Senate advances legislation to withhold pay from senators during government shutdowns
The U.S. Capitol Building dome, on May 12, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Graeme Sloan/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — In an unanimous 99-0 vote, the Senate on Wednesday advanced a resolution to withhold pay from senators during a government shutdown.
Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts did not vote on the resolution, which was introduced by Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana.
The vote was a procedural one. The legislation now moves toward final passage, and is expected to pass with resounding support.
The legislation, which would take effect after the November 2026 election, would instruct the secretary of the Senate to place senators’ paychecks on hold during the duration of any future federal government shutdowns. Those payments would be released to lawmakers only after the government reopens.
While multiple similar House bills have been introduced, it’s unclear if legislation in the lower chamber will pass.
“Take your brain with you, because this is about shared sacrifice. This is about putting our money where our mouth is,” Sen. Kennedy said on the Senate floor ahead of Wednesday’s vote.
Kennedy’s resolution comes after federal workers faced a historic 43-day government shutdown late last year caused by a deadlock between parties over Affordable Care Act subsidies.
During that time, approximately 670,000 federal workers were furloughed, 60,000 workers outside the federal government lost their jobs and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients lost out on benefits all while members of Congress continued to get paid — highlighting the disparity of financial pain endured by members of Congress and the people they serve.
Calls for withholding pay from members of Congress continued to grow this year during the record 75-day partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. Transportation Security Administration agents, Coast Guard members and other department employees went without pay as a stalemate played out on Capitol Hill over immigration enforcement funding and oversight reforms.
Democratic Texas State Rep. James Talarico speaks during a campaign launch rally, September 9, 2025 in Round Rock, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — With just one month until the high-stakes primary election in the Texas U.S. Senate race, Democrats are butting heads, with Democratic State Rep. James Talarico pushing back on allegations that he made controversial remarks about the race of his former opponent.
Talarico on Monday responded to a video from former Rep. Colin Allred, who is running for Texas’ 33rd Congressional District, that Talarico made comments critical of Allred on the basis of race.
On Sunday, a TikTok creator alleged that Talarico, in a private conversation, said that Allred was a “mediocre Black man” and that he would would rather run against Allred than Rep. Jasmine Crockett, whom he allegedly called a “formidable and intelligent Black woman.” The TikTok creator, who had previously supported Talarico, posted that the conversation happened after a town hall in Plano, Texas, in January.
Talarico’s campaign told ABC News that the individual was never a member of the campaign team. Talarico has not denied the conversation took place, but has said it was taken out of context.
Talarico, who is white, is running against Crockett in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate. Allred had previously announced a Senate bid, but dropped out of the race to run for the House again, saying Crockett’s entering of the race contributed to his decision.
In a video posted on X Monday afternoon, Allred endorsed Crockett and criticized Talarico for his alleged comments.
Allred claimed that Talarico “had the temerity and the audacity to say to a Black woman that he had signed up to run against a ‘mediocre Black man,’ meaning me, and not a ‘formidable, intelligent Black woman,’ meaning Jasmine Crockett.”
Talarico pushed back on the claims, arguing that the allegations are “a mischaracterization of a private conversation.”
“In my praise of Congresswoman Crockett, I described Congressman Allred’s method of campaigning as mediocre — but his life and service are not. I would never attack him on the basis of race,” Talarico said in a statement posted to X by his spokesperson.
Talarico added that he “understand[s]” how his criticism could be perceived incorrectly “given this country’s painful legacy of racism,” but emphasized his deep “respect” for Allred.
Crockett reacted to the news, thanking Allred for his endorsement and praising him for being “an even-tempered and measured person who doesn’t engage in pettiness” — though she notably did not criticize her opponent or mention him by name.
“It’s unfortunate that at the start of Black History Month, this is what we’re facing. In former Congressman Colin Allred’s video, he drew a line in the sand. He made it clear that he did not take allegations of an attack on him as simply another day in the neighborhood,” Crockett’s spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News.
Earlier Monday, Talarico appeared on ABC’s “The View” and emphasized his “deep love and respect” for Crockett, saying that he will “1,000 percent” support and assist her if she were to become the Democratic nominee over him. The Democratic nominee would face off in November with incumbent Republican John Cornyn or one of his primary challengers, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt.
While the allegations against Talarico were not discussed during his appearance on “The View,” he elaborated on his Senate campaign, calling for the overhaul of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and celebrating recent Democratic wins in Texas.
Reacting to the news of Liam Ramos, the 5-year-old asylum seeker who was released from a Texas detention center on Sunday, Talarico slammed the current tactics being deployed by ICE before demanding an overhaul and reorganization of the agency.
“It’s time to tear down this secret police force and replace it with an agency that is actually going to focus on public safety,” he said on “The View.”
Though Talarico has stopped short of explicitly calling for the abolition of ICE, he has repeatedly expressed a desire to reallocate funding while also maintaining border security.
Over the weekend, Democrats delivered an upset victory in the Texas Senate District 9, where Democrat Taylor Rehmet defeated President Donald Trump-endorsed GOP candidate, Leigh Wambsganss, and flipped the reliably red seat.
When asked about what he would do to win over the voters that Rehmet had flipped, Talarico emphasized that he is “not writing off any voter” or “any community.”
