WASHINGTON — The price health insurance companies charge for employer-sponsored plans increased again this year, as did the deductible many people must pay before those plans begin covering most healthcare costs, according to a survey released Thursday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

The cost of individual health insurance plans rose to $9,804 on average, while family coverage reached $28,303. Both represented a 5% increase over the last year.

Employees paid about $1,672 for individual coverage, while employers contributed $8,132. People with health insurance for a family of four paid $7,471, with employers providing $20,833.

The amount of money an employee pays toward an individual health insurance plan rose by $232, or 16%, from 2025 to 2026. The price an employee pays for a family health insurance policy increased by $621, or 9%, according to the survey. 

“We have been hearing a lot about Affordable Care Act and Medicaid cuts,” KFF President and CEO Drew Altman said in a statement. “Now add a 9% increase in what workers with employer coverage paid toward family premiums in 2026 to the reasons voters are so concerned about their health care costs.”

The national survey looked at the health insurance costs of more than 1,900 employers throughout the country who have at least 10 workers.

The cost of employer-sponsored health insurance plans has steadily gone up for the last 15 years, according to KFF’s data. In 2011, the cost of an individual plan totaled just under $5,500 and family plans cost $15,220 annually. 

The average deductible reached $1,995 for single coverage this year, meaning even with health insurance, most employees had to pay a couple thousand dollars out of pocket before their policies kicked in. That’s more than doubled since 2011 when the average annual deductible was $955.

The KFF survey found that 88% of workers with individual coverage had a deductible in 2026. 

What types of healthcare coverage people get with the various employer-sponsored health insurance plans varied considerably, sometimes based on the size of their company. 

Twenty-seven percent of employers with more than 200 employees, called large firms in the KFF survey, covered the costs of in vitro fertilization, or IVF. 

But that fluctuated, with 24% of companies between 200 and 999 workers covering IVF, 38% of companies between 1,000 and 4,999 employees providing coverage and 47% of companies with more than 5,000 workers offering a health insurance plan that covers IVF. 

Access to GLP-1 drugs, which can help people manage Type 2 diabetes and lower their weight, also varied based on the size of someone’s employer. Eighteen percent of large firms covered those drugs during 2026, though that was slightly lower than the 19% that covered it during 2025. 

The KFF survey showed that 40% of companies require people on GLP-1 drugs for weight loss to “meet with a dietitian, case manager, or therapist, or participate in a lifestyle program in order for the drug to be covered.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge will rule in the coming days on whether the Trump administration can legally rescind White House press passes for journalists at three news organizations, or if those reporters will be able to continue accessing the grounds while the case continues. 

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Timothy J. Kelly said at the end of a Thursday hearing he intends to issue his decision on a preliminary injunction in the press freedom case before Tuesday. 

Kelly, appointed by President Donald Trump during his first term, granted the news organizations — CNN, MS Now and Politico — a temporary restraining order in late September, forcing the White House to return press passes it had confiscated and permit the reporters back into the complex. 

A preliminary injunction, which the administration could appeal, would replace the short-term temporary restraining order that generally cannot be appealed to a higher court. The TRO was set to expire Thursday, but Kelly extended it through Tuesday. 

Viewpoint discrimination alleged

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner at Gibson Dunn who represents the three news organizations in the case, argued during the hearing the president’s decision to ban the reporters was a clear example of viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment.

“The president got up on the wrong side of the bed and declared a ban on these news organizations,” he said. 

Trump posted on social media in mid-September he intended to block journalists at the news organizations from using their White House press passes to enter the grounds.

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” he wrote at the time. “Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”

Trump and administration officials later said they had concerns about the types of national security articles published by the news organizations. 

But Boutrous said during the hearing the ban was clearly about the president’s belief he should receive more positive news coverage. 

“He has been clear that the reason for this ban is he doesn’t want scrutiny of his policies,” Boutrous said. 

Administration questions journalistic standards

Michael Velchik, senior counsel in the civil division of the Justice Department, argued the decision to ban the news organizations was not solely based on national security but grievances with their journalistic standards. 

“He set out both of those independent concerns,” Velchik said, referring to the president. 

Velchik said he believed that “publishing national security information and not running it by the government clearly violates journalistic standards.”

Velchik also said the letters administration officials sent to the news organizations after the ban took effect gave them the opportunity to rebut the administration’s claims about their reporters. He said that none of the three chose “to respond to any of the substantive concerns.” 

“We did provide a process and they chose not to participate,” he said. 

WASHINGTON — Nearly all of the U.S. senators elected this year will be in office when Congress debates how to restructure Social Security to prevent an automatic drop-off in retirement benefits in 2032. 

Very few candidates in competitive races, however, have policy proposals on their campaign websites and many, when contacted by States Newsroom, declined to share details about which changes they’d support if elected. 

Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said even though Social Security’s financial woes have been discussed more during this year’s campaign cycle, most candidates have shied away from getting into the weeds. 

“What’s really disappointing is nobody is talking about a realistic suite of options that will fix it,” she said. “There are a few who will mention lifting the payroll tax cap, which is probably the most often cited policy, but that on its own won’t fix the program.” 

Workers now pay a 6.2% tax that goes directly to Social Security, though that doesn’t apply to earnings above $184,500. 

MacGuineas said one upside to this year’s campaign cycle is more voters understand that a candidate promising not to touch Social Security guarantees the automatic benefit cut in 2032, which will worsen over time. 

But, she said, she understands why candidates would want to wait until they are actually elected to Congress to go into detail about something that was once widely considered the third rail of American politics. 

“It’s been so long since politicians have been honest about what Social Security faces and what fixes will be required,” MacGuineas said. “An election cycle is not where you’d expect a 180-degree switch into a direct conversation. I think this is the first step, and hopefully, post-midterms, we are able to start having that conversation.”

Two-way communication

Shai Akabas, vice president of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said candidates need to be honest with voters about the changes they’ll likely have to make to Social Security.

At the same time, he said, politicians need to hear from Americans that they understand Congress must take some action in the years ahead.  

“Until we get that two-way street working, it’s going to be really hard to move anything into law,” he said. 

Candidates, and those who work for them, have plenty of resources to study up on Social Security’s financial problems and explore the numerous changes that could be combined to avoid a 22% reduction in benefits from taking place in 2032. 

“It’s not like policymakers are entering into a novel problem that has unexplored solutions,” Akabas said. “They’re walking on well trodden ground and it is more about finding the political will to put those solutions together to create a bipartisan reform package than it is creating solutions from scratch.” 

While Akabas said it’s important for candidates to discuss realistic solutions on the campaign trail, the job of fixing the program would be less fraught if undertaken in a bipartisan way.

“If the two parties together hold hands and say, ‘Here’s a reform that we’re going to put in place, and yes, it has difficult decisions, but it’s the right thing to do for the country,’ I think our polling shows that that could be reasonably well received,” he said. “If, on the other hand, a candidate is putting that proposal out by themselves, it is extremely easy for the other side to message, ‘This candidate just wants to raise your taxes’ or ‘This candidate just wants to cut Social Security.’”

Here’s what politicians running in close Senate races say about Social Security on their websites and shared with States Newsroom when asked for which detailed policy changes they’d support if elected to Congress. 

Alaska 

• Democrat Mary Peltola’s website says if elected she would “work to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits for the nearly 95,000 seniors in Alaska.” A spokesperson wrote she “is in this race to fix the rigged system in DC and put Alaska first – that means putting more money in Alaskans’ pockets and ending federal income tax on Social Security.”

   

• Republican Dan Sullivan didn’t have any policy proposals on his campaign website and staff didn’t respond to multiple requests for more information. 

