
‘The reality we live in:' Lawmakers consider what they'd sacrifice for safety
Congressional lawmakers are once again grappling with the reality of persistent and escalating political violence — and facing a dilemma about whether to pour more tax dollars into their own protection.
On the Capitol grounds, they're surrounded by layers of security and a police force that was dramatically overhauled after the riots of Jan. 6, 2021. But back home in their districts, members of the House and Senate are feeling increasingly exposed following the shootings in Minnesota that killed a state representative and her husband; wounded a state senator and his wife; and revealed a list of other elected officials who might have been harmed had the suspect not first been apprehended.
It all has predictably rattled both Democrats and Republicans in Washington, many of whom responded by making new demands for more money and resources for security.
A bipartisan Senate duo of Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) made the case for additional lawmaker security funding at a Tuesday morning briefing with the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and U.S. Capitol Police, according to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
Across the Capitol, House Democrats held a briefing Tuesday afternoon to hear from law enforcement officials and get walked through available resources, according to three people familiar with the discussion. And Republican Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee sent a letter to the House Administration Committee calling for an expansion of what House members are allowed to spend on security expenses, including on 'around the clock' security personnel instead of only during 'official conduct and representational duties' — restrictions he called 'inadequate.'
Recent events have also prompted fresh questions about what can be done and how much money is actually necessary to alleviate the risks that come with being a public figure. The answer is enormously complicated.
Ultimately, lawmakers are divided over welcoming — and paying for — the kinds of additional safety precautions that would inevitably restrict their freedom of movement, limit their interactions with regular people and intrude on their family life. Unlike the senior most leaders who have 24/7 security details, rank-and-file members are typically left to their own devices unless they are deemed to be under active threat by Capitol Police.
'I feel like the law enforcement — they're doing their best to protect us. I try to make good, common-sense decisions,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said after his chamber's Tuesday morning security briefing. 'But you just can't get locked down. You just got to press on.'
'I don't want to have security on me. I'm a very private person. I like to go outside and be by myself,' added Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), who chairs the Senate appropriations subcommittee that funds Capitol Police.
Consider two programs the House and Senate Sergeants-at-Arms and the Capitol Police have spent years trying to promote to members: one for security updates at lawmakers' primary residences and another to coordinate local and Capitol Police resources for in-district events.
So far, Capitol Police have mutual aid agreements with more than 100 state and local police departments around the country to do this type of work, according to former chief Thomas Manger, who departed last month. But that's still just a fraction of what would be needed for every member to have access to seamless security coverage in their home state or district, with local departments reimbursed by the agency.
More than half of all House lawmakers last year took advantage of the home security program, but those who didn't enroll cited either a lack of interest or a feeling that the paperwork and approval process were too burdensome, according to two people familiar with the administration of the initiative, granted anonymity to speak candidly about it. That left hundreds of thousands of dollars in the House Sergeants-at-Arms budget unspent.
The extent to which recent events might be changing lawmakers' thinking will be tested next week, when the House Legislative Branch appropriations subcommittee is scheduled to meet to consider its bill to fund the operations of Capitol Hill. In a spending cycle where Republicans in both chambers are looking for deep cuts, lawmakers will have to decide if their own security is worthy of further investment — and what that security might look like.
Manger, in his final budget proposal to House and Senate appropriators, asked for an allocation of $967.8 million for fiscal 2026, a 22 percent boost over the current funding level which was set in fiscal 2024. The Capitol Police budget has already increased more than 70 percent since Jan. 6. And with some lawmakers calling this week for even more resources for member security, the budget for the relatively small force could top $1 billion for the first time this year or next.
Top House Democrats, for instance, have asked Speaker Mike Johnson to boost funding for security through what's known as the Member Representation Allowance, which each House member receives to fund basic office expenses including payroll. Increasing the MRA would allow lawmakers to increase security capabilities without taking away money that pays staff salaries.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said he supports additional resources for member security but stressed that it must be implemented in a way that is 'unobtrusive and non-interfering' with lawmakers' work.
'I have no intention of changing the way I live or do my job, because accessibility is part of who I am as a public official,' Blumenthal continued. 'But I understand how people are scared.'
Capitol Police have poured significant financial resources over the last four years into overhauling their intelligence operations and expanding the assessment teams that handle the growing threats against lawmakers. Blumenthal said he wants those capabilities further ramped up, saying right now serious threats are too often 'discounted as a prank or a joke.'
