Those powers offer a way to protect strategically important projects before new restrictions take effect and to fight those that are already in place. The administration needs to put them to work.

The distinction matters because the threat facing America’s data center industry is no longer limited to lengthy permitting reviews or difficult negotiations with utilities. Across the country, opponents are seeking outright restrictions on construction, while Democratic victories in Congress and several state governments have increased the prospect of broader moratoria.

Trump can veto legislation imposing a nationwide construction freeze. But that alone would leave developers exposed to governors and local officials who can obstruct billions of dollars in investment without sending anything to Washington.

The administration’s response should begin with an aggressive effort to establish and protect the federal government’s own computing requirements.

Trump’s May 2025 executive order already directs the Energy Department to consider designating AI data centers located at or operated in coordination with DOE facilities as critical defense facilities. That authority recognizes the importance of computing infrastructure to federal missions even when a facility is not physically located on a government installation.

The administration can build on that directive by requiring the Pentagon, DOE, and other national security agencies to identify computing capacity essential to their operations. Federal agencies could then secure that capacity through existing procurement and contracting authorities, establishing specific federal interests before state restrictions threaten construction.

There is already a foundation for doing so.

The Army conditionally selected Carlyle and CyrusOne to negotiate hyperscale developments at Fort Bliss in Texas and Dugway Proving Ground in Utah. At South Carolina’s Savannah River Site, the National Nuclear Security Administration selected Amentum to negotiate a 1-gigawatt data center supported by approximately 2 gigawatts of on-site generation.

These arrangements demonstrate how federal missions and private development can be brought together. They also create opportunities to establish projects whose legal significance extends beyond ordinary commercial construction.

That matters because federal courts have already recognized limits on state interference with authorized government operations.

In 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in GEO Group v. Newsom that California could not use its prohibition on private detention facilities to override Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s lawful decision to rely on private contractors.

The broader principle is consequential for data center development. When Congress authorizes a federal mission, a state cannot necessarily dictate how the government uses private contractors to perform it.

A state moratorium interfering with computing capacity specifically required for an authorized defense or intelligence operation could therefore face a federal challenge. By establishing those requirements in advance, the administration would give the Justice Department something far more substantial to defend than a general declaration that artificial intelligence is important.

The Defense Production Act offers another mechanism, and the Trump administration has already demonstrated its potential.

In March, the Energy Department ordered Sable Offshore to restart a California oil pipeline under federal allocation authority. California officials resisted, but a federal judge ruled in August that the state’s parks department could not prevent the company from complying with the order.

The decision remains under appeal, but it demonstrates how an enforceable federal order directed at privately owned infrastructure can prevail over conflicting state action.

That precedent warrants examination wherever a moratorium obstructs infrastructure required for a documented federal mission. The administration could also use the act to prioritize qualifying contracts for scarce electrical equipment and support domestic manufacturing capacity.

Time is becoming a factor. The act’s principal authorities expire Dec. 11 unless Congress renews them, although existing law preserves performance of valid commitments entered before expiration.

Federal telecommunications law provides another avenue for challenging certain restrictions without relying on an emergency declaration.

Section 253 of the Communications Act prohibits state and local measures that effectively block covered telecommunications services. The Federal Communications Commission’s 2018 Moratoria Order established protections against restrictions on telecommunications deployment, and the 9th Circuit upheld that order in 2020.

If a broadly written data center ban also blocks qualifying telecommunications facilities, a provider could challenge its application under existing federal law. That protection would not automatically extend to an ordinary AI computing campus, but states cannot evade telecommunications law simply by applying a broader label to the facilities being restricted.

Federal energy law presents similar opportunities when the obstruction targets supporting infrastructure. Under Section 216 of the Federal Power Act, the Energy Department can designate national-interest transmission corridors, allowing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to permit qualifying interstate lines despite certain state refusals. Federal authorization of interstate natural gas pipelines can likewise override conflicting restrictions on those facilities.

Those authorities do not confer blanket approval of the data center itself. They prevent states from assuming that every component of a development falls exclusively within their control.

The administration also needs to confront executive moratoria that may exceed a governor’s authority under state law.

Texas provides an immediate example. In September, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) directed state agencies to halt data center permitting pending electricity and water audits. Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa (D-TX) has promised a broader moratorium until state lawmakers enact new protections, although Republicans retained control of the state Senate.

A prolonged freeze imposed through agency directives would raise questions about statutory authority and compliance with existing permitting obligations. Developers could challenge unlawful agency actions in state court, while federal regulators could examine compliance with applicable federal permitting requirements.

Other states considering similar restrictions would face the same fundamental question: whether a governor can suspend the operation of permitting laws without obtaining authority from the legislature.