Iowa

• Republican Ashley Hinson’s campaign website says she would preserve “Social Security and Medicare benefits that vulnerable Iowans depend on, while rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse that deplete these programs.” Campaign communications director Billy Fuerst wrote in an email that Hinson “will always protect Social Security for Iowa seniors, and she will work with anyone to ensure the long-term solvency of this vital program. Ashley has never and will never cut a penny from Social Security.” 

   

• Democrat Josh Turek’s website says he would strengthen “Social Security by ensuring billionaires pay their fair share” and raise “Social Security income and assets limits for disabled individuals.” A staffer for his campaign sent several examples of Turek talking about Social Security, including an article in the Iowa Capital Dispatch that quoted him saying it was “ridiculous” that wealthy Americans didn’t pay any taxes to Social Security on income above $184,500. 

Kansas 

• Democrat Adam Hamilton’s website states: “We need to protect social security and provide real solutions for seniors.” A campaign staffer sent an article from the Johnson County Post quoting Hamilton as saying, “Both parties have kicked the can down the road, and the only way this gets solved is if Republicans and Democrats act together. And there’s movement: Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, and Bernie Moreno, a Republican, are working on bipartisan legislation to lift the payroll tax cap. That’s where I’d start. Right now only the first $184,500 of income is subject to Social Security tax, so somebody making $50,000 pays that tax on every dollar they earn while a person making millions pays on a small fraction. Raising the cap is the best lever we have to keep the program solvent without cutting benefits. I think about my mom, who’s on Social Security now. A cut is not an option for her, and it shouldn’t be for anyone.” 

   

• Republican Roger Marshall didn’t have any policy positions on his campaign website and staff didn’t respond to multiple requests for more information. 

Maine

• Republican Susan Collins’ campaign website has one paragraph mentioning her work enacting a law that increased Social Security benefits for millions of Americans who had pensions after working in government or other public-sector jobs. Collins wrote in a statement that she supports “creating an independent, bipartisan commission of experts to develop recommendations —similar to the one in the early 1980s. I have supported proposals calling for such a commission for Congress to consider.” Collins added that she remains “committed to keeping Social Security strong for current and future generations. It’s a critical program and the foundation of retirement income for most Mainers, and I’ve voted repeatedly to preserve it.” 

   

• Democrat Troy Jackson’s website says he would “protect” Social Security and notes he published an op-ed in the Bangor Daily News saying he would eliminate the $184,500 payroll cap and raise benefits. He wrote he would “never” vote to raise the retirement age or privatize the program. Campaign spokesperson Maggie Amjad wrote in an email that, “Troy is committed to protecting Social Security from cuts and ensuring that Mainers receive the secure retirement and benefits they’ve paid into and earned.” She added that if elected, “he’ll work to scrap the cap and require millionaires to pay Social Security taxes on their income, allow Medicare to negotiate the price of every drug, eliminate profiteering and waste, and expand benefits—not raise the retirement age.” 

Michigan

• Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s website says he would “fight to close the Social Security payroll tax cap to make sure the rich pay their fair share so that Social Security stays solvent well into the future.” Campaign spokesperson Cole Wozniak wrote in an email that El-Sayed would “ensure our seniors get the benefits they earned through a lifetime of labor.” 

   

• Republican Mike Rogers doesn’t have any policy details on this campaign website. But communications director Alyssa Brouillet wrote in an email that Rogers is committed to protecting the program since his “parents survived on social security, as do his wife, Kristi’s, parents.” Brouillet added that Rogers “is committed to protecting social security and Medicare for our seniors.” 

New Hampshire 

• Democrat Chris Pappas’ campaign website says he “will never vote to cut benefits or force seniors to work longer for less. He has fought against efforts to raise the retirement age, slash Social Security benefits, and privatize the entire system, a move that would gamble Granite Staters’ hard-earned benefits in the stock market and benefit Wall Street. Chris is committed to shoring up and improving Social Security to ensure that current retirees and future generations can trust that their benefits will be there.”

   

• Republican John Sununu didn’t have any policy details on his campaign website and staff didn’t respond to multiple requests for more information. 

North Carolina 

• Democrat Roy Cooper didn’t have any policy proposals on his campaign website and staff didn’t respond to multiple requests for more information. 

   

• Republican Michael Whatley didn’t have any policy positions on his campaign website and staff didn’t respond to multiple requests for more information.  

Ohio 

• Democrat Sherrod Brown’s website says that because of the Social Security Fairness Act, a broadly bipartisan bill that became law in 2024, more than 2 million “former teachers, bus drivers, police officers, firefighters, and other workers are now receiving their full Social Security payments that previously were withheld by the federal government.” A campaign spokesperson didn’t provide any details about what types of policy changes Brown would support in the future to avoid the automatic benefit cut, responding to States Newsroom’s request for policy details with criticisms of Husted. 

   

• Republican Jon Husted didn’t have any policy details on his campaign website and staff didn’t respond to multiple requests for more information.  

Texas

• Republican Ken Paxton’s website doesn’t have any policy proposals related to Social Security. A campaign staffer responded in an email that Paxton “believes we must protect Social Security for the millions of seniors who spent their lives paying into the system and are counting on the benefits they earned.” The campaign staffer also said that Paxton “will continue to stand behind lowering taxes and ensuring Social Security remains protected for generations to come.” The campaign didn’t explain how exactly Paxton would do that if he became a senator. 

   

• Democrat James Talarico’s website says he would support “eliminating the tax cap on those earning over $400,000 a year, and incentivize employer-sponsored pensions.” A campaign staffer wrote in an email that Talarico would eliminate the $184,500 payroll tax ceiling for Social Security. He would also “support creating a tax system in which every dollar of income over $400,000 is taxed to fund Social Security. This policy would include a tax ramp-up starting at $400,001 that grows with additional income. This would ensure the top 2% of American earners are doing their part to keep this program solvent, without increasing the tax burden on the middle class during a cost-of-living crisis.” The campaign staffer wrote that Talarico wouldn’t support increasing the retirement age at which Americans can begin collecting Social Security benefits or reduce scheduled benefits.

WASHINGTON — Democrats are more motivated to vote in November’s midterm elections than Republicans, potentially giving the party an advantage to flip at least one chamber of Congress, according to a poll released Tuesday by the nonpartisan health organization KFF.

Democratic candidates also held an edge with voter confidence in their ability to address the rising cost of healthcare and everyday goods as well as abortion policy, though the parties were mostly tied when it came to addressing fraud in government programs. Republicans are trusted “to do a better job handling” immigration. 

“Of all the cost-of-living worries hitting voters now, a big health care bill is the least predictable, and that’s a big reason why health care costs are right up there with gas prices and the costs of food and housing on voters’ minds,” KFF President and CEO Dr. Drew Altman said in a statement. 

A majority of respondents, 66%, said they favor a candidate who supports a national health plan, which Democrats often refer to as Medicare-for-all. That support, however, fluctuates depending on how the question was asked. 

Seventy-six percent of those polled said they support a nationwide health plan when told it would “guarantee health insurance for all Americans.” The level of support was about the same, 75%, when people were told it would “eliminate all insurance premiums and reduce out-of-pocket costs for most Americans.” 

A slight majority, 52%, of respondents said they’d support a Medicare-for-all type plan when told it would “eliminate private health insurance companies.” Approval dropped to 38% when those polled were told it could “threaten the current Medicare program” and then to 35% when informed it would “require most Americans to pay more in taxes.” 

Support for a nationwide health plan decreased to 24% when those polled were told it could “lead to delays in people getting some medical tests and treatments.”

When broken down by political party, far more Democrats, 84%, than Republicans, 35%, supported a nationwide health plan like Medicare-for-all.  

Voters seek change

Regardless of which party secures control of the U.S. House and Senate following the November midterm elections, a significant number of those polled want to see lawmakers work to change the country’s healthcare system. 

