The year was 2008, and a group of insurgent Republicans mounted a rebellion on the floor of the House of Representatives as Congress bolted for the August recess.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi had adjourned the chamber without a vote on offshore drilling. Republicans refused to leave. The microphones were cut, the C-SPAN cameras went dark, and the lights were dimmed—and roughly 45 members kept giving speeches anyway, filling the seats with staffers, Boy Scouts, and tourists pulled in off the hallway. It was the first and only time I set foot on the House floor, documenting the drama on Twitter. The talkathon stretched for hours and continued for days, sparking a “don’t go” rallying cry among grassroots conservatives back home. Eighteen years later, it’s now the Senate, not the House, where another group of Republicans is asking their leadership to delay recess. The difference is that this time, the standoff is with their own party. A Standoff With Their Own Leader President Donald Trump wants the Senate to stay in Washington until it passes the SAVE America Act. The man they need to convince, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, wants someone to show him how that ends in a victory. The standoff has defined the final week before the Senate’s five-week August recess, and it has exposed a rift between Republicans at the worst possible moment: three months before an election that will decide control of Congress. Trump has been unequivocal about where the bill ranks on his agenda. “There is nothing more important than the SAVE America Act,” the president said this week. “I think they should stay. They do what they want, but I think they should stay.” Thune, for his part, insists he isn’t the obstacle. The South Dakota Republican has repeatedly pointed out that the chamber has already voted on the measure five times and spent two full weeks debating it on the floor. “I’ve been very clear about the prospects for the SAVE America Act,” Thune said. “The only thing I’ve said all along is that we’ve voted on the SAVE America Act five times. It was the pending business on the floor of the Senate for two weeks. I am willing, in any way possible, to get that across the finish line if there is a path to do it.” His frustration appears aimed less at the contents of the bill than at the math of getting it to the president’s desk. He even suggested that Republicans pivot to making it a campaign issue. “There are no Democrats who are going to vote for this,” Thune said. “All 47 voted against the SAVE Act five times, so let’s make this an issue in the campaign. How about we go out and turn our fire on Democrats and make it about them?” The Senate’s To-Do List Other Republicans are less willing to concede that August is off the table.  Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” laid out a three-item to-do list for the week: a continuing resolution to fund the government past Sept. 30, confirmation of more of Trump’s nominees, and a $95 billion reconciliation package that carries election reforms drawn from the SAVE America Act. “It’s a lot this week,” Lankford told Fox News’ Shannon Bream. “If we don’t get it done this week, we’ll keep going until we do get it done.” “There’s not a plan to leave when it’s unfinished,” the Oklahoma Republican later added. “All those three things, they’ll happen this week, or we’ll keep going to be able to get them done. So, the focus is to be able to get them done.” What the SAVE America Act Actually Does Conservatives aren’t satisfied with the status quo, nor should they be. The SAVE America Act, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee of Utah and Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, photo identification to cast a ballot, and other commonsense election reforms to reduce fraud and restore confidence in our elections. After winning approval in the House of Representatives, Lee has made it a priority to do the same in the Senate. He’s presented Senate GOP leadership with no shortage of ideas and amassed a growing chorus of colleagues who want to cancel or delay August recess. Lee, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, and more than a dozen colleagues are standing with Trump and asking fellow Republicans to use August to act on the legislation. Lee has warned that how Republicans handle the bill could shape not just November but the next round of Senate GOP leadership elections. Trump, meanwhile, has renewed his call to scrap the legislative filibuster altogether—an idea that lacks 50 Republican votes. It’s why Lee has instead asked the Senate to scrap the “zombie filibuster,” demanding that Republicans force Democrats to actually show up and debate the legislation rather than block it from the comfort of an empty chamber. Lee has the data to back up his point. Voter ID commands support from more than 80% of Americans, the highest level ever recorded in some surveys. The obstacle isn’t public opinion. It’s Democrat obstruction—and that’s an argument Republicans should want to have in front of voters, not one they should be having with each other. The Lesson of the 2008 Revolt The 2008 protest produced pressure on Democrats—and by that fall, with public opinion moved, they let the offshore drilling ban lapse rather than keep defending it. That’s the lesson worth remembering. Republicans don’t win this by turning their fire inward. They win it by making Democrats answer for their opposition to proof of citizenship and voter ID—and by refusing to go home quietly until they do.

