Democrats believe President Donald Trump’s tax-and-spend megabill gives them a heavy cudgel ahead of the 2026 midterms. Now they have to effectively wield it as they try to reclaim the House.
Ad-makers have quickly prepped attack ads to air as soon as the holiday weekend is over, including in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. House Democrats are plotting to turn the August recess into the opening salvo of the midterms, including through town halls and organizing programs.
And Democrats see an opportunity to expand the battleground, going on offense into red areas across the country. The bill that passed Thursday has already triggered a spike in candidate interest deep into Trump territory, House Majority PAC said. Separately, Democrats are digging into a round of candidate recruitment targeting a half-dozen House districts Trump won by high single or double digits, according to a person directly familiar with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s plan and granted anonymity to describe private conversations. They’re recruiting Democrats to challenge Reps. Ann Wagner of Missouri, Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, Kevin Kiley of California, Nick LaLota of New York and Jeff Crank of Colorado
“There's almost nothing about this bill that I'm going [to] have a hard time explaining to the district,” said Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who represents a district Trump won by 9 points. “This is a giant tax giveaway to wealthy people. Everyone fucking knows it.”
Democrats’ renewed bravado comes after months in the political wilderness, following sweeping losses across the country last year. And it’s not just the megabill’s consequences that give them electoral hope.
Leading to Thursday’s vote was a series of moves they believe portend success: North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who criticized the bill for its steep Medicaid cuts before voting against it, announced his plans to not seek reelection last weekend. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who represents one of the three GOP-held districts that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024, also announced his plans to not run for reelection. That opened up two top midterm battleground races in one weekend.
Democrats have also been far more in sync with their pushback in recent days after months of struggling to unify around a coherent message during Trump’s second term. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries’ record-setting speech on the House floor Thursday morning mirrored those of several Democratic candidates who mentioned Medicaid cuts in their campaign launches this week.
Next they have to spread the message farther, as polling shows many Americans aren’t yet aware of the megabill and its $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and food assistance programs. And Democrats privately acknowledge that as voters learn more, the party needs to stretch its House battlefield to chart a path back to power.
“No Democrat is going to nationally define this bill in six weeks, so we have to build a drumbeat. You do that by having 70 to 75 campaigns, because then you’re localizing the attack across the country,” the person directly familiar with the DCCC’s plans said. “We don’t have that yet. In reality, there are maybe 24 to 30 districts with good campaigns going right now.”
Tina Shah, a doctor who launched her bid against Rep. Tom Kean (R-N.J.) this week, attacked Republicans for “gut[ting] Medicaid,” and Matt Maasdam, a former Navy SEAL who is challenging Rep. Tom Barrett (R-Mich.), said “the price of healthcare is gonna go up … all to line the pocketbooks of billionaires.”
Some Democratic strategists are urging the party to capitalize on this momentum even more aggressively.
“We need to be doing early, paid communications on this — not just the same old cable buys, token digital buys in swing districts and press conferences,” said Ian Russell, a Democratic consultant who served as the DCCC’s political director in 2014 and 2016. “Democrats need to take some risks here, mobilize early, spend money they may not have because voters' views harden over time, and this is when we can shape it.”
In 2024, Democrats failed to break through with their message after President Joe Biden dug the party into a hole with voters on the economy. Trump successfully cast himself as focused on bringing down costs while painting Kamala Harris as overly obsessed with social issues like protecting transgender people. Harris, for her part, ran a scatter-shot, three-month messaging blitz that jumped from cost-of-living to abortion rights to Trump’s threats to democracy, which ultimately didn’t move voters.
Republicans, for their part, plan to emphasize the megabill’s tax cuts, especially those on tips and overtime, and increased funding for border security. On Medicaid cuts, they hope to neutralize Democrats’ attacks by casting them as reforms: tightened work requirements and efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse, a pair of Medicaid-related changes that generally polls well among voters.
“This vote cemented House Democrats’ image as elitist, disconnected, snobby, unconcerned with the problems Americans face in their daily lives, and most of all — out of touch,” said NRCC spokesman Mike Marinella in a statement. “House Republicans will be relentless in making this vote the defining issue of 2026, and we will use every tool to show voters that Republicans stood with them while House Democrats sold them out.”
But as Republicans look to sell their bill, public polling on it is bleak. Most Americans disapprove of it, in some polls by a two-to-one margin, according to surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University, The Washington Post, Pew Research and Fox News.
Meanwhile a pair of Democratic groups, Priorities USA and Navigator Research, released surveys this week showing majorities of voters aren’t fully aware of the megabill. Nearly half of Americans said they hadn’t heard anything about the bill, according to Priorities USA, a major Democratic super PAC. Of those who had heard about it, only 8 percent said they knew Medicaid cuts were included in the legislation.
Two-thirds of survey respondents who self-identified as passive or avoidant news consumers, the kinds of tuned out and low-information voters Democrats failed to win in 2024, said they knew nothing about the bill.
“We have a lot more work to do as a party to communicate the impacts of this bill to voters who are tuning out politics,” said Danielle Butterfield, Priorities USA executive director.
Butterfield urged Democrats to “get beyond the stats” and “start collecting storytellers.” Then, start putting ads online, particularly on YouTube, not just traditional TV ads.
“We need to put a face on this as soon as possible,” she said.
Among those potential faces is Nathan Sage, a first-time candidate and Iraq War veteran who is challenging Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst. Sage grew up occasionally relying on food assistance, another program that will be cut in the GOP bill, and has said he’s already hearing from Iowans who “feel that they were duped into believing the Republican agenda when it first came out, because they were talking about no taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime. That's things that working class people want.”
“Until they start hearing [how it] is actually going to affect them, when they do hear that, that's when the outrage happens,” Sage said in an interview.
Iowa, once a perennial battleground, is now solidly red, as Democrats have consistently lost white, working class voters there. Sage and Democratic pollster Brian Stryker argued the megabill opens a path to winning them back
The Medicaid cuts “enable us to have an issue that’s salient, substantive that’s on the side of working class people,” Stryker said. In 2024, 49 percent of Medicaid recipients voted for Trump, while 47 percent backed Harris, according to polling from Morning Consult.
“I hope that this does wake up the working class, does wake up people to understand — listen, they don't care about us,” Sage said, “and the only way that we are ever going to get out of the situation is to elect working class candidates to represent us, to fight for us, because they are us.”
Andrew Howard contributed reporting.
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
Brian Fitzpatrick’s survival mechanism as a battleground House Republican entails occasionally distancing himself from his own MAGA-controlled party.
On Thursday he took that to the next level by voting against President Donald Trump’s megabill amid an unrelenting pressure campaign from the White House.
The head-turning move made Fitzpatrick one of just two House Republicans to buck the party on the president’s signature domestic policy legislation that some in the GOP fear is worsening their political outlook ahead of the 2026 midterms. Over the past few days, two congressional Republicans in swing seats announced they were not running for reelection. Fitzpatrick belongs to a GOP trio representing districts that former Vice President Kamala Harris captured, and Democrats are once again eyeing him as a top target next year when they try to reclaim the House.
