American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, a longtime powerhouse member of the Democratic National Committee, is leaving the DNC, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO.
Weingarten, who has been a member of the DNC for 23 years, wrote to DNC Chair Ken Martin that she had fundamental disagreements with him.
"I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging," the union leader said in the letter dated June 5, "and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more of our communities."
Weingarten's departure is the latest sign that the party is still embroiled in factional disputes, and it is likely to only further finger-pointing and intensify criticism among Democrats. Weingarten has defended former DNC vice chair David Hogg, who was ousted last week from his post on the committee, as he has come under fire over his decision to fund primary challenges against Democrats that he sees as ineffective in safe-blue districts.
Weingarten also supported another candidate to lead the DNC, Wisconsin Democratic Party chair Ben Wikler, during the party’s election earlier this year. When Martin took over, he removed Weingarten from her position on the influential DNC’s rules and bylaws committee, which she had sat on since 2009.
A spokesperson for Weingarten said that when she told AFT members the news of her departure, “Randi has gotten applause" from them, “much to her dismay as a proud Dem.”
Martin has been criticized by some Democrats after he told DNC officers and staff in a recent private conversation that Hogg had “essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to” and “I don’t know if I wanna do this anymore,” as POLITICO first reported. But many other Democrats, including DNC officers, have stood by Martin and bashed Hogg as divisive.
The infighting among Democrats comes as they are trying to rebuild their party in the wake of their 2024 loss.
Within the Trump administration, Richard Grenell is a jack of all trades. When he’s not acting in a diplomatic capacity as special presidential envoy, he’s also running one of Washington's most esteemed arts institutions, the Kennedy Center. “Everyone should be welcome. No one should be booed. No one should be banned,” Grenell tells Politico’s Dasha Burns in a wide-ranging interview in the Kennedy Center’s Grand Foyer. Grenell explains why he thinks “the intolerance is coming from the left,” and why “the gay community has to police itself” at Pride parades. Grenell also sheds light on the Trump administration’s talks with Russia, immigration enforcement, his potential run for California Governor, and his friendship with First Lady Melania Trump.
Grenell also responds to reports that ticket sales and subscriptions have dropped at the Kennedy Center. Grenell calls those reports “wrong.” Read the statements from the Kennedy Center’s CFO here and its SVP of Marketing here.
Plus, senior political reporter Melanie Mason joins Burns to talk about the immigration protests in Los Angeles and how California Governor Gavin Newsom is leading the fight against President Trump’s military intervention.
Listen and subscribe to The Conversation with Dasha Burns on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Political leaders from across the spectrum and around the country called for calm after one Minnesota lawmaker was killed and another was seriously injured in apparent politically motivated shootings on Saturday.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state law enforcement officials said Saturday that former state Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed and state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife were seriously injured in a pair of shootings that the governor labeled as “politically motivated assassinations.”
The violence in Minnesota is only the latest incident of apparent politically fueled attacks in America in recent weeks, which include a pair of Israeli embassy staffers being gunned down in Washington earlier this month.
In response to Saturday’s shootings, state lawmakers from both parties have issued a call for calm and an end to further violence.
California’s Democratic Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Republican Minority Leader James Gallagher issued a rare joint statement Saturday afternoon, saying “we stand together in condemning it in the strongest possible terms.”
“As leaders on both sides of the aisle, we call on everyone to take down the temperature, respect differences of opinion and work toward peace in our society,” their statement read.
They were followed by the leaders of the California state Senate, Democratic Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire and Republican Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, who said there is “no cause, no grievance, no election justifies the use of fear or force against our fellow human beings.”
Minnesota’s entire congressional delegation, including Democratic Sens. Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar as well as Republican Rep. Tom Emmer, the House GOP whip, put out a joint statement condemning the attack.
“Today we speak with one voice to express our outrage, grief, and condemnation of this horrible attack on public servants. There is no place in our democracy for politically-motivated violence,” they said.
Saturday’s shooting deeply rattled politicians from both parties, who have seen an increase in threats and violence directed toward them over the last several years — particularly since the pandemic and the riot at Capitol Hill in Washington in 2021.
It is particularly acute for state elected officials. Members of Congress have long said they do not have adequate security resources as they face an increasingly threatening environment, and Capitol police have regularly warned about elevated risks for lawmakers. But that’s especially true for state lawmakers, many of whom only do the job part time with little to no official security provided by their jobs.
“None of us who run for public office sign up for this,” Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell, a Democrat, said in a statement following the shooting. “We sign up to serve our communities, to debate policy, and to work on behalf of our constituents – not to have our lives and our families threatened by political extremists.”
Following the shooting, Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2024, urged Minnesotans to not attend protests planned in the state for Saturday — meant to serve as a countermeasure to President Donald Trump’s military parade in Washington— “out of an abundance of caution.”
In a separate statement, he said political violence must end. “We are not a country that settles our differences at gunpoint,” he said. “We have demonstrated again and again in our state that it is possible to peacefully disagree, that our state is strengthened by civil public debate.”
That call was swiftly echoed by many of Walz’s gubernatorial colleagues across the country.
“These attacks are not just assaults on individuals, they are attacks on our communities, and the very foundation of our democracy,” said Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Democrat and Republican and the chair and vice chair of the National Governors Association. “Now more than ever, we must come together as one nation to ensure that our public square remains a place of debate, not danger."
For more than 170 days in 2020, thousands of Portlanders gathered to protest police violence. They lay peacefully in the middle of the city’s most iconic bridge and marched with a local NBA star — but also tore down statues and looted shops. Police launched tear gas canisters into crowds, while the 750 Department of Homeland Security agents President Donald Trump dispatched to the city without the approval of local or state officials grabbed protesters at night and loaded them into unmarked vehicles.
As anti-Trump protests ramp up — with major rallies taking place across the country on Saturday — Portland officials are anxious to avoid a repeat of 2020.
“The Portland Police and then the feds overreacting in the way that they did, I think it brought even more people out because it was such injustice,” said Ali King, a veteran social organizer in Portland who worked for now-retired Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) at the time. “When I saw the LA thing, I just had flashbacks. I did feel some PTSD.”
The impact of those protests and riots on Portland was massive. Voters completely overhauled the city’s government structure, the county elected a more tough-on-crime district attorney, and the police department reformed the way it deals with protesters.
Five years later and 1000 miles away, President Trump again deployed federal officers into a city beset by protests against the will of state and local officials. Those recent events in Los Angeles have put Portland back on edge. Protests this week in the Rose City have been largely peaceful, but as tensions grow, officials hope policy changes will be enough to avoid a repeat of 2020’s violence and prevent federal involvement.
“We've changed so much since 2020,” Mayor Keith Wilson, a trucking company owner and political outsider who was elected in 2024 on a progressive platform of fixing the city’s homeless problem and improving public safety, told POLITICO earlier this week. “But federal overreach is something we're concerned about, and we're prepared to sue.”
A review conducted by an independent monitor after the 2020 protests found failings by the city and the police department ranging from poor communication with the public to inadequate training in deescalation tactics and insufficient guidance about when and how to use force. These problems, the review found, led to mistrust between the public and the police and escalated — rather than deescalated — the situation.
In the wake of that review and a handful of lawsuits brought against the police department for actions taken during the 2020 protests, significant changes were made to the city’s policing policies. Wilson and Portland Police Chief Bob Day told POLITICO those changes include reducing use of tear gas and militarized gear, overhauling the department’s rapid response team and establishing liaison officers to build relationships with community organizers. Members of the department also attended training in Cincinnati and London to learn from experts in deescalation and crowd control, Day added.
“We're looking at large-scale events much differently than we've done in the past,” said Day, a former deputy chief who was called out of retirement in 2023 to be interim chief by then-mayor Ted Wheeler. “What you want to bring, from a public safety standpoint, is you're not adding to the chaos.”
Most protests in Portland since these changes were instituted have been peaceful, but Sergeant Aaron Schmautz, president of Portland’s police union, says the city hasn’t faced a situation like 2020 that would put the new tactics to the test.
“There's just a lot of nervousness right now,” he said.
Portland is not alone in the Northwest. Tensions are also growing in Seattle and Spokane, neighboring Washington’s two largest cities, in light of anti-ICE protests and the federal government’s response in Los Angeles. Seattle Police Chief Shon Barnes said Tuesday he will do anything in his power to protect Seattleites “from anyone who comes to the city with the intention to hurt them or inhibit their First Amendment rights,” and was willing to risk arrest to do so. Then on Wednesday, at least eight demonstrators were arrested by Seattle police after a dumpster was set on fire. In Spokane, meanwhile, Democratic Mayor Lisa Brown instituted a curfew after more than 30 people, including a former city council president, were arrested during protests.
King said protesters in Portland are willing to put their bodies in the way to stop ICE actions, like physically blocking agents’ path or distracting them. And she says trust between protesters and the Portland Police Bureau is still really low. But she added that the community has been having its own conversations about remaining peaceful and deescalating within the ranks at protests.
Terrence Hayes, a formerly incarcerated local community organizer who is on the city’s criminal justice commission and supports giving the police more resources, said the city’s mood has changed since 2020. The months of violence, tear gas, looting and arrests by federal officers are something residents are not excited to revisit.
“I just don't think we're looking for that fight,” Hayes said. “If ICE start pushing certain lanes, of course people are going to stand up and protest — but I don't think they're going to be inner-city destructive.”
King added that “if somebody is kidnapping an innocent person off the streets … [we] might have to physically get involved.”
Over the last week, there have been protests across the city, including outside the local ICE office. The vast majority have been peaceful, Schmautz said, with minor instances of violence or destructive behavior like arson. The department has arrested about 13 people over the last week. For a city so renowned for its protests that it was once called “Little Beirut” by a staffer for George H.W. Bush (a moniker a local band proudly took as their own), the last week has been notably quiet.
Day said this week shows the new policies are already helping deescalate. But 2025 is very different from 2020 in a key way: Then, Portlanders were protesting their own police department. Now, the target is the federal immigration apparatus. The police department will not assist ICE, Day explained, but needs to prevent violence or lawbreaking all the same. He calls the gray area for local police “a very complex, nuanced challenge.”
The chief gave two examples: Earlier this week, Portland Police removed debris piled by protesters that was preventing ICE contractors from entering a parking lot — receiving criticism from city residents for doing so. At the time, the department contends, the contractors were not engaged in enforcement actions and officers believed that moving the debris would reduce tensions. But on another day, police watched passively nearby and did not help federal officers clear a path through a similar group of protesters for a van carrying detained immigrants to pass.
