WASHINGTON (AP) — The government shutdown^[1] stretched into its 40th day Sunday even as senators held a weekend session in hopes of finding an end to the impasse that has disrupted flights nationwide^[2], threatened food assistance^[3] for millions of Americans and left federal workers without pay.

The Senate has shown few signs of progress over a weekend that could be crucial for the shutdown fight. Republican leaders are hoping to hold votes on bills that would reopen the government into January while also approving full-year funding for several parts of government. The necessary Democratic support for that effort was far from guaranteed.

“We’re only a handful of votes away” from passing legislation to reopen the government, Senate Majority Leader John Thune^[4], R-S.D., said Saturday.

Democratic leaders are pushing hard for an extension of subsidies for health plans offered under the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Republicans have rejected that offer, but signaled openness to an emerging proposal from a small group of moderate Democrats to end the shutdown in exchange for a later vote on the “Obamacare” subsidies that make coverage more affordable.

For those enrolled in health exchanges under that law, premiums on average are expected to more than double next year if Congress allows the enhanced subsidies to lapse.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said the pledge to hold a vote on extending the subsidies would be a “wasteful gesture” unless “you have the commitment of the speaker of the House that he will support it and that the president of the United States will sign it.”

President Donald Trump has made clear he is unlikely to compromise any time soon. On Sunday, he pressed Republicans once more to abolish the Senate's filibuster rules^[5] that prevent the chamber from advancing on most legislation unless there is support from 60 senators. “Be the Smart Party,” he said in a social media post.

Moderates continue to negotiate

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., and others have been discussing bills that would pay for parts of government — food aid, veterans programs and the legislative branch, among other things — and extend funding for everything else until December or January. The agreement would only come with the promise of a future health care vote.

It was unclear whether enough Democrats would support such a plan. Even with a deal, Trump appears unlikely to support an extension of the health benefits. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has said he would not commit to a health vote.

Republican leaders in the Senate only need five additional votes to fund the government, and the group involved in the talks has ranged from 10 to 12 Democratic senators.

Some Republicans have said they are open to extending the COVID-19-era tax credits as premiums could skyrocket for millions of people, but they want new limits on who can receive the subsidies. They lined up Saturday to take to the Senate floor and argue that subsidies for the plans should be routed through individuals.

“We’re going to replace this broken system with something that is actually better for the consumer,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

"THE WORST HEALTHCARE FOR THE HIGHEST PRICE,” Trump termed it in a post Sunday.

Republicans eye new package of bills

Trump wants Republicans to end the shutdown quickly and scrap the filibuster so they can bypass Democrats altogether. Vice President JD Vance, a former Ohio senator, said Republicans who want to keep the filibuster are “wrong.”

But Republicans have rejected^[6] Trump’s call, with Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., telling NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that because of the filibuster, “the Senate is the only place in our government where both sides have to talk to each other. That's a good thing for America.”

Thune is eyeing a bipartisan package that mirrors the proposal the moderate Democrats have been sketching out. What Thune, who has refused to negotiate, might promise on health care is unknown.

The package would replace the House-passed legislation that the Democrats have rejected 14 times since the shutdown began Oct. 1. The current bill would only extend government funding until Nov. 21.

A choice for Democrats

A test vote on new legislation could come in the next few days if Thune decides to move forward.

Then Democrats would have a crucial choice: Keep fighting for a meaningful deal on extending the subsidies^[7] that expire in January, while prolonging the pain of the shutdown? Or vote to reopen the government and hope for the best as Republicans promise an eventual health care vote, but not a guaranteed outcome.

Senate Democrat leader Chuck Schumer argues Republicans should accept a one-year extension of the subsidies before negotiating the future of the tax credits.

“Doing nothing is derelict because people will go bankrupt, people will lose insurance, people will get sicker,” Schumer said in a floor speech Saturday. “That’s what will happen if this Congress fails to act.”

___

Associated Press writers Seung Min Kim, Joey Cappelletti, Mary Clare Jalonick and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth^[1] said Friday the Pentagon is revamping how the military buys weapons, shifting the focus away from producing advanced and complex technology and toward products that can be made and delivered quickly.

