Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who led the effort to pass legislation banning TikTok last year will soon be formally briefed on President Donald Trump’s executive order to give the company a reprieve.

The member briefing, confirmed in an interview by a committee Republican granted anonymity to share details of the upcoming private meeting, comes as GOP members of the panel grapple with how to respond to the president’s latest curveball.

“We all know Donald Trump is a negotiator,” Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.), a senior Energy and Commerce member who worked on the legislation, said in an interview. “Regardless of whether there was a little or some significant progress, I think he wants the opportunity to try to move it along.”

The law allows a president to give a 90 day-extension if there is “significant progress” in divesting from Chinese ownership.

“We built that into legislation so that if the president wanted to, they could extend it,” said another senior committee member, Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) in an interview. “They have got to sell or figure something else out.”

What’s less clear is how Trump plans to argue that discussions involving the current owner, ByteDance, met that “significant progress” benchmark, though China has signaled new openness to a deal in recent days.

Republicans who sit on the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee expended significant political capital last year to report out a bill, in a 50-0 vote, to force the wildly popular social media app to either divest from Chinese ownership — deemed a potential national security risk to the U.S. — or shutter.

The legislation was later voted on by the full House, 352-65, before the Senate cleared the legislation as part of a larger government funding package.

The Supreme Court last Friday ruled TikTok had run out of time to find a new buyer, but Trump promised to intervene, on Monday making good on that pledge by giving ByteDance 75 days to find a solution.

At the time of the high court’s ruling, Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee cheered the news in public statements. They have, however, been quiet since the new president’s intervention. That includes the full committee chair, Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), and the chair of the Telecommunications and Technology Subcommittee, Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who is also the chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Unlike Republicans, Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee didn’t hold back their frustration in what they saw as having their legislative product undermined.

“[Trump] is circumventing national security legislation,” committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said in a statement. “I do not believe ByteDance has taken any real actions to sell TikTok so far.”

Less than 24 hours after President Donald Trump’s Day One blitz of executive actions, Democrats on Capitol Hill mobilized Tuesday to fight his move to freeze a broad range of federal cash.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and other top House Democrats held a private call on Tuesday with more than 100 people, including leaders of outside groups, to discuss government funding strategy and how to stop Trump from violating so-called impoundment law by usurping Congress’ “power of the purse,” according to three people familiar with the call.

People on the call included advocates for a federal program granting food assistance to pregnant women and babies and the Head Start early education program.

It’s Democratic leadership’s first steps in coordinating a united front against what they see as the Trump administration’s violation of impoundment law, which is meant to block presidents from withholding money Congress has previously passed through the Congressional appropriations process.

Congressional Democrats are still trying to figure out exactly what funding Trump intends to freeze after the president’s barrage of executive orders Monday night that would cut off funding Congress previously appropriated. Those orders call broadly for federal agencies to pause foreign assistance to Ukraine and other countries, as well as halt money already contracted under Democrats’ signature climate and spending law known as the Inflation Reduction Act.

Whether Trump’s executive orders hold up in court will be a major test of any president’s power to unilaterally withhold funding Congress has cleared — specifically whether such an action undermines lawmakers’ “Article I” authority under the Constitution to control the government purse strings.

Once it is clear what accounts Trump is targeting through these executive orders, Democrats can determine who is being “harmed” and has legal standing to challenge the president’s orders in court.

“There are a whole array of political countermeasures that one could undertake in terms of having standing to sue, to vindicate the will of Congress,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the former chair of the Senate Budget Committee, said in a brief interview on Tuesday.

Besides a state or an organization representing people affected, a committee chair or party leader could potentially be “suitably implicated” to challenge Trump’s orders in court, said Whitehouse, who is also a former attorney general of Rhode Island and is also tracking the impoundment issue.

Democrats are planning other strategies to counter Trump’s orders to freeze funding, too, from a messaging standpoint, including by highlighting the ways Americans are hurt by the president’s moves.

