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

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

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)

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going against retiring Rep. Steny Hoyer in the race to replace him in Maryland, teeing up what could be the last clash between the two Democratic powerhouses in their decadeslong and sometimes-frosty relationship.

Pelosi on Wednesday will endorse Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer who rose to prominence testifying about the horrors of the Jan. 6 riot, in the crowded primary to succeed Hoyer, according to details shared first with POLITICO.

The California lawmaker and daughter of a powerful Baltimore family hailed Dunn’s courage and leadership during and after the Capitol attack.

“My friend Harry Dunn is a true American hero and exactly the right person to represent Maryland in Congress,” Pelosi said. He “bravely defended our democracy from Donald Trump’s violent MAGA mob. Since then, Harry’s been called to do everything he can to protect Marylanders and all Americans from extremists like Donald Trump.”

Pelosi’s loyalty to Dunn — she also backed his unsuccessful bid for Congress in 2024 — is again pitting her against Hoyer in their shared home state after the two backed different candidates for governor in 2022. Hoyer, Pelosi’s longtime No. 2 and erstwhile opponent, is backing his one-time political aide, state Del. Adrian Boafo, for the seat he’s vacating after more than four decades.

Dunn entered the race after Hoyer made his endorsement. A Hoyer spokesperson declined comment.

The dueling endorsements serve as a capstone of sorts to the decadeslong relationship and rivalry between Pelosi and Hoyer that dates back to their time as Hill interns and spans multiple leadership races as they each prepare to retire next year. The two top Democrats have battled each other politically for years — Pelosi defeated Hoyer to become House Democratic whip in 2001, while Hoyer bested her pick for majority leader in 2006 — though they eventually formed an effective partnership leading their caucus.

Dunn, in an interview, praised Pelosi as a pillar for defending democracy and taking on Trump — saying her efforts remind him of his own crusade for accountability after Jan. 6.

“Anytime that somebody with the stature and political history [of] Nancy Pelosi puts their support behind me, it’s just like ‘wow,’” Dunn said. “It just means a lot to me and that should also resonate with the people that have seen how effective she has been for decades as a fighter.”

Dunn launched a failed bid for Maryland’s 3rd Congressional District in 2024, in which he was unable to overcome millions of dollars in spending by pro-Israel group AIPAC’s super PAC to boost now-Rep. Sarah Elfreth.

He entered the race for Hoyer’s seat last month and raised $1 million over the opening eight days of his new campaign, his team said. Dunn does not currently live in the 5th District, which stretches from the suburbs east of Washington into southern Maryland and includes Prince George’s County, where he was born. But he said he plans to move back from the 8th District if he wins. Whoever emerges from the Democratic primary that’s drawn at least a dozen candidates for Hoyer’s safely blue seat will be the heavy favorite to win in November.

Pelosi and Dunn have developed a close personal relationship since Jan. 6, when Dunn faced off with Oath Keepers outside her office and endured a barrage of racial attacks — both of which he has recounted in highly publicized hearings.

Dunn, who has become outspoken about the lingering trauma he and other officers are dealing with from the riot, described the pair on Tuesday as “good friends” bonded by the attack and its aftermath. He is also among the officers who Pelosi gathers with for lunch on each Jan. 6 anniversary, according to a person familiar with the event and granted anonymity to share details of it.

© J. Scott Applewhite/AP

Republicans attempting to oust Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie in a bitter primary are deploying his opposition to the war in Iran.

The Republican Jewish Coalition Victory Fund on Thursday released an ad supporting Ed Gallrein, the candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump, that focuses on Massie's opposition to the war.

“America is at war with a fanatical regime that seeks nuclear weapons. American hero Ed Gallrein stands with President Trump, our country and our military,” a narrator says in the 30-second spot.

“Thomas Massie, he stands with Iran and radical leftists in Congress,” the narrator says, “opposing Trump just like he did on the border and taxes.”

The ad appears to be among the first attempts of its kind to use the Iran war to support a candidate, a risky choice since polls show the high-risk operation is not popular with voters. Massie, who faces Gallrein in a May primary, is a top Trump target for a number of perceived sins — most notably because the outspoken Kentucky lawmaker successfully pushed with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California for the release of the Epstein files.

Massie, asked for a response to the ad, defended his position.

“In 2024, I joined millions of Americans in supporting Donald Trump and JD Vance because they wanted to finally end the ‘forever wars,''' he said. "Now in my 2026 primary, I am being attacked with millions of dollars in negative ads because I still believe and am willing to fight for what we voted for two years ago.“

The ad from the RJC Victory Fund dropped hours after the House rejected an effort led by the Kentucky lawmakerand Khanna to force the president to halt the attack.

Massie claimed a win, though, by saying “we put everyone on record” about a military operation that “could last months.”

Massie has been outspoken in his opposition to the attack on Iran, accusing Trump of forsaking his “America First” doctrine and challenging members of his own party to rein in the president’s ability to wage war without the approval of Congress.

As the RJC Victory Fund funneled millions of dollars into attacking him, Massie cast his race as “about whether the Global Military Industrial Complex and Israel’s government controls the United States” and began fundraising off his opposition.

Andrew Howard contributed to this report.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Democrats of all stripes quickly accused President Donald Trump of starting another prolonged conflict in the Middle East on Saturday and demanded limits to his war powers.

That’s where their agreement ended.

Progressives castigated the president for pursuing “dangerously illegal,” “totally unnecessary” and potentially “catastrophic” military action when diplomacy was still on the table. Some, including Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), declared “no war with Iran.”

But several lawmakers from battleground districts adopted a more cautious tone, calling for Trump to justify his actions to Congress but stopping short of demanding an end to the operation.

And moderate Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), both staunch supporters of Israel, which aided the U.S. in the strikes, praised Trump for defending national security and being “willing to do what’s right and necessary to produce real peace in the region.” Gottheimer also requested a classified briefing and said he expects Trump to “comply with the War Powers Act.”

The breaks in their responses reveal the underlying divisions that have shadowed the party for two decades, and the challenge Democrats face in presenting a unified foreign policy message ahead of the midterms, where Trump’s aggressive use of the military could become a defining flashpoint.

“There’s always been a peace wing to the Democratic Party and there’s always been a more interventionist wing to the party. That has narrowed over time, but it is still there,” said veteran Democratic strategist Mark Longabaugh.

Democratic lawmakers split over the Iraq vote in 2002, the Yemen war powers vote in 2019 and the first Trump administration’s strike on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

Now they will have to navigate yet another politically thorny foreign policy vote — one that is playing out against the backdrop of a yearslong intraparty struggle over Israel as public support for the longtime U.S. ally slides.

Congress is set to vote next week on ending Trump’s military campaign in Iran through a pair of resolutions Democrats are pushing alongside GOP Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.). Fetterman has said he’ll oppose the effort. A spokesperson for Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said he would as well. And House Democratic leaders believe moderates in their caucus could join them.

Many Democrats opted for careful messaging as the situation unfolded on Saturday, attempting to strike a balance between the need to crack down on Iran and the desire to denounce Trump’s unilateral action and its potentially deadly consequences.

Democratic congressional leaders Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries both focused on the process Trump should follow: Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon, they said, but lawmakers need to be briefed and vote on further action.

Schumer said in a statement he had urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next,” adding that the Senate “should return to session to pass a war powers resolution.”

Jeffries similarly pressed for classified briefings and a vote.

“Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region,” Jeffries said in a statement. But, he added, “The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East.”