Trump’s existing national energy emergency provides a framework for coordinating these responses. The White House should direct federal agencies to identify threatened projects, document federal computing requirements, and determine which statutes provide grounds for intervention before restrictions become entrenched.

The Justice Department should be prepared to defend qualifying federal operations, while the FCC and energy regulators enforce the specific protections Congress has already established.

That strategy would not invalidate every lawful zoning restriction, nor does it need to. Its purpose would be to prevent states from exercising authority they do not possess and to protect infrastructure and federal operations that existing law places beyond certain forms of state interference.

REPUBLICANS LOST THE AI ARGUMENT IN 2026. WE MUST FIX IT BEFORE 2028

America’s data center industry is entering a period when political opposition may become as consequential as electricity availability or construction costs. The federal government cannot resolve every local dispute, but it has considerable authority to defend projects that serve the national interest.

Trump does not need another Congress to give him those powers. He needs to order his administration to use them.

Colton Overcash is the founder of Vertex Strategies, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based government relations and strategic advisory firm with a presence in Washington. A regular commentator on data center development and technology policy, he previously held two presidential appointments at the Department of Homeland Security during the Trump administration and served as a congressional staffer.

The congressional map in both houses appeared to favor Republicans, but it was ultimately no match for the national conditions that fed the blue wave.

Republicans weren’t unambiguously leading in any of the competitive Senate races.

In retrospect, one of the clearest signs that the 2022 red wave wasn’t going to materialize was that Republicans weren’t clearly beating Democrats in the races that were going to decide Senate control. The top six races that were decided on Election Day split evenly between the two parties, and the seventh went to a runoff, which the Democrats ultimately won, netting them an additional seat in the chamber.

A similar dynamic unfolded this year, but much worse for Republicans. GOP Senate candidates led in none of the toss-up Senate races in the final RealClearPolitics averages, with Iowa tied. A good night for Senate Republicans on Nov. 3 would have required the polling averages to be wrong in more than a half-dozen states, which would be unusual even in an era of high-profile polling misses.

Sens. Ashley Hinson (R-IA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Jon Husted (R-OH), and Susan Collins (R-ME) led in the occasional individual poll, usually by small margins. Republican Mike Rogers led in at least one poll early in the race after Democrats nominated Sen.-elect Abdul el Sayed (D-MI). But polls favoring the GOP in most of these races became less rather than more common as the election approached.

In the end, Democrats won nearly all the competitive Senate races. They won some, such as South Carolina, that weren’t widely deemed competitive, at least not until a late New York Times-Siena poll showed Sen.-elect Annie Andrews (D-SC) tied with Sen. Darline Graham (R-SC). They may yet win the outstanding races in Alaska and Mississippi for a clean sweep.

The fact that so many red states were poised to elect Democratic senators, often for the first time in decades, should have told us something about the House too. Yes, a three-seat House majority was always going to be tough for Republicans to defend. But emerging cracks in the red-state firewall were a warning sign that a higher number of House races were going to be competitive as well.

The reason there was any suspense about the Senate was that there had been a number of recent polling misses in red-state races, including in previous senatorial contests in Kansas, South Carolina, and Mississippi. The polling had been wrong in Maine six years ago when Collins consistently trailed but ended up winning by nearly 9 points. The polls had been off in the Michigan Democratic Senate primary just this year.

Those were the states where the Senate majority was going to be decided in 2026. And while Democrats led basically everywhere, they were rarely ahead by enough to compensate for much of a polling miss.

“If polls had been right on the nose and the generic had ended up at D+8.4, the Senate would have been kind of a bust for Dems, 50-50 or 51-49,” Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini posted. “Shifting every state right by 5, Rs win AK, IA, OH (by 0.1), MS, SC. KS is a tie.”

The polls also looked too good for the Democrats to be true as it was. Independents and even Republicans were voting for Democratic Senate candidates by margins that exceeded anything in recent electoral history. The pollsters themselves admitted they were having trouble getting Republicans to respond to their surveys, possibly leading to response bias. Both the New York Times and the Washington Post published stories that were essentially disclaimers about their own polls.

It was genuinely difficult to tell apart the signs of a blue wave and a big polling miss.

Finally, Democrats closed the campaign with a bad weekend. Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) flipped her endorsement from el Sayed to Rogers in the Michigan Senate race. Democrats vented their worries about Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-TX) to the New York Times. Reporting on the ties between the “fake Dan Sullivan” and Democrat Mary Petola’s campaign injected uncertainty into the Alaska Senate race.