“The President spent his first day in office stealing from American taxpayers,” the House’s top Democratic appropriator, Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, said in a statement Tuesday night. “In the coming weeks, I will be focused on sharing with the American people the direct consequences of undercutting these investments.”

Democrats also plan to push for a federal probe into the legality of Trump’s moves to freeze funding. During Trump’s first presidency, the Government Accountability Office concluded on multiple occasions that the administration violated the law by withholding Ukraine aid and other funding.

Russ Vought, who was in charge of freezing that funding during Trump’s first presidency in his capacity as the White House budget director, is now seeking confirmation to a second stint leading the Office of Management and Budget.

Vought already told senators during his first confirmation hearing last week before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that Trump believes it is unconstitutional for the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 to require the executive branch to spend money as Congress prescribes.

As Vought prepares to testify on Wednesday before the Senate Budget Committee in his second confirmation hearing necessary to secure the OMB job, Democratic senators are ready to question the nominee specifically about the legality of Trump’s new executive orders.

The Senate Judiciary Committee intends to hold a confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, on Jan. 29, committee ranking member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters on Tuesday.

If that date stands, it would coincide with the panel’s scheduled vote the same day to report out the nomination of Pam Bondi, Trump’s selection for attorney general.

Durbin, along with Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), said he has now received Patel’s background investigation materials, which are required for every Cabinet nomination in advance of a confirmation hearing.

Durbin emphasized, however, that he would not be supporting Patel’s confirmation, pointing to the “trail of grievances” in his book “Government Gangsters,” which the senator said he read before meeting with Patel in a recent one-on-one meeting.

“Kash Patel has neither the experience, the judgment, nor the temperament to serve as head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Durbin said.

Durbin also said he would meet later this week with Trump’s nominee to run the Department of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins.

House Democrats have named their members to serve on the DOGE Subcommittee on Oversight, signaling the minority party is ready to play ball on a Republican-led effort.

Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) will serve as the ranking member, joined by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton and Reps. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, Greg Casar of Texas, Jasmine Crockett of Texas and Robert Garcia of California. The ranking member of the full Oversight and Government Reform, Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), will sit on the subcommittee in an ex officio capacity.

Two people familiar with the appointments confirmed the Democratic roster on Tuesday evening.

Republicans announced their subcommittee assignments earlier in the day Tuesday. They’ll be led on their side of the aisle by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

The subcommittee will be a partnership with Elon Musk’s commission to cut government spending, formally called the Department of Government Efficiency.

Several Republican senators are roundly criticizing President Donald Trump’s pardons of Jan. 6 rioters — particularly those convicted of violent crimes, like assaulting law enforcement officers.

“I’m disappointed to see that and I do fear the message that is sent to these brave men and women that stood by us,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) echoed that sentiment, saying there was a difference between those “caught up in the crowd who did not commit a violent act” and those who committed violent crimes, like destroying property or assaulting officers, who should not be pardoned.

Many of the Republicans expressing dismay at Trump’s actions were the usual suspects — more centrist senators and those who had voted to convict Trump during an impeachment trial over his role in stoking the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. But more mainstream Republicans also made clear that they were unhappy, like Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota saying he would “not defend” Trump’s decision. Several were quick to also condemn the actions of former President Joe Biden, who had given preemptive pardons to his own family members shortly before he left office.

“Anybody who committed violence, like the violence in Kenosha and the violence in Portland before them, should be in prison — period, full stop,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), “That segment of pardons — I’m as disappointed as I am with all the pardons that Biden did.”

“Neither action builds confidence in our Justice Department,” Collins added.

He drew a distinction between the pardons of the rioters with convictions for violence crimes with “boneheads caught up in the moment that after the building was breached that didn’t see the police officers being crushed.”

Trump on Monday pardoned about 1,500 people who had taken part in the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection and commuted the sentences of fourteen people. He’d also directed the Justice Department to drop the 470 ongoing criminal cases against Jan. 6 defendants.

“It’s not right. People who assaulted police officers — if they do the crime, they should do the time,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). He, Collins and Murkowski had all voted to convict Trump in early 2021.

