https://washingtonsun.com/vermont Vermont en-US Fri, 08 May 2026 09:07:00 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/capitol-gains/vermont-congressional-delegation-wealth-assets-debt Torrie Herrington, Taylor Giorno Sens. Peter Welch, Bernie Sanders and Rep. Becca Balint have found other ways to make money. Fri, 08 May 2026 09:07:00 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/capitol-gains/vermont-congressional-delegation-wealth-assets-debt Vermont is home to several rare species.

The Canada lynx.

The American marten.

And now, wealthy federal lawmakers who don’t trade individual stocks.

Sens. Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders, along with Rep. Becca Balint, did not report owning any individual stocks on their most recent personal financial disclosures to Congress.

Despite not trading stocks, the Vermont delegation is significantly wealthier than the average Vermonter. Welch and Balint both have median net worths of over $1 million, and Sanders’ is on the cusp.

Welch, a Democrat, has a median net worth of more than $12.8 million, according to his latest financial disclosure, which covers 2025. The surge in his net worth from nearly $9.1 million in 2024 is driven by an increase in the value of an existing money market account and several mutual and exchange-traded funds, or ETFs.

Welch’s largest asset is that money market account, which is worth between $1 million and $5 million, according to his latest disclosure. On his 2024 disclosure, Welch valued the account between $500,001 and $1 million. Welch and his wife, Margaret Cheney, also have dozens of mutual funds and ETFs that contribute to his net worth.

Welch once traded individual stocks. But in 2021, Business Insider revealed the then-congressman failed to properly disclose that his wife sold $6,238 worth of ExxonMobil stock around the time Welch was grilling the oil company’s CEO at a House committee oversight hearing. Welch sold off his individual stocks after the report and pledged that he — and his wife — had decided to no longer trade individual stocks.

Welch told the nonprofit newsroom VTDigger in 2020 that he was giving up stock trading: “The clearest way to avoid even the appearance of a conflict is to simply stop making purchases,” even though an adviser. While he backtracked on that pledge a few months later, neither he nor his wife has disclosed owning or trading individual stocks since the ExxonMobil incident, according to a NOTUS analysis of his financial disclosures.

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/PWkAa/1/
Balint’s median net worth is more than $1.6 million, according to her 2024 financial report, which shows Balint has several joint right of survivorship accounts with her wife, Elizabeth Wohl. They also own several individual retirement accounts, and Balint includes many D.C. education trusts in her assets.

Balint, a Democrat, said in a statement to NOTUS that she does not trade “any individual stocks because I don’t ever want Vermonters to question the integrity of my decisions or my vote.”

Balint sold the few stocks she owned before taking office in January 2023. She disclosed owning stocks including Adobe, Intuit and Netflix valued at “none” in 2022. The stocks were gone when she filed her 2023 financial disclosure report, which covered her first year in office.

“They appear on that report only because there was income generated from their sale. Because she did not hold these stocks at any point in 2023, they do not appear on her 2023 disclosure,” said Catherine White, a spokesperson for Balint.

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist and the delegation’s longest-serving member, has a median net worth of $979,015.

Sanders’ wealth has changed over the years. In 2011, the first year for which his disclosures are available online, he had a median net worth of $308,005. He once reached millionaire status, according to Politico, and in 2016, he spent nearly $600,000 on a lakefront summer home.

Sanders has been a tough critic of those in the millionaire and billionaire class, despite having been a millionaire himself. Of late, Sanders’ economic messaging has shifted to focus on billionaires, and he even recently introduced legislation with Rep. Ro Khanna to tax billionaires at a higher rate.

“At a time of unprecedented income and wealth inequality, this legislation demands that the billionaire class in America finally pay their fair share of taxes so that we can create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%,” Sanders said in a press release from March. “We can no longer tolerate a corrupt tax code that enables billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than the average worker.”

According to Sanders’ 2024 annual financial disclosure, his spouse, Jane Sanders, owns over 20 mutual funds that contribute to his assets. They also reported owning a few joint bank accounts. The only debt they report is a mortgage valued between $100,000 and $250,000.

Sanders disclosed that his wife owned IBM corporate securities stock in 2013 with a year-end value of “none” that generated capital gains income. He has not since reported owning any individual corporate stocks or securities, according to a NOTUS analysis of his personal financial disclosures. He now notes that his wife’s retirement accounts, which are broken out into underlying mutual funds, “are not individually held stocks.”

Sanders made $148,750 in royalties from Penguin Random House in 2024 for his book, “It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism.” While lawmakers are typically prohibited from holding jobs outside of the Capitol, book writing is one loophole that numerous members of Congress, including Sanders, used to make extra money in 2024 beyond their congressional salary of $174,000, NOTUS previously reported.
Bernie Sanders AP-23286366622018 (5828x3885, AR: 1.50)Federal lawmakers are required to disclose the value of certain assets — including but not limited to stocks, cryptocurrencies and properties that generate income — in ever-broader ranges on their financial disclosures to Congress each year. They also have to report liabilities such as credit card debt, student loans and mortgages on personal residences, which they do not have to disclose the value of as an asset.

To best estimate lawmakers’ net worth, NOTUS analyzed the assets and liabilities listed on lawmakers’ annual financial disclosures and calculated the median of their minimum net worth — minimum total assets minus maximum liabilities — and maximum net worth — maximum total assets minus minimum liabilities.

