WASHINGTON — Democratic leaders in Congress have just a couple months to decide how they want to balance investigations into President Donald Trump and his administration with securing his signature on major bills to address the cost of living, a top concern for voters.

While Democrats gained control of the House and Senate in this year’s midterm elections, the party won’t hold veto-proof margins when the new session of Congress begins in early January. That will require congressional leaders and the president to find compromise on legislation.

Failure to do so would block any bills that could improve the lives of Americans from becoming law and potentially lead to more shutdowns, since Congress must fund the government every year. 

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who will very likely become speaker in January, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, will set the tone for that relationship, though committee chairs will play a significant role as well.

Trump said during an impromptu press conference Wednesday in the construction zone for his White House ballroom that he will “get along, probably, with the Democrats unless they want to be destructive. But I have the power of the veto.”

Trump said he wasn’t concerned about Democrats potentially trying to impeach him for a third time. 

“I think it would destroy the Democrat Party if they did that,” he said. 

‘Trump’s supplicant Senate’

Schumer said earlier in the morning his top priorities will be to address the rising cost of living, to “clean up corruption in government” and act as a check on “Trump’s chaos at home and abroad.”

“This war must end,” he said. “And make no mistake, whenever Trump defies the will of the American people or the law, we will launch investigations, take him to court and entangle him in legislative razor wire. The days of Trump’s supplicant Senate are over.”

Trump said during his press conference that the war in Iran will continue until “whenever” he wants to end it.

Schumer said he’d share more details in the weeks ahead about what the Democratic majority will do come January, but added he hadn’t yet spoken to the president about how the two separate but equal branches of government might work together. 

Democrats, he said, will use must-pass government funding bills to place guardrails on the administration and the war in Iran, though he didn’t say how he’d get the president to sign those bills. 

“We are going to end the war,” he said. “We have some Republicans already who have joined us in ending the war and the founding fathers had the power of the purse as one of the ways of deterring a president who does war without the consent of the American people.”

Schumer sidestepped a question about whether he would try to eliminate the legislative filibuster, which has forced bipartisanship in that chamber for decades. The rule requires at least 60 senators vote to advance a bill before it can move onto final passage.  

“The first thing we’re going to do is reduce people’s costs and work the legislative process so it does,” he said in response to the reporter’s question. 

Schumer also declined to say directly whether Democrats will seek to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a process that would start in the House. 

“Everyone will make their own interpretation of what it meant in terms of Hegseth,” he said, responding to a question about the election results. 

Schumer intends to seek the role of majority leader, according to his office. No Democrats have announced they plan to challenge him, making the race unopposed. 

Medicaid cuts targeted

Jeffries said during an afternoon press conference that Democrats “are ready, willing and able to find bipartisan common ground with the other side of the aisle as long as we can bring about meaningful change on the issues that matter. And that begins with decisively addressing the affordability crisis.”

But he also made clear House Democrats’ to-do list will begin with reversing changes and cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal health program for lower-income people, that Republicans included in their “big, beautiful” bill, as well as restoring the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits that lapsed at the end of last year. 

Jeffries did seem to brush aside the possibility of impeaching Trump or Hegseth, responding to questions by asking if Hegseth was actually still around.

“I haven’t had a single member of the House Democratic Caucus talk to me about impeachment,” he said. “We’ve been relentlessly focused on affordability and on accountability because the House is a separate and co-equal branch of government.”

House Democrats are likely to reverse Republicans’ “hands off” approach to artificial intelligence and data centers with their majority. 

California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu said during the same press conference that it was a “bad decision” for Republicans to “let the AI industry run wild.”

“Two things will change next term,” he said. “We will hold public hearings on AI. We will pass legislation, reasonable guardrails on AI, and specifically data centers. You see huge pushback from the American people for the out-of-control AI industry.”

Republican leadership battle ahead

Republican leaders will play a role in brokering deals with Democrats, though Senate GOP lawmakers will have more influence than their House counterparts. 

House Democrats will be able to pass most legislation with a simple majority vote. But in the Senate, Democratic leaders will still need to garner some level of bipartisan support to advance bills unless they eliminate the procedural step that requires at least 60 senators to vote to move toward final passage. 

Senate Republican Leader John Thune, R-S.D., plans to run for another term heading up his party in that chamber, though this time as minority leader, according to a spokesperson. 

