Democrats are getting ready to push deeper into Republican-held turf next November.

Emboldened by the special elections last Tuesday, the GOP’s adversaries are sensing opportunity. Three buzzy Senate candidates announced bids this week — the same week that Democratic turnout powered them to a decisive win in the swing state of Wisconsin and two long-shot Democrats overperformed in a pair of deep-red Florida districts. Now, party recruiters are reporting an uptick in interest from candidates in tough-to-win territory.

“This puts a lot more on the field. That puts Democrats on offense. That is us saying — if you’re in a Trump plus-15 district, we’re playing there,” said Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), a co-chair tasked with recruitment for the party campaign arm. “We’re seeing right now a lot of interest from people all over the country in stepping up for their country to run for office.”

In Iowa, two state lawmakers are considering runs against Rep. Zach Nunn in a district sure to be impacted by tariffs. Two prospective candidates in Pennsylvania and Michigan lost or left jobs thanks to the Trump administration, giving them a powerful story on the campaign trail. A pair of former representatives are considering comeback bids for battleground districts in the Rust Belt.

And Democrats think at least two districts in Virginia, held by GOP Reps. Rob Wittman and Jen Kiggans, are increasingly in play thanks to backlash to Elon Musk’s government cost-cutting frenzy — both have significant military populations. A possible top recruit is emerging: Pamela Northam, the former first lady of Virginia, has been approached to run for Kiggans' seat in the Hampton Roads area, according to two people familiar with those efforts, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

All this comes amid a punishing week for Republicans that saw the stock market crater after President Donald Trump rolled out tariffs and as his officials continue to face tough questions on the “Signalgate” debacle. Democrats are sensing an opening, and hoping to extend the momentum by recruiting candidates who might be newly energized to run.

“People are upset. If you can channel that, use it for the right energy, run a strong campaign, get out there to the people — I think you can win here in Iowa,” said J.D. Scholten, a Democrat who had been leaning against challenging Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) until Tuesday’s elections. Now, he said, he’s 50-50 on another run in a state where a Democrat hasn’t held a Senate seat since 2015.

House Democratic operatives have also reported an increasing openness from prospective Midwest candidates in Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin over the past few weeks. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee notes that based on Tuesday’s margins in Florida there are roughly 40 additional offensive targets that House Democrats could go after in the midterms.

House Majority PAC, Democrats’ top outside group focused on congressional races, reported “a tremendous amount of interest and enthusiasm from potential candidates across the country” in the days leading up to and after Tuesday.

“People have been receptive in the last 48 hours,” said one House Democratic recruiter, who has spoken to candidates in seats as red as R+7 since the special elections.

Meanwhile, previously dejected Democrats are starting to think seriously about mounting campaigns to win the handful of seats required to recapture the House majority.

Among them are former Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), who is weighing a bid for elected office, possibly for the seat currently held by Republican Rep. John James, and Matt Cartwright, another former Democratic House member who is deciding whether to run again for his swing district in northeastern Pennsylvania.

Cartwright called Wisconsin's election results "very heartening" and said House Republicans made a grave political error when they voted for a budget blueprint that Democrats argue laid the groundwork for cuts to Medicaid. His former opponent, Rep. Rob Bresnahan, was one of them. Cartwright said 200,000 people in his old district depend on the program.

At least two possible candidates have first-hand experience with the upheaval caused by the Trump administration.

Ryan Crosswell, a former federal prosecutor who stepped down after the Department of Justice moved to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, is considering running against freshman Rep. Ryan Mackenzie in Pennsylvania, according to a person familiar with his thinking. Crosswell declined to comment.

Andrew Lennox, a veteran who briefly lost his job at Veterans Affairs’ hospital in Ann Arbor, thanks to Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, is mulling a run for GOP Rep. Tom Barrett's seat in Michigan. Lennox, a guest of Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) at Trump's address to Congress, said the elections on Tuesday and Sen. Cory Booker’s record-breaking speech left him inspired.

“People actually beat billionaires,” he said. “Seeing that happen, that was a breath of fresh air. And maybe there is some hope out there that this isn't over."

State Sen. Sarah Anthony is another potential candidate to take on Barrett. And in Des Moines, state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, an ordained minister, and state Rep. Jennifer Konfrst are both considering runs against Nunn, according to two people familiar with their thinking.

Bob Harvie, a county commissioner in the Philadelphia suburbs, launched a bid against Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) this week after having conversations with the DCCC, according to a person familiar with the communications.

And while Susan Wild, a former Democratic House member who represented a swing district in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, told POLITICO she is not running in 2026, she is working hard "to make sure we have a really solid Democratic nominee" for her old seat.

"It's got to make people more interested," she said of this week's election results, adding that Trump's tariffs and other factors are also making the political environment more favorable to Democrats. “People who are contemplating running are saying, ‘You know, I think even these tough districts we could flip.’”

However, she cautioned Democrats not to overreach. She said Republican-plus-10 districts are difficult, and the party shouldn't pursue them except in special cases.

"If they get ahead of themselves, if they get cocky about this, then the frontliners are gonna be really hurting," she said, referring to the party’s vulnerable House incumbents.

In New Jersey, for example, Democrats would love to oust Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a former Democrat who switched his affiliation in 2019, but not at the expense of easier targets.

Michael Suleiman, chair of the Atlantic County Democrats, acknowledged that the district "could be in play if we had a strong candidate." But he cautioned that the top two priorities for New Jersey Democrats in 2026 are to protect freshman Democratic Rep. Nellie Pou and oust GOP Rep. Tom Kean Jr., both sitting in districts that Trump won by a little more than 1 percentage point. By contrast, he carried Van Drew’s district by nearly 13 percentage points.

And Democrats are still sizing up the impact of a shift among minority voters toward Trump in the 2024 election. Latino-heavy districts in particular moved to the right at the presidential level even as their voters picked Democratic congressional candidates last fall. Democrats are betting that shift was Trump-centric, but the GOP believes they will make even more inroads with Latinos down-ballot.

“Democrats are flailing with no vision, no leader, no message. This is just the latest Hail Mary from a party in freefall,” said Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for the House GOP campaign arm. “While they chase fantasies, we’ll keep exposing them for being out of touch and crush them again in 2026.”

But Democrats involved in flipping the House in the 2018 wave recalled that strong candidates in tough-to-win seats were a crucial part of their recipe for success. Formidable Democratic nominees like Kendra Horn in Oklahoma, Joe Cunningham in South Carolina and Ben McAdams in Utah were able to parlay a favorable political environment into wins in deep-red districts.

Veterans of that cycle said it pays dividends to recruit in longshot seats.

"I'd go as deep as R-plus-10, at least,” said Meredith Kelly, the top spokesperson for the DCCC during the 2018 cycle. “Put the surfboards in the water, you never know what's going to come."

Madison Fernandez and Elena Schneider contributed to this report.

© AP

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

Rod Blagojevich has a new job: representing the interests of an ultranationalist politician known as the “Bosnian Bear" who has ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The former Illinois governor, who was pardoned in February by President Donald Trump, has agreed to lobby on behalf of the Republic of Srpska, a Serb-majority territory in Bosnia and Herzegovina long mired in the bitter ethnic tensions of the region.

RRB Strategies, Blagojevich’s firm, “will provide communications and public affairs support on behalf of the Republic of Srpska,” according to the registration statement he was required to file under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is held together by the Dayton Accords, a 1995 agreement that ended the Bosnian War and unified the country. Blagojevich told POLITICO on Wednesday that he hopes to “use whatever ability I have to persuade the decision-makers that we need to take another look at the Dayton Agreement and bring it in line with the realities of today.”

As he begins the role, Blagojevich is seeking to cast himself as one in a long line of populist leaders thwarted by “unelected bureaucrats who have exceeded their constitutional power,” from Trump to Marine Le Pen in France and Milorad Dodik, Srpska’s president

“I believe the weaponization that's going on in Europe right now by the European Union against certain populist political leaders they don't like started with me as a left of center Democratic governor in Illinois,” Blagojevich said. “I just know this. And then they took it to the next level and did it to President Trump.”

Dodik has long pushed for the Republic of Srpska, to secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina and join nearby Serbia. In February, he was sentenced to a year in prison for defying the country’s Constitutional Court. Dubbed "the Bosnian Bear," for his physique and crude antics, Dodik has since fled to Moscow.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March condemned Dodik for “undermining Bosnia and Herzegovina's institutions and threatening its security and stability” in a post on X.

Blagojevich was pardoned by Trump in February after being convicted in 2011 on charges of extortion and for trying to sell or trade the appointment of the Senate seat that had been held by Barack Obama. Acquainted from their days on The Celebrity Apprentice, Trump commuted Blagojevich’s sentence in 2020.

Trump weighed tapping Blagojevich to serve as U.S. ambassador to Serbia before picking former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for the post.

Blagojevich, whose parents were Serbian, touted to POLITICO his long experience working in Balkan politics. As a Democratic House representative in 1999, he traveled to Belgrade with the Rev. Jesse Jackson to clinch a deal that freed three American prisoners of war.

“I believe the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Srpska can be bastions of Judea-Christian values in the Balkans just like Israel is in the Middle East,” he said. “And I'd like to be able to play a role in that and am fortunate to have been brought on and be hired to do just that.”

© Charles Rex Arbogast/AP

After Tuesday night’s elections, Republicans are starting to worry that the shock and awe of President Donald Trump's second term will haunt them in the 2026 midterms.

Inside the GOP, there is a growing sense that the party should get back to basics and focus on the pocketbook issues that many voters sent them to Washington to address. There's internal disagreement about the effects of Trump's new tariffs announced on Wednesday. Some say they will ultimately lead to reviving American manufacturing — but even many of the president's allies fear they could drive up prices and potentially crash the economy.

The Republican anxiety comes in the wake of a landslide defeat in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race and double-digit underperformance in two Florida special elections. Both reverberated across the party on Wednesday, as some Republican elected officials and strategists called for Trump and his billionaire adviser Elon Musk to adopt a more cautious approach to governing.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), one of the most vulnerable GOP senators facing reelection next year, said in an interview that Republicans must be "smart and measured," otherwise they risk a major backlash at the polls. Tillis pointed to the early opposition against then-President Barack Obama, which led to a 2010 wave election where Democrats lost a number of seats in the House, Senate and state legislatures, including the North Carolina House, where Tillis was subsequently elected speaker by the new GOP majority.

"What we don't want to do is overreach," said Tillis. "We've got to be careful not to do the same thing. And I think that these elections are going to be proxies, or almost like weather devices for figuring out what kind of storm we're going to be up against next year."

Brian Reisinger, a former GOP strategist and rural policy expert, said Republicans running in battleground races next year must pay attention to Tuesday’s disappointing results and zero in on bread-and-butter issues.

“This is as clear a sign as you're going to get — ringing like a bell — that they have to talk about addressing economic frustration and they have to show they have a plan for it,” he said. “There’s a lot of support in these communities for getting tough on trade, for cutting government spending, but if tariffs spin out of control, and there’s no results on trade deals, then rural communities are really going to be hit by that.”