Fitzpatrick’s break with Trump over his key legislation also carries major risks of intra-party backlash. On Thursday, some MAGA influencers were already threatening a primary challenge.
“He has now gained the ability to say, ‘I am not a rubber stamp to Trump. I will vote against his agenda when I believe it’s the right thing to do,” said Mike Conallen, Fitzpatrick’s former chief of staff. “But given the inclination of the president and his supporters to basically go after anybody who doesn’t support them, you’ve now become potentially the lighting rod for all those MAGA individuals and the president himself.”
Fitzpatrick attributed his vote to changes made by the Senate, which deepened the cuts included in initial bill language he had backed.
“I voted to strengthen Medicaid protections, to permanently extend middle-class tax cuts, for enhanced small business tax relief, and for historic investments in our border security and our military,” he said in a statement. “However, it was the Senate’s amendments to Medicaid, in addition to several other Senate provisions, that altered the analysis.”
It was a shocking move even for Fitzpatrick.
First elected in 2016, he has cultivated a brand as a moderate Republican who supported former President Joe Biden’s infrastructure package, won the endorsement of a major gun-control group, and regularly visited mosques in his district. He has at times even downplayed his affiliation with the Republican Party, calling himself “a fiercely independent voice.” His X header reads, “Defend Democracy. Vote Bipartisan.”
Still, many Republicans were shocked Wednesday night when he broke with the party on a procedural vote to move the legislation to a final vote, particularly because he had backed the earlier version of it weeks prior. They said he had not explained his opposition to them, even as other initially resistant Republicans went public with their concerns.
“I was surprised,” Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) said. “And I do not know what his objection was.”
Some speculated his stance might be related to a letter he wrote to Trump this week opposing the administration’s halt of some weapons to Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Fitzpatrick’s curveball briefly set off a scramble to find him, with the congressman reportedly bolting from the chamber and House Speaker Mike Johnson appearing to tell Fox News he was looking for him. Even some of Fitzpatrick’s fellow members of Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation were taken aback by his decision.
“You’ll have to ask him,” Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), who is eyeing a gubernatorial run, said in response to a question about the vote.
A Democrat hasn’t held Fitzpatrick’s prized Bucks County-based seat since his late brother, Mike Fitzpatrick, reclaimed it from then-Rep. Patrick Murphy in 2010. In the past, Democrats have fielded candidates who lacked electoral experience or were an otherwise imperfect fit to take on this durable incumbent. But they believe they have finally recruited a top contender to run against Fitzpatrick in a county commissioner named Bob Harvie, who has shown the ability to win the battleground county, which comprises most of the district.
“They’re scared. They know this bill is unpopular,” Harvie said of Republicans, arguing Fitzpatrick’s vote was “too little, too late” and “the only reason it got to the Senate is because he voted for it.”
A pro-Fitzpatrick super PAC, Defending America PAC, quickly released a statement Thursday casting the vote as proof of his bipartisan leanings and touting his record of “winning a seat for Republicans in a district carried by Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton,” and slamming Harvie for "bitching and moaning with no solutions of his own."
Even for Fitzpatrick, though, his vote was particularly a lonely one.
Only he and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), a longtime gadfly for Trump, voted against the megabill on Thursday. And Fitzpatrick was the sole Republican who did not support clearing Wednesday night’s procedural hurdle to advance the bill and didn’t back down under pressure. A handful of other Republicans initially cast votes against it, but switched them at the last minute.
Fitzpatrick’s allies said he’s proven adept at navigating the complicated political cross-currents in his swing district. And sometimes, they said, that means upsetting his party.
“Working with Brian over the years, he’s very aware of his district,” said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). “And he’s very aware of where he should be when he’s representing them.”
Kelly said Thursday he has not spoken with Fitzpatrick about his vote but has “no problem” with it.
Some MAGA activists weren’t as forgiving.
Conservative influencer Nick Sortor posted on the social media platform X on Wednesday, “ATTENTION PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA’S 1ST DISTRICT: Your Congressman @RepBrianFitz SOLD YOU OUT.”
Pro-Trump activist Scott Presler likewise wrote on X, “Yes, I am aware that Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA01) voted NO to the Big Beautiful Bill. Message received. CC: Bucks County.”
Democrats would be delighted if Fitzpatrick faced a messy, expensive primary.
Fitzpatrick has easily fended off challenges from Republicans running to his right. But they have lacked institutional support — namely Trump’s endorsement. Trump and his operation backing a primary opponent would present a new challenge for Fitzpatrick.
For weeks Trump has attacked Massie and promised to try to oust him, while his team launched a super PAC to unseat him.
The criticism from the White House was relatively tame in the hours after Fitzpatrick’s dissent. Trump told reporters that he was “disappointed” by the lawmaker's vote, but declined to immediately call for a primary challenge. A White House spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
And Republican House leaders appear to be sticking by Fitzpatrick. After eventually finding him, Johnson told reporters he had spoken with him “at length” and “he just has convictions about certain provisions of the bill — he’s entitled to that.”
But Fitzpatrick’s opposition extends beyond his usual maneuvers, thus presenting a test for the modern-day GOP: Can a party that demands total loyalty to Trump stomach someone who occasionally defies the president in order to keep their congressional majority?
More often than not in recent years, the answer to that question has been no.
Rep. Don Bacon, a frequent Trump critic who represents another Harris district in Nebraska, announced this week that he would not run for reelection. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina also said Sunday he'd step down after Trump vowed to back a primary challenger against him because he opposed the megabill.
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
An ally of President Donald Trump and former Department of Government Efficiency adviser James Fishback on Tuesday is launching a super PAC called FSD PAC designed to blunt Elon Musk’s political ambitions.
FSD PAC, a play on Tesla’s “full self-driving,” stands for Full Support for Donald.
Its strategy is to be a bulwark against Musk’s threats — real or perceived, and comes as multiple Republicans shrug off the latest social media spat as little to worry about in a world where Trump so thoroughly commands the loyalty of the GOP base.
The PAC will spend money in any race where Musk follows through on his plan to bankroll a third-party hopeful, or where he backs a Democrat or a Republican primary challenge against a Trump-endorsed incumbent. The goal: ensure that Musk’s deep pockets don’t undermine Trump’s grip on the GOP.“There's real frustration in our movement with Elon and his antics,” said Fishback, who stepped away from DOGE last month after Musk lashed out at Trump. “I'm a big believer in what he's doing in the private sector. But when it comes to politics, he's dead wrong on this.”
Fishback, who is represented by Lex Politica, the same firm that represents Musk and his SuperPAC AmericaPAC, is putting $1 million of his own money into his PAC.
FSD PAC’s formation comes amid an intensifying standoff between the world’s wealthiest man and the Republican party. Musk, the GOP’s largest individual donor, has publicly threatened to start his own party, the “America Party,” if Congress passes Trump’s sweeping domestic policy package, known as the Big Beautiful Bill.