Thune, first elected to the Senate in 2004, rose through the ranks of Senate GOP leadership before taking over as majority leader this Congress. That gives him two years of experience negotiating floor schedules and amendment debate with Schumer. 

In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., plans to step down from leadership rather than try to stay in the top spot, which will be minority leader for the GOP next year, according to a spokesperson. 

Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise, currently the majority leader, and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, are both running for that role. 

An individual familiar with Scalise’s plans told States Newsroom his “number one goal will be to lead the conference back into the majority. He is a proven and tested leader who is ready on day one. He’s spent his career unifying Republicans, and he is prepared for the big legislative and oversight battles ahead. The conference knows him, how he fights, and that he’s a trusted leader.”

Jordan wrote in a letter to his fellow House Republicans that the party “must learn” from the results of this year’s election as it looks forward. 

“I am battle-tested on the oversight front and I know the Democrats’ playbook. I know what it will take to lead our Conference in the minority, to stay unified, and to coordinate and calibrate our response to the Democrats’ tactics,” he wrote.” We need a Leadership team that is active and engaged, forward-thinking and straight-shooting.”

Scalise has been a member of the House since May 2008 and a member of House GOP leadership since 2013, first as whip then as leader. 

Jordan was first sworn in as a member in January 2007. He became chairman of the Judiciary Committee four years ago.

Trump said he planned to “stay out” of that race and that he didn’t ask Johnson to step aside as the leader of House Republicans. 

Those elections are expected in mid-November. Whoever House Republicans elect will set the tone for when to negotiate legislation with Democrats and when to try to block bills from passing that chamber. 

WASHINGTON — Voting ended Tuesday in this year’s midterm elections, leaving officials and volunteers counting tens of millions of ballots to determine which U.S. House and Senate candidates will take the oath of office in January.

The post-election process includes numerous steps and varying deadlines for when ballots have to be certified, since each state has different laws governing not only what happens on Election Day but what happens afterward.

Once local and state election officials wrap up their work, the process moves to Congress, which has its own rules and procedures. The Constitution also gives the House and Senate final say over whether to seat someone.

Here’s a look at what’s next and where issues could arise, aside from lawsuits that may be filed or already in progress.

When will there be official results? 

Counting ballots and certifying the results takes at least a week in most states, often longer.

Kyle Yoder, research director at The Center for Election Innovation & Research, said that is exactly the type of deliberative process voters should want and expect. He also cautioned the results news organizations report in the hours and sometimes days after Nov. 3 aren’t final totals. 

“Results aren’t official until every ballot has been counted by every eligible voter,” he said. “That process takes time, and when you sit back and think about it, you want it to take time because what we want is for that count to be correct, for it to be accurate, for it to be complete.”

Yoder added that the “biggest point of confusion that we run into when we’re talking to voters about all this is they think the results they’re seeing on their TV on election night are the final results.” 

The Associated Press, which many news organizations look to for race calls, explains how its experts decide when to announce a winner and when to wait for more ballots to be counted. The Election Law Program, a collaborative effort between William & Mary Law School and the National Center for State Courts, has timelines for the various state deadlines. 

How long can states take to recount ballots?

After election officials certify the first count of ballots, especially close races can head into a recount. Some state laws require it automatically if the margin of victory is under a certain percentage. In other circumstances, specific people can request a recount, typically the runner-up, though some state laws allow voters or even political parties to request another count. 

“In many states, election recounts, legal challenges to the results, etcetera, can only begin once results have been certified,” Yoder said. “So it is in the interest of politicians who may be saber-rattling to allow certification to happen, so that they can begin those recounts, legal challenges.”

States have various deadlines for how long those recounts can last. But they can drag on amid lawsuits and Congress has the authority in some cases to conduct its own recount. 

Who decides which candidate wins an election and can the official decide not to send a certificate of election to Congress?

James Alcorn, senior director of the Election Law Program at the William & Mary Law School, said “it depends” on the state law, but that statewide races are typically certified by a secretary of state or a state board of elections.

“For an office that is not statewide, that may be certified at a local level, and in some states, congressional races are going to be similar,” he said.

There are very few modern examples of a local or state election official not sending a certificate of election before the new Congress convenes in early January. And those were due to ongoing lawsuits. 