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) made a similar case, arguing there would be value in having more tools to identify individuals who are 'going beyond the normal bickering that you find on social media, getting to the point where they appear to be more dangerous or making actual accusations or threats to individuals that they might at some point act on in the future.'
Reps. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.), the chair and ranking member of the House Administration Committee, on Tuesday wrote to the Justice Department requesting that an assistant U.S. attorney or a special assistant U.S. attorney be assigned 'to each of the 94 federal districts to, at least on a part-time basis, investigate and prosecute threats against Members of Congress.'
Some lawmakers also continue to push for increased security and Capitol Police protection at their homes in the aftermath of the attackon then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband at their San Francisco residence in Oct. 2022. Capitol Police have tried to build strong working relationships with local departments to counter threats, swatting attempts and problems at town halls or other events — hoping that local law enforcement can help fill the gaps in protection faced by members of Congress when they're back home.
The force opened several satellite offices in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riots, too, in part to respond to increased threats to lawmakers outside of Washington. The department reported more than 9,400 threats against members in 2024, and a good number of those were deemed credible enough to require temporary protective details for rank-and-file lawmakers who otherwise would not be entitled to them.
In a statement, a Capitol Police spokesperson said the force would keep doing its work: 'We continue to closely coordinate with the House and Senate Sergeant at Arms to enhance security for Members of Congress. Their partnerships, along with assistance from local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies across the country, are extremely important to keep everyone safe.
'For safety and security reasons, we will not discuss those details,' the spokesperson said, 'but we will continue to focus on continuing intelligence sharing with our partners and providing proactive enhancements.'
But Manger lamented in an interview days before his retirement that, 'We're always robbing Peter to pay Paul to put that together,' referring to the need to urgently assemble Capitol Police details for members under threat.
Mullin conceded that no matter what choices lawmakers make, worries of political violence will continue to be a way of life.
'I operate right now with a tremendous amount of death threats on us. I mean, if you go to my house, I have bulletproof glass on the bottom part of my house. … We have cameras everywhere. We have security dogs,' said Mullin. 'It is, unfortunately, the reality we live in.'
Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
Senate Republicans' tax cuts now projected to cost $4.45T
Senate Republicans released updated megabill text late Friday that would make sharp cuts to the Inflation Reduction Act's solar and wind tax credits after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives. The text would require solar and wind generation projects seeking to qualify for the law's clean electricity production and investment tax credits to be placed in service by the end of 2027 — significantly more restrictive than an earlier proposal by the Senate Finance Committee that tied eligibility to when a project begins construction. The changes came after Trump urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune to crack down on the wind and solar credits and align the measure more closely with reconciliation text, H.R.1, that passed the House, as POLITICO reported earlier on Friday. The changes are likely to put some moderate GOP senators, who have backed a slower schedule for sunsetting those incentives, in a tough position. They'll be forced to choose between rejecting Trump's agenda or allowing the gutting of tax credits that could lead to canceled projects and job losses in their states — something renewable energy advocates are also warning about. 'We are literally going to have not enough electricity because Trump is killing solar. It's that serious,' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) responded on X early Saturday. 'We need a bunch of new power on the grid, and nothing is as available as solar. Everything else takes a while. Meantime, expect shortages and high prices. Stupid.' The revised text would retain the investment and production tax credits for baseload sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage, as proposed in the Finance Committee's earlier proposal. But it would make other significant changes, including extending a tax credit for clean hydrogen production until 2028. The panel's earlier proposal would have eliminated the credit after this year. And despite vocal lobbying by the solar industry, the proposal would maintain an abrupt cut to the tax incentive supporting residential solar power. The committee's earlier proposal would have eliminated that credit six months after the enactment of the bill; now the updated draft proposes repealing it at the end of this year. It would also deny certain wind and solar leasing arrangements from accessing the climate law's clean electricity investment and production tax credits, but, in a notable change, removed earlier language specifically disallowing rooftop solar. And it would move up the timeline for certain rules barring foreign entities of concern from accessing those credits. The bill would move up the termination date for electric vehicle tax credits to Sept. 30, compared to six months after enactment in the earlier Finance text. The credit for EV chargers would extend through June 2026. The new text also provides a bonus incentive for advanced nuclear facilities built in communities with high levels of employment in the nuclear industry. And the bill makes metallurgical coal eligible for the advanced manufacturing production tax credit through 2029. Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, a clean energy policy consulting group, said the new draft is going to 'screw' ratepayers, kill jobs and undermine U.S. economic competitiveness. 'All just to give fossil fuel executives more profits,' he said. 'Or to own the libs. Insanity.' Josh Siegel contributed to this report.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate's ‘big, beautiful bill' faces serious headwinds in the House
