Congress

‘You lose your credibility’: Democrats warn against turning a blind eye to a colleague’s misconduct

Published

6 months ago

March 26, 2026

House Democrats will soon have to choose between protecting an embattled colleague or insulating themselves from politically damaging accusations of hypocrisy.

The House Ethics Committee will begin the process Thursday of determining whether Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick warrants punishment as extreme as expulsion over accusations that she stole millions in FEMA funds and committed various campaign finance infractions.

The bipartisan panel that typically operates in secret is holding a public “trial” — the first in nearly 16 years — that will litigate those allegations as the third-term Florida Democrat faces federal criminal charges in her home state. Cherfilus-McCormick has maintained her innocence, saying “the full facts will make clear I did nothing wrong.”

House Democratic leaders have so far taken a hands-off approach to the saga.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his office say that Cherfilus-McCormick is “entitled to her day in court and the presumption of innocence,” and Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar of California told reporters Wednesday he also would not “prejudge any outcome” of the Ethics Committee’s proceedings.

But after Democrats agitated for the removal of serial fraudster Rep. George Santos of New York ahead of a full Ethics process in 2023, the party could be vulnerable to political attacks if it doesn’t now police a credibly accused embezzler in its own midst.

“If they give us conclusions that this actually happened, and there’s no question of doubt as to the fact that laws were broken, then our colleague will have to face the consequences of that — it’s plain and simple,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) in an interview.

“You lose your credibility if you’re applying a different set of laws and a different standard to people of the other party,” he said. “I mean, how could we ever justify anything we do if we only apply that to Republicans, and we don’t follow the law?”

Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) said her party has to be mindful of how voters perceive corruption in Washington.

“I think there’s pressure on all of us in elected office right now,” she said in an interview. “Neither party is trusted by the public that we’re going to fight corruption. … I know from talking with my own constituents that this is a real issue for both parties, not just Republicans.”

These warnings come as Democrats have repeatedly over the past several months declined to punish their own members as they faced allegations of wrongdoing. They restored Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas to his post as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee after he received a pardon by President Donald Trump; he had taken a leave of absence while being scrutinized for allegations of bribery.

Most looked the other way when retiring Rep. Chuy García of Illinois boxed out other potential successors and orchestrated his chief of staff’s ascension to succeed him. And they helped Del. Stacey Plaskett of the Virgin Islands dodge a Republican-led censure attempt following revelations she had texted convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during an Oversight Committee hearing.

Now they’ll have to decide what to do about Cherfilus-McCormick.

A House Ethics subcommittee will meet Thursday afternoon to consider a motion for summary judgment — in effect, whether or not to declare her guilty. If it does, the full panel will schedule a hearing for a later date to determine what punishment to recommend, and the House will then vote to execute it.

Members of the subcommittee could suggest something as minor, though embarrassing, as a reprimand or censure. It could also call for her expulsion. House GOP leaders believe they will have the requisite two-thirds majority to expel Cherfilus-McCormick and plan to force such a vote, according to three people granted anonymity to speak candidly about top House Republicans’ plans. But leaders are waiting to see what the panel recommends at the conclusion of the trial.

In a statement Wednesday, Cherfilus-McCormick said she was “innocent” and a “fighter,” and she criticized the Ethics Committee for proceeding with the trial despite her request for a delay that would give “my legal team reasonable time to prepare.” The committee already delayed the trial once after Cherfilus-McCormick lost her representation.

“I urge the Committee to follow its own precedents and uphold fairness and not allow this process to be driven by politics or numbers,” she said.

Santos is the most recent member of Congress to be expelled for using campaign donations for personal expenses — an action his colleagues took after the Ethics Committee issued a report substantiating the claims against him but before it could hold a trial and recommend punishment.

“Some of my Republican colleagues thought it was premature. They thought that he should have gotten a trial before we expelled him,” said Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), who pushed for Santos’ removal from office. “I always said that he admitted to the very thing we were accusing him of was enough process — enough due process — to throw him out.”

Cherfilus-McCormick, in contrast, is pleading not guilty — which LaLota suggested could give Democrats some political cover to give her the benefit of the doubt. He added, however, “The accusations are totally gross. Kind of looks like she did it.”

The last time the House Ethics Committee held a formal trial was in 2010 for the late-Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), who was ultimately censured for a vast range of violations, including tax evasion.

