President Trump told lawmakers and senior aides he was open to pursuing a health-care deal, according to people familiar with the matter, setting up an early test of his willingness to strike compromises that could redraw political fault lines on an issue central to millions of voters. Administration officials signaled interest in talks that could touch on prescription drug costs, coverage for people with preexisting conditions and federal funding streams—areas that would require cooperation from Congress and could force concessions from conservatives in Republican-led chambers.

The development underscores both opportunity and risk for the White House. A negotiated package could yield tangible benefits and blunt Democratic attacks on health policy, but it also exposes the administration to internal resistance and complex negotiations with skeptical House Republicans and Senate Democrats. Policy analysts warned that any deal would face intense scrutiny over trade-offs and funding mechanisms, particularly if it relied on reauthorizations or cross-cutting budget offsets.

At the same time, the mechanisms designed to hold officials and institutions to account appear to be weakening. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, testifying before a Senate panel this week, repeatedly declined to answer probing questions about her interactions with financier Jeffrey Epstein and the handling of cases tied to allies of the president. Senators pressed for clarity on whether public officials received favorable treatment, but Bondi repeatedly asserted legal limits on what she could disclose, leaving unresolved questions about the influence of wealthy donors and the thoroughness of prior investigations.

Oversight capacity was further diminished after a federal staffing disruption forced an independent office that monitors Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations into a furlough status. Advocates, lawmakers and inspectors warned that the suspension of routine inspections and data collection could leave detainees without timely protections and hamper transparency at a crucial moment when immigration enforcement remains a contentious policy front.

Compounding those concerns, the Office of Management and Budget has informed agencies that it may not authorize automatic back pay for employees furloughed during a lapse in appropriations, a position that could heighten pressure on Congress but also leave rank-and-file workers financially vulnerable. Agency leaders and union officials called the possibility a coercive tactic that shifts the human costs of budget disputes onto frontline public servants.

The week also produced signals from other institutions. Six former U.S. surgeons general published a joint letter warning voters about the public-health implications of defecting candidates’ stances, saying in blunt terms that “it’s our duty to warn the nation” about misinformation on vaccines and medical science. And at the Supreme Court, justices sharply questioned lawyers in a challenge to a state law banning conversion therapy for minors, signaling that the high court may be skeptical of some constitutional claims while balancing First Amendment and child-protection considerations.

Together, the developments illustrate a widening gap between political maneuvering in Washington and the institutional checks designed to provide transparency and safeguard public welfare. Lawmakers and watchdogs face a season in which policy ambitions, personnel decisions and budgetary brinkmanship will determine how much accountability the public actually receives.