Even Vice President JD Vance had previously said those who committed violence on Jan. 6 “obviously” shouldn’t receive a pardon, though those who had “protested peacefully” should receive one. Former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, who publicly criticized Trump after the attack but voted against convicting him, did not respond to a question from a reporter about the pardons.

But top Republican, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the Judiciary Committee, pivoted: “Everybody’s asking about Jan. 6, aren’t you going to ask me about the Biden pardons?”

Abortion politics took center stage at the Tuesday morning confirmation hearing for President Donald Trump’s pick to run the Department of Veterans Affairs.

VA Secretary nominee Doug Collins, a former Republican congressman from Georgia, was asked more than once by Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee Democrats whether he would roll back a Biden administration rule allowing the agency to provide abortion counseling and, in some cases, the procedure itself.

The previous administration put that policy in place to protect reproductive health services in the VA following the 2022 Supreme Court decision striking down the constitutional right to an abortion.

Republicans have slammed the rule, however, saying it violates a 1992 law barring abortion care for military veterans or retirees through the VA healthcare system. The Trump administration is expected to overturn it, but Collins declined to take a definitive position.

“The law from 1992 says the VA does not do abortion,” Collins said in response to one question from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) about whether a veteran who had been raped should be able to receive an abortion covered by the VA. “We will look at this rule and see if it complies with the law.”

Democrats also pressed Collins on the now-infamous Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” policy blueprint for a GOP presidential administration, which warned the VA could be “target rich” for cost-cutting measures in the Trump administration. The document, among other things, endorsed policy changes that could result in reduced benefits for disabled veterans.

Collins sought to distance himself from the blueprint: “I have not been a part of Project 2025 and haven’t even read it,” he said in a response to a question from Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee ranking member Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) about the proposals.

“We’re not going to balance budgets on the back of veterans’ benefits,” Collins continued. “We’re going to put the veterans first.”

Collins is a staunch Trump supporter who served in Congress from 2013 to 2021. His military background is as an Air Force Reserve chaplain and Iraq War veteran — experience he touted during his confirmation hearing.

He was asked Tuesday by members of both parties about the agency’s significant budget shortfall and how that would factor into the federal government’s ability to provide necessary benefits to veterans, including those exposed to toxins while on the line of duty. Collins will also inherit a troubled electronic health record system initiated by the first Trump administration, which has been on pause since it was found to be tied to several veterans’ deaths and billions over budget.

Collins acknowledged the challenges ahead and pledged to expand choice for veterans to access care outside the VA.

“I do not come into this with rose-colored glasses. This is a large undertaking that I feel called to be at,” Collins said. “When a veteran has to call a congressman or senator’s office to get the care they have already earned, it’s a mark of failure.”

Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Tuesday he isn’t fully on board with President Donald Trump’s sweeping pardons of Jan. 6 rioters, particularly the violent offenders.

“I haven’t looked at it yet,” Johnson said in a brief interview Tuesday as he left the Capitol to meet with Trump at the White House. But he appeared to reference other Trump officials like Vice President JD Vance who suggested violent offenders wouldn’t receive blanket pardons but would instead be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

“The idea is that peaceful protesters should not be detained and anybody who committed violent offenses — that was something they talked about,” Johnson said, trailing off. “I haven’t seen the list. I haven’t had a chance to evaluate it.”

Johnson, pressed on whether he supports pardons for rioters who committed crimes against police officers, responded: “I don’t know which cases you’re talking about. It’s an individual assessment.”

Trump shocked many Hill Republicans by granting clemency for about 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol building just hours after he was sworn into office Monday. The list includes rioters who attacked police officers and were charged with seditious conspiracy related to the attack.

Johnson on Sunday, ahead of the pardons, that he didn’t think anyone who assaulted a police officer on Jan. 6 should receive a pardon.

“No, I think what the president said and [Vance] has said is that peaceful protesters should be pardoned, but violent criminals should not. That’s a simple determination. It’s up to the president on that,” Johnson said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.