The Supreme Court will hear seven arguments in early October on cases including immigrant detention and the environment. The high court on Tuesday released its schedule for oral arguments in seven cases from Oct. 5 through Oct. 14. On Oct. 13, justices will hear arguments in the case of Genalo v. Black, concerning whether, at some point, a noncitizen’s detention becomes “unreasonably prolonged” that he has a constitutional right to a bond hearing. In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security implemented a policy stating that certain illegal immigrants—even those who have lived in the United States for a long time—can be held in detention without access to an immigration bond hearing. The justices will also consider whether that case is relevant, or moot, since the defendant was already released in 2022, SCOTUSBlog reported. However, if the justices rule on the merits of the case, it could potentially affect a major immigration policy of the Trump administration. Another notable case on the court’s first day back in session is Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County. The city and county of Boulder, Colorado, sued Suncor Energy and Exxon-Mobil, alleging that fossil fuel emissions contributed to climate change and caused injuries to residents. Earlier in litigation, a member of the legal team representing Boulder described the effort as “an indirect carbon tax.” In the Oct. 5 arguments, justices will consider whether federal law prohibits claims under state law seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse gas emissions. Justices will also determine whether federal courts have the authority to hear such cases. Also on the opening day, the justices will hear arguments in Johnson v. United States Congress to determine whether U.S. district courts have the authority to hear challenges to federal laws regarding veterans’ benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. In another case on the environmental front, justices will hear arguments on Oct. 7 in Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan. The question before the court in that case is whether an environmental organization can challenge the Air Force’s application to renew its permit to dispose of unexploded ordnance before Guam’s Environmental Protection Agency acted on the application. The high court will also consider whether the Air Force was required to submit an environmental impact statement to Guam before submitting its application.

A recent NOTUS review of financial records found that the congressional campaign of Paige Cognetti, the mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, accepted funding from political committees that have accepted large amounts of corporate money. According to NOTUS, Cognetti has accepted donations from numerous political committees that receive large sums of money from corporate PACs, including money from Boeing, JPMorgan Chase, and UnitedHealthcare. Cognetti is running to unseat Rep. Josh Bresnahan, R-Pa., possibly changing the balance of power in the House of Representatives. The progressive candidate has taken at least $5,000 from Blue Hen Federal PAC, a committee sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del, NOTUS reported. The committee “has received hundreds of thousands of dollars this election cycle from a who’s who of corporate and trade association PACs,” the outlet wrote. The outlet also reported that Coons’ committee is tied to companies including Visa, Pfizer, Northrop Grumman, FedEx, Google, McKinsey, Eli Lilly, and Fox Corp., among others. Blue Hen Federal PAC did not return the Daily Signal’s request for comment. Cognetti’s campaign also has received $4,000 from the campaign committee of Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., the House Democratic Party whip. That committee, NOTUS reports, is “partly bankrolled by numerous corporate PACs, including those sponsored by Delta Air Lines, Verizon, Allstate Insurance and law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird.” Her campaign also took money from dozens of Democrat leadership PACs that report significant corporate contributions. These include PACs of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Ted Lieu. Emma Mustion, Cognetti’s campaign communication director, reaffirmed the candidate’s promise to run a race free of corporate money. “Paige is independent and doesn’t work for anybody but the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania,” she told NOTUS. The campaign director added: “Paige is the only candidate in this race who does not accept donations from corporate PACs, supports a federal ban on corporate PAC donations, and will never be handed a corporate check in exchange for special access or political favors.” Cognetti’s pledge to reject corporate PAC money has become a key feature of her campaign. It is cited in endorsements from advocacy groups and lawmakers. NOTUS cites End Citizens United and Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona as examples. End Citizens United told the Daily Signal that corporate money did not directly stem from corporate PACs or individual corporations. The group said it is not rescinding its endorsement of the Democrat. In a statement to the Daily Signal, Peter Brath, Bresnahan’s campaign manager, accused Cognetti of exploiting a loophole to accept corporate money while deceiving voters. “Paige Cognetti doesn’t care whether she is dishonest with the people of Northeastern Pennsylvania as long as she can use them to advance her career,” Brath said. “Only a brazen liar and unabashed hypocrite like Cognetti would make a pledge not to accept corporate dollars then find a loophole to do exactly that.” Federal records show that these contributions have been vital for her campaign. As of June 30, Cognetti’s campaign had $800,000 more on hand than Bresnahan’s. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates the race between Bresnahan and Cognetti as a toss-up. National Republicans and Democrats alike consider the race critical to winning a House majority in 2027.