In addition to abstaining from stock trading themselves, Vermont’s congressional delegation wants to ban all members of Congress from trading stocks to avoid even the appearance that they may be profiting off their position, which often provides them access to information before the rest of the public.

Balint has co-sponsored the Restore Trust in Congress Act, a bipartisan stock-ban bill introduced by Republican Rep. Chip Roy in 2025. Most notably, the bill would ban members of Congress and their immediate family members from owning or selling stocks. The bill has yet to advance out of committee to the full House, unlike the Stop Insider Trading Act — a Republican leadership-backed stock-ban bill with fewer restrictions — that awaits a vote before the full House.

“No one should be getting rich because of their position in public office, which is why I support a full ban on stock trading for lawmakers and their immediate families. It is long past due that we turn guardrails like this into law — even the possibility of profiting from insider information erodes trust in our government and our democracy,” Balint said in a statement to NOTUS.When asked about where Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, stands on a congressional stock-trade ban, his office pointed out that Sanders is a co-sponsor of the Ending Trading and Holdings In Congressional Stocks Act. The bill, introduced by Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon in 2023, would prohibit members of Congress, their spouses and their dependents from purchasing or selling individual stocks.

Aaron White, a spokesperson for Welch, also pointed to the ETHICS Act.

“Senator Welch is a proud original cosponsor of the Ending Trading and Holdings in Congressional Stocks (ETHICS) Act, which would ban Members, spouses, and dependents from owning or trading stocks,” White said in a statement to NOTUS. “He’ll continue to fight to improve accountability and transparency in Congress and across the government.”

The ETHICS Act has not been reintroduced in the Senate in the 119th Congress, but the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee passed a bill “closely resembling” the legislation, according to the nonprofit Issue One. The bill, which would ban the president and vice president in addition to lawmakers and their families from owning individual stocks, has not come to the Senate floor for a vote.

A House committee voted in January to advance the Stop Insider Trading Act, which would prohibit lawmakers from buying new individual stocks but not require them to divest their current holdings. They would have to give seven days’ notice before selling existing holdings.]]> https://washingtonsun.com/congress/bernie-sanders-greg-casar-sports-bill Torrie Herrington They announced a bill that aims to keep professional sports franchises in their local communities. Thu, 26 Mar 2026 20:18:40 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/congress/bernie-sanders-greg-casar-sports-bill The Dodgers left Brooklyn after the 1957 season. Sen. Bernie Sanders is still upset about it.

He and Rep. Greg Casar announced Thursday they will introduce new legislation meant to keep professional sports franchises in their home communities.

“I can remember … when a guy simply took a profitable team out of Brooklyn, put it across the country, and it was a horrific moment for the people in my community,” Sanders told reporters. “Dodgers have brought the community together, and I think that's true in city after city.”

The bill, written by Casar, would require professional sports franchise owners to give a local government entity, a community nonprofit or a private person within the community a fair opportunity to purchase the team so it can remain in the area.

“Before you move a team away from the fans who have been rooting for it their whole life, you have to give them a chance to buy it and keep it,” Casar told reporters. “This bill is ultimately about who we are and what we value. We name our teams after our communities, where they play for a reason. Our teams matter to our communities. Our communities matter to our teams. Sports is a business, but it's a lot more than that.”

The bill has several Democratic co-sponsors in the House, but Sanders acknowledged it might not be one of the most important issues in “the moment of war, authoritarianism, massive income and wealth inequality.”

Casar told Front Office Sports he believes it will become a bipartisan effort, saying there is already interest from the Illinois delegation as the Chicago Bears weigh moving to Indiana.

Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, the National Women's Soccer League, the National Basketball Association and the Women’s National Basketball Association did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the legislation.

The bill is partially inspired by a state-level provision in Ohio that requires teams using tax-supported facilities to provide a six-month notice prior to leaving to give local entities the opportunity to purchase a team.

Sanders pointed to the Green Bay Packers as an example of communities being in charge of their beloved sports team.

“The Green Bay Packers developed a model over 100 years ago in which they are financed from the fans and the maximum that any one person can own is about 4% of the team,” Sanders said.

The proposed legislation would require the sports franchise owners to provide notice a year before moving the team to a new community, defined by crossing state lines or moving to a new metropolitan statistical area.

If a sports franchise does not comply with the provisions, it would face a $30,000 daily fine until the franchise owner complies. The bill also would grant state and city attorney generals who represent the impacted community the right to sue to block the team from relocating and collect damages from the franchise owner.

The bill would not require anyone to purchase a team and it would not prevent teams from moving if there is not a buyer able to meet a fair and reasonable price.

“Greg's bill is an important step forward in stating that we want local people in local communities around this country to have some control over their emotional attachment to their home team,” Sanders said.
]]> https://washingtonsun.com/climate-environment/trump-endangerment-finding-wave-climate-action-blue-states Shifra Dayak The administration’s decision to rescind the Obama-era endangerment finding undercuts its own legal arguments against state-level climate superfund laws. Wed, 04 Mar 2026 10:14:00 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/climate-environment/trump-endangerment-finding-wave-climate-action-blue-states The Trump administration’s decision to roll back the “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gas emissions may have had an unintended consequence: It undercut the administration’s legal argument against blue state climate regulations, environmental lawyers say.

