A group of President Donald Trump’s MAGA allies released a playbook Wednesday to fulfill the largest deportation push in U.S. history. It could very well split Trump’s coalition.

The plan from the Mass Deportation Coalition — an organization led by some prominent Trumpworld veterans, immigration restrictionist groups and hawkish policy experts — rests on one crucial pillar: A major immigration enforcement crackdown on workplaces, modeling the strategy that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s administration used to deliver the nation’s largest deportation initiative in history.

“There is no chance for a mass deportation program if worksite enforcement is not the centerpiece,” the playbook, shared first with POLITICO, reads. “Enforcement at scale means focusing on physical areas where illegal aliens are concentrated: worksites.”

That strategy almost certainly promises to alienate some of the Trump administration’s allies in the agriculture, construction and hospitality industries, which all rely heavily on undocumented labor. Farm groups in particular hold significant sway in Trump’s Washington and have already shown prowess in steering the administration away from worksite enforcement when those efforts disrupted the industry.

Worksite raids could also prove deeply unpopular with voters, whose views have turned increasingly negative toward Trump on immigration and seemingly forced the administration to ramp down its deportation push.

The release of the group’s playbook — which also offers recommendations from digitizing the employment verification process to barring unauthorized immigrants from accessing credit — comes as the Trump administration enters a new stage of internal immigration enforcement.

In the months since an immigration surge in Minneapolis left two U.S. citizens dead, the administration pivoted its message on mass deportations while overhauling its leadership at the Department of Homeland Security. Border czar Tom Homan replaced Customs and Border Protection chief Greg Bovino in Minneapolis and drew down the immigration enforcement presence in the city; the president ousted DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and tapped then-Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) to replace her; and a POLITICO review of official administration social media accounts found that references to “mass deportations” sharply decreased in March.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson denied that the White House has shifted its deportation approach.

“Nobody is changing the Administration’s immigration enforcement agenda,” she said in a statement. “President Trump’s highest priority has always been the deportation of illegal alien criminals who endanger American communities. As the Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly said, approximately 70 percent of deportations to date have been illegal aliens with criminal records.”

Still, the Mass Deportation Coalition is trying to push the White House back toward a more aggressive immigration approach. Its members include Mark Morgan, the former acting commissioner of CBP under Trump; Erik Prince, a Trump ally and former Blackwater CEO who has pitched the White House on privatizing immigration detention operations; and a number of conservative organizations like the Heritage Foundation.

The group commissioned a poll last month by McLaughlin & Associates, one of Trump’s pollsters, that found a majority of likely U.S. voters support deporting all migrants who entered the country illegally. The poll also found that 70 percent of likely voters support “strengthening workplace immigration enforcement to help raise wages for American workers.”

However, those results differ drastically from other recent polling on immigration, like a January POLITICO poll amid the Minneapolis surge which found that nearly half of U.S. adults say Trump’s mass deportation campaign was too aggressive, including 1 in 5 of his 2024 voters.

“Special interests and industry have been able to operate in the shadows, and to lean on lawmakers and administration officials,” said Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project and a member of the Mass Deportation Coalition. “We're taking that fight public, and we don't think that they're well situated to win that fight, because their arguments don't sell with the American people.”

The group’s stated goal of 1 million deportations in 2026 mirrors a private goal among White House officials, the Washington Post reported last year. It would mark a significant uptick in apprehensions: The Department of Homeland Security said it deported just over 600,000 individuals in 2025, though independent analyses put the number lower.

Industry groups are warning worksite enforcement would disrupt supply chains. Last June, after immigration raids on farms and meatpacking plants sent a shiver through the agriculture industry and drew negative headlines, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and others successfully lobbied the president to pivot to focus on blue cities instead — a move that eventually culminated with the tumultuous operation in Minneapolis.

“The president made clear where he stands on the issue, and made clear how he wants to see the policy enforced,” said John Hollay, president of the National Council of Agricultural Employers. “If [immigration raids] were to occur again on farm operations, that’s going to disrupt the food supply chain, and we’ve made that very clear. We know the president is committed to ensuring our food supply chain is not disrupted and that prices at the grocery store are not raised unnecessarily.”

💾

© Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

Democrats are opening a new front in their midterm offensive over Iran.

VoteVets Action Fund is rolling out a $250,000 ad campaign Wednesday targeting Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.) over his support of the war with Iran, according to details shared first with POLITICO.

It’s one of the first examples of Democrats putting real money behind the issue in the midterms since President Donald Trump’s attack on the country more than a month ago. And it comes as Republicans grow increasingly worried that the war’s impact on prices could hurt the party at the ballot box this fall.

The ad attacks Van Orden, an at-risk Republican and combat veteran, for backing a Pentagon push for $200 billion more for the Iran operation as prices at the pump continue to rise, and after he called last year for cuts to the Department of Veterans Affairs. The ad accuses Van Orden of backing cuts to veterans’ care — though in the hearing referenced, the Republican advocates for slashing bureaucrats to add more doctors.

The spot sheds light on how Democrats are working to weaponize the war: by arguing that Trump is spending big abroad while further pinching voters’ pocketbooks and, in VoteVets’ case, stiffing veterans.

“Look at that gas pump. We’re paying the cost every damn day of this war in Iran. But for Congressman Van Orden, we’re not paying enough. He’s going for another $200 billion dollars to spend in Iran,” a male Marine Corps veteran narrates in the clip.

“This is the same guy who backed big cuts to VA care for vets,” the veteran says, referring to significant staffing reductions at the agency since Trump returned to office, including thousands of medical personnel. “Vets like me, we understand the cost of war. But if we don’t have the money to take care of our veterans, we damn sure can’t afford another war. Call Van Orden on it.”

VoteVets, whose PAC works to elect Democratic veterans, intends to expand its Iran ad campaign into other battleground districts, with a particular focus on GOP veterans who the group argues are blindly following Trump in abandoning his campaign-trail pledge to end endless wars.

“There’s absolutely no doubt that voters throughout the country, and particularly in Rep. Van Orden’s district, are very aware of the fact that every single day we spend billions of dollars [on] this war in Iran is yet another day that not only is the affordability crisis ignored, but it's getting even worse,” said former Rep. Max Rose, a New York Democrat who serves as a senior adviser to VoteVets. “What this first video represents is our commitment to holding every single Republican veteran in the House of Representatives accountable for their lies, hypocrisy and absence of courage.”

Van Orden, a retired Navy SEAL who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, slammed VoteVets as a “running joke in the veteran community” in a statement to POLITICO. He expressed support for Trump’s military operation and the supplemental funding plan that the White House has been reviewing. But Van Orden stressed that he continues to oppose putting uniformed troops on the ground in Iran.

“Iran has been at war with the United States for 47 years. When we start putting a price tag on American citizens’ lives, we’ve already lost sight of our responsibility,” Van Orden said. “Every single American murdered by these radical Muslim mullahs is priceless, and every American life we can save is beyond value.”

The 30-second spot will run during NCAA games and other live sporting events, as well as on broadcast, radio, streaming services and social media platforms. It represents an escalation in Democrats’ rhetoric and aggression as the party seizes on growing voter backlash to the now monthlong conflict that Trump is threatening to intensify.

Democrats have already been hammering Republicans over affordability as the average price of a gallon of gas soars over $4. Now they’re eyeing ways to connect other cost concerns to the ballooning spending on the war amid reporting that Republicans are considering further reductions to federal health spending to bankroll the military effort — returning to some of their signature issues of the cycle to argue that the GOP is prioritizing fealty to the president over voters’ pocketbooks.

Other Democrat-aligned groups are joining in. Battleground Alliance PAC flew a plane over a minor league baseball game in Pennsylvania over the weekend with a banner targeting Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie that read “Mackenzie: Your Iran Vote = Sky High $$$Gas.” The group is planning similar stunts in more than half a dozen other swing districts across Michigan, Iowa, Nebraska and Ohio.

“We're in a war of choice, which is spending an enormous amount of money, and we're going to get more health care cuts and oil price increases,” said Andrew Grossman, a senior adviser to the labor-backed Battleground Alliance PAC. “And so the cost of living — like the chaos and the Republican Congress just saying yes always to President Trump — is hitting Americans in our pocketbooks, and that is the single most important issue of our moment.”

Mackenzie’s campaign manager, Andres Weller, dismissed the move in a statement as “the same political stunts that people are tired of. An outside group did the same thing at the same place in 2024, and all it accomplished was annoying people who were trying to enjoy a baseball game with their family and friends.”

Democrats’ ramp-up comes as Republicans are increasingly fearful a prolonged war will hurt their chances of holding onto power in the midterms. The conflict is already fracturing the MAGA coalition. And polls show a majority of Americans are against the operation in Iran, including an Ipsos survey released Tuesday that found two-thirds of Americans want the U.S. to end its involvement even if the president does not achieve all his goals, and that 56 percent expect the conflict will have a negative impact on their personal financial situation.

Voters are “going to look to their members of Congress to see if they double down or be an independent voice [on Iran],” Samuel Chen, a Pennsylvania-based GOP strategist, said. “If they’re doubling down on it in these tight seats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and other places, that could be the difference.”

© Matt Rourke/AP

The Army is investigating a video that appears to show an Apache attack helicopter flying low outside singer Kid Rock’s Nashville residence, a spokesperson confirmed.

Two videos, posted by Kid Rock to social media on Saturday, show the country rock artist applauding and saluting an Apache helicopter as it hovers close to his outdoor pool before flying off.

Maj. Montrell Russell, a spokesperson for the Army, said in a statement that the Army had begun an administrative review “to assess the mission and verify compliance with regulations and airspace requirements.” The Army will take “appropriate action” if it finds any violations took place, he said.

“The Army is aware of a video circulating online that appears to show AH‑64 Apache helicopters operating in the vicinity of a private residence in the Nashville area,” Russell said. “Army aviators must adhere to strict safety standards, professionalism, and established flight regulations.”

Kid Rock’s manager did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the video.

The artist, whose real name is Robert Ritchie, is a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump and has aligned himself closely with the MAGA movement in recent years. He performed at the 2024 Republican National Convention and at Turning Point USA’s “All-American Halftime Show,” an alternative performance to Puerto Rican artist Bad Bunny’s official NFL halftime show at the 2026 Super Bowl.

Kid Rock captioned his Saturday post on X: “This is a level of respect that shit for brains Governor of California will never know. God Bless America and all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend her.”

Izzy Gardon, a spokesperson for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, responded to Kid Rock’s comments in a brief statement: “Waste, fraud, abuse!”

The two have clashed before, with Newsom writing on social media in February that he was “banning” the artist from California in response to an exercise video he appeared in with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier this year.

Kid Rock also flirted with a Senate run in 2017, launching a campaign website and fueling speculation that he intended to challenge former Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), but he later dismissed the stunt as a “joke.”

💾

© Brett Carlsen/Getty Images

When the U.S.-Israel war with Iran began a month ago, the tragic potential reverberations of past conflicts echoed quickly for Virginia state Del. Dan Helmer, who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan and is now running for Congress as a Democrat.

“In 2002, a president lied to the American people and sent my friends to die in a war of choice,” he told POLITICO in an interview, noting that next month marks the 22nd anniversary of his first friend’s death in combat. “And once again, President [Donald] Trump has circumvented the democratic process to launch a war of choice without strategic insight in Iran. … The consequences of reckless military intervention are pretty clear. And the challenges in enacting regime change to get a predictable outcome have defined my experience in the military.”

Michael Bouchard sees things differently. The Michigan Republican House candidate and Bronze Star recipient served in the Army and National Guard, including a counter-ISIS deployment in Iraq for most of 2025 — which encompassed the last Israel-Iran war. Bouchard thinks the current conflict is a necessary, limited mission against a regional menace that has endangered and targeted U.S. service members for decades.

“I’ve seen peace through strength save my friends’ lives, and that’s what this is,” he said. “No one wants to go to war less than somebody who’s been to it. But we can’t just put our heads in the sand and hope things don’t happen.”

Dozens of military veterans running for Congress across the country, both Democrats and Republicans, have now adapted their campaign messaging to befit a nation at war. In a rapidly changing landscape — with ceasefire talks, military escalation and global energy crisis all on the table on any given day — candidates from each party have starkly opposed perspectives on the conflict. But for many of them, the costs and the imperatives of war feel deeply personal.

New York Assemblymember Robert Smullen, who spent 24 years in the Marine Corps and is campaigning in an Upstate GOP House primary, has done multiple Strait of Hormuz transits and studied the enrichment process as a White House fellow at the Energy Department. Montana Democrat Matt Rains, who flew Black Hawks in South Korea and Iraq, is also a rancher watching crucial diesel costs rise. Zach Dembo, a former Navy JAG officer running as a Democrat in Kentucky, has been on two of the aircraft carriers now deployed to the Middle East.

All of that intimate knowledge leads them to some pretty different conclusions.

What they agree on: More than half a dozen Democratic and Republican veteran candidates who spoke with POLITICO said they oppose the autocratic Iranian government and wouldn’t be sorry to see it go.

Beyond that — and respect for the troops — there’s little consensus across the partisan divide.

Democrats are fuming that Trump didn’t make the case for war and get buy-in from the American public, Congress and foreign allies. They argue that the U.S. approach has lacked clear plans and strategic goals. And they deeply fear that what they see as Trump’s recklessness will lead to another forever war, needlessly sacrificing soldiers’ lives without achieving any big-picture goals.

“I don’t see an endgame here, and it makes me really worried,” Dembo said.

“This idea that you can just briefly drop bombs on a nation … and they’ll just like raise the white flag and beg for us to come put a new government in there, I mean, is asinine,” Rains said.

Many Democrats also see the war as a costly distraction from Americans’ economic struggles. “The amount of money we are spending on this war and on this conflict right now, when we have so many issues here at home that are not being addressed … that’s where the real disconnect is,” said Jessica Killin, an Army veteran running in Colorado.

GOP veterans say they oppose endless wars, too. But that’s not how they see this one. Hewing closely to Trump’s messaging, Republicans told POLITICO that Iran has been the real belligerent for 47 years. They agree with their Democratic counterparts that the U.S. needs to have a clear plan and not let the conflict drag out for too long — but they have much greater trust in Trump to achieve those goals, principally stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

“I understand veterans’ issues. I understand the cost of what they’ve given, their families have given,” said Oregon Republican Monique DeSpain, an Air Force veteran and JAG who’s worked with veterans for 30 years. “That’s why I feel strongly [about] swift removal of any threats to our country … Congress needs to understand national security: The cost of delay and inaction is irreversible.”

