Tag

Slider

Browsing

Congressional Republicans are mulling the sale of some public lands to help pay for a massive bill to enact President Donald Trump’s domestic agenda, according to lawmakers aware of the discussions.

House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman said one concept under review would involve selling some lands around Western cities or national parks to build more housing.

“It would just be in areas where you can’t get affordable housing, like for gateway communities,” said Westerman in an interview, “so you could actually have people to work in the national parks, maybe around some big metropolitan areas in the West.”

It’s still far from guaranteed this will make it into a final package, however, with more than one GOP lawmaker saying it would be a nonstarter.

Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines has already made his objections known to leaders, said an aide in a text message: “Senator Daines has never and will never support the sale of public lands.”

Another Montana Republican, Rep. Ryan Zinke — who served as Interior secretary in Trump’s first term — said he has also told House leadership public land sales are a red line for him.

“I have made clear: There are some things I won’t do,” he said. “I will never bend on the Constitution, and I won’t bend on selling our public lands.”

Democrats are also due to create a political headache for Republicans if the GOP pursues such proposals.

“If they succeed, Donald Trump and Elon Musk will sell off your right to access the places you know and love: The place you first learned to fish or harvested your first elk,” Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in a statement. “The campground your family goes to on long weekends. The trail you hike to clear your head. The site that was sacred to your ancestors and is now sacred to you.”

Republicans are talking about this idea at a time when lawmakers are scrambling to find big savings and revenue generators for the party-line bill they want to pass through reconciliation in the coming months.

Speaker Mike Johnson is digging in against allowing proxy voting for the House’s new parents, heightening a standoff with members of his own party that has frozen legislative action in the chamber.

“While I understand the pure motivations of the few Republican proxy vote advocates, I simply cannot support the change they seek,” Johnson said in a Wednesday post on X.

The speaker is in a serious bind after suffering a stunning defeat over a procedural vote Tuesday, prompting him to send the House home until next Monday. Johnson’s initial effort to block a vote on a proxy-voting measure from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) failed after eight fellow Republicans joined her and every Democrat.

Luna was on the cusp of forcing a vote on her bill under a discharge petition, which can circumvent leadership’s control of the floor.

If Johnson attempts a similar move next week, Luna and several of her GOP allies insist they will vote against any effort to reopen the floor. The speaker’s leadership circle, meanwhile, says if he doesn’t try to kill Luna’s petition, House Freedom Caucus hard-liners who oppose proxy voting will themselves defeat any attempt to get House business moving as usual.

Johnson’s circle is aware of the optics of opposing accommodations for new mothers while also upholding their pro-life values and not risking electoral blowback ahead of the midterms.

“As the father of a large family, I know firsthand the difficulty and countless sacrifices that come with balancing family life and service in Congress,” Johnson wrote Wednesday. “New mothers and all young parents face real challenges in this regard. We truly empathize with them.”

But he said he had an obligation to “defend and uphold the Constitution and the integrity of this institution, which has stood the test of time for more than two centuries.”

Another House Democrat is getting an age-driven primary challenge.

Jake Rakov, a former staffer to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), is launching a bid Wednesday to oust his one-time boss. Rakov, 37, is part of a string of Democrats waging intra-party battles against a long-time House incumbents by calling for a generational change in leadership.

Standing in front of a Los Angeles structure decimated by wildfire, Rakov used a 2.5-minute long launch video to blast Sherman, 70, as out of touch with his constituents and unwilling to mount a meaningful resistance against President Donald Trump’s “MAGA hellscape.”

“He and people like him, who have stayed on for so long, who don’t even check into the district anymore,” Rakov said in an interview with POLITICO, “are why we have Trump twice, and why our party is so bad at fighting back against him now.”

First elected in 1996, Sherman is serving his 15th term in the House. His last truly competitive election was in 2012 when redistricting pitted him against then-Rep. Howard Berman in a race that turned so acrimonious that the two nearly came to blows during a debate. Sherman ended 2024 with $3.9 million in the bank.

Rakov served as Sherman’s deputy communications director in 2017. He is active in the LGBTQ+ community in the district and sat on the steering committee for Los Angeles’ Stonewall Democratic Club.

The district spans the western San Fernando Valley and includes Pacific Palisades, a part of Los Angeles devastated by the wildfires in January. Sherman was a regular presence at press briefings in the area as a series of major fires fueled by high winds and dry brush raced through the county. He also sparred with Trump during the president’s January visit to the disaster area, challenging the assertion that FEMA was doing a poor job.

