Category: Senate
Democrats unveil Venezuela war powers resolution
Senate Democrats, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on Wednesday filed a war powers resolution to prevent the United States from using the U.S. armed forces from engaging in hostilities with Venezuela without congressional approval. The resolution, filed by Paul and Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.),…
Rand Paul: Hegseth is either ‘lying to us’ about boat strike or ‘he’s incompetent’
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday sharply criticized Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth for defending a second military strike on survivors of an initial attack on an alleged drug boat in September, after the secretary first dismissed the bombshell report as “fake news.” In remarks to reporters at the Capitol, the libertarian senator said Hegseth…
Hegseth stands by ‘American hero’ admiral who issued second boat strike order
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth backed Navy Adm. Frank Bradley, who ordered a second strike on an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 2. “Lets make one thing crystal clear: Admiral Mitch Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support,” Hegseth said Monday on the social platform X….
Lawmakers raise alarms about possible war crimes after second boat strike report
Several lawmakers are pressing the Trump administration for answers after multiple outlets reported Friday that the U.S. conducted a follow-up strike on an alleged drug-smuggling boat in September. CNN and The Washington Post reported that on Sept. 2, the U.S. struck a vessel it accused of trafficking drugs off the coast of Venezuela a second…
‘A peacekeeper’: Capito honors memory of Sarah Beckstrom after National Guard shooting
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WOWK) – Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) says that U.S. Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom was a “peacekeeper” who showed courage and honor as she served the nation. Beckstrom, a member of the West Virginia National Guard, died Thursday at the age of 20. She was one of two guard members ambushed in what…
Schiff: 2025 Thanksgiving turkey price up ‘whopping 40 percent’
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said Sunday the price of this year’s Thanksgiving turkey is set to rise a “whopping 40 percent.” “So, we’re coming up on Thanksgiving, and it’s as good a time as any to try to take stock of Donald Trump’s promise to reduce costs for the American people. Well, grocery prices are…
How the Senate’s phony ‘deliberation’ crushes working Americans
The United States Senate is broken, and most Americans know it — including President Donald Trump. A chamber that once passed laws with a simple 51-vote majority, a practice that held for more than a century, now demands 60 votes for nearly anything of consequence.
Defenders call this the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” guarding minority rights. In reality, the 60-vote threshold is a rule the Senate invented in the last century — and one it can discard tomorrow.
The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.
Article I lists exactly seven situations that require a supermajority: overriding vetoes, ratifying treaties, convicting in impeachment, expelling members, proposing constitutional amendments, and two obscure quorum rules. Passing ordinary legislation is not on the list.
The Senate’s tradition of unlimited debate — the seed of modern filibusters — wasn’t designed to create a supermajority requirement. It was an accident.
In 1806, on Aaron Burr’s suggestion that the Senate rulebook was cluttered, the chamber deleted the “previous question” motion, the mechanism the House still uses to end debate and vote. No one understood the implications at the time. Filibusters didn’t appear until the 1830s, and even then they were rare because they required real endurance. Senators had to speak nonstop, often for days, until they collapsed or yielded.
How the filibuster became a weapon
Everything changed in 1917. After 11 anti-war senators filibustered Woodrow Wilson’s bill to arm merchant ships on the eve of World War I, the public revolted. Wilson demanded action. The Senate responded by creating Rule XXII — the first cloture rule — allowing two-thirds of senators to end debate.
Instead of restraining obstruction, the rule supercharged it. For the first time, a minority didn’t need to speak until exhaustion. They only needed to threaten it. The majority now had to assemble a supermajority to progress.
The filibuster transformed from a test of stamina into a tool for avoiding hard votes — and, today, a convenient excuse to delay or kill the America First agenda.
The Senate has rewritten its filibuster rule many times since. In 1975, it lowered the cloture threshold from two-thirds to three-fifths (60 votes). In 2013, Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most presidential nominees; in 2017, Republicans applied that same exception to Supreme Court justices.
These changes all point to the same reality: The filibuster is not a sacred tradition. It is a standing rule, created and amended by simple-majority votes. The Senate can change it again any time.
The myth of ‘unprecedented change’
Filibuster defenders insist that ending the 60-vote rule would be radical.
It wouldn’t. In reality, it would restore the practice that governed the Senate for its first 128 years — unlimited debate, yes, but no supermajority threshold for passing laws.
RELATED: Democrats reject ‘current policy’ — unless it pays their base
DOUGBERRY via iStock/Getty Images
Defenders also claim the filibuster forces compromise. History says otherwise. The biggest legislative achievements of the last century — Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act — all passed when the filibuster was weakened, bypassed, or irrelevant.