The Senate's version of the 'big, beautiful bill' is facing serious headwinds in the House with The Hill learning that at least six House Republicans are currently a 'no' on the framework, a daunting sign for GOP leadership as the Senate races towards a vote. Those six House Republicans, some of whom requested anonymity, are enough opposition to tank the package, as GOP leaders grapple with a razor-thin majority. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who was one of two GOP lawmakers to oppose the House version of the bill last month, is also likely to oppose the Senate's edition, deepening the pocket of resistance in the lower chamber. Republicans can only afford to lose three votes and still clear the legislation, assuming full attendance and united Democratic opposition. 'I support the reasonable provisions in H.R. 1 that protect Medicaid's long-term viability and ensure the program continues to serve our most vulnerable, but I will not support a final bill that eliminates vital funding streams our hospitals rely on, including provider taxes and state directed payments, or any provisions that punish expansion states,' Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.) wrote in a statement on Saturday. 'President Trump was clear when he said to root out our waste, fraud, and abuse without cutting Medicaid and I wholeheartedly agree,' he continued. 'I urge my Senate colleagues to stick to the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 — otherwise I will vote no.' Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.) told The Hill that he is also opposed to the bill because of the Medicaid provider tax provision. Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) is currently a 'no' on the measure because of the Medicaid language, rollback of solar energy credits and public lands provisions, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Rep. Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, told The Hill that he is against the current version of the package because of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap proposal. The legislation would increase the currently $10,000 SALT cap to $40,000 for individuals making $500,000 or less for five years, then snap back to the original number. 'While I support the President's broader agenda, how could I support the same unfair $10k SALT cap I've spent years criticizing?' LaLota said. 'A permanent $40k deduction cap with income thresholds of $225k for single filers and $450k for joint filers would earn my vote.' It is not, however, just moderates who are signaling issues with the Senate bill: Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, posted an ominous message on X that suggested he was not pleased with the package. 'I will not negotiate via X. But it's important to know that jamming us with a bill before we've had any chance to review the implications of major changes & re-writes, fluid scores, a high likelihood of violating the house framework (deficits) , & tons of swamp buy-offs is bad,' he wrote. The opposition is rising to the surface as Senate Republicans inch closer to holding an initial vote on the 'big, beautiful bill,' which would officially kick off the consideration process and eventually tee up a final vote in the House. It remains unclear, however, if Senate GOP leaders have the votes to move forward. If the motion to proceed passes by a simple majority, the chamber would hold a series of unlimited amendment votes called a vote-a-rama, which could result in changes to the measure. Senate GOP leaders are also still talking to holdouts and could make changes to the bill as written. In the meantime, House Republicans — beginning to review the revised Senate text unveiled overnight — are expressing resistance to the measure, prompting serious questions about whether top GOP lawmakers will be able to enact the legislation by their self-imposed July 4 deadline. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) convened a call with the House Republican Conference Saturday afternoon and urged lawmakers to keep their concerns with the Senate bill private, and instead speak directly with their senators and the White House, two sources told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told members that it is unlikely they will have to return to Washington on Monday, the sources said. Tuesday or Wednesday is more realistic, he told lawmakers. One source told The Hill that the call was brief and leadership did not take questions. The main qualm among House Republicans appears to be the Medicaid language in the bill. The Senate's legislation includes a proposal that would effectively cap provider taxes at 3.5 percent by 2031, down from the current 6 percent, but only for the states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. The decrease was initially supposed to begin in 2027, with a 0.5 percent phase down annually, but Senate Republicans overnight changed the text to delay the implementation to 2028. The upper chamber also inserted a provision to create a $25 billion rural hospital relief fund that would be distributed over five years to assuage those concerns. The changes, however, do not seem to be solving all of the GOP's problems, with House Republicans still voicing opposition to the language. Aside from Medicaid, the Senate bill's rollback of green-energy tax credits is an issue for some House Republicans. The revised legislation for the upper chamber slashes tax incentives for wind and solar energy and adds a new tax on future wind and solar projects. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) would not say how he plans to vote on the bill, but signaled that he is not happy with the Medicaid provisions and green-energy tax credit language. 'Instead of improving the Medicaid and energy portions of [the] House bill it appears the Senate went backwards,' he told The Hill. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Boston Globe