Inside the White House, however, officials have been shaking off the margins of the Tuesday night election. In the view of Trump’s team, the Wisconsin state Supreme Court race was never close, Republican Rep.-elect Randy Fine was a weak candidate who won against a strong Democrat in Josh Weil, and the other Florida seat previously held by former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) was never in jeopardy, according to two people close to the White House who were granted anonymity to share private conversations.

“President Trump is the only Republican in nearly 40 years to destroy the Democrats’ blue wall, and it’s embarrassing to see them spike the football after their massive defeat in November,” said White House spokesperson Harrison Fields.

It’s a conclusion some outside Trump allies are reaching, too.

“I'm not freaked out about it. Republicans were somewhat panicked that they’d lose a House seat, and they didn’t,” said Matt Schlapp, chair of the American Conservative Union. “A win is a win in a special election, especially when all this crazy outside money is spent.”

And the White House remains unafraid to wade into even more politically sensitive waters, with Trump announcing a new set of sweeping levies on U.S. global trading partners on Wednesday afternoon.

While many of the president’s allies are sympathetic to his argument that the tariffs will encourage companies to invest in domestic manufacturing and production, they fear that imposing new trade barriers will cause short-term economic harm, drive up prices, potentially throw the U.S. into a recession, and jeopardize Republicans’ chances of hanging onto control of Congress in the midterms.

Just four in 10 voters view Trump's handling the economy and trade favorably, according to an AP-NORC poll conducted in late March.

“The thing that’s probably holding Trump back from having a 50 to 55 percent job approval rating is still this overwhelming fatigue about rising costs,” said GOP pollster Robert Blizzard. “Most voters, Republicans included, at the end of the day, aren't exactly sure about what the positive impact for them is when it comes to tariffs.”

Democrats need to flip only a few seats to win the majority in the House. Their overperformance in Florida — and the Democratic apparatus’ success running an anti-Musk campaign in Wisconsin — left Democratic operatives increasingly bullish about using Musk as a midterm-messaging bogeyman.

“As long as he’s there using a chainsaw to all the programs that people back home rely on and need to make ends meet, of course we’re going to make him a central character,” Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), a member of House leadership, said in an interview.

Democratic leadership sees an opportunity to home in on Musk as part of a winning message.

“The Republicans are going to try to distance themselves from Elon Musk. It's not going to work. It's too late. You're attached at the hip, and you're going to feel the consequences of it, just like you did in Wisconsin last night,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters.

But some Republican House members said they were not shocked by the Tuesday results. And there was little consensus within the party on whether Musk was uniquely to blame. Trump has even told his inner circle that the tech billionaire will be stepping back soon.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) said Tuesday’s outcomes “were not surprising.” Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), who represents a top battleground district, said Musk is a “shiny object” and that Republicans failed to turn out Trump voters in an off-election year.

“I think the results are fairly indicative of what we normally see in special elections when it comes to the party of a newly elected president,” said Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), another swing-seat Republican. “I expected to see an uptick in Dem turnout and some inattention by the GOP” after a November victory.

In a sign of how much some GOP lawmakers would prefer to change the subject, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said he was watching the Yankees instead of the results roll in.

But many in the party are still concerned. Whit Ayres, a GOP pollster, saw Wisconsin results as more of a referendum on Musk, who made himself a central character in the race, than on Trump himself.

"Elon Musk is hurting Donald Trump, there's no question about that," Ayres said, noting a survey his firm released last week showing more public support for federal workers than the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who's been tasked with slashing the federal government.

Republicans, Ayres said, should "take his money and tell him to go to Mars."

Ally Mutnick, Lisa Kashinsky and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

'Get attention': Musk defends million-dollar giveaways

lead image

Rural swaths of the country that helped power Donald Trump to victory are facing serious economic headwinds inflicted by his administration. The results of Wisconsin's high-stakes Supreme Court race on Tuesday will reveal just how damaging they're becoming for the president and the GOP.

Conservative-backed candidate Brad Schimel needs strong support in the same rural areas the president dominated in 2024 to land on the court. But many voters here are facing the effects of White House policies that threaten their bottom lines, like retaliatory tariffs on agricultural goods or the Agriculture Department’s funding freeze.

The GOP in Wisconsin is campaigning heavily in those communities, deploying an aggressive ground game in the turnout contest boosted by tech billionaire Elon Musk.

“If [Schimel] doesn’t have the kind of support that President Trump had in rural Wisconsin, ball game over,” said Brian Reisinger, a former GOP adviser in Wisconsin who specializes in rural policy. “The strength of the rural vote, and whether it is going to be there for the conservative candidate in the Supreme Court race like it was for conservative candidates in 2024, is going to be the biggest, most determinative factor in this race."

And, Reisinger added, it's "the biggest signal that we're going to get headed in the midterms.”

The White House is paying attention to this key swing-state, off year election that will determine the partisan bent of the court. Trump personally appeared at a tele-town hall on Thursday to boost Schimel, and Musk has invested heavily and stumped there himself at a rally for Schimel on Sunday.

“What we’re seeing here is kind of a replay of the last election cycle involving Trump,” said Republican strategist Craig Peterson. “Trump is on the ballot here, so is Elon Musk.”

Wisconsin’s agricultural sector — an important driver of the rural economy – is bearing the brunt of the tumult in Washington. Farmers are in the crosshairs of retaliatory tariffs from Canada, which is targeting $5.8 billion of U.S. agricultural products like wine, fruit, dairy, meat and rice. Canada is also a major source of fertilizer material imports to the U.S. The Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation's PAC endorsed Schimel over Democratic-backed Susan Crawford in the race, but other farmers are more skeptical of Trump's tariffs.

“The biggest thing that I hear is the true uncertainty that we’re in," said Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union. "Not knowing what tomorrow is going to look like, (or) what’s going to come out of the White House or the USDA.”

According to the latest Marquette Law School poll, conducted in late February, a majority of registered voters in Wisconsin’s rural regions think tariffs hurt, not help, the economy.

While Trump’s favorability rating is 9 percentage points net positive in those areas, Musk, his government-slashing adviser, is “pretty unpopular,” said Charles Franklin, the director of the poll. In some areas of northern and western Wisconsin, Musk’s favorability is 17 percentage points underwater.

The stakes of the Wisconsin Supreme Court race aren't exactly abstract for farmers. The election could have a significant impact on their ability to access clean water. One case under consideration by the state’s Supreme Court could curtail the Department of Natural Resources’ authority to enforce its spills law, which some farmers fear would lead to more contaminated water.

And it isn’t just in Wisconsin that Trump’s administration is roiling rural America. Republicans around the country are on the defensive as they field a wave of fresh frustration directly from farmers worried about price spikes from tariffs and funding freezes that have left many holding the bag for thousands of dollars they are owed in reimbursements.

Some concede there's danger in the strategy. West Virginia Sen. Jim Justice said he believes that “our farmers are rock solid” with Trump but conceded that “of course there’s political risk” with the president's approach.

“If they're giving everything they got and we turn our back on ‘em, that ain't gonna work, right?” the Republican said. “And that's not gonna work with them.”

But many other lawmakers are continuing to voice support for Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, even if it brings economic harm to their constituents. Some Republicans see Musk as spurring excitement among base voters who admire the Tesla and SpaceX founder, and view his downsizing of government as a necessary albeit painful experience.

Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican representing a mostly rural section of Maryland, responded to a farmer in his district last month inquiring about a frozen grant — she said she is owed more than $36,000 from USDA for installing solar power on her farm — by criticizing “liberal politicians and pundits” for pushing “false narratives.”

He reiterated his support for DOGE in an email to that farmer viewed by POLITICO.

The farmer, Laura Beth Resnick, joined a recent lawsuit against the Trump administration and argues withholding the funds is illegal. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently announced she would unfreeze three rural energy programs from the Inflation Reduction Act. But there’s a catch: Recipients were given 30 days to “voluntarily revise” their project plans to install solar panels or energy efficiency upgrades to align with the Trump administration’s elimination of DEI and climate “mandates.”

When Resnick followed up with Harris a few weeks later to check on progress getting the funding released, Harris responded by again sharing his support for DOGE’s efforts.

“DOGE will need help and assistance from Congress to slash our deficit, achieve energy independence, secure our borders, and return us on path to prosperity,” Harris wrote in that email. “That is why I am fighting for a sensible budget and to reverse reckless spending from failed Biden programs, while preserving Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.”

In Pennsylvania, another farmer distressed about the impacts of the administration’s funding freeze contacted Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), who told the farmer, granted anonymity to avoid retaliation, that DOGE’s work is a “crucial first step towards reducing unnecessary government spending,” in an email viewed by POLITICO.

A McCormick spokesperson said in a statement that the senator is a “huge advocate for Pennsylvania’s agriculture community, with ag being the number one industry in the state.”

Republicans in Wisconsin maintain that they're feeling confident about the Supreme Court race. Peter Church, the GOP chair in Adams County, a rural county in the northern part of the state, said “the Schimel campaign is in a good position.”

“I’m not hearing people talk about abortion at all. And I’m not hearing them talk about the tariff issue,” Church said in an interview. “These people are by and large red voters. And though the Supreme Court race is nonpartisan, they see that the red side is Brad Schimel.”

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this report misspelled Darin Von Ruden's name. This story has been updated to reflect which PAC endorsed Schimel.

© Morry Gash/AP

Elon Musk will visit Wisconsin on Sunday ahead of the state’s high-profile Supreme Court election.

Musk initially announced the plan in a post shortly after midnight on Friday, promising a $1 million giveaway to two attendees who had voted. That post was deleted after legal experts raised concerns it would violate state law. Musk clarified on Friday afternoon that the giveaways would be limited to people who signed his super PAC’s petition — although Wisconsin’s attorney general said Friday his office would seek a court order to stop that from happening.

The visit marks an escalation of Musk’s campaigning in Wisconsin, where the Republican-backed Brad Schimel faces Democratic-backed Susan Crawford in an election that will determine control of the state’s highest court. Musk’s political organization, America PAC, has spent more than $12 million on the race, according to campaign finance disclosures, and he personally gave $3 million to the Wisconsin Republican Party.

In a Friday afternoon post, Musk said the event would be held Sunday night and would be reserved for those who had signed a petition circulated by America PAC. He will hand out two $1 million checks at the event, he said.

He had previously posted, and then deleted, about the event and the checks, but the earlier post said the event would be “limited to those who have voted in the Supreme Court election.”

That could still face legal pushback. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, said in a statement Friday that his office intended to seek a court order to stop Musk from carrying out the giveaway.

Legal experts had raised concerns that offering the Sunday giveaway for only those who have already voted could violate Wisconsin’s election bribery law, which makes it a crime to offer “anything of value” to “induce” potential voters to vote or not vote in an election. Early voting is underway in Wisconsin and runs through Sunday.

“I'm actually surprised that Musk is being so explicit about tying eligibility for this million dollar payout to having voted in the election,” said Brendan Fischer, a campaign finance lawyer and deputy executive director of the watchdog organization Documented, about Musk’s earlier post. “His tweet makes it very clear that you can only enter this event, and you can only be eligible for the million dollar payout, if you voted, and it's hard to read that as anything other than providing a thing of value to induce a person to vote, or to reward them for having voted.”

The giveaway tactic is not new for Musk. In the lead-up to the 2024 election, America PAC made signees of a petition supporting the First Amendment eligible for a $1 million giveaway. The plan faced legal challenges but judges ruled in Musk’s favor.

