GET THE APP
Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Category: Politics
3 hours ago
News
Politics

SCOTUS Allows Democrat-Drawn Districts Ahead of Midterms.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow California Democrats to proceed with new, gerrymandered maps ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: California Democrats, the state GOP, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Elena Kagan, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The ruling was issued on Wednesday, impacting California and the U.S. as a whole.

🎯IMPACT: The decision allows Proposition 50 to move forward, potentially reducing Republican congressional seats in California from nine to four.

IN FULL

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to block California’s new congressional district map, allowing the state to proceed with new, gerrymandered boundaries ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The decision rejects an emergency request from California Republicans and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking to halt implementation of the plan, known as Proposition 50.

Proposition 50 dismantled California’s independent redistricting commission and granted the Democratic-controlled legislature authority to redraw congressional lines. Supporters said the measure was intended to counter Republican redistricting efforts in other states and better reflect demographic changes, while critics argued it was designed to boost Democrat power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Under the new map, Republicans could lose as many as five congressional seats, reducing the number of GOP-held districts in California from nine to four. Republican officials and voters filed suit shortly after the ballot measure passed, claiming the new districts relied too heavily on racial considerations and violated the Constitution and federal voting laws.

The Justice Department joined the legal challenge, arguing that California lawmakers improperly used race as a tool to achieve partisan goals. A three-judge federal district court panel rejected those claims in January. Following that ruling, opponents of the map asked the Supreme Court to intervene. The application was initially submitted to Justice Elena Kagan and then referred to the full Court, which denied the request for an injunction without issuing a written opinion.

California officials argued that blocking the map so close to the 2026 election cycle would disrupt candidate filings, campaign planning, and voter outreach already underway. Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) and other Democrats praised the Court’s decision.

The ruling comes amid heightened national disputes over redistricting. In a separate case, the Supreme Court recently allowed Texas to use a Republican-drawn congressional map that could add several GOP seats, despite lower court claims that the plan discriminated against minority voters.

Image by Gage Skidmore.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
3 hours ago
Immigration
Politics

Dems Release Their DHS Funding Demands, Including Gutting Immigration Enforcement.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Democrats outlined demands for changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations as Congress works to avoid a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), and other Democrats; House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA); and the Trump administration.

📍WHEN & WHERE: February 4, 2026, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “When Americans see the pictures of these goons beating people, pushing people, and even shooting and killing people, they say this is not America… It is reminiscent of dictatorship.” — Chuck Schumer

🎯IMPACT: The debate over DHS funding and changes could lead to a shutdown, affecting sub-agencies such as FEMA, TSA, and the Coast Guard.

IN FULL

Democrat lawmakers on Capitol Hill released their list of demands for changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in exchange for the passage of long-term funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) had their budgets largely appropriated in separate legislation over the summer, other DHS agencies like FEMA and the TSA remain unfunded for the fiscal year.

The looming DHS shutdown, set for February 13, is the result of Democrats demanding that the department’s budget be stripped from a package of appropriations bills adopted by Congress on Tuesday. By forcing the removal of DHS funding—replacing it with a two-week continuing resolution—the Democrats caused a brief government shutdown over the weekend but dropped their opposition to the larger appropriations package.

Democrats are now holding up a full-year appropriations bill until Republicans agree to their proposed immigration enforcement changes, which include mandatory body cameras, prohibiting immigration officers from wearing masks, tightening restrictions around warrants, and ending so-called “roving” patrols.

“When Americans see the pictures of these goons beating people, pushing people, and even shooting and killing people, they say this is not America,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, joined by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and a number of House and Senate Democrats. Schumer added, “It is reminiscent of dictatorship.”

The Democrat demands have already sparked opposition from Republicans. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) has already declared that requiring judicial warrants, rather than administrative warrants, for immigration enforcement actions is dead on arrival. “That is a road that we cannot or should not go down,” Johnson said.

Image by Adrian Hon.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
7 hours ago
NatSec
Politics

War Department Warns of ‘Extraordinary Measures’ if Dems Try to Seize Historic Military College.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. Department of War says it may have to resort to  “extraordinary measures” if Virginia Democrats pass a bill to place the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) fully under state control.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: The Pentagon, Virginia Democrats, and VMI leadership.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Proposed legislation pending in Virginia, with the Pentagon issuing its warning late Tuesday, February 3.

💬KEY QUOTE: “The stability of this proven leadership pipeline is a matter of direct national security interest,” said Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell.

🎯IMPACT: The proposed bills could end VMI’s current governance and funding, raising concerns about military readiness and state investment.