But Rakov said Sherman’s response to the tragedy was lacking and that he did little besides “maybe tweeting out a 1-800 number.”

“If I were in office and our district had gone through what it’s gone through, I would be here every recess with my staff out at the Westside Pavilion rebuilding center,” Rakov said. “How can the federal government help? Who do you need us to talk to? He hasn’t done any of that.”

Rakov pledged to eschew corporate PAC money — he is married to Abe Rakov, who is the executive director of campaign-finance reform group End Citizens United — to serve no more than five terms in the House and to hold monthly in-person town halls, a practice he says Sherman avoids.

He said his challenge is motivated more by Sherman’s leadership style rather than ideological differences.

“We’re both progressive Democrats, and I’m sure we’ll find daylight on a few things here and there,” he said, “but I think this is much more about being a better member of Congress and actually doing what needs to be done in this moment in time.”

Sherman’s speeches on the House floor and lengthy social media videos don’t win the party new voters or “get any of our message out there,” Rakov said. Younger Democrats can better relate to Gen Z and millennial voters, he argued, and know how to reach them on new mediums.

California’s primary advances the top-two vote-getters regardless of party to a general election, so Rakov and Sherman could face off twice. Such a campaign would require significant resources. But Sherman, a senior member of the House Financial Services committee, has remained skeptical of cryptocurrencies, which he has called a “Ponzi scheme.” Pro-crypto super PACs spent heavily in the 2024 election and could see an opportunity to dethrone an opponent by spending against him.

Besides Rakov, two other younger progressives have launched prominent campaigns against older Democrats. YouTuber Kat Abughazaleh, 26, is challenging Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), and Saikat Chakrabarti, the 39-year-old former aide to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), is primarying Nancy Pelosi. Both described their campaigns as an attempt to usher in a new cohort.

At least three Senate Republicans are poised to mark President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” escalation of his trade war by formally rebuking a key piece of his tariff strategy. Trump is fighting back.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski revealed Tuesday that she will vote for a resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine that would end the national emergency Trump is using to levy a blanket 25 percent tariff on Canadian imports. She joins Sen. Rand Paul, who co-sponsored Kaine’s resolution, and Sen. Susan Collins, who said she is “very likely” to support it when it comes up for a vote that’s expected Wednesday.

If the trio follows through, Vice President JD Vance will have to be on hand to break a tie to help the Senate GOP block it. Sens. Chuck Grassley — one of many farm-state Republicans concerned about the Canadian tariffs — and John Cornyn were noncommittal Tuesday about how they might vote. The measure is likely DOA in the House in any case.

But Trump isn’t letting it go. In a 12:58 a.m. post, Trump urged Murkowski, Paul, Collins and Sen. Mitch McConnell to “get on the Republican bandwagon, for a change.”

“To the people of the Great States of Kentucky, Alaska, and Maine, please contact these Senators and get them to FINALLY adhere to Republican Values and Ideals,” Trump said.

Ahead of Trump’s Wednesday afternoon Rose Garden event marking his next round of tariffs, the GOP dissent on the Hill represents a significant political rift in the party about the sweeping economic consequences of his sometimes-unpredictable trade policies.

As POLITICO reported Tuesday, many “Wall Street traders, lawmakers, industry leaders, foreign officials and even some members of the president’s team see only dread” ahead of Trump’s big announcement.

“Part of that is Trump’s negotiating style, to keep people he’s negotiating with, other countries, off balance. But he himself has said there’s going to be short term disruption, so of course people are concerned about that,” said Sen. John Hoeven, a North Dakota Republican who plans to vote against the resolution.

“We’ll have to see if it works,” he added.

What else we’re watching

Trump, Thune huddle on the budget: Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Budget Republicans will meet with Trump Wednesday morning as they try to convince fiscal hawks to back a budget blueprint that would unlock the president’s sprawling legislative agenda. Senate Republican leaders are sticking with their plan to try to approve a budget this week, even as they scramble behind the scenes to lock down the votes. Several GOP senators are withholding support and say they don’t yet understand the strategy.

Good news, bad news for Johnson: After a day of chaos in the House, a pair of Florida special elections to replace former Reps. Mike Waltz and Matt Gaetz went the GOP’s way — but had some warning signs for Republicans ahead of the midterms. While Speaker Mike Johnson’s majority is intact for now, he’s poised to face further fallout in the coming days over his failed attempt to derail Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s push to allow proxy voting for new parents.

