senate

Kevin Warsh, the man nominated to lead the Federal Reserve, the world’s most important financial institution, told the US Senate Banking Committee on Tuesday that he had made no secret agreements with the White House over interest rate policy, defending his professional integrity.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

He said he would act independently if confirmed to succeed Jerome Powell, despite continued public pressure from US President Donald Trump for lower borrowing costs.

The question of that independence was put sharply to him during the hearing, when Republican Senator John Kennedy asked whether he would be Trump’s “human sock puppet”. Warsh replied: “Absolutely not.”

His comments came amid broader concerns on Capitol Hill about the future direction of the central bank, with lawmakers divided over his past record and approach to monetary policy.

Warsh insisted that the President had never asked him to commit to any specific interest rate path and said he would not have agreed to such a request.

The hearing highlighted the significant pressure facing the Federal Reserve as it maintains its independence while addressing inflation, which remains at 3.3%.

Just hours before the session began, US President Donald Trump stated in a CNBC interview that he would be disappointed if Warsh did not immediately implement rate cuts.

This current friction suggests that the White House may struggle to secure the necessary votes to confirm Warsh before Powell’s term as Fed Chair expires on 15 May.

Democratic opposition and Republican dissent

Democratic senators were particularly vocal in their scepticism, accusing Warsh of shifting his economic stance to suit the political climate.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren labelled the nominee a “sock puppet”, suggesting his installation would facilitate an “illegal takeover” of the institution.

Critics also pointed to his historical record, alleging that he favoured higher rates during Democratic administrations but has become more dovish under Republican leadership.

US Senator Ruben Gallego cited reporting from the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which claimed the President had previously urged Warsh to reduce borrowing costs. Warsh responded by stating that such reports were based on inaccurate sources and reiterated that the independence of the Fed is “essential” for economic stability.

Despite Trump’s backing, the nomination also faces a critical roadblock within the Republican Party.

US Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, reiterated his refusal to support Warsh as long as a Department of Justice investigation into Jerome Powell continues.

The probe, led by Assistant US Attorney Jeannine Pirro, is examining whether Powell committed perjury during testimony last year regarding the budget of a Federal Reserve building renovation project.

Tillis and other Republican colleagues have expressed their support for Powell, arguing that the investigation is meritless. According to Tillis, he will not vote for a successor until the “investigation is dropped,” a stance that effectively freezes the nomination in a closely divided committee.

Federal prosecutors have reportedly continued their efforts to access Fed records as recently as last week, even after a judge previously found no evidence to support the charges.

Legal and ethical hurdles

The proceedings also delved into Warsh’s personal financial interests and the logistical challenges of a potential leadership transition.

US Senator Elizabeth Warren raised questions about the nominee’s investments in private entities, including SpaceX and Polymarket, noting that the specific size of these holdings had not been fully disclosed to the public.

Warsh defended his position by stating that the Office of Government Ethics has already approved his plan to divest all assets within 90 days of his confirmation.

Compounding the uncertainty is the unique situation involving Jerome Powell.

Unlike most departing Chairs, Powell has indicated he intends to remain on the Federal Reserve’s governing board until his separate term ends in 2028, or until the perjury investigation is concluded.

This could create an awkward power dynamic where the former Chair sits alongside his successor, a scenario not seen in Washington since the late 1940s.

While US President Donald Trump has threatened to remove Powell from the board entirely, legal experts suggest such a move would be difficult, particularly given recent US Supreme Court precedents relating to the protection of Fed governors from political dismissal.

WASHINGTON — Democrats who once saw retaking the U.S. Senate as a long shot in 2026 have newfound hope thanks to an unpopular president and a California donor machine that has snapped into action.

Californians provided the most out-of-state cash to Democrats in nearly every hotly contested race, and in several cases gave more than in-state donors, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance filings covering the first three months of 2026.

Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia, who took in more than $14 million overall, received nearly as much from California backers as from supporters in his home state among donors who contributed at least $200 and whose identities were disclosed.

James Talarico, a Democratic Senate candidate in Texas, has raised a staggering $27 million so far this year, with California donors contributing just under $1.2 million to back his campaign — second only to Texas supporters among those donors whose names were disclosed.

Donors who give less than $200 are not required to be identified in campaign finance reports and made up a significant share of the donors to Ossoff’s and Talarico’s campaigns.

Republicans currently have control of the Senate with 53 of the chamber’s 100 seats. This year 35 seats are at play, including special elections in Florida and Ohio.

GOP still winning a key cash race

While more of the seats up for grabs are in Republican hands, polling showing the potential for tight races in several of them has given Democrats hope that they might be able to shrink or reverse their deficit in November.

Top Democratic candidates have out-raised their GOP rivals in the most competitive Senate races, but Republicans are winning the cash race among big-money committees that can accept checks far larger than the $7,000 cap on donations to candidate committees.

Those Democratic candidates have continued a tradition of relying on donors in the country’s most populous state to bankroll their campaigns.

“California has been a rich gold mine for many a candidate and continues to be that,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group.

Democratic Senate candidates in a few races raised more from California donors than from donors in their home states, according to campaign finance reports filed Wednesday.

Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola of Alaska, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, brought in nearly $900,000 from California donors who had contributed at least $200. Alaska donors contributed just over $520,000 to Peltola in the same time period.

Two of the three leading Democratic hopefuls in Michigan’s open Senate race, Rep. Haley Stevens and physician Abdul El-Sayed, reported taking in more from California donors than from donors in Michigan. California was the second biggest bank of support for the other top Democratic contender, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

And in Nebraska, independent Dan Osborn, who is challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, took in $80,000 more from disclosed California donors than from Nebraskans.