The group has replicated a similar strategy in Wisconsin, promising voters $100 to sign a petition “In Opposition To Activist Judges,” and it announced on Wednesday it had cut a $1 million check for a Green Bay resident who signed on.

“Elon, thank you,” recipient Scott Ainsworth said in a video posted by America PAC, where he urged MAGA voters to go to the polls and support Schimel.

Musk is quickly becoming an enormous player in Republican politics. He launched America PAC in the spring of 2024, pouring hundreds of millions of dollars of his own money into the group, primarily to finance canvassing operations supporting President Donald Trump’s election campaign. He promised the group would stay active in the coming years, with the Wisconsin Supreme Court race becoming its first major investment since Trump's victory.

The Wisconsin election is already the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, surpassing the 2023 Wisconsin Supreme Court race, where the Democratic-aligned candidate ultimately prevailed. Liberals currently hold the majority on the state's highest court, which has say over everything from abortion rights to the state's legislative maps.

Democrats have spent big in Wisconsin's race, too. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker of the Hyatt hotel family gave $1.5 million to back Crawford, and longtime megadonor George Soros pitched in $2 million.

But no single figure has invested as much as Musk. Democrats in Wisconsin have sought to turn the race into a referendum on him and his outsized political influence. A plane flying over Milwaukee on Thursday carried a banner reading "Go Home Elon. Vote Susan.”

© Matt Rourke/AP

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has an assessment of her one-time presidential rival’s administration’s handling of sensitive information: “It’s just dumb.”

Clinton — who faced off against Donald Trump for the presidency in 2016 — lambasted the Signal group chat that revealed plans for the recent strike in Yemen as dangerous and “dumb.”

“It’s not the hypocrisy that bothers me; it’s the stupidity. We’re all shocked — shocked! — that President Trump and his team don’t actually care about protecting classified information or federal record retention laws,” she wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times. “What’s much worse is that top Trump administration officials put our troops in jeopardy by sharing military plans on a commercial messaging app and unwittingly invited a journalist into the chat. That’s dangerous. And it’s just dumb.”

Trump focused on Clinton’s handling of sensitive information in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign — the infamous emails that she sent from a private server while working in the State Department. He threatened investigations and prosecution throughout his first term, and many of the officials involved in the Signal thread had sharply criticized Clinton in the past. The Trump administration has blasted Clinton’s emails more aggressively in the wake of Signalgate, arguing that they were a bigger breach.

Clinton’s critique of Trump’s second term went beyond just the Signal scandal, laying into the administration over the mass firing of federal workers, the shuttering of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the retreat from global diplomacy, arguing it was weakening the country on the world stage.

“The Trump approach is dumb power,” she wrote. “Instead of a strong America using all our strengths to lead the world and confront our adversaries, Mr. Trump’s America will be increasingly blind and blundering, feeble and friendless.”

Though they faced off years ago, Trump has moved in the last few months to get retribution against his perceived enemies, stripping security clearances and targeting Clinton’s former lawyer as part of his crackdown on Big Law.

But Clinton’s take on Friday homed in on the looming threat of China filling in where U.S. diplomats have retreated, arguing that “forward-deployed diplomacy” is essential to America’s global standing.

“If this continues, a group chat foul will be the least of our concerns, and all the fist and flag emojis in the world won’t save us,” Clinton wrote.

💾

© Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

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

‘Painful period’: RFK Jr. lays off 10,000 HHS employees

lead image

Chuck Schumer is bruised but not beaten — at least not yet.

Two weeks after the Senate minority leader joined with Republicans to prevent a government shutdown, Democrats are still fuming over how he handled the standoff. But many in the party are conceding that they're stuck with him for the time being.

With no obvious alternative to Schumer emerging nor any appetite among the vast majority of Senate Democrats for a messy leadership contest, lawmakers are indicating they are falling in behind the New Yorker and hoping for the best as they prepare for upcoming fights. Some frustrated Democratic donors have made the same calculation.

After Schumer enraged his party by voting to advance the Republican stopgap measure, he went into damage-control mode making a flurry of media appearances, pleading his case to lawmakers, and working the phones with liberal groups. Even as a handful of House members and outside progressive activists called for himto step aside, he avoided any defections inside his own caucus. And Schumer’s seeming omnipresence enabled him to run out the clock until another news cycle — this one over the Trump administration’s war plan group chat — began.

“Chuck's been reaching out to everyone and having conversations with folks, which I appreciate,” said Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) on Wednesday. Asked if there were discussions about replacing Schumer as leader, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) added: “Not within the caucus.”

Instead, Schumer is working to convince his members that he understands they need to ramp up their tactics. "Leader Schumer is, in fact, demonstrating the kind of vision and energy that we need right now in a renewed or a stronger way,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), pointing to the closed-door discussions, Democrats' floor strategy and forthcoming actions from the caucus.

Some Democratic lawmakers, donors and activists warned that Schumer is now under a political microscope, with many in the party closely watching how he handles upcoming battles in Congress over the debt limit, Republicans’ planned domestic policy agenda and the next government funding bill.

Even some members of Schumer’s caucus said he still has work to do to win their confidence. Asked about Schumer’s leadership on Wednesday, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) said, “We're still talking it through.”

“I want to see what the strategy is going forward,” he said. “If I feel like it's moving in a direction, I can go and I'll have some greater confidence. But if not, then I'll certainly make that known.”

Schumer's vote exposed a broader rift in the party over how to counter President Donald Trump in his second term. The vote prompted a handful of House lawmakers to publicly suggest or outright call for Schumer to step aside. Some liberal groups have piled on with demands for stronger leadership.

“Schumer made a disastrous decision,” said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, adding later that he “hopes” Schumer and Senate Democrats see that the voters want them to fight Republicans. Otherwise, he said, “the voters are going to make them see it if they don't see it themselves.”

A few weren't just after Schumer's leadership role. They were angry enough to call for his seat.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has received private encouragement from Democratic House members, including even those in battleground districts, to mount a primary challenge to Schumer in 2028. But Ocasio-Cortez is currently noncommittal about moving forward.

“My focus is our strength in this particular moment and what we can do right now to be the party that stands up for working people and protects against Republican cuts,” she said in a brief interview. Asked whether Schumer should remain leader, she said the issue was “less about any one specific person.”

But the decision by some House Democrats to step into a Senate leadership discussion has rankled some senators, including former House members. Luján, asked about the criticism from his former colleagues, quipped: “I’m not aware of my colleagues voting for the leader of the Senate.”

Inside the Senate, Schumer has taken steps to acknowledge the anger and disappointment over the spending-bill surrender. Kaine said on Wednesday that Schumer “was very candid and humble” in addressing his colleagues at a private lunch Tuesday “and then focused on the next steps.” Unlike the lunches in the days leading up to the government funding vote, where senators could be heard yelling, moments of applause were overheard during their first meeting after the break.

The result, he said, was a “very productive discussion” about “‘what do we need to do different?’”

Schumer's spokesperson did not provide a comment for this article.

Senate Democrats acknowledge that they haven’t yet fully landed on what they believe eluded them just two weeks ago — a strategy that both unifies them and gives them a foothold for fighting despite their limited leverage. But they are making clear that their public focus, at least, is on the Trump administration and gearing up for looming battles over the debt ceiling and a sweeping GOP tax plan.

"My top priority is ending the lawlessness of the Trump administration. My next priority is ending the lawlessness of the Trump administration. … I think you get my drift,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), when asked about questions on Schumer’s leadership.

Outside of Congress, major Democratic donors are also furious over Schumer’s handling of the GOP funding bill and his leadership in general. But without a clear successor, people close to the fundraisers said there isn’t much they can do. The next Senate leadership contest will come after the 2026 election, when they could already have a vacancy at the top of their ranks if Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) retires. Schumer, if he runs again for the top spot, would only need a simple majority of his caucus to win.

Donors “think he’s ineffective, but the question is, who else is going to step in? And that’s where things get stuck,” said one Democratic donor adviser, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

“No senator is presenting themselves as an alternative, so that's a major barrier to any donor momentum to pressure him out,” a second Democratic donor adviser said. “If somebody signaled to donors they wanted to be that alternative, I do think there would be real movement around that. But it hasn't come yet."

A third Democratic donor adviser said fundraisers think Schumer is “deeply pathetic,” but “I do think he has squashed a lot of the specific rumblings” about a new leader.

House lawmakers who publicly and privately fumed at Schumer after he and a group of Senate Democrats voted to advance the GOP funding bill heard an earful from their constituents back home last week who have demanded more forceful, public resistance to Trump.

Even swing-district Democrats who might face pressure to work with Trump acknowledged that their voters wanted them to push back. All but one House Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), had voted against the funding bill.

Constituents “want to see more from us,” said Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.), who could mount a Senate bid to succeed retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). “They know there are other battles to be waged, and they're really interested in us continuing to dig in and stand up for what counts.”

And others dismissed the speculation over Schumer’s future while they focused on the current fights against Trump.

“So this is not about, no offense, like the inside baseball political leadership. Nobody gives a fuck. They want to know, are we fighting for them? Are we going to protect them? Are we going to stop them?” said Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.).

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

The pervasive fear and anger that have been rippling through federal agencies over Elon Musk’s slashing approach to shrinking government deepened even further on Friday over the billionaire tech mogul’s threat to root out and punish anyone who is leaking to the media.

They’ve already taken every precaution they can for fear of retaliation: setting Signal messages to automatically disappear, taking photos of documents they share instead of screenshotting, using non-government devices to communicate. But disclosing the chaos caused by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, for many, outweighs the risks that come with leaking.

Following Thursday’s New York Times report that Musk was set to receive a Pentagon briefing about a confidential contingency plan for a war with China, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO posted on his social media platform X that leakers “will be found” and, he intimated, punished.

“I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information to NYT,” Musk wrote in his post.

But Musk’s post is not having the chilling effect on leakers he’d intended, according to conversations with more than half a dozen government employees who had previously spoken to POLITICO. If anything, it might be the other way around.

“We are public servants, not Elon’s servants,” said one Food and Drug Administration employee who, like all people interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal dynamics. “The public deserves to know how dysfunctional, destructive, and deceptive all of this has been and continues to be.”

"Leakers are patriots,” said one Agriculture Department employee. Helping the media report on problems or concerns inside agencies, the USDA employee added, is motivated by a desire for greater transparency — the same goal Musk has said undergirds his own work through DOGE.

"If the Biden administration or Obama had acted like this, no one would have tolerated it,” the staffer said. “The Trump administration doesn't get a pass.”

Musk’s comments may not have caused a major shift in how federal workers view sharing information with reporters, one federal employee at a health agency said, citing group chats with other employees.

But even before Musk’s comments this week, the prevailing atmosphere inside many federal agencies — from constant threats of firing and being labeled enemies of the public to ousting them for following orders from previous administrations — have left employees feeling vulnerable, increasingly incensed and concerned about their physical safety.

Those safety concerns include law enforcement going after leakers to far-right extremists attacking people who make up the federal workforce.

Many federal government employees who have spoken with POLITICO over the past eight weeks said they have never previously been in contact with journalists. And if not for Musk’s “move fast and break things” approach to reducing staff and accessing sensitive government data, that would likely still be the case for nearly all of them.