Neither leader is expected to break ranks with the majority of their fellow Democrats, who plan to vote to bar Trump from taking further military action against Iran without congressional approval.

Still other members, including lawmakers in battleground districts or with military and national security backgrounds, stopped short of explicitly calling for the operation to end.

Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) slammed Trump on X for not providing justification for “committing our nation to war” and said Congress “should come back to Washington to debate these issues.” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said the administration “must immediately brief the full Congress and clearly explain the scope, strategy, and expected duration of this operation.”

Rep. Tom Suozzi, a swing-seat New York Democrat, even appeared to defend Trump, saying the president briefed appropriate leadership ahead of the attack — though he still called for Trump to seek congressional authorization going forward.

“I agree with the President’s objectives that Iran can never be allowed to obtain nuclear capabilities,” Suozzi wrote on X. “The President must now clearly define the national security objective and articulate his plan to avoid another costly, prolonged war in the Middle East.”

But progressives — including possible 2028 contenders Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) — were adamant about drawing a red line, saying that Trump was steering the U.S. toward another "disaster" in the region.

They found a surprising ally in former Vice President Kamala Harris.

“I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran,” Harris said in a statement. “I know the threat that Iran poses, and they must never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, but this is not the way to dismantle that threat.”

Where Democrats did find more uniformity on Saturday was in their attempts to turn Trump's strike on Iran into a campaign cudgel, accusing the president of again violating his "America First" doctrine and breaking the compact he made with voters to end "endless wars." Some began circulating Trump allies’ past comments denouncing the notion of war with Iran and other prolonged conflicts in the Middle East.

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) relayed the party’s message bluntly, rejecting the war in Iran as “wrong.”

“Trump ran on exposing the pedophiles and stopping wars,” he wrote on X. “Trump is now protecting pedophiles and starting wars.”

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Data centers, once popular with elected officials in both parties, are fast becoming a midterms bogeyman.

Democratic governors are racing to rein in new warehouse projects they once offered up millions of dollars in tax incentives to secure as they face voters furious over soaring electric bills. And President Donald Trump, who has slashed red tape around the industry he’s lauded as a job engine, used his Tuesday State of the Union address to announce he’s told major tech companies to build their own power plants to shield ratepayers from further hikes.

It's a remarkable pivot by leaders of both parties. And it reflects the rapidly shifting politics around data centers they had hailed as economic generators but are now retreating from as voters blame their proliferation for rising utility costs — part of an overall frustration with high prices that is dominating the midterms.

“The fact that everyone is talking about this all of a sudden shows how quickly this issue is moving and that politicians are reflecting the frustration that people are feeling over paying so much on their energy bills while data centers get tax breaks,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist and co-founder of climate advocacy group Evergreen Action.

These recent contortions also show both parties are still grappling with the way forward on an increasingly potent political issue.

Democrats harnessed voters’ frustrations over rising utility bills — and their fears that power-hungry data centers could push them higher — to win governor’s offices in New Jersey and Virginia and oust two Republicans on Georgia’s utility regulating commission last fall.

Voters’ worries haven’t ebbed. The POLITICO Poll found in mid-January that voters’ chief concerns about data centers involved household costs. Asked about the drawbacks to building data centers in the U.S., 29 percent of Americans said it would mean higher electricity bills, 24 percent said an increased risk of blackouts and 23 percent said the projects would cost taxpayer money.

Both parties have seized on making tech companies pay for their power as a salve.

Just six months ago, Trump declared he was accelerating federal permitting for data centers and headed to western Pennsylvania to praise companies for investing tens of billions of dollars in energy infrastructure as part of his push to be the “world’s No. 1 superpower in artificial intelligence.”

But on Tuesday, the president said he was negotiating with the companies behind data centers to build their own power plants to secure their power supply “while at the same time lowering prices of electricity” for Americans.

Trump was light on the details about what his “ratepayer protection pledge” actually meant in practice, though the White House said tech companies are expected to head to Washington next week to sign the agreements. But the president has been signaling such a step since at least January, when he said he was working with Microsoft to “ensure that Americans don’t ‘pick up the tab’” for data centers’ power consumption. He also banded together with Democratic governors to push grid operator PJM to control energy prices and tech companies to shoulder the burden of power costs.

Brendan Steinhauser, a Texas-based GOP strategist, said the shift shows Trump and his team “don’t want to be on the wrong side of this.”

“This is smart by the administration to recognize that there are concerns about energy prices and water usage,” said Steinhauser, who serves as CEO of The Alliance for Secure AI, a group that backs more AI industry regulation. “They don’t want to be seen as allowing the companies to accelerate without any input from the community, they don’t want to be seen as on the side of allowing energy prices to go up.”

Democrats don’t, either.

At least half a dozen Democratic governors — several of whom are potential 2028 presidential contenders — used their annual state-of-the-state addresses to pitch regulations or call to retract old sweeteners for an industry they had previously championed.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is pushing to hit pause on tax incentives he’s long touted to lure data centers to his state. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs is seeking to eliminate the tax breaks for tech companies she previously backed as a state lawmaker a decade ago, while looking to impose new water-use fees.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who was positioning her state as a “national leader in AI research and innovation,” has rolled out plans to make data center operators pay more for energy or supply their own. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signaled his state would look to “slow down new data centers,” unless they add more power generation.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, who supports legislation to expand tax breaks for data centers, has also cautioned the industry’s growth rate is “not sustainable” in her state. She launched an advisory committee to recommend how to protect “affordable power” and other resources while still fostering economic development.

And Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who streamlined permitting to help his state be “all in on AI,” is now calling on his legislature to codify a set of “responsible infrastructure development” standards for data center developers — including hiring locally and bringing their own power generation — as he looks to mitigate voters’ concerns. A survey released Wednesday from Pennsylvania pollster Quinnipiac University showed 68 percent of registered voters would oppose a data center being built in their community, including 81 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans.

Shapiro insisted his new guardrails were “not a shift” when asked last week about the policy rollout. Instead, he cast them as part of his ongoing efforts to balance creating jobs with “holding down energy costs.”

“I've always been for the end-users having to bring their own power or generate new power and pay for it so we're not burdening the local community,” Shapiro told POLITICO on the sidelines of the National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington last week. “We just are more open about it, so anyone thinking about doing business in Pennsylvania now knows what those standards are going to be.”

The proliferation of data centers across battleground states has similarly pushed energy costs to the forefront of key congressional campaigns. Imposing guardrails on the artificial intelligence industry has become a rallying cry for insurgent candidates in primaries and an attack line in competitive districts. Calls are growing on both sides of the aisle for a moratorium on new projects.

Politicians are “beginning to catch up with where their constituents are” in opposing unregulated data center growth, said Mitch Jones, the managing director of policy and litigation for environmental firm Food & Water Watch, which is pushing for a construction pause.

But Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who has sketched out a similar set of rules for new projects in his state, argued that a “binary” approach to data centers was misguided.

“Oftentimes, when people talk about data centers, it's either like what they've done in Northern Virginia, which is kind of like, ‘let them just run wild and do whatever they want to do.’ Or it's like trying to put a ban on them. I don't think either is the right answer,” Moore said in a brief interview at NGA. “I understand how this critical infrastructure is necessary for economic growth. … But industry cannot determine the rules.”

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Democratic attorneys general are bracing for President Donald Trump to interfere in the midterm elections — and war-gaming how to stop him.