Day said in a normal situation, they would clear a blocked street. But with ICE, they “are not going to actively enforce some of these laws” that are hindering ICE’s operation, Day said. But, he added, “we can't say that the ICE facility, in itself, as it stands, is free game, that anybody can do whatever they want to that building or to that area.”
The wild card, according to everyone involved, is the small portion of people who show up and try to escalate conflict and encourage illegal behavior. Nearly everyone who spoke to POLITICO for this article mentioned groups on the right and left who are suspected of coming to peaceful protests in order to incite violence.
“Law enforcement may be called to navigate criminal activity on the fringes of a free speech event, which creates a lot of challenges,” Schmautz said.
And at the core of the conversation is Portland’s collective identity as a city that is always willing to fight back. Chief Day noted Portland’s longstanding protest culture. Free speech demonstrations are one of the city’s core values, Schmautz added. King said she and her fellow protesters expect to become a target of the Trump administration in the coming days or weeks.
But perhaps Hayes put it best: “If you push, Portland pushes back,” he said. “If they come to Portland acting up, Portland's gonna return that LA energy.”
Democrats see turning to a new type of candidate to give them an edge in the 2026 midterms: mothers of young children.
JoAnna Mendoza, a single mother of a 9-year-old son, launched a bid to run in Arizona’s Sixth Congressional District in February. Christina Hines, a mother of three, threw her hat in the ring for an open seat in Michigan's 10th Congressional District in April. And in Iowa, state Sen. Sarah Trone Garriott, a mom of two, is vying for the state’s 3rd Congressional District in May.
Motherhood — once seen as a political liability — is becoming a key plank of campaign messaging for a new crop of Democratic candidates. Candidates are not just listing their credentials as former Marines or special victims prosecutors, but are also leaning into their experience raising a family in their pitch to voters.
"Women candidates work so much harder than anyone else, and especially mothers, because they know how to really juggle and manage a lot of things, but they also know what's at stake,” said Trone Garriott, who said she raised $230,000 within the first 24 hours of launching her congressional campaign that leans into her “public school mom” persona.
And they have support from Vote Mama, a PAC dedicated to helping mothers of minor children get elected to public office. The group currently has 70 endorsed candidates and expects that number to grow.
“Moms have had enough,” said Liuba Grechen Shirley, who founded Vote Mama after her own unsuccessful run in 2018. “Our policies fail moms.”
The recent rush of political involvement from mothers follows past waves. Most famously, the sexual harassment allegations that dominated Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination in the 1990s inspired a fresh crop of women running in 1992. But more recently, President Donald Trump’s first presidential win inspired candidates in the 2018 midterms, and the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022 pushed new grassroots groups to organize.
Despite some high-profile examples — former Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously raised five children before running for Congress — mothers of young children remain rare in elected office. Only 6.8 percent of the members of the 118th Congress were mothers of children under 18, compared to 24.2 percent being fathers of minor children, according to data released by Vote Mama. At the state level, only 7.9 percent of all legislators are women with minor children.
Ahead of the 2026 midterms, groups like Vote Mama say they are seeing renewed energy from mothers frustrated by Republican-led efforts to slash funding to programs that support families, like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid.
But as more women enter public office, tensions arise with business as usual. Earlier this year, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna and a bipartisan group of lawmakers thrust motherhood into the spotlight with a push to allow proxy voting in the House — a move that drew aggressive criticism from conservatives and ultimately failed. “Show up for work, or don’t run for Congress,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said in a post on X. But Luna’s campaign shows that there are signs of growing support for mothers serving in Congress.
“What is noticeable is that it started as a bipartisan effort, and because of that, I think that just helps show that this is not tied to your political party,” said Gayle Goldin, a senior fellow at The Century Foundation. “This is something that needs to be in effect for women, regardless of their political party.”
Internal grapples with parental responsibilities has been one thing moms said they considered carefully. Hines, whose campaign was motivated by Trump’s push to dismantle the Education Department, said she weighed the potential toll her candidacy could have on her family before making the decision to run.
“My biggest hesitation is the fact that I do have three kids — they’re nine, seven and four — and they are my biggest passion and love of my life," Hines said. "The idea, not just of the campaign, but of winning and then being away from them, was something that was holding me back.”
And motherhood is front and center for many candidates’ messaging strategy. Dr. Annie Andrews, a pediatrician who recently announced a long-shot bid against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in May, said in her candidate announcement video: "I'm literally a busy mom," highlighting taking her kids to tae kwon do, dance and football.
But Andrews' pitch to voters also aims to emphasize her blend of experience, highlighting her concerns as a doctor over Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s contested agenda. “Like so many of you, I am worried about what the future holds for our kids,” she said.
And some of these moms are already seeing early enthusiasm for their candidacies. Mendoza, who is running in Arizona, raised over $816,000 for her first-quarter FEC filing, an impressive figure for a candidate seeking federal office for the first time. She's also locked down endorsements from BOLD PAC, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ political arm, and VoteVets, a progressive group that backs veterans running for office.
"We're already in the political arena ready to go," Mendoza said. "Some of these other candidates are outside the stadium trying to figure out how to get in.”
Democrats’ newest approach to win back voters is a fresh embrace of the nation's oldest symbol.
Two days ahead of Flag Day, when President Donald Trump’s military parade will run through the streets of Washington, Democratic Reps. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) and Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) fanned out Thursday afternoon to give a gift to their colleagues to unite them.
It was a 4-inch-by-6-inch American flag, which they passed out at almost the exact moment, unbeknownst to them, that Sen. Alex Padilla was getting forcibly removed and handcuffed at a Homeland Security press conference in Los Angeles — an act House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries would later call “unpatriotic.”
The flags, made in Deluzio’s Pennsylvania, came with a message in an accompanying dear colleague letter written by Ryan, a West Point grad who served two tours in Iraq, and Deluzio, a U.S. Navy officer who was also deployed there. They have joined forces to become co-chairs of the first-ever, 18-member Democratic Veterans Caucus, formed just three days ago.
“Patriotism does not belong to one party,” the letter read. “The flag, and the values it stands for, belong to every single American.”
As Democrats look for a message to rebut the MAGA right, they are looking within their own ranks for a credible message against the overreach of those holding power.
“The timing is very apt, because we've now had a senator handcuffed; we've had one of my House colleagues charged and now indicted; we've had not just the National Guard federalized, but active duty troops deployed against U.S. citizens, and increasingly, Trump, who really is the Republican Party now, their definition of patriotism, is, do you support Trump and MAGA?” Ryan told POLITICO. “And if you don't, then you're not patriotic."
Democrats see the military display taking place in Washington on the Army’s 250th birthday — which also happens to coincide with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday — as emblematic of a president who puts himself above the country. In his speech this week, even California Gov. Gavin Newsom framed his criticism of Trump in patriotic terms, saying he’s “ordering our American heroes, the United States military, and forcing them to put on a vulgar display to celebrate his birthday, just as other failed dictators have done in the past.”
It's a message that a beleaguered party hopes resonates in the 90 percent of counties that shifted to Republicans last November. Or, as Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) put it earlier this year, it's time for Democrats to “fucking retake the flag.”
Ahead of Trump’s parade, outside groups like VoteVets are rallying former servicemembers to make a not-so-subtle contrast. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy officer, is organizing fellow veterans online to “call out how Trump is putting his ego first while he fires veterans from federal jobs and guts the VA.” Others who also served in the armed forces, like JoAnna Mendoza who is running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, plan to be involved in the pushback.
“Patriotism is not something the Democratic Party should concede, because patriotism is not something the Republican Party created,” Moore said in an interview.
Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Instagram Thursday said “any salute to the flag or patriotism or talk of American greatness is completely hollow if you do not respect the freedoms that that flag represents.”
In Iowa last month at a town hall hosted by the Democratic political action committee VoteVets, Buttigieg closed his opening remarks with an extended meditation on the flag to his three-year-old daughter. The former Navy Reserve intelligence officer who deployed to Afghanistan for seven months extolled “the values that flag represents, the story, the incredibly rich and inspiring — and yes, very, complicated story, of everything that has happened under that flag and in the name of that flag.”
And it comes at a time when the party’s brightest stars include a number of veterans — including some poised to enter governor's mansions and help Democrats retake the House.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, her party's gubernatorial nominee in New Jersey, is a former Navy helicopter pilot.
And like Buttigieg, other possible 2028 presidential contenders are leaning into powerful national symbols: Kelly is also a former astronaut. And there is Ruben Gallego, a Marine combat veteran who served in Iraq.
In attempting to reclaim the flag from its right-coded fixture at the moment, Democrats face no easy task: One study found that a single exposure to the American flag shifts voter sentiment to the right for up to eight months after.
Major General (Ret.) Paul Eaton, a senior adviser to VoteVets, the PAC that sponsored Buttigieg's town hall last month, said messaging that has been so successful on the right to pigeonhole the other party [as] less than patriotic.”
Mendoza, a retired US Marine, says she finds it "extremely frustrating" when Republicans claim to be the true party of patriots. Medoza said she deliberately chose her campaign colors to be red, white and blue to make a point that "they don't own it, and we have to take it back."
"The Republican Party does not own this country, they don't own the American flag," she said. "It belongs to the people."
Democrats have spent years battling perceptions that they are less patriotic — and reversing that image could take just as long.
But “a key part of the way out of the moment we're in will be military veterans who can help bridge the divide," Ryan said. "That's why I think this reassertion of a constructive, unifying patriotism is absolutely just essential right now.”
CORRECTION: This article originally misspelled Ruben Gallego's first name, misidentified Hakeem Jeffries' title, mischaracterized Chris Deluzio's deployments to Iraq, and misstated Donald Trump's birthday.
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.
A survey of likely voters seeks to offer Democrats a blueprint for how to punch back on an issue that’s vexed them in recent elections: immigration.
The poll, conducted in key 2026 battleground districts by Democratic-leaning groups Way to Win and Impact Research and shared first with POLITICO, argues that Democrats — with the right messaging — can drive down President Donald Trump’s strength on immigration by a net 10 percentage points.
The poll does not shy away from Democrats’ overall poor standing on the issue. Republicans overall have an 11-percentage-point net negative job rating on immigration (43 percent approve versus 54 percent disapprove), but Democrats have a 58-percentage-point net negative rating on the issue (19 percent approve versus 77 disapprove).
Democrats can turn the tide, the message testing found, by playing up Trump's overreach and disregard for the rule of law that they say threatens citizens and noncitizens alike as he carries out his mass deportations. But many Democrats would rather avoid the topic.