“He IS A LEAKER,” one senior Federal Aviation Administration official said of Musk in a Signal message. “When you put hard drives on data systems at government agencies you are creating the biggest security breaches we have seen in years and years. Possibly ever.”

At the same time, even federal workers who haven’t spoken to media outlets are terrified of being suspected or accused of leaking information to journalists.

By now, staffers across federal agencies are also worried that they’re being surreptitiously watched — either through software installed on company devices or cameras in offices. It’s unclear whether these claims are legitimate, but they have caused deep anxiety among employees even before the latest threat from Musk.

“We’re taking more conversations in-person, out of the office completely. Putting phones on airplane mode or going to the basement,” said a staffer at the National Institutes of Health. “I don’t take my phone when I’m talking to coworkers anymore. I assume there are cameras and listening devices everywhere.”

And many will only talk with reporters using Signal or similar messaging apps that offer end-to-end encryption to prevent third parties from tapping into conversations. “If someone refuses to get on an app like Signal and also doesn’t talk [in person], I immediately don’t trust them,” the NIH staffer said.

Adding to the unease is knowing how Musk has previously encoded internal messages at his electric car company Tesla with distinct informationlike “one or two spaces between sentences” to identify leakers. He could, some fear, go even further and seed parts of their agency with easily traceable falsehoods.

“I’m much more heavily vetting the things I hear before talking to the media,” the NIH staffer said. “Everything Musk is saying is saber-rattling trying to silence government employees from talking to the media. And unfortunately, it’s working.”

Musk is not the first senior member of the Trump administration to threaten to clamp down on leaks to the press.

In a post on X last week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard pledged to “aggressively” pursue what she said were unauthorized disclosures to the media from officials working in the nation’s spy agencies.

“Politically motivated leaks undermine our national security and the trust of the American people, and will not be tolerated,” said Gabbard, who as a member of Congress expressed sympathy for former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, who shared reams of classified information with the press.

Gabbard listed several examples of what she claimed were unauthorized leaks to the media, citing a number of outlets by name including the Washington Post and NBC.

In a press release last week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence stated that Gabbard had established a whistleblower hotline directly to her office for intelligence officials looking to report concerns about potentially unauthorized activity by their colleagues.

One staffer at a Department of Homeland Security agency said that most employees speaking to the media agree about the importance of not disclosing information that could compromise national security, even as they exercise their First Amendment right to disclose less sensitive information they think is important for the public to know.

“Ensuring freedom of speech and freedom of the press are vital to maintaining transparency and accountability in the current climate of instability being fostered by this administration,” the DHS agency official said. “Expressing concerns is part of OUR right to speak openly. It’s vital that any administration creates an environment where employees feel heard, respected and empowered to contribute constructively, rather than be silenced and ridiculed.”

Lauren Gardner, Marcia Brown and Maggie Miller contributed to this report.

© Jose Luis Magana/AP

CHICAGO — A progressive social media influencer announced a run for Congress on Monday in the Chicago-area district held by Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky, citing frustration with Democratic Party leadership.

“I don't think the Democratic Party right now is doing enough. [Sen.] Chuck Schumer backing down on the funding bill was just disgusting, frankly, and we can't keep going that way,” Kat Abughazaleh, who announced her run on the Bluesky social network, said in an interview.

Schakowsky, a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, has represented the area for decades. The Illinois Democrat, who is 80, has yet to announce whether she’ll seek reelection.

Abughazaleh covered the Democratic National Convention as a social media influencer and before that worked at the liberal watchdog group Media Matters For America.

She gained fame on TikTok for her biting political humor, and her videos were published by the liberal magazine Mother Jones, where she critiqued Fox News for how it covered then-Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential run.

Abughazaleh's move into Illinois politics comes amid widespread frustration with the party among progressive Democrats. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has recently encouraged progressives to run as independent candidates and ditch the unpopular Democratic label.

Abughazaleh moved to the Chicago area in July but voted in the 2024 election in Washington, D.C., because her lease wasn’t yet up, she told POLITICO. She said she registered to vote in Illinois last month and currently lives outside the district but plans to move into the district “soon.”

“The district itself is really, really, really cool, and I think that it deserves more options for representation,” Abughazaleh told POLITICO. “Since 1998, there hasn't been a competitive primary. I was born in 1999. So I think a huge problem with why we're in this mess — with rising fascism, with ineffective Democrats — is just because we aren't giving voters more options. There's not enough diversity of thoughts or how we can change the establishment.”

Schakowsky recently said that she’s mulling her next move, saying she’s still “ready to fight” but acknowledges age is a factor in her deliberations.

"Take out the word progressive, and let’s talk about what we mean,” Schakowsky said. “We talk about it as if you have to be a progressive to be for these kinds of things that help people. We have to be better at talking about them.”

Schakowsky was first elected to the 9th Congressional District in 1998, after serving eight years in the Illinois General Assembly. In her primary that year, she defeated then-businessperson JB Pritzker, who went on to become the state’s governor in 2019.

Should Schakowsky not seek reelection, a number of notable Illinois Democrats would likely be interested in the seat, including state Sen. Laura Fine and Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who both represent constituents in the district.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report included a photo caption that misidentified the subject as Rep. Jan Schakowsky.

💾

© Paul Morigi/Getty Images for National Education Association

Former U.S. Rep. Mia Love of Utah, a daughter of Haitian immigrants who became the first Black Republican woman elected to Congress, died Sunday.

She was 49.

Love’s family posted news of her death on Love’s X account.

She had undergone recent treatment for brain cancer and received immunotherapy as part of a clinical trial at Duke University’s brain tumor center. Her daughter said earlier this month that the former lawmaker was no longer responding to treatment.

Love died at her home in Saratoga Springs, Utah, according to a statement posted by the family.

“With grateful hearts filled to overflowing for the profound influence of Mia on our lives, we want you to know that she passed away peacefully,” her family said. “We are thankful for the many good wishes, prayers and condolences.”

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox referred to Love as a “true friend” and said her legacy of service inspired all who knew her.

Love entered politics in 2003 after winning a seat on the city council in Saratoga Springs, a growing community about 30 miles (48 kilometers) south of Salt Lake City. She later became the city’s mayor.

In 2012, Love narrowly lost a bid for the House against the Democratic incumbent, former Rep. Jim Matheson, in a district that covers a string of Salt Lake City suburbs. She ran again two years later and defeated first-time candidate Doug Owens by about 7,500 votes.

Love didn’t emphasize her race during her campaigns, but she acknowledged the significance of her election after her 2014 victory. She said her win defied naysayers who had suggested that a Black, Republican, Mormon woman couldn’t win a congressional seat in overwhelmingly white Utah.

She was briefly considered a rising star within the GOP and she kept her distance from Donald Trump, who was unpopular with many Utah voters, while he was running for president ahead of the 2016 election.

In an op-ed published earlier this month in the Deseret News, Love described the version of America she grew up loving and shared her enduring wish for the nation to become less divisive. She thanked her medical team and every person who had prayed for her.

Love said her parents immigrated to the U.S. with $10 in their pocket and a belief that hard work would lead to success. She said she was raised to believe passionately in the American dream and “to love this country, warts and all.” America at its roots is respectful, resilient, giving and grounded in gritty determination, she said.

Her career in politics exposed Love to America’s ugly side, but she said it also gave her a front row seat to be inspired by people’s hope and courage. She shared her wish for neighbors to come together and focus on their similarities rather than their differences.

“Some have forgotten the math of America — whenever you divide you diminish,” Love wrote.

She urged elected officials to lead with compassion and communicate honestly with their constituents.

“In the end, I hope that my life will have mattered and made a difference for the nation I love and the family and friends I adore,” Love wrote. “I hope you will see the America I know in the years ahead, that you will hear my words in the whisper of the wind of freedom and feel my presence in the flame of the enduring principles of liberty. My living wish and fervent prayer for you and for this nation is that the America I have known is the America you fight to preserve.”

In 2016, facing reelection and following the release of a 2005 recording in which Trump made lewd comments about groping women, Love skipped the Republican National Convention and released a statement saying definitively that she would not vote for Trump. She instead endorsed Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the GOP race, but he dropped out months later.

While seeking a third term in 2018, Love tried to separate herself from Trump on trade and immigration while still backing her party’s positions on tax cuts. Despite Republican voters outnumbering Democrats by a nearly three-to-one margin in her district, though, she lost by fewer than 700 votes to Democrat Ben McAdams, a former mayor of Salt Lake City.

Trump called out Love by name in a news conference the morning after she lost, where he also bashed other Republicans who didn’t fully embrace him.

“Mia Love gave me no love, and she lost,” Trump said. “Too bad. Sorry about that, Mia.”

After her loss, Love served as a political commentator on CNN and as a fellow at the University of Sydney.

Following Trump’s election in November, Love said she was “OK with the outcome.”

“Yes, Trump says a lot of inconsiderate things that are unfortunate and impossible to defend,” Love wrote in a social media post. “However, his policies have a high probability of benefiting all Americans.”

💾

© Getty Images

Attorney General Pam Bondi warned Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) on Sunday to “tread very carefully” following the lawmaker’s recent remarks voicing support for Elon Musk to be “taken down.”

“She is an elected public official, so she needs to tread very carefully because nothing will happen to Elon Musk, and we're going to fight to protect all of the Tesla owners throughout this country,” Bondi said during an appearance on Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures.”

The warning comes days after the Democrat spoke at a virtual rally held for the The Tesla Takedown movement, a group rallying against Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to bulldoze the federal bureaucracy through boycotts and demonstrations at Tesla properties. The coalition is organizing 500 demonstrations March 29 at Tesla locations across the country.

“On March 29, it’s my birthday, and all I want to see happen on my birthday is for Elon to be taken down,” Crockett said during her remarks. "I have learned, as I serve on the DOGE Oversight committee, that there is only one language that the people that are in charge understand right now, and that language is money."

Crockett clarified during the rally that her calls for action were nonviolent.

U.S. Tesla locations have been the target of widespread protests — and at times, vandalism — over the last few weeks due to Musk’s involvement with the Trump administration. Bondi’s caution also follows her recent announcement that the Department of Justice is charging three people for allegedly vandalizing Tesla cars and properties, which she has referred to as "domestic terrorism."

Before calling out Crockett, Bondi also doubled down on her determination to rein in the protests.

“We are not coming off these charges,” she said. “We are looking at everything, especially if this is a concerted effort.”

© George Walker IV/AP

Elon Musk has again publicly threatened people who leaked information on his sweeping power across the Trump administration. How he’s handled leaks at his companies could be a sign of what’s next for the federal government.

“I look forward to the prosecutions of those at the Pentagon who are leaking maliciously false information to NYT,” Musk wrote hours after The New York Times reported that Pentagon officials were expected to brief the top adviser to President Donald Trump on U.S.-China tensions, including potential war planning. “They will be found.” (POLITICO has reported that the Pentagon briefing will focus on the threats China poses, but won’t include any classified war plans. It was not clear if that was the initial plan.)

Musk’s statement, posted on his social media site X, echos his playbook of berating and pursuing recourse against leakers to snuff out internal sabotage at the tech billionaire’s companies, like the electric vehicle company Tesla, space exploration and defense contractor SpaceX, and X.