The party’s top prosecutors have been strategizing for months about how to counter a series of increasingly extreme scenarios they fear could play out this fall. They have huddled in hotel conference rooms and over Zoom meetings to run tabletop exercises anticipating the president’s moves and choreographing responses.

They’re preparing for the administration to potentially confiscate ballots and voting machines, strip resources from the postal service to disrupt the delivery of mail ballots, and send military members and immigration agents to polling locations to intimidate voters. They’re readying motions for temporary restraining orders to preserve election materials and remove armed forces from voting sites.

And, as the president attempts to assert federal control over elections, seize voter data and relitigate false claims of fraud from 2020, they’re monitoring Trump and his allies’ every word about elections for clues about what his administration could do next.

“[Trump] wants to continue to have his party prevail, seemingly by whatever means necessary,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said. “So we have to be ready for that, sad and tragic as it is.”

The Democratic attorneys general, some of whom battled Trump’s election-subversion tactics in the courts in 2020, have already challenged the president’s efforts to overhaul election administration and access sensitive voter data ahead of a midterm contest that could turn him into a lame duck.

Nineteen of them banded together to sue the administration last spring over Trump’s sweeping executive order targeting voting rules, most of which has since been blocked by courts. When the Department of Justice dispatched election monitors to polling locations in New Jersey and California last November, Bonta deployed his own observers in his state in response.

But the president’s more recent moves have prosecutors ratcheting up their preparations for November, five Democratic attorneys general said in interviews.

Earlier this month, Trump called on Republicans to “nationalize” voting and suggested the federal government should intervene in election operations in swing-states' predominantly blue cities like Atlanta, Detroit and Philadelphia — places that have been central to his election conspiracy theories for years. House Republicans passed one set of voting restrictions and are teeing up another, though the measures are unlikely to clear the Senate. And Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem raised alarms among Democrats when she said her department is working to ensure “that we have the right people voting, electing the right leaders.”

Trump and his allies’ rhetoric is the type of “red-alarm fire that people need to take very seriously,” said Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, who leads the Democratic Attorneys General Association’s election protection working group.

“He will try anything,” Brown said, so “we have to just sort of think creatively about: If you were the president and you were trying to invalidate an election or undermine an election, what are the oddball, ludicrous, unconstitutional theories that you might advance?”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson fired back in a statement accusing Democrats of “plotting to undermine commonsense election integrity efforts supported by a vast majority of Americans” and arguing existing law gives the Department of Justice “full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls.”

“President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered non-citizen voters,” Jackson said. “The President has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to ensure the safety and security of our elections.”

Democratic attorneys general have panned the SAVE Act as an attack on the right to vote and urged Congress not to pass it and other measures Trump is pushing.

They also fear the Trump administration could aim to intimidate legal voters by sending Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations.

ICE chief Todd Lyons said in a congressional hearing earlier this month that there’s “no reason” for ICE officials to be deployed to polling facilities. But MAGA influencer Steve Bannon, a former White House strategist, is encouraging the president to take that step to prevent noncitizens from voting, despite its rare occurrence. He’s also urging Trump to send in troops, further stoking Democrats’ concerns.

When asked about Bannon’s comments during a briefing earlier this month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said while she “can’t guarantee that an ICE agent won’t be around a polling location in November” she hadn’t “heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations,” calling the question "disingenuous."

Democrats aren't reassured.

“If the president said, ‘Look, I want my ICE people to protect American elections … go to all these polling places and stand out in front with guns,’ I think they would do it,” said Attorney General Keith Ellison of Minnesota, where an immigration enforcement surge earlier this year resulted in two deaths. “And I think we all need to be prepared to deal with that problem.”

Several Democratic attorneys general said they’re particularly alarmed after the FBI seized voting records in Fulton County, Georgia, based on a referral from Kurt Olsen, an attorney who worked with Trump to undermine the 2020 election results. They’re now bracing for similar seizures in other places Trump has previously targeted over debunked claims of voter fraud.

Those concerns are heightened in battleground states with contests that could decide control of Congress.

“We recognize that what happened in Fulton County could happen in Detroit. Not because there’s any merit to claims that anything wrong happened in Detroit, but because we know that those claims will be made again,” said Democratic Attorney General Dana Nessel of swing-state Michigan.

“The president and his administration know and understand that Democrats don’t win statewide in Michigan without counting the Detroit vote,” she added. “So of course Trump wants to undermine in people’s minds the integrity of Detroit elections, even though that’s not borne fruit whenever that has been investigated.”

Democrats in states that rely heavily on mail-in ballots are also girding for an assault on the voting system that Trump is trying to eliminate, but that GOP operatives and even some Republicans in Congress support as a way to keep voters engaged in non-presidential years.

They are worried about Trump weaponizing the postal service, either by again blocking funding for the agency or installing allies to slow operations. And they cautioned that his push to discount ballots that are postmarked by Election Day but arrive afterward could disenfranchise voters in states with grace periods. The Supreme Court is due to consider a case on ballot deadlines next month.

Democratic attorneys general, meanwhile, will argue in a lower court next week in a multistate lawsuit seeking to permanently block portions of Trump’s executive order — which includes cutting off mail ballots and requiring documentary proof of citizenship for the national voter registration form — from taking effect.

Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, who is co-leading the lawsuit alongside Bonta, urged his counterparts to “stay nimble.”

Trump “likes to sow chaos because he thinks it’s going to throw people off their game,” Ford said. “But he has met his match when it comes to the Nevada attorney general’s office; he's met his match when it comes to the Democratic attorneys general.”

Elena Schneider contributed to this report.

© Gene J. Puskar/AP

Cinde Warmington launched a repeat bid for governor of New Hampshire on Wednesday, giving Democrats their first major challenger to GOP Gov. Kelly Ayotte in the purple state.

Warmington, a former state executive councilor, ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2024, losing the Democratic nomination to former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig who then went on to lose to Ayotte. She now enters a relatively open Democratic field, with just one other declared candidate.

In a launch video posted to her campaign website, Warmington attacked Ayotte for “making your life more expensive.” She also accused the Republican of not standing up to President Donald Trump’s attempts to open an ICE detention facility in the state.

“I’ll stand up to Trump when he jacks up health care costs and tariffs. I’ll say ‘no’ to ICE’s warehouse. I’ll work for our small businesses and I’ll make sure we don’t have a sales or income tax,” Warmington said in the video. WMUR first reported her launch.

Ayotte, for her part, has clashed with Trump. She has criticized the lack of transparency around the ICE warehouse and forced the resignation of a state official who had been communicating with the Trump administration without alerting the governor. Her refusal to redistrict last year led the White House to weigh putting up a primary challenger against her.

Ayotte spokesperson John Corbett blasted Warmington in a statement, saying the former health care lobbyist “chose to make money off big pharmaceutical companies who hurt Granite Staters, and she is absolutely disqualified from serving as our Governor.”

Democrats are bullish they can block Ayotte from a second term, emboldened by their party’s wins in the off-year elections. But they face an uphill battle in a blue-leaning battleground state that routinely elects Republican governors while sending all-Democratic delegations to Congress.

Recent history is not on Democrats’ side: The party thrice failed to unseat Ayotte’s predecessor, Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. And prognosticators rate the seat as “likely Republican” this year.

Democrats may also face another messy primary just two years after Warmington and Craig waged a bruising battle to be their party’s nominee. For now, just Warmington and Democrat Jon Kiper, who finished a distant third in the 2024 race, have declared their candidacies. But Democratic Portsmouth Mayor Deaglan McEachern has been publicly weighing a bid for governor as recently as this month.