The Senate passed that bill on Tuesday and it could land on the president’s desk this week.Trump on Tuesday, said he wasn’t concerned Republicans would be swayed by Musk or his money. “I don't think he should be playing that game with me,” the president said.A Trump ally added that he was not too concerned about Musk’s threats, noting his lackluster track record of political endorsements.
“A guy named Elon Musk tried to play Kingmaker in the 2024 Republican primary by backing Ron DeSanctimonious,” said the person who was granted anonymity to speak freely. Musk also spent millions to sway a Wisconsin Supreme Court race, including handing out million-dollar checks to two Wisconsin voters, but the Democrat won handily anyway.“For it to have any impact, you’d have to have Republicans leaving the Republican Party of President Trump and joining a new party just so they can take a check from Elon,” said a Republican strategist granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking. “I just don’t see that happening.”
And FSD is just one of several pro-Trump organizations ready to attack Republicans deemed disloyal. Just last week, another pro-Trump group, MAGA Kentucky, aired a TV ad against Rep. Thomas Massie, one of only two House Republicans who voted against the president’s marquee legislation. The 30-second spot targets Massie for voting against legislation that cuts taxes and funds border security, and puts him alongside Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)
Musk has been criticizing the legislation for weeks but his attacks have ramped up over the past few days as the legislation gets closer to the finish line. The owner of Tesla and X said that conservative lawmakers who support the bill “will lose their primary next year if it is the last thing I do on this Earth” and said he “will” support Massie.
Trump escalated the rhetoric on Tuesday morning, telling reporters that his administration “will have to take a look” at deporting Musk, a South African native and naturalized U.S. citizen. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon,” Trump said, referring to the agency at the center of his government-shrinking agenda.
Musk, for his part, responded on X: “So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now.”
Irie Sentner contributed to this report.
© Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
Former Rep. Colin Allred is jumping back into the Texas Senate race, after losing to Ted Cruz eight months ago.
In a video released Tuesday, Allred, who flipped a red-leaning district in 2018, pledged to take on “politicians like [Texas Sen.] John Cornyn and [Attorney General] Ken Paxton,” who “are too corrupt to care about us and too weak to fight for us,” while pledging to run on an “anti-corruption plan.”
Democrats are hopeful that a messy Republican primary — pitting Cornyn against Paxton, who has weathered multiple scandals in office and leads in current polling — could yield an opening for a party in search of offensive opportunities. But unlike in 2024, when Allred ran largely unopposed in the Senate Democratic primary, Democrats are poised to have a more serious and crowded primary field, which could complicate their shot at flipping the reliably red state.
Former astronaut Terry Virts announced his bid last week, when he took a swing at both parties in his announcement video. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) has voiced interest, while former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018 and 2022, has been headlining packed town halls. State Rep. James Talarico told POLITICO he’s “having conversations about how I can best serve Texas.”
Allred, a former NFL player turned congressman, leaned heavily into his biography for his launch video. He retold the story of buying his mom a house once he turned pro, but said, “you shouldn’t have to have a son in the NFL to own a home.”
“Folks who play by the rules and keep the faith just can’t seem to get ahead. But the folks who cut corners and cut deals — well, they’re doing just fine,” Allred continued. “I know Washington is broken. The system is rigged. But it doesn’t have to be this way. In six years in Congress, I never took a dime of corporate PAC money, never traded a single stock.”
Turning Texas blue has long been a dream for Democrats, who argued the state’s increasing diversity will help them eventually flip it. But Trump’s significant inroads with Latino voters in Texas, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley, may impede those hopes. Of the 10 counties that shifted the farthest right from the 2012 to 2024 presidential elections, seven are in Texas, according to a New York Times analysis, including double-digit improvements in seven heavily Latino districts.
Early polling has found Allred leading Paxton by one percentage point in a head-to-head contest — though he trailed Cornyn by six points. The polling, commissioned by Senate Leadership Fund, the GOP leadership-aligned super PAC that supports Cornyn, underscored Paxton’s general election weakness while showing Cornyn losing to Paxton in the GOP primary.
© Tony Gutierrez/AP
lead image
ST. PAUL, Minnesota — Former President Joe Biden joined thousands of mourners Friday as former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman lay in state in the Minnesota Capitol rotunda while the man charged with killing her and her husband, and wounding a state senator and his wife, made a brief court appearance in a suicide prevention suit.
Hortman, a Democrat, is the first woman and one of fewer than 20 Minnesotans accorded the honor. She lay in state with her husband, Mark, and their golden retriever, Gilbert. Her husband was also killed in the June 14 attack, and Gilbert was seriously wounded and had to be euthanized. It was the first time a couple has lain in state at the Capitol, and the first time for a dog.
The Hortmans’ caskets and the dog’s urn were arranged in the center of the rotunda, under the Capitol dome, with law enforcement officers keeping watch on either side as thousands of people who lined up filed by. Many fought back tears as they left.
Among the first to pay their respects were Gov. Tim Walz, who has called Hortman his closest political ally, and his wife, Gwen. Biden, a Catholic, visited later in the afternoon, walking up to the velvet rope in front of the caskets, making the sign of the cross, and spending a few moments by himself in silence. He then took a knee briefly, got up, made the sign of the cross again, and walked off to greet people waiting in the wings of the rotunda.
The Capitol was open for the public from noon to 5 p.m. Friday, but officials said anyone waiting in line at 5 would be let in. House TV livestreamed the viewing. A private funeral is set for 10:30 a.m. Saturday and will be livestreamed on the Department of Public Safety’s YouTube channel.
Biden will attend the funeral, a spokesperson said. So will former Vice President Kamala Harris, though neither is expected to speak. Harris expressed her condolences earlier this week to Hortman’s adult children, and spoke with Walz, her running mate on the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket, who extended an invitation on behalf of the Hortman family, her office said.
Lisa Greene, who lives in Brooklyn Park like Hortman did, but in a different House district, said she came to the Capitol because she had so much respect for the former speaker.
“She was just amazing. Amazing woman. “And I was just so proud that she represented the city that I lived in,” Greene said in a voice choked with emotion. “She was such a leader. She could bring people together. She was so accessible. I mean, she was friendly, you could talk to her.” But, she went on to say admiringly, Hortman was also “a boss. She just knew what she was doing and she could just make things happen.”
A hearing takes a twist: The man accused of killing the Hortmans and wounding another Democratic lawmaker and his wife made a short court appearance Friday to face charges for what the chief federal prosecutor for Minnesota has called “a political assassination.” Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities have called the largest search in Minnesota history.
An unshaven Boelter was brought in wearing just a green padded suicide prevention suit and orange slippers. Federal defender Manny Atwal asked Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko to continue the hearing until Thursday. She said Boelter has been sleep deprived while on suicide watch in the Sherburne County Jail, and that it has been difficult to communicate with him as a result.