These moments indicate how he may move forward with leakers in the federal government.

Here’s how he’s cracked down on leaks.

Musk’s mole hunts

Leaks aren’t always so easy to handle when you can’t identify the leaker.

After Musk bought the company, Twitter’s source code was leaked online and posted on GitHub, a website where software developers can share project codes. It was unclear then who leaked the code.

So in March 2023, the social media site issued a copyright infringement notice against GitHub, which removed the information.

At the time, though, Twitter could not identify the person who leaked the code and sought to subpoena information both on the poster and “for the users who posted, uploaded, downloaded or modified the data” related to the source code leak.

Months later, Twitter leadership, including its CEO Linda Yaccarino, announced she wanted to stamp out leaks — and asked employees to help find any leakers in their midst.

“If you suspect any employee is not protecting Twitter’s confidential information, please report it by submitting a ticket,” read an internal email shared publicly by a then-executive. “If you need guidance or want to schedule training for your team, please email insiderthreat@twitter.com.”

Secret codes

When Musk wants to find a leaker, he might set a canary trap.

In 2022, Musk revealed on X how he ensnared a Tesla worker who had leaked the company’s private information to the press over a decade ago: The company sent “what appeared to be identical emails to all, but each was actually coded with either one or two spaces between sentences.”

The emails, which he contended were his brainchild, effectively created a fingerprint for every recipient that could be traced if the messages were sent to or published by the press.

Using metadata or unique markers to identify leakers is not unusual. The federal government in 2017 said it relied, in part, on noting that documents obtained by The Intercept were “folded and/or creased” to determine which employee leaked it, and printed documents can have unique identifiers on them.

People have since found ways around these traps to leak information to the press securely. Some have taken photos of internal communications on other devices. Or they’ve turned to encrypted messaging platforms like Signal to chat with reporters.

In the courts

When a former Tesla worker allegedly stole confidential information, merged it with falsehoods and leaked it to the media, the company swiftly filed a lawsuit against them in 2018. The lawsuit claimed Tesla employees had already identified the hacker by the time the complaint was filed through an internal investigation in which the man confessed he wrote software that transferred heaps of data externally.

But Musk has realized the mere threat of a lawsuit is an equally powerful tool to silence many testy employees.

Musk’s Tesla warned staffers in 2019 that if they leaked information, they could be sued by the company, which had filed a couple lawsuits against employees who allegedly took company information to competitors, CNBC reported at the time.

And in December 2022, months after the Twitter source code leak, the company said in an internal email that “if you clearly and deliberately violate the NDA that you signed when you joined, you accept liability to the full extent of the law & Twitter will immediately seek damages,” according to an email tech journalist Zoe Schiffer obtained.

Staff at Musk’s companies have largely been tight-lipped in recent years, particularly after he hired people loyal to the companies' missions and himself. Now, it is possible the same blueprint could come into play in the federal government, months after the Trump administration seeded some federal agencies with the tech billionaire’s acolytes.

© Jae C. Hong/AP

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

There’s never been a better time to be a disgraced politician seeking a second chance.

A pair of former governors who resigned in scandal are vying to lead major cities on both sides of the Hudson River — attempted comebacks that wager voters fed up with existing options will value their executive experience more than their political flaws.

Former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who stepped down in 2021 following sexual harassment allegations, just launched his campaign for mayor of New York City. Former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, who exited office in 2004 after admitting to an extramarital affair with a man who he hired, is campaigning to lead New Jersey’s second largest city, Jersey City.

While both are Democrats, they are likely to benefit from the Donald Trump effect, where expectations around character have been obliterated.

For their part, neither campaign is eager to acknowledge the other, but both former governors say they are selling executive experience. McGreevey and Cuomo are both talking about bread-and-butter issues: public safety, clean streets, affordable housing and the menace of e-bikes.

"I think folks want a record of getting something done and working hard," McGreevey said in an interview.

Cuomo is sounding a similar note about experience as a chief executive.

“I don’t think there’s been a governor in modern political history that has accomplished more things than I have accomplished,” Cuomo said during an interview with Stephen A. Smith.

Cuomo also explicitly attacked others who “never ran anything before.” McGreevey has said governors and mayors share “the need to get something done, to bring measurable change.”

It’s hard not to see these as digs at recent big city Democratic mayors who have fumbled their way into infamy with one thing in common: they were legislators, not executives, before becoming mayor. That list includes New York Mayor Eric Adams, his predecessor Bill de Blasio, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and defeated San Francisco Mayor London Breed.

It goes without saying, none of McGreevey or Cuomo’s opponents has the same kind of executive experience they have, even if it didn’t end well.

“Their reputation certainly precedes them, right?” said Micah Rasmussen, a former McGreevey aide who is now the director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University.

It is unusual for governors to be forced out of office. Of the few thousand people who have served as an American governor, Cuomo was only the 56th to resign or be removed, according to the Pew Research Center.

Some in that club have tried to reboot their political careers, to mixed success. Others — Rod Blagojevich of Illinois and Robert Bentley of Alabama — were legally barred from running for elected office.

While McGreevey resigned with a speech remembered for the line “I am a gay American,” and his fall is often tied solely to his sexual orientation in an era before more widespread acceptance, he was involved in a mix of scandals at the time, most notably putting his lover on the state payroll as a homeland security adviser in the months after 9/11 without proper credentials.

After he stepped down, McGreevey went on a spiritual journey and spent more than a decade helping prisoners reenter society. His campaign launch video in 2023, titled “Second Chances,” opened with a scene of his resignation speech and a contrite McGreevey of today saying he’d learned his lessons.

Cuomo, by contrast, spent the past few years fighting in court to clear his name and launched his campaign with a 17-minute video that only briefly alluded to the scandal that prompted him to step down — a report released by Attorney General Letitia James found he sexually harassed 11 women. His leadership during Covid-19 also came under a cloud.

Cuomo has denied any wrongdoing on both counts and argued the scandals were induced by his many political enemies in New York and Washington. District attorneys subsequently did not bring criminal charges.

Basil Smikle Jr., a former head of the New York Democratic Party under Cuomo, said former politicians who leave office under a cloud make another go at it by waiting for the right time and doing a mea culpa tour to test the waters. Plus, Trump — who was impeached twice, found liable for sexual abuse and is a convicted felon — has shown certain behavior is more palatable to voters.

McGreevey is running for an open seat in a nonpartisan general election this fall with backing of a major North Jersey power broker.

Cuomo is running in a crowded primary field against Adams, who is under indictment, surrounded by scandal and with polling that shows most voters want Adams to resign. Another opponent, Scott Stringer, was a front-runner in the crowded 2021 Democratic primary before his campaign was derailed by accusations that he sexually harassed a campaign volunteer 20 years earlier. Stringer denied wrongdoing and is suing the woman who accused him for defamation.

Smikle said Cuomo may also be counting on some of the same Black and Hispanic Democrats who moved toward Trump last fall.

"I think the Trump voter and the potential Cuomo voter want the same thing — there is an interest in political disruption, they are OK with overlooking the past if they can get the disruption that helps them today," he said.

The governor-to-mayor pipeline is not unprecedented for those who didn’t leave in scandal: Term-limited Delaware Gov. John Carney is now mayor of Wilmington.

If, as former New York Gov. David Paterson has said, Cuomo would rather be governor again, there is some precedent in former California Gov. Jerry Brown, who like Cuomo was a governor’s son. After Brown led his state for eight years as a young man, his political future looked bleak following a trio of failed presidential bids. But then Brown ran for mayor of Oakland, won, and climbed back up the ladder to end his career as governor again.

When Cuomo and McGreevey reemerged, both Democrats had major establishment allies.

The city’s carpenter’s union and Rep. Ritchie Torres, a high-profile Democrat, are in Cuomo’s corner. Torres has said the city needs a “Mr. Tough Guy.”

McGreevey was encouraged to run by Hudson County power broker Brian Stack, who is also a state senator and mayor of neighboring Union City.

While both McGreevey and Cuomo have roots in the cities they are running to lead, both men spent years elsewhere, and both have been criticized for carpetbagging and me-centric campaigns.

When McGreevey launched his campaign in 2023, campaign rival Bill O’Dea said his campaign would be “about the people,” not “anything related to my own ego,” a jab at McGreevey.

Stringer, a former city comptroller and mayoral candidate, compared Cuomo to disgraced former state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who tried to resurrect his career with a run for city comptroller but lost to Stringer.

Rasmussen, who was McGreevey’s spokesperson through the resignation, wonders if the collapse of local media has something to do with governors playing in local races because it’s “harder and harder for candidates to break through” and governors already come with name recognition — even if the names are a double-edged sword.

© Matt Rourke/AP; Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

A progressive House member from Chicago is calling on Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership position, joining a growing list of fellow Democrats to air that view after he allowed a vote on a Republican spending plan to avoid a government shutdown.

Rep. Delia Ramirez said Wednesday that Schumer should have used the leverage of a potential shutdown to push back against President Donald Trump and a spending plan that would make additional cuts to programs and a government workforce already reeling from the work of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency.

“This is a moment for Democrats to do more than just talk about fighting or obstructing Donald Trump’s agenda of destroying Social Security and Medicaid, but actually using every legislative authority to do that,” Ramirez said in an interview.

The lawmaker is one of an increasing number of House members to criticize Schumer or say he should step down, a list that may grow as they hold town halls during the recess. So far, none of the minority leader’s Senate colleagues have publicly echoed that view.

A person at a town hall broached the subject Tuesday with Ramirez, asking whether she believed that Schumer should lose his minority leader position. The representative, first elected in 2018, smiled, nodded and answered “yes” before handing off the microphone.

“I said yes, because what I wholeheartedly believe is that, in this precise moment, our constituents are asking us to be the kind of leaders that are going to truly hear our constituents and to make the hard decisions of stepping in and having the courage to do everything we can to hold the line,” Ramirez told POLITICO.

Nearly every Democratic member voted against the Republican plan in the House in a display of unity under House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Schumer has said the spending resolution was a “terrible” bill but that a shutdown would have only empowered Trump and Musk to accelerate the firing of federal workers and slashing of public agencies.

The veteran New York senator has said he has no plans to step down even as the criticism mounts.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longtime Schumer ally, said Tuesday she still supports him but faulted him in unusually blunt terms for what she viewed as giving up leverage in a fight with Republicans. The same day, Democratic Rep. Glenn Iveytold a town hall in Suitland, Maryland, a Washington suburb that is home to many government workers, that Schumer should consider stepping down from his post.

Ramirez, whose view on the minority leader was first reported by Axios, said her criticism is rooted in what she has heard from constituents.

“What I heard from every person that came through that line, in addition to the people that I talked to after, was we are not happy where the Democratic leadership is,” she said. “We believe that you all should do more.”

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Congressional Democrats — who were hoping to blast Republicans over budget cuts — instead took incoming from their exasperated constituents when they traveled home to host town halls.

In Arizona, Sens. Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly were confronted at a joint forum Monday by an attendee demanding to know if they “would support removing” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In Oregon, an audience member told Sen. Ron Wyden and Rep. Janelle Bynum on Sunday that he is “so pissed off right now at the leadership in the United States Senate that they are not willing to step up and fight.”