But so much early voting had already happened that the impact of these events was limited. The Talarico worries were likely just Democrats preparing themselves emotionally in case Texas disappointed them once again. Instead, the whole statewide Republican ticket lost. Alaska remains uncalled.

Much of what looked too good to be true for Democrats actually happened. If anything, the polls underestimated Democrats this year. In past red-state polling misses, the bias peaked in the summer, and the races tightened again after Labor Day. This year, there wasn’t much tightening. Instead, many races started to break toward the Democrats in earnest.

Meanwhile, the national environment was terrible for Republicans. President Donald Trump’s job approval rating was below 40% in the RealClearPolitics average and stood at 37% on Election Day in the exit polls. More than 60% thought the country was on the wrong track. The generic congressional ballot looked worse for Republicans than in 2018, the last blue wave year.

2028 JOCKEYING ALREADY UNDERWAY

Public dissatisfaction with the economy, especially the cost of living, government corruption, and the Iran war, was sky-high. All of these issues favored the Democrats. Trump was underwater before he started the Iran war, which was itself unpopular from the beginning, before sustained hikes in gasoline and diesel prices.

Midterm elections almost always go badly for the party that holds the White House. There were many obvious reasons why this one was even worse than normal.

“The war must end,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the day after the election. “We are going to end the war.” Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) has been even more specific about how Democrats plan to do it. “I think we deal with the funding and we use that to end the war,” Gallego said last week. “I think that’s the strongest thing we could do.”

The next funding deadline is sooner than many realize. Congress must pass legislation to fund the entire government, including the Pentagon, before Dec. 11. Gallego and his Democratic allies have identified that vote as their most powerful point of leverage.

Cutting funding for the Pentagon now, however, would hurt consumers. U.S. armed forces have escorted more than 3,000 commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz in the past six months. More than 24 million barrels of oil a day are flowing through the strait and along alternative routes across the region, about a million barrels a day more than before the war.

Ships are protected around the clock by two aircraft carriers and more than a dozen guided-missile destroyers. The vessels are setting modern-day deployment records, and the war costs taxpayers $2 billion a month. The “war,” if one can still call it that, now consists of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and blockading Iranian ports. If they cut funding for the Department of Defense, Democrats will hand the Strait of Hormuz back to Iran.

If Tehran regains control of the strait, it could decide which tankers get through, charge them for passage, or choke off shipments altogether. Even the threat of disruption would raise shipping and insurance costs, and a sustained cutoff would drive up the price of oil. Americans would pay more to fill up their cars and heat their homes, and higher diesel costs would make it more expensive to deliver everything from groceries to building materials. Democrats promised to bring down the cost of living. If they cut off funding before securing free passage through Hormuz, they risk betraying that promise with one of their first acts.

Democrats also promise to renew their efforts to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a Cabinet official we, too, have criticized. But while impeaching Hegseth would make Democrats feel good, it would do nothing to change the strategic situation in the Strait of Hormuz. We would still need to spend billions of dollars a month on the military force necessary to prevent Iran from terrorizing ships passing through the strait.

CALIFORNIA VOTES TO STAY UNAFFORDABLE

Democrats should consider how voters really feel about the Iran war. The most recent Fox News poll shows that 60% believe starting the Iran war was the wrong decision, while a separate Harvard/Harris poll shows that 67% of voters say Iran should not be allowed to control the Strait of Hormuz.

The war is now a fight over who controls the strait. If Congress cuts funding for that fight, it hands control of one of the world’s most important shipping lanes to a violent and desperate regime. Voters wish Trump had never started the war, but they are clear that Iran should not control the strait. Democrats who promised to lower the cost of living should think hard before giving Tehran the power to drive up prices at every gas pump in America.

That disagreement is at the core of the current fight over the Trump administration‘s immigration enforcement. In the first year of the administration, federal agents famously pursued the “worst of the worst,” going after illegal immigrants who not only entered the country illegally but went on to commit heinous crimes while here. Republicans argued, convincingly, that those people should never have been allowed to stay in the country long enough to commit new crimes.

But then the administration shifted focus to people who are in the country illegally who have not committed any non-immigration crimes while here. The government had a solid case against them — quite a few had received final orders of removal from immigration judges — yet media coverage sometimes portrayed heartless agents pursuing blameless immigrant victims.

“ICE arrests soar as people with no criminal record are increasingly targeted,” read one New York Times headline this year. Late last year, NPR reported that ICE had targeted migrants in the U.S. who “had no criminal record.” And Axios reported that millions of “undocumented” — the media’s favorite euphemism for “illegal” — immigrants “have no criminal backgrounds.”