Ethics Committee Chair Michael Guest (R-Miss.) said his panel has been reviewing the Rangel proceedings as a guide for how to approach the Cherfilus-McCormick trial, saying the committee intends to “follow the map that has been laid out in the previous hearings.”

But the Rangel episode was also a deeply emotional and uncomfortable situation for many of the beloved veteran lawmaker’s peers, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who was the chair of the Ethics Committee at that time, recalling in an interview that it was “a very depressing experience.”

Some House Democrats are now struggling with the uncomfortable task of having to potentially render career-ending judgment on a colleague.

“She’s a dear friend,” said Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.). “I am waiting, I think, like everyone else, to see how all of this plays out in court. That’s something that we all have the benefit of getting. I think you are innocent until proven guilty.”

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

Congress

Chip Roy is leaving Congress — but not before warning his colleagues to take the threat of AI seriously

Published

2 hours ago

September 13, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Rep. Chip Roy isn’t known for his touchy-feely approach to legislating. But as the staunch conservative is preparing to leave Congress at the end of the year, he’s raising difficult, philosophical questions about whether the rapid rise of artificial intelligence could turn over human dominion to “entities that have no soul.”

The Texas Republican is grappling with how to square his small-government, anti-regulatory values with what he sees as an urgent need to bring some accountability to an industry that has answered few questions about whether the rapidly evolving technology could fundamentally change what it means to be a “free human.”

And as many of his fellow Republicans warn that regulating AI in the U.S. could cede ground to China, he keeps coming back to a nagging question: At what cost?

“All the proponents of technology will say, ’Oh, your life is better. You can do so many more things, so many advancements, curing cancer … blah blah blah.’ And I’m like, ‘yeah, but what world am I living in?’ And I think that’s a question we have to ask as we kind of work through all this stuff.”

The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

We’re speaking the day after an ex-AI researcher went on social media to issue a warning about the potential extinction threat posed by unchecked AI development. What do you think is going on here?

Everybody’s feeling like they’re losing control. They don’t know what their job’s going to look like. They don’t know what their life’s going to look like. They’re being told that we need to have all these data centers and invest in those, and whatever that means, whatever the impact is, don’t worry, it’ll be better, and there’ll be plenty of water, there’ll be plenty of electricity. But you got to do it because, “beat China?”

I’m a free market guy. I’m a limited government guy. I’m a guy that believes that the government can’t solve problems very well, but I’ve tried to have some conversations with folks about this in terms of responsibility. Is this not unlike nuclear proliferation?

Did you think you’ve had to rethink your free market inclinations at all?

None of this makes me rethink free market. The free market is the best thing you could possibly have to provide as many options as possible without government interference. However, what I want people in this space to acknowledge is, this is a unique issue. This is not the simple transition from a horse and buggy to a car. This is an earth shattering potential human replacement on multiple levels. And with no clear direction for what it means, and then ultimately no clear understanding of who’s in charge of what is supposed to be a tool for humanity — but can ultimately make humans the tools of the technology.

One researcher has put it at a greater than 10% chance that AI could end civilization. Do you take that seriously and, if so, does that mean Congress should act sooner rather than later?

I think that certainly raises eyebrows and opens eyes to, “wait, what are we talking about here?” And the biggest problem is that most of the people in the industry cannot just unilaterally deny it. They cannot answer the question of, “what does it do for the dignity of work and the ability of humans to continue to work and produce with their hands and through their own toil and production?”

At what point can the genie not go back in the bottle?

I am of the mindset that the genie cannot go back in the bottle. I am of the mindset that technology and entrepreneurs are our best hope for figuring out how to manage all of this — not government. But I do think government can provide some safety valves, right? If everything is digitized and AI is sort of running things, if everything goes sideways, what do I do? We have to be philosophical about what it means to live. Not all advancements make the world better; they make it different, and some of them do make it better, right? Was it better to grow up in the ’90s or in 2026 as a kid? I don’t know.

If your ultimate backstop as a human is that God gave us life and dominion over your world, why should I have to answer to a world that chose an AI-driven world? Why? I mean, you have to live in the world you’re in, but shouldn’t I have an option as a free human?

You’re talking about your faith — what role could Christians play here?

Do I think that there is a God question in this entire AI debate? I absolutely do. Do I think that God gave man dominion over the world, and that we owe it to ourselves and our posterity and to God to try to make sure that we maintain that dominion and not turn that over to, essentially, entities that have no soul and have no ability to understand humanity? You cannot turn leadership and decision-making over to soulless entities, and I think that that is a central question to everything that we’re going to be debating on this topic.