“Schumer has done what I think is the most destructive thing that he could possibly do as Democratic leader,” another cried on Saturday to Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont.

And those reactions were relatively mild compared to the scene that played out in the Washington suburbs Tuesday night when Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) held a town hall.

“You’re not fighting!” one woman shouted from the balcony, before being escorted out. “We are suffering!”

If Democrats were wondering where their 2017-era grassroots resistance army had gone, they’ve found their answer. Schumer’s willingness to vote with Republicans to advance a spending bill — and avoid a shutdown — has enraged the Democratic faithful not just in Washington, but across the nation. The blast radius is spreading throughout the party, far beyond Schumer.

In testy exchanges, town hall attendees pressed congressional Democrats to stop trying to strike compromises with Republicans, to adopt a stance that matches the gravity of the moment and to cease using court rulings or the midterms as their solution. What many hoped could have been a unifying force — a principle-driven government shutdown — exposed deep cleavages in a party still smarting from widespread losses last fall.

"If you're Chuck Schumer, you're wondering, ‘Why aren't you screaming at Trump? Why aren't you angry at the Republicans?’” said former Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski, who began a town hall last week in his old New Jersey district just as news broke of Schumer’s decision. “We could ride that anger in two years to take back the House and the Senate. But most Democrats worry that we can't wait for two years."

Malinowski held the event because the GOP incumbent who ousted him would not.

It was only weeks ago that House Republicans were facing their own rowdy forums as constituents and liberal grassroots groups protested Elon Musk's attempt to dismantle the federal government. In response, the House GOP campaign chief urged them to stop holding in-person town halls.

Democrats seized on that hesitance, organizing their own events as a contrast. National Democratic groups even organized a tour to hold town halls in the districts of GOP Congress members who refused to schedule any themselves.

But the congressional recess kicked off with Schumer's announcement that he would vote to advance the GOP bill to fund the government. And so congressional Democrats returned home to voters exasperated not just by Republicans, but also by their own party's leadership.

Two local progressive groups organized "empty chair" town halls to be held later this week in the districts of Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who both helped enact Republicans' spending bill.

At the town halls that Democrats did hold, plenty of attendees expressed frustration with Trump, Musk and the GOP-controlled Congress. But voters also critiqued the Democratic party, according to a review of video, audio and local news reports of town halls in Arizona, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois and Vermont.

Democrats hosting the events fielded the barbs differently.

In Maryland, Ivey initially won over the crowd gathered Tuesday in a high school auditorium when he suggested “it may be time” for Schumer to step aside.

But the event grew more raucous as anger built over Ivey’s repeated pivots to declaring the courts to be the best bulwark against Trump, while looking ahead to the midterms – some 20 months from now – as Democrats’ most efficient tool to thwart the administration.

Barbra Bearden, a recently fired federal employee, tersely told Ivey: “Don’t talk to me about the courts, don’t talk to me about the next election … I came here to find out what my congressman is specifically doing.”

Similar to Ivey, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) nodded and said "yes" when asked by a town hall attendee if Schumer should "retire or step down."

In Arizona, when an attendee demanded to know if the senators would support ousting Schumer, Gallego deflected. “We’re focusing on this right now,” he said before turning to address Spanish-speaking voters and media.

Others pleaded with their constituents to stay united.

In Oregon, Wyden said he prepared to field questions about Schumer's future and rose early in the morning pondering his response. “Trump would love to be able to bait Americans over various distractions and I would just ask please, please don't fall for it,” he said, declining to directly address whether the minority leader should be deposed.

And in Vermont, when Welch acknowledged fears that a shutdown could make it easier for Musk to continue his “destructive work,” a constituent interrupted to voice skepticism.

“I understand you don’t buy it,” Welch said, later pleading: “We have to get over the fact that we lost in that particular debate and not turn our ally, who just has a reasonable disagreement with us, into the enemy.”

With Congress in recess, Schumer this week has embarked on a charm offensive aimed at improving his public standing.

Yet he is doing so from the comfort of a television studio rather than taking the risk of any close up and sustained encounters with a seething activist base. Citing “security concerns,” Schumer canceled public appearances in Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York this week for “Antisemitism in America: A Warning,” his newly released book.

During an appearance on “The View” Tuesday, Schumer sought to not just explain his rationale for backing the Republican-drafted funding measure, but project confidence that he will maintain his grip on leadership of the Senate Democrats.

“When you're a leader, if you see a real crisis a little bit down the road, your job is to stand up and say, ‘We cannot do that.’ And that’s what I did,” Schumer said.

When host Alyssa Farah Griffin, a Republican, asked if it was time to step down, Schumer was unequivocal in his response.

“When we don’t have a president, we have a lot of leaders,” the embattled Brooklynite said. “We have a lot of really strong talent in the Senate, in the House, in the governors, we have a great bench. But as far as the Senate caucus, of which I’m the leader — I should be the leader.”

That is far from a consensus view within the party. Democratic strategist Aisha Mills suggested the lingering anguish over the funding measure exposed a widening gap between elected officials and the activist base.

“He didn't have the fight that we really as Democrats wanted and needed him to as a leader,” Mills said of Schumer. “It felt like a bit of a cop out.”

© Alex Brandon/AP

A normally even-keeled Democratic congressman wants Chuck Schumer to feel the heat. If the Senate minority leader doesn't adopt a tougher line in the next big Washington negotiation, Rep. Glenn Ivey said, “maybe he needs to go.”

Ivey spoke to POLITICO Wednesday morning, hours after facing a raucous town hall in his suburban Washington district, where he first suggested that Schumer should consider stepping aside. Ivey expanded on his view of the top Senate Democrat — and delivered an ultimatum amid the widespread frustration with the party leadership’s approach to opposing President Donald Trump.

“If he can get himself together and come — you know, get right on this vote and we get another shot at it, okay,” Ivey said. “But if he’s going to do the same thing again when this bill comes up six months from now, we can’t afford that.”

Ivey, a second-term Congress and member of the House Appropriations Committee, expressed confidence in his own caucus leader, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, who was able to persuade all but one Democrat in the House to vote against a Republican-drafted spending bill. But Ivey said the fissures that were exposed when the two Democratic leaders took separate approaches to measure were unacceptable and can’t happen again.

“We’ve got a limited number of shots at being able to fight back against the Trump administration and what they’re doing,” Ivey continued. “We can’t afford to miss the moment again.”

“Hakeem met the moment last week,” he added. “Schumer missed it.”During Ivey’s town hall Tuesday inside a crowded high school auditorium, he faced a series of pointed questions about Democrats’ ability to push back on the Trump administration, as well as his own ability to fight for his constituents — many of whom identified themselves as federal workers or contractors impacted by the Trump administration's mass firings and tech billionaire Elon Musk's efforts to slash government spending. They also lobbed broader questions over why the party doesn't have a clear strategy.

A few jeered when Ivey repeatedly pointed to the midterm elections next year as the party’s best opportunity to constrain Trump. This enraged some in the crowd, with some heading for the exits before the town hall officially wrapped, telling this reporter on the way out the door that they weren't hearing enough.

Ivey pushed back on those characterizations, which rankled many in the audience. The congressman, whose district includes much of majority-Black Prince George’s County, said he understood the frustration from constituents, but reiterated there are few levers for Democrats to pull while they are in the House minority.

And Ivey isn't the only House Democrat getting questions about whether he continues to back Schumer. Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) nodded and said "yes" when constituents asked Tuesday at a town hall whether he should "retire or step down," Axios reported.

During the interview, he praised several House Democrats for taking the lead in standing up to Trump and pushing party leaders to fight hard. They included Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, as well as Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, the top Oversight Committee Democrat, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Ivey admitted these elected officials don’t always exhibit the type of “fire and brimstone kind of stuff” some in the Democratic base want to see.

"Everybody doesn't have to do the same temperament, everybody doesn't have to do the same messaging," he said, "as long as they're doing what they need to do to win their seats."

© AP

The Senate Democratic leader said it himself on cable news on Tuesday night. By siding with Republicans on the government funding bill, Chuck Schumer knew members of his own party would come out against him.

But what may have not have been expected was how quickly the criticism spread beyond the left flank.

Just this week, Rep. Glenn Ivey of Maryland told constituents “it may be time for the Senate Democrats to get a new leader,” Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz aired frustrations, and one of Schumer’s longtime allies, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, dropped the hammer on him.

“I myself don’t give away anything for nothing,” Pelosi told reporters Tuesday during a news conference at a children’s hospital in San Francisco, her second time addressing Schumer’s vote. “I think that’s what happened the other day.”

Five days after the vote, Schumer bashing is going mainstream — continuing a drumbeat of criticism that first started when he announced he would join Republicans, eight other Democrats and one independent, to advance the bill to fund the government.

What began with activist groups and progressive members of Congress, has moved toward both the party’s political center and the nation’s heartland – including to possible 2028 contenders. The criticism comes as the party struggles to find ways to push back against a Republican stranglehold on power in Washington.

Illinois’ Pritzker said “I disagree with what he did and vehemently so,” following a talk at the Center for American Progress. Walz, the former vice presidential nominee, said Democrats “gave up their leverage” in an appearance on California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s podcast.

And then there was Pelosi.

By piling on Tuesday, Pelosi “gave everybody a permission slip to carry on,” said one Democratic strategist, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.

And they did.

“I respect Chuck Schumer. I think he had a great, long-standing career,” Ivey (D-Md.) told an audience that included many government workers Tuesday night. “But I’m afraid that it may be time for the Senate Democrats to get a new leader.”

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes Tuesday night, Schumer not only defended his decision as necessary to prevent the hurt a shutdown would bring to American workers, but also touted his own political prowess.

“I’m a smart politician, I can read what people want,” Schumer said, emphasizing that a while Republicans put forward a “terrible, terrible, bill,” a shutdown would have been “so much worse.”

“I couldn’t tolerate it, I couldn’t live with it,” he added.

He isn’t the only Democrat making the calculation — about the bill or his political standing. In Pelosi’s home state, Darry Sragow, a Democratic strategist, insists that these types of disagreements are just business as usual for Democrats.

“That's just what we do,” he said. “You know, we're this dysfunctional family that agrees on one thing; and that is that we want to protect the interests of ordinary, working Americans.”

Schumer hit cable again Wednesday morning, working to shift the focus to the party's messaging against President Donald Trump.

"Now we can really go after him, let the public know who he is," Schumer said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "Once they know who he is, show them what we have done and want to do."

Schumer’s Senate colleagues, too, are quick to dismiss the idea that he should be removed as leader. But even some of them have expressed concern that members need more guidance.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Schumer “can lead the caucus.”

However, he added, Democrats “need to have a conversation inside the caucus about whether we are willing to stand up to Republicans.”

Danny Nguyen contributed to this report.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

SUITLAND, Maryland — Any hope of congressional Democrats unifying around Chuck Schumer broke Tuesday, as Rep. Glenn Ivey became the first House Democrat to openly say it might be time for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to call it quits.

“I respect Chuck Schumer. I think he had a great, long-standing career,” Ivey, who represents a deep-blue Maryland district just outside Washington, told an audience that included many government workers. “But I’m afraid that it may be time for the Senate Democrats to get a new leader.”