“Coming into and out of the 2024 cycle, Democrats were silent — completely — on immigration,” said Tory Gavito, president of Way to Win. “There was just no response at all. This poll is to show Democrats that when they point out how enforcement has failed, they can attack Trump on one of his most favorable policies.”
The survey, conducted in more than 70 key congressional districts, including the 26 “frontline” member list of top House Democratic-held seats the party hopes to defend next cycle, found a weakness for Trump. His initial job rating, which started with 50 percent positive versus 49 percent negative on immigration, dropped to 45 percent positive and 54 percent negative after emphasizing overreach messaging.
The survey used specific examples, like the deportation of a person in the country legally “but deported and sent to a prison in El Salvador because of their autism awareness tattoowas wrongly identified as a gang tattoo” — or a 10-year-old U.S. citizen deported because her parents were undocumented.
Researchers say Democrats have plenty ammunition on the issue. They found policies that separate families and impact children among the most salient issues among respondents. A large majority, 74 percent, of respondents who oppose revoking visa and green cards from people without proof of committing a crime. And nearly eight in 10 respondents do not support sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.
“Voters view Trump’s policies on immigration and his enforcement of immigration differently — there’s a gap,” said Molly Murphy, president of Impact Research. “They are more supportive of what Trump wants to do on immigration … from a policy standpoint, than how he’s actually going about it.”
The poll, conducted May 6-11 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent, does not capture reactions to the widespread protests in Los Angeles.
The showdown between California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Trump administration's deployment of the state’s National Guard has also centered on the president's overreach.
“Democrats shouldn’t be focused on protesters right now,” Murphy said. "We should be talking about the people he’s deporting: people here legally, people here with no criminal records, people who have proof of citizenship and not make this a fight about protesters, because that’s what he wants.”
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the party needs to " keep those stories in the news.” and plans to hold a briefing on the survey findings for members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus early next week on Capitol Hill.
“Trump wants to highlight the chaos that he is helping stoke in LA," Cesar added. "Democrats should be making sure that more of the focus is on the immigration overreach that has everyday people … deeply upset and deeply troubled.”
When Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the New Jersey gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, the “Hellcats” group chat of aspiring female congresswomen lit up in celebration.
All four women in the "Hellcats" chat — named after the first female Marines who served in World War I — have military experience and are running for Congress in 2026. Sherrill, as a former Navy helicopter pilot, offers some much-needed inspiration for the party’s next generation of candidates.
Democrats, looking to turn around their struggling brand and retake the House in 2026, point to Sherrill and presumptive Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA officer, as reasons the party will do well.
Sherrill and Spanberger are held up as the model for how the party might turn the tables — running moderate, former veterans and national security officials in tough districts who can say they “have put their country ahead of their party,” said Dan Sena, who served as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018.
“Candidates with records of service showed in 2018 their ability to win in the most challenging districts and states in the country,” Sena added. “This cycle, the same dynamics are playing out with those kinds of candidates.”
Democrats say these House candidates can point to their political aspirations as an extension of their public service that began in the military or national security realm, and bristle at Republicans claiming MAGA is equivalent to patriotism.
“Right now, especially as this administration continues to create more chaos and dismantle our democracy, you're seeing veterans continuing to answer the call to serve their country,” said JoAnna Mendoza, a retired US Marine who served in combat, now running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.).
Mendoza is a member of the “Hellcats” group chat, along with Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy officer who is taking on Rep. Tom Kean (R-N.J.), Maura Sullivan, a former Marine looking to replace Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Cait Conley, an Army veteran and former National Security Council official, who is up against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.).
Democrats say these candidates bring in necessary enthusiasm that translates to fundraising. In Pennsylvania, Ryan Crosswell, a Marine and federal prosecutor who resigned when President Donald Trump pressured him to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, raised more than $215,000 in the first 48 hours after announcing his campaign on Monday, one of the biggest launch hauls that the party has seen this cycle.
Spanberger posted a selfie on X just minutes after her one-time Washington roommate Sherrill won her primary race in New Jersey on Tuesday. The pair is using their profiles as a springboard to higher office, after many of them helped Democrats flip the House in 2018.
In Michigan, former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin fought off GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, himself an Army veteran, in a state that Kamala Harris lost in 2024. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, a former Department of State adviser on Afghanistan, easily won his election for the seat once held by former Sen. Bob Menendez, who was convicted of federal corruption charges.
“Patriotism is a value that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to talk about,” said Jared Leopold, a former communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. “It is a productive conversation for Democrats to lead on as an entry point to the kitchen table issues of the day.”
Democratic candidates with national security backgrounds mitigate one of the party’s biggest liabilities — a perception that Democrats are weak. Democratic-run focusgroupsheld after the 2024 election found voters across the spectrum saw the party as overly focused on the elite and too cautious. Voters regularly cite Republicans as the party they trust with national security issues in public polling, and the GOP bench of veterans elected to office runs deep.
But serving in the military or for the administration in a national security capacity “inoculates them from attacks that they're not tough,” said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, a group that recruits young people to run for office.
“It helps them ward off that opposition without having to say it out loud,” Litman continued. “Former Navy helicopter pilot, prosecutor — those are inherently tough, so that means women candidates don't have to posture, they can just be, because it's baked into their resumes.”
Of course, Republicans have, at times, effectively turned it against them. Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, for instance, highlighted his military experience but also faced "swift boat" attacks. More recently, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's military record came under scrutiny when he was elevated to the vice presidential nomination.
Bennett, who is also a current member of the Air National Guard, believes her dual identity as a veteran and mother gives her a unique appeal to voters, and a natural way to discuss financial strains like high daycare costs.
“I truly led in some of the most challenging environments that exist in this world,” she said. “And, I'm a mom too, and I fundamentally understand the issues and challenges that families are facing.”
CORRECTION: This article originally misspelled Crosswell's last name.
David Hogg will not run again for his Democratic National Committee vice chairman position, he announced on Tuesday, amid a firestorm the 25-year-old activist sparked over his pledge to take on “ineffective” Democratic incumbents.
In a statement, Hogg said “there is a fundamental disagreement about the role of a Vice Chair — and it's okay to have disagreements.” But, Hogg continued, “what isn’t okay is allowing this to remain our focus when there is so much more we need to be focused on.”
Hogg said he would now focus his efforts on Leaders We Deserve, the group he co-founded, which said it would take on “asleep-at-the-wheel” Democrats by pledging to spend $20 million on safe-seat Democratic primaries. Hogg’s plan, announced in April, triggered a wave of anger from elected officials and DNC members, who argued that Hogg’s role as a party leader conflicted with the decision to take on incumbents.
DNC Chair Ken Martin, who clashed with Hogg, released a statement, “commend[ing] David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair. I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map. I appreciate his service as an officer, his hard work, and his dedication to the party.”
The DNC will hold new elections for the two vice chair roles beginning Thursday — the vote for the new male vice chair will take place from June 12 to June 14 and then vote for a second vice chair of any gender from June 15 to June 17. With Hogg declining to run, Kenyatta is now running unopposed for the male vice chair role.
Three other candidates for DNC vice chair — Shasti Conrad, Kalyn Free and Jeanna Repass — submitted candidate videos to compete for the second vacancy, according to one DNC member granted anonymity to describe private details.
The internal drama within the DNC reignited again over the weekend, when POLITICO obtained audio from a DNC meeting in which Martin told Hogg and other DNC leaders that his leadership has suffered due to the clash. The vice chair, Martin said, had “essentially destroyed any chance I have” to show national leadership. Several of the DNC leaders who participated in the call expressed support for Martin and accused Hogg or his supporters of leaking it. Hogg, for his part, denied he shared it.
Joe Walsh, the former Tea Party congressman, right-wing radio host and current Never Trumper, is eyeing a possible move to South Carolina. He says he’s considering a run as a Democratic Senate candidate against Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Walsh, who became a registered Democrat last week, told POLITICO that Democrats have to take a new, asymmetrical approach to their Republican opponents and have to “fucking wake up and begin to do different things.”
“I am seriously considering moving to South Carolina and challenging Lindsey Graham next year, because he's a piece of shit," said Walsh, who describes himself as a “conservative” Democrat. "He’s everything that is wrong about our politics, and he's the worst, most pathetic Trump enabler."
Walsh would not be the only Democrat in the race if he runs: Dr. Annie Andrews, a progressive, has already announced a campaign for the seat that has been held by Republicans for over half a century.
Walsh represented the northwest suburbs of Chicago from 2011 to 2013.
Graham’s last race, when he faced Jaime Harrison, was among the most expensive of its cycle, totaling nearly $200 million. Harrison lost to Graham by 10 percentage points.
Democratic governors facing potential big budget problems exacerbated by the GOP megabill being fast-tracked in Washington are considering emergency measures to try to soften the blow.
Blue state policymakers from Connecticut to California to New York are raising the specter that they will call lawmakers back for special sessions to tackle what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs as a result of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” And even some deep red states — like Florida — are taking steps to address the financial fallout.
The preparations signal the depths of concerns about how the Republican package might reverberate in state capitals, even as passage is far from assured, especially given the recent vitriolic attacks on the spending bill from Elon Musk. State officials are scrambling to navigate the likely fiscal challenges in what’s already the toughest budget year since before the pandemic in many states.
“The bill is destructive and risks destabilizing the entire network of supporting programs,” said New Mexico Treasurer Laura Montoya, a Democrat whose governor has all but guaranteed a special session will be necessary.
The bill, which cleared the House last month and now awaits Senate action, would cut some $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, largely by forcing states to pay into the program for the first time. It would also kick 7.6 million people off Medicaid and save $800 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
The special session threat could be a way for Democratic governors, some of whom enjoy large legislative majorities, to respond to pressure from constituents angry about cuts to health care and food benefits — even if there's little they can do to combat Trump’s agenda.
The details of what the governors would even ask the lawmakers to do are scant given the high degree of uncertainty around the final bill. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, referencing potential cuts to education, school meals and Medicaid, warned earlier this year that “nothing prohibits us from coming back in a special session to deal with anything that comes our way from the federal government.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walzsaid last month “we will definitely be back in a special session to deal with” the reconciliation package if the House-passed version is adopted.
There could be immediate substantive reasons for a special session in response to the GOP bill, even though provisions like sharing the costs of the nation’s largest food aid program with states wouldn’t take effect until 2028. The vast majority of states start their fiscal years on July 1 — meaning that their budgets have been crafted based on current conditions even as officials leave the door open to make changes later and minimize the pain in response to the final federal legislation.