IN FULL

The U.S. Department of War says it may have to resort to “extraordinary measures” if Democrats in Virginia’s General Assembly pass a bill to bring the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) fully under state government control. House Bill 1374, proposed by Virginia Democrats, would dissolve VMI’s Board of Visitors and place the institution entirely under state governance.

“The Department of War is monitoring Virginia House Bill 1374, focused on the governance of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI), with significant concern,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell wrote in a post on X (formerly Twitter). He continued, “For generations, the unique military environment at VMI has made the Institute a vital source of commissioned officers for the Armed Forces.”

Parnell further emphasized that “the stability of this proven leadership pipeline is a matter of direct national security interest and any action that could disrupt the ecosystem requires our full attention. DoW reserves the right to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of VMI and our commitment to the cadets and midshipmen currently training there remains steadfast.”

VMI has long been a political target for Virginia Democrats who have worked for decades to find ways to defund or close the storied military college. In addition to HB 1374, Virginia Democrats introduced House Bill 1377, which would establish a task force to determine whether VMI should continue receiving state funding. The bill follows a 2021 task force initiated by then-Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA), which accused VMI of widespread discrimination. If the new task force concludes that VMI has not adequately addressed these claims, the commonwealth could cut its funding entirely.

Virginia Delegate Dan Helmer (D), who sponsored HB 1377, argued that the state should not fund an institution “incapable of separating itself from a Lost Cause ideology that promotes White supremacy.”

VMI, which received 27.5 percent of its funding from Virginia in the last academic year, has a historical association with the Confederacy, having produced many of its generals during the Civil War.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 3, 2026
Immigration
Politics

House Passes $1.2 Trillion Funding Bill to End Democrat Govt Shutdown.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The House of Representatives passed a $1.2 trillion funding deal to end the partial government shutdown, sending it to President Donald J. Trump for approval.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: President Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).

📍WHEN & WHERE: The funding deal passed on Tuesday after a four-day partial government shutdown.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We’ve got a very short time frame in which to do this, which I argued against, but the Democrats insisted on a, you know, a two-week window, which, again, I don’t understand the rationale for that.” – John Thune

🎯IMPACT: The funding deal keeps 97 percent of the government running through September 30, but leaves unresolved issues for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

IN FULL

The House of Representatives narrowly passed a $1.2 trillion funding deal Tuesday with a 217-214 vote, ending the four-day partial government shutdown. The package, which had cleared the Senate late Friday, now heads to President Donald J. Trump for his expected signature. The deal keeps 97 percent of the government operational through September 30, but leaves unresolved funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which faces a February 13 deadline.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) expressed skepticism about the timeline, calling it “an impossibility” to negotiate a DHS funding deal in just 10 days. “We’ve got a very short time frame in which to do this, which I argued against, but the Democrats insisted on a, you know, a two-week window, which, again, I don’t understand the rationale for that,” Thune stated ahead of the House vote.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) worked to secure enough Republican votes to push the deal through, despite opposition from some GOP lawmakers who were frustrated that the funding package did not include the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. The SAVE Act, which requires proof of citizenship to vote, has passed the House but remains blocked in the Senate by the 60-vote filibuster rule.

President Trump has been adamant about ending the shutdown as quickly as possible, urging House Republicans to send the funding package to his desk without changes. The shutdown, which began at midnight Saturday, has had minimal impact on federal operations compared to previous shutdowns. However, the funding lapse arose after Senate Democrats held up the appropriations bills in an attempt to shut down the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement actions.

The $1.2 trillion deal includes five appropriations bills and a two-week temporary extension of DHS funding. While Republicans have already funded key immigration enforcement agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Democrats are pushing for reforms such as mandatory body cameras and stricter accountability measures for officers. Speaker Johnson warned that holding up the DHS appropriations bill could impact critical operations like FEMA disaster response and TSA airport security.

Image by GPA Photo Archive.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 3, 2026
Crime
Politics

Mamdani Names Former Rikers Island Inmate as NYC Corrections Chief.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) has appointed Stanley Richards, a former inmate at Rikers Island, as the city’s new Department of Correction commissioner.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Stanley Richards, Mayor Zohran Mamdani, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain, and the Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association (COBA).

📍WHEN & WHERE: Richards’ appointment was announced in New York City during a recent news conference.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Stanley will make history in this role as the first ever formerly incarcerated person to serve as commissioner. That achievement is not merely symbolic.” – Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

🎯IMPACT: Richards is the latest controversial appointment by Mamdani, who, as mayor, has sought to elevate a number of radical and far-left ideologues to key posts in New York City.

