A consensus is emerging on what topics should be tackled in a special session of the General Assembly: Revisit a vetoed affordable housing bill, respond to federal spending cuts and policy changes, and consider ways to protect immigrants facing detention and potential deportation.
But how and when to address those things? That is a puzzle Gov. Ned Lamont and the legislature’s Democratic majorities still are trying to solve.
There is no deal on a revised housing bill Lamont would sign, though he and one of the bill’s key backers, House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, said Thursday they are making some progress. Nor is there agreement on how the state could strengthen its Trust Act.
Given the absence of a concrete action plan, Senate President Pro Tem Martin M. Looney of New Haven said he sees little chance of a special session before mid-October.
“It’s all still pending,” Looney said.
As for the impact of federal fiscal and policy changes on Connecticut, the picture remains fuzzy. President Donald J. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act has impacts on health insurance exchanges and Medicaid spending, but most will not be fully felt until after the midterm elections of 2026.
“I think most of us think we’re probably going to have a special session,” Lamont said. “You might as well have it when you know what’s going on, or we can just imagine a lot of worst case scenarios and set aside money.”
Lamont is to meet Friday with other New England governors via video to talk about a joint strategy to stabilize the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, a target of the Trump administration.
“The big thing is they’re really going after the exchanges and the subsidies on the exchanges,” Lamont said.
Rep Josh Elliott of Hamden, the Democratic state representative who is running for governor as a liberal alternative to Lamont, is working with labor to sign up colleagues for a press conference next week aimed at creating a sense of urgency for the governor to call a special session.
He sent lawmakers a letter he intends to send to the governor and asked them to sign it.
“We, the undersigned members of the General Assembly, write to you with urgency and resolve. Connecticut families are facing mounting challenges, and we believe it is imperative to convene a special session to address them,” the letter says.
It proposes four issues to be included in the special session call: Protecting access to Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP; addressing housing instability; filling federal funding gaps; and protecting immigrant families.
Recognizing his involvement could make the press conference a campaign event, Elliott told his colleagues he would neither speak at the press conference, nor emcee it.
“I’m trying to thread that needle,” Elliott said in an interview Thursday. “I’m very much trying not make this about me.”
House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said the topics in the letter are not surprising, but he notes there is no need to get a commitment from the governor on a detailed agenda, which is known as “the call.”
“The reality is, no matter what the governor does, or even if the legislature petitioned its way in, you can expand the call once you’re in. And so I actually think people worry too much about the call,” Ritter said.
Ritter saw no complications in Elliott, a potential rival for Lamont next year, trying to organize Democrats to pressure the governor.
“It’s political season, and these things will happen,” Ritter said. “But I would generally say, just objectively, I don’t know that there’s any disagreement or issues amongst the things that we’ve discussed with the administration or what’s being requested by whoever signs on to this.”
In other words, the topics are fine. They just need to devise legislation addressing them.
On immigration and the Trust Act, Ritter said the leaders are awaiting suggestions from the Democratic co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Gary Winfield of New Haven and Rep. Steve Stafstrom of Bridgeport.
“We’re in the midst of some really deep conversations about what is possible,” Winfield said.
The Trust Act, which is based on a constitutional provision that state and local law enforcement cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration law, limits what information police and correction officers can share with Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents.
The original intention was to make immigrants, regardless of legal status, comfortable in reporting crimes or testifying in court without fear of being detained by ICE. In recent months, there have been numerous reports of ICE officials arresting individuals attending immigration hearings at courthouses across the state and the country.
“We’re certainly concerned about the escalation in and around the courts,” Stafstrom said. “That’s a real concern of mine. Courts should be a place where everyone feels they can go and receive justice without interference. The whole point of the Trust Act is to make people feel safe.”
Lamont and the leaders said there is little clarity about how much further the state can go strengthening its Trust Act; there is a fine line between not assisting ICE and obstructing it. Lamont said he has asked his general counsel to research it.
“I don’t know what we can do, what we can’t do yet,” he said.
Without a consensus on immigration or housing, legislators might still return in special session to address federal spending cuts — even if the full impact remains unknown.
If the governor and legislators wish to make money available to offset federal cuts, they most likely will have to take some action before the end of 2025 — or Treasurer Erick Russell would be required to use much of the $2.5 billion surplus from the fiscal year that ended on June 30 to pay down pension debt.
Russell is required by a 2017 law directing that traditionally volatile sources of revenue go to budget reserves up to a certain limit that already has been reached, then to the pension fund.
“He intends to make the volatility transfer after a special session, if one happens, and no later than the end of the year,” said a spokesman, Brett Cody.
Lamont said he and Russell already have spoken about keeping some of those funds as a contingency to address the federal cuts.
“We’ve gone over some scenarios,” Lamont said. “So we have some idea of what we think are the worst case solutions, and what some of our efforts might be to backfill, not everything, but at least protect the most vulnerable.”