“Bottom line is states will not be able to absorb all the costs, and decisions will have to be made,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the nonpartisan National Association of State Budget Officers. “All states will be impacted.”
Some Republicans have also expressed concern at the downstream impacts of the GOP megabill. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries Rick Pate, a Republican who recently announced a bid for lieutenant governor, previously told POLITICO that in his state “there would be very little interest in us generating the dollars it would take to fund something huge as SNAP.”
Others are using the special session chatter as a cudgel to hammer Democrats in blue states for being in a precarious fiscal situation to begin with.
“I would say that our priorities have been on the goofy side,” California Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican on the budget committee, said in an interview regarding his state’s poor fiscal outlook, pointing specifically to massive spending to attack homelessness that’s failed to dent the problem. “We're trying to offer too much to too many people when we can't even offer basic services.”
Still, states would be impacted across the board even if it’s only Democrats that have the political incentive to publicly oppose the reconciliation bill. That means states will need to turn to unpopular choices like cutting benefits or raising taxes to fill as much of the gap left by the federal cuts as possible, in addition to other maneuvers like drawing from their rainy day funds, said Sigritz.
Some legislators are accepting that they will likely return to their statehouses for special sessions.
Connecticut Treasurer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said in an interview that a special session will likely be necessary if the federal budget significantly shifts costs to states to ensure that lawmakers are “building in some flexibility to try to make whatever adjustments we may need to safeguard residents of our state.”
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s office told POLITICO that he and legislative leaders are considering declaring a fiscal emergency in order to raise the spending cap, a move that it argues would be necessary to pay for the costs shifted to states under Republicans’ megabill.
New York state Sen. Gustavo Rivera, a Democrat who chairs the chamber’s health committee, said he fully expects to return to Albany in a special session if the reconciliation bill clears Congress — and that he will push to “raise taxes on the wealthy” to cover some of the Medicaid spending the federal government plans to cut.
In California, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said there is “a scenario where lawmakers come back later this year” to deal with new budget realities brought by federal cuts.
“I'll come back any day,” said California Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Silicon Valley Democrat. “This is our job. And if we have to come back in the fall, I will gladly come. In fact, if it means protecting some of these programs, then I think we should come back in the morning, noon, weekend, holidays.”
And in deep-red West Virginia, Mike Woelfel, minority leader in the state Senate and one of the 11 Democrats in the entire Legislature, said he wants his Republican governor Patrick Morrisey to call a special session if the federal cuts are adopted.
“This is the kind of thing that should trigger special sessions if we get into this hellhole that this legislation would put our most vulnerable citizens in,” Woelfel said. “But there’s political risk in (the governor) doing that.”
Eric He and Katelyn Cordero contributed to this report.
ActBlue is fighting back against a House Republican investigation into its workings, saying the probe appears to have become an unconstitutional abuse of power to help the White House.
The Democratic online fundraising platform said Monday in a letter obtained by POLITICO that it was reevaluating whether to cooperate with the ongoing congressional investigation into fraud on its platform in light of President Donald Trump’s executive action to investigate potential foreign contributions on ActBlue and House Republicans’ public statements supporting the White House.
“If the Committees are now working to gather information on behalf of Department of Justice prosecutors, rather than for legitimate legislative purposes, that would fundamentally transform the nature of your investigation — and violate ActBlue’s constitutional rights,” ActBlue’s lawyers wrote in the letter Monday to GOP Reps. Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil.
The allegations are an escalation in the conflict between House Republicans and ActBlue, the behemoth Democratic fundraising platform that has long been in GOP crosshairs as it has helped the left build a massive fundraising advantage. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones told POLITICO last month that ActBlue believes the platform has “nothing to hide” but needs to better communicate its role in light of the attacks.
In the letter, lawyers representing ActBlue ask the congressional committees investigating the platform to clarify the purpose of their work. They argue public statements from Jordan, Comer and Steil indicate they are seeking to help the Trump Justice Department’s separate investigation into ActBlue, rather than carry out congressional oversight.
And they note that the "selective focus" of the investigation does not appear to include WinRed, the GOP’s primary online fundraising counterpart — and thus may be intended to hurt Democrats, not provide legitimate oversight of American elections.
“The Committees’ selective focus on ActBlue also suggests that the investigation may be a partisan effort directed at harming political opponents rather than gathering facts to assist in lawmaking efforts,” the letter reads. “Such an action would raise substantial First Amendment concerns.”
Spokespeople for the GOP committees investigating ActBlue did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday afternoon. A spokesperson for ActBlue also did not immediately comment.
The letter comes as the Trump administration is also going after ActBlue. Trump signed a memorandum in April ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the potential use of foreign “straw” donations in online fundraising, citing concerns about foreign influence in elections based in part on the work of the GOP-led congressional committees. ActBlue was the only platform named in the order. The memorandum calls for Bondi to report back in 90 days, which would be late July.
Under federal law, only U.S. citizens and green card holders can give to campaigns and political action committees. Republicans have long argued that ActBlue, which processed billions of dollars in donations for Democrats last year, is not strict enough in weeding out potential foreign contributions. ActBlue has countered that it has processes to catch illegal donation attempts and that similar challenges exist on other platforms, including WinRed.
The platform’s lawyers also suggested that ActBlue’s further cooperation with the congressional probes could depend on the extent of the committees’ work with the Justice Department.
“In light of your public statements, it is essential that we receive more information about your agreement to coordinate the Committees’ activities with the Executive Branch, so that ActBlue may properly evaluate its ongoing efforts to cooperate with the Committees,” the platform’s lawyers wrote.
ActBlue previously turned over thousands of pages of internal documents to the committees, some voluntarily, and then later under subpoena. The committees released an interim report in April that cited cases of fraud identified in the ActBlue documents as a means to argue that the platform had an “unserious” approach to fraud prevention.
Texas Republicans’ messy Senate primary is giving Democrats hope that they could finally have an opening to wedge into higher office in the red state — for real this time.
But a potential pileup of candidates as the party sees renewed interest in the race could spoil their chances of finally flipping the Lone Star State.
Attorney General Ken Paxton, who endured multiple scandals while in office, is leading in the polls against longtime incumbent GOP Sen. John Cornyn. A Paxton victory could divide Republicans and potentially even sway some to support a Democrat. Nearly two dozen Texas Democratic members of Congress, party leaders and strategists described a sense of opportunity, but were divided on the type of candidate to run.
Some argued for a progressive, others thought a more centrist candidate could gain traction, while others weren’t even sure Democrats could pull off a win. There are calls both for new blood and for a proven candidate. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) just wants a candidate who’d “sound like a Texas Democrat” and could buck national trends..
“I think this is just a great opportunity for Democrats, and we don't need to blow it,” said Veasey, who said he isn't interested in a run.
Flipping Texas is a perennial Democratic dream, but core constituencies have moved further to the right, and Democrats haven't held a Senate seat in the state since 1993. The state’s expensive media markets require fundraising prowess. That leaves the party with a crowded field of interested candidates, but none with a proven track record of winning statewide. Plenty of Democrats are skeptical they’d even win against Paxton, whose nomination isn’t guaranteed.
“I am hopeful that [Cornyn] could pull it off, because if you're going to have a Republican in Texas, why not let it be John,” said Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas).
Democrats acknowledge they’d stand little chance of unseating Cornyn, who’s been a fixture in Texas politics for decades. But Paxton, a Trump loyalist who was impeached by the Republican-held Texas House (and acquitted in the impeachment trial) and faced a federal corruption investigation, has been a polarizing figure in the Texas GOP, and, Democrats hope, an opponent they could defeat.
“Democrats are foaming at the mouth about Ken Paxton,” said Katherine Fischer, deputy executive director of Texas Majority PAC, which works to elect Democrats statewide. “We’re seeing in local elections in Texas and across the country there is already a backlash against Trump and against MAGA. Ken Paxton is about as MAGA as you can get.”
First they need to find a viable Senate candidate.
After coming up short in previous cycles, many Texas Democrats are hesitant about supporting former Reps. Colin Allred and Beto O’Rourke, both of whom have signaled their interest in another bid. O’Rourke, who unsuccessfully ran statewide in 2018 and 2022, has been hosting packed town halls across the state. Allred, who lost to Sen. Ted Cruz in 2024 by about 8.5 percentage points, has said he was “seriously considering” another run.
“Well, [Allred and O’Rourke are] both talking about it, and I hope that they will resolve that one person’s running and not all,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett.
Allred’s failed campaign has left a bad taste among some Texans, especially progressives, who believe he did not run aggressively or do enough grassroots outreach. And while O’Rourke is still a favorite son in Texas Democratic circles, many of those supporters believe he will be haunted by his position against assault rifles in a gun-loving state.
“They both tried it, and especially the last time, the margins were pretty wide,” said Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas). “And I think those are all things to consider.”
Joel Montfort, a Texas-based Democratic strategist, agreed: “Putting the same two guys up over and over, I don't think that's going to deliver us.”
That’s why some say it's time to try something new. Texas Democrats have talked up potential bids by state Rep. James Talarico, the Democratic seminarian and frequently viral member who helped prosecute Paxton during his impeachment.
Talarico told POLITICO: “I’m having conversations about how I can best serve Texas, and that includes the Senate race. But in my training as a pastor, you learn the importance of listening and how hard it is to truly listen. With so much at stake for Texas, I’m trying to listen more than I talk right now.”
His potential candidacy is generating some interest from players who have run successful upstart campaigns. “It’s going to take a Democrat who can make the case against Washington D.C., the status quo, and the powers that to be to win a senate race in Texas,” said Andrew Mamo, a veteran of Pete Buttigieg’s presidential campaign who is informally advising Talarico. “James is one of the rare people in the party with the profile and most importantly the storytelling skills to get that done."
State Sen. Nathan Johnson, a Dallas lawyer, is in the mix but he's also eyeing a run for attorney general. Some party insiders privately worry a state lawmaker won’t bring the necessary firepower, saying they need to find a candidate with experience running statewide — or at least someone who represents Texas in Congress — due to the sheer amount of resources required to compete in the second-largest state.
Veasey and fellow Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro have both been talked up as potential candidates, though Veasey in an interview ruled out a run. A person close to Castro said he was actively looking at the race.
While Democrats across the nation believe backlash against President Donald Trump’s unpopular agenda like his DOGE cuts and trade war will help in the midterms, the Democratic dream of winning Texas — which once seemed like only a matter of time — now feels farther away.