A University of New Hampshire survey from January showed Ayotte leading both men in hypothetical general-election matchups; it did not test her against Warmington. Ayotte notched a 50-percent approval rating in the poll, though 44 percent of likely voters said she did not deserve to be reelected compared to 42 percent who did.

© AP

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is using his book tour and 2026 reelection campaign to further build out a national fundraising network that could prove quite useful in a potential 2028 run.

The governor held a fundraising event over lunch while visiting Massachusetts for his book tour last month, two people familiar with the planning for it confirmed — making it at least the third fundraiser he attended in the last year in the deep-blue state with deep-pocketed donors who have long bankrolled presidential contenders. One of the others was held at the home of Jewish philanthropist and New England Patriots president Jonathan Kraft in April, details of which have not previously been reported. Shapiro attended another on Nantucket, a summer fundraising mecca, in July, according to an attendee and invitations obtained by POLITICO.

They add to an extensive list of networking events for the possible White House aspirant who’s long been a prolific fundraiser within and beyond Pennsylvania.

He amassed $23 million in 2025 with the help of $2.5 million from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg; $1 million from a Soros family PAC, $500,000 from James and Kathryn Murdoch, the left-leaning son and daughter in law of Rupert Murdoch; and over $120,000 from Kraft and his father, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. That’s helped him build a $30 million war chest to unleash this year against his likely GOP opponent, state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, who raised nearly $1.5 million last year and had $1 million in the bank to start 2026.

His book tour side-hustle comes as several of Shapiro’s would-be rivals for the Democratic nomination in 2028 take donor meetings across the country as they navigate their own reelection bids and start laying the groundwork for White House runs.

Shapiro routinely dismisses talk of 2028 in public, keeping a laser focus on his reelection bid and on his efforts to help Democrats down the ballot.

“No one should be looking past these midterms,” the governor recently told reporters in Washington, D.C., who were peppering him with hypotheticals.

Sources say he is just as disciplined behind closed doors: Shapiro has kept his pitch focused on his leadership in purple Pennsylvania and how Democrats should be centering pocketbook issues in the midterms, while declining to engage with questions about his future beyond 2026, according to two people who attended donor events with Shapiro last year.

“The smartest thing Shapiro and other folks on the ballot in 2026 can do right now is say ‘I’m running for reelection right now and I’m in the middle of the fight.’ [It] makes ‘26 a nice little audition for their eventual 2028 runs,” said Alex Hoffman, a Democratic strategist and donor adviser.

His out-of-state networking is already paying off. Shapiro raked in over $700,000 from prominent donors in Massachusetts alone in 2025, including $260,000 from construction magnate John Fish and $50,000 from telecommunications tycoon Robert Hale. He also hauled in cash from Hollywood bigwigs and tech titans, including $100,000 from Sony film executive Tom Rothman and $200,000 from Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen.

But the governor’s expansive donor pool is also drawing scrutiny. Garrity has called on Shapiro to return over $2 million his campaign has taken over the years from billionaire LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, who is referenced repeatedly in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Hoffman gave $500,000 to Shapiro last year. Shapiro also received $50,000 from New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch, who is also mentioned in the Epstein files, as is Robert Kraft. Both Hoffman and Tisch have issued statements distancing themselves from the late convict.

“Stacy Garrity should stop playing politics with the Epstein files. Donald Trump is mentioned in the files over 5,000 times. Is she going to ask him to rescind his endorsement?” Shapiro spokesperson Manuel Bonder said in a statement. Bonder declined comment on the governor’s fundraisers.

He'll need to keep building out that network. Shapiro has benefited from what longtime Pennsylvania Democratic strategist Neil Oxman described as “institutional donors” in the state who’ve given to successive Democratic governors. But of “the thousands of people who raise money nationally, he probably knows a fraction of them. He has some [national] recognition, but he’s not Gavin Newsom. He’s not the Clintons.”

Shapiro also won’t be able to use the gobs of money he’s raised for his state campaign account to fund a run for federal office, leaving him at an initial disadvantage against other potential 2028ers who are already squirreling away millions of dollars into federal leadership committees, super PACs and congressional campaign accounts that can be converted when the time comes.

“That’s why sometimes it’s hard to run for office when you have to run for another office,” Oxman said.

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.

© Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP

A New Hampshire magnate with ties to power players in both parties has appeared in successive batches of the Epstein files, roiling politics in his home state and threatening its two most influential political dynasties.

Documents recently released by the Department of Justice suggest that entrepreneur Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway and other devices, kept in contact with Jeffrey Epstein long after Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor in 2008, with emails indicating he visited the disgraced financier’s Caribbean island in 2013. Kamen has not been accused of wrongdoing and did not respond to requests for comment through his companies Monday.

The recently released files indicate a closer relationship between the two than was previously known. The disclosures have prompted Kamen’s organizations to launch investigations into their ties. And the situation has ratcheted up scrutiny of the New Hampshire politicians who have worked with him, received campaign contributions from him or helped his organizations secure tens of millions in federal funds.

That includes members of the Shaheen and Sununu families, the best-known and most powerful clans in the state’s Democratic and Republican parties. Both have scions running for Congress this year: House candidate Stefany Shaheen, the daughter of retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and former Sen. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.), the son of a former governor, who is seeking to return to the Senate.

They now face Epstein-fueled attacks from their lower-polling rivals.

“Anywhere Epstein pops up these days, it’ll become a campaign issue,” said Ryan Williams, a GOP strategist who has worked with Sununu and his father. “And there are certainly politicians who have worked with Kamen in New Hampshire, taken his money and associated with him. And those who did will have to answer for it.”

Kamen is a New Hampshire institution and local celebrity — often described as a quirky one — in a state that has few big-name figures but exerts a powerful hold on the presidential nominating process. The pioneering inventor and entrepreneur who developed the first portable insulin pump and a wheelchair that can climb stairs, Kamen is also widely credited for driving the transformation of Manchester’s old mill district into a technological and health care hub. He was lauded as a “hero” for helping secure 91,000 pounds of protective equipment for first responders and health care workers at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic when such resources were scarce.

Kamen has donated roughly $90,000 to federal candidates and campaign committees on both sides of the aisle over the past four decades, according to federal campaign finance filings. That includes over $7,000 apiece to Sununu, Sen. Shaheen and Kelly Ayotte, the former senator who’s up for reelection as governor this year. Kamen has not made any federal campaign contributions this election cycle, per federal reports.

He’s hosted a raft of high-profile politicians at his businesses and his Bedford home over the years, from Ayotte to then-President George W. Bush. He traveled to Dubai with Sununu’s younger brother, then-Gov. Chris Sununu, in 2019 during a trip in which the two attended the World Government Summit. Chris Sununu, through Airlines for America, the lobbying firm he now leads, did not respond to a request for comment.

Those ties, once promoted in press releases and splashed across social media, have turned into a political liability after successive document drops showed deeper connections between Kamen and Epstein.

Photos released in December show Kamen socializing with Epstein in a tropical location and riding a Segway with Ghislaine Maxwell, the Epstein associate who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021. Documents released on Jan. 30 showed Kamen made plans to visit Epstein’s Caribbean island in 2013. At the time, assistants sent emails discussing “which flight Dean prefers the girls to be on.” Days later, he wrote to Epstein: “thank you for hosting an incredible visit to [sic] a magical place. It really is almost unbelievable.”