In February, the Environmental Protection Agency moved to rescind an Obama-era finding that greenhouse gas emissions threaten public health and cause climate change, essentially unravelling the legal basis for federal emissions regulations. The move was cheered by anti-environmentalist conservatives and industry leaders alike as the end of burdensome regulation.

But the endangerment finding played a central role in the Trump administration’s legal arguments against state-level climate policy, according to environmental lawyers.

“One of the arguments they make is that those laws are preempted by federal regulation, and if there is no federal regulation, that argument suffers,” Michael Wall, the chief litigation officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said of blue states’ efforts to enact state-level environmental statutes.

Vermont and New York are likely to be the early test cases in court, as they fight to keep their states’ approaches to emissions. If they win, they could offer a model for other states looking to fill the endangerment finding gap.

Both states recently passed climate superfund laws that require companies that significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions to foot part of the cost of state measures to adapt to climate change. The Trump administration sued both states, claiming the state-level climate policies unlawfully usurp the federal government’s power.

Those lawsuits were spurred by President Donald Trump’s executive order last year for the Justice Department to “take appropriate action” to stop “burdensome and ideologically motivated” state-level climate and energy policies.

Multiple environmental groups that sided with Vermont in the EPA’s case against the state’s superfund law said in a court filing in February that the EPA’s “inconsistent statements … undermine its arguments in this case.”

The EPA referred NOTUS to the Justice Department when reached for comment. The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

Other states, including Illinois, Oregon, Virginia and Tennessee, have attempted to pass similar legislation with varying success. Bills have often failed or stalled in state legislatures.

But the repeal of the endangerment finding is poised to spur more action from blue states around climate policy.

“The endangerment finding repeal has not changed any ability for states to act, and so all it has done is made it even more important for states to do things on climate,” said Jon Binder, the executive director of the Model Climate Laws Initiative at Columbia Law’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “In my mind … it's all types of climate related laws that states will hopefully have a greater push to do in light of the engagement finding repeal.”

Binder said the EPA’s move could renew the push for state superfund bills — and other climate legislation, including setting emissions targets and joining cap-and-trade efforts — across the country. Several Democratic attorneys general have signaled that they’ll take state action in response to the rollback.

The agency’s decision could also create an opening to reinstitute rules that the Trump administration itself railed against and recently dismantled. The president said in a statement last year that “it is the Federal Government, not States, that should establish vehicle emissions standards given the inherently interstate nature of air quality” and that “a patchwork of State vehicle regulations on this subject is unworkable.”

However, the EPA’s decision could re-invite a patchwork of statutes.

Congress passed a series of resolutions last year striking down a Clean Air Act measure that allowed California an exception to national pollution standards, including by requiring a full transition to electric vehicles by 2035. The end of the exception posed a roadblock for state climate regulation not just in California, but for other states that could set similar strict standards as long as California had an EPA waiver to do so.

Trump said the California waiver gave the state too much power to regulate a national issue. Now, it’s likely California will seek to act on that waiver again as the federal government loosens its grip on any tailpipe emissions regulations.

“States gave up their right to regulate vehicle emissions (except for California) while the industry agreed to EPA regulation,” Daniel Farber — the faculty director at the University of California, Berkeley’s environment and energy law center — wrote in a blog post last week. “That bargain breaks down if there are substances that EPA can’t regulate because states would be getting nothing back in return for giving up their own regulatory powers.”

A new wave of state action is likely to stir frustration among industry players.

Varying environmental laws across different jurisdictions mean that enforcement of environmental regulations is often loose. It also means navigating a mixture of laws that may be lax in some parts of the country but stricter in others, multiple legal experts told NOTUS.

“It's really a tale of two countries,” said Sam Sankar, the senior vice president of programs at environmental nonprofit Earthjustice. “There are blue states attempting to make forward progress on clean energy and climate and environmental justice, and there are red states trying to go exactly in the opposite direction.”

In addition to setting a single standard for emissions regulations, the endangerment finding offered a “shield” to these industry players because it protected them from certain lawsuits, one legal expert at the firm Adams & Reese wrote after its repeal. In the absence of a national regulation on greenhouse gas emissions, companies could get hit with more public nuisance lawsuits, which many courts previously threw out because the EPA’s role in regulation preempted state complaints against industry players.

The phenomenon is already unfolding at the highest level — the Supreme Court said it will hear a case where the city of Boulder, Colorado, sued oil and gas companies, alleging that the companies have furthered climate change.

The justices will specifically consider whether federal emissions laws preempt the city from bringing the case, a question that could give a boost to jurisdictions looking to file similar anti-industry lawsuits in the aftermath of the endangerment finding.

Companies are also considering what comes next. A slate of industry executives praised the end of tailpipe emissions limits. But at least one leader, American Petroleum Institute CEO Mike Sommers, told reporters he is wary of how the EPA could extend the rollback — like ending its regulation of stationary pollution sources such as power plants — and further complicate the legal landscape for companies.]]> https://washingtonsun.com/immigration/state-legislators-immigration-enforcement-bans-sensitive-locations Torrie Herrington Democratic lawmakers in Vermont want to ban law enforcement masks and limiting arrest locations. Mon, 02 Mar 2026 15:30:00 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/immigration/state-legislators-immigration-enforcement-bans-sensitive-locations As Congress struggles to make a deal on reforms to the Department of Homeland Security, states are taking matters into their own hands — and risking a showdown with the Trump administration in court.