It remains to be seen how voters during wartime will receive these and other veterans running for Congress, many of them in crowded primaries or swing districts. Those who spoke with POLITICO said they think they’re uniquely positioned to speak with authority: Democrats pitching their national security expertise to lay bare the war’s flaws, and Republicans reassuring skittish voters about why the U.S. strikes can succeed and bolster American security.

“I’ve been in their shoes, and I actually know what they’re doing and what they’re facing, because I dealt with the same thing after September 11th,” Smullen said of the troops currently being deployed. “It’s a mission that needs to be done. It’s about time that we did it.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook PM newsletter.

© Nathan Howard/AP

Former Republican Rep. Mark Sanford is set to make a run for his former congressional seat, according to paperwork filed with South Carolina’s elections commission.

Sanford is a fixture in South Carolina politics, known nationally for his high-profile extramarital affair while serving as governor, his sharp criticism of President Donald Trump while serving in Congress and his quixotic 2020 presidential run against Trump.

He submitted paperwork recently to run in the already-crowded Republican primary in the first congressional district stretching from the Charleston area down the coast to Hilton Head Island, vacated by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) as she mounts a bid for governor. The election commission’s website shows Sanford as an “active” candidate.

The former Palmetto State politician — who slammed Trump for his brash personality and conduct during his first term — is seeking to reenter Republican politics even as Trump maintains his ironclad grip on the party.

Sanford did not respond to a call and text message from POLITICO, but he told the Post & Courier on Monday that “people have been telling me it’s time to get off the bleachers” and promised to focus his campaign on his longtime top issue: the national debt.

The former governor and member of Congress has a long record in state and national politics — and a history of making remarkable political comebacks. First elected to Congress in 1994, Sanford served in the seat he is once again seeking for nearly a decade before mounting a successful bid for governor in 2002. He also received early buzz as a potential 2012 presidential candidate.

But his political fortunes came to a crashing halt in 2009 when he disappeared from the state under the auspices of hiking on the Appalachian Trail — only later admitting he had taken part in an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina. Sanford declined to resign from his post, but ceded his chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association and quietly left office at the end of his second term.

He reentered politics just a few years later, announcing a bid for the first congressional district, winning a crowded primary and holding the seat until he lost to a Trump-backed primary challenger in 2018, only for a Democrat to go on to flip the seat in that year's midterms.

Sanford later launched a longshot presidential primary bid against Trump. He dropped out in November of 2019.

The South Carolina Republican is set to face off against several candidates in this June’s primary, including a popular state representative, a local Charleston county councilmember, and a retired lieutenant colonel who commanded the final flight of U.S. forces out of Afghanistan in 2021.

💾

© Getty Images for Politicon

Republicans hope the Make America Healthy Again movement becomes a permanent fixture of a big GOP tent. But the party can’t count on its support heading into midterm elections this November.

New results from The POLITICO Poll show both broad frustration and dissatisfaction with the Trump administration on health priorities and opportunities for Democrats to make inroads with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA supporters.

A majority of Americans associate MAHA with the Republican Party, but not overwhelmingly, and most believe the Trump administration has not done enough to “Make America Healthy Again” — including a 41 percent plurality of Trump’s own 2024 voters.

The burgeoning political movement that officials in both parties credit with helping President Donald Trump win in 2024 has already begun to reshape how the GOP approaches health policy — driving everything from a redesign of the food pyramid to a rollback in vaccine recommendations.

At the same time, however, many poll respondents view Democrats as better positioned on the movement’s key health priorities. They were more likely, for example, to say the Democratic Party can be trusted to make the country healthier and are more eager to improve health in America, while fewer said the same of Republicans. The GOP, on the other hand, is seen as more likely to be influenced than Democrats by lobbyists for the food and pesticide industries, who rank among the MAHA movement’s top enemies.

These views could have real consequences in a midterm election year when razor-thin differences in turnout could determine control of Congress. And Democrats are bullish about channeling voters’ frustration with the Trump administration’s policies into a blue wave this cycle.

“The MAHA movement in the [2024] campaign cycle started with a lot of energy, and did create more energy for these types of issues that previously wouldn’t have been associated with the GOP,” said Abby McCloskey, a GOP policy adviser who has warned that Republicans are “squandering their MAHA moment.”

“Since then, I think the energy has trickled off from the perspective of, what is the federal government going to do about this?” she said.

Overall, 47 percent of poll respondents say they support the MAHA movement, including roughly a third of voters who backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 and about a third of Americans who plan to vote for Democrats this November. By comparison, 70 percent of Trump 2024 voters say they support the MAHA movement.

However, Americans don’t consider the nation’s health a top issue; It saw the same level of prioritization as “wokeism” and opioid abuse. When asked to choose between priorities for the U.S. government, a majority placed improving Americans’ health above stopping illegal immigration or cutting down on crime — but below affordability and concerns with cost of living.

And there are still widespread confusion about what MAHA is and what it does — even among people who self-identify with the movement. Just a third of Americans say they have heard of the MAHA movement and could explain what it is. Another third say they have heard of MAHA but could not explain it, including 31 percent of people who identify as part of the movement. One in four Americans had not heard of the movement at all.

The poll points to an opening for Democrats if they can effectively speak to the movement’s most popular issues and highlights that Republicans’ advantage with MAHA is far from guaranteed.

“People that we would call a ‘MAHA’ voter, they're not partisans. They really are up for grabs,” Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-Ill.) told reporters on a recent call organized by the progressive advocacy groups COURIER and 314 Action, which is working to elect people with a health and science background to public office. “[Republicans] have really taken actions to alienate those folks, to break the promises that they made. They are no longer focusing on the core tenets of that Make America Healthy Again platform in order to continue to please Donald Trump, and also to advance their policy agenda.”

The Trump administration has largely pushed a deregulatory agenda, despite pressure from its MAHA supporters to crack down on pesticide companies, food manufacturers and drugmakers. Its recent choice to make it easier for Bayer to increase production of its weed killer Roundup has especially enraged MAHA supporters, who have said the move made it harder for them to continue supporting GOP candidates in the November midterms.

Kennedy’s own allies have warned Republicans that they cannot take MAHA voters for granted heading into November. Tony Lyons, the president of the MAHA Action, a political advocacy group that supports Kennedy’s agenda, said last month in a memo obtained by POLITICO that the GOP is merely “renting MAHA voters” but hasn’t been able to “purchase” them.

The POLITICO Poll also finds that the issues self-identified MAHA supporters rank as most important are ones Democrats have championed more often than Republicans, such as halting the spread of infectious diseases, stricter regulation of “forever chemicals,” and expanding access to reproductive health care.

This is not necessarily surprising, since many voters who support MAHA’s goals have typically been Democrats, said Rodney Whitlock, a longtime GOP congressional aide turned health care strategist.

Some of the policies less popular among MAHA respondents, meanwhile, are ones the GOP has embraced: restricting abortion access and reducing the number of vaccines Americans receive.

Yet the movement still lines up with, and supports, some Republican food policies and initiatives. For example, 80 percent of MAHA respondents support removing artificial dyes from food and 72 percent support restricting junk food purchases in federal nutrition programs, both priorities the Trump administration has tackled.

Lyons has urged Republicans to talk more about Kennedy’s policy goals, including discouraging Americans from eating ultraprocessed food, on the campaign trail. If they fail to do so and disgruntled MAHA voters peel off or stay home in November, he has warned, Democrats could take control of Congress, subject Kennedy to oversight hearings, and block his policy and regulatory efforts from going forward.

Lyons did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The POLITICO Poll results — along with other recent polling showing declining trust in the Trump administration’s health recommendations — reveal a potential vulnerability for Republicans.

House Majority Forward, a nonprofit allied with House Democratic leadership, surveyed voters in February and March across several battleground districts the party is hoping to flip this fall. The group’s polls, shared first with POLITICO, found that more voters in Colorado, Iowa, New Jersey and Pennsylvania disapprove of Kennedy and his performance as health secretary than view him favorably.

“There’s this opportunity for Democrats to just start talking about making foods healthier and reducing the chemicals in the food that we're giving them, … you know, limiting pesticide use, getting physical activity, removing artificial dyes,” said Carly Cooperman, a Democratic pollster and CEO of Schoen Cooperman Research.

A growing number of House and Senate Democrats — challengers and incumbents — are taking this advice to heart.

They’re beginning by focusing on pesticide use, which has become a political tension point for Trump’s GOP coalition, pitting the MAHA movement against powerful farm industry interests that have long been loyal to Republicans and hold significant sway with the administration.

Democratic lawmakers have railed against the Trump administration in social media posts, floor speeches and hearings for signing an executive order boosting domestic production of the pesticide glyphosate and siding with Bayer in a case pending before the Supreme Court that could shield the company from liability for the health impacts of its products. Democratic lawmakers, joined by a handful of Republicans, are also introducing bills and amendments that would undo or overturn these actions.

The POLITICO Poll found that limiting pesticide use is broadly popular, with more than two-thirds of respondents in support of doing so. And MAHA’s dissatisfaction with the Trump administration’s stance has led to some leaders within the movement threatening to primary farm-state Republicans as early as August of last year — yet another opportunity Democrats can exploit.

“We're not even sure that we even have a path forward in this administration when it comes to pesticides, because it's very clear that they are entirely owned by Bayer and the chemical companies,” said Kelly Ryerson, a MAHA influencer who goes by the moniker Glyphosate Girl online and has publicly backed Kennedy.

Progressive advocates also say Democrats would be wise to seize on MAHA voters’ simmering frustration.

“There is a genuine concern that there is unhealthy food in our food supply, and this administration is making it worse,” said 314 Action President Shaughnessy Naughton, whose group is backing Democratic challengers around the country.

Yet even as a segment of MAHA appears to sour on the GOP — and Kennedy — some of his agenda garnered widespread support among poll respondents, from removing artificial food dyes to offering whole milk in schools. Though MAHA respondents didn’t rank Kennedy’s stances on vaccines high on their list of importance, a notable chunk of Americans are highly skeptical of existing requirements.

The POLITICO Poll found that 41 percent of respondents across party lines support reducing how many vaccines Americans receive, with Republicans significantly more likely to hold that view. Fifty-eight percent of Trump 2024 voters support reducing how many vaccines Americans receive, compared to 29 percent of Harris 2024 voters.

Broad support for some of the key positions of MAHA — especially among Trump 2024 voters — and approval of some of the administration’s actions on health, suggest that Republicans may still be able to leverage the popular elements of the platform to win over voters in November.

Because health ranks so far down the list of Americans’ concerns, it’s unlikely to be a decisive factor in how they vote this midterm. Still, that doesn’t mean Republicans should be complacent and assume MAHA priorities won’t matter at all, Republican strategist Whitlock warned.

“Republicans have to be working from the perspective of ‘everything matters,’” he said. “To do differently is political suicide.”

© Illustration by Anna Wiederkehr/POLITICO (source images via Getty)

Two years after a high-profile primary defeat that sent shockwaves through the progressive Squad, Cori Bush wants to go back to Washington.

But as the activist-turned-politician seeks to reclaim her seat, she must also contend with the changed landscape of the Beltway — including a Democratic Party engaged in fierce infighting over the country’s support for Israel that has only intensified since her ousting from Congress, which she argues will fuel her comeback bid.

“I need to go back. I didn't finish the work that I was doing,” Bush said in a recent interview. “It was interrupted by big money. It was interrupted by AIPAC and their allies who made the decision that they didn't want this activist, this advocate, who had been speaking out against war and imperialism, that had been speaking out against a genocide in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli government.”

The fight over the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its political arm’s support for candidates has reached a fever pitch among Democrats this election cycle. More and more Democrats have denounced the organization’s influence and, some 2028 presidential contenders have vowed to not accept funding from the organization.

The race in Missouri’s 1st District — a plurality Black district anchored in St. Louis — two years ago was one of the highest-profile fights between critics and supporters of Israel in the Democratic Party, occurring as activists pressured then-candidate Joe Biden over his stance in the raging Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

Then-county prosecutor Wesley Bell — backed by more than $8.5 million in outside spending from the AIPAC-affiliated United Democracy Project — beat Bush by about 5 points in the primary before easily winning the seat in November. AIPAC’s political arm has yet to spend in the district this year, but they endorsed Bell once again in the 2026 cycle.

“Cori Bush was a disastrously ineffective Member of Congress who didn’t deliver for her constituents,” Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s United Democracy Project, said in a statement. “When voters are reminded of that record of non-accomplishment, they will be no more likely to elect Cori Bush to Congress than they were to re-elect her two years ago. She was a terrible Member of Congress that didn't [do] anything for St. Louis.”

Usamah Andrabi of Justice Democrats, a progressive organization that endorsed Bush this cycle and last, argued Bell’s history of accepting AIPAC support may now be his downfall.

“Voters are waking up to [AIPAC’s] influence, and that is why you are now seeing AIPAC’s endorsement becoming, I think, a death for so many candidates and incumbents across the country,” said Andrabi.

AIPAC has had a mixed record in Democratic primary contests this year, including a faceplant in New Jersey and a split decision in Illinois, as progressive candidates more outwardly attack the organization.

Dorton highlighted Bush’s missed votes and her vote against Biden’s infrastructure bill as the reason she lost to Bell. For his part, Bell appeared unconcerned about the impact that AIPAC’s past support could have on his reelection bid, calling it nothing more than a “headline” for his opponent.

“Folks in my district, money in politics doesn't impact whether they can get gas in their car and pay for food and the price of eggs and bringing jobs into our district,” Bell said in an interview. “And so that is a headline that my opponent likes to play into.”

Antjuan Seawright — a longtime Democratic strategist and adviser to top Democratic campaign committees — also argued that a focus on AIPAC won’t motivate most primary voters.

“I know there are some in and outside of our party who want to make the conversations about the type of money folks may or may not receive, but I tend to think it's more important about the type of services we provide,” Seawright said. “As long as the people feel like you're representing them, then why should the race be about the type of money instead of about the services you provide to the district?”

But the divide in the Democratic Party over support for Israel has only grown since Bush’s 2024 defeat, particularly amid the war in Iran launched by President Donald Trump and Israeli leaders.

Sixty-seven percent of registered Democrats said in an NBC News poll this month that they sympathized more with Palestinians rather than Israelis in “the Middle East situation.” And a recent Quinnipiac poll found that 53 percent of voters, including 89 percent of Democrats, oppose the U.S-Israel military action against Iran.

A similar division is playing out among Republicans. Most self-described MAGA voters firmly back the president’s actions, but prominent members of the conservative movement like Tucker Carlson have criticized the conflict, and Joe Kent, who was serving in a senior intelligence role, quit the administration.

“Without a doubt, the fact that Wesley Bell is historically one of the largest recipients of AIPAC money ever is a massive albatross around his neck that should be hit on consistently,” Andrabi said.