The party’s coalition problems are on stark display in South Texas, where Latino-heavy border districts like Gonzalez’s shifted dramatically toward Trump. Gonzalez and other Democrats have been warning of their party’s need to reverse their fortunes with Latino voters.
“There is work to be done on Latino erosion," said Tory Gavito, an Austin-based Democratic strategist. "There is work to be done to make sure infrastructure is incredibly sound in places like Houston and Dallas and San Antonio and South Texas.”
Progressive Democrats are eager to back a candidate who runs to the left of Allred, based on their belief that working-class voters can be brought back to the party with a populist economic message.
“We've got to have somebody run who's going to be willing to go travel the state, and connect with a diverse set of working-class voters,” said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas). “In Texas, people are looking for somebody that's authentic and real, willing to tell it like it is, that's going to energize our base, but then bring a lot of disaffected voters back to the polls.”
Allred is widely seen by Texas Democrats as the preferred candidate of Washington, and some said they’re tired of out-of-state consultants in their backyard.
“We don't want people from D.C. telling Texans what to do,” said Nancy Thompson, a Democratic activist and founder of Mothers Against Greg Abbott.
A strong contingent of the party, however, believes that running too far to the left would blow up their chances in what remains a socially conservative state.
“You have to have real candidates that are willing to sound like everyday Texans," said Veasey. "Being part of the national team will get your ass killed.”
Rahm Emanuel has had just about every job in politics under the sun: congressman, White House chief of staff, U.S. ambassador, Chicago mayor, and more. “I’m pretty pragmatic about politics and almost cold to a point in my analysis,” he tells White House bureau chief Dasha Burns. Emanuel, who is widely believed to be considering a run for president in 2028, tells Burns that Democrats should “stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom.” As the first Jewish mayor of Chicago, he also talks about the recent anti-Semitic attacks and whether America is ready for a Jewish president.
Plus, Burns is joined by Politico Magazine editor Elizabeth Ralph to talk about the magazine’s recent Q&A with Miles Taylor in the wake of Trump’s executive order targeting him, and the rise of jawline surgery among DC’s male population.
Listen and subscribe to The Conversation with Dasha Burns on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Ambitious Democrats with an eye on a presidential run are in the middle of a slow-motion Sister Souljah moment.
Searching for a path out of the political wilderness, potential 2028 candidates, especially those hailing from blue states, are attempting to ratchet back a leftward lurch on social issues some in the party say cost them the November election.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who is Black, vetoed a bill that took steps toward reparations passed by his state legislature. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called it “unfair” to allow transgender athletes to participate in female college and youth sports. And Rahm Emanuel has urged his party to veer back to the center.
“Stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom," said Emanuel, the former ambassador to Japan and two-term Chicago mayor who said he is open to a 2028 presidential campaign. "If one child is trying to figure out their pronoun, I accept that, but the rest of the class doesn't know what a pronoun is and can't even define it,”
Each of these candidates are, either deliberately or tacitly, countering a perceived weakness in their own political record or party writ large—Emanuel, for example, has called the Democratic Party “weak and woke”; Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) has said the party needs more “alpha energy”; others like Newsom are perhaps acknowledging a more socially liberal bent in the past.
On diversity, equity, and inclusion, some in the party are also sending a signal they're no longer kowtowing to their left flank. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg removed his pronouns from his social media bio months ago, and questioned how the party has communicated about it.
"Is it caring for people’s different experiences and making sure no one is mistreated because of them, which I will always fight for?” he said in a forum at the University of Chicago earlier this year. “Or is it making people sit through a training that looks like something out of ‘Portlandia,’ which I have also experienced," Buttigieg said.
Buttigieg added, "And it is how Trump Republicans are made.”
Moderate Democrats are having a moment and there is a cadre of consultants and strategists ready to support them.
Ground zero for the party’s great un-awokening was this week’s WelcomeFest, the moderate Democrats’ Coachella. There, hundreds of centrist elected officials, candidates and operatives gathered to commiserate over their 2024 losses and their party’s penchant for purity tests. Panels on Wednesday featured Slotkin, Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.), described as “legends of the moderate community,” and included a presentation by center-left data guru David Shor, who has urged Democrats to shed toxic positions like "defund the police."
Adam Frisch, the former congressional candidate and director of electoral programs at Welcome PAC, said his party is “out of touch culturally with a lot of people.”
"I think a lot of people are realizing, whether you're running for the House, the Senate, or the presidential, we better start getting on track with what I call the pro-normal party coalition,” Frisch said. “You need to focus on normal stuff, and normal stuff is economic opportunity and prosperity, not necessarily micro-social issues."
Then there is Newsom, the liberal former mayor of San Francisco, who has also distanced himself from so-called woke terminology and stances. The governor claimed earlier this year that he had never used the word “Latinx,” despite having repeatedly employed it just years earlier and once decrying Republicans who’ve sought to ban the gender-neutral term for Latinos.
Newsom made the claim on his podcast episode with conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk — one of several MAGA personalities the governor has hosted on the platform in recent months. “I just didn’t even know where it came from. What are we talking about?” Newsom told Kirk.
The governor, who gained national notoriety in 2004 for defying state law and issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco, has also pivoted on some LGBTQ+ issues. Newsom broke with Democrats this spring when he said, in the same podcast episode with Kirk, that he opposes allowing transgender women and girls to participate in female college and youth sports.
“I think it’s an issue of fairness, I completely agree with you on that. It is an issue of fairness — it’s deeply unfair,” Newsom said, a comment that was panned by many of his longtime LGBTQ+ supporters and progressive allies.
Newsom for months has also muted his tone on immigration issues, avoiding using the word “sanctuary” to describe a state law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration authorities even as he defends the legality of the policy. The governor is proposing steep cuts to a free health care program for undocumented immigrants, which comes as California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. In recent days, however, he joined a chorus of California Democrats criticizing Trump administration immigration efforts in his state.
Moore, who recently trekked to South Carolina, vetoed legislation that would launch a study of reparations for the descendants of slaves from the Democratic-controlled legislature. Moore urged Democrats not get bogged down by bureaucratic malaise and pointed to the Republican Party as the reason why.
“Donald Trump doesn't need a study to dismantle democracy. Donald Trump doesn't need a study to use the Constitution like it's a suggestion box," he told a packed dinner of party power players. "Donald Trump doesn't need a white paper to start arbitrary trade wars that will raise the cost of virtually everything in our lives,” Moore said.
There are some notable exceptions to the party’s border pivot to the center. Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota haven't shied away from social issues.
Beshear, who has vetoed several anti-LGBTQ+ bills, including during his own reelection year, attacked Newsom for inviting conservative provocateur Steve Bannon onto his podcast. He also drew a distinction with Newsom on transgender athletes playing in youth sports, arguing that “our different leagues have more than the ability to make” sports “fair,” he told reporters in March.
“Surely, we can see some humanity and some different perspectives in this overall debate’s that going on right now,” Beshear added. The Kentucky governor said his stance is rooted in faith — “all children are children of God,” he often says.
Walz called it “a mistake” to abandon transgender people. “We need to tell people your cost of eggs, your health care being denied, your homeowner’s insurance, your lack of getting warning on tornadoes coming has nothing to do with someone's gender,” he told The Independent last month. Pritzker, too, recently said that it’s “vile and inhumane to go after the smallest minority and attack them.” This spring, Pritzker declared March 31 as Illinois’ Transgender Day of Visibility.
“Walz, [Sen. Chris] Murphy, Pritzker, Beshear — they’re not going around talking about it all the time, but they're also not running away from their values,” said one adviser to a potential 2028 candidate granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “They’re in the both-and lane.”
The party’s reckoning with social issues is far from over. In 2021, then-Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro vocally opposed a GOP bill that aimed to ban trans athletes from participating in women's school sports, calling it "cruel" and “designed to discriminate against transgender youth who just want to play sports like their peers.”
This year, as the state’s Republican-controlled Senate has passed a similar bill with the support of a handful of Democrats, Shapiro has remained mum on the legislation.
It's not likely to come up for a vote in the state's Democratic-held House, so he may be able to punt — at least a while.
As Emanuel sees it, his party has a long way to go to over-correct for what he paints as the excesses of the last few years.
“The core crux over the years of President [Joe] Biden's tenure is the party on a whole set of cultural issues looked like they were off on a set of tangential issues,” Emanuel said.
Dasha Burns, Dustin Gardner, Holly Otterbein, and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misspelled Rahm Emanuel's name.
Elon Musk just launched a war against the GOP. Now the party’s hopes of holding onto power are at stake.
Musk has gone from helping Republicans take total control of Washington — spending nearly $300 million to become the single biggest known donor last year — to attacking the highest-ranking leaders of the party and daring the rank and file to cross him.
“Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years,” Musk said on X.
The post was an unambiguous warning from the world's richest man, who has the power to single-handedly reshape elections with his wealth. It was not long ago that Republicans hoped Musk could pour cash into their efforts to help maintain control of Washington. Instead, he’s becoming their public adversary.
Musk spent Thursday online attacking President Donald Trump over Republicans’ massive tax-and-spending bill, which Musk says does not cut enough government spending.
“This is a massive crack in the MAGA coalition,” said Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and a former Trump administration appointee. “This town is historically built on Republican versus Democrat, and this seems to be crazy versus crazy. It is asymmetric and it seems, for the first time, President Trump seems to be out-crazied.”
Just a few weeks ago, Republicans were still praising Musk for his financial backing in the 2024 election as they hoped he'd make a graceful return to the private sector after overseeing the administration's program to slash federal spending. Less than one week ago, Musk was in the Oval Office with Trump commemorating his time in administration as a special government employee.
But that polite departure, it quickly became evident, was not going to happen.
"Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave," Trump wrote on Truth Social, blaming Musk’s anger on the megabill’s removal of electric vehicle tax credits. “He just went CRAZY!”
As Musk’s drama engulfed the party Thursday, Republicans in Congress mostly tried to avoid getting caught in the crossfire. Key GOP lawmakers in both chambers worked to downplay the potential effects on both the party’s domestic policy package and on the GOP’s midterms posture.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), who leads the House GOP campaign arm, told reporters Thursday that he hopes the spat will “blow over.” Before the breakup went nuclear, Hudson had said in a brief interview Wednesday evening that Musk has “been a friend and he’s just wrong about this bill.”
Even fiscal hard-liners who have embraced some of Musk’s talking points about the bill tried to avoid getting drawn into the fracas. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who at one point threatened to tank the megabill for not being fiscally conservative enough, said, "Elon crossed the line today ... we'll let those guys go play it out."