Crypto vote: House Financial Services Republicans on Wednesday are set to advance landmark cryptocurrency legislationthat would create new rules for stablecoins. After that, they will have to reconcile their approach with similar legislation moving in the Senate.

Mallory McMorrow formally launched a bid on Wednesday to succeed retiring Sen. Gary Peters.

The state senator framed herself as an outsider, declaring that the “same old crap out of Washington” wouldn’t fix their problems.

“We need new leaders. Because the same people in D.C. who got us into this mess are not going to be the ones to get us out of it,” she said in a two-and-a-half minute announcement video.

McMorrow, 38, is seen in the party as an effective communicator and a rising star. She attracted attention at last year’s Democratic National Convention after holding up an oversized copy of “Project 2025,” the conservative policy blueprint that ultimately became the backbone of Elon Musk’s slash-and-burn approach to government spending.

She previously said that she wouldn’t support Sen. Chuck Schumer as Senate Minority Leader. He faced intense intraparty backlash for voting to advance a Trump-backed government funding bill opposed by many others in the party.

She has also cautioned that the Democratic Party shouldn’t overcorrect.

“I think that Democratic values and Democratic priorities, especially compared to the chaos that’s being unleashed by Donald Trump right now, are still popular with voters,” she recently told POLITICO. “We just have to be better messengers and better advocates for people.”

And amid a broader debate in the party over its handling of transgender issues, McMorrow’s launch video included footage of a 2022 viral speech she gave in the Michigan State Senate responding to a state GOP lawmaker who accused her of “grooming” children.

McMorrow’s state Senate district includes part of the city of Detroit and some of its suburban communities.

McMorrow brings to the race a national donor network that she built off her viral speech; by October of 2022, she amassed nearly 13,000 donors from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, raising a total of $2.35 million.

She won’t have the field to herself, and the state is expected to be one of the most hotly contested in the 2026 cycle. Reps. Haley Stevens and Kristen McDonald Rivet could also run, as could Wayne County Department of Health, Human, and Veterans Services Director Abdul El-Sayed.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg took himself out of contention for the open Senate seat, fueling speculation he’d mount another bid for the presidency in 2028.

Republicans see the state, which Trump won in 2016 and 2024, as a top pickup opportunity on the Senate battlefield. Former Rep. Mike Rogers is expected to launch a bid for the GOP nomination, and Republican Tudor Dixon is also weighing a bid.

Adam Wren contributed to this report 

The top two Democratic congressional leaders stressed unity during their first joint appearance since a government funding fight put them on opposing sides and exposed deep rifts within the party.

“We are standing together in defense of the American people,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters, adding that “House and Senate Democrats are united in defending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits and nutritional assistance.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer spoke after Jeffries: “We are all on the same page. Donald Trump is taking away things working people vitally need all to do tax cuts for the billionaires.”

The event was the first side-by-side appearance for Jeffries and Schumer since last month’s tussle over whether to advance a GOP-drafted government funding bill or trigger a government shutdown. Jeffries and all but one of his members voted “no” on the bill, while Schumer took a procedural vote to advance the legislation past a Senate filibuster. He ultimately voted against it.

Jeffries initially did not comment on whether he had lost confidence in Schumer, fueling rumors of a rift, then later indicated that he supports Schumer’s continued leadership.

On Tuesday, Schumer and Jeffries joined members of their leadership and the senior Democrats on the House and Senate Committees on Finance, Budget and Appropriations met to discuss their party’s strategy as Republicans prepare to move forward toward the “one big, beautiful bill” envisioned by President Donald Trump through the partisan, filibuster-skirting reconciliation process.

Senate Republicans are hoping to adopt a budget blueprint to pave the way for the reconciliation bill this week and send it to the House to be adopted before a two-week break. The House and Senate have to approve identical budget resolutions to be able to pass the eventual bill with a simple majority in the Senate.

The surprise of the first hearing of the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets wasn’t about the identify of who shot John F. Kennedy. Instead it was about who wrote a conspiratorial book about it.

The Capitol Hill hearing held Tuesday in the aftermath of the 80,000-page document dump by the Trump administration last month about the 1963 assassination, came to a cringeworthy pause more than halfway through Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) asked filmmaker Oliver Stone about a book he wrote alleging that Lyndon Baines Johnson was behind the Kennedy assassination.