And he argued that primary voters are now rewarding Democrats willing to buck party leadership.

“Voters are looking for leaders who are willing to call out their own party when they are failing communities, call out their own party when they are too beholden to corporate lobbies like AIPAC,” he said. “Cori has done that her entire time [in Congress].”

AIPAC-backed groups two years ago broadly did not focus on Israel in contests across the country. They instead targeted Bush’s vote against Biden’s crowning infrastructure bill and missed House votes — a strategy the organization has continued in early primaries this year — and something that Bell amplified.

“I don't want to hear about someone who claims to fight but won't show up to do the job,” Bell said.

Bush was among six progressive Democrats who voted against Biden’s infrastructure bill. The group argued that the bill was incomplete without the separate economic package, known as the Build Back Better Act.

But Bush argues her activism — including pushing party leaders from the left — is where the base of the Democratic Party now is.

“The thing is, people are moving toward the things that I was speaking about,” Bush said. “I called it a genocide before many others did. I spoke up for Medicare For All before others did. I pushed for the Equal Rights Amendment in a way that hadn't been done in a very long time, and I created a caucus to stand for the Equal Rights Amendment.”

The tensions between Bell and Bush are a stark difference from their relationship pre-2024. According to Bush, the two had been friends — until Bell launched his campaign against her without a heads up. Bush said the two haven’t talked since, and she didn’t let him know when she decided to run against him this year “the same way he didn't reach out to me to tell me he was going to run against me.”

Still, Bell already has a few advantages in the race: Not only is he the incumbent, but he secured the endorsement of the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, one of the most influential Black political organizations. And Bell’s campaign war chest is much larger than hers: He has nearly $850,000 on hand as of the end of 2025, according to campaign finance records, compared to just over $200,000 for Bush.

Bell has pitched himself as a pragmatist, saying that voters in the district don’t actually think about many of the issues that Bush pushes for.

“She wasn't present in St. Louis. She didn't meet with stakeholders; she didn't meet with constituents,” he said, highlighting the money he brought to district businesses over the last two years. “The MO in Missouri does not stand for Middle East. It stands for Missouri.”

Bush, meanwhile, has signaled she will lean into her progressive activism for her comeback bid. She said she still speaks regularly with members of the Squad: Democratic Reps. Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. None of the members responded to a request for comment.

Seawright, the Democratic strategist, said the back-and-forth between the two candidates exemplifies the party’s “growing pains.”

“The primaries, hopefully, will do what they're supposed to do and settle whatever differences and disputes we may appear to have, but also change the direction of how we move forward,” he said. “No matter the differences we may appear to have amongst each other, they do not compare to the differences we have with the other side.”

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

In Nevada, a gallon of gas is approaching $5. In Pennsylvania, farmers are fretting about the prices of fertilizer. And in Michigan, supply chain woes are throwing a wrench into the manufacturing and auto industry operations.

One month into the war in Iran, a new political reality is sinking in for Republicans in these and other battlegrounds: The war may not end as quickly as they initially hoped, and the literal and figurative costs keep rising.

Each week the war drags on prolongs the pain Americans feel. Economists have warned gas prices could continue to remain high for months even if the U.S. immediately de-escalates in Iran. Extended conflict also raises the risk of increased casualties, especially if U.S. servicemembers are deployed to on-the-ground combat. And it could sour MAGA voters whose support of President Donald Trump hinged, in part, on their opposition to “forever wars” and foreign regime change.

Some Republicans worry the war will depress turnout among staunch “America First” proponents ahead of a crucial midterm election. It’s not yet a political crisis, GOP strategists and county chairs across the country said. They’re still willing to trust the president — for now.

But they’re also finding it harder to brush off the consequences.

“What’s the end game? I don’t think the president has been clear about that,” said Todd Gillman, chair of the Monroe County Republican Party in Michigan. “The gas prices are a problem. We’re concerned how this might affect the midterms.”

A POLITICO poll this month found the president’s most loyal voters continue to back his decision to attack Iran, even though some say it violates MAGA principles or even breaks his campaign promise not to start new wars. But it also revealed real political risk if more U.S. troops are killed or the conflict extends much longer than the promised four to six weeks.

“I don't think it's going to impact Republicans’ desire to vote Republican, but I do believe that that turnout will be an issue,” said Craig Berland, chair of the Maricopa County, Arizona, Republican Party. “If the war drags on, that is going to impact the turnout, unless we are very, very successful in communicating and educating. And that's our plan, to do that.”

The situation in Iran remains in flux, and Trump could choose to withdraw U.S. support and end the country’s involvement at any moment.

Until then, the prolonged conflict is complicating the White House’s cost-of-living message, which voters consistently say is their top concern. In recent months, Trump and Vice President JD Vance embarked on an affordability messaging tour, dotting the country to deliver speeches about the administration’s wins in lowering costs and providing relief for working-class families.

But the affordability road show has screeched to a halt in the month since the U.S. launched its war in Iran.

“These types of major events can become all-consuming,” said Buzz Jacobs, a GOP strategist and White House official under George W. Bush. “They certainly suck up political capital, and they make it very difficult for the most senior officials, particularly the President, to focus on any other strategic objective.”

After Bush invaded Iraq, Jacobs recalled, a digital board outside the Situation Room listed the same meeting topics for weeks: “Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, something else, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq,” Jacobs said.

The White House pointed to polling that shows a majority of Republican voters back the Iran war.

“The President has been clear that, while there may be some short-term disruptions as a result of Operation Epic Fury, ultimately oil prices will quickly drop once the operation’s clear objectives have been achieved and America will be back on its solid trajectory of cooling inflation and robust growth thanks to this Administration’s proven economic agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and energy abundance,” spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement.

In several battleground counties, GOP chairs are holding out hope that the impact will be temporary even as the reality of the war sets in and gas prices creep toward a national average of $4 per gallon.

“Yes, it's painful now. We all realize that it's painful, with the gas prices,” said Carson City, Nevada GOP chair Susan Ruch. “I know prices are going to go up — but I do know this is short term compared to World War III.”

That optimism is shared by Decatur County, Georgia, GOP Vice Chair Jesse Williard, who also believes gas prices will plummet quickly after the war ends, setting up Republicans to buck historic midterms trends and post a strong showing in November.

“The economy, I think between now and then, is going to be great,” he said. “If it goes the other direction, it may be horrible, but I anticipate it's going to be a red wave.”

But other GOP county chairs see early fractures ahead of November’s election, driven by surging costs that are already causing pain for businesses and consumers. In the Phoenix metro area, Berland, the Maricopa County chair, said door-to-door canvassing has become more difficult since the onset of the war.

“We're even going around canvassing neighborhoods and registered Republicans are yelling out the door, ‘go away, or I'm calling the police,’” Berland said. “I find that very discouraging.”

Voters’ frustrations, he said, stem from “the war or the economy. And the economy is defined largely by energy prices.”

Across Rural America, the pain is even more acute.

Farmers in Pennsylvania, North Dakota and other agriculture-heavy states are feeling the impact of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which sent fertilizer prices skyrocketing just ahead of planting season. Some producers have had to shake up their plans last minute and plant new crops that are less reliant on fertilizer.

The scramble could lead to lower crop yields, which potentially means higher food prices this summer, North Dakota Farmers Union President Matt Perdue said.

Farmers have long been loyal to the GOP and Trump. But the war now poses another massive financial headache on top of the tariffs that have increased their production costs and evaporated markets abroad where they could sell their crops.

“We've had just a pile of uncertainty, a pile of volatility in the markets that we buy from and sell to and we're just creating more volatility, more uncertainty as we move ahead,” Perdue said.

A chorus of farm groups — including the often Trump-aligned American Farm Bureau — petitioned the White House for a bailout last week. And the agriculture lobby is requesting an ad hoc aid package from Congress to cover the mounting fertilizer costs.

Monroe County, Pennsylvania, GOP chair Pete Begley acknowledged that supply chain woes and high prices are pinching some in his community. But he’s willing to offer Trump a long runway before he gets worried.

“If it turns into six months later, we're still there, and the Ayatollah's son is still supposedly in charge, that I think will cause concern,” Begley said. “But for now, I think people are standing by the president.”

© Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP

Hasan Piker’s new role as a midterm surrogate and potential influence on the 2028 presidential race is driving a wedge in the Democratic Party.

After POLITICO reported that Piker, the far left political streamer with millions of followers, will stump in Michigan with Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed next month, his history of divisive comments launched an avalanche of criticism from Republicans and Democrats.

Two of El-Sayed’s opponents, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and Rep. Haley Stevens, lambasted El-Sayed, with Stevens telling Jewish Insider “someone who’s campaigning with someone like that is not going to win in Michigan” and McMorrow saying Piker “says extremely offensive things in order to generate clicks and views and followers, which is not entirely different from somebody like Nick Fuentes,” comparing him to the antisemite nationalist influencer.

Piker’s rise as a Democratic influencer and surrogate coincides with the party’s long search for a path out of the wilderness, particularly in recapturing young men.

Piker is scheduled to appear on a livestreamed, “Choose Your Fighter” rally organized by Progressive Victory at 6:30 p.m. Saturday. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is among the list of attendees. Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Planter was originally billed as a participant, but he pulled out of the event. (A person familiar told POLITICO that Platner’s planned appearance was a miscommunication.) And on Sunday, Piker will rally with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a tax-the-rich rally.

The question over Piker’s prominence also comes as both the Republican and Democratic parties ask fundamental questions about how big their tents should be.

But it’s the out-of-power Democrats who face the higher short-term stakes.

In an interview with POLITICO, Piker downplayed accusations that have been leveled against him, like center-left think tank Third Way, whose leaders wrote in a WSJ op-ed that Piker had a history of anti-American, antiwomen, anti-Western and antisemitic comments. Piker said Third Way was “losing their institutional relevance.” He also said he’s merely channeling, not changing, the attitudes of the Democratic base.

“I'm a megaphone, right?” Piker told POLITICO. “There are a lot of Barbs and Deborahs out there in Minneapolis, for example, that have never encountered me, and yet they share that frustration with the failures of establishment liberalism all the same.”

Piker said those type of voters view Democrats as “ineffective, inept.” “It’s not because they tune into The HasanAbi broadcast every day,” he said, referencing his Twitch channel. “They arrive at that conclusion because the Democrats lost to Trump twice. With the same principle that you got to pivot to the mythical moderate center.”

This isn’t Piker’s first rodeo: He livestreamed an interview last year with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders before one of the duo’s “Fighting Oligarchy” rallies. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani also sat for an interview with Piker last year.

But Piker’s increasing coziness with prominent Democrats also comes as some in the party argue he poses a problem for them.

“Piker is close to — but not over — the Nick Fuentes line, where going on his show itself is indefensible,” Third Way co-founder Matt Bennett, who’s been sounding the alarm about Democrats’ affiliation with Piker, told POLITICO. Bennett added that Democrats “take on all of his baggage if they don’t overtly reject” him, which he said is “dangerous because it empowers the right and gives them an incredibly powerful tool to hit Democrats with that’s very bad.”

But some Democrats like Khanna argue that the party needs to assemble a broad coalition. “That must include engaging with Israel critics like Hasan Piker as Pod Save hosts have done and many progressive candidates have done,” Khanna told POLITICO. “Of course, I disagree strongly with some of his statements and point that out. But cancelling people or shaming people like Hasan Piker, Shawn Ryan or Theo Vonn is not the answer.”

The debate over Piker’s place within the party is set to play out across the 2028 field, too.

POLITICO surveyed 14 potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates, asking whether they would appear on a livestream with Piker if invited. Only three definitively said they would.

Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) all said they wouldn’t go on Piker’s stream through spokespeople. “Mr. Piker’s terrible comments about Jewish people, 9/11, and other areas aren’t the kinds of conversations Cory participates in and he will not be joining him on his stream,” an aide to Booker told POLITICO.

So who would appear on Piker’s stream? Khanna, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rahm Emanuel. (Ocasio-Cortez has already appeared, but a spokesperson did not return a request for comment).

“It’s not on the agenda right now, but the Governor has never shied away from debating anyone, anywhere,” Newsom spokesperson Izzy Gardon told POLITICO.

Said an Emanuel spokesperson: “Rahm is always willing to have difficult conversations with anyone about the future of the country, and to tell people he disagrees with why they’re wrong.”

Aides to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear declined to comment. Aides to former Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker did not respond.

Asked about some of his controversial past comments, Piker didn’t retract any of them. Asked if he had ever misspoken: “Misspoken? No. Taken out of context? Absolutely.”

He did point to one particular quote of his about the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, which he noted often comes up when he’s criticized.

“One of the quotes that they love floating around is the Oct. 7 quote where I said, like, rape’s happening, like the conversation around, like, sexual violence taking place on October 7 doesn't change the dynamic for me. And I was talking about genocide. I was like, this doesn't justify genocide at all,” Piker said.

As for the other quotes he catches heat for? “No, I stand by them,” Piker said.

So who does Piker like for 2028? He’s got a short list. “I said [Georgia Sen. Jon] Ossoff will be my dark horse pick, depending on how he presents himself if he has ambitions for higher office. I do love [UAW President] Shawn Fain personally. I like an outsider pick. I like Ro Khanna. I like AOC. I actually like [Sen.] Chris Van Hollen, quite a bit as well, even.”

And the criticism cuts both ways. “At the end of the day, of course, I have disagreements with every single one of these candidates,” Piker said. “No candidate is perfect.”

An adviser to one potential 2028 candidate, granted anonymity to appraise Piker’s influence, told POLITICO they expect Piker to be a “gatekeeper” in the primary. But Piker isn’t sure how much sway he’ll hold.

“Who knows how things change?” he said. “I mean, this is a very dynamic environment.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.

© Bing Guan for POLITICO

GRAPEVINE, TEXAS — Joseph Bolick feels betrayed by President Donald Trump. And it’s because of the war in Iran.

The 30-year-old veteran served in Iraq and Afghanistan and voted for Trump in 2024. But at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference gathering this week he sported a hat emblazoned with “America First” — a slogan Trump championed during his campaign, along with the promise not to start new wars in foreign countries.

“He’s lied about everything,” said Bolick. “If you go into a war where there’s no end game, how is it going to end? There’s no clear objective.”

Bolick is part of a cohort of young MAGA loyalists who are increasingly frustrated with Trump over the war in Iran. While Trump’s decision to join Israel in attacking Iran has rallied war hawks and his older supporters, it has alienated many of the young men who swung toward the GOP in 2024. That split is resonating among not only the rank and file, but also conservative media influencers and some corners of the White House.