Democratic state legislators in Vermont, Washington, New Jersey and more have introduced legislation to put limits on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, mirroring some of what congressional Democrats hope to accomplish nationwide during talks over funding DHS.

The Trump administration is already threatening a legal battle.

“Sanctuary politicians attempting to ban our federal law enforcement from wearing masks is despicable and a flagrant attempt to endanger our officers,” DHS spokesperson Lauren Bis told NOTUS in an email. “To be crystal clear: we will not abide by unconstitutional bans. The Supremacy Clause makes it clear that state politicians do not control federal law enforcement.”

Legislators are pushing forward. The Vermont Senate approved a bill that would prohibit ICE arrests at “sensitive locations” such as hospitals, schools and government buildings.

“We took testimony last year, and there were people who were not sending their children to school, were not seeking cancer treatment, were not going to access case management services because they were afraid,” Vermont state Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky, who introduced the bill, said. “It’s trying to add those protections and those guardrails so that people can go about their day-to-day lives with less fear.”

The Vermont Senate also approved a bill that would require local, state and federal law enforcement to identify themselves and ban them from wearing masks unless in hazardous situations.

Vyhovsky told NOTUS that “general fear and people really wanting accountability was the trigger” for this legislation.

“There’s just something very unsettling about having masked people pull people off the streets and busting down doors and doing whatever else they do,” Vermont state Sen. Seth Bongartz, a co-sponsor of the bill, told NOTUS. “There’s no reason in the world that people in law enforcement need to be wearing masks.”

Washington state senators are also aiming to limit masked agents, proposing a bill that would prohibit local, state and federal law enforcement from wearing masks or other types of face coverings unless needed to protect against exposure to any toxins or harm.

“We’re all better off if people who are given a badge and a gun and the ability to be law enforcement are bound by the rule of law, and not by whatever their own ideas are,” Washington state Sen. Jamie Pedersen told The Daily at University of Washington.

State legislators in New Jersey introduced a bill package Feb. 24, which passed through the Assembly panel and the Senate Judiciary Committee, that will strengthen protections against ICE in the state.

“The bills we are introducing will go beyond protecting our immigrant communities. They will protect our civil liberties and ensure federal officers work with, not against, our communities,” Assemblywoman Annette Quijano, who helped introduce the bills, said in a statement earlier this month. “No one is above the law, but everyone, including immigrants, deserves due process, fairness, and the chance to work towards the American dream.”

If state legislation to limit ICE becomes law, it is likely to be challenged by the federal government. The Justice Department has sued New York, Minnesota, Los Angeles and New Jersey over other measures meant to put restraints on federal immigration activity.

“The Department of Justice will not tolerate the obstruction of lawful efforts to enforce federal immigration law and has sued several jurisdictions over dangerous sanctuary policies that put the American people at risk,” a spokesperson told NOTUS in an email. “The Department will continue to bring litigation against willful offenders and work overtime to ensure these harmful policies are eradicated across the country.”

Vyhovsky, the state senator, said the Vermont bills could not be framed as discriminating against immigration agents because the limits apply to all law enforcement on the local, state and federal levels. A law in California was blocked by a federal judge because it targeted immigration agents and did not include state law enforcement.

“I think our bill is much stronger,” Vyhovsky said. “I anticipate there would be a court challenge, and a lot of this is sort of untested, so we’ll have to see.”]]> https://washingtonsun.com/donald-trump/jack-smith-judiciary-hearing Jose Pagliery Much of the all-day Judiciary Committee hearing was a rehashed debate over the 2020 election. Thu, 22 Jan 2026 22:07:13 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/donald-trump/jack-smith-judiciary-hearing Jack Smith told the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday that he expects the Trump administration will try to criminally indict him as part of the president's years-long revenge campaign against judges, prosecutors and FBI agents who investigated him.

The former Justice Department special counsel, who oversaw the criminal investigations into President Donald Trump regarding his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack and the potential mishandling of classified documents, vowed that he would not be intimidated. When asked if he had made any mistakes, he only voiced a regret that he hadn’t shown “enough appreciation” for his team of investigators, who he said “have endured way too much for just doing their job.”

“Do you believe that President Trump’s Department of Justice will find some way to indict you?” asked Rep. Becca Balint, a Vermont Democrat.

“I believe they will do everything in their power to do that because they’ve been ordered to by the president,” Smith testified.

“That’s very concerning, obviously,” she responded. “It’s very concerning to all of us — at least on this side of the aisle. This is Trump's playbook at work: Complain loudly, gin up hatred and resentment, then express a hope that somebody will do something, but never explicitly order anyone to act, and then watch as his followers and loyalists go after their targets.”

Trump only reinforced that notion in a Truth Social post Thursday afternoon.

“Based on his testimony today, there is no question that Deranged Jack Smith should be prosecuted for his actions. He destroyed the lives of many innocent people, which has been his history as a prosecutor. At a minimum, he committed large scale perjury!” Trump posted.

Thursday’s hearing was long-anticipated and a chance for the public to hear Smith speak for longer than a few minutes — and under oath. For over a year, Smith stuck to rare and tightly scripted press conferences as his law enforcement team pursued two criminal cases against the then-former president that eventually went sideways when Trump was elected back to the White House. DOJ’s internal legal advisers, at that point, made the call to drop both cases.