“Your honor, I haven’t really slept in about 12 to 14 days,” Boelter told the judge. And he denied being suicidal. “I’ve never been suicidal and I am not suicidal now.”
Atwal told the court that Boelter had been in what’s known as a “Gumby suit,” without undergarments, ever since his transfer to the jail after his first court appearance on June 16. She said the lights are on in his area 24 hours a day, doors slam frequently, the inmate in the next cell spreads feces on the walls, and the smell drifts to Boelter’s cell.
The attorney said transferring him to segregation instead, and giving him a normal jail uniform, would let him get some sleep, restore some dignity, and let him communicate better. The judge agreed.
Prosecutors did not object to the delay and said they also had concerns about the jail conditions.
The acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joseph Thompson, told reporters afterward that he did not think Boelter had attempted to kill himself.
The case continues: Boelter did not enter a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first, before his arraignment, which is when a plea is normally entered.
According to the federal complaint, police video shows Boelter outside the Hortmans’ home and captures the sound of gunfire. And it says security video shows Boelter approaching the front doors of two other lawmakers’ homes dressed as a police officer.
His lawyers have declined to comment on the charges, which could carry the federal death penalty. Thompson said last week that no decision has been made. Minnesota abolished its death penalty in 1911. The Death Penalty Information Center says a federal death penalty case hasn’t been prosecuted in Minnesota in the modern era, as best as it can tell.
Boelter also faces separate murder and attempted murder charges in state court that could carry life without parole, assuming that county prosecutors get their own indictment for first-degree murder. But federal authorities intend to use their power to try Boelter first.
Other victims and alleged targets: Authorities say Boelter shot and wounded Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, at their home in Champlin before shooting and killing the Hortmans in their home in the northern Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park, a few miles away.
Federal prosecutors allege Boelter also stopped at the homes of two other Democratic lawmakers. Prosecutors also say he listed dozens of other Democrats as potential targets, including officials in other states. Friends described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views. But prosecutors have declined so far to speculate on a motive.
© Steve Karnowski/AP
Former U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who successfully ran for Congress in 1996 as a crusader for gun control after a mass shooting on a New York commuter train left her husband dead and her son severely wounded, has died. She was 81.
News of her death was shared Thursday by several elected officials on her native Long Island and by Jay Jacobs, chair of the New York State Democratic Committee. Details about her death were not immediately available.
McCarthy went from political novice to one of the nation’s leading advocates for gun control legislation in the aftermath of the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre. However, the suburban New York Democrat found limited success against the National Rifle Association and other Second Amendment advocates.
McCarthy announced in June 2013 that she was undergoing treatment for lung cancer. She announced her retirement in January 2014.
“Mom dedicated her life to transforming personal tragedy into a powerful mission of public service,” her son, Kevin McCarthy, who survived the shooting, told Newsday. “As a tireless advocate, devoted mother, proud grandmother and courageous leader, she changed countless lives for the better. Her legacy of compassion, strength and purpose will never be forgotten.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul directed flags on all state government buildings to be flown at half-staff Friday in honor of the congresswoman.
“Representative Carolyn McCarthy was a strong advocate for gun control and an even more fierce leader,” Hochul said.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Tom Suozzi said the nation has “lost a fierce champion.”
“Carolyn channeled her grief and loss into advocacy for change, becoming one of the most dedicated gun violence prevention advocates,” Suozzi said on X.
She became a go-to guest on national TV news shows after each ensuing gun massacre, whether it was at Columbine High School or Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Known as the “gun lady” on Capitol Hill, McCarthy said she couldn’t stop crying after learning that her former colleague, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, had been seriously wounded in a January 2011 shooting in Arizona.
“It’s like a cancer in our society,” she said of gun violence. “And if we keep doing nothing to stop it, it’s only going to spread.”
During one particularly rancorous debate over gun show loopholes in 1999, McCarthy was brought to tears at 1 a.m. on the House floor.
“I am Irish and I am not supposed to cry in front of anyone. But I made a promise a long time ago. I made a promise to my son and to my husband. If there was anything that I could do to prevent one family from going through what I have gone through then I have done my job,” she said.
“Let me go home. Let me go home,” she pleaded.
McCarthy was born in Brooklyn and grew up on Long Island. She became a nurse and later married Dennis McCarthy after meeting on a Long Island beach. They had one son, Kevin, during a tumultuous marriage in which they divorced but reconciled and remarried.
McCarthy was a Republican when, on Dec. 7, 1993, a gunman opened fire on a train car leaving New York City. By the time passengers tackled the shooter, six people were dead and 19 wounded.
She jumped into politics after her GOP congressman voted to repeal an assault weapons ban.
Her surprise victory inspired a made-for-television movie produced by Barbra Streisand. Since that first victory in 1996, McCarthy was never seriously challenged for reelection in a heavily Republican district just east of New York City.
Some critics described McCarthy as a one-issue lawmaker, a contention she bristled about, pointing to interests in improving health care and education. But she was realistic about her legacy on gun control, once telling an interviewer:
“I’ve come to peace with the fact that will be in my obituary.”
© Ron Frehm/AP
NEW YORK — Bill Moyers, the former White House press secretary who became one of television’s most honored journalists, masterfully using a visual medium to illuminate a world of ideas, died Thursday at age 91.
Moyers died in a New York City hospital, according to longtime friend Tom Johnson, the former CEO of CNN and an assistant to Moyers during Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration. Moyers’ son William said his father died at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York after a “long illness.”
Moyers’ career ranged from youthful Baptist minister to deputy director of the Peace Corps, from Johnson’s press secretary to newspaper publisher, senior news analyst for “The CBS Evening News” and chief correspondent for “CBS Reports.”
But it was for public television that Moyers produced some of TV’s most cerebral and provocative series. In hundreds of hours of PBS programs, he proved at home with subjects ranging from government corruption to modern dance, from drug addiction to media consolidation, from religion to environmental abuse.
In 1988, Moyers produced “The Secret Government” about the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration and simultaneously published a book under the same name. Around that time, he galvanized viewers with “Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth,” a series of six one-hour interviews with the prominent religious scholar. The accompanying book became a bestseller.
His televised chats with poet Robert Bly almost single-handedly launched the 1990s Men’s Movement, and his 1993 series “Healing and the Mind” had a profound impact on the medical community and on medical education.
In a medium that supposedly abhors “talking heads” — shots of subject and interviewer talking — Moyers came to specialize in just that. He once explained why: “The question is, are the talking heads thinking minds and thinking people? Are they interesting to watch? I think the most fascinating production value is the human face.”
(Softly) speaking truth to power: Demonstrating what someone called “a soft, probing style” in the native Texas accent he never lost, Moyers was a humanist who investigated the world with a calm, reasoned perspective, whatever the subject.
From some quarters, he was blasted as a liberal thanks to his links with Johnson and public television, as well as his no-holds-barred approach to investigative journalism. It was a label he didn’t necessarily deny.
