Congress Returns to a Changed Political Landscape as Lame-Duck Deadlines Loom 

Congress returned to Washington this week following the midterm elections, with a limited legislative calendar and several major issues still to be resolved before the end of the year. Lawmakers face a busy lame-duck session as they work to address government funding, advance outstanding legislative priorities, and prepare for a new Congress that will bring a significant shift in the balance of power on Capitol Hill. 

The elections have significantly reshaped the political landscape, with Democrats set to take control of both the House and Senate in January. The shift will usher in a period of divided government, giving Democrats greater influence over federal spending, legislative priorities, and oversight of the Trump administration. However, the Senate’s 60-vote threshold for most legislation and the president’s veto authority will continue to make bipartisan cooperation necessary on major policy issues. 

Republicans face a narrowing window to advance their legislative priorities before losing control of both chambers in January. Democrats, meanwhile, have less incentive to make concessions on contentious legislation or spending priorities when they will soon have greater authority to shape the congressional agenda. As a result, Republicans may seek to accelerate action on key measures before the end of the year, while Democrats could use their leverage to block proposals they oppose or defer negotiations until the new Congress convenes. 

Government funding remains the most pressing issue facing Congress, with the federal government operating under a short-term continuing resolution (CR) that’s set to expire on December 11. To avoid a government shutdown, lawmakers must reach an agreement on new funding levels, temporarily extend current funding through another short-term CR, or adopt a full-year CR that would generally maintain existing funding levels. However, ongoing political disagreements could make reaching a deal difficult, raising the possibility of a government shutdown. 

The funding debate has been further complicated by Democratic opposition to the administration’s ongoing military operations in Iran. Some congressional Democrats are seeking restrictions on the use of federal funds to support the conflict and have indicated they may withhold support for government funding legislation unless those restrictions are included. Democratic leaders, however, remain divided over whether to risk a shutdown, particularly with their party preparing to assume control of Congress in January. 

For California counties, the outcome of these negotiations could have significant implications. A long-term continuing resolution could delay or eliminate pending congressionally directed spending projects, while a shutdown could disrupt federal agency operations, grant administration, and other activities that counties rely upon. Funding negotiations could also determine whether Congress continues to block proposed changes to federal grant rules that would give the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the administration greater discretion over how federal grants are awarded. 

Several additional issues with significant implications for California counties remain on the congressional agenda: 

• SNAP/CalFresh: Lawmakers continue to consider proposals to delay the scheduled shift in SNAP benefit costs to states. However, Republicans and Democrats remain divided over the scope and conditions of any delay, leaving the prospects for an agreement uncertain. 

• Permitting Reform: A bipartisan Senate package faces significant political obstacles following the elections. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has expressed opposition to the legislation in its current form, citing concerns involving environmental reviews and tribal sovereignty. With Democrats preparing to assume control of Congress, the prospects for an agreement before the end of the year have become increasingly uncertain. 

• Transportation and Flood Insurance: Federal surface transportation programs and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) face December 11 authorization deadlines. With limited time remaining and significant legislative priorities still unresolved, Congress is increasingly likely to approve short-term extensions and defer broader reauthorization efforts until next year. 

• Water Infrastructure: The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) remains among the major bipartisan measures with a potential path to enactment before the end of the year. However, provisions included in the Senate proposal to reauthorize the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds could be excluded from a final agreement. 

Permitting Reform Advances in Senate but Faces Political Hurdles 

A bipartisan proposal to overhaul federal permitting requirements cleared a significant procedural hurdle this week, although its prospects for final passage remain uncertain. On November 9, the Senate voted 73–25 to advance debate on the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026 (BAAJA; S. 5653), with Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) both voting against advancing the legislation. The vote was procedural and did not constitute a vote on final passage or approval of the revised manager’s amendment, which was released ahead of Senate consideration to address concerns raised by lawmakers and stakeholders.  

The legislation seeks to accelerate federal environmental reviews for infrastructure and energy projects by establishing review deadlines, improving interagency coordination, and limiting certain legal challenges. For counties, one of the most significant provisions would expand their role in the federal permitting process. Specifically, BAAJA would allow counties to serve as coordinating agencies during environmental reviews, providing a more formal opportunity to participate in federal decisionmaking and offer input on projects affecting their communities. Together with shorter review timelines and improved agency coordination, these changes could help reduce delays and costs associated with infrastructure development. 

Despite the revisions, the legislation continues to face opposition from tribal nations and environmental organizations, which have raised concerns about potential reductions in environmental protections, restrictions on judicial review, and implications for tribal sovereignty and consultation requirements. Some counties may also have concerns about provisions limiting their ability to challenge federal decisions. Those concerns are partially offset by the expanded coordinating agency role, which would provide local governments with greater opportunities to influence decisions earlier in the review process. 

The procedural vote this week demonstrated substantial bipartisan support for advancing the legislation, but significant political obstacles remain. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has indicated that the legislation is unacceptable in its current form, presenting a substantial obstacle to enactment. With Democrats preparing to assume control of both chambers in January, some lawmakers may prefer to revisit the legislation next year rather than reach an agreement during the lame duck. 

The Senate is expected to resume consideration of the package next week, including additional amendments and a potential vote on final passage. 

FEMA Considers Major Changes to Federal Disaster Assistance 

The Trump administration is considering significant changes to federal disaster assistance policies that could shift greater responsibility for disaster response and recovery to state and local governments. The potential reforms reflect a broader administration effort to reduce reliance on federal disaster assistance and increase the role of states and local jurisdictions in managing disaster-related costs. 