A third whistleblower came forward about a Biden-era operation involving alleged massive shipments of fentanyl into the United States that federal agents were told to track and not seize. The U.S. Justice Department is conducting an internal probe of the operation that critics say likely led to numerous deaths. The most recent whistleblower complaint details a November 2022 fentanyl delivery from Arizona to New Mexico where Drug Enforcement Administration agents were told to monitor the shipment but not arrest anyone. “Agents believe the courier made a minimum of at least five large deliveries over the following months, each time bringing 50,000-100,000 fentanyl pills and 20-40 pounds of methamphetamine per trip,” the complaint says. “The DEA did not arrest the courier until June 2023; at that time, agents found him with 19 kilograms of methamphetamine and 7 kilograms of fentanyl.” According to the DEA, as few as two milligrams of fentanyl can be lethal depending on a person’s body size and tolerance, and one kilogram of fentanyl has the potential to kill 500,000 people. The new complaint also notes that during a training session, one DEA agent dismissed concerns about the operation, saying, “We walk fentanyl,” but adding that federal prosecutors were aware of it. The complaint comes after the U.S. Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General interviewed two other whistleblowers—former DEA Special Agent David Howell and financial investigator Kevin Small, who worked as a contractor for the DEA’s Albuquerque office—on Friday and Monday, respectively. Howell was the first to blow the whistle on the operation, alleging that the DEA allowed hundreds of thousands of fentanyl pills into New Mexico because Justice Department prosecutors wanted to track the shipments and bring a bigger criminal case against traffickers. Former U.S. Attorney for the District of New Mexico, Alex Uballez, oversaw the program, Howell said. Uballez publicly defended the operation, telling The Associated Press it saved lives, was key to intelligence gathering on drug traffickers, and that “the bigger fish are worth catching.” Howell also alleged that he faced retaliation by DEA officials for exposing the program. The new 20-page complaint is from a DEA special agent whose name is redacted in the document released by his attorney. Similar to Small’s complaint, the third whistleblower alleges retaliation by Jeffrey Armijo, the assistant special agent in charge of the DEA’s Albuquerque office. In a March 28, 2025, conversation detailed in the complaint, Armijo screamed, “This is a one way conversation and this stays within my office.” The complaint alleges Armijo threatened to have the whistleblower moved to a different office and said, “I will ice you like Dave [Howell] where you will not work another case again.” 2026-08-03_TL_to_OSC_-_PPP_Complaint__redacted,_no_attachments_Download Empower Oversight, a whistleblower advocacy group representing all three whistleblowers, sent the new complaint to the Office of Special Counsel late Monday afternoon and forwarded it to the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General. The offices have the unredacted version of the complaint. The Daily Signal contacted the press office at DEA headquarters in Washington and left a voicemail with the DEA district office in Albuquerque but did not receive a response before publication. The Daily Signal contacted the office of the New Mexico Attorney General but did not receive a response before publication. ‘Fast and Furious’ Comparisons The operation has invited comparisons to an Obama administration program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, in which gun shipments were allowed to travel into Mexico; two of the guns were found at the scene of