The generational divide was on stark display at CPAC, the annual conservative base-rallying gathering, where some young MAGA loyalists expressed deep frustration and even anger at the Trump administration’s choice to reignite conflict in the Middle East. One month into the war, Trump’s shaky ground with young men threatens to fracture an already-fragile GOP coalition ahead of a hostile midterm in November.

At the conference in north Texas, some attendees carried around Iranian flags, pledging loyalty to the U.S. mission overseas, while others donned America First hats and preached about the need for anti-interventionism.

“Trump and Republicans in general are going to have major issues in the midterms, in 2028, if we can’t wrap this up in a relatively quick amount of time,” said 21-year-old Andrew Belcher, president of the Ohio College Republicans. He added that Trump is doing “relatively poorly” with hyper online young men who are influenced heavily by media figures like Tucker Carlson and other isolationists in the GOP.

A POLITICO poll this month found that Trump voters largely continue to back him. But men who self-identified as “MAGA Republicans” and voted for Trump in 2024 are deeply split by generation over their trust in the president and their view of the war, especially if the number of U.S. casualties rises.

The contrast was striking, even with the larger margins of error that come from the smaller sample sizes: More than 70 percent of those over 35 believe Trump has a plan, compared with 49 percent of those under 35. A 66 percent majority of older MAGA men are willing to sacrifice American lives in order for the U.S. to achieve its goals in Iran, compared with less than half of younger MAGA men who say the same. And the younger men are significantly less likely to say the war is aligned with MAGA principles and in the interests of American people.

Some of the most prominent MAGA voices are opposed to the Iran war, like Carlson and Megyn Kelly, along with influential figures like Joe Rogan, who holds tremendous sway with young men. There’s even growing consternation among younger, more-right wing White House staffers, said one person familiar with the dynamics who was granted anonymity to discuss them.

“They're very frustrated. They didn't love the war to start with, and since it began, the constantly contradictory messaging from the president himself, is just brutal, brutal for staff to deal with and making their life really hard,” the person said. “He puts his people in a really tough position, especially people who are public-facing."

“What matters most to the American people – including young men – is having a Commander-in-Chief who takes decisive action to eliminate threats and keep them safe, which is exactly what President Trump is doing with the ongoing successful Operation Epic Fury,” said White House spokesperson Davis Ingle.

Part of CPAC’s intent, a hallmark grassroots gathering that has been held for more than 50 years, is to hype up conservatives, a particularly important mission for party leaders in critical election years. If Republicans want to prevent Democrats from flipping the House this midterm cycle, they need to ensure they don't lose any gains they made with key parts of their coalition in 2024, namely young men.

“We need you,” said former RNC chair Michael Whatley, who is running for Senate in North Carolina. “We need every conservative, every Republican, every patriot across this country to focus on two things: get out the vote and protect the ballot.”

Mercedes Schlapp, senior fellow for the CPAC Foundation, opened Thursday’s session by pleading with conservatives to remain united. “We cannot divide from within,” she cautioned attendees.

But interviews with a dozen young men at CPAC revealed broad concern that Trump is imperiling the U.S. economy, which has seen spiking gas and fuel prices caused by the war.

“A lot of the young generation feels that there’s just not a lot of hope for the economy,” said a 30-year old attendee who was granted anonymity to speak freely about party dynamics.

Onstage and in hallway conversations, older attendees celebrated Trump for ending what they called a 47-year conflict in Iran, marked by the death of Iran’s supreme leader.

A panel featuring Iranian women speaking about human rights abuses was met with loud cheers from the audience. Scores of mostly older conservatives milled about wearing shirts with the image of exiled Iran Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who is set to speak at the conference on Saturday.

“I believe President Trump’s shock and awe is what they needed,” said Lawrence Ligas, a 63-year-old conservative Chicago activist who was pardoned by Trump for charges related to the Jan. 6 insurrection. “Young MAGA is causing this divide because they’re concerned about being drafted.”

Multiple speakers on stage both directly and indirectly roasted online influencers for their opposition to the war. Conservative political commentator Josh Hammer blasted Carlson and Kelly in particular as “doomsayers.”

In his speech, former Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz told the audience that “dissent and disagreement has to be allowed. Tucker Carlson isn't going anywhere.” Gaetz, who resigned in 2024 after being briefly nominated by Trump for attorney general, then warned about the risks of military occupation in Iran.

"A ground invasion of Iran will make our country poorer and less safe,” the 43-year-old said. “It will mean higher gas prices, higher food prices. And I'm not sure if we would end up killing more terrorists than we would create."

Megan Messerly contributed to this report.

💾

© Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

Corey Lewandowski, the Trump 2016 campaign manager who served as an unpaid adviser to former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for the past year, is no longer working at DHS, the department said Friday.

A statement confirmed his departure from DHS but did not specify any future government role for Lewandowski, who was photographed with Noem this week in Guyana during an official visit she made to the South American country.

“Mr. Lewandowski no longer has a role at DHS,” the statement said.

The confirmation of his status at DHS comes amid speculation about his future after Noem was named a special envoy for Western Hemisphere security issues. Lewandowski appeared with her in photos released by the U.S. Embassy in Guyana.

Controversy swirled around Lewandowski’s role at DHS during Noem’s stormy tenure leading the department at the forefront of the administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement operations.

Lewandowski started working as political adviser to Noem while she was South Dakota governor and lobbied President Donald Trump to name her DHS chief. He played an outsize role at the department once she joined the Cabinet.

Lewandowski came into the Trump administration as a “special government employee,” raising questions about how he was counting his days at the agency. U.S. law limits temporary government employees to 130 days per year of unpaid work, but Lewandowski has worked at DHS since the start of Noem’s tenure in February 2025.

He did not respond to an earlier request for comment about whether he’d be staying in government. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Lewandowski’s employment status Friday.

Despite his informal status, Lewandowski had the ability to veto any contract exceeding $100,000 at the agency, as well as other high-level decisions. An administration official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, also told POLITICO that Lewandowski was already facing heat over DHS's short-lived move last month to shut down TSA PreCheck. The move was seen as a way to pressure Democrats to fund the department, which has been shut down since February of this year over a funding impasse.

Noem earlier this month refused to answer questions from House Democrats about her relationship with Lewandowski amid media reports that the two have had an affair.

Lewandowski, who served as Trump’s campaign manager in 2016, was widely credited with the tactical decisions that led to the president's win in the New Hampshire primary that year. His star faded after he was accused of grabbing a female reporter by the arm at a campaign event. He was removed from his post during an internal power struggle with then-campaign chair Paul Manafort. The Trump ally denied any wrongdoing for the incident.

Despite Lewandowski’s rocky efforts in 2016, Trump and Lewandowski have remained close. Trump briefly named Lewandowski as a senior adviser to the 2024 presidential campaign, though he was moved into a surrogate role by October in the face of displeasure from Trump.

© Rebecca Blackwell/AP

As the MAGA faithful gather for another day of CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, they are openly celebrating what they believe is tantamount to a major midterms victory: keeping President Donald Trump from endorsing John Cornyn ahead of May’s GOP Senate primary runoff.

MAGA world is taking a victory lap — and fresh comfort — in the receipts: A lack of significant spending and polling so far by not only Cornyn’s campaign, but also the NRSC and One Nation, the Senate Leadership Fund-aligned nonprofit. It amounts to a pattern the MAGA cohort reads as Washington making peace with a matchup between Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, their anointed candidate, and Texas Democratic state Rep. James Talarico.

“The grassroots stood in the breach and said a resounding ‘NO’ to Cornyn,” Steve Bannon, who has framed Paxton’s bid for the nomination as a battle for MAGA’s soul, told POLITICO. “Polling and spending indicates that the Republican DC establishment reluctantly concurs. This could be the victory that empowers MAGA through the midterms.”

Paxton, though, hasn’t rested his case. He traveled to Mar-a-Lago last Friday for a Palm Beach County GOP dinner, and was spotted speaking to Trump himself, according to three sources familiar.

Trump and Paxton were on the patio, one source added, with another saying the two discussed the runoff. “It was a positive meeting,” said yet another person. A Paxton spokesperson declined to comment on the meeting.

It’s the latest sign of a fierce and feverish effort to keep Trump from endorsing Cornyn.

Even when all signs pointed to a Cornyn endorsement following the longtime senator's showing in the primary, MAGA faithful kept pressing for Paxton. Now they’re optimistic their guy can come out on top — and they're still taking shots at Cornyn every chance they get.

“The Cornyn endorsement looks dead, but it’s Trump, so it’s never certain,” a person close to the White House said. “Cornyn sealed his fate by carrying Mitch [McConnell]’s water on that ridiculous gun grabbing bill. No one thought he would be dumb enough to run for reelection after that but here we are.”

Now, Trump may not give an endorsement at all. Or if he does, he may endorse Paxton after the SAVE Act debate in the Senate is over, three sources tell POLITICO.

“Nothing is dead,” said a source familiar with the president’s thinking. “It’s all just stasis at the moment.”

“It’s looking like he may not endorse at all,” another White House official said. “But it doesn’t seem like he has made up his mind.”

But the endorsement equation in Texas amid the SAVE Act saga is still very much vexing Trump, according to five Republicans in and around the White House. The president, who will not be in attendance at this year’s CPAC, is “being patient” and “trying to exact” a policy win, another person said.

“Trump isn’t going to endorse against Cornyn while the Save America Act is still being debated,” one White House ally said. “So for now I think he stays out, but if Thune files cloture and Paxton continues to lead in every poll then I could see him endorsing Paxton. No question Paxton wins if Trump stays out though.”

Every Republican who spoke to POLITICO cautioned that Trump could change his mind at any moment. It’s still early for the runoff, they said, with Election Day still nearly two months away. But the deadline for a candidate to drop off the ballot passed last week.

One person familiar told POLITICO that the Senate Leadership Fund and NRSC aren’t spending in order to conserve resources. “Not cause they are throwing in the towel,” this person said.

The campaign will be spending soon, a Cornyn spokesperson said. “Ken Paxton said he needed $20M to win this primary and he’s barely raised a quarter of that,” said Cornyn campaign senior adviser Matt Mackowiak. “His professional failures and indefensible personal conduct make GOP donors and Texas primary voters deeply uncomfortable.” He added: “We have a plan to win this race and we are executing it. Ken Paxton is busy whining and hiding.”

Chris LaCivita, one of Trump’s top campaign hands who works as a senior adviser for the pro-Cornyn super PAC Texans for a Conservative Majority, said the runoff boils down to a resource equation. “The question remains the same,” LaCivita said. “Does the GOP want to spend $150-200 million holding what should be a safe seat and giving up other opportunities to gain advantage?”

Joanna Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the NRSC, said it’s “been very clear that the fight to protect President Trump’s Senate Majority should not be fought in Texas, and John Cornyn is the only candidate who ensures that does not happen.”

When it comes to money, Republicans are planning for MAGA Inc. to be “responsible for resources needed in a general election if it’s Ken Paxton,” according to two GOP operatives briefed on strategy (one cautioned that “planning is probably more hoping.”). A MAGA Inc. spokesperson declined to comment.

On the sidelines of CPAC, where bedazzled and sequined conservatives gathered for the base’s annual pep rally, the overwhelming feeling was that most Texas GOP primary voters had already made up their minds — and a Trump endorsement in either direction wouldn’t make much of a difference. Some attendees said they viewed Trump’s silence as a nudge toward Paxton.

“Texans — we're done,” said Gregorio Heise, a Paxton supporter and Republican running for Congress in Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s Dallas district. “It's already showing, even in the polling. Cornyn doesn't do what Texans want, and [Paxton] does.”

On Friday night at CPAC, attendees will hear from Paxton, who’s headlining the conference’s Ronald Reagan dinner. Cornyn isn’t planning to attend.

“It's an opportunity to be able to, you know, share your vision and basically sell yourself to the crowd, to the Texas crowd,” CPAC host and organizer Mercedes Schlapp told POLITICO. “So Ken Paxton agreed to come, and he has a very high CPAC rating. And you know, we've invited Cornyn, and so we are still open. The invitation is still open for John Cornyn to come.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.

© Andrew Harnik/AP

Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.

Andy Beshear’s 2028 playbook: How a Democrat wins in Trump Country

lead image

Virginia Democrats are putting pressure on Gov. Abigail Spanberger to get their redistricting campaign across the finish line as they grow increasingly worried about losing their April special election — and hurting their chances for flipping the House this November.

The aggressive effort to redraw the state’s congressional maps, if voters approve the referendum, could deliver Democrats a 10-to-1 seat advantage in Virginia, giving them four more seats than they would likely win under the current map. But despite Democrats' having a fundraising advantage ten times that of the Republican side, the GOP is seeing strong early voting turnout.

With less than one month to go, nearly a dozen Democratic state lawmakers, strategists and candidates say Spanberger — Virginia’s popular Democratic governor who cruised to victory by double-digits last November — needs to step up more assertively to sell the referendum to voters. And they’re warning that she’ll bear the brunt of the blame if the effort fails.

It’s not that she’s doing nothing: Spanberger has endorsed the referendum and launched an ad supporting it this week, her first of the campaign, as POLITICO first reported. But critics say it’s the bare minimum for an effort that is supposed to be a top Democratic priority as the party works to counter GOP-led states that are redrawing their own maps.

“We Democrats gotta stop bringing a spork to a knife fight. If the Democrats are putting all their stock in this, like, let's bring our A game,” said Democrat Beth Macy, who is running for Congress in one of the five House districts currently held by the GOP. She added that it would be “helpful” for Spanberger “to be the spokesperson on redistricting because she did so well and won by so much” in 2025.

Prior to her inauguration, Spanberger, who campaigned as a moderate focused on affordability for Virginians, stopped short of fully embracing the drastic redistricting plan the Democratic-led legislature eventually approved. Once in office, she began towing the party line and signed legislation enabling the referendum to go before voters. But she hasn't been nearly as outspoken on the issue as other leading Democrats in the state — or other Democratic governors who have pushed for gerrymanders in their states, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The stakes are high for Spanberger: A loss on redistricting could impact her rising star status on the national stage.

“How could she watch what Gavin Newsom just did and do the exact opposite?” asked a Democratic activist in Virginia who has worked closely with the pro-redistricting campaign and was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Out in the field, we really don’t know whether she is for or against this thing.”

Spanberger’s team argues she’s been fighting hard for the new map.

“There isn’t a Democrat in Virginia who has done more to encourage voters to support this referendum than Governor Spanberger,” Libby Wiet, a spokesperson for Spanberger, said in a statement. “She’s a particularly effective messenger because she’s meeting voters where many of them are — Virginians who supported the bipartisan commission in 2020 but understand that the ballgame changed when the President claimed he’s ‘entitled’ to more Republican seats in Congress, and states got to work to give them to him.”