Kamen did not respond to questions from POLITICO about his association with Epstein, including whether he visited Little Saint James. He previously described having “limited interactions” with Epstein in statements to other media outlets and has denied knowledge of his “horrific actions” beyond what he learned from news reports. He told The Boston Globe that Epstein had reached out to him about becoming involved in international development projects but after initial meetings, “it became apparent that his only interest was self-promotion” and “I avoided further meetings.” He did not respond to The Globe’s inquiry about the reference to “the girls.” After the latest tranche of documents was released, he recused himself from board activities of at least four companies he’s involved with as they engage outside law firms to conduct independent investigations into the disclosures.

Williams, the Republican strategist, said “the Epstein episode is the first real blemish that’s marked his reputation in the state, and it’s an extremely hot issue right now.”

EPSTEIN FILES AS A CAMPAIGN CUDGEL

Stefany Shaheen, who is running for New Hampshire’s open House seat and served as chief strategy officer for Kamen’s Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute from September 2018 until last month, is facing intensifying scrutiny over her dealings with Kamen. She has posted photos of her with Kamen on social media over the years, one of the two of them in the cockpit of a plane that was uploaded to LinkedIn seven years ago, and another from a gala for Type 1 Diabetes research last April where she was an honoree. Her campaign said the former was taken during a flight to Washington with others affiliated with ARMI for an American Society Of Mechanical Engineers meeting on June 14, 2018, where Kamen spoke.

She is now facing calls from two of her Democratic primary rivals to publicly condemn Kamen. One of them, Christian Urrutia, has also accused her of potentially helping Kamen craft his statements in response to the files, which she has denied.

“There’s certainly an element of transparency. I think there is a fundamental question of: Do we want our members of Congress and our senators to have these types of relationships?” said Urrutia, who also asked why Sen. Shaheen did not disclose her daughter’s role at ARMI when securing a $1.2 million earmark for the company in 2023. A spokesperson for the senator said that her daughter was paid through non-federal funding sources and that her office was advised by Senate Ethics Committee staff that the request for funding for ARMI did not violate ethics rules.

A Republican running for the seat, state Rep. Brian Cole, has called on the younger Shaheen to drop out: “Until Stefany Shaheen provides full and honest answers about her association with Dean Kamen and ARMI, she should end her campaign,” he said in a statement.

Sununu, who is running to reclaim the Senate seat he lost to Shaheen’s mother in 2008, has faced questions over a possible reference to him in a 2010 email between Epstein and Boris Nikolic, a former Bill Gates adviser. In the email, Epstein emailed Nikolic that “john sununu, has good stories,” but did not provide any additional details. It’s unclear what he meant or whether he was referring to the senator or his father, former governor and White House chief of staff John H. Sununu.

The younger Sununu was a director of operations at Teletrol Systems, one of Kamen’s companies, in the 1990s before he was elected to Congress.

His GOP primary rival, former Sen. Scott Brown, has seized on the email to attack the Sununu family’s “‘insider’ ties” as he attempts to gain traction in a race where the Republican establishment and the president have lined up behind his opponent. Brown said on a local podcast that Sununu “needs to fully explain why” his surname is mentioned in the files. Brown added on X that voters “shouldn’t have to guess who, or which one of their representatives were associated, or what ‘stories’ are being referenced in federal documents.”

The Shaheen and Sununu campaigns have sought to dismiss the criticism from their opponents.

Shaheen said in a statement that she “never advised Dean Kamen on these matters” and that the “extent of my knowledge” about his and Epstein’s relationship is what has been publicly reported. Harrell Kirstein, a spokesperson for her campaign, dismissed the criticism as “desperate political attacks — flat out lies — that ignore basic facts.”

Both Shaheens said they supported outside investigations of Kamen.

Sen. Shaheen said in a statement that Kamen “was right to step back” from his organizations, and that it was appropriate for them “to conduct independent reviews to fully understand his connection to Epstein and take any action merited by the findings of those reviews.”

Stefany Shaheen is the polling leader in the Democratic primary for New Hampshire’s blue-leaning 1st Congressional District, a position operatives in both parties attribute in large part to name recognition. A University of New Hampshire survey from January showed her with 33 percent support, and no other candidate with more than 10 percent, with 39 percent of likely primary voters undecided.

Sununu led Brown by 23 percentage points in the same poll, with 26 percent of likely GOP primary voters undecided. They both trail Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas in hypothetical general-election matchups.

Mike Schrimpf, a spokesperson for Sununu’s campaign, said in a statement that “John had no knowledge whatsoever of any relationship between Dean Kamen and Epstein” and believes the latter “was a despicable human being.” Neither Sununu or his father “have ever met or communicated in any way with Boris Nikolic, Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.”

He went on to attack Shaheen and Pappas — who, along with other members of the all-Democratic congressional delegation, had touted federal funding for ARMI before the Kamen scandal broke — over their connections to the entrepreneur: “Unlike Chris Pappas who celebrated federal funding for Kamen's ARMI, or Stefany Shaheen who worked for him last week, John never advocated or requested funding for any of Kamen's ventures,” Schrimpf said.

Gates MacPherson, a spokesperson for Pappas’ campaign, said in a statement that the congressman “believes Dean Kamen’s relationship with Epstein is deeply troubling and must be independently investigated, and all federal contractors and grant awardees should be held to the highest possible standards, including ARMI and FIRST.”

In the governor’s race, Democrats are preparing to attack Ayotte over Kamen’s past contributions to her campaigns and his appearance in an ad for her 2016 Senate reelection campaign. Ayotte has yet to draw a serious opponent in her bid for a second term. Representatives for the governor did not respond to an email to her official and campaign inboxes seeking comment.

© AP

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has made his ability to navigate a sharply divided Legislature a core part of his national sales pitch. But as 2028 approaches, what he really wants is a Democratic trifecta in Harrisburg.

Shapiro helped Democrats flip the state House in 2022 when he won the governor’s mansion. But the Republican-controlled Senate has been his Achilles' heel since, stymieing his attempts to pass core Democratic policies like raising one of the lowest state minimum wages in the country. And the split Legislature left Shapiro mired in a monthslong budget standoff last year that held up billions of dollars in state funding for counties, schools and nonprofits.

Now, Shapiro is leading the charge to help Democrats wrest back the chamber from Republican control by a slim 27-23 majority and expand their single-seat majority in the House — part of an aggressive down-ballot push the governor is undertaking alongside his own reelection bid.

Shapiro has repeatedly voiced his desire to win unified control of the commonwealth both in private conversations with donors and in public. He’s touted what he could do with it — outlining a policy agenda rooted in increasing affordability that includes raising the state’s minimum wage and boosting energy production, including through renewables.

When asked his second-term goals and whether he needs unified Democratic control to achieve them, the governor said his record proves “I can bring the Republicans and Democrats together to get stuff done.”

“There are some things, though, that the Republican Senate has blocked me on that I would like us to be able to get done,” he said at an event in Washington last week. “And certainly, having a trifecta would allow me to do that.”

During his state budget address Tuesday, Shapiro unloaded on Senate Republicans who’ve stood in the way of his priorities, saying they’ve “refused to act” on raising wages and needling them to “stop making excuses” on advancing his energy plans. His voice ringing with emotion, he accused them of “cowering to … special interests” and “tying justice for abused kids to your pet political projects” over stalling enhanced protections for sexual abuse victims.