"I don't disagree with him about our need to find more spending cuts," Roy added, but Musk needs to "keep it in the lines."
Another hard-liner, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), said he believes Musk is losing sway within MAGA. Musk is “just another shiny object,” he said, “and we’ll deal with it.”
But Musk appeared intent on turning his opposition to the legislation into a civil war for the party. He amplified two Kentucky Republicans, Rep. Thomas Massie and Sen. Rand Paul, who have been thorns in the side of Trump and GOP leaders trying to pass the bill.
“Elon couldn’t buy a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat. You really think that people are gonna be afraid of this money?” said a person close to the White House, granted anonymity to discuss the dynamics.
As Musk’s popularity faded, Republicans wondered how long his relationship with Trump could endure. On Thursday, Musk severed ties.
"What a predictable shitshow," said a person who has been in the room with both Musk and Trump. "Trump is a liar, and it was obvious Elon would not be able to go along with his incessant lying forever."
A nervous Republican Party is now scrambling to figure out what the electoral fallout will look like, starting with next year’s midterms.
Already, two of Trump's top campaign operatives, Chris LaCivita and Tony Fabrizio had signed up to work with Musk's Building America's Future PAC. But Musk's scorched-earth strategy could create dueling allegiances.
Privately, some Republicans are arguing they had already been preparing for next year's elections without Musk's money, and complained that America PAC — the tech billionaire’s super PAC — didn't spend its money effectively in House races last year.
America PAC spent $19.2 million backing GOP candidates across 18 battleground House races last year, according to data from the Federal Election Commission. Republicans won 10 of those elections. But those were among the highest-profile and most expensive races in the country, and Musk’s group accounted for only 12 percent of Republican outside spending in them. It wasn’t even the biggest GOP spender — that was still the Congressional Leadership Fund, the primary super PAC affiliated with House Republicans.
“What Elon has is money, and if he’s not going to put $100 million in the [midterms], that’s a hole that has to be filled,” said Chris Mottola, a GOP media consultant. "On the other hand, there was a question about how effective the money was that he spent, because he spent it the way he wanted to."
“Are there enough good Republican operatives out there to go achieve this mission for Elon Musk when it means going up against the president?" said a former RNC official, granted anonymity to discuss the situation candidly. “Everybody’s got a price, but I don’t think they are rushing to go help Elon further divide the Republican Party ahead of the midterms.”
Lisa Kashinsky, Jessica Piper, Holly Otterbein, Dasha Burns, Nicholas Wu, Sophia Cai, Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.
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.
The tension between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk finally burst into the open Thursday, likely closing the chapter on one of the most significant alliances in recent political history.
In the wake of the schism, some Republicans are stuck in the middle debating their next moves. Do they side with Trump, the leader of the party whose influence and authority looms over so many aspects of life? Or do they back Musk, whose massive fortune could provide a boost to anyone running for reelection — or running to succeed Trump in 2028 — even as he threatens to withhold donations to lawmakers who back the Republican megabill? Could they attempt to appease both?
Musk, 53, is already drawing a future-forward line between himself and Trump, 78, and urging Republicans to come to his side.
“Some food for thought as they ponder this question,” Musk wrote on X in response to far-right activist Laura Loomer wondering how Republicans would react. “Trump has 3.5 years left as President, but I will be around for 40+ years.”
Here are the Republicans who we’re watching closely to determine how to navigate the fallout:
JD Vance
The vice president and possible heir to Trump’s political movement could be the biggest loser of the blowout.
With Musk’s future potential campaign contributions now in jeopardy, Vance, an expected 2028 presidential candidate, would have an incentive to mediate the relationship. Vance wouldn’t want to jeopardize a donor relationship with Musk, but he also needs Trump’s support if he wants to inherit his base. He will be constrained in how much he can realistically break from Trump if the feud continues.
Musk appeared to endorse Vance in an X post calling for Trump to be impeached and the vice president to take his place, suggesting their relationship remains intact for now. And the two appear to share some political stances, including supporting Germany’s far-right party Alternative for Deutschland (AfD).
In April, after it was first reported that Musk intended to leave the White House, Vance said he expected Trump and Musk to remain close, a seemingly lousy prediction in hindsight.
“DOGE has got a lot of work to do, and yeah, that work is going to continue after Elon leaves,” Vance said in April. “But fundamentally, Elon is going to remain a friend and an adviser of both me and the president.”
Ron DeSantis
The Florida governor has had a tortured relationship with Trump, his former political benefactor-turned-2024 rival who bulldozed him during the presidential campaign.
But since Trump took office, DeSantis has publicly supported the president and signed into law a Florida immigration law that furthered Trump’s immigration agenda.
He’s also a big fan of Musk.
Musk was an early booster of the Florida governor’s failed presidential campaign, offering to host a glitchy, error-ridden launch event via X Spaces, the audio livestream feature on the Musk-owned social media site. Musk also contributed $10 million to DeSantis’ campaign before he dropped out and endorsed Trump.
In Musk’s final week as part of the Trump administration, DeSantis praised his work leading the Department of Government Efficiency and echoed Musk’s criticisms of the reconciliation package for not doing enough to reduce the deficit, calling the bill “a betrayal of the voters.”
“Elon Musk stood tall and took the hits to lead the fight on DOGE, cutting wasteful spending and exposing bloated government programs,” said a fundraising email Wednesday from one of DeSantis’ political committees. “The media attacked him. The Left panicked. But now? Even Republicans in Congress are backing down.”
It’s unclear what DeSantis’ political future holds — he’s term-limited as governor from 2026 — but Musk’s backing could play a role in whatever he does next.
A spokesperson for the governor’s political operation said the fundraising language was approved May 29 — the day before Trump prepared to extol Musk during a friendly send-off at the White House.
Stephen Miller and Katie Miller
The Trump-Musk rift sets up some potential awkwardness between Stephen Miller, Trump’s powerful deputy chief of staff, and his wife Katie Miller, who joined DOGE as an aide to Musk and left last week to work for the billionaire entrepreneur.
The New York Times reported in January that Stephen Miller had been advising Musk on his political donations. But it’s unclear if that relationship is still strong. And after Musk started attacking the Republican megabill, Stephen Miller became a staunch defender of the legislation.
On Thursday, after Trump and Musk traded barbs, Musk appeared to unfollow Miller on X. If there was ever a path to peace between Trump and Musk, the Millers could play a role — or it could cause a rift in their marriage.
Vivek Ramaswamy
Once tapped to co-lead DOGE with Musk, Ramaswamy split off from the administration before Inauguration Day and ultimately mounted a run for governor of Ohio.
But the former presidential candidate, who raised his profile by passionately defending Trump in the 2024 Republican primaries, has always aligned himself with the cost-cutting, Libertarian brand of conservatism that Musk embraces. However, if Ramaswamy seeks to grow closer to Musk in the vacuum left by Trump when he leaves office, he’ll have to overcome the fact that Musk thinks he’s annoying.
David Sacks
Sacks, a South African entrepreneur, came into Trump’s orbit by way of Musk, and now heads artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency policy for the White House. But if the White House withdrawing Jared Isaacman’s nomination to head NASA is any indication, Sacks may not be long for Washington.
On the other hand, Trump’s embrace of the crypto industry — and Sacks’ role as crypto czar — could prove to be tempting enough for Sacks to side with the president against his longtime friend.
Thom Tillis
As Trump and Musk clash over the reconciliation bill, Senate Republicans are left to pick up the pieces as they continue to argue over changes to satisfy at least 50 members and pass the bill. Tillis in particular is facing a tough reelection battle and could surely use strong support from Trump and Musk.
On Wednesday — day two of Musk tweeting attacks against the bill — Tillis told CNN Musk is a “brilliant guy,” while noting he’s “got resources.”
With Republicans looking to approve the bill this summer, Tillis could be forced to take a side earlier than he might like. How he navigates the rift may offer a roadmap for other battleground Republicans ahead of 2026.
Vance, DeSantis, Stephen Miller, Katie Miller, Ramaswamy, Sack and Tillis did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A top Democratic organization strongly encouraged state campaigns to do much of their digital ad-buying business with a company that one of its members is set to soon join as CEO — a development that has puzzled and concerned some party insiders.
At a meeting in Little Rock, Arkansas last week, the Association of State Democratic Committees — an umbrella group for state parties — voted to recommend state races use one liberal firm, TargetSmart, for a major portion of digital ad buys, which could be worth millions.
TargetSmart announced on May 7 that Liz Walters, outgoing chair of the Ohio Democratic Party, is taking over as CEO this summer. Walters, who made her departure public in a post on X, said she would leave the state party role by June 30. And until the week before the group’s meeting, she was part of the ASDC’s leadership team as treasurer.
Walters recused herself from the TargetSmart vote. But she has reportedly praised the use of TargetSmart repeatedly in recent years, went to the meeting where the resolution passed, and continues to sit on a key board of state party leaders tied to the deal.
Word of the deal spread through Democratic circles this week, leaving some in the party worried about the possibility of a conflict of interest — or the perception of one — at a time when Democrats are already struggling mightily. Others are concerned that using a sole media-buying platform for many digital ads will stifle innovation and raise costs for campaigns.
“I just don’t understand this at all. It’s the ultimate solution in search of a problem,” said Rob Flaherty, the former deputy campaign manager for Kamala Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign. “No one who works directly in this space is asking for this, nor should we want it. Even the stated rationale makes no sense: This is a space where competition leads to better pricing. A strategic monopoly doesn’t serve us.”
A Democratic campaign veteran who, like others in this story was granted anonymity to speak freely, said the deal is “a conflict of interest you could see from space.” A Democratic state party chair said “the perception sucks, the perception is terrible.”
Walters responded in a statement that the decision to leave the Ohio Democratic Party, “an organization I love,” was “a hard one.” She added that “in the interest of transparency, as soon as I decided to join TargetSmart, we made the news public and I recused myself from all matters involving the company.”
Axios first wrote about the existence of a deal between the ASDC and TargetSmart, but concerns about a conflict of interest have not been reported before.
ASDC president Jane Kleeb said in an interview that it was her suggestion, not Walters’, to give TargetSmart the special status. Kleeb defended the decision as a way for state parties to save money and solve other problems, such as navigating a bewildering web of new digital firms.
She said that Walters has praised TargetSmart internally over the years but added that “lots of us” have also spoken highly of the company since they’ve worked closely with them.
“There is no conflict of interest. We have been talking about this for years,” she said. “I knew that the vendors would have their guns and knives out for me because they will perceive it as taking business away from them. But it doesn’t.”