“I’m extending an open hand instead of a closed fist, and in my experience, if you extend that open hand, you’ll be surprised by who takes it,” Talarico said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by California Republicans to block a newly redrawn congressional map backed by Democrats and endorsed by voters ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
The move allows the state to move forward with a map enacted by Proposition 50, approved in November, that could potentially allow Democrats to flip five seats currently held by Republicans.
California’s mid-decade map change was backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party in response to efforts by Texas and other Republican-led states to redraw their maps — at President Donald Trump’s urging — in order to give Republicans a better chance at retaining majority control of Congress.
“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas. He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November,” Newsom posted on X on Wednesday after the Supreme Court’s order.
The California Republican Party in January filed an emergency application with the nation’s high court to try to prohibit California from using the map while their appeal moved forward, arguing it was drawn predominantly based on race.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday did not explain its decision in a single-sentence order. There were no noted dissents.
Late last year, the Supreme Court declined to block the Texas map, citing a desire to refrain from interference in the political process too close to an election and broad deference to state legislators who insisted they acted in good faith and no racial animus.
Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, accompanied by U.S. President Donald Trump (R), and his son X Musk, speaks during an executive order signing in the Oval Office at the White House on February 11, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — One year after Elon Musk began an unprecedented attempt to eliminate swaths of the federal government, newly released deposition videos are providing a never-before-seen look at two of the people responsible for the largest mass termination of federal grants in the National Endowment for the Humanities’ history.
According to the depositions and other materials released as part of a civil lawsuit related to the funding cuts, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) relied on ChatGPT to identify more than $100 million in grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that were later cancelled.
When President Donald Trump returned to office last January, he empowered Musk to slash federal spending as a lead adviser in the newly created DOGE. Within days, all agencies were directed to put DEI staff on leave and related programs were shuttered.
In lengthy depositions, two DOGE employees — Justin Fox and Nate Cavanaugh — defended the effort to cut “useless agencies” as part of DOGE’s attempt to reduce the federal deficit.
“You don’t regret that people might have lost important income … to support their lives?” an attorney asked Cavanaugh about the grant cancellations.
“No. I think it was more important to reduce the federal deficit from $2 trillion to close to zero,” Cavanaugh said.
“Did you reduce the federal deficit?” the attorney asked.
“No, we didn’t,” Cavanaugh said.
With backgrounds in tech and finance, neither man worked in government prior to joining DOGE last year. Cavanaugh said they originally determined which grants could be cut based on if they included certain words — like “DEI, DEIA, Equity, Inclusion, BIPAC, LGBTQ” — though the final decision about cuts was up to the head of individual agencies.
“Do you think it’s inappropriate in any way that someone in their 20s with no experience with grants for the federal government was making personal judgment calls about what grants to cancel?” an attorney asked.
“Um, no. I don’t think it’s inappropriate,” Cavanaugh said, arguing that he did not need formal education or experience to make informed judgments.
“So presumably you read some of these books that would have informed you on how to cancel a grant based on DEI,” the attorney asked.
“Um, I did not read a book, um, on how to discern whether a grant includes DEI or not. I read the actual description of the actual grant,” Cavanaugh said.
Fox said they instead turned to OpenAI’s ChatGPT to help sift through the thousands of grants awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities.
According to court filings, the men prompted ChatGPT by asking, “From the perspective of someone looking to identify DEI grants, does this involve DEI? Respond factually in less than 120 characters.· Begin with ‘Yes.’ o. ‘No.’ followed by a brief explanation.· Do not use ‘this initiative’ or ‘this description’ in your response.”
Fox was repeatedly pressed by attorneys to explain certain funding decisions, such as defunding a language center — described as a “wasteful, noncritical spend” — or projects related to Black history and civil rights.
“Why is a documentary about Holocaust survivors DEI?” an attorney asked.
“It’s a gender-based story that’s inherently discriminatory to focus on this specific group,” Fox said.
According to the depositions and legal documents, the men did not provide a clear definition for DEI or take additional steps to ensure the decisions were not discriminatory — arguing it was not necessary because AI software was not the final decision-maker.
“Did you do anything to ensure that ChatGPT’s perception of DEI as applied here wouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex?” an attorney asked, prompting another objection.
“It didn’t matter,” Fox said.
DOGE’s efforts in multiple federal agencies and departments last year faced opposition and lawsuits, with critics raising concerns about the group’s effectiveness and its access to sensitive data.
Both Fox and Cavanaugh defended the funding decisions, arguing the cuts were necessary to reduce the deficit, though they never achieved their goals.
“Did you ever find it problematic that you were, alongside Nate, short-listing for termination projects that had hits on words like Black, homosexual, LGBTQ+?” an attorney asked, prompting an objection and follow up question.
“We were identifying wasteful spend in the government based on administration direction. That was the whole reason we were there, was to find savings,” Fox said, though he acknowledged the deficit was never reduced.
Their work cutting grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities was memorialized in a social media post by DOGE, which vowed that any future grants would be “merit-based and awarded to non-DEI, pro-America causes.”
According to the depositions, some of the saved funds were spent on the National Garden of American Heroes — a sculpture garden to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary.