Shapiro’s effort to secure unified control of Harrisburg will serve as a critical test of his coattails in the nation’s largest swing state. And it’s a prerequisite for him to be able to score some big-ticket liberal policy wins he can brag about on a 2028 presidential primary stage that could be jam-packed with governors who already have their own achievements to tout.

“If he can add to the appeal he already has with things like a higher minimum wage, with other pieces of the puzzle that state government can do to make things more affordable, it just gives his candidacy and his message that extra spark that is missing right now,” said longtime Democratic strategist Pete Giangreco, who worked on Barack Obama’s and Amy Klobuchar’s presidential campaigns but is not working for any likely 2028 contenders.

But Pennsylvania Democrats haven’t had a trifecta in three decades. And they face a narrow path to achieving it even in a year when national Democrats are bullish on a blue wave.

Just half the Pennsylvania Senate is on the ballot this year, and operatives on both sides say the battlefield is even smaller, pointing to a handful of districts in the Philadelphia suburbs through the Lehigh Valley and more rural swaths of the state. Prognosticators say the Pennsylvania Senate “leans Republican.”

“If you look at the Republican map on who needs to be defeated, it’s a lot of more rural, red areas,” said Pennsylvania-based GOP consultant Josh Novotney. “Nothing’s impossible in such a bad year for Republicans. But it’s going to be tough.”

But Keystone State Democrats are emboldened by last year’s elections. The party swept judicial retention races for the state’s highest court and flipped a state Senate seat during a special election in a district Democrats said President Donald Trump carried by 15 percentage points in 2024. They’re encouraged by Democratic wins and overperformances across the country over the past year.

And, top Democrats say, they have Shapiro.

The governor remains highly popular, with an approval rating that’s cracked 60 percent in some surveys. He’s a fundraising juggernaut who has amassed a $30 million war chest to unload against likely GOP rival Stacy Garrity, the state treasurer, who raised just a fraction of that amount.

Democrats rode to power in the Pennsylvania House in 2022 on what one top lawmaker described as “Shapiro’s landslide coattails,” and they credit the governor for helping them hold their razor-thin majority in 2024, even as Trump won Pennsylvania and Democrats lost every statewide election.

“He is a huge part of the reason we have the majority. He’s a huge part of the reason that we were able to hold the majority in 2024,” said state Rep. Mike Schlossberg, the House majority whip. “I have no doubt he will lean in very, very heavily to making sure that we not only expand our majority in the House, but hopefully take control of the Senate — something that’s realistically in play for the first time probably in my entire career.”

Shapiro poured $1.25 million into the Pennsylvania House Democrats’ campaign committee in 2024 and helped raise another $1 million toward defending their majority that year. He also donated $250,000 to state Senate Democrats’ campaign committee. And he cut ads and hit the campaign trail in key legislative districts.

Last year, Shapiro gave the state party $250,000 to fund infrastructure improvements heading into the midterms, with a promise of more to come. His political team is in “regular communication” with Pennsylvania Democrats’ campaign arms, said state Sen. Vincent Hughes, a Philadelphia Democrat who chairs the party’s Senate campaign committee.

The governor’s political operation declined to share an estimate of how much Shapiro plans to spend down-ticket this year, or where he plans to campaign. Manuel Bonder, a spokesperson for Shapiro, said the governor “has a long track record of working to elect Democrats up and down the ballot” and will “continue to focus on” that alongside his reelection bid.

Shapiro and his allies have repeatedly lamented Republican roadblocks to an agenda that includes raising wages, boosting housing and energy production and securing sustainable funding for public transportation. House Speaker Joanna McClinton, a Philadelphia Democrat, accused the GOP of “political gamesmanship” in an interview, claiming the opposition is trying to “keep down the productivity” to hurt Shapiro and state Democrats in 2026 and beyond.

Senate Republican leaders signaled more friction to come as they fired back on several fronts after Shapiro’s speech Tuesday, skewering his plan to overhaul the state’s energy sector, accusing him of being “more interested in the political talking point” on hiking wages to $15 an hour (while indicating they’re open to compromise) and saying there are “different paths” to helping victims of abuse.

As 2028 looms, Democratic legislative leaders and political strategists acknowledged the potential political benefit of a trifecta for Shapiro, who could get a boost from both turning a purple state blue and passing policies that could pad a potential presidential platform.

“If he can help us win the trifecta, and then use it to actually govern and get good results — or as he likes to say, ‘get shit done’ — that looks really good at the national level,” Schlossberg said.

© Matt Rourke/AP

Sen. Tina Smith is endorsing Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan as her successor over Rep. Angie Craig, taking sides in a hotly contested primary to fill Smith’s Senate seat that’s been roiled in recent weeks by the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement efforts.

“Today, 3,000 federal agents are terrorizing our communities,” Smith said in a video announcing her pick that was shared first with POLITICO. “I know that right now there is no one that I trust more to stand with Minnesota than Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan.”

Flanagan, in the video, called it an “honor” to have the retiring senator’s endorsement and pledged to “continue in her footsteps.”

“We’re going to push back against the status quo and send a progressive fighter to continue representing us in Washington, D.C.,” Flanagan said.

Smith’s endorsement comes a day before the state’s Democratic and Republican precinct caucuses, the first step in each party’s formal endorsement process.

In selecting Flanagan, Smith is elevating a fellow lieutenant governor and progressive over Craig, a moderate, for the seat she has held since 2018. Smith is the eighth sitting senator to endorse Flanagan, who also has the backing of Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other members of the so-called Fight Club of progressive senators of which they are all a part. Former Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who held the seat before Smith, also endorsed Flanagan.

Craig has some high-profile endorsements of her own, with five senators including Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) in her corner, as well as former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

Smith's decision comes against the backdrop of deadly incidents involving federal agents enforcing President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown in the state that have opened new fissures in the Senate primary. While both candidates have called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s impeachment, Flanagan has attacked Craig for taking “pro-Trump” immigration votes last year, while Craig has countered that her rival is being “disingenuous” about the content and context of the measures.

Antoine Givens, a spokesperson for Craig’s campaign, said in a statement that Craig “is the only candidate who has proven she can both win tough, competitive races against a Republican and go toe-to-toe with the Trump administration.”

“From voting to impeach Donald Trump twice and now taking on Kristi Noem and ICE, to writing the law that capped the cost of insulin at $35 for seniors and banning members of Congress from trading stocks, Angie Craig has shown she’s the fighter Minnesotans need to hold the powerful accountable,” Givens said.

Nonpartisan public polling in the race has been scant. Polling conducted in the past month for Flanagan’s team, as well as a separate survey commissioned by a pro-Flanagan group, shows the lieutenant governor with a double-digit lead over Craig. A poll commissioned by Craig’s campaign showed the race within the margin of error.

Craig has built a fundraising advantage in the race, raising $2 million in the fourth quarter of 2025 and starting the election year with $3.7 million in cash on hand. Flanagan, meanwhile, raised roughly $1 million in that timeframe and ended the year with $810,646 in the bank.

© Flanagan campaign

President Donald Trump on Sunday endorsed former Sen. John E. Sununu in New Hampshire’s open Senate race, boosting a longtime critic over one of his former ambassadors, Scott Brown.

Trump hailed Sununu, who Republicans see as their best chance to flip the blue Senate seat, as an “America First Patriot” in a Truth Social post Sunday afternoon. And Trump said Sununu will “work tirelessly to advance our America First Agenda.”