She added, “I am trying to innovate and create reliable streams of revenue” for state parties and “with this system, there will be a 5 percent return to state parties, which is a really wonderful thing.”
Other Democrats in favor of the resolution said that the setup would also help ensure the digital safety of voter files.
A second Democratic state party chair granted anonymity to speak candidly about the deal said that Walters praised TargetSmart at multiple ASDC meetings in recent months, including in Little Rock last week.
“Every single meeting she would talk about the benefit of the tool and why it’s really important, and anytime people would raise questions, basically, she was answering them as CEO of TargetSmart, but that wasn’t the role she was in,” said the person, who was in the meetings.
“It’s an unfortunate way to enter into a relationship, because I think it could be a good tool, but now it’s clouded,” the person added.
TargetSmart has worked with the Democratic state parties for years to enhance their voter files, a precious resource used by campaigns. The ASDC said that it asked TargetSmart to develop its digital ad-buying tool in 2023, and that later it was rolled out to some trial participants, including in Ohio. State parties generate revenue when their voter file is bought and sold, as well as when their voter file data is used on TargetSmart’s ad-buying platform.
The ASDC’s nonbinding resolution states that members are encouraged to either “institute a requirement” for voter file users to utilize TargetSmart for digital ad-buying or “strongly encourage” users to “explore utilizing” the platform.
A TargetSmart spokesperson said the buying platform is more cost efficient, reliable and enables transparency in ad placements. And TargetSmart senior adviser Tom Bonier said in a statement that “we’re proud to have the opportunity to continue to serve state parties as they provide this cutting-edge resource to their members.” He didn’t respond to a question about when TargetSmart began discussions with Walters about the job.
A person close to Walters said that she “resigned as treasurer well before the meeting, recused herself from the process entirely and it passed unanimously.”
But that has done little to tamp down criticism of Walters among some Democrats.
“Even being there is a way to exert influence, especially when it was already announced that she was going to TargetSmart,” said the Democratic campaign veteran.
Walters submitted her resignation as treasurer of the ASDC on May 20, the person close to her said. The ASDC passed the resolution unanimously on May 29.
Walters is also on the board of a linked “co-op” made up of state party officials that manages its voter file data. She is expected to leave that entity and as head of the Ohio Democratic Party next week.
President Donald Trump on Thursday threatened Elon Musk’s federal contracts, a remarkable escalation in a public feud between the president and the world’s richest man, his former ally.
“The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Thursday afternoon. “I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!”
The president’s relationship with Musk has deteriorated rapidly since Musk left the White House last week. The acrimony went public when Musk publicly slammed Trump’s sweeping domestic policy package on Tuesday.
Musk responded to the broadside by announcing his company, SpaceX, will withdraw from service its Dragon spacecraft — which is critical to the American space program.
"In light of President Trump's statement about cancellation of my government contracts, @SpaceX will begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately," Musk wrote on X, the social media site he owns.
Musk's threat would deprive the U.S. of its only assured way of supplying the International Space Station and bringing on and off astronauts. If executed, NASA would instead have to rely on Russia to bring supplies and astronauts to the station. NASA had contracted with Boeing on the Starliner, a competitor to the Dragon spacecraft, but that system is temporarily out of service following problems with the craft.
But he seemingly walked away from that threat late Thursday. Responding to an X user pleading for the two men to "cool off and take a step back for a couple days," Musk said "ok, we won’t decommission Dragon."
He’s continued to lash out at the White House in the days since — with Musk baiting Trump by name earlier Thursday, and Trump responding by chastising the Tesla CEO from the Oval Office later in the day.
Still, Trump’s criticism from the White House — where the two men less than a week ago shared a laudatory sendoff for Musk — was not as pointed as the president’s barbs on social media.
“Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,” Musk wrote on X Thursday. “Such ingratitude.”
Musk’s companies have significant ties to the federal government, even before the Trump administration. SpaceX is one of NASA’s largest contractors. And his car company Tesla benefitted from a clean energy subsidy that is on the chopping block in Republicans’ reconciliation package.
“Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump posted.
“Such an obvious lie. So sad,” Musk fired back.
Trump has previously boosted Tesla because of his close relationship with Musk. In March, with the company’s stock at a low after public anger over job cuts fueled by Musk’s DOGE initiative, the president toured different Tesla models at a makeshift car show on the White House lawn. Trump later purchased his own Tesla, “a show of confidence and support” for Musk.
Tesla's stock tanked on Thursday, falling more than 14 percent as the two traded barbs.
Trump has routinely wielded the power of the executive branch against institutions that he deems are misbehaving. He’s frozen billions in federal grants to some of the country’s top universities, Harvard chief among them, as punishment for alleged antisemitism and civil rights violations. And he’s secured multimillion dollar deals with law firms weary of his threats to tank their business.
Elon Musk has been the Democratic Party’s boogeyman since shortly after President Donald Trump deputized him as a top adviser. Their bitter breakup could complicate that.
The split is giving some Democrats pause in their portrayal of Musk as a chainsaw-wielding, bureaucracy-breaking villain — with some saying they should give him another chance. After all, the billionaire tech mogul said he voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020 and gave a tour of SpaceX to then-President Barack Obama.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who represents Silicon Valley and has known Musk for over a decade, said Democrats should “be in a dialogue” with Musk, given their shared opposition to the GOP’s megabill.
“We should ultimately be trying to convince him that the Democratic Party has more of the values that he agrees with,” Khanna said. “A commitment to science funding, a commitment to clean technology, a commitment to seeing international students like him.”
Other Democrats are warming back up to Musk as he leaves the White House and starts to break with his former boss in ways that could benefit the opposition.
“I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the legislation,” said Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.). But, he added, Musk has “done an enormous amount of damage” and “there are Democrats who see his decimation of the federal workforce and the federal government as an unforgivable sin.”
Liam Kerr, co-founder of the group behind the centrist Democrats’ WelcomeFest meeting this week in Washington, said “of course” Democrats should open the door if Musk wants back into the party.
“You don't want anyone wildly distorting your politics, which he has a unique capability to do. But it’s a zero-sum game,” Kerr said. “Anything that he does that moves more toward Democrats hurts Republicans.”
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), the chair of the New Democrat Coalition who earlier this year supported the party’s targeting of Musk as the Department of Government Efficiency slashed through federal agencies, said that with his departure from Washington, Democrats shouldn’t make Musk their focus. “We should be talking about what we're doing for the American people,” he said.
Still, Musk recently threatened to cut off the money spigot for Republicans. And Democrats would have a lot to gain by merely keeping the world’s richest man on the sidelines in the midterm elections and beyond. If Musk makes a mess of GOP primaries, that would work in their favor, too.
But Musk’s recent heel-turn also risks reopening a divide between progressives and moderates over how to approach him and other billionaires.
“Our caucus has done the right thing and gone toe-to-toe against Musk,” said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and one of the party’s most vocal advocates for making Musk an antagonist on the campaign trail.
Others are taking a wait-and-see approach. “I don’t think we should take one ketamine-fueled tweet as evidence of a change of heart,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the center-left group Third Way. “It’s more complicated.”
An unsteady truce between Nashville’s Democratic mayor and Tennessee's Republican leaders just collapsed after an ICE dragnet in the city.
Tension began to build in early May, when ICE started making traffic stops in partnership with the state highway patrol in the immigrant-heavy neighborhood of South Nashville, leading to the arrests of nearly 200 suspected undocumented immigrants.
Mayor Freddie O’Connell quickly condemned the action as damaging to the community. And a GOP firestorm resulted, with Republicans accusing O’Connell of interfering with federal immigration enforcement.
Four weeks later, a simple public policy spat has turned into a major conflict between some of the most powerful leaders in Tennessee, breaking a fragile peace between the city and the GOP supermajority legislature – and exposing Nashville to the wrath of the Trump administration. The feud, which shows no signs of ending soon, comes with real potential consequences for Nashville and other blue cities in red states being targeted over their immigration policies.
“It's unfortunate that he's willing to support the law breakers instead of supporting us as the lawmakers,” state Rep. Rusty Grills, a Republican, said of the mayor.
O’Connell, who has worked to calm long-running tensions with Republicans since his election in 2023, is the latest target of GOP ire over perceived threats to President Donald Trump’s deportations, and the onslaught against the mayor also represents a further escalation in the administration’s attack on local officials. In New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka was arrested in May on a trespassing charge outside an ICE facility. That charge was later dropped, but U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver is facing assault charges from the same confrontation.
In Tennessee, Republicans in the state legislature told POLITICO that O’Connell was putting officers at risk by updating a longstanding executive order mandating that city officials disclose interactions with ICE to the mayor’s office within 24 hours. They have latched onto that as evidence the mayor is impeding law enforcement operations.
O’Connell, speaking at a press conference following the raids, said the city does not have the authority to enforce immigration laws, and noted that Nashville’s crime rates are down. He has maintained that the city did not interfere with the ICE operation in early May.
Yet GOP outrage has spread from Tennessee to Washington. O’Connell is facing a federal investigation from House Republicans announced last week, and a call for another from the Department of Justice by Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who all argue that O’Connell is impeding law enforcement’s ability to crack down on crime committed by illegal immigrants.
U.S. border czar Tom Homan has warned that Nashville could see larger immigration crackdowns as a result of O’Connell’s opposition.
“We’ll flood the zone in the neighborhoods to find the bad guy,” Homan said on Fox News last week. “We’ll flood the zone at work sites to find the bad guy, but we’re going to do it, and [O’Connell’s] not going to stop us.”
Republicans have also gone after O’Connell for highlighting a donations fund that supports individuals affected by the arrests, like children whose parents were detained. Republicans say the fund is an improper use of taxpayer dollars, although the fund was created by a nonprofit that says it exclusively uses private donations.
Tennessee Democrats and immigrant advocates say that Republicans are cheering ICE’s involvement because of a bad-faith view of immigrant communities and that the criticism of O’Connell is purely GOP rhetoric lacking any basis. They also say the sweep shows how the Department of Homeland Security is taking in people that pose no threat to the public. DHS said about half of the people arrested have criminal records, but only identified four of them – leading Democrats to demand more information about those detained.
“For the politicians who care about nothing but the national news, this is a symbolic story,” said Democratic State Sen. Jeff Yarbro. “But for those of us who represent communities where we've seen lawless dragnet policing, there are real life consequences to our community and to our neighbors.”
The raid’s scale and scope was “unlike anything we've ever seen before,” said Lisa Sherman Luna, the executive director of the Tennessee Immigrants & Refugee Rights Coalition.