New York Republican Rep. Claudia Tenney wasn’t sworn in until February 2021, more than three months after the election, amid a lawsuit over the outcome. The election was ultimately resolved when a state Supreme Court justice ordered election officials to certify the race and her opponent decided not to appeal the decision.  

Following an especially contentious election in North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District in 2018, the state board of elections decided not to certify either candidate as the winner and called for a special election. That seat had no representative in the U.S. House from early January until September. 

It took nearly eight months following the 2008 election for Democratic Sen. Al Franken to join the upper chamber of Congress amid a legal fight over the vote tally that ended at the Minnesota Supreme Court. 

What happens once a state sends the certificate of election to the House or Senate?

The House Clerk uses the certificates to compile the list of members-elect that is used on the first day of the new Congress to determine who can vote for Speaker. Once that first step is complete, members normally take their oaths and move on to other matters. 

Certificates of election must be sent to the Secretary of the Senate before newly elected or reelected members can take their oath in early January. 

“After the opening prayer and recitation of the pledge, the vice president of the United States, who serves as the president of the Senate, announces the receipt of certificates,” according to a post from the Senate Historical Office. “Following established tradition, senators-elect are then escorted down the center aisle of the Senate Chamber to the presiding officer’s desk.”

Only newly elected or reelected senators, about one-third of the chamber, are sworn in since it’s what’s known as a “continuing body.” That’s a very different set of rules than in the House, where every lawmaker typically takes the oath on the first day. 

Can either chamber of Congress refuse to seat someone with a certificate of election? 

Yes. The Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the power to be the “Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members.”

The Federal Contested Elections Act, a 1960s law, gives the House Administration Committee the ability to investigate the results of certain elections and make a recommendation to the full chamber about which candidate to seat. The law, which doesn’t apply to the Senate, gives the committee the authority to accept the certified results from election officials or conduct its own recount. Any recommendation would need to be approved or rejected by a majority vote on the House floor. 

Complaints have been filed under the FCEA several times during the past few decades, including after the 2020 election, when Iowa Democratic candidate Rita Hart asked the House to decide whether Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks won the race. The panel investigated for months before Hart withdrew the complaint in April 2021.

A report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service says that “FCEA contests rarely change election results, as doing so typically requires the House to overturn a state-certified election result.”

There is a separate process on the first day of a new Congress that allows any member-elect to object to another member-elect taking the oath. 

Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy tried this unsuccessfully in January 2021. It was rejected following a 371-2 vote of members-elect who had yet to take their oaths. Roy voted in favor of the resolution, which directed the speaker “to administer the oath of office to all Representatives-elect.”

The Senate also holds the ability to look into and ultimately decide the winner of a contested election, likely through the Rules and Administration Committee. 

The chamber’s official website on disputed elections notes that “a senator with the proper credentials against whom a challenge had been filed would be seated ‘without prejudice.’”

“Under this arrangement, if a committee investigation later determined that for some reason the individual was not entitled to a seat, he could be ‘excluded’ from the Senate by a simple majority vote, as opposed to having to be expelled, which required a two-thirds majority,” the webpage continues. 

The post later adds that the Senate historically has not intervened “where legal action in the federal or state courts was appropriate, and it seldom took very seriously the claims of a contestant who had failed to follow these avenues of redress. 

“Similarly, when a losing candidate demanded a recount of ballots, the Senate preferred to become involved only if the state law made no provision for such a recount. Still, in some cases the Senate felt impelled to act, and the sealed ballot boxes were shipped to Washington where staff members, carefully observed by representatives of both candidates, scrutinized the ballots and election records for possible irregularities.”

WASHINGTON — Democrats will regain control of the U.S. House early next year, after voters throughout the country rejected the policies that Republicans and President Donald Trump implemented during the last two years. 

The Associated Press, which States Newsroom looks to for the projected winner of congressional races, called the House for Democrats early Wednesday morning after the party passed the 218-seat threshold. 

While there are still some close races without a declared winner, the latest unofficial results show both the House and Senate will flip to Democratic majorities in early January when the next session of Congress begins. 

Democrats are on track to have at least 228 lawmakers in the House and a minimum of 54 in the Senate, giving them considerable negotiating leverage with Trump, if he chooses to broker bipartisan agreements. 