Hegseth, speaking to military leaders and defense contractors in Washington, said the "objective is simple: transform the entire acquisition system to operate on a wartime footing, to rapidly accelerate the fielding of capabilities and focus on results.”

Hegseth gave his address, which ran for more than an hour, at the National War College. It delved much more into military minutia than a previous big speech^[2] to hundreds of military leaders abruptly summoned to a base in Virginia, where he declared^[3] an end to “woke” culture and announced “gender-neutral” directives for troops.

Hegseth acknowledged the granularity Friday, saying, “If folks are watching this on Fox, their eyes are rolling over.”

The defense secretary argued his changes are meant to move the military away from the more traditional process that prioritized delivering a perfect, if expensive and late, product in favor of something that is less ideal but delivered quickly. Some experts say the changes could mean less transparency and the military ending up with systems that may not function as expected.

“An 85% solution in the hands of our armed forces today is infinitely better than an unachievable 100% solution ... endlessly undergoing testing or awaiting additional technological development,” he said. He asserted that what used to take several years could happen within one.

The shift is coming as Russia’s grinding war^[4] has seen an underfunded Ukraine using cheap, mass-produced drones^[5] to effectively hold off a technologically superior Moscow, which is armed with advanced missiles and hundreds of tanks.

“Drones are the biggest battlefield innovation in a generation, accounting for most of this year’s casualties in Ukraine,” Hegseth argued in a July memo^[6] before declaring that “while global military drone production skyrocketed over the last three years, the previous administration deployed red tape.” That memo lifted some Pentagon restrictions on drone purchases.

Todd Harrison, a defense budget and acquisition expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said Hegseth’s ideas represent a significant shift in how the military would buy arms.

But he warned that if contractors aren’t incentivized “to check all the boxes” for everything the military wants in a product, “they may deliver something faster, but it may not do what you want it to do.”

The way the U.S. military buys weapons and platforms has faced criticism for various reasons for decades. In recent years, the most famous example of the Pentagon’s failure to get the right gear to the front line was the scores of troops that died from roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan because of poorly armored vehicles that weren’t designed for the conflict.

Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates used his influence to quickly develop the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, or MRAP, through the acquisition process in under a year.

Hegseth acknowledged the effort Friday, noting that “the entire process must move at the speed of ... the MRAP."

More recently, other Pentagon efforts have tried to replicate this dynamic to quickly deal with the threat of China invading Taiwan or quickly develop swarms of drones^[7], with mixed results.

Republican Sen. Roger Wicker praised Hegseth's changes as “a game changer for U.S. defense, ensuring our military has the advanced equipment needed to deter adversaries like China and Russia.”

Wicker, who heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he was looking forward to “implementing these priorities in the next National Defense Authorization Act.”

Hegseth also argued that the companies that sell weapons and platforms to the military need to "assume risk to partner with the United States.”

He then took aim at the large defense contractors, saying the Pentagon will move away from the traditional system where there is limited competition to “harness more of America’s innovative companies."

Harrison said risks are inherent with turning away from traditional contractors — they possess deep expertise and are mostly publicly traded companies. That means “we have more visibility into their liquidity, the stability of their company, their board,” he said.

With the changes comes a possibility for greater fraud and abuse.

”Whereas many of these newer companies, we have very little visibility inside how the company works, who owns what, how they make decisions — it’s all very opaque,” Harrison said.

During his speech, Hegseth also said he wanted to increase the sale of U.S. arms to equip allies while boosting the military industrial base.

Specifically, his plan is to streamline regulations to encourage more sales as a way to boost U.S. arms manufacturing while also equipping allies with the latest in military hardware and munitions.

“President Trump is securing deal after deal to bring cold, hard cash to American manufacturers,” Hegseth said. “But our processes are too slow.”

___

Associated Press writers David Klepper and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

Laura Loomer, a far-right commentator who has promoted conspiracy theories and is an unabashed supported of President Donald Trump, was recently granted access to cover the Pentagon. Press groups warn of the implications.