It's the furthest a current member of Congress openly gone for calling for Schumer to step down. His criticism reflects what appears to be growing division among Democrats over how to resist the sweeping cuts imposed by Trump and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

His fellow Congressional Black Caucus member, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), said last weekend: "Senate Democrats have to sit down and take a look and decide whether Chuck Schumer is the one to lead the moment."

Democratic elected leaders and members of the public have expressed outrage in recent days over Schumer’s decision to avoid a government shutdown by agreeing to a vote on a Republican plan that would allow Trump to make more cuts.

Ivey, like all but one of the chamber’s Democrats, voted against the spending plan in the House — a show of unity orchestrated by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries that did not hold in the Senate.

“I think Hakeem Jeffries will continue to hold the House Democratic Caucus together. He's done it over and over and over again on these major bills,” Ivey said. “If we can make sure that we get the right leadership in the Senate to get it done this time and hold them together and vote with the House Democrats, we can actually have an impact.”

A lawyer by training and the patriarch of a powerful political family in Prince George’s County, the congressman was repeatedly shouted down by people at the town hall demanding action against Trump and Musk.

“Answer the question!” one person yelled from the balcony of a crowded high school auditorium as he responded to a question about helping fired federal workers get their jobs back.

Several people jeered at Ivey: “What are you doing now!?” as Ivey mentioned court challenges to administration actions and said the best time to fight back would be in the midterm elections of 2026.

His criticism of Schumer comes after a rough few days for the minority leader in which even longtime supporters have taken swipes at him. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Tuesday he had forfeited his leverage by allowing the vote though she still supports him.

A Schumer spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request to comment on Ivey’s remark. But the minority leader, who canceled a tour to promote his book “Antisemitism in America: A Warning” as protests were being organized against him, has shrugged off the criticism.

The minority leader told MSNBC on Tuesday that even though the Republican spending resolution was a “terrible, terrible bill,” he felt that a government shutdown would have been worse.

“I knew when I made this decision I’d get a lot of flack,” Schumer said. “I’m a smart politician, I can read what people want.”

A government shutdown, he said, would have done "such damage" to the country. “I couldn’t tolerate it," he said. "I couldn’t live with it.”

© Francis Chung/ POLITICO

WestExec Advisors has long operated as an exclusive Washington consulting firm known for its meteoric rise and lineup of heavy-hitter Democrats and former national security officials.

But its business is something of a black box. Because it technically doesn’t directly advocate on behalf of clients — i.e., lobby — WestExec doesn’t have to disclose who is paying them and for what.

POLITICO, however, has gotten a peek at some clients that previously worked with WestExec in recent years before departing. They include software giant Palantir Technologies, Japanese investment company SoftBank Group, semiconductor manufacturer GlobalFoundries and South Korean conglomerate Samsung, according to six people directly familiar with the matter.

Each company had worked with WestExec for at least a few years, according to the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss sensitive information. All of the clients have ended their contracts since November.

Several of the companies that previously worked with WestExec have signed on with lobbying firms touting their supposed access to President Donald Trump — a reflection of anxiety within Washington’s power landscape over how to navigate an administration not particularly amenable to the ordinary ways of D.C.’s influence business.

While WestExec emphasizes that it is nonpartisan, its founders all worked in the Obama administration. Michèle Flournoy, Sergio Aguirre and Nitin Chadda are all co-founders who remain with the firm as managing partners. Former CIA director John Brennan is a principal and former Obama senior State department official Richard Stengel and former Bill Clinton Middle East envoy Amb. Dennis Ross are also senior advisers.

Biden also plucked several WestExec bigwigs — including co-founder Antony Blinken, Avril Haines and Jen Psaki — for posts in his administration. Those moves drew scrutiny at the time over potential conflicts of interest involving its unrevealed clients. POLITICO noted in 2020 that many of the administration picks were not bound by the Biden transition’s restrictions on hiring people who had lobbied in the past year.

Some of the clients that recently left WestExec said that they were specifically seeking connections with firms that have a more direct line to the Trump administration. One said it had a desire to “put our resources elsewhere.” Palantir and SoftBank have in recent months signed contracts with Miller Strategies, the lobbying firm headed up by top Trump fundraiser Jeff Miller. Samsung, meanwhile, is “actively seeking experts with strong ties to Trump,” according to the Korea Herald.

A WestExec spokesperson, who asked not to be named, said that because it’s not a lobbying shop, its business isn’t at the whim of which party controls Washington. The spokesperson said that WestExec provides analysis and strategic advice for companies trying to navigate a complicated geopolitical and policy landscape.

“WestExec remains one of the world’s leading strategic advisory firms — growing every year since our founding [in 2017] regardless of who occupies the White House. We are not a lobbying firm. Our dozens of principals and senior advisors — largely comprised of former senior government officials from both parties as well as military and industry leaders — provide insightful analysis and strategic counsel for companies trying to navigate a dynamic geopolitical, regulatory and policy landscape,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

“Of course, our substantial client roster evolves as corporate challenges are solved and needs change, but we had a record year in 2024 and are on pace for similar growth in 2025, having signed several new clients since the new year. That’s because good business advice isn’t partisan.”

A person familiar with the firm said Samsung and GlobalFoundries had a change in priorities that led those clients to leave, and that Palantir’s departure was a mutual decision. A person familiar with SoftBank’s decision said the company changed consultants to align with the new administration.

While WestExec officials insist their business doesn’t depend on Democrats being in power, they have been fielding calls from Republican-linked lobbying firms inquiring about forging a partnership, according to the person familiar with the firm.

A spokesperson for Palantir declined to comment, and spokespeople for GlobalFoundries, Samsung and SoftBank didn’t respond to requests for comment.

It isn’t a shock that companies would part ways with a traditionally Democratic-leaning firm in favor of doing business with Republican-aligned outfits. A handful of lobbying firms linked to former President Joe Biden have lost significant business since the election, as POLITICO Influence has previously reported. But the confidentiality surrounding the clients of WestExec and other strategic advisory firms makes the revelation of departed clients notable.

© Chris Kleponis/AFP via Getty Images

JB Pritzker criticized Chuck Schumer and declined to say whether he should continue leading Senate Democrats amid an escalating internal crisis over the party’s strategy in the second Trump presidency.

Schumer joined Republicans in voting to avert a government shutdown last week, infuriating broad swaths of the left — and leading to calls for him to step down as Senate Democratic leader — for declining to use leverage in the spending fight to oppose President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Pritzker, a high-profile governor and Democratic operator, chose not to publicly extend a life raft to Schumer when asked about the senator’s future.

"Look, he's the elected leader," Pritzker told reporters after a sit-down at the Center for American Progress in Washington. "I disagree with what he did and vehemently so. But I also know that he has done good work as a Senate leader in other ways."

During the event, Pritzker praised Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth for voting no on the measure and didn't mention the state's other senator, Dick Durbin, who voted with Schumer to advance the spending bill.

Still, he added, "having an internecine war in the Democratic Party does not help anyone,” indicating he hoped Schumer would "stand up for the values" they share.

The Illinois governor's slight is particularly notable as the New York senator faces intense intra-party criticism from Democratic-aligned groups in the wake of the spending fight.

This isn't the first time Pritzker has questioned Schumer's strategy. Pritzker and other Democratic governors had pushed Schumer earlier this year to unite Senate Democrats in opposition to Trump. Schumer’s decision to join Republicans in advancing a funding bill — despite nearly all House Democrats, and most Senate Democrats, opposing it — threatens to tear open a rift between Democratic leaders over the party’s strategy in the second Trump presidency.

Center for American Progress CEO Neera Tanden repeatedly called Pritzker a "fighter" in her introduction to the event, the first in a high-profile series of interviews with Democratic figures that the think tank tends to hold between campaign cycles and is an early indicator of movers and shakers in the party.

“Gov. Pritzker does not cower to bullies,” said Tanden, a veteran Democratic political consultant who recently returned to the Center for American Progress after a stint in former President Joe Biden's administration.

The Illinois governor's interview in Washington comes as other presidential hopefuls are positioning themselves for a newly leaderless Democratic Party. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is making overtures to the MAGA base with a new podcast series and former Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz is touring red districts with hosting town halls. (Walz also took a shot at Schumer’s decision, saying in an episode of Newsom’s podcast released Tuesday that “we gave up our leverage.”)

But most of Pritzker's criticism remained focused on Trump, with the governor calling Elon Musk "President Musk," an emerging Democratic attack on the tech billionaire's efforts to slash government spending. He also touted his talking points around boosting pocketbook issues before a wonky, policy-focused audience.

And he offered a more subtle dig against Republican members of Congress for being unwilling to stand up to Trump.

“Congress is dysfunctional and so dysfunctional now because people are just cowed by this administration,” Pritzker said. “They’re concerned about being primaried.”

💾

© Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Moderate Democrats are on a tear.

Democrats are overperforming at the state level, with centrist candidates flipping one seat and coming close in another in special elections in deep red parts of Iowa. Rahm Emanuel, who once orchestrated a takeover of the House by recruiting Blue Dog Democrats, is eying a 2028 bid for president. And leading Democrats like Gavin Newsom and Chuck Schumer are rebuffing the left — the California governor siding against trans players in women’s sports and the Senate minority leader veering away from progressive demands to shut down the government.

“Moderates are having their moment,” said Jonathan Kott, the onetime senior adviser to the former centrist Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. “I think people are realizing that there were many reasons we lost in 2024, but an acquiescence to all of the liberal groups and fighting and dying on hills about 1 and 2 and 3 percent of the voting population seemed really dumb.”

A fresh batch of public polling over the weekend showed the Democratic Party is facing its worst image crisis in some time. A NBC News poll showed more than half of independents have an unfavorable view of the party — just 11 percent of independents have positive views of Democrats — which could explain why Democrats are pivoting to reach these voters.

Even their own polling sees a move toward the center. In the party’s latest internal survey in congressional battlegrounds, the vast majority of voters — 69 percent — say Democrats were “too focused on being politically correct,” while 51 percent said the party is “elitist,” according to a poll conducted by the Democratic group Navigator Research.

“It's a reaction to what happened in the wake of the Trump victory in 2016 where the party did move pretty radically to the left on a whole bunch of things and the country sort of did, too, particularly after the murder of George Floyd,” said Matt Bennett, the vice president of Third Way. The centrist group that has called for banning “far-left candidate questionnaires,” pushed “back against far-left staffers and groups that exert a disproportionate influence on policy and messaging,” and “own the failures of Democratic governance in large cities.”

The progressive and activist wing of the party isn't rolling over. Populist champion Bernie Sanders is drawing large crowds in the Midwest, liberal activists are organizing against massive budget cuts and progressives are warning of a primary challenge to Schumer.

But the revolution is happening in a quieter way for centrists. Far from Washington, there are signs at the state level that moderate Democrats are doing extremely well in districts Trump captured only a few months ago.

In an Iowa state House special election last week, the Democratic candidate — though ultimately losing — outperformed Kamala Harris by 24 points. That performance by Democrat Nannette Griffin came on the heels of the party flipping a state Senate seat in Iowa and solidifying legislative majorities in Virginia. And it bolstered centrists’ argument that Democrats in the Trump era can motivate voters with meat-and-potatoes messaging around everyday costs.