Trump, who was watching the returns from the White House, wrote in a social media post that he wasn’t responsible for the Republican losses. 

“I wasn’t on the Ballot and if I was, we would have won IN A LANDSLIDE! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” he wrote.

Trump later posted an image of a red baseball cap with the word “VETO” embroidered into it, indicating he may not be open to working with Democrats despite the signal voters sent. 

New York Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who is expected to become the first Black speaker, celebrated late Tuesday night as early returns showed the party was poised to flip that chamber of Congress. 

“The American people have spoken and made clear they’ve had enough of the extremism, enough of the corruption,” he said. “They want a Congress that’s going to deliver for the American people, and that is exactly what House Democrats will do as soon as we get into office in January.” 

Democrats, he said, understand voters expect the party to “deliver dramatic change” to help people struggling with the rising cost of living. 

Jeffries also pledged to “bring accountability to those who have visited unprecedented corruption on this country.”

“Because if you have people in high office who are so focused on enriching themselves, their family members, their friends, or their donors, then they’re not focused on making life better for the American people,” he said. 

Louisiana Republican Rep. Mike Johnson, the current speaker, wrote in a statement that “the American people have made the same decision that has been made in all but two midterms in the last century.”

“While the outcome of this midterm is not what we’d hoped and fought for, a new battle is just beginning,” Johnson wrote. “This Democrat House majority will be led by the most radical and extreme leftists in American history. However, Republicans will never stop fighting to defend the Constitution and protect the foundations that have made America the greatest nation in the history of the world.”

Johnson told GOP colleagues on a Wednesday morning call he would not run for House minority leader, according to reports.

Democrats are likely to launch a series of investigations — and possibly impeachment proceedings — into the president and members of his administration.

The simmering tension between the two parties is only projected to grow amid divided government, but Republicans and Democrats will need to work together on issues like government funding if they want to avoid more record-setting shutdowns. 

Republicans have so far lost a total of 25 seats to Democrats, including some that were considered safe for GOP candidates. 

• California’s 1st district, where state Sen. Mike McGuire defeated Republican incumbent James Gallagher.
• California’s 3rd district went to incumbent Democratic Rep. Ami Bera, who was redistricted after the state redrew lines to favor Democrats. 
• California’s 41st district went to incumbent Democratic Rep. Linda Sánchez, who was redistricted after the state redrew lines to favor Democrats. 
• Colorado’s 8th district, where former state Rep. Manny Rutinel beat GOP incumbent Gabe Evans. 
• In Indiana’s 5th district, Rep. Victoria Spartz lost to Democratic candidate J.D. Ford.
• Iowa’s 1st district went to Democratic candidate Christina Bohannan, who beat incumbent Rep. Mariannette Miller‑Meeks.
• In Iowa’s 2nd district, Democratic candidate Lindsay James beat GOP candidate Joe Mitchell.
• Iowa’s 3rd district went to Democratic candidate Sarah Trone Garriott, who won against GOP incumbent Zach Nunn.
• Kentucky’s 6th district, where former Assistant U.S. Attorney Zach Dembo, a Democrat, won. 
• Missouri’s 2nd district went to Democratic candidate Fred Wellman, who defeated Rep. Ann Wagner.
• Nebraska’s 2nd district, where Democratic candidate Denise Powell defeated GOP candidate Brinker Harding. Both were vying for the seat by retiring GOP Rep. Don Bacon, a moderate Republican who is a frequent critic of the president. 
• Republican Rep. Thomas Kean Jr. lost his reelection bid in New Jersey’s 17th district after he missed more than 100 votes from March to June, which he attributed to depression he was undergoing treatment for. 
• North Carolina Republican Rep. Chuck Edwards lost after he suspended his reelection campaign following an ethics complaint of inappropriate behavior toward female staffers. 
• In Ohio’s 7th district, Rep Max Miller lost his reelection.
• Ohio’s 15th district, where Democratic candidate Don Leonard defeated Republican incumbent Mike Carey. 
• Four were in Pennsylvania. Incumbents Ryan Mackenzie of district 7 and Rob Bresnahan of district 8, who flipped their districts in 2024 lost. Scott Perry, who was seeking an eighth term, also lost his reelection. In district 1, GOP incumbent Brian Fitzpatrick lost to Democratic candidate Bob Harvie. 
• In Texas’ 15th district, Tejano musician and Democratic candidate Bobby Pulido defeated GOP Rep. Monica De La Cruz.
• In the 23rd district of Texas, Democratic candidate Katy Padilla Stout defeated Republican candidate Brandon Herrera.
• Utah’s 1st district went to Democratic candidate Ben McAdams who defeated GOP candidate Riley Owen.
• In Virginia’s 2nd district, GOP incumbent Jen A. Kiggans lost to Democratic candidate Elaine G. Luria.
• Wisconsin’s 1st district went to Democratic candidate Mitchell Berman, who defeated GOP Rep. Bryan Steil.
• In Wisconsin’s 3rd district, Democratic candidate Rebecca Cooke beat GOP incumbent Derrick Van Orden.