While the all-day hearing was meant to provide better insight into the way Smith oversaw those investigations, much of the hearing was a rehash of the 2020 election, with Republicans still defending Trump’s attempts to stay in power and Democrats decrying the attack they say he inspired on the U.S. Capitol. The idea of whether Trump willingly tried to deceive the American people by claiming election fraud remained a central question, as it fueled Smith’s criminal probe.

Rep. Glenn Grothman, a Wisconsin Republican, at one point slipped when he wholeheartedly affirmed Trump knew exactly what he was doing — before he corrected himself.

“Anybody who says that Donald Trump thought he won that election, that is just plain not true. No way,” he started, before hearing Democrats agree with him.

“Donald Trump did not believe he lost that election. No way,” he quickly corrected.

Republicans took turns railing against Smith over his appointment, persistent prosecution strategy, the cost of his investigation, his past failed prosecutions of politicians, and even his insistence on following the DOJ’s rules.

Rep. Russell Fry of South Carolina castigated Smith for trying to get the Trump cases through a speedy trial.

“If you get a traffic ticket in Washington, D.C., you’re not going to trial in five months. But you want the former president of the United States to have a trial date with 13 million pages of documents within five months,” Fry said.

Rep. Thomas Tiffany of Wisconsin harangued Smith for being deemed the “gold standard” after working on several failed prosecutions against politicians, like John Edwards — without mentioning that Edwards was once the Democratic Party’s vice presidential candidate in 2004.

“If Mr. Smith ever works for the Department of Justice again, I would recommend a remedial course on the First Amendment to the Constitution,” Tiffany said.

Jeff Van Drew, once a New Jersey Democrat who switched parties in 2020, called Smith “a hypocrite” for not pursuing cases against Democrats — even though Smith has.

Freshman Republican Rep. Michael Baumgartner volunteered, unsolicited, that until recently he had no idea who Jack Smith even is — but still said he quickly determined that “it was a politically motivated investigation.”

Rep. Scott Fitzgerald, a Republican from Wisconsin, questioned the circumstances of Smith’s appointment. He brought up Smith’s decades-long friendship with Marshall Miller, who was the DOJ’s principal associate deputy attorney general when the department appointed Smith in 2022.

“You’ve known Mr. Miller since you were both AUSA in New York, you stayed in touch over a 20-year career in federal government, he gets a job with the Biden administration, and just a few short months later you’re offered the role as special counsel. I’m having a hard time believing that this is some big coincidence and there wasn’t some back and forth on the special counsel,” Fitzgerald said.

Smith pushed back on the idea that he’d ever take directions from a political appointee for a partisan prosecution.

“I have been a prosecutor for 30 years, I have been an apolitical public servant for 30 years, I’ve prosecuted cases against Democrats and Republicans all the same. I’ve had, in my view, the experience necessary for this position, and that’s why I accepted it,” Smith said.

Meanwhile, Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan questioned Smith’s tactics, among them, the way his Special Counsel’s office paid one “confidential human source” $20,000, which Smith said was “to assist in the review of video and photographic evidence showing people who were attacking the Capitol.” Jordan compared that to the work of past DOJ special counsels.

“I don’t remember Robert Mueller approving payments to confidential human sources. I don’t remember [John] Durham. I don’t remember [Robert] Hur. We brought all those guys in front of the committee. It's the first time I’ve ever heard of a special counsel having to pay secret money to someone to get information when you had the broadest subpoena power you could possibly have,” Jordan said.

Jordan repeatedly pointed to a May 17, 2023, email in which Smith’s prosecutors reached out to the DOJ’s public integrity team, or PIN, for guidance on how to legally obtain Republican congressional members’ call logs as investigators tried to determine the scope of Trump’s influence campaign to halt certification of the 2020 election results. However, Jordan largely ignored that while PIN cited “some litigation risk” in a potential fight over the records, the DOJ team of advisers on such sensitive cases made clear that they approved the maneuver.

“And Mr. Smith thought that was A-OK. That was just fine,” Jordan said.

Democrats were forcefully defensive of Smith’s efforts, with each one thanking him for his service.

“You had the audacity to do your job,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.]]> https://washingtonsun.com/2026-election/bernie-sanders-backs-brad-lander-primary-challenge-dan-goldman Torrie Herrington Sanders said he endorsed Lander over Democratic incumbent Dan Goldman because “he’s a far more progressive candidate.” Wed, 10 Dec 2025 20:05:18 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/2026-election/bernie-sanders-backs-brad-lander-primary-challenge-dan-goldman Sen. Bernie Sanders threw his support on Thursday behind New York City Comptroller Brad Lander in his bid for New York’s 10th Congressional District, yet again backing a progressive challenger to a sitting Democratic lawmaker.

Sanders told NOTUS he endorsed Lander over incumbent Rep. Dan Goldman because Lander “is a far more progressive candidate.”

“Brad is one of a number of progressive candidates that we're supporting who is prepared to take on the oligarchs and to fight for working people, and I think that's the kind of energy we need in the House,” Sanders said.

Sanders has endorsed several candidates for the 2026 cycle, some of whom are taking on elected Democrats or are facing candidates preferred by the Democratic establishment. NOTUS previously reported that Sanders looks to endorse candidates with a similar progressive streak.