Forty-nine percent said that “there are some good things about our healthcare system, but major changes are needed.” An additional 36% said “there is so much wrong with our healthcare system that it needs to be completely overhauled.” Another 13% said the country’s health system “works pretty well, but minor changes are needed.” And just 2% said there should be no changes. 

When asked what motivates people to vote in this year’s election, 20% of those polled said they wanted to bring about change, 19% said to stop President Donald Trump, 15% said they believe the country is in a crisis, 11% said the rising cost of living, 10% said to vote out Republicans, 9% said to protect democracy, 8% said to keep Democrats out of power, 7% said to end corruption and 6% said it was due to concerns about socialism or communism. 

Dems hold enthusiasm edge

Forty-seven percent of those polled said they were more motivated to vote in this year’s elections than they were in the past, while 41% said they were about as motivated and 12% said they were less motivated. 

Democrats had a clear motivation advantage over Republicans with 63% of Democratic supporters saying they were more motivated and 28% saying they were about as motivated as they were during earlier elections. 

Thirty-eight percent of Republicans are more motivated and 53% said they were about as motivated as past elections. 

KFF polled 1,328 U.S. adults, including 1,013 voters, in English and in Spanish between Sept. 16 and Sept. 21. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points. 

WASHINGTON — The number of women in the U.S. Senate is unlikely to increase and may decline following the November midterm elections, though there are still opportunities for candidates to make history in the upper chamber.

Kelly Dittmar, director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics, said on a call with reporters Tuesday that Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota and Mary Peltola in Alaska, both Democrats, would become the first Native American women in the Senate if they’re elected. 

“And if Juliana Stratton wins in Illinois, a record three Black women will serve concurrently in the U.S. Senate for the first time in U.S. history,” Dittmar said. “Only five Black women have ever served in the U.S. Senate. So the three women who would be serving in the 120th Senate would represent 50%, or half, of all Black women who’ve ever served.”

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates the Illinois race as solidly Democratic, the Minnesota election as likely Democratic and Alaska as a toss-up.

When it comes to overall representation, voters would need to elect six new women to replace outgoing female senators and keep the number of women in that chamber level during the next Congress, which is set to begin in January. 

“At present, four women non-incumbents are favored to win in November, and two more non-incumbent women are in competitive contests,” Dittmar said. “In addition, one incumbent woman senator, Susan Collins in Maine, is currently deemed as vulnerable in her bid for re-election.”

That means there would need to be some unexpected victories for women Senate candidates in order to actually increase representation in that chamber, likely leaving the percentage of women senators flat or in decline. 

Any path possible in House

The House of Representatives, where 125 of the 435 seats are held by women, is in a somewhat different position.

There will be at least 271 women on the ballot for House seats, giving voters the opportunity to surpass the previous record of 127 women in that chamber at one time.  

“Net gains, loss, or stasis all remain possible outcomes for women’s U.S. House representation from 2026 to 2027,” Dittmar said. “And these are all possible outcomes as well when you look by party for Democratic women or Republican women specifically.”

Democratic women hold a record of 95 seats, while Republican women have previously maxed out their representation at 34.

No parity in either party

CAWP, part of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at New Jersey’s Rutgers University, aims to be a “leading source” of research and data on women in politics.

Chelsea Hill, the group’s director of data, said there were a record 590 women running for a seat in Congress at the start of this year’s campaign cycle, though that number decreased as voters decided which candidates they wanted in this fall’s general election. 

“It’s important to note, even with these candidacy records, women continue to be significantly underrepresented as a percentage of all U.S. House and U.S. Senate candidates,” Hill said. 

And while Democratic women are represented in higher numbers in their party than Republican women, neither has reached gender parity, she said. 

In total there are 198 Democratic and 73 Republican women candidates on ballots this fall, which Hill said is an increase from the last election cycle but “short of the record high of 298 women nominees for the U.S. House set in 2020.”

“When broken down by race and ethnicity, only Latinas reached new highs for U.S. House candidacies and nominations this year,” she said. 

“On the Senate side, the number of Native American, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian women nominees for the U.S. Senate, three, is an historic high,” Hill added. “And the number of Black, four, and Latina, two, Senate nominees match existing records. Among women candidates for U.S. Senate, only white women have reached a new high of 45.”

WASHINGTON — Democrats expect they’ll gain a majority of seats in the U.S. House following November’s midterm elections, giving the party a platform to serve as a check on the president’s power. 

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Suzan DelBene said during an interview Monday that curbing the war in Iran and working on legislation to address the costs of healthcare would be at the top of the party’s agenda if it is able to flip that chamber.  

“And of course, act as an independent branch and do our job to hold the administration accountable,” she said. 

The Washington state Democrat said she views Republican super PACs spending millions of dollars in safe GOP districts as a sign that voters are moving toward Democratic candidates.

“We’ve seen MAGA Inc. pour millions into House races and spending deep in red territory. Of the 38 districts that MAGA Inc. is spending in so far, 26 are on defense,” DelBene said, referring to the president’s super PAC. “And the speaker and the majority leader were campaigning recently in districts Trump won by double digits in 2024.”

Additions to list of targeted races

The DCCC announced earlier in the day that it had added six candidates to its “Red to Blue” program — Chris Jones in Arkansas’ 2nd Congressional District, Dwayne Romero in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District, Eliott Rodriguez in Florida’s 27th Congressional District, Teresa Benitez-Thompson in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District, Blake Gendebien in New York’s 21st Congressional District and Justin J. Pearson in Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District. 

The additions bring the DCCC’s targeted House races to a total of 46.

DelBene said during the interview with States Newsroom and other journalists in the Regional Reporters Association that “while Republicans seem to have infinite amounts of money to throw at us, our momentum is simply too strong to stop.” 

“Republicans may have more money, but they have zero substance,” she said. “We know we don’t need to spend more, but we do need to spend enough.”

National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Richard Hudson, of North Carolina, wrote in a statement released Sunday that with less than a month to go until voting ends on Nov. 3, GOP candidates “are on offense.”

“We’re competing in districts Democrats swore were safe. We’ve recruited candidates who served in uniform, built businesses, and put criminals behind bars,” he said. “And we’re running on results: lower taxes, a secure border, and an economy that works for working families.”

Where analysts see the House races 

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter categorizes 197 House districts as solid or likely Democratic and another 195 as solid or likely Republican. 

That leaves voters in 43 districts throughout the entire country to determine whether the House remains in Republican hands for another two years or shifts to Democratic control. Of those, 11 are rated as leaning Democratic, 10 are leaning toward a Republican candidate winning and 22 are true toss-up seats.

The magic number for House control is 218, though every additional seat beyond that threshold makes governing much easier for party leadership. 

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has had to consistently balance the demands of moderate and far-right members to move legislation across the floor. The House majority currently sits at 218 Republicans, 214 Democrats, one independent who used to be a Republican and two vacancies. 

Erin Covey, editor for the House of Representatives at Cook, said on the “Stories from the States” podcast that during the last month or so “the overall political environment has really solidified to favor Democrats.”

“At this point, our estimation is that Democrats will likely end up with around 220 to 230 seats at the end of the day,” she said. “Of course, that would be a majority in all of those cases. But on the lower end that would be a pretty slim majority. Some of that is because the battleground of competitive districts is relatively small compared to previous cycles. And so the number of truly vulnerable seats that Democrats can pick up is capped in a way it wasn’t in 2018, for example. But the national political example is just as good as it was for Democrats in 2018.” 

WASHINGTON — U.S. senators departed Capitol Hill on Wednesday night for their campaign break, leaving numerous policy disputes unresolved.

The chamber won’t return until Nov. 9 for the five-week lame-duck session, when party leaders will have to decide which bills they want to negotiate during what could be the final days of unified Republican control.

Democrats have become increasingly optimistic they will be able to flip the House and possibly the Senate from red to blue amid rising frustration with the cost of living, the war in Iran and unrestrained development of artificial intelligence. 