IN FULL

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) announced he is appointing former Rikers Island inmate Stanley Richards as the city’s new  Department of Correction commissioner. Stanley served two and a half years on Rikers in the 1980s for robbery before finishing four and a half years of a nine-year prison sentence elsewhere. The appointment marks the first instance in New York City history of a former prisoner holding the position of commissioner, with Richards becoming the latest far-left ideological ally of Mamdani to be elevated to a key city.

“Stanley will make history in this role as the first ever formerly incarcerated person to serve as commissioner,” Mayor Mamdani said during a news conference announcing the appointment. He added, “That achievement is not merely symbolic. It is a testament to the thought and leadership he will bring to every member of correction staff and incarcerated New Yorkers underneath his purview.”

Following his release from the New York prison system in 1991, Richards began working as a counselor with the Fortune Society, a nonprofit organization that provides housing and re-entry assistance for ex-convicts, eventually rising to become the group’s president and CEO. A staunch far-left “prison reform” activist, Richards advocates against incarceration policies he claims are punishment-oriented. “Under Mayor Mamdani’s leadership, we will chart a path of hope, healing, and transformation,” Richards stated at the press conference announcing his appointment, adding: “[Mamdani’s] administration made clear that the future of Rikers is not endless confinement, scapegoating or demonizing.”

Previously, Richards served a stint as the first deputy commissioner of programs and operations at the Department of Correction under former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, as well as the vice chairman of the Board of Correction’s Task Force to Close Rikers. However, the choice of Richards is already being viewed with caution by those whose jobs it is to ensure public safety and security at Rikers and other city prison facilities.

“Despite the many false narratives that have portrayed COBA as an ‘obstacle to reform,’ we have been ready, willing and able to meet and work with anyone, as long as they respect the rights of our Correction Officers and understand that their safety and security matter,” Benny Boscio, president of the Correction Officers Benevolent Association (COBA), said in response to Mamdani’s decision tap Richards for Department of Correction commissioner, adding: “The jails cannot and will not operate as safely as possible if the concerns of our members are brushed aside. It is our hope that Mr. Richards understands that dynamic as he takes on this new role and demonstrates a commitment to putting safety and security before any political ideology.”

Notably, Richards will have only limited authority over Rikers Island, as the prison has been under federal oversight for the past 10 years. Last spring, U.S. District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain appointed Nicholas Deml, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and Vermont Corrections Department chief, as a federal monitor to oversee Rikers, granting him much of the authority and duties previously held by the city-appointed commissioner.

Image via NYC Mayor’s Office.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 3, 2026
Politics

The Clintons Now Say They WILL Testify Before Congress on Epstein Connections.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton, have agreed to testify in a House investigation into their ties with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Bill and Hillary Clinton, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY), and the House Oversight Committee.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The offer to testify was made late Monday night, with depositions to take place on mutually agreed-upon dates.

💬KEY QUOTE: “We don’t have anything in writing,” Rep. Comer said, but left the door open to reaching an agreement for them to testify, adding, “It depends on what they say.”

🎯IMPACT: While attorneys for Bill and Hillary Clinton say their clients will now comply with the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas, Chairman Comer stated he will not be dropping his push for criminal contempt of Congress charges for the time being.

IN FULL

Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary Clinton, appear to have reversed course late Monday night and agreed to testify in a House investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The decision comes after months of resisting in-person testimony regarding their alleged ties to Epstein and his visits to the Clinton White House.

The agreement, communicated through their attorneys, avoids—for now—a vote to hold the Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress. According to attorneys representing the former President and his wife, the couple now accepts Comer’s conditions and “will appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates.” Still, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) says he will not drop his committee’s criminal contempt of Congress charges against the Clintons for their initial refusal to testify under subpoena. However, the House Rules Committee moved late Monday night to table the two contempt resolutions for the time being.

“We don’t have anything in writing,” Comer said, but left the door open to accepting the Clintons’ offer, noting that “it depends on what they say.” He stressed that the former President and his wife “don’t get to dictate the terms of lawful subpoenas.”

The National Pulse reported in late January that the House Oversight Committee, on a bipartisan vote, moved to adopt resolutions of criminal contempt of Congress against Bill and Hillary Clinton after months of negotiations over the conditions under which they would testify before the panel. Last month, both Bill and Hillary Clinton defied a congressional subpoena compelling them to testify before the House panel. The testimony was slated for January 13 and 14; however, an attorney representing the Clintons stated that neither would appear before the House panel and argued that the congressional subpoena is “legally unenforceable.”