Lander, who previously ran for New York City mayor but lost the Democratic primary to Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, is running on housing, affordability and fighting for New York City’s working families.

Lander said Thursday he was grateful for Sanders’ endorsement.

“It’s an honor to be endorsed by Bernie Sanders, a progressive champion who has spent his entire life fighting for working class Americans and building a movement to stand up to the oligarchy,” Lander said in a Facebook post.

Lander also announced endorsements from several others, including Mamdani and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

“Brad is the real deal,” Warren said in an X post. “He is a fighter for New Yorkers. He has the experience, the values, and the grit to not just win this race, but deliver for working families.”

Goldman has been serving New York’s 10th Congressional District since 2023 and is running for reelection. A spokesperson for his campaign told CBS News New York that Goldman is focused on the Trump administration rather than people entering the Democratic primary.

“Dan is focused on stopping the Trump administration from what they’re doing to immigrant families in his district right now. He’s proud of his progressive record in Congress and will deal with Brad and other challengers in the new year,” said Goldman spokesperson Maddy Rosen.]]> https://washingtonsun.com/vermont/new-england-moderate-republican-success Torrie Herrington Vermont politics is dominated by Democrats — except for its governorship. Mon, 10 Nov 2025 10:15:00 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/vermont/new-england-moderate-republican-success Moderate Republicans are becoming more rare in national politics. But they’re hanging on — and even thriving — in mostly blue New England.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott is a prime example. A recent University of New Hampshire poll found that more than half of Vermonters approved of Scott’s performance as governor and want him to run for reelection next year. Even a majority of Democrats in the state approved of his handling of the job, despite them saying he was to their right politically.

So how is a Republican governor performing so well in a deep blue state?

Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist, said “Yankee Republicans” tend to thrive in New England because they are more focused on state politics instead of national politics.

“Outside of Vermont, you've never heard of this guy,” he said of Scott. “He does not play to the prime-time cable news lightning rod, whether it's the face of the resistance or, you know, MAGA acolyte, all he does is be the governor of Vermont.”

Sign Up for NOTUS’ Free Daily Newsletter

Scott is not a MAGA acolyte — he said he voted for Democratic nominee Kamala Harris last election as a “vote against Donald Trump.” He criticized some of Trump’s actions, including his deployment of the National Guard in several cities. But he’s gone along with other Trump policies. In August, Scott was criticized by many Vermonters for sharing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients’ personal data with the federal government.

Vermont voters as a whole are 53% Democratic, 20.25% Republican and 26.75% unaffiliated. In 2024, 63% of Vermonters voted for Harris, giving her a 31 percentage-point lead over President Donald Trump.

Both of Vermont’s U.S. senators — Peter Welch and independent Bernie Sanders — caucus with the Democratic Party. Democrats hold the only U.S. House seat and 114 of 180 seats in the state Legislature. Scott won his 2024 election with 71% of the vote, giving him a 50 percentage-point lead against his Democratic opponent.

Scott hasn’t yet said whether he’ll run again.

“The governor is appreciative of Vermonters view of the job he’s doing and remains focused on doing what’s right for Vermont and Vermonters,” his office told NOTUS. “Since elected, providing Vermont with principled and responsible leadership has been his priority and will continue to be. He has not made a decision about running for re-election.”

Bartlett said the success of a Republican in New England is very dependent on the state they’re in and how in-tune they are with the state politics.

“It's just the characteristics that make Republicans win are the characteristics that define each state to a tee,” he said. “You can have the traditional Republican mantra, but it has to also recognize whether it's cross-voter, independent, or even that style of Republican. That is all distinct in each state, very distinct from the national MAGA brand.”

Other Republicans have had similar success in New England. Republican Kelly Ayotte was elected governor of New Hampshire in 2024 after serving in the Senate for two terms. Before Massachusetts’ Democratic Gov. Maura Healey took office, Republican Charlie Baker led the state for two terms. Before he moved to the right to run for president, Mitt Romney served as Massachusetts governor and enacted a health care reform law.

In Connecticut, former Republican Gov. Jodi Rell served from 2004 to 2011, and in Rhode Island, former Republican Gov. Don Carcieri served from 2003 to 2011. Since 2011, both states have elected Democratic governors.

And Maine has been represented in the Senate by Republican Susan Collins for over 27 years. Jim Melcher, a professor of political science at the University of Maine at Farmington, noted that while many of the moderate and moderate-leaning Republicans in Maine have become independent, Collins is “proof that there are still those kind of old-fashioned Republicans out there.”

“She has refused to change parties,” he said. “She's voted in such a way to discourage a primary challenge. I think her vote for (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett) Kavanaugh was very critical in keeping potential challengers at bay, but it also was the thing that cost her a lot of support from independents and some Democrats.”

Melcher said that Republicans have faced some difficulty getting elected in New England, especially in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

He said Republicans are strongest in New Hampshire.

“They've got a Republican governor. They have had very competitive races for the Senate. They have commonly had legislative control. So, I would say that New Hampshire is the state that proves that the Republican party certainly is alive in New England.”

Melcher said that while moderate Republicans may be dwindling in states like Connecticut, they are still prominent in states like Vermont or New Hampshire, the latter of which is “socially relatively moderate, but they're anti-tax — they're conservative on that.”