Virginia is not nearly as deeply blue as California is, and many of the state’s Democrats view wooing voters to the polls in April, rather than November, as a gargantuan undertaking. Spanberger is also a brand-new governor with other legislative priorities she wants to spend her political juice on more than helping Democrats take control of the House. And the “yes” campaign is running the risk of turning off Virginians who in 2020 approved a constitutional amendment creating a bipartisan redistricting commission by a two-to-one margin.

Adding confusion to the Democrats’ push is the Virginia Supreme Court, which has reserved the right to potentially nullify the redistricting push after the April election.

Polling on the issue has not been a slam dunk for Democrats. Nearly two-thirds of Virginians support the current method of drawing Congressional districts, while slightly more than half said they would vote to keep the current process in place, according to a Roanoke College survey last month. A separate survey from January found a slight majority, 51 percent, supported the Democratic-backed push to redraw lines.

Spanberger’s defenders push back on the need for the governor to step in as a central figure of the “yes” campaign. It’s a collective effort, they argue, and is supported by towering Democrats in the state, including the lieutenant governor, attorney general and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine and Mark Warner.

“There's no one person that has to carry the weight alone,” said Kéren Charles Dongo, the campaign manager Virginia for Fair Elections, which has amassed more than $33 million in donations and is working to mobilize voters.

Virginia House Speaker Don Scott, one of the architects of the redistricting push, has vehemently rejected the comparisons of Spanberger to Newsom — and the need for her to hold more rallies or meet and greets around the state.

“She's only been on a job freaking 70 days,” he said. “We're gonna be fine. I feel very confident that we're gonna win.”

The governor’s seven-figure ad buy this week featured her speaking directly to camera about her party’s “temporary” effort to redraw lines and slamming “Trump’s Redistricting War.” Dongo’s group has also been blanketing the airwaves and social media with ads, including one featuring former President Barack Obama telling Virginians they have a “chance to level the playing field” in the face of unchecked power in Washington. Those close to the campaign also note that more voting sites are opening up in Democratic strongholds in population-rich Northern Virginia, and they anticipate a surge in “yes” voters closer to Election Day.

Privately, some Democrats anticipate Spanberger will ramp up her involvement in the closing weeks of the campaign, after being tied up with reviewing the bills the Virginia legislature passed.

“I think it's easier if there's somebody who's a central person,” said Sarah Pendergraph, chair of the Roanoke City Democratic Committee, who suggested a jolt from a prominent figure like Spanberger may spur more volunteers and voters into action.

Meanwhile, Virginia conservatives have been lambasting Spanberger on social media, essentially making her the face of their anti-redistricting campaign. They’ve slammed her for reversing her stance on redistricting and caving to pressure from state and national Democrats.

“Abigail Spanberger seems to be intent on trying to turn Virginia into California east, so she probably will welcome Gavin Newsom,” said Jason Miyares, the former GOP Virginia Attorney General who is serving as co-chair of Virginians for Fair Maps, which is working to defeat the ballot measure and has raised roughly $3 million.

A small group of cameras followed Spanberger as she cast her ballot last Friday and held an impromptu gaggle from the parking lot of the Richmond City Elections office, where the governor pushed back on Republican critiques that she’s a flip-flopper on the gerrymander issue.

“Had they spoken in opposition to [Trump’s] efforts, I would perhaps take their level of consternation with a bit more seriousness,” Spanberger said. “It wasn't until their individual House seats seemed in doubt … that they decided to have any opposition to redistricting.”

That retort was insufficient for some Virginia Democrats, who were frustrated that Spanberger didn’t hit back even harder — or use the opportunity, on the heels of casting her “yes” ballot, to forcefully rebuke the misleading mailers Republican-aligned groups have circulated that suggest she is a “no” vote on redistricting.

“She is certainly not 1,000 percent on board,” said a Democratic official granted anonymity to speak candidly about how they view the governor’s involvement. The person suggested the Democratic-led “yes” campaign should work on luring other big-name surrogates to rev up excitement for the base, including Obama, Newsom, Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), to ensure the redistricting effort doesn’t fail.

“If it goes down,” the official said, “[Spanberger] is gonna own it [so she] might as well go out there.”

© Steve Helber/AP

North Carolina Senate leader Republican Phil Berger, who touted President Donald Trump’s endorsement throughout his campaign, conceded defeat Tuesday in his primary election in a race he lost by just 23 votes.

Berger, a powerful figure in state politics, and Rockingham County Sheriff Sam Page were separated by just two votes when unofficial results first came in for the Greensboro-area seat on election night. A machine recount and a separate hand recount of ballots in some counties affirmed the 23-vote loss for the incumbent.

Page is expected to win the Republican-leaning district in November.

“While this was a close race, the voters have spoken, and I congratulate Sheriff Page on his victory,” Berger said in a statement. “Over the past 15 years, Republicans in the General Assembly have fundamentally redefined our state’s outlook and reputation. It has been an honor to play a role in that transformation.”

Page thanked Berger for conceding and bringing an end to a hard-fought campaign.

“I appreciate Senator Berger’s call earlier today and his concession,” he said in a statement. “I’m grateful for his years of service to our state, and I thank him for wishing me the best moving forward.”

The result adds an uncommon blemish to the president’s endorsement scorecard. Candidates he backed have almost universally either won or advanced to runoffs in primaries this cycle, although Trump withheld his endorsement in some heated contests.

Trump endorsed Berger in December, calling him an “America First Patriot” who is “doing an incredible job.” But he also praised Page as “great,” and said both candidates are “outstanding people.”

Berger’s defeat creates a power vacuum in Republican politics in North Carolina. He has led Republicans in the state senate since 2005, including all the nearly 15 years they have spent in the majority since 2011.

Berger has played a key role in crystallizing Republican control, leading a 2024 move to shift authority over elections from the governor to an elections board and to strip the governor and attorney general of key powers shortly before Democratic Gov. Josh Stein and Democratic Attorney General Jeff Jackson entered office.

Last year, Berger helped redraw North Carolina’s congressional maps to give Republicans a better chance of defeating Democratic Rep. Don Davis in the 1st Congressional district.

Page’s primary challenge was ignited in part by pushback to a 2023 gambling expansion proposal touted by Berger that would have paved the way for a new casino in the district. Republicans ultimately abandoned the idea, but Page’s vocal opposition to the proposal gave him the platform for his campaign.

© Karl B DeBlaker/AP

Democrats eyeing White House runs in 2028 are preemptively breaking up with AIPAC.

Sen. Cory Booker, who received donations bundled by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee as late as December, told POLITICO that he’s sworn off the group’s funds (and other PAC money). California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he never has and “never will” take donations from the group. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) vowed last week that he “wouldn’t take AIPAC money” anymore.

A spokesperson for Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro said he has “never taken money or solicited support from AIPAC," while a spokesperson for Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear said "AIPAC has never contributed to Gov. Beshear and they’re never going to. Ever.” (Shapiro and Beshear would not have been candidates for AIPAC funds in the past; the group focuses on federal races).

Their retreat underscores how rapidly AIPAC has become a bogeyman for Democrats seeking to criticize the Israeli government, particularly with the Netanyahu administration’s involvement with President Donald Trump’s operation in Iran. Many former AIPAC-friendly Democrats see the historically bipartisan group as becoming more and more aligned with Netanyahu’s right-wing government in recent years. Its emergence as an early touchstone in the shadow 2028 presidential primary reflects a calculation among leading Democrats that liberal voters’ hard shift away from the longtime U.S. ally will stick.

“This is going to be a huge flashpoint in the primary throughout 2027 and into 2028,” said veteran Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh, who advised Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential bid. “The constitution of the party just in the makeup of the voters has changed dramatically. The politics of Israel has changed dramatically.”

Recent AIPAC critics also include some Jewish Democrats who had previously supported the organization or received its backing.

After AIPAC poured $22 million into Illinois primaries last week to mixed results, Gov. JB Pritzker, a billionaire who does not accept outside funds, accused the group of becoming pro-Trump and said he wants no part of the group he once donated to. A spokesperson for Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) pointed to a podcast in which she said she swore off AIPAC’s support in 2022.

Former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told POLITICO he “need not worry about AIPAC’s support. It will not be forthcoming.”

Emanuel – a supporter of Israel whose father was Israeli – has also been a longtime critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Emanuel contested past reporting that he held dual U.S.-Israelicitizenship when he was a child: "I never had Israeli citizenship. I’m 66, my whole life I’ve only had American citizenship and an American passport."

Democrats cited a variety of reasons for rejecting AIPAC’s cash. Booker said it was part of a broader pledge he made at the start of the year to swear off all PAC money going forward. “I don’t believe we should be accepting any PAC money at all from anybody,” he told POLITICO on Friday.

Gallego likened taking the group’s backing to “endorsing what’s happening right now” in Iran and Gaza while appearing on POLITICO’s “The Conversation.”

And progressives like Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who have been highly critical of the Israeli government and have repeatedly sparred with AIPAC, have accused the group of targeting their campaigns and long rejected its financial aid. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) bluntly told POLITICO: “I don’t take their money, they’re running ads against me.”

Other potential White House aspirants attempted to dodge the question. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), for instance, said he has “individuals who support me” when asked if he would reject AIPAC’s backing. Several more did not respond when reached through spokespeople, including former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), and Govs. Wes Moore of Maryland and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

That so many Democrats declined to comment on the organization suggests that AIPAC still has some influence in Democratic politics. And the big-spending group can still help its preferred candidates to victory even as its name has become mud in Democratic primaries, as evidenced by its wins last week in two of the four Illinois House races where it spent big. But it’s also telling that no potential 2028 candidate openly embraced the group.

AIPAC and its allies hit back, accusing Democrats who are giving the group the cold shoulder of trying to silence pro-Israel voices within the party. They vowed to continue intervening in Democratic primaries to promote their interests. Deryn Sousa, a spokesperson for AIPAC, said “efforts to push pro-Israel Democrats out of the political process are alarming and fundamentally undemocratic.”

Patrick Dorton, a spokesperson for AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, acknowledged the “difficult environment” the lobby is navigating after Gaza and with the war in Iran. But, he said, “we aren’t going to be deterred in ensuring that pro-Israel voices are heard in federal elections.”

“We are going to work with mainstream Democrats across the party to strengthen the U.S.-Israel relationship, and that includes presidential contenders,” Dorton said. “We’re going to remind everybody about the millions of pro-Israel Democratic voters who are part of the political process in federal elections.”

Top Democrats’ rush to rebuff AIPAC comes amid a party-wide grappling over how to handle Israel, after the Biden administration’s approach to the war in Gaza was found to have cost Harris votes in 2024 and as polls show Democratic voters continuing to sour on Israel as it aids the U.S. intervention in Iran. An NBC News poll this month showed 57 percent of Democrats view Israel negatively, a dramatic shift from when just 35 percent held a negative view of the country after Hamas attacked it on Oct. 7, 2023. A Quinnipiac University survey earlier this month showed 62 percent of Democrats felt America is too supportive of Israel.

Democrats eyeing 2028 have been publicly repositioning on Israel for months as Gaza reemerges as a flashpoint in midterm primaries. And their criticisms of Israel and its allies in the U.S. are growing sharper as the war in Iran escalates with no clear off-ramp from Trump.

Newsom earlier this month likened Israel to an “apartheid state” and said the U.S. should reconsider military support for Israel, though in a separate interview with POLITICO published Tuesday he said he regretted using the term apartheid and clarified that he is concerned about Israel, a country he said he is "proud to support," going in such a direction. Pritzker has long been a supporter of Israel and has advocated for a two-state solution, but recently told the New York Times that he’s “challenged” by current geopolitics because the U.S. is supporting Israeli policies “that I don’t think the majority of Americans believe in and I don’t think a majority even of Israelis believe in.”

Shapiro, who’s similarly been a longtime supporter of Israel and a two-state solution, has also criticized Netanyahu and Trump’s enabling of his agenda in recent podcast appearances. But he cautioned that denying Israel’s right to exist could lead to “permanent war.” A spokesperson for Shapiro said the Pennsylvania governor “has been clear that Donald Trump is failing to hold Netanyahu accountable” while also positing that “Israel has a right to exist in security as a Jewish state, and we must find a path to peace in the Middle East that includes a safe homeland for the Palestinian people.”

Leading progressives, including Ocasio-Cortez and Khanna, have gone further — accusing the Netanyahu administration of perpetuating genocide in Gaza and pushing to stop U.S. arms sales to the country.

But Democrats on both ends of the ideological spectrum have argued there are bigger issues around Israel than AIPAC. Shapiro, on a podcast last year, said putting Democrats on record over AIPAC was a “shortcut” for asking their views on Israel and a two-state solution. “Demanding answers on those questions is more important than ‘hey, what about this lobbying group or that lobbying group,’” he said.

Khanna, in a message to POLITICO on Monday, said, “What matters more is the clarity of calling what happened a genocide and stopping military sales to Israel used to kill civilians in Gaza and Lebanon.”

Still, progressive groups such as MoveOn and Justice Democrats are plotting how to make taking AIPAC money a red line for those vying to be the party’s next standard bearer.

“We’re going to be demanding that anyone who deserves to get the Democratic nomination not only doesn’t take AIPAC support or donations, but actively speaks out against this lobby,” said Justice Democrats spokesperson Usamah Andrabi.

In a sign of the volatile and complex politics surrounding Israel, some Democrats who are shutting the door to AIPAC donations are declining to call on their would-be rivals to do the same.

Pritzker, asked by POLITICO last week whether Democratic presidential candidates should accept AIPAC funding, criticized the flood of special-interest money in campaigns in general but cast taking PAC cash as “a matter of values” for each candidate. Murphy said “everybody will make their own decision about it.”

And Booker went so far as to call the AIPAC pile-on “problematic.”

“There are Iranian Americans that bundle money. There are Turkish Americans that bundle money. There are a lot of ethnic groups that bundle money, and often for things that I don’t agree with. But somehow AIPAC seems to be drawing a lot of attention, and that’s problematic to me,” Booker said. “[AIPAC] is not the problem in America. The problem in America is money in politics.”

CLARIFICATION: This article has been updated to include Emanuel’s statement that he has never held dual Israeli citizenship, Newsom's comments to POLITICO on apartheid and Israel, and that AIPAC spends only in federal races.

© AP

Newsom: We could lose the country in 2028

lead image

When Brandon Herrera ran for Congress in 2024, the Republican Jewish Coalition called him “a goose-stepping extremist” and spent big to take him down. Two years later, he’s the presumptive GOP nominee — and his former foes are staying home as the GOP establishment moves to embrace him.