The bills that hang in the balance aren’t small by any measure:

• Congress has yet to reach final agreement on the dozen annual government funding bills that total about $1.8 trillion.
• Lawmakers haven’t brokered a compromise on the massive annual defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act.
• The years-delayed farm bill has yet to see enough momentum to make it to the president’s desk. 

Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., said this week during a brief interview he hopes a final bipartisan version of that farm aid and nutrition assistance bill will be worked out later this year.

The Arkansas Republican also criticized Democrats for not cooperating more with Republicans on major initiatives ahead of the elections. 

“I think a lot of these things will be easier once the election’s over and they don’t feel like they’re giving the president a win on legislation,” he said. 

Boozman, who isn’t up for reelection this cycle and won’t need to campaign during the break, said he doesn’t have plans to begin serious negotiations with the House Agriculture chairman or the top Democrats on the committee during the October recess, though he said they may text each other. 

Spending bills

In addition to working out a compromise on the farm bill, Boozman is one of the relatively few lawmakers tasked with shepherding a government funding bill through Congress. 

Lawmakers were supposed to enact all 12 of those measures before the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1, but instead leaned on a short-term stopgap measure to avoid a shutdown until mid-December. 

When senators and their House counterparts, who left for their campaign break earlier this month, return after the election they’ll have to decide whether to come to an agreement or pass on another temporary funding bill to keep federal departments up and running. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, declined to directly answer a question in mid-September about whether Democrats would negotiate those appropriations bills with Republicans during the lame duck, if Democrats win the majority and would take over come January. 

“Look, the bottom line is first I think we have a damn good chance of winning the Senate,” he said. “And we will have to sit down with our Republican colleagues and work out the best bill possible in terms of approps. That’s one area where Dems and Republicans have worked pretty well together.” 

Holding over final decisions on major legislation until next year would still require Congress to garner President Donald Trump’s support. 

While funding levels and policy might not change substantially if those bills are negotiated during the lame duck or next year, leadership on the powerful Appropriations Committee could. 

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins is in an especially close reelection bid in her home state of Maine. 

Regardless of whether Collins secures reelection or loses, she will still be in charge of negotiating those government funding bills with Democrats this year. But if voters do elect her Democratic opponent instead, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski would likely become the top Republican on the committee next year. 

Lawmakers will also likely want to make some progress on defense policy this year, having approved the annual National Defense Authorization Act every year for more than six decades. 

The massive package gives Congress its best opportunity, other than the Defense appropriations bill, to place guardrails on the Pentagon and shape the military’s future. 

Permitting reform

One bill that will very likely be on the Senate floor during the lame-duck session is a long-sought overhaul of how the federal government conducts environmental reviews and permits infrastructure projects. 

The bipartisan agreement was announced shortly before the Senate left for the break by West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee; Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, ranking member on that committee; Utah Republican Sen. Mike Lee, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee; and New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich, ranking member on that committee. 

Capito said during a press conference the “historic” agreement would make it “faster and more efficient and easier to build infrastructure projects” without eroding “strong protections for our environment.”

“In my state, whether it’s too long to build roads or energy infrastructure and other investment, it costs us jobs, it costs us the strengthening of our local economies,” she said. “So when these projects are not built, what happens? Those costs are shifted onto our families, who pay more for energy, housing and other items.”

The goal, Capito said, is for the package to be the first vote when the Senate returns in mid-November, to start the sometimes long and complicated floor process. 

Whitehouse said negotiators had to go down several “dead-end avenues” before they were able to reach the final agreement they unveiled Wednesday, though that’s not the end of the process. 

“This is a hugely important milestone but there are two big pieces of work in front of us,” he said, noting that their Senate colleagues now get to review the bill and offer amendments. 

The second hurdle, Whitehouse said, will be “returning to regular order for wind and solar projects in the Trump administration,” which remains unresolved. 

“But we have had what I consider to be a very reasonable opening proposal from the Trump administration. We need more clarity on that,” he said. “And when we have more clarity on that they’ll be back-and-forth to try to resolve those issues. That will happen in parallel with the amendment work.”

Whitehouse said if the legislation becomes law it should “lower electricity costs measurably for Americans,” increase “clean” power, add construction jobs throughout the country and raise the overall economy. 

WASHINGTON — A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that prosecutors cannot, for a second time, charge former Olympic canoeist David Hearn with damaging the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Judge Todd E. Edelman wrote in his ruling that “the observed damage to the Reflecting Pool was due to a contractor’s ‘rushed and botched’ installation of the lining while conducting renovations, and Mr. Hearn’s actions had no effect on the value of the Pool.”

U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro sought to drop the charges against Hearn, of Maryland, in August, writing in a brief to the court that she wouldn’t have filed a case against him had she had more information from the Interior Department, which manages the Reflecting Pool. 

“Specifically, the newly released documents reveal that work on installing the lining almost immediately fell behind, due to a combination of very rainy and windy weather, repeated failures of testing on the sealing of the expansion joints, and delays in obtaining sealing product at the worksite,” Pirro wrote. “The rush to complete the project led to hasty and botched work that was not remediated before the project was finished and the fencing removed.”

But Edelman had to hold a hearing on the future of the case in early September after federal prosecutors signaled they may try to refile the charges. 

The judge’s 26-page ruling blocks that from happening. 

“The Court respects the authority of the Office of the United States Attorney to decide which cases to prosecute and which to dismiss,” Edelman wrote. “However, in the exceptional circumstances posed by this case, the government has no right to retain the ability to compound the errors it has already made, or even to threaten to do so, at Mr. Hearn’s expense.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated Wednesday that should Democrats regain control of the chamber following the elections, they plan to block judicial nominees sent up by President Donald Trump, including for any possible vacancies on the Supreme Court. 

“Look, the bottom line is, one of the reasons that we want to do everything we can to take back the Senate is not let Trump put such horrible justices, MAGA justices, on the Supreme Court and the lower courts,” he said.  

Trump nominated Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett during his first term but has yet to nominate anyone to the country’s highest court during his second term. 

Schumer’s comments signal that even if one of the nine Supreme Court justices retires or potentially passes away, Democrats would hold the vacancy open until after the next presidential election. 

That would be somewhat similar to Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell’s decision to block Merrick Garland from a Senate confirmation vote in 2016 after President Barack Obama nominated Garland to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. 

McConnell, then majority leader in a GOP-controlled chamber, said on March 16, 2016, “the next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course — of course — the American people should have a say in the Court’s direction.”

“It is a president’s constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate’s constitutional right to act as a check on a president and withhold its consent,” he added.  

Democrats, including Schumer, rebuked McConnell for the decision. 

Schumer predicts close election

To make the choice about whether to approve any nominees during the next session of Congress, Democrats will need to regain the Senate majority. They now have 47 seats.

Schumer said during the press conference he expects it to be a close election, declining to say how many seats he expects Democrats to pick up. 

“We do not want to be overconfident, but what we’re seeing in state after state after state is that people are sick of Trump,” he said. “They’re sick of the Republican Senate going along with him. And they see the clear divisions we have drawn between what we stand for and what they stand for. That has put us on the edge of victory. But we still got a ways to go.”

Democrats need a net gain of at least four Senate seats to regain the majority.

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates North Carolina as leaning in Democrats’ direction, with Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Texas, all currently held by a Republican, rated as toss-ups. The open races in Michigan and New Hampshire, which were won by a Democratic candidate last time, are also rated as toss-ups. 

Democratic priority to ‘lower people’s costs’

Aside from blocking Trump nominees, Schumer didn’t detail what types of bills Democrats may put on the Senate floor, should voters give them the majority in the upper chamber. 