“When people look at New England and say, ‘Oh, all the states were carried by Democrats,’ that wildly underestimates how many Republicans there still are in here,” Melcher said. “Donald Trump carried the 2nd Congressional District of Maine, and therefore its electoral votes all three times he's run. So it's not as though there aren't any Republicans left in New England.”

Still, there are differences between how Republicans find success in New England compared to the rest of the country. Andrew Smith, director of the UNH Survey Center, said that moderate Republicans in New England don’t tend to focus on social issues. He pointed out that five of the six New England States are among the top 10 least religious in the country.

Instead, successful Republicans are “focused on basic issues of governance,” he said.

“Are the roads repaired? Are the taxes relatively low? Are the police doing their jobs? You know, just the basic things like that,” Smith continued. “They stay away from the social issues.”

Smith said the most interesting statistic that speaks to Scott’s performance in Vermont was the question on how residents view the governor on the political spectrum compared to their own beliefs.

“He's in a nice position, because Republicans think that he's to the left of them. Democrats think that he's to the right of them, and in the middle, people think that he's slightly more to the right of them, but not that much,” Smith said. “Frankly, it's probably the only way he can win an election in a state like Vermont. And now that he's done it four or five times, it makes it easier for him to win future elections.”

While moderate Republicans may be disappearing in some parts of the country, there is still a home for them in New England.

“Moderate Republicans are not a dying breed around here. I think moderate Republicans may be a dying breed in some of the areas where it's very, very Trumpy, largely because it's kind of hard to place Trump on an ideological scale — you're either with Trump or against him,” Smith said. “Moderate Republicans still have a definite future in New England.”
]]> https://washingtonsun.com/us-news/head-start-programs-shutdown Adora Brown As Democrats and advocates warn of the additional strain the shutdown is about to put on families in November, there’s little urgency on Capitol Hill. Wed, 29 Oct 2025 22:06:24 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/us-news/head-start-programs-shutdown Democrats and advocates are warning about the growing consequences that the government shutdown will have on Head Start programs across the country.

The program, which provides child care and nutritious meals to more than 700,000 children across the country, has already faced funding lapses that forced some programs to close completely and others to look for interim funding elsewhere. On Saturday, another wave of funding lapses is set to hit nearly 60,000 more children across 41 states, according to the National Head Start Association.

“It’s an absolute tragedy,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said about the upcoming lapses. “And it is beyond comprehension that you have a Republican House, which is now in its fifth week of vacation. Maybe they want to come to work and help us resolve this crisis.”

Outside of Congress, pressure from nonprofit groups is starting to pick up as Head Start programs look for solutions elsewhere.

“They are working with their states, working with their counties, working with their school districts, looking within their agencies, talking to philanthropic partners, just really trying to do everything that they can to avoid children and families being the collateral damage of the political fights in Washington,” said Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, a nonprofit that represents Head Start organizations and programs in Washington, D.C.

“They're not gonna be able to hold that back forever,” Sheridan added.

States’ Head Start programs receive funding on different dates. Some already lost funding on Oct. 1 when their fiscal year ended, but the upcoming Saturday deadline will have an even bigger effect because the vast majority of states will lose their federal funding.

More than 100 organizations signed a letter released Tuesday, led by the First Five Years Fund, a nonprofit that supports child care and early education programs. In it, they asked Congress to end the shutdown.

“We cannot allow political gridlock to take away opportunities from our youngest learners and their families,” the letter reads.

But the pressure appears to have little effect on Republicans on Capitol Hill, even though lawmakers are aware that programs in their states could close. The Florida Head Start Association wrote in a press release that seven grantees won’t get a federal check on Saturday, bringing the total number of affected children in the state to almost 9,000.

“Isn’t it awful that the Democrats are doing this?” Sen. Ashley Moody told NOTUS, in line with Republicans’ messaging strategy of placing blame on Democrats for the shutdown as they withhold votes due to expiring health care subsidies.

In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Voice reported that four Head Start programs, two of which are tribal programs, are set to lose funding on Saturday.

"Of the two non-tribal programs that have an end to their fiscal year on Oct. 31st, one will be able to serve children and families and pay staff through Nov. 21,” the director of the Oklahoma Head Start Collaboration Office said in an email to NOTUS. “The other program will have to cease services on Oct. 31st. If the shutdown continues into December there will be another 7 programs affected.”

Under the four programs that receive the grant funding are several centers, which serve nearly 2,500 children.

“You need to ask them (Democrats) what they're concerned about, because there's nothing else I can do,” Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin said when NOTUS asked him what role Head Start plays in negotiations.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which administers Head Start, said that child care should cost no more than 7% of a family’s income to be affordable. But according to the Economic Policy Institute, no state’s median family income meets that criteria, which makes programs like Head Start critical resources for families.

In a statement to NOTUS, HHS also tried to place the blame on Democrats.

“More than 58,000 children are on course to lose access to Head Start funding and programs on November 1 due solely to the Democrat-led government shutdown,” a spokesperson said in a statement to NOTUS.

Despite the fact that many programs for low-income families are barrelling toward losing federal funding, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and WIC, senators seem no closer to ending the shutdown stalemate.