37 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Senators voting in weekend session to meet Trump's deadline for passing his tax and spending cuts
Advertisement Ahead of the expected roll call, the White House released a statement of administrative policy saying it 'strongly supports passage' of the bill that 'implements critical aspects' of the president's agenda. Trump himself was at his golf course in Virginia on Saturday with GOP senators posting about it on social media. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'It's time to get this legislation across the finish line,' said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D. But as the day dragged, billionaire Elon Musk lashed out, calling the package 'utterly insane and destructive.' 'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' the former top Trump aide said in a post. The Advertisement With the narrow Republican majorities in the House and Senate, leaders need almost every lawmaker on board in the face of essentially unified opposition from Democrats. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans dropped the bill 'in the dead of night' and are rushing to finish the bill before the public fully knows what's in it. He is expected to call for a full reading of the text in the Senate, which would take hours. Make-or-break moment for GOP The weekend session could be a make-or-break moment for Trump's party, which has invested much of its political capital on his signature domestic policy plan. Trump is pushing Congress to wrap it up, even as he sometimes gives mixed signals, allowing for more time. At recent events at the White House, including Friday, Trump has admonished the 'grandstanders' among GOP holdouts to fall in line. The legislation is an ambitious but complicated series of GOP priorities. At its core, it would make permanent many of the tax breaks from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire by year's end if Congress fails to act, resulting in a potential tax increase on Americans. The bill would add new breaks, including no taxes on tips, and commit $350 billion to national security, including for Trump's mass deportation agenda. But the cutbacks to Medicaid, food stamps and green energy investments, which a top Democrat, Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon said would be a 'death sentence' for America's wind and solar industries, are also causing dissent within GOP ranks. Advertisement The Republicans are relying on the reductions to offset the lost tax revenues but some lawmakers say the cuts go too far, particularly for people receiving health care through Medicaid. Meanwhile, conservatives, worried about the nation's debt, are pushing for steeper cuts. Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who said he spoke with Trump late Friday explaining his concerns, announced Saturday he cannot support the package as is, largely because of the changes to health care that he said would force his state to 'make painful decisions like eliminating Medicaid coverage for hundreds of thousands.' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has been opposed to the bill's provision to raise the nation's debt limit by $5 trillion. And GOP Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana said he would agree to proceeding only after being assured a provision for public lands sales he opposes would be taken out with an amendment. After setbacks, Republicans revise some proposals The release of that draft had been delayed as the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the bill to ensure it complied with the chamber's strict 'Byrd Rule,' named for the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, It largely bars policy matters from inclusion in budget bills unless a provision can get 60 votes to overcome objections. That would be a tall order in a Senate with a 53-47 GOP edge and Democrats unified against Trump's bill. Republicans suffered a series of setbacks after several proposals, including shifting food stamp costs from the federal government to the states or gutting the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, were deemed out of compliance with the rules. Advertisement But over the past days, Republicans have quickly revised those proposals and reinstated them. The final text includes a proposal for cuts to the Medicaid provider tax that had run into parliamentary hurdles and objections from several senators worried about the fate of rural hospitals. The new version extends the start date for those cuts and establishes a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals and providers. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who had opposed the cuts, vowed 'to do everything I can' to make sure the reductions never go into effect. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that under the House-passed version of the bill, some 10.9 million more people would go without health care and at least 3 million fewer would qualify for food aid. The CBO has not yet publicly assessed the Senate draft, which proposes steeper reductions. Top income-earners would see about a $12,000 tax cut under the House bill, while the package would cost the poorest Americans $1,600, the CBO said. SALT dispute shakes things up The Senate included a compromise over the so-called SALT provision, a deduction for state and local taxes that has been a top priority of lawmakers from New York and other high-tax states, but the issue remains unsettled. The current SALT cap is $10,000 a year, and a handful of Republicans wanted to boost it to $40,000 a year. The final draft includes a $40,000 cap, but limits it for five years. Many Republican senators say that is still too generous. At least one House GOP holdout, Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, had said that would be insufficient. Trump's deadline nears House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent his colleagues home for the weekend with plans to be on call to return to Washington. But as the Senate draft was revealed, House GOP support was uncertain. One Republican, Rep. David Valadao of California, said he was opposed. Advertisement Associated Press writers Ali Swenson and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.