What we have now is not deliberation. It is paralysis: a rule that allows 41 senators, representing as little as 11% of the country, to veto the will of the rest. The Senate already protects small states through equal representation and long tenures. Adding a 60-vote requirement for routine governance is not what the framers intended.
The fix
The solution is straightforward. The Senate can return to simple-majority voting for legislation. It can keep unlimited debate if it wishes — but require a real talking filibuster that ends when the minority runs out of arguments or public patience. Or it can leave the system as it is now and watch President Trump’s America First agenda stall for another generation.
The filibuster is not a 230-year constitutional safeguard. It is a 108-year experiment born in 1917 — and it has failed. The Senate invented it. The Senate can un-invent it.
Vance: Illegal for members of Congress to tell military to defy legal orders from president
Vice President Vance said Sunday that six Democratic lawmakers violated the law by telling service members to disobey illegal orders. “If the president hasn’t issued illegal orders, then members of Congress telling the military to defy the president is by definition illegal,” Vance said on the social platform X. Earlier this week, Democratic Sens. Elissa…
State Department denies claims about Russian origins of Trump’s Ukraine peace plan
State Department officials on Saturday aggressively pushed back on claims shared by some senators that President Trump’s 28-point plan for peace in Ukraine originated from Russia and is not the administration’s position. Earlier on Saturday, PBS NewsHour correspondent Nick Schifrin reported comments from Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Angus King (I-Maine) where the lawmakers claimed…
A payout scheme for senators deepens the gap between DC and the rest of us
During the final hours of the shutdown fight earlier this month, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) slipped a toxic provision into the continuing resolution that reopened the government. The clause created a special pathway for select senators to sue the federal government, bypass its usual legal defenses, and claim large payouts if their records were subpoenaed during the Arctic Frost investigation.
The result? About eight senators could demand $500,000 for every “instance” of seized data. Those instances could stack, pushing potential payouts into the tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. That is not an exaggeration. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has all but celebrated the prospect.
Graham said he wanted ‘tens of millions of dollars’ for seized records while victims of weaponization still face shattered lives.
No one else would qualify for compensation. Only senators. Anyone who spent years helping victims of political weaponization — often pro bono, while prestige law firms chased billable hours — can see the corruption in plain view. The message this provision sends on the central Trump-era promise of accountability could not be weaker: screw the people, pay the pols.
The surveillance of senators was wrong. It should never have happened. But senators did not face what ordinary Americans endured. Senators maintain large campaign accounts to hire top lawyers. They operate out of official offices, armed with constitutional protections such as the Speech and Debate Clause. They do not lose their homes, jobs, savings, or businesses. Thousands of Americans did. Many still face legal bills, ruined livelihoods, and ongoing cases. They deserve restitution — not the politicians who failed them.
Graham helped push this provision forward. As public criticism grew, he defended it. On Sean Hannity’s show the other day, he said: “My phone records were seized. I’m not going to put up with this crap. I’m going to sue.” Hannity asked how much. Graham replied: “Tens of millions of dollars.”
Democrats will replay that clip across every battleground in the country going into an uphill midterm battle in 2026.
Graham embodies the worst messenger for this fight. He helped fuel weaponization long before he claimed victimhood. He urged the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to pass the Steele dossier to the FBI. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did nothing to slow the Justice Department and FBI as they pursued political targets. He even supported many of President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees who later embraced aggressive lawfare tactics. If anyone owed restitution to victims, Graham sits high on the list.
RELATED: Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine
Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images
Fortunately, enough Republicans recognize the political and moral disaster of funneling taxpayer funds to senators while real victims remain abandoned. The House advanced a measure today to repeal the provision. Led by Reps. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) and Chip Roy (R-Texas), the House forced the Senate to address in public what it attempted to smuggle through in private.
Thune defended the measure in comments to Axios. He argued that only senators suffered statutory violations and said the provision was crafted to avoid covering House members. He did not explain why any House member who was illegally surveilled should receive no remedy.
The Senate leader also claimed the financial penalty would deter a future Justice Department from targeting lawmakers, citing the actions of special counsel Jack Smith. His emphasis on “future” misconduct glossed over a critical fact: The provision is retroactive and would cover past abuses.
That defense cannot survive daylight. Repeal requires 60 Senate votes, and not a single Democrat will fight to preserve a payout for Graham. Republicans should not try either. Efforts to strike the measure need to begin immediately. Senators — especially Thune — should commit to an up-or-down vote. If they want to send tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Graham, they should do it in public, with the country watching.
Washington already reeks of grift and self-dealing this year. If senators protect this provision, that smell will spread nationwide.