Such messaging helped create a political atmosphere leading up to midterm elections in which some Democrats campaigned on a platform of eliminating ICE altogether, while others pledged to cut back on immigration enforcement. Whatever the exact position, Democrats won a spectacular victory, with at least 254 seats in the House and at least 54 in the Senate. (Both figures might rise even higher as the last few races are decided.)

The massive defeat certainly got President Donald Trump’s attention. Just days later, in his first postelection interview, with CBS News’s 60 Minutes, Trump was asked to name one issue on which he would like to work with the new Democratic majority. “I’d love to do something on immigration,” Trump said.

Reporter Ross Douthat asked whether Trump thought immigration enforcement had hurt him in the election. “I think it both helped and hurt,” Trump said. With that, he was making the distinction that most observers make — that Trump’s shutdown of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border has been a huge success, both in terms of policy and voter approval, while his internal enforcement efforts, including the mess in Minneapolis, alienated a lot of voters.

“I think you would agree that I get an A+ for [closing the border],” Trump said. “For getting people out, I get very high marks for getting the bad ones out. But I got hurt because we also took people that had good jobs — that created one violation, or breaking of the law, and that was that they came into the country illegally.”

“Now, there is a large part of the country that thinks they should be put out,” Trump continued. “And there’s a large part of the country that thinks they should be allowed to stay, if they’re good people working in a landscaping company, or working in a hotel, or doing something, right? And in some cases, paying taxes. And there’s a large group of people who think that they should be allowed to stay.”

“So you think your deportation policy went too far?” asked Douthat. “I think it might be too tough, yeah,” Trump said. “And a lot of people would say that it’s great. But a lot of people think it’s too tough.”

Trump went on to theorize about the possibility of offering some sort of legal status to people who have been in the U.S. illegally for many years. “Get the killers out. Get the rapists out. Get all the rough ones out. Get the drug dealers out. But let the people that are here, and in some cases here for 10 and 15 years, work a deal for them, OK?” Trump said.

Douthat asked whether Trump thought there were any Democrats who might be interested in an agreement along those lines. “I think so, yeah,” Trump said. “People have already called me.”

Trump’s seeming openness to some sort of amnesty deal — although no one said the “A” word — set off alarm bells among a lot of veterans of the immigration policy wars. “Does Trump think the Democrats will do anything except pocket his amnesty and start planning for the next one, when they regain the presidency and open the borders again, Biden-style?” asked the writer Mickey Kaus.

On Fox News, Jesse Watters played a quote from Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) earlier this year saying, “This idea that unless you’re an axe murderer you should be allowed to stay — that is not consistent with our laws, and it’s also not good policy.”

And Mark Krikorian, of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates more restrictive immigration laws, argued that the Trump administration went wrong when it switched to high-profile raids designed to take illegal immigrants into custody. Instead, it should have pursued quieter enforcement in the workplace. “Where are the audits of employer personnel records, which require no guns?” Krikorian asked. “Where are the letters from the Social Security Administration notifying employers that the payroll information they submitted doesn’t match the agency’s records?”

But now the president, after a big defeat at the polls, is talking about some sort of “deal” on immigration. Seeking to quell the uproar, on Monday Trump went to the White House briefing room to insist: “We have a very strong deportation program. There’s no amnesty, no anything, we keep that. But we focus on the worst of the worst.”

But that, again, seemed to signal that the president will change the administration’s priorities. For the first time since taking office in January 2025, Trump sent a strong message to some illegal immigrants that they will be allowed to stay. That was a stunning change in direction on the administration’s signature issue. Like the president’s decision to go to war in Iran, it very likely will divide his supporters — again.

Massie told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins he is not surprised President Donald Trump has continued to support Hegseth, even after Massie introduced articles of impeachment against the war secretary on Monday. However, Massie said the move is familiar to the Trump administration.

“They stand by them until the day they don’t,” he said. “You can’t expose any weakness in these press conferences, and they still put it at a high probability that Pete Hegseth won’t make it until Dec. 31 of this year.”

Massie said he believes Hegseth will resign because Democrats are likely going to take a much more aggressive approach in January, calling his impeachment move “polite” in comparison.

“Impeachment is actually kind of a polite thing,” Massie said. “I’m not proposing he go to prison. I’m not proposing that he be exposed to civil liability. We’re just saying you need to be out of a job right now.”

“When the Democrats get control in January, they are not going to be as polite as I am,” the congressman said. “Look, they’re going to have hearings in the House. They’re going to bring in people who’ve served under Hegseth, people who’ve seen some things and know some things that aren’t even public yet, and they’ll be sworn in. They’ll have to testify against Hegseth, and then it’ll go to a trial in the Senate.”