Stone, who made the 1991 movie JFK which alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy behind the assassination but not focused on Kennedy’s vice president seemed confused by the question. Eventually another witness, former Washington Post reporter Jefferson Morley, worked out that Boebert had confused Oliver Stone with Roger Stone, the political consultant and longtime Trump confidante.

Boebert sheepishly paused and said “I may have misinterpreted that. I apologize.”

The hearing was chaired by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) only minutes after her triumph over Speaker Mike Johnson in an effort to force a vote on her proposal to allow proxy voting for new parents in Congress. Stone was urging the committee to fully investigate the 62-year-old crime.

Luna, who has indicated deep skepticism about Lee Harvey Oswald being the lone assassin, hailed the hearing as an “historical day in our nation’s history” and described to her efforts to uncover the truth about the death of the 35th president as crucial to ensuring that “what happened to President Kennedy can never happen again.”

Democrats though were less focused on Kennedy and more focused on Donald Trump. They took shots at the slapdash nature of the document release by the White House, which left the personal information of a number of former congressional staffers exposed, as well as taking shots at the Trump administration over the fallout of top officials communicating via Signal.

Senate Republican leaders said Tuesday they are sticking with their plan to approve a budget blueprint this week and move forward with President Donald Trump’s domestic policy agenda, even as they continue to scramble behind the scenes to lock down the necessary votes.

The projections of confidence came after a closed-door meeting where GOP senators debated key unresolved points, including how deeply Republicans are prepared to cut federal spending amid angst from fiscal hawks over leaders’ developing plan that embeds only modest deficit-cutting goals into the budget plan itself.

“We just keep having the same conversation,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said exiting the meeting. “But I do think, you know, there’s 50 people at least willing to move forward on this portion of it.”

Forward movement is precisely what Republican leaders want to show, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters he remains “hopeful” the budget framework — a key prerequisite for the GOP’s planned party-line bill — will get rubber-stamped in his chamber this week.

Still, several GOP senators said they were withholding their support, saying they still had not seen a final draft of the framework and didn’t fully understand the strategy their leaders were pursuing. Senate Republicans are hoping to circulate a final plan as soon as Tuesday night.

“I need to see some text,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) after the lunch.

Inside the meeting, GOP leaders sought to tamp down another source of anxiety: whether House hard-liners would accept the Senate’s more modest deficit-reduction goals or send it back for another grueling series of overnight votes. According to Hawley, Senate leaders said they believed the House would accept what the Senate sends over.

House leaders, meanwhile, are preparing to muscle whatever the Senate can deliver through their own chamber next week, finalizing the budget blueprint and paving the way for action on the actual bill combining tax cuts with border security, defense plus-ups, energy incentives and more.

One critical unanswered question is whether Republicans will be able to slap a zero-dollar price tag on an extension of the 2017 tax cuts or whether they’ll have to deal with their estimated $4 trillion-plus cost.

Republicans have been preparing for weeks to seek an answer from the Senate’s parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who has been informally reviewing arguments on whether it’s possible for the GOP to embrace an accounting tactic known as a “current policy baseline” to write off the cost of the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

But some Senate Republicans have started arguing publicly this week that a formal ruling from MacDonough might not be necessary. Instead, she could informally advise Republicans that the decision belongs instead to Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), according to two GOP aides who were granted anonymity to describe private deliberations.

Republican senators were told during the Tuesday lunch that they did not in fact need a formal ruling, according to one GOP senator in attendance, and the two top leaders told reporters much the same afterward.

“We think the law is very clear, and ultimately the budget committee chairman makes that determination,” Thune said. “But obviously we are consulting regularly with the parliamentarian.”

“It’s not a ruling by the parliamentarian,“ Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the No. 2 GOP leader, added. “The Budget chair gets to decide which baseline to use.”

Others with direct knowledge said they still expected MacDonough to meet with Republican and Democratic aides as early as Tuesday evening to hash out the tax-scoring questions. Getting a favorable ruling would give Republicans much more room to enact permanent tax cut extensions while piling on other tax provisions favored by Trump.

Whatever baseline Republicans end up embracing, Thune still needs to win over a handful of fiscal hawks who want steeper spending cuts than the $2 trillion “aspirational” goal that is currently under discussion in the Senate but is not expected to be spelled out in the guidelines the Senate gives its committees.