Dozens of California donors gave to at least five Senate candidates across the country, according to The Times’ analysis of the filing data.

Burbank playwright and screenwriter Winnie Holzman has donated to Democratic candidates in nine key races and said she has been inspired to give to them — and other candidates and political groups — because of concerns about the policies of President Trump’s administration and what she sees as its violation of the law.

“This isn’t just about who is in the Senate,” said Holzman, who wrote the script for the play “Wicked” and co-wrote its movie adaptations. “But if enough Democrats were in the Senate right now, there would be a lot more ability to push back on this.”

The impressive fundraising hauls by Democrats come with a significant caveat.

The two most prominent political committees that support Republican Senate candidates — the party-affiliated National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Senate Leadership Fund super PAC, have both outraised rival Democratic groups by a significant margin this cycle.

For the NRSC, an $11.5-million fundraising advantage since the start of 2025 has translated to a modest $2-million advantage in cash in the bank through the end of February compared with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But the Senate Leadership Fund, which can accept unlimited amounts of cash from donors, had $91.6 million more to spend at the end of March than the Democratic rival Senate Majority PAC.

And the pro-Trump super PAC MAGA Inc. had a stunning $312 million in the bank at the end of February.

Money raised by candidate campaign committees does, however, bring some advantages over money raised by other committees. Most significantly, candidates are able to buy advertising at cheaper rates than other political committees.

That is an important distinction in a year when advertising spending in Senate races is expected to top $2.8 billion.

The Senate map

While political analysts expect that Democrats will likely perform well in congressional races — with early signs pointing to a strong possibility that the party regains control of the House — winning control of the Senate would be a much taller order.

“The Senate is going to be won or lost in red states,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics.

Even in the best-case scenario for Democrats, to retake control of the chamber they would probably need to win in at least two states such as Iowa, Alaska, Ohio or Texas, all of which went to Trump in the 2024 presidential election by double-digit margins.

With the vast sums likely to be raised — and spent — by both sides, Kondik said that fundraising can reach a point of diminishing returns.

“You’d rather have more than less, obviously, but the actual effect is pretty debatable,” he said.

And history shows that fundraising prowess doesn’t necessarily translate to electoral success in November.

Take the example of Texas Democrat Beto O’Rourke.

In his 2018 challenge of incumbent Republican Ted Cruz, O’Rourke brought in more than $80 million, more than double Cruz’s fundraising haul of $35 million.

But it wasn’t enough to put the then-congressman from El Paso over the top.

O’Rourke lost the race by about 2.5 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance program used by U.S. spy agencies, following a chaotic, post-midnight scramble in the House to keep the authority from expiring.

The measure cleared the Senate by voice vote, without a formal roll call, as Congress raced to meet a Monday deadline. It now heads to President Trump, who had pushed for a clean 18-month extension, for his signature.

GOP leaders in the House rushed lawmakers back into session late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.

First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.

Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.

“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.

But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.

At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.

U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.

Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security

Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.

Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.

Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.

A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”

“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”

The result of days of negotiations

Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.

Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.

Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.

But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.

With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.

“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”

Cappelletti and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

April 14 (UPI) — A budget resolution to fund federal immigration enforcement could hit the Senate floor by next week, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday, as Republicans seek to bypass Democratic demands for reforms to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol.

Federal funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol lapsed on Feb. 14 after Republicans agreed with the Democrats to remove the Department of Homeland Security from a larger spending package and avert a government shutdown.

Neither agency has been funded through regular DHS appropriations since, though they continue operating through other, emergency funding.

Democrats began demanding reforms to the federal immigration enforcement agencies before agreeing to restore funding after two U.S. citizens were killed by federal immigration officers amid President Donald Trump‘s aggressive immigration crackdown.

Amid a stalemate in negotiations, Republicans are considering passing three years of funding for the agencies through a complicated legislative mechanism called a budget reconciliation bill that permits certain spending legislation to pass with a simple majority rather than 60 votes, Thune told reporters Tuesday in the Capitol.

“Republicans are going to stand with our Border Patrol, with our law enforcement agencies and we’re going to ensure that they are funded, not only today but well into the future,” Thune, R-S.D., said.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., is preparing the resolution to fund the agencies that will be followed by the reconciliation bill “to ensure the job gets done,” he said.

Democrats have blocked funding for ICE and Border Patrol until reforms — including requiring judicial warrants and banning officers from wearing masks — are made, but the reconciliation bill tactic could ensure funding without any votes from Democratic lawmakers.

The same tactic was used last year to pass Trump’s sweeping spending and tax cut bill, which provided $75 billion for ICE.

“All of the things that the Democrats made this about, which was supposed to be about reforms to the way that ICE and Border Patrol operate — they get none of that,” Thune said.

“And now, we’re going to fund those agencies for three years into the future. The only thing the Democrats got out of this was they now own the issue of open borders and defund law enforcement.”

Republicans hold a narrow 53-47 majority in the Senate, with two independents caucusing with the Democrats, as well as a 218-213 majority in the House.

The Senate has twice passed bipartisan bills to fund DHS aside from ICE and Border Patrol, which the House has balked at. Democrats blame the Trump administration’s influence on the lower chamber.

“Republicans are dragging the Senate through a partisan circus just to avoid basic accountability for ICE and Border Patrol,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at the Capitol during a separate press conference on Tuesday.

He said Democrats will continue to push for immigration enforcement reforms.

“So, the pattern, unfortunately, with this administration is clearer and clearer,” the veteran New York Democrat said. “Chaos abroad — the war; chaos at home with not funding DHS with reforms. A failed war overseas, a manufactured crisis here in Washington — in both cases Republicans aren’t leading, they are following orders.”