies of the Republican had asked AIPAC not to advertise on his behalf. The report said the group scrapped a video ad against El-Sayed a day after Rogers spoke with AIPAC board chair Michael Tuchin.

Rogers also reportedly attended fundraisers hosted by AIPAC in California in August.

A representative for UDP declined to comment.

Rogers and El-Sayed clashed over U.S. military aid for Israel in their debate. Rogers said he supports Israel’s “right to defend itself in a very difficult neighborhood,” while El-Sayed said “I don’t want our tax dollars buying weapons for other countries.”