“We’re going to do everything we can to lower people’s costs. You’ve seen some of the things Trump’s done that’s raised costs,” he said. “We’re going to do everything we can to clamp down on this horrible corruption and to end the chaos and end the war.”

Schumer declined to answer a question about whether he believes he would get the support needed from other Democrats to remain their leader, given critical comments from some of the more left-leaning candidates who could be elected this November.

“Our caucus is totally unified. We’re in great shape. Everyone is really very, very pleased with where we are today compared to where we were 20 months ago, under our leadership,” he said. “And we’re fighting hard. And we’re on the edge of taking back the Senate.”

WASHINGTON — The three news organizations that President Donald Trump barred from entering the White House grounds earlier this month have asked a federal judge to ensure their reporters continue to have access after a temporary restraining order expires in early October. 

Attorneys for CNN, MS Now and Politico filed paperwork late Monday requesting a preliminary injunction from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that without it the administration is likely to again revoke press passes for journalists at those news organizations and possibly others. 

“The President has stated that there will be ‘Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,’ … leaving other news organizations covering the White House to face the prospect that their access may likewise depend on the President’s view of their coverage,” the brief states. “And each day the ban remains in effect, the public loses access to essential reporting on the President and his administration.”

Trump announced on Sept. 18 that he planned to prevent reporters from CNN, MS Now and Politico from reporting on White House grounds. Those news organizations filed a lawsuit a few days later, after several of their reporters were denied entry at a security checkpoint and had their press passes confiscated by Secret Service officers. 

District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, who was nominated during Trump’s first term, issued a temporary restraining order on Sept. 23, requiring the White House to return the press passes and allow the journalists it had barred back in. 

That order expires Oct. 8, but could be replaced by a preliminary injunction if the judge agrees with the request filed by the three news organizations this week. 

That 49-page brief argues the president’s ban retaliated against the news organizations “for engaging in speech, publication, and newsgathering activities that the First Amendment protects but the administration disfavors.”

The attorneys representing the journalists wrote that Trump administration officials claiming the ban was related to national security concerns were “not credible.” 

They later wrote that “the President’s own words leave no doubt that banning Plaintiffs from the White House and denying them the access they had as of September 18 is retaliation for their protected newsgathering and speech—adverse action intended to cow them into conforming the content of their reporting to the President’s preferences and to threaten other journalists lest they suffer the same fate. That is a paradigmatic First Amendment violation.” 

The administration’s response brief is due Friday.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration must spend the $810 million that it said last week it planned to cancel, according to a report released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. 

The congressional watchdog’s decision contends the White House budget office doesn’t hold the ability to claw back that funding without approval from Congress. 

“Any withholding of appropriated funds beyond their date of expiration, regardless of size, subverts both the constitutional process for enacting federal law and Congress’s constitutional power of the purse,” wrote GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought disagreed with the decision, though he wrote in a social media post it was not “a surprise.”

“GAO has become hyper partisan and Congress recently attempted to cut their spending because of it,” Vought wrote. “GAO changed its long-time opinion on this very issue from the 1970s when they specifically noted the tool was available to the president. They make their legal assessments based on whether Democrats are in the White House.”

‘Pocket rescission’

A federal law known as the Impoundment Control Act allows the White House to ask Congress to cancel funding that lawmakers previously approved and the president signed into law.  

Lawmakers have 45 days after the rescission request is sent to decide whether they want to approve it in full or modify the proposal. Congress declining to take any action means lawmakers have rejected the plans and the administration must spend the money. 

A request sent during the last 45 days of the federal fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30, is known as a pocket rescission. 

The Trump administration believes that sending a rescissions request during that timeframe allows it to cancel the funding regardless of whether lawmakers sign off on the plan. 

The GAO has disagreed with that opinion before and reiterated it Tuesday in its five-page decision.

“The Constitution vests in Congress the power of the purse, and Congress did not cede this important power through the ICA,” Perez wrote.  

“Instead, the terms of the ICA are strictly limited,” she added. “The ICA permits only the temporary withholding of budget authority and provides that unless Congress rescinds the amounts at issue, they must be made available for obligation. The President cannot rely on the authority in the ICA to withhold amounts from obligation, while simultaneously disregarding the ICA’s limitations.”

Refugee aid programs

The rescissions request the Trump administration sent Congress on Friday proposed lawmakers cancel funding for several line items, including refugee assistance programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, a Treasury Department program that provided “debt forgiveness to foreign countries that make climate change-related investments for coral reefs and tropical forests” and a grant program at the Minority Business Development Agency.

The administration submitted its first pocket rescissions request in August 2025 and cancelled $4.9 billion without congressional action. 

That came a few months after the White House budget office successfully worked with Republican lawmakers to rescind $9 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and certain foreign aid accounts. 

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has, once again, infuriated lawmakers from both political parties by using a controversial maneuver to cancel funding previously approved by Congress. 

The $810 million in the “pocket rescission” would have gone to refugee assistance programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, a Treasury Department program that provided “debt forgiveness to foreign countries that make climate change-related investments for coral reefs and tropical forests” and a grant program at the Minority Business Development Agency, among several others. 

The decision by the White House budget office to cancel the funding could make it much more difficult for negotiators to reach agreement on the dozen full-year government funding bills later this year. 

Those bills cannot become law without bipartisan support, a requirement that’s unlikely to happen if Democrats believe the administration will simply cancel funding they don’t wish to spend. 

Collins issues criticism

Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote in a statement released Friday evening, shortly after the White House’s Office of Management and Budget announced the latest pocket rescission, that she sharply disagreed with its tactics. 

“This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law,” Collins wrote. “Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers. OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.”

Collins, who is up for reelection in an increasingly close race, added that she planned to work with other lawmakers “to address these illegal actions.”

Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, ranking member on the Appropriations Committee, wrote in a statement the pocket rescission represented “theft from the American people, plain and simple.” 

“These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people—not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families,” Murray wrote. “Every Republican who voted for these bills should be furious because Vought is saying their votes don’t count.”

Russ Vought runs the Office of Management and Budget, which is supposed to oversee the distribution of federal funding after Congress approves a spending bill. 

Government Accountability Office spokesperson Sarah Kaczmarek wrote in a statement shared with States Newsroom that the agency “stands behind its legal position that pocket rescissions are illegal and not authorized by the Impoundment Control Act.” The GAO is a nonpartisan congressional watchdog agency.

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act established the rescissions request process, which allows the administration to legally freeze the funding for 45 days while lawmakers decide whether to approve the request in full, or in part. 

If Congress doesn’t take any action during that time, then the administration is supposed to spend the money. 

The Trump administration believes that sending the request to lawmakers within the 45 days that precede the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 allows the administration to revoke the funding, even if Congress doesn’t vote to approve.

Other funding canceled

The Trump administration sent Congress its first pocket rescission in August 2025 when it clawed back $4.9 billion in funding. 

That money was intended for several programs, including international peacekeeping and democracy programs as well as development assistance to other countries. 

The Trump administration sent lawmakers a regular rescissions request in June 2025 that called on lawmakers to revoke $9.4 billion in funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid programs. 

Both chambers signed off on canceling $9 billion after the Senate voted to preserve hundreds of millions of dollars for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration appeared to disappoint senators from both political parties Thursday with how she answered questions about medication abortion access during her confirmation hearing. 

Dr. Heidi Overton also faced skepticism from committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, about her work on vaccine policy during the current administration, indicating she may not have the support needed to secure the job. 

“You’re a medical doctor. Of course, that resonates with me. You’ve seen patients. You have a deep understanding of the healthcare system and health policy, but I have concerns,” he said. “You were behind the president in the Oval Office when he signed an executive order to break up the vaccine schedule into more doses, completely ignoring the reality of families today struggling to make life affordable.”

Cassidy said that executive order was “based on zero scientific evidence” and would require parents to spend more time and more money taking their children to medical appointments to receive vaccine shots. 

