Ted Cruz is finding distance from Trump — and eyeing his political future
Since becoming chair in January of the Senate Commerce Committee, Cruz — who has signaled abiding presidential ambitions — has found ways to assert his own priorities, even if it involves breaking with Trump and other Republicans in the process.
Four months in, Cruz has already angered the White House by promising to go after Big Tech CEOs with whom the administration is cozy, and irked Commerce Committee Republicans who refused to give Cruz unilateral subpoena power to haul in those CEOs and other high-profile witnesses.
He has pledged to pursue bipartisan priorities on the traditionally cooperative panel, like aviation safety legislation, reauthorization of the U.S. Coast Guard and standardizing rules for how college athletes are paid. But Cruz has also presided over cross-the-aisle shouting matches, prompting the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, to bemoan, 'I don't want to turn into the House.'
His decision to venture some criticism of Trump's trade war — despite the president's efforts to clamp down on public opposition from within the party — was another sign of Cruz's swashbuckling pursuit of his agenda, however uncomfortable.
'I am doing everything I can to urge the president to listen to the voices of the angels and not the devils,' said Cruz, adding that he engaged with the White House on the matter and was in frequent contact with Trump.
It all adds up to the conclusion that Cruz could be preparing to make another go for the White House in 2028 after finishing as runner-up to Trump in 2016. And while he's tied himself closely to Trump since then, he is now using the committee gavel to set himself apart with aggressive oversight of tech companies, skepticism about tariffs and even a record of working across the aisle.
This strategy might not change many opinions about Cruz. He has a history of being widely reviled and mocked on the left and rubbing his Republican colleagues the wrong way, too, with his showboating style. He's the man who read 'Green Eggs and Ham' during a filibuster on the Senate floor in 2013 to protest funding the government without defunding Obamacare and who spends significant time most weekdays recording a podcast that builds his personal brand.
In an interview Wednesday, Cruz demurred on whether he's looking at a future presidential bid that could pit him against a former colleague, Vice President JD Vance, saying he's now focused on his work in the Senate.
'We have an enormous amount of work in front of us right now,' Cruz said. 'We just had a presidential election in which President Trump won an incredible mandate from the American people. … And my focus right now is 100 percent on rolling up my sleeves and doing the hard work to deliver on the promises he made and to deliver on the mandate for voters.'
If Cruz is indeed looking to carve out his own political lane, it's clear his tariff message resonated positively with some Republican committee members: Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas, who signed onto legislation to limit presidential tariff authority, said in an interview that Cruz's comments were 'very helpful.'
Commerce is not a "perfect platform for president because it's not high-profile" and grapples with "nerdy policy issues," said Texas-based GOP political strategist Matt Mackowiak. Tariffs, furthermore, don't fall under the committee's authority.
"But given his keen sense of policy and politics, he will find ways to raise the profile of the committee and get into some things that they haven't done before,' Mackowiak said. 'He doesn't shy away from being a partisan figure.'
Cruz, in an interview, touted his committee as a center of activity: "I am focused like a laser on jobs, jobs, jobs. The Senate Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over roughly 40 percent of the US economy. … There are very few positions in all of government that can have a greater impact than chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.'
He said he plans to do that, in part, by developing policies to help 'America to lead in the development of [artificial intelligence] and to reap the productivity and job creation benefits that will come from that.'
To get those things done, though, Cruz will need cooperation from committee members — and he has frequently pursued a go-it-alone approach that hasn't always gone smoothly.
Cruz's efforts to get his colleagues to give him unchecked subpoena power earlier this year backfired when Republicans chafed at the suggestion they break with longstanding precedent and give their chair the ability to compel witness testimony and documents without first securing a full committee vote.
The White House also didn't want committee Republicans to give Cruz more power, fearing he planned to use his blanket privileges to haul in major tech companies with which the administration has had a rapport.
In interviews with multiple GOP committee members at the time of the conflict, none sided with Cruz over Trump, either saying they would be open to hearing the White House out or declining to comment. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) would only say 'we'll see' when asked if she supported Cruz in his quest.
Cruz defended himself in an interview, saying he still plans to crack down on Big Tech with all the tools at his disposal: 'I view big tech censorship as the single greatest threat to free speech in America, and the single greatest threat to free and fair elections in America. We're going to engage in vigorous oversight, and if there is resistance, the committee will use compulsory processes to enforce compliance.'
When asked to explain the breakdown earlier this year, Cruz deferred to the White House, which did not respond to a request for comment.
Another flashpoint on the committee could be over allowing the federal government to auction off wireless airwaves for commercial use. Cruz argues it will create jobs and keep America competitive with China, while Pentagon officials and some GOP lawmakers call it a national security risk.
But Cruz is calibrating where he breaks with Trump and where he works to endear himself to the president. Early Commerce hearings this year were designed to bolster Trump's arguments for taking control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He also presided over the panel's advancement of legislation championed by first lady Melania Trump that would crack down on AI-generated revenge porn, which has since passed the Senate and could soon clear the House.
And many Republicans are happy with Cruz's leadership. Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), a new member of the panel, pointed to his 'snappy' sense of humor, while Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) called him 'a breath of fresh air.'
Some Democratic committee members are eager to find common ground with Cruz, too.
'Ted and I get along well,' said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). 'His move on the subpoenas was an unforced error. But other than that … there are always opportunities in Commerce to work in a bipartisan way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Associated Press
12 minutes ago
- Associated Press
US sanctions Mexican drug cartel associates accused of scamming elderly Americans
MEXICO CITY (AP) — The U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions Wednesday on more than a dozen Mexican companies and four people it says worked with a powerful drug trafficking cartel to scam elderly Americans in a multimillion-dollar timeshare fraud. The network of 13 businesses in areas near the seaside tourist destination of Puerto Vallarta were accused of working with the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, a group designated by the U.S. government as a foreign terrorist organization. In a scheme dating back to 2012, four cartel associates are accused of defrauding American citizens of their life savings through elaborate rental and resale schemes, according to a Treasury statement. In the span of six months, officials said they were able to document $23.1 million sent from mostly people in the U.S. to scammers in Mexico. The sanctions imposed by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump would prohibit Americans from doing business with the alleged cartel associates and block any of their assets in the U.S.. 'We will continue our effort to completely eradicate the cartels' ability to generate revenue, including their efforts to prey on elderly Americans through timeshare fraud,' U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement. In past years, the administration of then-President Joe Biden also sanctioned associates and accountants related to such schemes. The Wednesday announcement was made amid an ongoing effort by the Trump administration and the Mexican government to crack down on cartels and their diverse sources of income. The U.S. Treasury Department has slapped sanctions on a variety of people from a Mexican rapper who it accused of laundering cartel money to Mexican banks facilitating money transfers in sales of precursor chemicals used to produce fentanyl. The announcement also came one day after Mexico sent 26 high-ranking cartel figures to the U.S. in the latest major deal with the Trump administration as Mexico tries to avoid threatened tariffs.