Sen. Rick Scott’s home state of Florida would be one of the most affected by Head Start funding lapses. When asked what people in Florida are saying about losing programs that help low-income families, Scott said, “They're fed up with the Democrats shutting down the government.”

—
Correction: This story has been updated to correct the number of children served by Head Start.]]> https://washingtonsun.com/congress/states-snap-solutions-shutdown Raymond Fernández, Jade Lozada, Torrie Herrington SNAP funding runs out at the end of October, and states are considering legal action and emergency funding to try to make up for it as the government shutdown continues. Tue, 28 Oct 2025 09:13:00 GMT https://washingtonsun.com/congress/states-snap-solutions-shutdown Federal funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is on the brink of running out as the government shutdown continues, leaving states scrambling to put together a patchwork of solutions.

The program, which provides aid for nearly 42 million people across the country, won’t see its usual influx of cash on Nov. 1. This would affect families’ abilities to get food on their tables, regardless of whether they live in a blue or red state, ratcheting up pressure on Congress to find an end to the funding stalemate.

“If 42 million Americans go hungry, it won't be because of what the White House did, it was because we didn't pass the budget,” Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri who introduced a bill to continue funding SNAP throughout the government shutdown, told reporters Monday.

The Department of Agriculture informed states earlier this month that November SNAP benefits would not be paid if the shutdown continued. State officials and advocates urged the Trump administration to tap into contingency funds, but a USDA memo reported by Axios on Friday said the administration would not do so.

Now states are looking for other ways to make sure their residents who depend on SNAP are fed.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, a Republican, announced Monday that his attorney general and administration officials are exploring a multi-state lawsuit aimed at releasing contingency funding to support the program. Dozens of Democratic attorneys general and governors are also among those considering legal action, according to Politico.

"In the absence of the federal government acting to ensure that millions of vulnerable Americans have access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food benefits they desperately need, states, including Vermont, are contemplating possible steps to support these vulnerable households and their families,” Scott said in a release where he noted the “bipartisan support for a lawsuit.”

Governors and state legislatures are also looking for other workarounds outside of the courts. In Louisiana, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry declared a state of emergency, and the state Legislature is considering legislation to address SNAP funding.

“I have been in discussions with other governors across the nation, as well as with our legislative leadership. I am making it a top priority to ensure that seniors, individuals with disabilities, and children who rely on food stamps do not go hungry in Louisiana,” Landry said in a statement. “Democrats’ political games need to end.”

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis last week requested $10 million from the state’s budget committee for food banks and pantries, as well as funding extensions to WIC through November. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Monday announced $4 million in one-time emergency funding to food pantries and tribal nations, and Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signed off on $3 million in emergency funding to a nonprofit food bank.

But the massive size of SNAP and the cost of running it make all of those solutions temporary.

“They're already pressed for resources and relying on increased private donations,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal said of food pantries. “It's going to be heartbreaking, much as it was in COVID with lines of people who are in need of basic necessities.”

It also puts states in a difficult position — some, like Maryland and Kansas, have not allocated state funds to food benefits and are standing by the argument that it’s the federal government’s responsibility. And in the memo Axios reported on Friday, the Trump administration argued that states cannot be legally reimbursed and that USDA contingency funds cannot be used for November benefits because they go beyond the amount appropriated for the fiscal year.

“The Trump Administration has provided zero assurance that our state will receive reimbursement,” Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said in a statement. “And as recent history has shown, President Trump’s targeted attacks on Democratic priorities, programs and states only further diminishes our confidence in being made whole.”

Some Democratic state officials have also criticized the administration over its lack of communication and for allowing SNAP funding to get swept up in the fight over the federal budget.

“President Trump controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. It’s clear where the responsibility lies to keep the government running,” Washington state Gov. Bob Ferguson said in a statement, accusing Trump and Republicans of playing “political games” with SNAP funding.

The White House and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs SNAP, did not respond to a request for comment. But the administration has in the meantime blamed Democrats for the shutdown. Democrats have used a rare moment of leverage to push for health care subsidy extensions.

“Bottom line, the well has run dry,” the USDA said in a statement posted to its website. “At this time, there will be no benefits issued November 01. We are approaching an inflection point for Senate Democrats. They can continue to hold out for healthcare for illegal aliens and gender mutilation procedures or reopen the government so mothers, babies, and the most vulnerable among us can receive critical nutrition assistance.”

In addition to state officials, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are also urging the White House to take action. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters Monday that she reached out to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins last week to “strongly recommend that she use the $5 billion” in contingency funds, but she has not heard back.

And some are predicting that between the health care subsidies Democrats are pushing for and the SNAP benefits on the line, the political calculations around the shutdown are about to change.

“You've got to a pivot point here that I think many have looked at and said, ‘You know that's going to be the precipitating event.’ I hope so,” Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski told reporters Monday. “I hope that we look at it and say we don't want to deal with that. We don't want to deal with the fact that now we're not sending out SNAP benefits. Now we're saying we don't have WIC."

Others were less sure.

When asked about the role of SNAP funding in shutdown talks, Sen. Ron Johnson told NOTUS that there isn’t anything more Republicans can do but wait on Democrats to vote for the CR.

“We've kind of laid our final offer on the table,” he said.

—
Correction: This story has been updated to reflect the current status of emergency funding in Louisiana.

This story was produced as part of a partnership between NOTUS, Verite News, and Signal Ohio.]]>