Overton, he said, needed to convince him and others on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that if confirmed by the full Senate, she would be “radically honest.” 

“You’ll also need to ensure that uninformed ideologies do not influence FDA’s decisions on whether to approve individual products, even if the president is pressuring you,” Casidy said. 

In response to a question from Cassidy about the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella, Overton said she believed it as well as “every vaccine on the U.S. market right now” is safe and effective. 

She added the MMR vaccine remains “our best tool right now in the public health response to the measles outbreak” and that it is “97% effective in stopping transmission of the virus after two doses.” 

Questions on medication abortion

In addition to several questions about vaccine and food safety, senators pressed Overton about her personal views on mifepristone, one of two prescription pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. 

Senate confirmation would place Overton as the head of the agency conducting a safety review of the drug, though she declined to say how she would handle that process.

“Mifepristone was approved by the FDA as having met its safety and efficacy standard,” she said in response to a question from Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.

The senator then referenced a policy brief that Overton wrote with Matias Perttula for the America First Policy Institute that was published in February 2023. 

The co-authors began by writing that “Abortion is corrosive to children, women, and society broadly because it devalues and extinguishes innocent human life.” They later added that medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation, had become “the most common method of terminating a pregnancy” and that it “deserve(d) greater medical scrutiny.”

Overton declined to answer a question from Murray about whether an IUD counts as an abortifacient, saying that if confirmed she would be “fully briefed on all their prior decisions and make determinations according to the standards of safety and efficacy.”

Hawley presses on FDA position

Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley also questioned Overton on her statements during the hearing about mifepristone, saying they didn’t match what the Trump administration was arguing in ongoing legal cases. 

“I want to get to the bottom of this. I want to be sure that the FDA is not changing its position. I think this could be news to the court,” Hawley said. “So, are you saying that the FDA’s position is now that the drug is safe and effective and appropriately labeled?”

Overton replied that the current Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, which changed during the Biden administration to allow for it to be prescribed via telehealth appointments and shipped to patients, is under FDA review. 

“That safety study is ongoing and very important. Women’s health and women’s safety is a critical piece of this. So there is no change in position,” she said. “The FDA does need to do that safety study to look at the internal data that has not been looked at since a REMS change was made.”

The FDA wrote in a statement to States Newsroom that “Due to active litigation, the FDA and HHS cannot comment” on the safety review.

Murkwoski sees ‘political pressure’

Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski didn’t ask Overton any questions about mifepristone, but said she believes there was “political pressure” on FDA officials to “revisit the approval status of certain products.”

“We’re going to be in a very challenging position in a very rural state like Alaska if in fact the move to require in-person dispensing of the medication as opposed to telehealth appointments is the direction,” Murkowski said. “You have effectively taken about … 80% of the communities in the state, and put them in a very challenging position in terms of access to providers, access to this FDA-approved drug.”

Murkowski added that she didn’t ask Overton a specific question on the issue since it appeared she would “go down this same rabbit trail and probably get the exact same very specific technical responses that you have provided the committee.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Kelly indicated during a Wednesday hearing he may order the Trump administration to reinstate White House press passes for reporters from three news organizations who had their credentials revoked this weekend. 

Kelly, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said at the beginning of a 45-minute hearing that he is largely bound by circuit court rulings that ensure journalists with White House press passes have due process rights before their access to the complex could be rescinded. 

“The government says those cases … were wrongly decided,” Kelly said. “Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. But certainly as a district judge I have to apply them and I think it is fair to say that the processes that the Circuit Court laid out in those two cases … (weren’t) followed here.”

Kelly said at the end of the hearing he will release his ruling as soon as he can, though he did not give any more details about how soon that might be. 

President Donald Trump nominated Kelly during his first term and the Senate confirmed him following a broadly bipartisan vote in September 2017. 

This case began Monday when CNN, MS Now and Politico sued the Trump administration for barring their reporters from entering the White House grounds. 

The news organizations asked the district court to grant them either a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction that would require the White House to return the press passes, allowing the journalists to work from the complex once again. 

‘Very essence of the First Amendment’

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner at Gibson Dunn who represented the news organizations, said the president’s decision to revoke the press passes of 78 journalists represented an “unprecedented, unreasonable and severe punishment.”  

“What the government is objecting to … is that very essence of the First Amendment,” he said.  

Boutrous said claims from the White House the president’s decision was based on national security concerns only came after the lawsuit was filed, not when the decision was announced Friday, or over the weekend when it was implemented. 

Trump said Friday in response to questions from reporters in the Oval Office that his ban wasn’t in response to any specific story but “really just cumulative stories over the last two years.”

“They’re smart people, but they purposely write negative news. And they do that because they want to try and diminish the Republicans and a Republican administration,” he said. “And honestly, we’ve done a fantastic job. Look at the numbers, look at the economic numbers. We have more money coming into our country today than ever before.”

Boutrous argued during the hearing that while the president holds the right to criticize reporters and news organizations as much as he wants, the administration cannot “use the power of the government to punish them for their expression.” 

In response to questions from the judge about whether there would ever be a circumstance where the White House could revoke a press pass, Boutrous said if someone was a spy, represented a physical threat, or a national security threat, “there would of course be authority by the White House to deal with that.”

But he also referenced the Pentagon Papers, and said he didn’t believe that type of reporting on national security issues would justify revoking a reporter’s White House press pass.

The White House’s decision to revoke press passes for reporters from those three news organizations has led the major television networks that rotate daily coverage of the president to stop doing so. The decision has limited what videos of the president are released through that television pool system. 

DOJ argues access ‘a privilege, not a right’

Michael Velchik, senior counsel in the civil division of the Justice Department, said the Trump administration would oppose a ruling  requiring the White House to return the press passes and allow reporters from those news organizations to resume coverage there. 

“Access to the White House is a privilege not a right,” he said. 

Velchik seemed to suggest that if the judge were to require the White House to reinstate the press passes, it shouldn’t happen during the next few days, when Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled to be in Washington, D.C., to meet with the president.

The White House, he said, had also sent letters to CNN, MS Now and Politico on Tuesday, informing them why their press passes were revoked and giving them the chance to reply by Friday evening. 

Democrat sees ban as part of pattern

U.S. House Administration Committee ranking member Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said during a separate virtual press briefing on Wednesday that he believes the ban of the news outlets was part of a pattern of Trump misusing government power to attack perceived opponents.

“The Trump administration has flagrantly abused the immense power of the federal government against organizations and institutions whose work, whose clients or viewpoints it disagrees with,” he said. “We don’t need to look any further than this outrageous attempt by the president to silence CNN, MS Now, Politico and others.”

Jacob Fischler contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats believe they could pick up as many as six seats following this November’s midterm elections, despite Republicans having better fundraising numbers and break-even polling in several states. 

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chair Kirsten Gillibrand said during a sit-down interview Tuesday that the president’s low approval ratings and the ongoing war in Iran remind her of the 2006 election cycle, when the party flipped both chambers of Congress.

“We may be outspent in all the races, but we will not be outworked,” she said. “Our candidates are better and they are stronger and they are on-message to what voters actually care about.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee holds a slim fundraising advantage over the DSCC, with $176 million to $163 million in contributions this cycle as of Aug. 31, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

But the Republican National Committee has a nine-digit cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee. And Trump’s MAGA Inc. super PAC has more than $400 million ready to spend.

Gillibrand, of New York, said she was confident Democrats will be able to keep Georgia, Michigan and New Hampshire, while possibly flipping seats in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. 

“All six are viable. All six we can win. And so we’re excited about all of them,” she said. “And on top of those six, there’s other races that we continue to watch.”

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter rates seats held by Republicans in Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Ohio and Texas as tossup races, with North Carolina leaning toward Democrats. 