The Pentagon has given press credentials to Laura Loomer, head of media organization "LOOMERED and a pro-Trump, self-described "America First" supporter with a dubious history of conspiracy claims and publicity stunts. Military.com reported in September^[1] that the Pentagon imposed new media restrictions requiring approval before reporting even unclassified information—a change critics said would chill independent coverage.

Military.com reached out to Loomer for comment, and also asked the Defense Department to explain what access her credential provides.

"I’m excited to announce that after a year of breaking the most impactful stories that pertain to our nation’s national security and rooting out deceptive and disloyal bad actors from the Department of War, I have joined the Pentagon Press Corps!" Loomer posted Monday on X. " LOOMERED is now a credentialed outlet at the Pentagon. There is no denying that my investigative reporting has had a massive impact on the landscape of personnel decisions within the Executive Branch, our intelligence agencies and the Pentagon."

Just last month, Loomer—a self-described "Islamophobe"—criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's announcement of a Qatari air force facility settling in Idaho. She said not “a single Trump supporter supports allowing Qatar to have a military base on US soil.”

Pentagon Should Be 'Fair and Grounded'

Reporters and press freedom groups say the briefing room is becoming a political stage instead of a place for accountability.

Caroline Hendrie, executive director of the Society of Professional Journalists, told Military.com that limiting access hurts the public’s right to know. The Pentagon also should not shut out experienced reporters while letting in political activists, she said.

“Any move that restricts journalists’ ability to gather information and seek answers on the public’s behalf threatens transparency, accountability and press freedom,” Hendrie said. “The Pentagon should uphold open, viewpoint-neutral access. The Pentagon, like all federal agencies, has a duty to ensure that credentialing and briefing policies are fair and grounded in the public’s right to know.”

She said letting partisan influencers into the room while experienced reporters walk out puts trust at risk.

“If ethical, independent outlets lose access while partisan personalities gain it, the public loses real reporting,” she told Military.com. “Military matters demand scrutiny from experienced journalists, not gatekeeping based on ideology or influence.”

New Media Devoid of "Activists"

Military.com previously reported^[2] that after several mainstream outlets including the Associated Press and The New York Times declined to sign the new credential agreement, the Pentagon announced a “new” press corps filled largely with conservative outlets including the podcaster Tim Pool, National Pulse, Human Events, Gateway Pundit, the Just the News website founded by journalist John Solomon, Frontlines by Turning Point USA, and LindellTV operated by “MyPillow” CEO Mike Lindell.

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said at the time that the shift represents the "next generation" of national security journalism and criticized the “self-righteous media who chose to self-deport from the Pentagon.”

“Americans have largely abandoned digesting their news through the lens of activists who masquerade as journalists in the mainstream media,” Parnell wrote on X in October. “We look forward to beginning a fresh relationship with members of the new Pentagon press corps.”

It's a press corps that doesn't include conservative outlets like Fox News and Newsmax, who walked out with the other previous news organizations.

New National Precedent

Organizations like SPJ, in operation for more than a century and dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and upholding high ethical standards, say the recent shift is important as the Pentagon is one of the most important public-facing national security institutions.

Hendrie said other agencies take cues from the Defense Department. Rule changes like what's happened at the Pentagon can ripple across the entire federal system.

“History shows that once agencies begin setting selective or subjective standards for press credentials, those models often spread,” Hendrie said. “Changes at the Pentagon are a vivid example of a deeply troubling trend toward restricting access to information that the public deserves to know.”

Reuters national security reporter Phil Stewart also blasted Loomer, writing on X on Nov. 4 that she may have already broken Pentagon rules with her post informing of her new credentials.

Loomer “is appealing for tips, as she announces that she’s signing onto a Pentagon policy prohibiting that basic aspect of journalism,” Stewart wrote. “The policy states, and I quote: ‘An advertisement or social media post by an individual journalist or media outlet that directly targets DoW personnel to disclose non-public information without proper authorization would constitute a solicitation that could lead to revocation’ of press credentials.”