“I’m an old-fashion liberal when it comes to being open and being interested in other people’s ideas,” he said during a 2004 radio interview. But Moyers preferred to term himself a “citizen journalist” operating independently, outside the establishment.
Public television (and his self-financed production company) gave him free rein to throw “the conversation of democracy open to all comers,” he said in a 2007 interview with The Associated Press.
“I think my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted journalists,” he said another time, “but they’ve chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that trims their talent to fit the corporate nature of American life. And you do not get rewarded for telling the hard truths about America in a profit-seeking environment.”
Over the years, Moyers was showered with honors, including more than 30 Emmys, 11 George Foster Peabody awards, three George Polks and, twice, the Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University Gold Baton Award for career excellence in broadcast journalism. In 1995, he was inducted into the Television Hall of Fame.
From sports to sports writing: Born in Hugo, Oklahoma, on June 5, 1934, Billy Don Moyers was the son of a dirt farmer-truck driver who soon moved his family to Marshall, Texas. High school led him into journalism.
“I wanted to play football, but I was too small. But I found that by writing sports in the school newspaper, the players were always waiting around at the newsstand to see what I wrote,” he recalled.
He worked for the Marshall News Messenger at age 16. Deciding that Bill Moyers was a more appropriate byline for a sportswriter, he dropped the “y” from his name.
He graduated from the University of Texas and earned a master’s in divinity from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He was ordained and preached part time at two churches but later decided his call to the ministry “was a wrong number.”
His relationship with Johnson began when he was in college; he wrote the then-senator offering to work in his 1954 reelection campaign. Johnson was impressed and hired him for a summer job. He was back in Johnson’s employ as a personal assistant in the early 1960s and for two years, he worked at the Peace Corps, eventually becoming deputy director.
On the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Moyers was in Austin helping with the presidential trip. He flew back to Washington on Air Force One with newly sworn-in President Johnson, for whom he held various jobs over the ensuing years, including press secretary.
Moyers’ stint as presidential press secretary was marked by efforts to mend the deteriorating relationship between Johnson and the media. But the Vietnam war took its toll and Moyers resigned in December 1966.
Of his departure from the White House, he wrote later, “We had become a war government, not a reform government, and there was no creative role left for me under those circumstances.”
He conceded that he may have been “too zealous in my defense of our policies” and said he regretted criticizing journalists such as Pulitzer Prize-winner Peter Arnett, then a special correspondent with the AP, and CBS’ Morley Safer for their war coverage.
A long run on television: In 1967, Moyers became publisher of Long Island-based Newsday and concentrated on adding news analyses, investigative pieces and lively features. Within three years, the suburban daily had won two Pulitzers. He left the paper in 1970 after the ownership changed. That summer, he traveled 13,000 miles around the country and wrote a bestselling account of his odyssey: “Listening to America: a Traveler Rediscovers His Country.”
His next venture was in public television and he won critical acclaim for “Bill Moyers Journal,” a series in which interviews ranged from Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish economist, to poet Maya Angelou. He was chief correspondent of “CBS Reports” from 1976 to 1978, went back to PBS for three years, and then was senior news analyst for CBS from 1981 to 1986.
When CBS cut back on documentaries, he returned to PBS for much less money. “If you have a skill that you can fold with your tent and go wherever you feel you have to go, you can follow your heart’s desire,” he once said.
Then in 1986, he and his wife, Judith Davidson Moyers, became their own bosses by forming Public Affairs Television, an independent shop that has not only produced programs such as the 10-hour “In Search of the Constitution,” but also paid for them through its own fundraising efforts.
His projects in the 21st century included “Now,” a weekly PBS public affairs program; a new edition of “Bill Moyers Journal” and a podcast covering racism, voting rights and the rise of Donald Trump, among other subjects.
Moyers married Judith Davidson, a college classmate, in 1954, and they raised three children, among them the author Suzanne Moyers and author-TV producer William Cope Moyers. Judith eventually became her husband’s partner, creative collaborator and president of their production company.
© Alex Brandon/AP
House GOP committees have issued new subpoenas to ActBlue, intensifying their probe of the Democratic fundraising platform.
The subpoenas are an attempt to force cooperation as ActBlue has pushed back on the congressional investigation, questioning its intentions and constitutionality after the White House launched a similar probe.
Reps. James Comer (R-Ky.), Bryan Steil (R-Wisc.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), who lead the committees investigating ActBlue, issued the subpoenas Wednesday to compel a current and a former employee to testify about the platform’s fraud prevention policies.
The employees being subpoenaed had previously pushed back against voluntarily appearing before the committee, citing the White House’s investigation, and ActBlue sent the committee a defiant letter earlier this month criticizing the investigation as partisan. In subpoenaing the employees, the GOP lawmakers rejected ActBlue’s argument that the congressional investigation is being conducted at the behest of the White House probe.
ActBlue had slammed the congressional investigations in a letter this month as a “partisan effort directed at harming political opponents rather than gathering facts to assist in lawmaking efforts.” The platform and its Democratic defenders have argued that any probe into foreign donations and online fundraising should also include WinRed, the largest Republican fundraising platform.
Those Democratic complaints grew louder after President Donald Trump in April ordered the Justice Department to investigate foreign straw donations in online fundraising, citing in part the work done by the GOP-led congressional committees. That investigation is expected to carry into the fall — and ActBlue was the only company named in Trump’s order.
In the new subpoenas, however, the GOP lawmakers argue the committee is operating well within its rights, and that testimony from ActBlue could inform future campaign finance legislation. They say the House investigation is distinct from the Trump-ordered probe into the platform and that their committees have not provided any non-public information to the Justice Department.
The lawmakers also rejected ActBlue’s argument that the Constitution protects it from cooperation with the probe.
“Congress is free to choose how to conduct oversight, including which entities to examine and in what manner. A Congressional committee's decision to examine one entity and not another does not violate the Equal Protection Clause,” one of the subpoenas reads.
In a statement, ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones assailed the subpoenas as “political theater” that would “give Shakespeare a run for his money.”
“The Republican-led committees have also not addressed ActBlue’s legitimate concerns about the partisan and parallel inquiries by separate branches of the government being waged against President Trump’s and MAGA Republicans’ political opponents,” Wallace-Jones said.
ActBlue previously provided documents to the GOP committees, some voluntarily and some under subpoena. The congressional committees asked for voluntary interviews with ActBlue employees in April, according to the latest subpoenas, but the employees balked, citing in part the Justice Department probe.
Republicans have frequently leveraged their committee gavels this Congress to go after Democratic officials, including mayors and governors. The House Oversight Committee is also investigating former President Joe Biden’s mental acuity while in the White House, amid a similar probe by the Trump administration. Comer has issued a subpoena to Biden’s physician and asked a number of former top White House aides to sit down with his panel.
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
Prominent MAGA-aligned commentators launched xenophobic attacks on Zohran Mamdani over the 33-year-old state lawmaker’s Muslim religion following his apparent Democratic primary win in the New York City mayoral race.