The forecaster lists seats Democrats are defending in Michigan and New Hampshire as tossups, with Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff a slight favorite to win reelection.

Control at stake

Democrats need a net gain of four seats to flip the Senate from Republican to Democratic control. A 50-50 split would leave the GOP with the majority since the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote in that chamber of Congress. 

Gillibrand said during the interview with States Newsroom and a dozen other reporters in the Regional Reporters Association that Americans are frustrated with what Republicans have done during their two years with unified control of Washington. 

She expects many Americans who voted for a Republican during the 2024 presidential election will decide to vote for a Democratic candidate this fall. 

“I think it’s going to be a groundswell,” Gillibrand said. “I think it’s a lot like 2006.”

Two decades ago, following the second midterm election of a Republican president involved in an unpopular Middle East war, Democrats went from holding 45 Senate seats to 51. In the House of Representatives, Democrats went from 202 seats to 233. 

The six states Democrats are focused on flipping, Gillibrand said, are largely in play because of actions by President Donald Trump as well as his Republican allies in Congress. 

“Republicans’ roster of corruption and candidates who have been a rubber stamp to Trump is very much affecting their campaigns,” she said. “And our focus on just the issues that are affecting voters where they are — cost of groceries, cost of housing, cost of healthcare, along with fraud and corruption — it’s resonating, pretty much everywhere.”

WASHINGTON — The three news organizations that President Donald Trump has barred from entering the White House filed a lawsuit against the administration on Monday.

CNN, MS Now and Politico wrote in a joint statement the suit is intended “to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.”

“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the statement continued. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Trump announced last week on social media that he intended to bar journalists from those three news organizations, airing a years-running grievance that he doesn’t believe their reporting is accurate.

“I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS!” he wrote. “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

First Amendment cited

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argued the “ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles.” 

The lawsuit says White House reporters from those news organizations had their press passes, which must be scanned to get through a Secret Service screening, deactivated. 

The news organizations say the ban violates the due process clause, “retaliates against protected newsgathering and speech in violation of the First Amendment” and that it bars journalists “from a nonpublic forum for unlawful reasons.”

The president’s decision to exclude those reporters from the White House “inflicts irreparable harm to these news organizations,” according to the lawsuit.

“The organizations, whose very purpose is to report national news, depend on individual reporters to gather information firsthand at the White House,” it states. “As a result of the ban, they have lost the ability to perform essential newsgathering at the seat of the Executive Branch, where critically important newsworthy events occur every day. 

“The ban irreparably curtails the organizations’ speech—preventing them from being able to publish stories they otherwise would—each day it remains in effect. The ban also impermissibly chills the speech of other news organizations and journalists, who must now balance conducting their constitutionally protected and vitally important work of reporting on the White House against the risk that coverage the President ‘dislike[s]’ will condemn them to the same fate.” 

The case was assigned to Judge Timothy J. Kelly, who was nominated by Trump during his first term and confirmed by the Senate in September 2017 following a vote of 94-2.

Kelly scheduled a videoconference hearing for Wednesday to hear arguments over whether to issue a temporary restraining order in the case. 

TV network coverage of Trump

Trump wrote on social media on Monday morning that the “White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish.” 

“It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America,” he wrote. “It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP”

Major television networks don’t plan to fill in for CNN as the television pool covering Trump on Monday, according to an email the network obtained from Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bryan Boughton, who chairs the TV pool.

“This follows the White House’s position preventing CNN from fulfilling its assigned pool duties,” Boughton wrote, according to the CNN article. “There will be no replacement pool put in place.”

The White House pool rotation includes reporters from the country’s major news organizations, who attend the president’s public events as well as other events that administration staff restrict to only journalists in the pool. 

The television pool provides video footage of those events, while the print pooler’s reports about the president’s comments are emailed to reporters at newspapers and online news outlets. 

The limited number of reporters from within the White House press corps who participate in the pool are able to ask the president questions during Oval Office events or other restricted appearances. 

States Newsroom’s Washington, D.C. Bureau participates in the print pool rotation as part of its membership in the Regional Reporters Association, which represents local news outlets covering the nation’s capital.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House departed Wednesday for a seven-week campaign break after spending less than two weeks in session during August and September.

The extended “district work period” is intended to give incumbents from both political parties time to meet with constituents and fundraise back home before voting in this year’s midterm elections ends on Nov. 3. 

House Republican leaders hope that more time campaigning will help some of their most vulnerable members secure reelection, allowing the party to hold onto its majority for another two years. 

Less time on Capitol Hill also means less time voting on potentially divisive issues. Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, would have been able to force a vote to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Thursday had leaders not sent lawmakers home a day early.

Despite the somewhat limited time in session, Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday he believes Republicans have accomplished much during their nearly two years with unified control of government. But he brushed aside requests to keep the chamber in town to address warnings from several executives about artificial intelligence.

The Louisiana Republican pointed to a bipartisan task force that issued a 273-page report in December 2024, saying those recommendations meant lawmakers would not be “caught flat-footed here.” 

“We’ve been working on this for years and we’re right there where we need to be,” Johnson said.

Moments later, however, he added Congress cannot apply those recommendations to draft legislation to regulate AI because “nobody in the room knows yet what that should look like.”

“Why? Because we don’t have the latest information,” Johnson said. “We are not in the … frontier labs who have taken this technology many steps further than even when our own report was published.” 

He argued that instead of Congress debating legislation, the executives of AI companies should instead “self-police” and “self-regulate.”

“They don’t need the government to tell them to slow it down,” Johnson said. “If they want to slow it down, they should.”

‘Nothing’ done, Dem leader says

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries sharply disagreed with Johnson and Republicans’ approach, saying Wednesday that there was considerable work left to do, despite the planned recess. 

“They have decided to cancel votes and run out of town without providing any relief to hard-working American taxpayers,” he said. 

“Republicans have done nothing to lower the high cost of groceries,” he continued. “Nothing to make healthcare more affordable, nothing to end the reckless war of choice in Iran, nothing to lower gas prices, nothing to stop the violent mass deportation machine, nothing to hold the Trump administration accountable for the unprecedented corruption unleashed on the American people.” 

Jeffries questioned why Republicans haven’t been able to improve the economy and lower prices for everyday Americans, despite having made it a central campaign promise during the last election cycle. 

“For two years, Americans have been wondering — were MAGA Republicans lying, indifferent, or are they just incompetent?” he said. “We now have an answer: It’s all of the above.”

Long lame duck

The House will return after the election for two weeks in November and three weeks in December. That will give lawmakers a total of 27 weeks in session this year, though those are rarely the type of five-day weeks most Americans are used to. 

House lawmakers often take their first vote of the week on Monday evenings around 6:30 p.m. and their last vote of the week on Thursday morning, before many walk down the steps of the Capitol to cars waiting to take them to the airport. 

Some weeks are shorter, giving House lawmakers a total of 72 days in session so far with 20 more days of voting on Capitol Hill scheduled before the end of the year. 

An American with four weeks of time off a year spends about 48 weeks or 240 days at work, significantly more than the United States House of Representatives dedicated to debating and voting.

Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that Americans in the private sector with more than 20 years of experience get, on average, four weeks of paid vacation a year. 

WASHINGTON — Voters are much more likely to support U.S. Senate candidates in the November midterm elections if they have a plan to avoid an automatic cut to Social Security benefits in 2032, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

“Senators elected this fall will be in office in 2032 when Social Security recipients will face immediate 22% cuts, so all candidates should be putting forth solutions in this campaign to prevent this catastrophic result,” said Michael A. Peterson, CEO of the Peterson Foundation. “The good news indicated by this survey is that voters want this problem addressed, and there is strong bipartisan support for many available solutions that would sustain this essential program.” 