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 2, 2026
News
Politics

Appeals Court Dismisses Complaint Against Anti-Trump Obama Judge.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: A federal appeals court judge dismissed a judicial misconduct complaint filed by the Justice Department against anti-Trump U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Judge James Boasberg, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the Justice Department, Chad Mizelle, and President Donald J. Trump.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The complaint was filed in July 2025, and the dismissal occurred in December 2025, with proceedings involving the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

💬KEY QUOTE: “A repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint.” – Judge Jeffrey Sutton in his dismissal order.

🎯IMPACT: The dismissal highlights the ongoing tensions between Judge Boasberg and the Trump Administration over issues from immigration to former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigations of President Trump.

IN FULL

A judicial misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has been dismissed by Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, who concluded that the Justice Department (DOJ) failed to provide evidence to support its allegations. The complaint was filed by Chad Mizelle, a former senior Justice Department official, and accused Boasberg of making improper remarks about the Trump administration during a closed-door meeting of the Judicial Conference. According to the complaint, Boasberg suggested that the administration might ignore federal court rulings and trigger a constitutional crisis.

Judge Sutton said the allegation rested on unsupported claims rather than verified evidence. “In the absence of the attachment, the complaint offers no source for what, if anything, the subject judge said,” Sutton wrote. He also rejected reliance on media commentary cited in the filing, stating that “a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint.”

The complaint referenced a Fox News clip discussing the alleged remarks, but Sutton said it did not independently substantiate the claim. He concluded that the materials provided were insufficient to establish judicial misconduct under governing standards.

Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, appointed by President Barack Obama, has been a frequent target of criticism from President Donald J. Trump and Republican lawmakers for his aggressive rulings against the administration. He has presided over multiple high-profile cases, most notably challenges to the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. In that litigation, Boasberg temporarily blocked deportation flights and claimed to have found probable cause to consider holding government officials in contempt for failing to comply with his orders.

An appeals court subsequently set aside Boasberg’s contempt ruling, a decision welcomed by the administration and its allies. Nevertheless, Boasberg has continued to warn that contempt proceedings could be revived if his partisan orders are disregarded, fueling tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch.

Some Republican lawmakers have moved impeachment proceedings against Boasberg, citing his handling of immigration cases and his role in matters connected to former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “Arctic Frost” investigation targeting President Trump and his allies. Critics have accused Boasberg of judicial overreach and bias, allegations the Obama judge has not publicly addressed.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
February 2, 2026
Christopher Tomlinson
Politics

HERE WE GO AGAIN: CIA, Clinton-Linked Trump Impeachment Originator Peddles New ‘Whistleblower’ Intel Complaint.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The lawyer who represented the whistleblower in the first failed partisan impeachment case against President Donald J. Trump has now set his sights on Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: DNI Gabbard, lawyer Andrew Bakaj, an unnamed whistleblower, and intelligence officials.

📍WHEN & WHERE: Congress was informed of the whistleblower’s complaint last year, with reports of delays regarding the full report reaching Congress being reported on February 2.

💬KEY QUOTE: “Baseless and politically motivated.” – Intelligence officials regarding the complaint.

🎯IMPACT: The case appears to be yet another partisan whistleblower complaint, following a trend from Bakaj.

IN FULL

The lawyer who spearheaded the first failed partisan impeachment effort against President Donald J. Trump is now setting his sights on Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard, complaining that his client’s complaint has yet to be sent to Congress due to classification issues.

The classified whistleblower complaint has remained stuck inside Gabbard’s agency for months, prompting an unusual internal standoff and drawing attention to the lawyer representing the whistleblower, Andrew P. Bakaj, known for his role in President Trump’s first impeachment case.

The current complaint was submitted in May 2025 to the intelligence community’s inspector general and was classified at a level that has complicated its handling. According to people familiar with the matter, the document has been stored in a secure safe accessible only under strict protocols.

Bakaj has publicly complained about the situation, saying, “From my experience, it is confounding for [Gabbard’s office] to take weeks—let alone eight months—to transmit a disclosure to Congress.”

Gabbard’s office has pushed back strongly, rejecting claims that it is obstructing the process. Officials have characterized the allegations as “baseless and politically motivated,” arguing that the complaint presents unique classification and jurisdictional challenges that must be resolved before any congressional notification can occur.

Bakaj, the chief legal counsel at the nonprofit Whistleblower Aid, has repeatedly pressed intelligence officials to transmit the complaint to Congress. He previously served as lead attorney for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer whose 2019 whistleblower disclosure helped trigger the first failed impeachment of President Trump during his first term. Later reports revealed the whistleblower had direct ties to the Biden family’s business affairs in Ukraine.

Bakaj’s continued involvement in sensitive national security complaints appears to reinforce perceptions that whistleblower mechanisms are being abused as political weapons. In the current case, intelligence officials say the inspector general determined some of the allegations against Gabbard lacked credibility, while being unable to assess other claims. Bakaj has disputed that characterization, saying he was never informed that any part of the complaint had been deemed not credible.