Instead, Senate GOP leaders are planning to pursue a bare-bones approach, instructing their committees to find a minimum of only a few billion in savings compared with the House’s $1.5 trillion floor for deficit reduction. The fiscal hawks want steeper spending cuts written into the legislation, with some floating deficit reduction targets as high as $6.5 trillion.

“We’ll have to get that before we move forward,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, who has been pushing for steeper cuts.

Jennifer Scholtes contributed to this report. 

A key Republican threw cold water Tuesday on calls by GOP colleagues to impeach federal judges, suggesting the proposals were politically symbolic but were unlikely to pass.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said some House Republicans may be introducing impeachment bills “because they were popular and felt strongly within their district, whether or not they were moving anywhere.”

Issa, the chair of a House Judiciary subcommittee on the courts, asked former Speaker Newt Gingrich if he agreed with that assessment. Gingrich, who was testifying as a former congressional leader, concurred that impeachment proposals have little chance of passing.

“They’re political symbols, not legislative symbols,” Gingrich responded, grinning.

The exchange came during a hearing Tuesday, chaired by Issa, on what Republicans claim has been “judicial overreach” during the early weeks of the Trump administration. Despite calls by President Donald Trump, Elon Musk and a small band of allies in Congress — frustrated by dozens of court orders that have declared key Trump policies illegal or unconstitutional — there’s been little momentum among House GOP leaders, who have privately insisted such efforts are going nowhere in the closely divided Capitol.

Issa instead sought to rally support for his own legislation that would limit the ability of judges to impose nationwide blocks on presidential policies they deem improper. He emphasized that, despite Democrats’ remarks, impeachment was not the focus of the hearing.

Without the votes in the House for impeachment, GOP leadership has been looking for an outlet for the fervor within the party’s conservative flank to target specific judges who have drawn Trump’s fury. Issa argued during the hearing that district court judges have far exceeded their constitutional powers, calling their rulings “the new resistance to the Trump administration.”

“Time and time again, rogue judges have asserted as though they were five of the nine members of the Supreme Court,” Issa said. “The reality is, every judge is considering himself not to be an associate justice, not to even be the chief justice, but, in fact, to be a combination of the justice and the president of the United States. This demands that we take a, make a change and make it quickly.”

Democrats, however, argued that the courts were functioning as a legitimate and necessary check on a president who has pushed the boundaries of the law and Constitution in unprecedented ways. It’s no accident, they argued, that Trump has faced more judicial resistance than his predecessors, who tailored policies to survive court scrutiny.

They repeatedly asked Republicans to speak to the calls from the right flank of the party for impeachments, as GOP lawmakers in the hearing shied away from the topic. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said Republicans’ calls for impeachment have devolved into threats against and intimidation of federal officials.

“I call on my colleagues right now to call off the campaign to impeach federal judges for doing their jobs,” he said.

There was some skepticism from at least one House Republican to GOP efforts to limit the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) noted that Republicans cheered nationwide injunctions during the Biden administration when judges blocked several of his most sweeping policy efforts.

“This is a double-edged sword. He did unlawful and unconstitutional things during Covid that were stopped with nationwide injunctions,” Massie said. “I’m torn on this.”

Nine House Republicans voted with Democrats Tuesday to reject Speaker Mike Johnson’s bid to block a GOP member from allowing lawmakers who are new parents to cast their votes by proxy vote.

House Republican leaders inserted language into a procedural measure that would effectively kill Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s proxy-voting proposal, which is due to come to the floor later this week. Luna had circumvented party leaders by successfully pursuing a discharge petition.

That measure failed on a 222-206 vote, with eight Republicans joining Luna to block it.

Approving the “rule,” as the measure is known, would have tabled the discharge petition and blocked future similar proposals, leading Luna and other Republicans to line up against it. Luna and 11 other House Republicans had signed onto the discharge petition to force consideration of the proxy-voting measure.

The proposal has roiled House Republicans, with Luna opting to leave the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus over the dispute.

GOP leadership, with the support of conservative hard-liners, has opposed the proxy-voting proposal, calling it unconstitutional.

But the failure of Tuesday afternoon’s vote spells trouble for the rest of the House GOP’s plans this week. In addition to blocking Luna’s bill, the rule would have teed up the rest of the legislative agenda, including a closely watched measure to rein in federal judges who have opposed President Donald Trump.