Ninety-one percent of those surveyed said they support changes to Social Security “to prevent automatic benefit cuts,” while 85% said “it is more important than ever for lawmakers to fix” the program, given the sharp increase in the cost of living.

The poll focused on voters in the swing states of Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas, elevating Social Security as a campaign issue with less than two months until voting ends on Nov. 3. 

Seventy-two percent of those in the poll said they would support Congress instituting a 1% tax on income above $184,500 to bolster funding for Social Security. The law currently requires people to pay a 6.2% tax up to that annual income level but no Social Security taxes after. 

About two-thirds said they would support lawmakers placing a $100,000 limit on annual Social Security benefits for a retired couple. 

Gradually increasing the retirement age wasn’t nearly as popular, with 52% of those surveyed opposed to the possibility that lawmakers would “phase in a small gradual increase in the retirement age for younger Americans.”

Sixty-eight percent of those polled didn’t support the idea that Congress could borrow more to offset the upcoming benefit cut.

The online poll, conducted by Global Strategy Group and North Star Opinion Research, surveyed 2,500 registered voters between Aug. 20 and Aug. 27. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — The cost of U.S. military operations in Iran has exceeded $40 billion and the war will continue to cost taxpayers between $2 billion and $3 billion per month, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 

The ongoing bombing campaign, which President Donald Trump launched alongside the Israeli government in February, has also significantly reduced American military weapons stockpiles, according to the analysis.

CBO Director Phillip L. Swagel wrote in a letter accompanying the report that “the main opportunity cost of the conflict thus far has been the large expenditure of missile defense interceptors, which will leave the United States with a reduced inventory of interceptors for several years. 

“The shortfall would become especially problematic if a conflict arose with an opponent whose arsenal included large numbers of ballistic and cruise missiles.”

Swagel noted in the letter that because the Defense Department “did not respond to CBO’s requests for information” the report “relied on government databases and public reports.”

“As a result, CBO’s estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty,” he wrote.

In addition to the direct costs, CBO expects the war to increase inflation in the first quarter of 2027 by 0.5 percentage points due to the rise in energy prices, predominantly caused by increased danger and difficulty navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

“CBO’s analysis does not assign financial costs to U.S. military personnel killed or injured in the conflict, nor does it include longer-term costs associated with future increases in outlays for veterans’ health care and disability compensation,” Swagel wrote. “It also does not include costs that could emerge in the future if ships, aircraft, and other equipment need repairs or additional maintenance as a result of their use in the conflict.”

Boyle request for numbers

The analysis stems from a request House Budget Committee ranking member Brendan Boyle submitted to CBO in March. 

The Pennsylvania Democrat wrote in a statement released Tuesday that the “disastrous war in Iran has already taken the lives of brave American servicemembers and left others wounded.”

“Beyond that human toll, this nonpartisan CBO report makes clear that the war has also cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and counting, while continuing to drive up costs,” Boyle added. “Donald Trump and Republicans have spent years telling Americans that we cannot afford to help families here at home, but apparently they can find tens of billions of dollars, and potentially much more, for a reckless war that is leaving Americans to pay the price.”

Inspectors general report

The CBO report differs somewhat from a report released earlier this week by inspectors general from the departments of Defense and State as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. 

That report estimated the war cost at $33.4 billion through June 29, though it didn’t include any costs since then. 

Neither report includes the cost of damaged military infrastructure, with Swagel writing it was “unable to estimate the cost of damage to U.S. bases and facilities in the Middle East for two reasons. 

“First, DoD has not provided CBO with information about the value of damaged or destroyed equipment and property. Second, the extent of repairs or rebuilding that DoD plans to undertake is unclear. And even if the bases were fully repaired or rebuilt, a portion of the costs of doing so could be paid by host nations.”

The inspectors general wrote their report “did not include the cost of military construction for damaged infrastructure in its estimate because the DoW has not determined what its future posture will be in the region, how it will construct its bases, and what percentage of the construction costs Allies and partners will contribute.”

Administration pleads for more war funding

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee in July that without extra money from Congress, the department would “face critical shortfalls that threaten” its ability to “pay our service members, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.”

The Trump administration asked Congress in June to provide $87.6 billion in emergency funding for the war as well as other expenses not covered in annual government spending bills. 

That supplemental request proposed $67.15 billion for the Defense Department, $3.36 billion for the State Department, $2.03 billion for the U.S. Coast Guard, $40.26 million for the FBI, $36.18 million for the Treasury Department’s office of terrorism and financial intelligence and $13.1 million for the Homeland Security Department’s operations and support account that was part of a “classified request.”

Congress has not yet approved the additional spending and isn’t likely to this month before both chambers return to the campaign trail ahead of November’s midterm elections. 

The inspectors general wrote in their report that because lawmakers have not provided dedicated funding for the Iran war that the Defense Department has “used base budget funds that otherwise would be used for standard operational activities, such as planned training and maintenance activities.”

WASHINGTON — Both chambers of Congress return to Capitol Hill this week for a brief session before heading back to the campaign trail until mid-November. 

The House will be in for one week and the Senate for three, giving Republicans little time to enact any laws or confirm nominees before voters decide whether to give them another two years in power. 

Lawmakers have already agreed to fund the government through Dec. 11, pushing off any need to reach bipartisan agreement on the dozen annual appropriations bills or risk a government shutdown. 

But they haven’t reached compromise on several other measures and are unlikely to do so until at least the lame-duck session, which spans five weeks in November and December. 

Left undone

Congress has so far opted not to approve legislation that could provide tens of billions in additional funding for the Defense Department amid the war in Iran. 

The two chambers haven’t brokered compromise on the different versions of the annual defense policy bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA. 

There’s no sign of significant progress on the years-delayed farm bill that is supposed to authorize agriculture and food aid programs. 

Republicans had discussed approving a third party-line package through the complex reconciliation process they used to enact their “big, beautiful” law and three years of funding for immigration enforcement. 

But the Senate needs to adopt a budget resolution before that process could begin and that doesn’t appear to be on the horizon this September. 

President Donald Trump’s insistence lawmakers approve nationwide voter registration and identification requirements is also not expected to become law, lacking the votes in the Senate to advance. 

AI stalemate

Lawmakers aren’t expected to make any progress on how to place guardrails on artificial intelligence amid increasingly dire warnings the technology could “kill us all” before the end of the decade.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union with Jake Tapper and Dana Bash” that he wanted tech company executives to work with lawmakers on striking the right balance. 

“We cannot put a moratorium on this because China will overlap us, and that’s the challenge,” he said. “It’s national security balanced with the immediate security of making sure the models are safe.”

Johnson said he and others in Congress understood the possible ramifications of letting AI run as it is now, but added that “the people who are creating these models have to have to ensure that their products are safe.” 

“But we also at the same time have to resist Congress jumping in and imposing some sort of emergency moratorium,” he said. “It’s got to be done right, safely, wisely.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had a different take on AI, writing in a statement released Monday that administration officials should brief senators in a classified setting. 

“The American people deserve better from their government at such a consequential moment. I have long argued that we must keep the U.S. as the global leader in AI innovation and security. But that innovation must be coupled with serious guardrails that earn the trust of the American public,” Schumer said. 

“Warning bells are ringing louder than they ever have – and the Trump administration is looking the other way. Well, if they won’t hold themselves accountable, we will. And if Trump does not act, Congress must.”

Nominees on tap

The Senate does have several pending nominees on its list that it could push through in the coming weeks, including Keith Sonderling for labor secretary, Sean Kaufman for assistant secretary for preparedness and response, and numerous judges. 

How much Congress accomplishes following the midterm elections will likely depend on what those results show. 

Democrats are unlikely to negotiate major policy or spending bills with Republicans if voters give them control of both chambers come January. 

A mixed result, possibly Democrats regaining the House but Republicans keeping control of the Senate, could lead to some deal-making later this year.