Massie also noted the challenge a Hegseth ouster poses for Trump, who will be responsible for appointing a leader of the War Department. He said anyone tapped by the president to lead will likely face an uphill battle to confirmation, as Democrats are not likely to support an appointee.

“When Hegseth is no longer the secretary of defense, Donald Trump’s going to be looking at a Senate that’s not going to be very kind in terms of approving his nominations,” Massie said, noting that the president is better off removing Hegseth before Democrats take control.

Hegseth is set to hold a press conference Tuesday morning at the Pentagon in which he will address Massie’s impeachment effort. Massie said the articles he introduced directly target Hegseth’s “effectiveness,” claiming the Cabinet official has been effective “in breaking the law and violating the Constitution.”

MASSIE REINTRODUCES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HEGSETH. HERE’S WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

Most of the eight articles detail Hegseth’s actions on recent military operations in Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela without prior authorization from Congress. They argue that the secretary’s usurping of Congress’s will, as outlined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, amounts to high crimes and misdemeanors.

Additionally, the articles allege that Hegseth’s desire to pursue a culture with “maximum lethality,” combined with other efforts he undertook to reduce the civilian harm mitigation office, has led to the unnecessary deaths of civilians caught in the crossfire from U.S. forces.

The Tuesday morning hearing was supposed to cover how the FAA was fulfilling its $12.5 billion project to roll out the “Brand-New Air Traffic Control System,” known as BNATCS, as the agency and the Department of Transportation push Congress to provide $30 billion more.

Bedford was set to be in the hot seat following his previous appearance before Congress in September, when Democratic members questioned why he had not paid out a 2.8% pay raise to the agency’s 11,000 certified air traffic controllers nationwide since lawmakers funded the raises in April. Air traffic controllers are employees of the FAA.

After Bedford was scolded by Washington lawmakers during that hearing, the FAA and National Air Traffic Controllers Association union agreed to terms to offer controllers back pay dating to Jan. 11, as well as implement the pay raise for all future pay.

NATCA President Nick Daniels wrote in an Oct. 16 email to members that the union had reached an agreement with the FAA to implement the 2.8% pay raise on Oct. 18, meaning that it would hit payroll Nov. 5, according to a copy of the email obtained by the Washington Examiner.

More than two dozen air traffic controllers have contacted the Washington Examiner since Nov. 5 to report that they were not given back pay for the past 10 months, triggering new questions as to the cause for the delay.

Controllers who are union members pointed the blame at both the FAA and NATCA, saying the union did not inform them in a lengthy Oct. 30 email about the pay raise agreement that they would not all get paid on Nov. 5.

Impact of back pay delays

Several air traffic controllers said the further delay in getting back pay was coming before another potential government shutdown, when they could be forced to work without pay. Controllers asked to speak on the condition of anonymity because they are not allowed to speak with the media.

“None of us will see this money go into our 401k, the contribution match from the agency or anything of the similar. No matter what, we’re still getting screwed,” one controller wrote in a text message.

Another controller said the FAA owed more than $5,000 in back pay and said the money, when paid, was going to cover a leaking roof.

“Parts of it are leaking and it’s been raining and storming more than usual. We had someone come out last week to give us an initial estimate,” the controller wrote in a text message on Monday. “Was really looking forward to this back pay coming through to help cover this unanticipated expense especially as the holidays are approaching. Our family could really use the money that is due to us.”

In an email to union members on Oct. 30, NATCA stated the 2.8% raise was only starting to be processed by the FAA on Nov. 2, and that employees would not be paid until January 2027 because processing it required approximately 83,000 manual entries into the data system.

Another controller said the further delay added to long-standing frustrations with the FAA and union.

“The fact that they did nothing to prepare for this after the raise was official is mind blowing,” the controller wrote in a text message. “It’s just beyond disrespectful at this point.”

In an email to the Washington Examiner on Monday, NATCA said “the implementation of the pay increase and processing of retroactive pay are the responsibility of the FAA” and that questions about the delays and timeline should be directed to the FAA.

The FAA did not respond to a request for comment.

Trump DOT aims to overhaul air traffic control

Since taking office in early 2025, the Trump administration has made air traffic control a top transportation focus.

The Transportation Department and FAA came out in late September with a request for Congress to fund a $30 billion project to finish modernizing the nation’s air traffic control system and, in turn, address flight delays and cancellations.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and Bedford endorsed Sen. Eric Schmitt’s (R-MO) Modern Skies Act. The Modern Skies Act includes $10 billion for tower replacement projects and ground facilities, $10 billion for upgrading telecommunications architecture and digitizing analog systems, and another $10 billion for general airport infrastructure and expanding software systems.