Herrera, a gun shop owner and popular YouTuber known as “The AKGuy” running in Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, has faced widespread criticism for past videos in which he mimics a Nazi march to Nazi music, jokes about the Holocaust and boasts about his 1939 edition of “Mein Kampf.” His 2024 opponent, Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) called him a “known neo-Nazi,” a characterization Herrera disputes. Concern over Herrera’s comments were so severe that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s United Democracy Project spent more than $1 million two years ago and the Republican Jewish Coalition spent close to $400,000 to sink his campaign.

But now, a scandal forced Gonzales to drop out of the runoff, and Herrera is the GOP nominee in the sprawling, GOP-leaning Texas border district, which President Donald Trump carried by a 17-point margin in 2024.

And faced with the choice of a candidate they’ve long accused of antisemitism and a Democrat, these pro-Israel and Jewish groups are thus far choosing to sit on their hands.

AIPAC, which backs both Democratic and Republican pro-Israel candidates and usually focuses its efforts in primaries, has not endorsed in the race. AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa said in a statement only that the group would “continue to assess where candidates across the country stand on issues that affect the U.S.-Israel partnership.”

And the RJC, which only supports Republican candidates, won’t get involved. “The RJC has a longstanding policy of speaking out against those who traffic in Nazi ideology, and this is another case,” said RJC political director and spokesperson Sam Markstein. “The RJC opposed Mr. Herrera in 2024, and he will not get our support now.”

But Markstein made clear it was likely they would sit the race out rather than oppose him in the general election. “We've never supported a Democrat, so that should tell you everything you need to know,” he said.

In the weeks since Herrera finished as the top vote-getter in Texas’ March 4 primary and Gonzales dropped out, the GOP establishment has largely embraced Herrera.

Last week, as lawmakers and donors socialized during a glitzy Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for the House Freedom Caucus, which backed him in the primary, Herrera made a triumphant appearance, according to an attendee granted anonymity to detail a private event and another attendee’s post on social media. Trump announced his endorsement on social media the same night.

“Brandon is strongly supported by many Highly Respected MAGA Warriors in Texas, and Republicans in the US House,” Trump wrote. “HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN!”

Speaker Mike Johnson and House GOP leadership followed a week later, calling him an “America First grassroots leader” in a joint statement Thursday.

Trump’s endorsement brings “a little bit of comfort” to pro-Israel GOP donors who view Trump as a loyal ally, said Gabriel Groisman, a Florida-based GOP donor active in pro-Israel circles. “We trust the president and his team in their vetting of congressional candidates,” Groisman said. “But it doesn't mean we don't ask questions and we don't dig further.”And Groisman said that the "ugly truth about politics" is Jewish Republican donors are now faced with the option of him or a Democrat, rather than another Republican. "So the question is whether it's better to have him in [office], or not. That's a very, very difficult question to answer."

Herrera criticized AIPAC’s spending against him in 2024, calling it “Israel first bullshit.” “I’m not anti-Israel, I’m anti Israel buying American elections,” he wrote on social media.

He has also been critical of U.S. policy toward Israel, arguing American taxpayers should not have to pay for military aid to Israel. We shouldn't be spending a cent of taxpayer dollars on anything that is not either an investment or right here in the United States,” he said in a speech, Israel National News reported. “I don't hate my neighbor just because I don't want to pay his power bill. If they want to buy rockets from us, let's sell to them."

Republicans’ embrace of Herrera shows how seriously the GOP values maintaining control of the House this cycle, even as some Republicans warn of growing antisemitism within their own ranks.

Herrera’s campaign has continued to publicly push back on criticisms of his social media history, which they contend are taken out of context from his “work as a historical firearms educator” and omitting extended clips that include “comments ridiculing and condemning Hitler’s book.” 

“The accusations against Brandon were bizarre and false, manufactured by a desperate political opponent who misleadingly cut and pasted together disparate video clips,” Herrera campaign manager Kimmie Gonzalez said in a statement.

Groisman, the Florida-based donor, said Herrera’s allies are working to assuage concerns about his past statements through outreach to Jewish and pro-Israel donors in Texas and beyond.

“They're trying to send them what he has actually said, versus what people say he said, which they seem to claim that there's a big delta there,” Groisman said. “The concern is, are we, as a Republican Party, allowing in another potential Thomas Massie-type figure? Nobody knows the answer to that question.” Massie, a Republican member of the House from Kentucky, has been an outspoken critic of Trump and Israel.

Herrera’s campaign confirmed he is looking for dialogue with those same groups that have attacked him for years — including the RJC.

Katie Padilla Stout, the Democratic nominee in the district, has said that Herrera has “consistently been on the wrong side of history,” citing content from his YouTube videos that mocked veterans and another video in which he tested Nazi weaponry. Padilla Stout has started to make allegations of antisemitism core to her attacks on her Republican opponent, as outside Democratic groups — like the House Majority PAC — use his past videos as attacks.

"Given his documented history of apparent anti-semitism, it's no surprise our campaign has received an outpouring of support from people from all across the district and from both sides of the aisle, including support from the Jewish community,” Padilla Stout’s campaign manager, Yolitzma Aguirre, said in a statement.

Some of the Republican officeholders who have warned loudly about growing antisemitism within their party dodged when asked about Herrera.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has vowed to take on any Republican congressional candidate who espoused antisemitism, but when asked about Herrera said “I don't know what you're talking about, in terms of what he said.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who denounced podcaster Nick Fuentes as a “goose-stepping Nazi” during a speech last week, has stayed out of the primary, even as he endorsed in other U.S. House races in his state. He said questions about Herrera’s statements or actions should be directed to Herrera himself.

“I haven't seen the video you're discussing, and so you're welcome to ask him those questions,” Cruz said in a brief interview last week.

When asked how he would advise Texas voters to cast their ballot in Herrera’s race, Cruz refused to answer. “Those are the exact same questions a Democrat tracker would ask,” Cruz said before walking away. His office declined to elaborate on his answers.

While Republicans circle the wagons or duck the topic, a Jewish Democratic group that rarely plays in districts like this is thinking about investing in trying to defeat Herrera.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America is considering getting involved in the heavily Republican district, which would deviate from their norm of engaging only in districts with significant Jewish voter populations.

“If there was ever a chance that a Democrat could win a seat like this, maybe it's in these midterms,” said JDCA CEO Halie Soifer. “So it is something we're looking at. Certainly it is a priority for us to defeat Trump-endorsed neo-Nazis, like this candidate.”

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misspelled Halie Soifer's name and misstated her title.

© Brandon Bell/Getty Images

DES MOINES — Rob Sand got a hero’s welcome at a state deer hunting expo at the Iowa Events Center on a recent March weekend.

The state’s lone Democratic statewide elected official, and Democrats’ hope for flipping the governor’s mansion for the first time in 16 years, could barely make it through the Sunday morning sea of camo-wearing, venison jerky-chomping, Busch Light tallboy-nursing fellow hunters as more than a dozen people stopped and congratulated him.

But it wasn’t because of his politics. If anything, it was in spite of them.

“Rob, heckuva buck!” said one passerby.

Sand was at the annual Iowa Deer Classic to enter a Green gross-scoring 209-inch buck he’d tagged earlier this season. Photos of the deer have proliferated on Trophy Bucks of Iowa and other Facebook hunting groups across the state.

“Mr. 200!” said Levi Schmitz, a Trump-voting Republican who nonetheless plans to back Sand.

“You got me,” the 43-year-old state auditor responded with a grin.

As Democrats across the map continue to hunt for paths out of the metaphorical wilderness, Sand is betting that his own path to the governor’s mansion runs through his familiarity in the literal wilderness.

Sand represents the kind of candidate Democrats have long sought to win on tough red terrain: an inarguably of-the-place contender whose persona and bio can help sell political views that have become a tough pitch in places where many hear “Democrat” and picture coastal elites. Iowa, a swing state through 2012, moved hard right in the Trump years as Democrats increasingly struggled to connect.

Here, Republicans have taken advantage of the culture wars in a big way for years. Retiring Sen. Joni Ernst first won in 2014 by running hard on her pig-farming, military vet bio and painting her attorney opponent as an effete outsider.

Sand doesn’t run from some of his more liberal views. But like many other Democrats running this year, he’s banking that his local cultural cred will make him tougher for Republicans to caricature as a not-like-us coastal outsider.The day the expo kicked off, the avid bow hunter and fisherman’s campaign launched a “Hunting With Rob” microsite that extolls the rugged Iowa way of life. “For the first time in Iowa history, hunters, sportsmen, conservationists, and outdoor enthusiasts alike will finally have an ally in the governor’s office,” it reads.

In a state where the first day of deer season is an unofficial holiday, Sand’s strategy to center his culturally midwestern hobby rather than his Democratic brand was on full display. He dropped $30 on a glove for removing burrs, $35 on a tool that keeps hunting bows level and $69 on MAXX Step Aiders for climbing trees. And the branding appeared to be working.

“I’m super-Republican, but you got my vote,” said Tom Buckroyd, a hunter from a small community near Marshalltown wearing a “Crossbows Are Gay” T-shirt who spent roughly 20 minutes talking to Sand about hunting.

As he picked at a free sample of barbecue venison jerky on a toothpick, Sand said he wasn’t surprised by his warm reception.

“Number one, it just means I shot a huge buck this year,” he told POLITICO. “But number two, I go back to culture. And we have this stupid, broken, two-choice political system. … And we are told stories about who can be right in either party. And when you find someone that’s in a party, but then also doesn’t fit that story, I think for a lot of people that is a sign of realness or a sign of authenticity about who they are.”

Since their bruising losses in 2024, Democrats have tried all manner of ways to rehabilitate their brand, from cursing more to growing beards to talking about sports. This cycle, they’ve redoubled their efforts to find authentically local candidates — and in some races, those candidates have emerged and caught lightning as they challenge status-quo Democratic candidates. Many are leaning hard into local culture signals.

Sand has hunting. Maine’s Senate candidate Graham Platner has his oystering and his Second Amendment creds. Texas’ Bobby Pulido has his guitar; James Talarico has the Good Book. Alaska’s Mary Peltola has fish. Democratic candidates who can win in tough places often get national buzz. And Sand happens to be from a state that — at least for now — still plays an outsized role in the presidential process. Could Sand be a surprise 2028 contender?

“If Rob wins, he will instantly be part of that conversation,” said Tommy Vietor, President Barack Obama’s former Iowa press secretary and a host of Pod Save America.

Sand is running as a hunting-loving, churchgoing, Casey’s gas station pizza-loving state auditor who has spent the past five years positioning himself as a fiscally responsible friend to the Iowa taxpayer.

There’s been little public polling of the race; the only public survey, released back in October, found Sand beating GOP Rep. Randy Feenstra by two points, 45 percent to 43 percent. But national operatives in both parties see it as one of a handful of governor’s races that could flip. Sand is unopposed in the state’s June 2 primary, though five Republicans will be on the ballot for their party’s nomination.

He entered the show room at the EMC Expo Center after attending a chapel service for expo-goers where he quietly scrolled a Contemporary English Version of the Bible on his phone, listening dutifully to the sermon about Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000. “What sort of kingdom work is He asking you to do?” the pastor asked.

And what does Sand see as his kingdom work? “Talking about the evils of the two-choice system and trying to break down a system that inherently divides us and leads our leaders into the temptation of being lazy, and leads our leaders into the temptation of lying, bearing false witness against their opponents, because they know that they don’t actually have to solve our problems,” he said.

“In order to get reelected, all they got to do is convince us that they’re the lesser of two evils,” Sand continued. “And they win because we only have two realistic options on the ballot — and that entire system, to me, is just such a temptation to not serve people, to not do good, to actively lie, to spread false information.”

You’d be forgiven if you forgot Sand was running as a Democrat. That, of course, is part of the point of his campaign. Sometimes to salvage the Democratic brand in a red state you have to first savage it.

But Republicans will be sure to remind voters a few times between now and November.

“He hasn’t really had to take very many positions,” said David Kochel, a longtime Iowa Republican operative who has guided multiple presidential campaigns. ”He’s going to be forced at some point to either disavow the Democratic Party platform, which is going to piss off progressives, or he’s going to have to accept the label of being a Democrat in Iowa and defend it. And it’s gonna be hard for him to do.”

Republicans will paint some images of Sand of their own. As much as he would like to cut the figure of a rugged outdoorsman, they say, he also spent some time in college modeling in Milan and Paris — photos that may well pop up in GOP ads. “I mean, it was a part-time job I had in college,” Sand said. “Catching chickens was my first one.” Catching chickens? “Castrated male chickens,” he clarifies.

There is also the matter of his election financing: His wealthy in-laws have dumped$7 million into his campaign. “Hardworking Iowans know the value of a dollar, and don’t have the luxury of having a silver spoon feeding them their career,” Iowa Republican Chairman Jeff Kaufmannsaid in a statement.

Iowa Republicans are taking Sand’s candidacy seriously. In an interview, Bob Vander Plaats, the influential West Des Moines evangelical leader, called Sand “dangerous” and the “best candidate” Democrats could run.

“He’s trying to come off as a more folksy, more accomplished Tim Walz. ‘I go to church every Sunday. I hunt. I’m the taxpayers’ watchdog. I’m gonna hit all the Republican talking points, basically, that I can,’” Vander Plaats said before stressing that Sand “would be way outside of where Iowans are.”

On the Republican side, Vander Plaats endorsed Adam Steen over Rep. Randy Feenstra, the GOP establishment pick and primary frontrunner. “I just haven’t been impressed with Randy’s campaign. I don’t think he has the campaign to win a general election.”

Sand practices a judge-not-lest-ye-be-judge approach with would-be voters. When he was speaking to the man wearing a “Crossbows Are Gay” shirt, Sand didn’t bat an eye.

“I know what that shirt says, but I’m not going to assume that he literally is anti-homosexual because his T-shirt says that,” Sand said. “I’m not a believer that lecturing people is an effective way to get them to not do a thing. Now, I’m open about my support for gay marriage, for the gay community. He’s probably seen me say that. … And he’s not going to hear me back away from that. So to me, there’s probably room for someone to wear a shirt that they mean as a joke they don’t actually mean to be negative.”

Sand didn’t win the Big Buck contest he’d entered. But as he took selfies with the men who had beat him, an onlooker from Exira named Jeremy brought up a possible consolation prize.

“You’re the next governor of Iowa!” he told Sand.

As the day wrapped, the lanky state auditor pulled his buck head down off the wall and, carrying it by an antler, walked out of the convention center — its taxidermied eyes fixed in a frozen stare at Sand’s potential new voters.