Lawmakers became aware of the complaint in November, after Bakaj sent a letter to the House and Senate intelligence committees.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
January 30, 2026
Politics

Senate Finally Set to Advance Trump-Backed Funding Package, Too Late to Avert Temporary Shutdown.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: Senate Republicans and Democrats reached an agreement to advance the government appropriations package, despite resistance from both sides of the aisle.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), President Donald J. Trump, and members of Congress.

📍WHEN & WHERE: The deal was struck on Friday, with a final Senate vote expected late Friday evening, as the government funding deadline looms at midnight.

🎯IMPACT: The agreement virtually ensures passage in the Senate but does not prevent a partial government shutdown over the weekend since it will take several days for the House to return to Washington, D.C.

IN FULL

The Senate cleared a key procedural hurdle late Friday afternoon, advancing a government appropriations package despite resistance from both sides of the partisan aisle. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has scheduled a final vote on the appropriations deal, initially struck late Thursday, for Friday evening after Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) dropped his hold on the combined government funding bills.

Called a minibus, the legislative package includes appropriations for five federal government departments but excludes funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a key demand of Senate Democrats seeking to defund U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Instead, the chamber will vote on a two-week continuing resolution (CR) for DHS, setting up another funding fight in February.

President Donald J. Trump engaged in direct negotiations with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senate Republicans to reach the deal, which will avoid a prolonged government shutdown. Still, even with the Senate likely adopting the minibus and CR for DHS later Friday evening, the federal government will experience a brief funding lapse over the weekend as it will take several days for members of the House of Representatives to return to Washington, D.C. and approve the package.

The National Pulse reported earlier on Friday that an attempt to pass the funding deal fell apart late Thursday evening after Sen. Graham objected to procedural motions that would have expedited its passage. Graham expressed his dissatisfaction with the deal, stating, “This is a bad deal,” as he entered Thune’s office late Thursday evening. However, by Friday afternoon, the South Carolina Republican had dropped his opposition.

Image by Ron Cogswell.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more
January 30, 2026
News
Politics

Senate Funding Deal Collapses, Saturday Shutdown Looms.

PULSE POINTS

❓WHAT HAPPENED: The U.S. government is heading toward a partial shutdown after a Senate vote on a funding deal stalled.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), President Donald J. Trump, and members of Congress.

📍WHEN & WHERE: January 29 and 30, 2026, at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

💬KEY QUOTE: “This is a bad deal.” – Sen. Lindsey Graham

🎯IMPACT: A partial shutdown of federal operations is expected to begin at 12:01 AM. ET Saturday without a funding deal.

IN FULL

The U.S. government is on the verge of a partial shutdown after the Senate’s planned vote on a funding deal stalled late Thursday. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and other Republican leaders had aimed to push the deal forward, but it faced opposition within their own ranks over what Republican senators characterize as leadership caving to Democrats on Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) confirmed he placed a hold on the funding package, effectively blocking it from quick consideration. Graham expressed his dissatisfaction with the deal, stating, “This is a bad deal,” as he entered Thune’s office late Thursday evening.

Late Thursday, just before the Senate attempted to move the Democrat-backed funding deal, President Donald J. Trump pushed for lawmakers to vote for the appropriations package. “America is setting Records in every way, and our Growth Numbers are among the best ever. The only thing that can slow our Country down is another long and damaging Government Shutdown,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, continuing, “Republicans and Democrats in Congress have come together to get the vast majority of the Government funded until September, while at the same time providing an extension to the Department of Homeland Security (including the very important Coast Guard, which we are expanding and rebuilding like never before). Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will give a very much needed Bipartisan ‘YES’ Vote.”

It is believed that Sen. Graham‘s hold specifically stems from a provision passed by the House that removed legislative language allowing senators to sue for up to $500,000 if their phone records were obtained by former special counsel Jack Smith during the former Biden government’s Arctic Frost scandal.

Without a funding agreement, a partial shutdown of federal operations is set to begin at 12:01 AM ET on Saturday. Even if the Senate reaches an agreement on Friday, the House of Representatives is not scheduled to return until Monday, though Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has indicated he may be able to bring the House into session late Sunday if necessary.

A number of conservative members of the Senate have expressed opposition to the DHS funding deal, arguing it surrenders leverage and will likely result in a number of Democrat policy victories that could effectively gut U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—including a requirement for agents to obtain a judicial warrant rather than an administrative warrant in order to arrest migrants with outstanding removal orders.

Image by Ted Eytan.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

show less
show more