The legislation follows the $12.5 billion that Congress initially put forward for the project last year.

With that funding, the FAA has begun to replace infrastructure, including radar, software, hardware, and telecommunications, through more than 10,000 projects nationwide, all of which are being tracked.

Another air traffic controller pointed to the huge push to improve technology in the national airspace and said it was ironic that the FAA was able to pour billions of dollars into technology but would not spend money on any sort of program that could speed up the back pay issue.

“They said they had to go in and adjust each person at a time and takes about 30 [min] each. And that DOGE slashed the workforce,” the controller wrote in a text message. “All this technology and we can’t have one person sit down for an hour and develop a program to do this automatically?”

Air traffic controller shortage

Commercial air travel has soared to all-time high levels of nearly 3 million passengers per day since the pandemic, according to the Transportation Security Administration. The FAA has struggled to maintain enough air traffic controllers and to operate using antiquated flight-tracking systems and ground infrastructure amid a series of high-profile aviation incidents.

Although the $12.5 billion Congress allotted to the first part of the project also includes hiring more air traffic controllers, some who contacted the Washington Examiner said the agency was dramatically short-staffed without a way to make up for a coming wave of employee departures in 2028.

In an interview at the DOT’s Washington headquarters in August, Bedford said the pay raise was being held up until FAA leadership could “unlock more productivity” from controllers.

Air travel has surged since 1980. More than 906 million people boarded flights in the United States last year compared to 295 million in 1980, yet thousands fewer certified controllers work today than 46 years ago — about 11,000 now compared to 16,300 then.

More than 90% of the nation’s 313 air traffic control facilities were short-staffed as of 2025, according to the New York Times.

In addition to the existing shortage of controllers, the FAA has projected it will lose up to 6,900 controllers through 2028 due to retirements, resignations, transfers, and those who do not complete training.

Controllers say they are buckling under the scheduling requirements. Hundreds of air traffic controllers who contacted the Washington Examiner this fall reported a long-term trend of getting just four days off per month. Shifts regularly span 10 hours. Instead of working a standard four-day, 40-hour week, controllers say they are often assigned two mandatory overtime shifts per week, forcing them into six-day workweeks that often devastate family and personal life, as well as complicate mental health.

The staffing shortage has led to tragic outcomes: Insiders note that suicides among controllers are eight times the national average, while tenured employees are increasingly walking away from the agency years before reaching mandatory retirement age.

Lawmakers advocate for FAA employees

The crisis has caught the attention of lawmakers on Capitol Hill. After reviewing more than 100 comments submitted to the Washington Examiner by active controllers, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said Duffy should address the matter, as well as a handful of House lawmakers who called out Bedford during a September hearing.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) accused Bedford of having “taken some discretions not intended in the law, certainly not intended when Congress approved” the pay raise, while Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) said Bedford was “putting a condition on something that we passed.”

CONSERVATIVES BALK AT TRUMP’S ‘AMNESTY’ PROPOSAL: ‘TOTAL BETRAYAL’

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) told Bedford his approach to low morale and understaffing was akin to a “Catch-22.”

“You don’t think that they’re working as effectively. But then you say you’re understaffed,” said Watson Coleman.

The Senate voted 73-25 Monday evening to invoke cloture on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, which limits debate and sends the nearly 500-page bill toward a final vote.

The key negotiators of the bill, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Mike Lee (R-UT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Martin Heinrich (D-NM), needed to secure 60 votes for the bill to move forward. They exceeded that goal, with 22 Democrats voting in favor. Several members who voted “aye,” though, have not committed to voting for final passage. Only one Republican, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), voted against.

Ahead of the vote, advocates of the bill said at least 15 to 20 Democrats are needed to back the bill in order to whip votes in the House.

Better known as BAAJA, the legislation has the support of dozens of clean energy and manufacturing associations, more than 300 solar and storage companies, oil companies, utility firms, some climate change groups, and lawmakers across the aisle.

If passed, the bill would be a major overhaul of permitting for federal projects, including but not limited to highways, pipelines, and power lines. It would arguably be the most significant bill, in terms of its economic impact, signed by President Donald Trump during his second term.

While the test vote indicates the bill is on its way to Trump’s desk, it faces an uphill battle in the House, as many Democrats wish to push permitting discussions to the next Congress, when they hold the majority in both chambers.

However, advocates of the bill say that Democrats won’t be able to strike a better deal that Trump would still be willing to sign.

The current bipartisan deal would streamline the federal permitting process through a number of avenues, including reforming the National Environmental Policy Act, a 55-year-old law that requires federal agencies to evaluate the environmental effects of major actions and decisions relevant to their departments, such as issuing permits and licenses for large projects.