Do you think this will be a big issue in faith circles?

Yes. I don’t think people have caught up to it yet, but I do think that’s going to be a growing issue in faith circles, in Christian circles.

The White House’s position has largely been about the need for the U.S. to beat China.

So I’ll be honest. I don’t know what the proper role of government is here. The Big Tech bros need better answers if they want us just to all say, “oh yeah, just let the market figure it out.” Well, then give me my answers. So far the Big Tech bros’ answer has been: “but China.” And “but China” is not a policy prescription. It’s a fear mechanism.

It seems like you are really wrestling with the role of government here.

Yes. And all of us should be wrestling with it. And our predisposition as free market conservatives should be that the market is going to produce the best and most efficient and most effective solutions for all of these problems. But the people that are running the industries, they owe us an understanding that they’re doing that. Government has a role to have hearings. Government has a role to raise questions. Government has a role to maybe demand certain levels of safety or security, or maybe government has a role to demand some certain level of escape valve.

The reactions to the warnings from the AI researchers have come overwhelmingly from Democrats. Do you think we could see Republicans start to say, “oh, maybe progressives who want to ban superintelligence are right?”

I do not believe “we’re going to shut it all down” is either plausible or the best solution. I do think we must have some degree of guardrails and that the same laws and rules that apply to humans are going to have to apply to a world of AI, and there are other existential questions that have to be raised.

If you’re sitting as a red coat and a blue coat in the revolution, staring across the field, you know that if you walk out there, you’re gonna get shot, or you might get shot, and you got to be willing to risk it. And you’re risking your life. What is a robot risking? I think that’s a big deal.

Congress

Convention puts GOP’s reality on display: Midterm policy agenda is skimpy

Published

1 day ago

September 12, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

DALLAS — Republicans used their midterm convention this week to ask voters to preserve their congressional majorities and let them “finish the job.”

But with few consensus legislative goals, it’s far from clear what job they want to finish.

The two-day convention here centered on painting Democrats as an increasingly socialist party that American voters cannot trust with power while highlighting the GOP’s one major victory on Capitol Hill under President Donald Trump’s second term: the year-old tax-cut package known as the “big, beautiful bill.”

In contrast, there was little talk from the podium of what Republicans might seek to pass with a continued trifecta, and members interviewed on the sidelines shared differing visions of what specific legislation the GOP should pursue in the last two years of Trump’s presidency.

The one concrete proposal on offer — Trump’s promise Wednesday of a $5,000 “dividend” for every American adult — blindsided GOP congressional leaders and generated immediate internal dissension.

Asked about his party’s legislative plans, Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee said Republicans would “certainly continue the agenda that we’ve done and that we fulfill to the American people.”

“Accentuate all the positives, minimize all the negatives,” said Rep. Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, responding to the same question. He added he would like to see “more domestic energy production” and tackling fraud in government programs.

Several others said they want to build on last year’s GOP megabill, pursuing more tax cuts and, echoing Meuser, eliminating wasteful spending in government. Some said they hoped to pursue new health care and immigration policies.

“We’ll continue to work with President Trump, making sure the border stays secure,” Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan of Ohio said in an interview. “I think we can do more on the tax code, dealing with keeping taxes low for families. Certainly … things cost too much for families. We understand it now.”

Specifics, however, were scarce.

Fleischmann said Republicans have “a good roadmap in place,” but when pressed on what that roadmap entails, he resorted to broad strokes — “to make sure that America stays strong, that defense gets funded, that we make sure that we fulfill our proper domestic obligations.”

Rather than rally around Trump’s promise of $5,000 checks if Republicans are returned to power in Congress, many GOP members — caught by surprise — said they needed more information about the proposal or simply declined to comment. Once mentioned by the president, the proposal was barely mentioned again on the convention stage.

Trump said in a CBS News interview Thursday that he believed he might not need Congress to authorize the dividend checks — a claim some Republicans quickly pushed back on.

The reality is, the narrow House and Senate majorities the GOP now holds have been barely capable of legislating as it is. And while leaders in both chambers play up the possibility of expanding those majorities in November, that would require overcoming historical precedent and many Republicans’ private expectations they will be lucky to hold on to any majority at all.

Both chambers return Monday for what could be a brief pre-election session, with little expectation that serious legislating will get done. House Republicans have sent several partisan bills to the Senate, but they are being blocked by Democratic filibusters. Plans for a new budget reconciliation bill that could skirt Democratic opposition has stalled, meanwhile, due to internal GOP divides.