“John E. Sununu has my Complete and Total Endorsement — HE WILL NOT LET YOU DOWN. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN — ELECT JOHN E. SUNUNU,” he posted.

Sununu, a moderate who has opposed Trump across his presidential runs, thanked him in a statement and quickly pivoted to talking about his priorities for New Hampshire.

“I want to thank the President for his support and thank the thousands of Granite Staters who are supporting me,” Sununu said. “This campaign has and always will be about standing up for New Hampshire — every single day.”

Trump’s endorsement further tips the scales in an already pitched GOP primary between Sununu and Brown, who represented Massachusetts in the Senate before moving to New Hampshire and running unsuccessfully for Senate there in 2014. He served as Trump’s ambassador to New Zealand and Samoa in his first term, and has been presenting himself as the more Trump-aligned candidate as he courts the MAGA base.

Brown vowed to fight on. And he took a veiled shot at Sununu, accusing him of not being sufficiently dedicated to the MAGA movement.

“I am running to ensure our America First agenda is led by someone who views this mission not as a career path, but as a continuation of a lifelong commitment to service,” Brown said in a post on X. “Let’s keep working.”

The two are competing to take on Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas for the seat being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Pappas issued a simple response to Trump’s endorsement of Sununu: “I’m Chris Pappas, and I approve this message,” he wrote on X. His campaign manager, Rachel Petri, said in a statement that Trump’s endorsement “confirms” that Sununu “will sell out Granite Staters to advance his political career.”

Trump’s support for Sununu once would have seemed unfathomable. The scion of a moderate New Hampshire Republican dynasty, Sununu served as a national co-chair of former Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s 2016 presidential campaign and joined his family in backing former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley for president against Trump in the 2024 GOP primary.

Ahead of New Hampshire’s 2024 presidential primary, Sununu penned an op-ed lambasting Trump as a “loser.” (Trump went on to win by 11 points). And he later derided Trump’s 2020 election conspiracies as “completely inappropriate.”

Republicans initially were bullish about flipping an open seat in purple New Hampshire that’s already changed hands between parties twice this century — Sununu defeated Shaheen to win the seat in 2002, then lost it to her in 2008 — and coalesced quickly behind the moderate Republican as their best option against Pappas. Sununu received instant backing from the GOP’s Senate campaign arm upon his launch last October and has wracked up endorsements from the majority of Republican senators. He’s also won support from Republican leaders in New Hampshire — all of which Trump noted in his Truth Social post Sunday.

Trump also initially supported Sununu's younger brother, former Gov. Chris Sununu, running for the Senate seat. Chris Sununu, also a vocal Trump critic, declined to launch a bid, prompting GOP interest in his brother.

But some in Trump’s Granite State MAGA base quickly rejected his endorsement of Sununu, calling it a “slap in the face to grassroots supporters” long loyal to the president.

“The Sununu family openly mocked, degraded, and worked against the America First movement, the President himself, and the policies that energized New Hampshire voters,” a group of MAGA activists wrote on X. “We will continue and intensify our campaign opposition to the Sununu operation.”

Sununu holds a wide lead over Brown in polling of the GOP primary. The latest, a University of New Hampshire online survey of likely primary voters from mid-January, showed Sununu up 48 percent to 25 percent with 26 percent of likely voters undecided. But Pappas is ahead of both Republicans in hypothetical general-election matchups, leading Sununu by 5 percentage points and Brown by 10 percentage points in the UNH poll. The survey of 967 likely GOP primary voters had a margin of error of +/-3.2 percent.

Pappas also outraised both Republicans, bringing in $2.3 million last quarter and amassing a $3.2 million war chest heading into the year. Sununu hauled in $1.3 million and had $1.1 million in cash on hand in his primary campaign account while Brown raised $347,000 through his main account and had $907,000 in the bank.

© Jim Cole/AP

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on Thursday declined to say whether he would support Sen. John Fetterman if he runs for reelection in 2028, the latest twist in a fraught relationship between Pennnsylvania’s two most prominent Democrats.

“John will decide if he’s going to run for reelection. I appreciate his service,” Shapiro said before quickly pivoting, when asked whether Fetterman is “someone that you admire and would support for reelection” at a Christian Science Monitor press event in Washington.

Asked point-blank whether he liked Fetterman, Shapiro replied: “Of course. And we all work together to do good things for the people of Pennsylvania.”

Fetterman has not yet said whether he will seek reelection in 2028. But progressives are already plotting a primary challenge to him over his centrist congressional voting record that’s seen him cross party lines to support some of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet picks, give full-throated support for Israel and repeatedly buck Democrats during shutdown fights.

The relationship between the top Pennsylvania Democrats and stylistic opposites has long been strained, though Fetterman has been much more public about his disdain for Shapiro than the other direction.

Fetterman, in his 2025 memoir, criticized Shapiro for acting out of “political ambition” and wrote that he was caught on a hot mic calling Shapiro a “fucking asshole” during a Zoom meeting while serving together on the state’s pardon board. Fetterman wrote he wished Shapiro the best — but claimed the two “no longer speak.”

Shapiro refuted that Thursday, saying “yes” the two are on speaking terms, adding that they were in a meeting together with Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy “a few weeks ago … working on an important issue in Pennsylvania.”

Shapiro makes just two mentions of Fetterman in his own memoir, “Where We Keep the Light: Stories from a Life of Service,” which was released this week — both just passing mentions of the two being at the same political events. He notes the two spoke backstage at an Erie Democratic dinner days before Fetterman’s stroke.

A representative for Fetterman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

© AP

A number of Republican mayors are condemning the Trump administration’s hardline immigration enforcement tactics in Minnesota, as they call on the president to pull back from Minneapolis and worry their cities might be next.

“It’s roiling the country,” Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt told POLITICO. “We're all sort of feeling the angst of our residents and the fear that our city will be next and that chaos is going to inevitably creep across the entire country.”

Fresno, California, Mayor Jerry Dyer said in an interview that “too much damage has been done” with the crackdown and “the trust in communities has been lost.”

And Burnsville, Minnesota, Mayor Elizabeth Kautz, warned that the agency’s current tactics meant “our cities are no longer safe.”

The remarks from the trio of moderate-leaning GOP mayors who have broken with Trump in the past came at the annual gathering of the nonpartisan U.S. Conference of Mayors, held blocks from the White House. Holt chairs the conference.

The Republican leaders’ calls for Trump to deescalate after the fatal shootings of two Minnesotans by federal agents show the GOP’s deepening fissures over the administration’s aggressive immigration agenda, even as the mayors and Republicans broadly offered support for the president’s overall goal. And their alarm comes as ICE ramps up operations in other states, including Arizona and Maine.

The escalating immigration enforcement crackdown hung over the annual gathering, dominating conversations among leaders who are scrambling to prepare their cities for ICE sweeps and allay anxious and outraged residents.

Dyer on Wednesday said federal agents need to receive more training in deescalation tactics — a practice that the Fresno mayor, who served in law enforcement for 40 years, including 18 as the city's police chief, said is integral for local police departments. He also said federal agencies should only work in communities where they have the cooperation of local leaders.

“I don't believe that agencies should be deployed into cities against the will of local government and without the cooperation of local law enforcement,” Dyer said. “That’s a recipe for disaster, and I believe that's somewhat of what we're seeing today.”

And he urged other Republicans to speak out against federal immigration agents’ recent tactics.

“The Republican Party in general cannot rubber-stamp everything a party does or this administration does,” Dyer said. “Too many people today are turning a blind eye when they should be speaking out in opposition.”