In an October 15 internal memorandum, FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton outlined plans to reduce dependence on federal disaster assistance and strengthen state and local emergency management capabilities. The administration is also considering more restrictive criteria for federal disaster declarations, which could make it more difficult for states to qualify for federal assistance following emergencies. 

The extent of these changes will depend in part on whether they can be implemented administratively or require congressional approval. While FEMA has the authority to revise certain disaster declaration criteria, administrative procedures, more extensive changes to the agency’s statutory responsibilities, federal cost-sharing requirements, and disaster assistance programs would require congressional action. 

FCC Moves to Override California’s Carrier of Last Resort Requirements 

On October 30, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) circulated a draft order that would limit California’s authority to enforce its carrier of last resort (COLR) requirements, which generally require designated providers to maintain basic telephone service in communities where reliable alternatives may be limited. The proposal comes as AT&T moves to retire its aging copper telephone network, with the FCC already authorizing the company to discontinue legacy service for approximately 184,000 residential customers in California beginning as early as June 2027. 

For rural California counties, the proposal raises significant public safety concerns. Traditional copper landlines can continue operating during power outages, while fiber and wireless alternatives often depend on electricity, battery backup, or reliable cellular coverage. In communities facing limited wireless connectivity, wildfire risks, and frequent power shutoffs, retiring copper service before dependable alternatives are available could jeopardize access to 911 and other emergency communications. 

The proposal would also shift greater authority over service discontinuances from California regulators to the federal government. AT&T argues that retiring copper infrastructure will allow it to invest in newer technologies, while California’s existing requirements are intended to ensure reliable alternatives are available before service is discontinued. 

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), a leading congressional advocate on this issue, currently serves as the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. With Democrats taking control of the House in January, Matsui could be positioned to chair the subcommittee, giving her a greater role in overseeing the FCC’s actions and their implications for rural communities. 

USDA Proposes Major SNAP Changes 

On November 9, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced two proposed rules that would significantly restrict eligibility for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/CalFresh. The proposals build on changes enacted under H.R. 1 and could reduce access to food assistance for millions of individuals while increasing administrative responsibilities and costs for California counties. 

The first proposal would substantially restrict Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE), a policy that allows states to extend SNAP eligibility to households receiving certain benefits or services through Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)/CalWORKs. Under existing rules, states may use this flexibility to increase income eligibility thresholds to as much as 200 percent of the federal poverty level and modify asset limits. These policies allow additional working families to qualify for assistance while reducing verification requirements and administrative burdens. 

USDA’s proposed rule would narrow categorical eligibility to households receiving qualifying TANF assistance, rather than the broader range of noncash services currently permitted. 

USDA estimates that approximately 3.2 million households, representing 6.3 million individuals nationwide, would lose SNAP benefits once the proposed rule reaches its full effect in fiscal year 2029. The department also projects a reduction of approximately $44.6 billion in federal SNAP benefit spending over five years. It should be noted that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that approximately 605,000 California residents currently benefit from the higher income eligibility limits permitted under BBCE and could lose eligibility if that flexibility is eliminated. This estimate does not include additional households that could be affected by stricter asset requirements. 

For California counties, the proposal could create significant additional administrative responsibilities. Counties administer CalFresh eligibility determinations, and restrictions on categorical eligibility would require more extensive income and asset verification, potentially increasing workloads for county eligibility workers. These additional costs would compound the administrative funding pressures and benefit cost shifts already enacted under H.R. 1. USDA acknowledges that the proposal could increase state administrative expenses even as federal benefit expenditures decline. 

A second proposed rule would implement H.R. 1’s expanded SNAP work requirements while imposing additional restrictions on exemptions in areas experiencing high unemployment. Under federal law, states may request waivers of certain work requirements in areas with unemployment rates exceeding 10 percent. The proposal would establish additional limitations on how eligible geographic areas are defined and provide the USDA Secretary with greater discretion to deny waiver requests, including in circumstances where unemployment criteria are satisfied. 

The administration pursued a similar effort to restrict categorical eligibility during President Trump’s first term, although that proposal was ultimately withdrawn by the Biden administration. With Democrats preparing to assume control of Congress in January, the latest proposals could face increased congressional scrutiny and legislative efforts to prevent or limit their implementation. 

Both proposed rules are open for public comment through December 10, 2026. 

HUD Finalizes Restrictions on Housing Assistance for Mixed-Status Households 

On November 12, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issued a final rule that will restrict access to federal housing assistance for families with mixed immigration statuses. Under current regulations, households that include both eligible and ineligible members can receive prorated assistance based on the number of eligible individuals. The new rule eliminates this option, effectively requiring mixed-status families to either separate their households or forgo certain federal housing benefits. It also establishes stricter requirements for all HUD-assisted tenants, regardless of age, to verify their citizenship or eligible immigration status. 

The rule is scheduled to take effect on December 14, 2026, although HUD indicates that most affected households will have at least one year to provide documentation of U.S. citizenship. 

CSAC and the County Welfare Directors Association of California (CWDA) submitted joint comments opposing the proposed rule, warning that it could further strain California’s already challenging housing market, increase homelessness among families with children and older adults, and place additional financial burdens on county governments. CSAC has also raised concerns that the changes could increase the cost of administering federal housing assistance programs.  

Legal challenges to the final rule are expected.