Jonathan Shorman contributed to this report. 

WASHINGTON — Communities throughout the country have been inundated with television ads and outside spending as politicians try to spur voter turnout in the most competitive U.S. House races in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

The focus on a short list of campaigns highlights how much power voters in a small number of congressional districts have to determine whether Republicans keep control of that chamber for the next two years or Democrats take over. 

The choices Americans make before voting ends on Election Day will determine not only which bills House lawmakers debate during the next Congress, but whether they launch investigations of President Donald Trump and his administration. 

With a short time left before election officials begin counting ballots, there are just 16 House races rated as toss-ups as of Oct. 29 by at least two of the three prominent election analysts — the Cook Political Report with Amy Walter, Inside Elections and Sabato’s Crystal Ball. 

Here’s the list:

California’s 22nd District 

Republican Rep. David Valadao has been a member of Congress since 2013, except during 2019 and 2020. Democratic challenger Randy Villegas, a community college professor, hopes to unseat the incumbent with a progressive message that’s garnered the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent. The redrawn district spans Fresno to Bakersfield. CalMatters reports voter registration at 42% Democratic, 26% Republican and 24% no party preference. More details on this race and others can be found in the nonprofit newsroom’s voter guide. 

Florida’s 14th District 

Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor, a member of the House for two decades, is seeking another term, while former state Rep. Mike Beltran, the Republican nominee, hopes to unseat her. The redrawn district now covers a large section of Hillsborough County in addition to sections of Tampa, making it somewhat more favorable to Republicans. The race is one of only five rated as a toss-up by all three election analysts. More details on the two candidates in the Florida Phoenix voter guide. 

Florida’s 22nd District 

The reshaped district that covers parts of Broward, Collier, Hendry and Palm Beach counties has no incumbent running for reelection this year. Democrat Pia Dandiya and Republican Casey Askar are both vying for this particular seat for the first time. Florida Phoenix has more on the race here. 

Iowa’s 2nd District 

The district, spanning parts of northeast Iowa, including Dubuque, Cedar Rapids and Waterloo, is open after Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson decided to seek a U.S. Senate seat instead. State Rep. Lindsay James, a Democrat, and former state Rep. Joe Mitchell, a Republican, are among the candidates seeking the seat. Voters in this corner of Iowa strongly favored Hinson last time, giving her 57.1% of the vote. Read more in Iowa Capital Dispatch’s voter guide. 

Kentucky’s 6th District 

Republican Rep. Andy Barr, who won the last election with 63% of the vote, is not seeking another term in the House, clearing the way for voters to pick from a group of non-incumbents. The frontrunners are largely expected to be former state Sen. Ralph Alvarado, a Republican, and former Assistant U.S. Attorney Zach Dembo, a Democrat. The district in northeastern Kentucky starts just east of Frankfort and includes Lexington and Richmond. The Kentucky Lantern’s voter guide can be found here.

Michigan’s 4th District 

Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga, first elected to Congress in 2010, is seeking another term, this time against Democratic challenger Sean McCann, a state senator. Huizenga won his last election with 55.1% of the vote. The district south of Grand Rapids largely hugs the coast of Lake Michigan. It includes Benton Harbor, Holland and Kalamazoo. The Michigan Advance’s voter guide can be found here. 