© Illustration by Claudine Hellmuth/POLITICO (source images via Adam Wren/POLITICO)

MIDLAND, Michigan — Pete Buttigieg is known for going everywhere to get his message out in the media. In 2026, he’s taking that strategy offline, too, traveling virtually everywhere.

A source close to Buttigieg tells Playbook he’s spent half of 2026 on the road, hitting 10 states so far — including battleground states Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and his adopted home state Michigan, plus a multiday swing across for-now-first-in-the-nation New Hampshire. And he’s not yet hawking books like some of his would-be 2028 rivals. He’s stumping for candidates up and down the ballot.

While potential 2028ers like Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focus on flexing midterm-year dominance in their own backyards, Buttigieg is embarking on a more national project to position himself as a super surrogate not confined to specific geography or demographics. It’s a strategy that could help him counter the base of power that comes from holding elected office.

Buttigieg laid out his midterm strategy to Playbook in an exclusive interview after gripping and grinning and taking selfies along a ropeline: “The basic idea is to make myself useful to candidates and causes that I care about and that we all need to succeed,” he said at Mi Element Grains & Grounds, a combination microbrewery, bakery and coffeehouse, after launching a canvassing effort backing Chedrick Greene in a special election to determine control of the Michigan state Senate.

“Every kind of state, red, blue and purple, there are races going on and fights going on that I want to make sure I'm part of,” Buttigieg told Playbook. “And they are all often very different from each other, but what they have in common is leaders who are very rooted in a sense of place. They're very much of where they're from, and I think represent a big part of what the future for Democrats is going to look like.”

Buttigieg has increased his engagement with Black candidates like Greene and the community more broadly, addressing a perceived weakness. In Alabama, Buttigieg joined civil rights leaders and community members in Selma for the Bridge Crossing Jubilee and Anniversary of Bloody Sunday, and made remarks at a unity breakfast and Tabernacle Baptist Church. In Birmingham, he joined a roundtable with business owners from the Historic 4th Avenue Business District.

A source familiar with Buttigieg’s past outreach to the Black community described his efforts a “natural extension” of his work on his 2020 presidential campaign and in the Biden administration.

“It’s a recognition that engagement in those spaces and showing up in 2026 is going to be a huge indicator of who's going to be the leader of this party,” this person, granted anonymity to candidly appraise Buttigieg’s approach, told POLITICO. “I think it's really smart to think along those lines, and to show, right? Not just talk about it, but to actually show and demonstrate it.”

He also campaigned for Shawn Harris in former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's deep-red Georgia congressional district, and gave an interview to Black creator Hood Anchor Ye alongside Rep. Nikema Williams. He also attended Sen. Raphael Warnock’s Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he received a very warm welcome.

“I'm very focused on coalition right now, and that includes pillars of our Democratic coalition, like the building trades workers I was with in Toledo or in Nevada, and certainly Black voters who are so vital to the past, present and future of the party,” Buttigieg said.

A February Emerson poll found Buttigieg had about 6 percent support among Black voters; California Gov. Gavin Newsom had 17 percent and former VP Kamala Harris had 36 percent.

“He had a remarkable run in 2020 and ultimately, one of the, perhaps the greatest obstacle, is that he didn't have much of a relationship with African American voters,” David Axelrod, the former strategist for former President Barack Obama and longtime Buttigieg ally, told Playbook. “And the fact that he's spending a lot of time communing with Black voters across the country even if in the service of the midterm elections, is a reflection that he's not headed for early retirement.”

There is also, of course, the fact that Buttigieg has a newly crafted stump speech that walks an average voter through their day and overlays his policy hopes for them, something reminiscent of James Joyce’s “Ulysses”. “I don’t want to overdo that, but yes, as you know, my whole thing is the politics of everyday life. And one way to get that across is to just literally walk through everyday life and all of the hundreds of moments in that day that are shaped by political choices.”

Asked about whether he thought the narrative of his struggles with Black voters matched the

reality of what he was seeing on the ground, Buttigieg redirected. “This year is very much not about me,” he said. “What it's really all part of for me is where are there leaders that I can help and where it's going to make a difference to engage.”

Beyond that, Buttigieg’s travels and how he’s talking is revealing about his potential trajectory: For starters, he’s laser-focused on building a majority Democratic governing coalition. He used the word no fewer than 10 times.

Buttigieg insisted that Democrats “should be able to build a supermajority coalition” based on the party’s platform. He has noted in the past most Americans support paid family leave, raising the federal minimum wage, raising taxes on the wealthy, universal background checks, and a public health insurance option. “If we can't get those two-thirds supported positions over 50 percent that means we're missing something in terms of the coalition we built.”

But as potential candidates like Newsom seek to emulate Trump’s smashmouth social media style, Buttigieg is more focused on creating a Democratic version of MAGA’s sweeping coalition. That means Buttigieg’s 2026 project is to build a big tent in nature — not a matter of pure ideology. In Pennsylvania, for example, Buttigieg held a well-attended event with Bob Brooks, the bellwether Lehigh Valley Democratic congressional candidate running to flip Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District. Brooks, a Pennsylvania firefighter, supports Medicare for All, which Buttigieg opposed in his presidential run.

“It is really important that we understand what it means that this president stitched together this very unlikely crew that includes traditional Republicans, Libertarians, authoritarians and white nationalists,” Buttigieg said. “We have to have a bigger, better, different coalition.”

In the next few weeks, Buttigieg is expected to cross another battleground off his list, with a stop in North Carolina where he’ll campaign for Democrats, as well as two redder states: a town hall in Oklahoma and a stop in Montana, where he is planning to boost “The Montana Plan,” a ballot initiative to curtail corporations from spending money on political candidates or ballot issues.

“We're trying to get everywhere we can,” Buttigieg said. “Including places in the same way that — you know, I think Fox News is this kind of place — places where people don't hear enough from us, because I think there are potential members of our coalition to be found.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's Playbook newsletter.

© Michael Conroy/AP

Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here's an offering of the best of this week's crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.

Ruben Gallego wants to make Democrats fun again

lead image

Two companies with ties to veteran political operatives received at least $23 million in commissions for their role in the controversial Department of Homeland Security ad campaign that helped lead to Secretary Kristi Noem’s ouster.

One of the firms, Safe America Media, received at least $15.2 million and was formed last February just a few days before it was awarded the limited-bid contract to work on the overall $220 million, taxpayer-funded ad campaign, according to an internal DHS memo and three people familiar with the contracts who were granted anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak publicly about the contracts. Safe America Media was run by Republican operatives Mike McElwain and Patrick McCarthy, who have ties to a firm that did extensive media buying on President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign.

The second firm, People Who Think, received at least $7.7 million from its 10 percent commission on a portion of the $220 million, according to the memo, which was written by DHS Deputy Under Secretary for Management Paul Stackhouse, and reviewed by POLITICO. People Who Think was co-founded by Jay Connaughton, who did work for Trump’s 2016 campaign and has reportedly worked for other conservative politicians and causes.

The March 3 DHS memo noted there was only a “limited competition” for the awarded contracts because of the “urgent and compelling need” for the ad campaign. It also stated that People Who Think’s 10 percent commission for international advertising and Safe America Media’s 12 percent commission for domestic advertising was below the industry norm of 15 percent.

Besides military recruiting efforts and Covid-19-related campaigns, the DHS ads were the most expensive U.S. government marketing campaign in the last 10 years, Bloomberg reported.

The information about the contracts add new details to the ongoing fallout over DHS’s $220 million ad campaign, which included a video of a cowboy-hat clad Noem riding a horse at Mount Rushmore. It also highlights how political operatives were awarded contracts worth millions of dollars with seemingly little oversight or guardrails — including from President Donald Trump, who White House officials have said did not sign off on the ad campaign.

The ads became a sore spot within the White House, including with Trump, because they fed into a perception that Noem used her position to set herself up for a future political run.

“Safe America Media submitted a proposal for and was awarded a contract to support DHS’s nationwide public awareness campaign, and committed substantial resources to meet an accelerated timeline on budget,” Safe America Media lawyer Joseph Folio said in a statement to POLITICO. “We look forward to providing additional information to address inaccuracies in the public reporting and ensure the record accurately reflects the scope and context of that work.” It’s unclear what he is referring to and a spokesperson didn’t respond to a follow-up question.

McCarthy, McElwain and Connaughton didn’t respond to requests for comment and People Who Think could not be reached for comment. A spokesperson for DHS declined to comment.

Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and John Kennedy of Louisiana, along with Democrats, grilled Noem when she testified before Congress in early March about the DHS ad campaign. At one point during the hearing, a clearly frustrated Tillis threatened to halt all Senate business if Noem refused to provide information about immigration enforcement in his home state, while Kennedy probed Noem about the ads and derided them for only being “effective in your name recognition.”

Noem has defended the campaign by saying the ads helped encourage two million immigrants to self-deport and thus saved billions of dollars.

Noem was also asked during the hearing about the Strategy Group,which worked to make some of the ads for Safe America Media. The Strategy Group is run by Ben Yoho, the husband of Noem’s former right-hand communications aide Tricia McLaughlin. McLaughlin has said she recused herself from the campaign, and DHS general counsel James Percival has backed her up publicly on questions about the matter and said she was not involved in selecting subcontractors.

In a response to inquiries from Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), both members of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Yoho said his company was only hired as a subcontractor by Safe America Media for ad production worth $226,000.

Asked about his role in this ad campaign, Yoho referred POLITICO to the letter.

Welch’s office told POLITICO that they have talked with legal representatives for People Who Think and Safe America Media but have not yet received responses to their questions. They said they expect to hear from them soon.

Safe America Media LLC placed some of the DHS ads through Strategic Media Services Inc., which received more than $269 million from Trump’s campaign in 2024, according to FEC records. SMS used the same office address on corporate registrations between 2013 and 2021 as Designated Market Media Inc., which McElwain is the president of.

SMS didn’t respond to a request for comment.

© AP

Congressional Black Caucus members, after a stinging loss in the Illinois Democratic Senate primary, are training their ire on Gov. JB Pritzker — and saying it’s on him to rehabilitate the relationship.

After Pritzker’s outsized financial support for Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton helped lift her to victory, lawmakers vented frustrations that his money unfairly tilted the race in her favor and away from their candidate, Rep. Robin Kelly, a CBC member who finished a distant third. And as Pritzker eyes a 2028 presidential bid, some members, cognizant that the path to winning the Democratic Party’s nomination will run through the caucus, signaled they won’t forget that he crossed them this round.

“He has to justify what he did,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). “I'm sure at some point if he decides to run, he'll have to come with that justification. As to whether or not it has merit or not, remains to be seen.”

Pritzker’s money helped put Stratton on the path to becoming just the sixth Black senator in U.S. history. But by boxing out Kelly, he frayed his relationship with the caucus, which holds significant sway over which candidates break through with Black voters — a large and powerful voting bloc the billionaire governor will need if he chooses to run for the White House.

“Keep in mind, the Democratic candidate for president that prevails has to go through [the CBC],” said Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio). “The CBC is very strategic and so if there is an issue … we will lay out our framework for what it will take” to get our endorsement, she added.

Many top CBC officials are in no rush to make the first move to mend fences.

“We don't need to reach out to the governor,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) who chairs the Congressional Black Caucus PAC, adding that the group is focused on midterm races and delivering House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries the speaker's gavel.

“Others are going to have to reach out to us,” he said of Pritzker. “Those conversations happen when those conversations happen.”

Pritzker’s political arm issued a statement in response saying he was “proud” to support Stratton, Illinois’ first Black lieutenant governor: “With only six black women having served in the U.S. Senate throughout its history, Gov. Pritzker supported his partner in governance because he’s worked side by side with her for almost a decade and knows she will deliver for the people of Illinois,” Jordan Abudayyeh, Pritzker’s spokesperson, said.

His team did not address questions about CBC members’ concerns, but did point to Rep. Jim Clyburn, the powerful South Carolina Democrat, saying ahead of the election that Pritzker was “free to support” anyone.

Clyburn on Wednesday told POLITICO he would “expect” for Pritzker to support his No. 2 and that he was not focused on 2028.

Still, lawmakers’ veiled threats lay bare the difficulties Pritzker could face beyond Tuesday’s primary. And they underscore the duality the CBC is navigating as high-profile defeats of their members in Illinois and Texas raise questions about their political influence — even as they celebrate Stratton’s victory.

In interviews with more than a dozen CBC members on Wednesday, they made clear their irritation is not with Stratton, who many said will be welcomed into the caucus if she wins as expected in November. Their indignation rests solely with Pritzker, who they accused of playing kingmaker by pouring millions of dollars into propping up Stratton.

Tensions flared between the powerful legislative voting bloc and the billionaire governor in early March. CBC Chair Yvette Clarke lashed out at Pritzker, saying she was “beyond frustrated” with the governor for “tipping the scales” a nod to his funneling of $5 million from his super PAC to help catapult Stratton into contention with Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, who for much of the primary was leading in the polls and started with a massive cash advantage.

Many CBC members, and Clarke specifically, took Pritzker's presence in the race as a snub to Kelly, who had a long-standing beef with Pritzker after he worked to oust her as chair of the Illinois Democratic Party in 2022. While both Kelly and Pritzker were said to have moved beyond it, the Senate campaign reopened old wounds.

Clarke issued a statement — some 12 hours after the Illinois Senate primary was called — to congratulate Stratton on her victory, calling it “a significant moment for Illinois and the nation that calls for unity” before pivoting to praise Kelly.

The CBC chair on Wednesday said she and Pritzker had not spoken.

“I'm sure there'll be a moment where we'll have a conversation,” Clarke said. When asked if she felt like she needed to initiate a conversation with the governor, she responded tersely. “No, I don’t.”

Former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, the first Black woman elected to the body in U.S. history, endorsed Stratton in the race. She took issue with CBC members' intense focus on the governor’s role in the process instead of the historic outcome, and said the group seemed more focused on backing its own than expanding Black representation.

“To weigh in on this race was just backwards,” she told POLITICO. “[Kelly] was a member of the caucus and so it's understandable on that level. But at the same time, Juliana deserved at least something from that group.”

Many current CBC members refrained from attacking Pritzker directly, however — another sign of the complex politics at play. Congressional Democrats want Pritzker’s billions to help bankroll their bid to retake control of the House and make Jeffries, the minority leader and New York Democrat, the first Black speaker. They’ve already been working him behind the scenes.

“I've already reached out to Governor Pritzker,” said Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), a former CBC chair. “I've talked to him this morning, in fact, and I'll talk to him in the weeks and months to come, because I have one objective: to win this House, to help win the Senate, and to make sure we end the chaos that's coming out of this administration.”