In a series of posts, conservative social media personality Laura Loomer wrote “New York City will be destroyed,” Muslims will start “committing jihad all over New York” and that “NYC is about to see 9/11 2.0.”
If elected in November, Mamdani would become the first Muslim mayor in New York City’s history. And while many conservatives have criticized Mamdani’s progressive policies, others have taken aim at Mamdani for his religion.
“24 years ago a group of Muslims killed 2,753 people on 9/11,” conservative activist Charlie Kirk posted on X, referencing the number of people killed in New York. “Now a Muslim Socialist is on pace to run New York City.”
“New York City has fallen,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote, quoting a post by Michael Malice about when New Yorkers “endured 9/11 instead of voting for it.”
“After 9/11 we said ‘Never Forget.’ I think we sadly have forgotten,” Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted on X Wednesday, accompanied by a photo of Mamdani.
Mamdani’s campaign did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the statements.
Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won 43.5 percent of first-place votes in New York’s ranked-choice voting system. Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the once-favorite to take the primary, conceded to Mamdani Tuesday night. However, the city board of elections is not expected to finalize results until early July, once ranked-choice votes are tabulated.
During the primary some of Mamdani's critics, including a super PAC backing Cuomo, said he either emboldens antisemitism or has himself espoused antisemitic views, in particular over his stance on Israel.
He has repeatedly criticized Israel’s actions in Gaza, and in a June interview with The Bulwark, Mamdani said the phrase “globalize the intifada” represented “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.” Mamdani drew heavy criticism for the statement, marking a tension point in a primary election in a city with large populations of Muslim and Jewish residents.
He has repeatedly pushed back against the antisemitism label, decrying violence against Jews in the country.
“I’ve said at every opportunity that there is no room for antisemitism in this city, in this country,” he said at an emotional press conference in the closing days of the race, adding the reason he does not have a more “visceral reaction” to being labeled that is because it has “been colored by the fact that when I speak, especially when I speak with emotion, I am then characterized by those same rivals as being a monster.”
At the same press conference, he said he has faced significant attacks because of his religion.
“I get messages that say, ‘The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim.’ I get threats on my life, on the people that I love. And I try not to talk about it,” he said at that press conference.
© Vincent Alban/The New York Times via AP
Former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown is running for Senate in New Hampshire for a second time, he announced Wednesday.
“I’m running for the United States Senate to restore common sense, keep our border secure, and fight for our New Hampshire values,” Brown, a Republican, posted on social media Wednesday. WMUR first reported Brown’s plans to enter the race.
Brown, who served as Ambassador to New Zealand during President Donald Trump’s first term, praised the president — who narrowly lost the stateto former Vice President Kamala Harris last year — in his launch video, saying that Trump “is fighting every day to right the ship. He sealed the border, he stood up to China, and he restored our standing in the world.”
His announcement Wednesday makes Brown the highest profile Republican to enter the race to replace Democratic New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, who decided to forgo a reelection bid in 2026.
Brown's announcement comes after former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu decided against his own Senate bid earlier this year, even after Trump told reporters he hoped the popular moderate governor would run.
Democratic New Hampshire Rep. Chris Pappas launched his campaign shortly after Shaheen went public with her retirement plans. Pappas' campaign was quick to criticize Brown following his announcement, accusing him of looking “for yet another opportunity to do Wall Street’s bidding and blindly support President Trump,” in a statement.
Brown, meanwhile, took a shot at Pappas in his launch video: “Chris Pappas wants a better title,” he said. “I want a better America.”
The shadow contest between Brown and Pappas has been playing out for months already as Brown laid the groundwork for a bid. Brown attacked Pappas for “supporting wide open borders, men in women’s sports and lying to his constituents about Joe Biden’s senility” when the Democrat launched his campaign back in April. Pappas has yoked Brown to Trump — a connection Brown appears to embrace both in his launch video and his recent social media posts. Democrats’ campaign arm has attacked Brown over abortion rights, among other issues.
Brown has been ramping up to another Senate bid for months, including attending GOP senators’ weekly lunch back in March and keeping up ties with Republicans’ Senate campaign arm.
© AP Photo/Matt Rourke
Just as President Donald Trump appears to have hit pause on a major conflict in the Middle East, he is intensifying one at home.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is the chief target of the president's powerful political operation, which is looking to oust the outspoken congressman in the GOP primary next year.
The congressman has been a thorn in the president's side in the past, but Massie’s latest threat to introduce a resolution aimed at reining in presidential war powers comes as Trump was already seething about Massie’s multiple attempts to thwart the “big, beautiful bill” ahead of Republicans’ self-imposed July 4 deadline.
Massie has easily beat back challenges before, including a raft of money from pro-Israel donors. But this time, the six-term Congressman’s strong independent political brand may not withstand the blitz that the president's allies appear ready to unleash. Not only has Trump vowed to campaign “really hard” against Massie next year, his political operation has launched a super PAC dedicated solely to defeating the Kentuckian.
“He's probably more vulnerable than he's been since he first won in a primary because of all this,’ said GOP strategist and former Kentucky state Rep. Adam Koenig. “There's money outside of Trump world ready to go after Massie.”
Trump’s political apparatus began ramping up its efforts to boot Massie after the representative voted against the party’s massive tax-and-spending package for the president’s domestic policy priorities when it first went through the House last month. It went public with its plans — a super PAC dubbed Kentucky MAGA led by two of the president’s most-trusted lieutenants, Chris LaCivita and pollster Tony Fabrizio, first reported by Axios — as Massie pushed to reassert congressional authority over Trump’s military actions in Iran.
“He has established himself as a contrarian for contrarian sake,” LaCivita said in a text message to POLITICO. “He should be a man and switch parties instead of posing as a Republican.”
The president and his advisers have viciously attacked Massie on social media in recent days, with Trump marshalling his MAGA base to dump “LOSER” Massie and “GET THIS ‘BUM’ OUT OF OFFICE.”
Trump and Massie have had a contentious relationship dating back to the president’s first term, when he pushed to “throw Massie out of the Republican Party” after the Kentucky Republican erected a roadblock to Trump’s Covid-19 relief package in March 2020. Trump later endorsed Massie’s 2022 reelection bid and Massie backed Trump in 2024 — but only after initially supporting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in the presidential primary.
But now that Trump is back in the Oval Office, Massie has attempted to cripple the president’s legislative agenda multiple times, including becoming the only Republican to vote against a stopgap government funding bill in March. Unlike in the past, the president appears to be making good on his threats to try getting Massie out of office by putting a super PAC on the case.
“I think there’s a real opportunity…they’re going to spend upwards of $30 million to defeat Thomas Massie,” said one Kentucky GOP political operative who, like many interviewed for this story, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive intraparty matters.
The operative, who did not vote for Trump, also heard rumblings that AIPAC, one of the most prominent pro-Israel groups, is also ready to spend big in the May 2026 Kentucky primary — suggesting Massie's anti-war efforts may be met with resistance on multiple fronts. Some Republican strategists estimate combined spending could reach as high as $45 million, an unheard of total for a primary contest in the 4th Congressional District. (The only outside spending against Massie in last year’s primary was about $320,000 from AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project.)