Michigan’s 7th District 

Republican Rep. Tom Barrett, a first-term congressman, is attempting to fend off a challenge from Democratic candidate William Lawrence, co-founder of the progressive Sunrise Movement. Barrett won his last election with 50.3% of the vote. The district includes a section of central Michigan that covers Howell and Lansing. Republicans have allocated $28.4 million to ad spending in this race, while Democrats have dedicated $19.4 million, which is the third highest of any House race, according to AdImpact. The race is one of only five rated as a toss-up by all three election analysts. More info on the candidates and the race can be found in the Michigan Advance’s voter guide. 

Michigan’s 10th District 

The open seat will give voters the chance to choose between Republican Mike Bouchard, an Army veteran, and Democrat Christina Hines, a local prosecutor. The district, just northeast of Detroit, includes Saint Clair Shores, Warren, Sterling Heights and Rochester. Republican Rep. John James, who won his last election with 51.1% of the vote, opted to run for governor instead. Additional details in the Michigan Advance’s voter guide. 

Montana’s 1st District 

Republican Rep. Ryan Zinke’s decision not to seek reelection made the district, which covers much of the western side of the state, one of more than 70 open seats with no incumbent. Republican Aaron Flint, a radio talk show host, and Democrat Sam Forstag, a smokejumper wildland firefighter, both hope to represent the region’s voters during the next Congress. Zinke won the last election with 52.3% of the vote. The Daily Montanan’s voter guide can be found here. 

New York’s 17th District 

Republican Rep. Mike Lawler is seeking a third term from voters in the district that spans parts of the lower Hudson Valley, including sections of Westchester and Rockland counties. Democratic candidate Cait Conley seeks to unseat him. Lawler secured reelection last time with 52.2% of the vote. The race is one of many throughout the country that House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries has traveled to in an attempt to rally voters. The race is one of only five rated as a toss-up by all three election analysts. New York Focus’ election guide can be found here. 

North Carolina’s 1st District 

Democratic Rep. Don Davis, who was first elected in 2022, is trying to secure reelection amid a challenge from Republican candidate Laurie Buckhout. The redrawn district covers much of the northeastern corner of the state, including the Outer Banks, Rocky Mount and New Bern. The race has the most ad spending of any House campaign, according to AdImpact, which reports Democrats have spent $29.6 million and Republicans have dedicated $23.3 million. More details in NC Newsline’s voter guide. 

Ohio’s 7th District 

Republican Rep. Max Miller, who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for allegations he “may have engaged in domestic violence and abuse or illegal drug use,” is seeking a third term. Democratic candidate Brian Poindexter, a Brook Park City councilman, is trying to unseat him. The campaign has been especially contentious. The slightly redrawn district begins just outside Cleveland and covers Medina and Wooster. The race is one of only five rated as a toss-up by all three election analysts. The Ohio Capital Journal’s voter guide, which has information on other races, can be found here.

Ohio’s 9th District 

Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur has been a member of the House since January 1983, making her the longest serving woman in the chamber. She is seeking a 23rd term, though former state Rep. Derek Merrin, a Republican, hopes to defeat her. The redrawn district covers a small section of the Lake Erie coastline, including Sandusky and Toledo, before moving inward to the Michigan and Indiana borders. It is generally considered more favorable to Republicans than it was during the last election. The race is one of only five rated as a toss-up by all three election analysts. The Ohio Capital Journal’s voter guide, which has information on other races, can be found here.

Texas’ 15th District 

Republican Rep. Monica De La Cruz is one of many incumbents in Texas seeking reelection in a redrawn district, which now covers a different section of the Rio Grande Valley, just north of the Mexico border. Democratic candidate Bobby Pulido, an award-winning musician, hopes to defeat her. The Texas Tribune’s voter guide has details on this race as well as everything else on the ballot. 

Texas’ 35th District 

Voters in and around San Antonio will have two entirely new candidates to choose from in the redrawn district — Republican Carlos De La Cruz and Democrat Johnny Garcia. The Texas Tribune has more details on the race here. 

Virginia’s 1st District 

Republican Rep. Rob Wittman, who joined the House in December 2007 following a special election, is seeking another two-year term. Henrico County Commonwealth’s Attorney Shannon Taylor, the Democratic candidate, hopes voters will choose her instead. The district, like many in the country, is somewhat oddly shaped. It wraps around the top of Richmond and then extends out to the Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia Mercury’s voter guide has more information on this race and others.

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.