The Tennessee Highway Patrol’s cooperation with ICE underscores the role states will play in carrying out the Trump administration’s immigration agenda – especially as DHS struggles to hit its deportation goals. GOP leaders eager to impress the president have taken steps in recent months to deputize local law enforcement as immigration enforcers, like in Georgia, where Gov. Brian Kemp recently signed a law requiring law enforcement to check the immigration status of detainees.
“They are building an infrastructure that we've never seen, especially for a non-border state, to really carry out the President's agenda of mass deportations,” Luna said of the ICE operation in Nashville. “The devastation for families and local communities is going to be deep and broad, because everyone is a target now, and so it's really alarming to see our state government being used in this manner.”
Tennessee Republicans have framed the conflict as a matter of law and order – arguing that the ICE raids were a necessary use of force to crack down on crime they blame on illegal immigrants. Under the leadership of Gov. Bill Lee, Tennessee has emerged as one of the most aggressive non-border states on immigration in the second Trump era.
Lee, to the surprise of many Tennesseans, was the first Republican governor to say in January before Trump’s inauguration he was readying the National Guard should they be called upon to aid in deportations. In January, a few days after attending a governors meeting at Mar-A-Lago, Lee tacked onto immigration legislation as part of a special session on school vouchers. Lawmakers then passed a sweeping law expanding local law enforcement’s immigration purview and making it a felony for state officials to establish sanctuary cities.
Nashville is not a sanctuary city. But Democrats there still view the law as a warning shot from the legislature, which has clashed with city leaders over a range of issues — from control of the airport to representation in Congress.
“We wanted to send a signal that Tennessee was ready to cooperate and welcomed ICE coming into our communities to get these violent people out,” said state Sen. Jack Johnson, a Republican. “So I'm very, very happy with it and excited, and I hope they do more.”
And many want to see ICE return. State Sen. Brent Taylor has asked Homan to send ICE to Memphis to address “the violent crime epidemic” that he says is “exacerbated by poor local leadership.”
Shelby County, where Memphis is located, was included on a list of sanctuary cities and counties published by DHS last week that was soon taken down. Leaders of Shelby County, Memphis and Nashville — which was also on the list – disputed their designation as sanctuary cities, which have been outlawed by the Tennessee legislature.
State Sen. Jody Barrett described relations between Nashville and the GOP legislature as a “forced marriage,” complicated by the fact that Nashville serves as the state’s economic engine. Nashville’s population has exploded in recent years, and the city’s tourism industry keeps the state coffers filled.
“And because of that, it’s kind of a love-hate relationship,” he said.
Conservative organizations spend more than left-leaning ones on platforms such as Facebook and Instagram in non-election years, capturing a large audience while those Democratic-aligned groups go more dormant in the digital space. And it’s making Democrats’ election-year persuasion game that much harder.
That’s the warning of a new report from Tech for Campaigns, a political nonprofit focused on using digital marketing and data techniques to support Democrats, that argues one of the party’s major problems is that its communication falters in non-election years. While Democratic spending and presence online surged leading up to the election, for example, Republicans quickly regained the spending advantage this year.
Democrats, in other words, aren’t putting in the work online during “off years.”
The report, shared first with POLITICO, comes as Democratic donors and officials have grappled with how online personalities and social media content boosted President Donald Trump in 2024, and openly acknowledged Democrats need to fix their brand.
“The Right, especially Trump, recognized that persuasion is no longer about last-minute convincing, but about shaping beliefs continuously — building trust, shifting opinions, and staying visible through frequent engagement — just like commercial brand building,” the report’s authors wrote. “Democrats may acknowledge this shift but continue treating digital communication as a campaign-season sprint.”
Republicans’ audience advantage spans from podcasts, where Democrats have fretted about the influence of hosts like Joe Rogan, to social media and digital sites. On Facebook and Instagram, for example, Republican-aligned pages outspent those associated with Democrats throughout former President Joe Biden’s term, the report found. The only exception of the fourth quarter of 2024, when Democratic-aligned spending surged ahead of the November election. Republicans regained the spending advantage in the first quarter of 2025, suggesting Democrats are not making up ground.
“Democrats have a brand and customers who require consistent and constant communication,” said Jessica Alter, co-founder of Tech for Campaigns. “And ads … 3-6 months before an election can certainly supplement that strategy, but they can't be the main strategy, not when Republicans never stop talking to their audience.”
The online spending gap is not coming from political parties or campaigns. Instead, Republicans’ digital advantage largely stems from allied groups and digital media companies, such as PragerU and the Daily Wire.
Those sites and other similar ones are not focused strictly on electoral politics. But they have cultivated broad audiences, and spent years sharing content about issues — such as transgender students’ participation in sports and opposition to diversity, equity and inclusion programs — that are electorally potent. And Republican candidates are primed to take advantage of those large, sympathetic audiences when an election draws near.
While there are newer left-leaning media competitors, such as Courier Newsroom and NowThis Impact, the conservative pages and websites still have a larger audience and spend more on to boost their content across the platforms.
When it comes to campaigns, Democrats do have a financial advantage. But although Democratic campaigns consistently outspend Republicans on digital platforms, that’s often more focused on fundraising than persuasion and mobilization ads. That’s a mistake, Tech for Campaigns argues.
While former Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign spent nearly three times as much as Trump’s across Facebook, Google and CTV after she entered the presidential race in July 2024, only a small share, 8 percent, was devoted to mobilization, the report finds. That allowed Trump and his allies to close much of the gap when it came to digital content designed to get voters to the polls.
But the report cautions against simply trying to recreate what Republicans have done well — for instance, by trying to find a Democratic equivalent of Rogan or even assuming that podcasts will be the most important medium for 2028. Instead, it argues, Democrats need to be willing to try different formats, testing what works and adapting as needed.
“Simply increasing funding to replicate Republican tactics from the last cycle won't be sufficient — nor will continuing to rely primarily on the same networks of talent,” the report concludes. “Successful right-wing influencers emerged largely organically outside party structures, not through top-down creation.”
Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman’s chief of staff is leaving her post, two people familiar with the matter confirmed to POLITICO on Tuesday. The move is yet another key departure for a congressional office that’s been marked by turnover amid mounting questions about the Democrat's health and shifting political persona.
Axios first reported Krysta Sinclair Juris’ plans to part ways with Fetterman’s office.
POLITICO has learned Cabelle St. John, who previously served as Fetterman’s deputy chief of staff, senior adviser and scheduling director, is taking over as his new top aide.
“Cabelle St. John has been a trusted advisor since day 1 in the office. I’m lucky to have her taking over as my Chief of Staff and I’m confident she’ll do a great job,” Fetterman said in a statement. “I’m grateful for Krysta’s work. She’s been an invaluable member of the team for over two years and I wish her all the best.”
In the last year and a half, the senator’s former chief of staff, Adam Jentleson, top communications aides and legislative director all left his team. Two more aides departed Fetterman’s office in the last couple months.
In a Monday debate in Boston with Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), Fetterman said that reporting about his missing votes and committee hearings is a “weird smear.” Previously, he criticized a New York magazine article about former and current aides who expressed concerns about his health “a one-source hit piece.”
“I’m here. I’m doing that job,” he said in the debate that aired on Fox Nation. “For me, if I miss some of those quotes — I mean some of those votes — I’ve made 90 percent of them and, and we all know those votes that I’ve missed were on Monday; those are travel days, and I have three young kids, and I — those are throwaway procedural votes. … That’s a choice that I made, and if you want to attack me for that, go ahead.”
In addition to concerns over his health, some ex-staffers have been frustrated with Fetterman's hardline support of Israel and recent meeting with President Donald Trump.
Elon Musk came out swinging against President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill” on Tuesday, slamming the reconciliation package as a “disgusting abomination” in a massive break from the president just days after stepping away from his role in the administration.
“I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore,” Musk wrote on his social media platform X. “This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.”
Musk, who Trump had tapped to lead the federal expense-slashing Department of Government Efficiency, went on to criticize the bill for setting up Congress to “increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!)” and saddle Americans with “crushingly unsustainable debt.”
Musk’s bombshell attack on Trump’s prized megabill marks a dam-breaking moment for the billionaire presidential adviser, shortly after stepping back from his position helming DOGE last week as the end of his designated time as a special government employee came to a close.
The Tesla CEO had criticized some of the president’s policies while he was serving in government. But the harsh rebuke of legislation pushed by Trump — who said in May that the bill was “arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country” — marks the most severe split between the Trump ally and the president.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt brushed off Musk’s criticism, which he posted as she was at the briefing room podium. "The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill,” she said. “It doesn't change the president's opinion."
Musk’s social media post emboldened some of the reconcilation’s package Republican critics. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), one of two Republican defections against the bill last month, was quick to boost Musk’s tirade, writing “He’s right” in a post on X.
And Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who Trump criticized repeatedly earlier Tuesday for his opposition to the bill, came out in support of Musk.
“I agree with Elon,” Paul wrote on X. “We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better.” Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also jumped on the post, replying to Musk that “The Senate must make this bill better.”
But the message came as a blow to House Speaker Mike Johnson, who was instrumental in pushing the bill through the House.
Musk “coming out and panning” the GOP megabill is “very disappointing,” Johnson told reporters at the Capitol, “and very surprising in light of the conversation I had with him.”
Tuesday’s post wasn’t the first time Musk expressed disapproval of Republicans’ megabill.
The former DOGE head took to CBS News last week to criticize the bill, saying he was “disappointed to see the massive spending bill,” and lamenting that it “undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.”
While Musk’s role at DOGE fundamentally reshaped Washington, the close Trump ally has signaled his frustration with the administration in recent weeks, from launching an attack on Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro on X over the administration’s sweeping tariff policy — which impacted Musk’s business holdings — to indicating that he had “done enough” in politics after throwing significant funds at an ill-fated Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April.
Musk continued his tirade Tuesday afternoon against the big beautiful bill and upped the ante against Republicans in Congress — reposting a tweet questioning why the GOP is spending money on "luxury hotels in Ukraine" or "not voting on any DOGE cuts."
"In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," Musk added on X.
The thinly-veiled threat shortly after blasting those who supported the megabill could become a financial albatross for the GOP, after Musk's America PAC poured millions into Trump's reelection campaign and downballot races. In Musk's series of posts, he back up Massie — who Trump has openly called to be primaried.
Ali Bianco, Meredith Lee Hill and Ben Johansen contributed to this report.
Login
lead image