Even Speaker Mike Johnson hedged Tuesday on whether he would support Massie next year — despite acknowledging it’s his job as the top House Republican to protect his party’s incumbents.
“I certainly understand the president’s frustration” with Massie, Johnson told reporters at the Capitol. “If you’re here and you’re wearing one team’s jersey and every single time you vote with the other team, people begin to question … why you’re so consistently opposed to the platform, the agenda of your party.”
But Massie appears unfazed by Trump and his allies’ electoral threats.
"In 2020 I got my Trump antibodies from a natural infection when he came after me, and I survived,” Massie quipped to reporters on Tuesday. “It will deplete his political capital if he doesn't succeed, and he knows that. So that's got to be part of his calculus."
In fact, Massie is embracing the fight. On Twitter, he teased an interview with podcaster Theo Von, a sign that he’s seeking to widen his exposure in a format that favors Massie’s unique brand of an isolationist budget hawk. He’s fundraising off the social-media sparring with Trump, telling Hill reporters Monday evening that he’d raised roughly $120,000 in 24 hours.
And he’s still pledging to move ahead with his war powers resolution if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel doesn’t hold, saying in television interviews and to Hill reporters it’s “not clear the war is over.”
Overhanging the primary threat is the question of exactly which candidate Trump's allies have in mind to run against the incumbent. Already, some think first-term state Sen. Aaron Reed, a retired Navy Seal and gun shop owner who is rarely seen without his cowboy hat, would be a possible challenger. Another option is state Rep. Kimberly Moser, who is not thought of as traditionally MAGA, but has over the years made inroads with the Trump wing of the party. There are some potential outsiders who might have the means to self-fund a campaign as well, like political pundit Scott Jennings or former gubernatorial candidate Kelly Craft.
“I think it's too soon to know if his outright opposition to what Trump has done – and I think it’s pretty horrible what [Massie’s] done – will make a difference,” said Ellen Williams, a former chair of the Kentucky GOP. “You can't just put anybody up against him and spend a shitload of money. I just think it emboldens him.”
Members of Kentucky’s congressional delegation say Massie’s sprawling district, which runs along the northern border along Ohio and Indiana and stretches from the southern Cincinnati suburbs to the outer bands of the Louisville metro area, is a unique cross-section of the state that appears to relish Massie’s independent streak.
It’s home to some of the most prominent members of the “liberty faction” of the Kentucky Republican Party, a group that embraces Trump while also gravitating toward libertarian-leaning Republicans like Massie and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul. The senator has weathered his own barrage of attacks from Trump for voicing opposition to the megabill and defended Massie to POLITICO on Tuesday.
Massie is “very popular in Kentucky,” Paul said. “I will continue to support him.”
“His district is different,” Rep. James Comer, a fellow Kentucky Republican, said Tuesday on Capitol Hill, though he declined to weigh in on the conflict between Massie and Trump. “That’s a unique congressional district.”
Former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson believes Trump, as much as he is the undisputed leader of the Republican Party, may be overplaying his hand when it comes to Massie’s district.
“As popular as Trump is in Republican politics, as popular as Trump is in Kentucky, as popular as Trump is in the 4th District, on the substance, on the policy, Thomas wins those arguments over Trump,” Grayson said. “Until you see someone step up, Thomas is still pretty formidable.”
He also warned of repercussions for Trump, who — constitutionally barred from seeking office again — is a lame duck. If the representative is able to fend off a primary challenge, it could open the floodgates for others who have private misgivings about the president's actions.
“It will make a difference if Massie were to overcome this,” Grayson added. “If he wins, if you’re a member, you’d be more likely to speak out in the future.”
Massie’s never been in serious jeopardy in the GOP primary. His closest primary contest was when he first ran for Congress in 2012 when he defeated Alecia Webb-Edgington, a state representative, to succeed the retiring Rep. Geoff Davis by roughly 7,000 votes. In subsequent primary contests, Massie cruised to victory in otherwise low-turnout primaries where he won with no less than 60 percent of the vote.
Many operatives believe Trump would need to juice primary turnout considerably to succeed in his quest to topple Massie. Some cautioned that Trump's popularity 11 months from now could shift considerably.
Massie was matter-of-fact about the challenges before him Tuesday afternoon when addressing reporters.
“I just have to spend more money if he gets in the race,” Massie said, when asked his thoughts on Trump meddling in his primary. He then laid out a pair of scenarios, one in which Trump endorses someone and then backtracks on the endorsement — as the president has done before. He floated another in which Trump's allies lay down a lot of money and groundwork, only to abandon its efforts down the line.
“They're gonna try to talk to somebody in the race...tell them that the Trump endorsement is coming, and then they'll wait to see if that person can get close. And if that person can get close, then Trump may get in,” Massie said. “If that person can't, they'll leave that person hanging on the bone.”
CORRECTION: This article originally misstated Aaron Reed's title.
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
Democrats are scrambling to respond to President Donald Trump’s unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It’s another high-stakes move by the president that could present a major political opening — but the party has, so far, appeared fractured in its public messaging.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quickly called for Trump to be impeached, but most House Democrats on Tuesday voted down Rep. Al Green’s (D-Texas) resolution to do so. Other Democrats have supported Trump’s strike, including Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who said the president was “right” to bomb Iran. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin posted “no new wars” on X, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vented that Trump “failed to seek congressional authorization.”
It’s the kind of disjointed and, at times, contradictory message that’s become emblematic of the Democratic Party that’s been locked out of power in Washington, cut out of the loop, and left without clear party leadership during Trump’s second term. Where Democrats were once reflexively #Resistance-driven during the president’s first term, giving them clear anti-Trump positions on much of what he did, they’re now more nuanced, sometimes circumspect, on Trump’s controversial moves on trade, immigration and now, foreign policy.
Democrats often unify on arguments about process and rules, including on the Iranian strikes, when they’ve primarily attacked Trump for failing to seek congressional approval. Multiple War Powers Resolutions — which would prevent Trump from further engaging in hostilities against Iran without congressional approval — are in the works.
But that response, so far, is “a classic Democratic messaging problem,” said Morgan Jackson, a top Democratic strategist based in North Carolina, who said that Democrats “should be making two points, clearly and consistently that’s broadly adopted: Trump is dragging us into a war, which he said he’d never do, and he’s making Americans less safe.”
“When we debate the process, war powers vote, impeaching him because he didn’t ask Congress — voters don’t care about that,” Jackson added. “When we have a message about process versus a president who took action, [then] that’s a losing message.”
Or as a Democratic consultant said when granted anonymity to speak frankly about the party: “Our response is to push our glasses up our nose and complain about the illegality of it? Come on. We can’t just bitch about the process.”