The bill would also reform other bedrock environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

Broadly, the legislation would shorten the window for lawsuits challenging environmental reviews for new projects. It also includes measures to accelerate the build-out of transmission infrastructure.

One provision sought by Democrats would make it more difficult for the president to revoke project permits, which is a priority because Trump has halted the construction of renewable energy sources.

The bill would also prevent data centers from passing along their electricity and energy costs to consumers.

Key negotiators in the Senate released an updated version of the bill over the weekend, using a process called a manager’s amendment. The amended legislation includes “clarifying, conforming, and technical edits” meant to address several concerns brought forward by environmental groups, tribal communities, and utilities over the last few weeks.

These changes include extending the window for objections to certain environmental reviews, giving states a pathway to ask the federal regulators to investigate local utility projects, preserving collective bargaining agreements for employees at power marketing administrations, and creating a new data center community assistance program within the Department of Energy.

The manager’s amendment also addresses concerns regarding the permit certainty provisions, as critics claimed the legislation would make it difficult to walk back permits of projects that might have a worse environmental impact than previously thought.

Some of the most prominent changes were made to provisions regarding the National Historic Preservation Act, which were widely criticized by tribal groups. Specifically, the amendment version cuts a measure that would let the secretary of the Interior assume responsibilities of a tribal historic preservation officer in some cases, and strikes a controversial definition of “property of traditional religious or cultural importance.”

It would also require more consultation with tribes and native organizations, and require the Interior Department to provide Tribal Historic Preservation Offices with technical assistance, training, and support.

Heinrich told reporters ahead of the vote on Monday that changes to the legislation would also give tribes an equal seat with states regarding transmission planning and would require federal agencies to consult with tribes early on projects that affect important cultural sites.

The changes to the bill, broadly, did not cause any of the more prominent environmental and climate organizations to drop their opposition. Many, including the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters and The Wilderness Society, redoubled their criticisms and pressed lawmakers not to rush to pass the bill.

National Tribal and Preservation Associations also remain largely opposed to BAAJA. The filmmaker and activist Julian Brave Noisecat, though, described the amendment as a “real effort at compromise.”

He specifically pointed to a change that would exclude records that tribes share with states and the federal government from the Freedom of Information Act “to keep sensitive sacred sites from exposure.”

“That sort of in-the-weeds detail—a nod to tribal data sovereignty—tells me that there’s real effort here to try to honor tribal consultation,” he said.

The amendment also prompted an endorsement from the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utility companies across the U.S. This is a significant show of support as major utilities lobbied against a similar permitting reform proposal led by then-Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.V.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY).

The legislation has the backing of Trump, whose endorsement has been considered crucial in Washington to secure enough Republican votes.

On the eve of the procedural vote, Trump released a statement of support for BAAJA, calling the bill a “BIG WIN for U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND DOMINANCE.”

The president said the bill would codify his administration’s “America First” energy agenda and speed up the construction of pipelines, mines, and power plants. He also said it would ensure data centers would build and pay for their own electricity and invest in local communities.

Trump’s comments are the first sign directly from the Oval Office that he would be willing to support legislation that would allow for accelerated deployment of renewable energy resources.

HERE’S WHAT’S IN THE BIPARTISAN MEGABILL MEANT TO ALLOW THE US TO BUILD AGAIN

Democrats have been wary of backing the bipartisan bill for fear that the president would not fairly implement the reforms for wind and solar power.

The Trump administration has attempted to assuage these concerns by advancing wind project reviews under the Department of War. While this could be viewed as a sign of good faith, many wind proponents have been quick to point out that the Pentagon was court-ordered to move forward on the reviews earlier this year, after stalling for months.

However, just minutes before Monday’s vote on BAAJA, Trump said he would not approve any wind farms, calling the projects “losers.”

Means, who quit his post as Trump administration health policy adviser in late October, said on CBS News’s Face the Nation Sunday that he would like to see the Trump administration work with Democrats on key food reform legislation where there is much common ground.

“I think there are specific bills, specific issues that they’re literally saying the same thing,” Means said.

Means has been on a postelection media tour criticizing former White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and others within the White House for bowing to lobbying interests and blocking MAHA priorities, such as setting a formal definition for ultra-processed foods and regulating pesticides.

On Face the Nation, Means praised Trump’s new chief of staff Stephen Miller and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saying they share many of the same goals on tackling corruption as Sen.-elect Abdul el Sayed (D-MI) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

“Stephen Miller wants to get transformative things done with Bobby Kennedy and President Trump that are not partisan, but structural,” Means said. “He wants to get the same things done that Elizabeth Warren and el Sayed and other people are running on. And I think there is a major opportunity to come together and get some big things done, which, quite frankly, we have to do.”