The Iowa results build on Democrats’ string of successes in state legislative special elections this year, which the party is pointing to as a measure of enthusiasm ahead of the midterms.

“What I am noticing is just a rejuvenation within the Democrats across the state,” said Sen. Mike Zimmer, who picked up a GOP seat in rural Eastern Iowa in January that Trump won by 21 points. “If we work hard and we really come together and we have an organized plan, we can be much more competitive.”

And it isn’t just Iowa. Democrats are seizing on federal job losses as an issue in Pennsylvania special elections slated for the end of March, too, where they are pressing a more economic than ideological message.

In one state Senate district, where federal workers have been furloughed, “a lot of people have felt that it's not being done in a gracious manner. A lot of people also just think it's utter chaos,” said James Malone, the Democratic mayor of East Petersburg, Pennsylvania who is hoping to flip a GOP district.

Malone called Zimmer the day after his victory to learn his playbook, and has adopted a similar economic message in his own campaign.

“As chaos reigns in Washington, Democrats have meaningful and winnable opportunities to push back on the MAGA agenda through state legislative special elections,” said Heather Williams, president of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which is focused on electing Democrats to state legislatures.

The political implications for Schumer or Newsom are far from clear. And the results of a handful of special elections hardly foretell a Democratic comeback in Iowa. Democrats have historically done well before in the part of the state with a dense population of blue-collar workers. And Republicans maintain a tight grip on power in Iowa.

“These special elections can be, you know, not always the harbinger or the canary in the coal mine that you know that folks want them to be,” said GOP strategist Tyler Campbell.

Still, Democrats are flexing their muscles — convinced that an economic message and the use of Elon Musk's slash-and-burn approach to cutting government as a cudgel can lift the party across the map.

“It's the energy factor,” said Iowa State Rep. JD Scholten. “Our side is very energized, because we’re irate with what's happening. We’re seeing this as a national trend – people are fed up and disgusted with what they’re seeing out in D.C. and they’re trying to do something about it.”

In Washington, Schumer has shifted to the left since the years when he described himself as an “angry centrist,” and the criticism of him from within the party was not limited to progressives. But his vote last week was a repudiation of the protest politics of the party’s activist class.

“We have to reckon with the fact that young people, working class people, people of color – the backbone of the Democratic Party are moving away from the party,” said Stevie O’Hanlon, political director of the Sunrise Movement.

O’Hanlon said, “I think Chuck Schumer is part of that reason.”

But for some in the party, provoking the left may be the point. In challenging party orthodoxy on trans rights, Newsom joined Emanuel in tacking to the center, saying he was done “with the discussion of locker rooms” and “done with the discussion of bathrooms” and wanted instead to have a “conversation about the classroom.”

All of this is in line with a kind of cultural war retrenchment for which the party’s most pragmatic voices are practically pleading.

“There was an enormous shift in the culture and in our politics and some of that was very good and some of it went too far,” Third Way’s Bennett said. “And I think what we saw in 2024 was voters saying, ‘Whoa, we don't think that the shift that the Democratic Party has taken was calibrated correctly. It went too far on a whole bunch of things.’”

Emily Ngo contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: This article originally misstated the second reference to Malone.

© AP Photo/Shuji Kajiyama

Chuck Schumer is facing one of the most perilous moments of his Senate leadership career.

The Senate minority leader came under heavy fire for the second straight day from Democrats enraged at him for backing a Republican bill to avoid a government shutdown, and fallout appears likely to last well past Friday’s vote.

A handful of House lawmakers, including some in battleground districts, are floating supporting a primary challenge against him. Activists are organizing efforts to punish him financially. Schumer is facing questions within his own caucus about whether he made strategic errors in handling the high-stakes moment and failed to outline a clear plan about how to deal with the complex politics of a shutdown, according to interviews with six lawmakers or their aides. Some Democratic senators are even privately questioning whether he should stay on as their leader.

“He’s done a great deal of damage to the party,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of the liberal group Indivisible, which has scheduled an emergency call Saturday with its New York chapter and other local leaders to “seriously consider if the current [Democratic] leadership is equipped to handle the moment we’re in.”

In a remarkable sign of how deep the intraparty frustration with Schumer runs, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to throw his fellow New Yorker a life raft. Asked by reporters on Friday if there should be new leadership in the Senate, he said, “Next question.”

Schumer’s one-time partner, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), went so far as to urge senators to vote against his position, saying that “this false choice that some are buying instead of fighting is unacceptable.” And dozens of House Democrats sent a sharply worded letter to Schumer Friday, which expressed “strong opposition” to his standpoint, arguing that the “American people sent Democrats to Congress to fight against Republican dysfunction and chaos” and that the party should not be “capitulating to their obstruction.”

Though several senators said they supported his leadership, some Senate Democrats avoided questions when asked directly Friday about Schumer's leadership role.

“We still have more to play out on this,” said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) when asked if the backlash would impact Schumer's role as leader. “So I’m not really thinking about the big-picture politics.”

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) also dodged, saying: “The leader I don’t have confidence in is Donald Trump.” And Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) responded to a query on whether he still supports Schumer by calling for a “good post-mortem” on Senate Democrats’ approach to the government funding fight.

“Anytime you have a failure — and this is a failure altogether — we as a caucus owe it to Democrats across the country and our constituents to look back and see: How do we get ourselves into this situation?” he said.

One Democratic senator granted anonymity to share private discussions said conversations are starting about whether Schumer should be their leader going forward.

“There’s a lot of concern about the failure to have a plan and execute on it,” the senator said. “It’s not like you couldn't figure out that this is what was going to happen.”

The frustration toward Schumer reflects a boiling anger among Democrats over what they view as their party’s lack of a strategy for taking on Trump in his second term. Though few in Democratic circles think Schumer’s job as minority leader is at risk — and he isn’t up for reelection until 2028 — the frustration toward him spans the party’s spectrum, from moderates to progressives, both in and outside of Congress.

Schumer has defended his vote to keep the government running as the best of two bad choices aimed at not ceding Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk even more power to slash the government. Eight Democratic senators and an independent who caucuses with Democrats joined him to advance the bill, enough to prevent a government shutdown.

“A government shutdown gives Donald Trump, Elon Musk and DOGE almost complete power as to what to close down, because they can decide what is an essential service,” Schumer said in a CNN interview. “My job as leader is to lead the party, and if there's going to be danger in the near future, to protect the party. And I'm proud I did it. I knew I did the right thing, and I knew there'd be some disagreements. That's how it always is.”

He added that he is not concerned with his leadership position: “I have the overwhelming support of my caucus. And so many of the members thanked me and said, ‘You did what you thought was courageous, and we respect it.’”

A person close to Schumer described the senator and other Democrats who supported the bill as giving cover to their colleagues who opposed it.

"The people who are voting for the [continuing resolution] are giving everybody else a massive amount of political protection," the person said. "They get to take the politically expedient move without the consequence of a shutdown.”

But behind closed doors, even some longtime Schumer allies are raising the specter that his time has passed.

“Biden is gone. Pelosi is in the background. Schumer is the last one left from that older generation," said one New York-based donor who is a longtime supporter of the leader. “I do worry that the older generation thinks 2024 was just about inflation, but no, the game has changed. It's not left wing or moderate, it’s everyone now saying — the game is different now. But he was set up to battle in 2006, and we're a long way from 2006."

Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said “active conversations” are taking place among liberal groups about how to make Schumer pay. He said Schumer will likely face protests over his support for the GOP bill at his tour stops next week for his new book “Antisemitism In America: A Warning.” But he said the effort to hold him “accountable” will not end there.

“He has to be made an example of to enforce Democratic backbone going forward,” he said.

And it's far from just progressives.

“I have not seen such uniting anger across the party in a long, long time,” said Charlotte Clymer, a Democratic operative associated with the moderate wing of the party who launched a petition to boycott donations to Senate Democrats until they force Schumer out as minority leader. “Sen. Schumer has managed to unite us far more than Trump has in recent months.”

After the GOP bill advanced Friday, Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar said in a statement that “we need more leaders from the stand and fight wing of the Democratic Party.” MoveOn warned that the liberal group’s “members will be demanding answers from their elected officials” about the vote. The progressive organization Justice Democrats sent a text to supporters reading “F*ck Chuck Schumer.”

Also on Friday, dozens of protesters organized by the Sunrise Movement descended on Schumer’s office in the Hart Senate building holding signs that read: “Schumer: step up or step aside,” demanding he reverse course on supporting the bill. The group said 11 people were arrested.

“We have to reckon with the fact that young people, working-class people, people of color — the backbone of the Democratic Party — are moving away from the party,” said Stevie O’Hanlon, the organization’s political director. “Chuck Schumer is part of that reason.”

Still, some Democratic senators publicly stood by Schumer on Friday.

Asked if people are urging her to run for Schumer’s job, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), said, “No, no,” adding, “I’m doing my job today.”

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who is retiring after this term, called Schumer “a good leader.” Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) told reporters he still has confidence in Schumer in the top role.

Others acknowledged the difficult position Schumer found himself in as he attempted to steer his caucus through a lesser-of-two-evils situation without the same simple-majority cover that Jeffries had in the House.

“It’s tough to be the leader,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

With reporting by Emily Ngo and Hailey Fuchs.

CORRECTION: This article originally misstated the number of Democratic votes that joined Schumer to advance the government funding bill.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

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

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear took a swipe Thursday at a fellow leading Democrat, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, for hosting one of the most prominent figures in the MAGA movement on his new podcast.

Beshear, whose popularity in a heavily Republican state has turned him into a potential presidential candidate, told reporters that Newsom shouldn’t have opened his platform to Steve Bannon, an outspoken advocate of the “America first” agenda of President Donald Trump.

“I think that Governor Newsom bringing on different voices is great, we shouldn't be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone,” Beshear said at a Democratic policy retreat in Virginia. “But Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger, and even at some points violence, and I don't think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere.”

The criticism of Newsom, who is widely expected to run for president, amounted to what could be an early skirmish in the next Democratic primary. It also reflects divisions within a party trying to find its footing after Trump’s resounding victory.

The California governor recently launched the podcast, which appears to some degree to be an effort to find common ground with an ascendant conservative movement.

In his debut episode, speaking to Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA, Newsom drew widespread attention — and criticism — for suggesting that Democrats were wrong to allow transgender athletes to participate in female youth sports. He was also critical of progressives who have called for defunding the police or who use the gender neutral term “Latinx.”

Newsom defended his approach and the Bannon interview in an email statement on Wednesday, saying it is “critically important” to understand Trump’s movement and how it successfully operated in the last campaign.

In the hour-long episode, Bannon repeated the debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen amid a discussion that also covered tariffs and taxes.

“I think we all agreed after the last election that it’s important for Democrats to explore new and unique ways of talking to people,” Newsom said.

A spokesperson for Newsom, who plans to have Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on his next episode, did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Beshear’s remarks.

The Kentucky governor, who was a featured speaker at the retreat along with Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, was not alone in criticizing the Bannon interview.

Former Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who was one of the few Republicans in Congress to challenge Trump, called it an “insane” decision to host Bannon.

“I am in shock at the stupidity of [Newsom] inviting Steve Bannon on his podcast,” Kinzinger said Wednesday. “Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up.”

© Timothy D. Easley/AP