Others took pains to separate their evaluation of Pritzker’s role in propelling Stratton to victory from any campaign he may run in 2028, suggesting they were willing to reset the relationship.

“You will still have to show your bona fides, and you still will have to make your case as to why the CBC and Black people should take you into consideration. So we have reset it,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) said. “Good for him, for her, but that has no bearing on the 2028 race.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report. 

© Sophia Tareen/AP Photo

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee saw mixed results in the first major test of its political muscle in the midterms, drawing fresh recriminations from its foes — and some allies — for its interference in four competitive Illinois House primaries.

Two of AIPAC’s supported candidates won their races Tuesday night, with Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller denying former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. a comeback in the 2nd District and former Rep. Melissa Bean defeating a slew of progressive challengers in the 8th District.

But the group faced criticism from within the pro-Israel Democratic community and harsh words from its opponents after it failed to secure its preferred outcome in the two races where it spent the most money.

In the 9th District, the group spent $7 million, some of it aimed at attacking Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, whose mother is Israeli, making an enemy of a likely soon-to-be U.S. representative who has been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza but who had previously been willing to engage with the group. Biss won the crowded primary Tuesday night, after AIPAC pivoted from attacking him to instead concentrate its negative ads on progressive social media influencer and Palestinian American Kat Abughazaleh. And in the 7th District, an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC spent nearly $5 million backing Chicago Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin, who lost to state Rep. La Shawn Ford.

The split scorecard comes a month after AIPAC angered its own centrist allies by going after  another fairly pro-Israel candidate, former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) — a move that ended up handing the primary to a stronger critic of Israel, progressive Analilia Mejia.

“There was once again a vast amount of money spent and wasted trying to dust up a candidate who, by almost anybody’s reasonable analysis, Israel should be happy to have in Congress supporting a strong U.S.-Israel relationship,” one longtime AIPAC member, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said of the group’s spending against Biss.

AIPAC, the person added, “should take a look at the results in [the 9th District] and New Jersey and reconsider their strategy.”

AIPAC-aligned super PACs spent nearly$22 million in the Illinois primaries, more than one-fifth the total $100 million warchest it has in hand so far for the 2026 midterms, to win two of four open-seat races while losing the one that drove the most national attention.

At his victory party Tuesday night, Biss slammed the group for spending heavily “to buy this seat to support the idea that we can’t accept nuance” on the U.S.-Israel relationship.

"AIPAC found out the hard way — the 9th District is not for sale,” Biss told supporters.

AIPAC pushed back against the notion that the group struggled in Tuesday night’s elections.

“Illinois voters rejected half a dozen anti-Israel candidates across several heavily Democratic open-seat races,” Deryn Sousa, an AIPAC spokesperson, said in a statement Tuesday night. “These results further demonstrate that campaigns defined largely by opposition to AIPAC, our members, and the values we represent continue to fall short on election night.”

The controversial organization, already a foil for Democrats grappling with growing anti-Israel sentiment in their party, is facing fresh animosity and renewed scrutiny over its campaign spending as the U.S. and Israel wage a joint war on Iran that’s further soured Americans on their longtime ally.

Recent polling shows Americans — and Democrats, in particular — shifting further away from Israel. A NBC News poll released this week showed 57 percent of Democrats view Israel negatively, a dramatic shift from when just 35 percent held a negative view of the country after Hamas attacked it on Oct. 7, 2023. A Quinnipiac University survey showed 44 percent of voters think the U.S. is too supportive of Israel — the highest percentage since the pollsters started asking the question in 2017. Among Democrats, 62 percent think America is too supportive of Israel, compared with just 22 percent who think the support is about right and 8 percent who think it’s not supportive enough.

It’s clear the organization is aware of its standing in Democratic primaries — its ads focused on everything but Israel, accusing candidates of not being progressive enough on other issues. But AIPAC’s involvement became a major talking point for those it was attacking, especially in the 9th District.

The Illinois Democratic delegation likely won’t have a significant ideological shift on Israel from the races’ results. Bean will replace Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, another pro-Israel candidate, who lost his Senate primary contest to Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton. Biss’s views on Israel aren’t far from those of outgoing Rep. Jan Schakowsky, who endorsed him and has sharply criticized AIPAC in the past. Rep. Danny Davis has supported Israel but denounced its Gaza intervention; Ford has refused to commit to unconditional aidto Israel.

The biggest potential change is Miller replacing Rep. Robin Kelly, who has called the war in Gaza a “genocide.” She also didn’t advance through the Illinois Senate primary.

“We consider this a pro-Israel win. We are better off in the Chicago delegation than we were yesterday,” said Patrick Dorton, the spokesperson for the AIPAC super PAC United Democracy Project, pointing to the new incumbents in the Kelly, Schakowsky and Davis seats.

Dorton also argued that if the group’s pop-up super PAC “didn’t go negative with more than a million dollars in spending to defeat Abughazaleh, she may well have beat Biss.”

And AIPAC allies took a more generous read on their group’s performance.

“You win some, you lose some,” said AIPAC ally Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), who backed Fine, Miller and Bean in their races. Schneider added that if a group wins every race they’re involved in, “you probably haven't pushed the boundaries as far as you can.”

Brian Romick, president of the Democratic Majority for Israel, which often overlaps in its preferred candidates with AIPAC, said Tuesday’s results showed that “Israel wasn't a determinative factor in these primaries” and “none of the extremist anti-Israel candidates won.”

Opponents of AIPAC crowed that voters had spurned the groups’ hardline tactics, including AIPAC’s use of shell PACs to obscure the source of the outside spending. And they held up Biss’ victory in particular as reassurance for candidates wary AIPAC will wade into their primaries that the group can be defeated. Democratic candidates and strategists are bracing for the group to intervene in a range of upcoming House primaries, as well as the Michigan and Minnesota Senate primaries.

Tuesday’s results “should send a clear message to candidates across the country: you do not have to fear AIPAC’s spending or intimidation,” Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of J Street, a rival organization that spent $350,000 backing Biss and worked to counter AIPAC in other Illinois House races, said in a statement.

Yet AIPAC is poised to remain formidable through the midterms. One pro-Israel Democratic donor adviser, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said even with AIPAC’s misfires, the money is likely to keep pouring in.

“Their donor talking points aren’t going to be, ‘we only got half.’ They'll say, ‘we took out two of the worst people,’” said the donor adviser of Tuesday’s results. “They know how to sell it, and there's no shortage of money.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

CLARIFICATION: This article has been updated to include Ford's views on aid to Israel.

© Illustration by Bill Kuchman/POLITICO (source images via Getty Images)

CHICAGO — Gov. JB Pritzker emerged as the kingmaker in deep-blue Illinois after pouring millions of dollars and staking his political reputation to deliver his hand-picked Senate candidate a primary victory on Tuesday.

The result strengthens Pritzker’s standing within his party at a critical moment, as he prepares for a November gubernatorial campaign for his third term and looks ahead to a potential presidential run in 2028.

“It’s going to reflect well on him,” retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky said Tuesday night shortly after Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton was declared the winner in the Democratic primary for Illinois Senate. 

Robyn Gabel, the Illinois House Majority Leader, added: “I think it will show that he has coattails, and that he has a big following, and that people respect his opinions on who to vote for.”

Pritzker has built a reputation as an influential governor by leveraging institutional authority, strong party support, and his own vast financial resources to shape policy statewide, including addressing energy challenges, cost-of-living concerns and making infrastructure improvements. With Democrats holding control of the state legislature, he has also been able to further strengthen his dominance in Springfield.

And on the national stage, Pritzker has positioned himself among the chief antagonists of President Donald Trump, regularly attacking his immigration enforcement surges, among other issues.

Pritzker’s grip on the party was on full display in downtown Chicago, where he celebrated his uncontested gubernatorial primary victory by touting his accomplishments and attacking Trump as Illinois Democrats stood behind him.

“For working families, the Trump presidency has been an unmitigated disaster. Oil prices are up. Measles is back. Farms are folding. Tariffs have raised the price of groceries and cars, and Illinoisans have been sent abroad to fight another Middle East war,” Pritzker told dozens of cheering supporters. “In response, what is the Illinois Republican Party doing to help everyday people? Nothing.”

The crowd’s enthusiasm was aided by an open bar — a detail noted by some attendees after reports circulated from the watch party of Stratton’s well-funded opponent, Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, that his campaign was charging for drinks at the event.

Pritzker, who put millions of dollars into a super PAC supporting Stratton and campaigned regularly alongside his former running mate, brushed off concerns that a potential Stratton loss could tarnish his image. Another candidate he supported, Brad Schneider, won the Democratic nomination for Illinois’ 10th Congressional District.

“I'm not choosing candidates because I've taken a poll ahead of time and decided that I can only support a candidate that I know absolutely 100 percent is going to win otherwise,” Pritzker said at a candidate luncheon at Manny’s Deli on Chicago’s near South Side before polls closed. “Here's what I know, when you've got somebody that is hyper-qualified for the job, that's who I'm supporting.”

But later at Stratton’s watch party on Chicago’s West Side, Pritzker, who belongs to one of the nation’s wealthiest families, acknowledged the stake he held in Tuesday’s outcome.

"A lot of people have suggested this was personal to me,” he told hundreds of Stratton campaign staff and supporters, his voice noticeably strained late into the evening. “They were right. It was."

The fractious Senate primary was defined by massive spending, racial dynamics and lingering intraparty rivalries. Krishnamoorthi had a $30 million war chest and significant outside support but couldn’t compete with Pritzker’s financial muscle and institutional backing of Stratton.

Rep. Robin Kelly, who came in third in the race, drew criticism from some for potentially splitting the Black vote. She, like Stratton, is Black and there were fears they’d cancel one another out, opening a path for Krishnamoorthi, who took advantage of that and even ran ads propping up Kelly to give himself an edge.

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, which backed Kelly, issued a rebuke of Pritzker’s involvement in the race earlier this month, accusing the billionaire governor of trying to “tip the scales in Illinois” which she said was “beyond frustrating.”

Kelly reiterated that sentiment before polls closed Tuesday.

“He’s put his thumb on the race. Seventy-three percent of her donations came from one family,” Kelly said Tuesday afternoon, referring to Pritzker’s financial backing of Stratton.

The tensions between Pritzker and Kelly date back to a 2022 power struggle over control of the Illinois Democratic Party, when Kelly was pushed out amid concerns from Pritzker’s allies about her ability to fundraise while serving in Congress. While both sides have since publicly downplayed the feud, the Senate primary reopened old wounds with outside groups and Democratic factions lining up behind different candidates.

Another CBC member, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, who previously ran for the White House, said on Capitol Hill prior to polls closing in Illinois that “it would be a damn shame if Robin Kelly” lost.

“Isn’t it a shame that I don’t have billions of dollars?” Booker said. “Look … the way the rules are right now, JB Pritzker as the governor of that state is free to support anybody he wants and he has a tremendous amount of resources. I hold no ill will there.”

Illinois state Rep. Kam Buckner, the speaker pro tempore and a member of the national Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, defended Pritzker getting involved in the race.

“Political capital is a lot like financial capital, it does not grow because you admire it. It grows because you deploy it,” Buckner said in an interview. “He’s putting his political equity into circulation, which I think is the right thing for him to do.”

© Illustration by Claudine Hellmuth/POLITICO (source images via Getty)

CHICAGO — Democrats are now all but certain to elect another Black woman to the U.S. Senate after Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton won Tuesday’s bitter and expensive primary in Illinois.

Stratton overcame a crowded Democratic contest for the state’s open Senate seat, defeating front-runner Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi with the help of millions of dollars of outside spending — much of it from her old running mate, Gov. JB Pritzker.

She is widely seen as the favorite to succeed Sen. Dick Durbin in the blue state and would become the sixth Black woman to have ever served in the upper chamber.

The contest was defined by heavy outside spending and intraparty fissures over race. It became contentions during the final weeks, with Krishnamoorthi and Stratton trading sharp attacks on the debate stage and blasting each other in TV ads over corporate money and immigration policy.

Members of the Congressional Black Caucus — who backed a different contender, Rep. Robin Kelly, in the primary — also warned that Pritzker’s interference could split the Black vote and cost Democrats a chance at electing a Black woman to the Senate this year.

Stratton’s late surge was powered by a combination of endorsements, outside spending and targeted messaging. She benefited from the support of Pritzker and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). Illinois Future PAC, which received major cash infusions from Pritzker and other allies, spent at least $11.8 million boosting Stratton’s campaign and attacking Krishnamoorthi.

Stratton will face Don Tracy, a former Illinois Republican Party chair, in November. If elected, she would become the second Black woman to be nominated to the Senate from Illinois, following Carol Moseley Braun — who endorsed Stratton in the contest.

© Scott Olson/Getty Images

CHICAGO — Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss won Tuesday’s Democratic primary to succeed Rep. Jan Schakowsky, dealing a blow to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in a race that had turned into a referendum on the group’s ability to influence the party.

Biss, whose mother is Israeli and whose grandparents are Holocaust survivors, has sharply criticized Israel’s war in Gaza — and faced an onslaught of attack ads from a group aligned with AIPAC as a result.

He defeated a crowded field that included social media influencer Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian American who is a more vocal critic, as well as AIPAC’s preferred candidate, state Sen. Laura Fine. Biss is now favored to win the general election in the heavily Democratic district.

The race had become one of the country’s most closely watched Democratic primaries, in large part because of AIPAC’s involvement in a district whose population is more than 10 percent Jewish and which has had a Jewish representative for more than 60 years.

An AIPAC-aligned group spent more than $5 million dollars in ads to boost Fine and attack Biss, then later, Abughazaleh. That group pulled down its anti-Biss attacks at the end of the race, before a different shell PAC emerged to prop up another low-polling progressive in the race in an attempt to divide the progressive vote.

Biss, meanwhile, had the endorsement of the more liberal pro-Israel organization J Street and publicly slammed AIPAC’s interference in Democratic primaries.

He is a former University of Chicago math professor who also served in the Illinois House and Senate and lost the 2018 Democratic gubernatorial primary to current Gov. JB Pritzker.

Schakowsky, the 14‑term incumbent who announced her retirement last year, formally backed Biss in January, praising his legislative experience and alignment with her priorities (they share similar views on Israel as well as other issues). That endorsement, coupled with his deep roots in the district, helped Biss fend off the crowded field and negative attacks.

Throughout the campaign, Biss pitched a broad policy platform that included boosting federal investment in affordable housing, expanding Social Security benefits and banning stock trading by members of Congress. He also drew national attention last year for his confrontations with federal immigration enforcement agents at a local gas station and his presence at anti‑ICE protests.

© Nam Y. Huh/AP