Means has also said that the Trump team should work with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the current ranking Democrat on the influential Senate health committee that oversees the Food and Drug Administration and other health agencies.

“I think Stephen Miller and Bobby Kennedy would be very amenable to meeting with Democrats, meeting with Republicans who aren’t beholden to special interests like John Thune,” Means said, referring to the current Senate majority leader.

Means is not alone among MAHA activists encouraging cooperation with Democrats on core issues.

Tony Lyons, head of the MAHA Action PAC, during the midterm election campaign encouraged his supporters to vote Republican, but on Wednesday said his organization will “partner with absolutely everyone” including politicians “from any party.”

“There are good people across the political spectrum who want to be part of this, and we’re going to find every last one of them and fight with them,” Lyons said.

In the weeks leading up to the election, Democrats courted voters who would like to see greater regulations on ultra-processed foods and nutrition-based preventive medicine.

MAHA ACTIVISTS CELEBRATE REPLACEMENT OF SUSIE WILES AS WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF

The Center for American Progress, a Democrat-aligned policy group, published a document in late October calling on “progressives to reclaim leadership” on food, nutrition, and agriculture reform issues that have been subsumed into the MAHA agenda for the Trump administration.

CAP President Neera Tanden, a former adviser to the Clinton, Obama, and Biden administrations, told Politico that, because of the Trump administration’s broken promises on food reform, “Democrats have a more open field to attract the MAHA voters who were important to President Trump’s election in 2024.”

“I haven’t had any conversations with her about that,” Thune told reporters on Tuesday, responding to Burchett’s repeated claims that he is being boxed out of the conversation in favor of someone more friendly to congressional leadership.

“I mean, Marsha Blackburn is going to make that decision,” Thune said, adding that it’s “not my call” when pressed on the idea that he opposes Burchett specifically.

The Washington Examiner previously reported that Thune and Blackburn have not spoken about the appointment. A source close to the Blackburn team also confirmed that she has not yet begun interviewing for the position. Blackburn won her Tuesday race for governor with 45% of the vote, compared to 43% for Jerri Green, her Democratic opponent.

Burchett, a four-term House member and ally of the conservative Freedom Caucus, put his name in the mix last year, when Blackburn first announced that she would run for governor, and is likely being considered alongside several other current and former state officials, among them ex-Knox County Mayor Glenn Jacobs. War Secretary Pete Hegseth is not expected to be appointed after initial media speculation.

RON JOHNSON PLANS LEADERSHIP ELECTION WALKOUT IN PROTEST OF QUICK VOTE: ‘I’LL LEAVE THE ROOM’

Burchett has said that regardless of the appointment, he plans to run for Senate when the seat opens up again in 2028 and pinned any resistance to his selection on his reputation as a rabble-rouser in the House.

Burchett was one of the eight House Republicans who voted to oust then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023.

“We have a vote next Wednesday,” Jeffries told reporters Monday afternoon. “I’m going to work hard to talk to every single member about what we’ve been able to do together over the last two years, and what the opportunities are for us to do together in the next two years to deliver upon the dramatic change that the American people so decisively voted for this past Tuesday.”

“I guess we’ll find out,” Jeffries responded when a reporter said he sounded like he did not have the necessary 218 votes.

He did, however, appear assured he will be the next speaker.

“We’re very confident we’ll get there,” Jeffries later said.

The new group of progressives in the House, many of whom are aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America, have not ruled out forcing a recorded vote during the caucus’ internal speaker race, a tradition normally conducted by secret ballot.

“We’re not withholding votes,” Rep.-elect Adam Hamawy (D-NJ) said to Punchbowl News earlier Monday. “What we’re doing is saying we’re undecided. I mean, we’re not going to rubber stamp anything. We want to sit and have a conversation about the issues and what’s the plan going forward.”

Even if a handful of socialist-aligned legislators were to oppose Jeffries, he is unlikely to have any resistance to becoming speaker of the House. So far, no other candidates have been floated, and a majority of more than 250 Democrats gives Jeffries significant breathing room.

HAKEEM JEFFRIES FORMALLY ANNOUNCES BID FOR HOUSE SPEAKER

Jeffries, who is expected to be the first black speaker in congressional history, announced his bid for the role last week following the Democratic Party’s massive victory across the country.

“Hakeem Jeffries is the right person in this moment, and he is the right leader, and we are going to be so very proud in just a few weeks when we get to say ‘Hakeem Jeffries is the speaker of the House,’” House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) said late election night.