It wasn’t just big-city GOP mayors who were concerned with the administration’s response: Kautz’s town of 64,000 people is in Minneapolis’ south suburbs.

Kautz, who said she now carries her passport in public, called for ICE to use judicial warrants, arguing that while violent criminals need to be off the street, it needs to be done “through proper channels, the rule of law, due process [and rooted] in the Constitution.” In Minnesota, “that is not our experience.”

A new POLITICO poll found that more than 1 in 3 Trump voters said that while they support the goals of his immigration agenda, they disapprove of the way he is implementing it.

Holt, who runs one of the most conservative large cities in the U.S. but backed Kamala Harris over Trump in 2024, warned that Trump’s interior enforcement was a failure.

“The president can feel, generally, that his policies at the border have been largely supported by a majority of Americans,” Holt said. “But what he's doing inside the border seems to be not working.”

© Kevin Wolf

House Democrats voted overwhelmingly Thursday to block additional funding for ICE, a remarkable shift from when dozens of them voted to expand the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement authority just one year ago — and a sign of how quickly the political ground has moved since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Just seven Democrats voted for the Homeland Security spending bill that included billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi of New York, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington and Don Davis of North Carolina. All represent tough terrain — Trump carried all of their districts but Gillen’s, which he lost by just over one point.

Other Democrats, incensed by an ICE agent’s shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, voted against the bill — including many who voted exactly one year ago to pass the Laken Riley Act that allows for the detention of undocumented immigrants accused of certain crimes.

One of them, Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), a top GOP target in the midterms from a district Trump narrowly carried in 2024, argued this vote was different.

“What we have seen time and again is ICE has blatantly violated our Constitution and our law, whether you’re talking about the shooting of a young mother to sending a five year old thousands of miles away to entice his father to turn himself in — this type of shit is not American,” Lee said in an interview Thursday. “ICE has plenty of money … I can’t in good conscience give them any more money until we get some type of guardrails.”

Even the Democrats who voted for the funding were sharply critical of ICE.

“I hate what ICE is doing in my district and across the country. It's atrocious. It's appalling. We should find ways to defund those operations in a surgical way,” Gonzalez said in a brief interview, adding that he supported the bill because it also included funding for Coast Guard and FEMA operations. “But voting no, just to make a statement, could have its own repercussions.”

The House passed the DHS funding bill 220 to 207.

Democrats’ near-united stand against the bill comes amid building opposition to Trump’s mass deportation campaign. A 49 percent plurality of voters in a new POLITICO poll conducted Jan. 16 to 19 said the effort — including Trump’s widespread deployment of ICE agents across the U.S. — is too aggressive.

“The shift is dramatic. And I think the reason for the shift is: Last year the debate in the country was about getting control of the borders and out-of-control immigration. Now the entire situation is about ICE itself and its behavior,” Mark Longabaugh, a veteran Democratic strategist, said of the party’s recalibration on immigration.

Amid the growing public furor over ICE’s hardline tactics, congressional Democrats had demanded that any new Homeland Security funding come with more guardrails.

The bill most of them voted against Thursday funds ICE at $10 billion through the rest of the fiscal year that ends in September, while cutting funding for removal and enforcement operations by $115 million and Border Patrol funding by $1.8 billion. It also included some Democratic demands: decreasing the number of detention beds by 5,500, providing $20 million each for body cameras for agents and independent oversight of DHS detention facilities, and directing the department to give officers more training on diffusing conflict while interacting with the public.

It does not include other items Democrats pushed for, however, such as banning agents from wearing masks during operations, requiring judicial warrants, preventing DHS from detaining and deporting U.S. citizens and blocking the department from using other agencies’ personnel for immigration enforcement.

The Democrats who voted in favor of the funding bill argued it was preferable to the alternative — giving Trump what Cuellar described as a “blank check” to carry out his hardline immigration agenda “virtually unchecked.”

And some expressed concerns about ramifications for their districts if other agencies who receive their funding through DHS were cut off. Davis warned of the potential consequences of lapsed FEMA and Coast Guard funding in his home state of North Carolina that has been battered by storms and floods in recent years.

“Obviously we should have the honest conversations about warrants. We should have the honest conversations about taking off the masks,” Davis said Thursday. But “if we can't consistently predict when disasters are coming our way, then we're leaving populations of people vulnerable.”

Erin Doherty and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

© AP

Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he wants to institute a mandatory retirement age of 75 for the president and across branches of government, a pipe dream of a call from the potential White House hopeful that would bar him from serving a second term as president.

“You’re 75 years old: done,” the former Chicago mayor and ambassador to Japan said Wednesday at a Center for American Progress event. “And that would be in the legislative branch, it’d be in the executive branch — including the Cabinet — and it’d be also in the Supreme Court, and all the federal courts.”

Emanuel, who is 66, would be 69 when sworn into office if he runs for and wins the 2028 presidential contest. He would be 73 at the start of his second term, and would, by his own standard, be unable to serve all four years. He acknowledged this when pressed by POLITICO at a Christian Science Monitor roundtable Wednesday afternoon.

“I know where I am in my age. Of course it would apply to me,” Emanuel said. “You can’t say ‘here’s what I want to do to change Washington, one of the things I want to do’ — but I get an exemption because I bought it beforehand.’”

His standard would make Donald Trump, 79, ineligible to continue serving as president. And it would have barred Joe Biden, under whom Emanuel served as ambassador to Japan, from serving his single term. It would also impact the 17 senators and 45 members of the House who are currently 75 or older.

“You can’t serve in the armed forces, you can’t serve in private sector jobs” at 75, Emanuel said. “Go work on your golf swing, it’s not that good to begin with.”

Emanuel is reigniting a debate that raged throughout the last presidential election as Biden, then 81, and Trump, then 78, each sought a second term — and as questions about Biden’s mental and physical stamina crescendoed. And it’s simmered for years on Capitol Hill as lawmakers confront mental decline and even death within their ranks.

Age limits are popular with voters who have balked in recent years at the advancing ages of the nation’s presidential contenders, lawmakers and Supreme Court justices. Roughly two-thirds of Americans support age limits for federal elected officials and the Supreme Court, polls show.

Emanuel, a former representative, said he would push for legislation to set the limit rather than attempt a constitutional amendment. (The Constitution sets a minimum age for members of Congress but not a maximum, and establishes no limits for the Supreme Court.) It’s not clear whether that legislation itself would be constitutional — and could be a tough sell in a Congress where the median age for senators is 64.

Emanuel framed the age limit as part of a broader call for “comprehensive ethics, lobbying [and] anti-corruption reform” across the federal government that he said should include a crackdown on lawmakers and judges taking gifts and stock trading. The veteran Democratic strategist said his party should be hammering that message as part of a midterms platform that also includes raising the minimum wage and instituting a bill of rights for ratepayers.

“You have a president of the United States, in my view, that has expanded, deepened the swamp. Our job is to drain the swamp as Democrats,” Emanuel said, turning Trump’s trademark phrase against him. “There’s not a day that goes by that you don’t read a story about either his family, [Commerce Secretary Howard] Lutnick’s family or [Special Envoy Steve] Witkoff’s family making money.”

Emanuel’s choice of 75 may have been influenced by his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, a former White House adviser and oncologist who wrote in 2014 that he did not want to live past 75. In that piece, he wrote that his view “drives my brothers crazy.”

© AP