the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. Interestingly, the whistleblower complaint notes that the U.S. Justice Department Office of Enforcement Operations conducted a May 9, 2024, training session that included a reference to Operation Fast and Furious. This prompted Howell to raise concerns about the DEA’s program, the new complaint says. “When the OEO attorneys opened for questions toward the end of the training, SA Howell raised his hand and commented that he believed the Albuquerque District Office needed more training on risk mitigation and expressed concern that OEO, and therefore the Criminal Division’s DAAG, wasn’t being notified regarding the amount of fentanyl that was being allowed to walk in Albuquerque,” the complaint says. “An agent from Group 3 interrupted, saying, ‘We walk fentanyl and our AUSAs are aware.’” AUSAs are assistant U.S. attorneys, in this case working under the U.S. attorney for the District of New Mexico. A 2024 Justice Department Office of Professional Responsibility report said agents had “discretion” in deciding when to seize drugs. While previous whistleblower complaints said the New Mexico fentanyl walking began in 2023 and ran into March 2025, during the first months of the Trump administration, the new complaint details conversations and confrontations between the whistleblower and his supervisors, namely Armijo, well into 2026. State Investigation Leavitt, of Empower Oversight, told the Daily Signal the U.S. Justice Department has asked his clients not to work with New Mexico state investigators for the time being. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez this week turned up the heat on the U.S. Justice Department, challenging the agency’s refusal to cooperate with state investigators. Torrez said in a letter to First Assistant U.S. Attorney Ryan Ellison for the District of New Mexico that his office is “investigating the decisions and conduct of the DEA that resulted in a significant quantity of fentanyl unseized on the streets and in the communities of New Mexico.” “I further previously explained that the investigation requires access to the full record of the DEA’s activities, operational guidance, and changes to operational guidance in order to assess the lawfulness of these practices,” he continued. He later added, “To that end, NMDOJ seeks to review USDOJ protocols governing fentanyl seizure decisions, and protocols that were apparently rewritten in 2024 to afford agents greater discretion on the timing of fentanyl seizures.” In a July 29 letter, Ellison told Torrez the Justice Department must regulate access to government information contained in its files or obtained by its employees during the scope of their official duties. Further, it said the U.S. Justice Department cannot be compelled to respond to a demand for documents if it is not a party in the case. The Daily Signal reached out to the Justice Department Tuesday afternoon but did not immediately receive a comment. A DOJ spokesperson commented to the Daily Signal on the matter in June. “The alleged conduct occurred under the Biden Administration’s disastrous open border policies. The Trump administration has closed the border and is aggressively pursuing drug traffickers,” the DOJ spokesperson said in a June statement. “DEA Administrator Cole has requested an independent DOJ-OIG review of DEA’s actions in light of this reporting to reaffirm the public’s confidence in our law enforcement agencies. Should that review identify areas of improvement, the DEA will of course implement changes to better their practices.” “This success has been achieved less than two years into this Administration. We welcome a partnership with Governor Lujan Grisham, as well as New Mexico state and local leaders, to fight the scourge of fentanyl and keep her constituents safe,” the spokesperson added.

Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, joined his Democratic colleagues on Monday in introducing legislation that would establish a “state-run visa pipeline with a built-in legalization component” for illegal aliens, which critics categorized as a “de facto amnesty” bill that rewards those who broke American immigration laws. “I’ve heard time and again from small business owners, farmers, and ranchers across Utah how difficult it has become to hire enough workers to meet growing market demands,” Curtis, who switched to the Republican Party in 2009 after running as a Democrat in a Utah state Senate race in 2000, said in a press release. “Our legislation would help fill the gap by creating a pilot program allowing states to sponsor visas tailored to their unique economies, without sacrificing rigorous federal vetting or accountability,” Curtis, the former chairman of the Utah County Democratic Party, said. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., added that “states understand their own economic needs best, but federal rules currently determine who can live and work here.” “Our bipartisan bill would let Arizona and other states choose the visas they need to fill labor gaps and strengthen their local economies,” the Arizona Democrat continued. Curtis and Kelly did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment. What the Bill Actually Does Lora Ries, director of the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Signal that, if enacted, the bill would create a fourth pathway for migrants to obtain visas. The former Department of Homeland Security acting deputy chief of staff under President Donald Trump’s first administration explained that current U.S. law provides three pathways to obtain a visa: asylum, work, and family. The bill aims to create a fourth pathway, sponsored by individual states. Aside from creating a fourth bucket for visa applications, the visa, under the provisions of this legislation, could be applied to a worker’s wife and kids, Ries, who also served as an immigration policy director at DHS during the administration of former President George W. Bush, added. As stated by Ries, this would “extend the temporary stay and create a pathway to legalization.” The bill would also allow states to classify the new visa holders as residents. The minimum requirement for a visa holder to qualify as a resident under this bill is 14 days, Ries continued. Ries went on to explain that this bill is being pushed at the federal level because states can create their own immigration laws only if they align with federal law. Enacting this law at the federal level would allow individual states to draft a memorandum of understanding between state and federal law enforcement, protecting the migrants covered by the new state-sponsored visa. “As it is, we’re seeing that our immigration system has been too generous, and everything we offer gets defrauded,” Ries concluded. “We need to eliminate the fraud, get these programs. This is a pick-and-choose buffet for aliens. This would grow the buffet.” Ries believes the reason for Curtis’s legislative push is to help American employers continue outsourcing jobs to migrants who accept below-average pay. Follow the Money? A Daily Signal analysis of OpenSecrets records showed that Curtis has received large sums of money from labor PACs in the 2025-26 campaign cycle alone. Scott Mechkowski added that this is “a pattern, not a one-time vote” from Curtis, who is looking to “line up with who backs him.” Ries told the Daily Signal that those same PACs “probably wrote” the legislation Curtis is now pushing. Cortes expanded on that claim and said that the senator’s record of pushing for amnesty and mass migration tells voters what they need to know about his stance on illegal immigration. “Curtis wants credit for being tough on the border, but his record tells a different story,” he continued. “In 2022, he signed on as an original cosponsor of the Dignity Act and publicly bragged about it, praising the bill for ensuring employers have access to reliable foreign workers. It lines up with who backs him.” Conservative Hurdle Although the legislation was introduced by a Republican, the bill, if it is referred to a committee and voted on, would receive pushback from conservatives who are committed to the promise of mass deportations. In a statement, Scott Mechkowski, visiting fellow for deportation studies at the Oversight Project, told the Daily Signal that this bill is just “amnesty by another name” and creates an incentive for future illegal aliens to enter the United States. “I spent twenty-four years enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act, and I know exactly what these bills do on the ground,” Mechkowski wrote. “They reward the people who broke our laws, and they promise the next wave that waiting pays off. His allies can call it earned status or workforce reform all they want.” Steve Cortes, founder of the League of American Workers and a longtime political strategist, expanded on the claim and told the Daily Signal that “once a migrant is in America ‘legally,’ no other state can restrict them.” Cortes called this a “total back door to mass migration again.” “Like the Biden era, cause of course, the blue state will just go wild with their own allowances,” Cortes continued. Effectively, critics of this legislation have said the bill aims to give states that don’t enforce immigration laws the ability to engineer a “de facto amnesty.” “This would allow states that are weak on immigration (which is most of them) to engineer a de facto amnesty,” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote on X.