The lack of action in the Senate has fueled anger from Trump and his loyalists in Congress and in the GOP voter base — much of it trained on Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has repeatedly said he simply does not have the votes to eliminate the filibuster and enact the stalled bills.

That has not appeased angry conservatives — Thune was booed at the convention Wednesday — and a continued GOP trifecta would almost certainly continue to be marked by interchamber tensions — even with turnover in the party ranks.

“Given the current dynamic, we have got to have a serious come-to-Jesus conversation with Majority Leader Thune,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said at the convention, demanding the Senate “tweak the filibuster rules” and “call the question” on key bills.

Even on an issue where there is general agreement among Republicans that something should be done — such as immigration — internal disagreements have kept the party from acting.

Jordan, for instance, said he would like to codify tough border security policies backed by Trump. But some more moderate Republicans are hoping for a more comprehensive bill that also addresses legal immigration programs, such as those allowing for guest agricultural workers and high-skilled labor.

Meuser is among those wanting a broader bill — one, he said, that is “not amnesty, but a truly comprehensive, smart plan for illegal immigration.”

Speaker Mike Johnson did not mention immigration legislation or any other specific agenda items in his remarks to the convention Thursday. He instead outlined the House’s achievements under Trump and said voters need to stay the course.

“We’ve succeeded in so many ways, but it takes more than just 20 months to fix the total disaster that we were handed and to turn the ship of state around,” he said. “We know the job isn’t finished yet, but we are all in this together.”

Echoing many other convention speakers, Johnson focused on the threats posed by Democrats: “The alternative is to turn the reins over right now to the radical Marxists who are planning to dramatically grow the government, raise your taxes, drive costs through the roof, and rob you of your freedom.”

But some worried that message might not be sufficient — especially after Democrats’ 2024 message focused largely on preventing another Trump presidency rather than pointing to affirmative plans to tackle rising prices and other key voter concerns.

Roy is not on the ballot this fall after losing a primary for Texas attorney general, but he is helping to campaign for other Republicans. He, too, said his message is that GOP candidates “need to be able to finish the job” and cited an “enormous amount of good work” — listing as examples the Laken Riley Act, a small-bore immigration bill that passed early in Trump’s second term, and federal spending cuts embedded in the megabill.

As for the rest of the GOP messaging, Roy added, “Right now, I would argue we’re focused a little bit too much on how crazy they are instead of talking about all the great stuff we’ve done.”

Congress

House sets vote on Russia sanctions bill

Published

2 days ago

September 11, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

House lawmakers are set to vote on the sweeping Russia sanctions bill that senators overwhelmingly voted to approve in August, but now faces a tough test in the House where Democrats fear the bill will give President Donald Trump too much tariff power.

The Senate-passed and White House-backed measure is finally getting consideration from the House, after GOP leaders omitted it from their agenda when lawmakers returned from August recess. Many House Democrats — including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — have voiced opposition for fear that it would give Trump expansive and risky new tariff authorities.

House GOP enthusiasm for the measure has also been tepid, after a boost following the sudden death of its champion, Sen. Lindsey Graham, wore off.

The House Rules Committee scheduled a meeting to consider the bill Monday afternoon.

Advocates of the legislation argue the bill would give Trump the tools he needs to pressure Russian leader Vladimir Putin to end the war on Ukraine. The bill would issue mandatory sanctions on Russian leadership and its energy sector — as well as collaborators in Moscow’s defense industry and so-called shadow fleet.

But it would also give Trump the ability to hit top buyers of Russian oil with 100% tariffs, a move that Democrats say is dangerous given the White House’s eagerness to slap tariffs on U.S. friends and foes alike.

“Donald Trump already has ample authority to impose sanctions on the companies, individuals, and vessels propping up a Russian war machine that continues its deadly attacks on Ukraine,” Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Richard Neal (D-Mass.) wrote in a joint statement with Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia and Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) earlier this month. “Congress does not need to greenlight new tariff authority for the President to impose those sanctions on Russia today.”

Backers of the bill were quick to encourage its passage after the vote was announced on Friday.

“Great news that the House will vote on the much-needed Russia sanctions bill,” Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wrote on social media. “Ukrainian civilians continue to be killed by Putin’s war machine, and this bill hits the Kremlin’s coffers hard. Now is the time to pass it and force Putin to the negotiating table.”

The measure passed in an 86-11 vote in the Senate in August.