Democrats’ jumbled answer to the United States’ strikes in Iran, so far, is also the product of a specific challenge, several House Democrats said: They’re operating without much information.
The Trump administration postponed a closed-door congressional briefing on the Iran strikes Tuesday afternoon, drawing the ire of Democrats who questioned whether the administration was trying to obfuscate its intelligence, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said he first heard about the attack on social media.
“There’s no official party line” because “you need the facts,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.).
That’s left Trump and Republicans to dominate the public messaging around a rapidly changing situation.
After Trump signed off on a trio of bombings on Iran’s nuclear sites on Saturday, he claimed the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but his own military leaders walked back that assessment. Trump floated the possibility of regime change in Iran, then backtracked by Tuesday, telling reporters he wants “to see everything calm down as quickly as possible.” The president helped to broker a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, but it’s already been tested and it’s unclear how long it may hold.
That constant uncertainty is at the core of Democrats’ defense for their constitutionality argument. Himes, who has introduced one of the War Powers Resolution measures, warned that he “would be willing to bet my next paycheck that a ceasefire is not likely to remain in effect for very long,” so “I think the Constitution to which we all theoretically subscribe should be enforced.”
House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said it was “completely unacceptable that Congress has not been briefed on this in a timely fashion,” adding that “launching an attack without congressional authorization is wrong” and “launching a potentially unsuccessful attack without congressional authorization would be an administration-defining failure.”
Potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders, from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to former Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have largely focused their responses to the Iranian strikes on public safety and concern for military personnel. Otherwise, they’ve largely stayed quiet.
“Our challenge is, yes, we have no clear leader but, just as important, everyone is still trying to figure out what’s going on,” said a Democratic operative who is advising a potential 2028 candidate and was granted anonymity to describe private conversations. “Donald Trump sows so much chaos and confusion into the process that Democrats can sometimes get distracted and respond to all of it, rather than having a coherent overall message.”
The muddled Democratic message on the Iran strikes is particularly notable because there is a clear political opening. A majority of Americans disapprove of the president’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, while six in 10 said the strikes will increase the Iranian threat to the United States, according to a CNN poll released Tuesday.
The DNC has urged Democrats to capitalize on that opening, even if it’s not yet the loudest message emanating from their own party. A messaging guidance memo from the DNC, and obtained by POLITICO, described Trump’s actions as "unconstitutional, dangerous and hypocritical."
Of the six messaging points detailed as pushback to it, only the last one focused on process, arguing that Trump “must bring his case before Congress immediately.” The other five ticked through safety, broken campaign promises and lack of public support for the strikes.
Republicans have also been divided on Trump’s actions, with some explicitly urging Trump not get involved further in the conflict. Trump ally Steve Bannon cautioned against the United States pushing for regime change in Iran, warning it could lead to more American military involvement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) had initially joined Democrats in pushing for a measure to block American involvement, but he said he wouldn’t back it if the ceasefire between Israel and Iran held.
It’s frustrated some Democrats who wish the party would take better control of the moment, but Pete Giangreco, a longtime Democratic consultant, said Democrats might end up benefiting politically regardless of their current messaging.
“We’re a party without a head. We don’t have a Speaker, we don’t have a nominee for president yet, so we have this cacophony of voices in these moments. … But that matters less here because we just need to get out of the way because the story here is MAGA is at war with MAGA,” Giangreco said. “Donald Trump did something that only 17 percent of Americans agree with, so the Democratic response, even if it is messy, doesn’t matter this time.”
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
Two Ohio Republicans announced campaigns on Monday to challenge Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur from her battleground district seat, setting up a crowded primary in a race Republicans are targeting.
Former state Rep. Derek Merrin is seeking a rematch after winning the GOP nomination in the Toledo-area district but narrowly losing to Kaptur in 2024.
State Rep. Josh Williams, the first Black majority whip in the Ohio legislature, also launched his campaign on Monday.
They join Alea Nadeem, an Air Force veteran who filed to run last week, in a primary battle to unseat Kaptur, the longest-serving woman in Congressional history. Kaptur, 79, was first elected to Congress in 1982 and has served for over 42 years.
Republicans are hoping to flip the northwest Ohio district to capitalize on the broader statewide trend favoring Republicans. Last year, Merrin lost by less than 1 percent to Kaptur, who outperformed former Vice President Kamala Harris by more than 7 percent.
In 2022, Kaptur defeated J.R. Majewski, the controversial Trump ally who reportedly lied about serving in combat in Afghanistan. Ahead of last year’s election, Republicans mounted an aggressive effort to block him from winning the nomination again.
Republicans may gain an advantage in the district through Ohio’s redistricting process, which mandates the legislature redraw Congressional lines ahead of the 2026 midterms. Ohio Republicans have indicated they will seek to redraw Kaptur’s district to lean more in their favor.
Merrin, 39, served in Ohio’s legislature for eight years before leaving to run for Congress, and promised to make up for his close defeat last year.
“I’m officially running for Congress in Ohio’s 9th District — and this time, we’re going to FINISH THE MISSION,” he wrote in a post on X.
Williams, 41, was elected to the state legislature in 2022. He dropped out of high school at 18 due to homelessness and was disabled for six years after an injury to his spine before earning a law degree from the University of Toledo College of Law.
In an interview with a local Toledo radio station, Williams highlighted Kaptur’s age and extensive tenure as a reason to push her out of office.
“She's been in Congress longer than I've been alive, and every bad thing you’ve read about me happened under her leadership,” he said. “It’s time for her to go.”
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
Steve Bannon expressed his disapproval on Monday with the possibility of the U.S. pushing for regime change in Iran — an outcome President Donald Trump floated over the weekend — while reiterating his desire to prioritize “America first” and stay out of foreign conflicts.
Bannon, the longtime Trump ally and leading figure in the MAGA movement, praised Trump for the strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities during an episode of his podcast “Bannon’s War Room.” But he questioned the “regime change narrative,” criticized the Pentagon for its messaging in the hours after the strike and urged Israel to “finish what you started” without U.S. involvement.
Trump indicated he’d be open to seeing out regime change in Iran in a social media post Sunday evening, contradicting several senior administration officials who had insisted earlier in the day that regime change was not a goal.
“It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday.
The conflict in Iran has opened a rift with the GOP between interventionists like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and isolationists like Bannon, who argue against the U.S. entering an open-ended conflict in the Middle East.
Bannon congratulated Trump on the “precision, logistics, bravery, valor, boldness” of the Iran strike, but warned a lack of clarity on whether the strike was successful could create a pretext for the U.S. to send military personnel to Iran.
“Now it's all about, ‘Hey, we don't know where the material is,’” Bannon said of the enriched uranium stockpile in Iran. “What's that going to lead us to, folks? 'Hey, do we need the 75th Ranger Battalion to go in and find it?' Oh, it's coming. It's coming.”
Trump has repeatedly called the strike “very successful,” but Pentagon officials on Sunday said it’s too soon to know if Iran still retains nuclear capabilities, and the extent to which Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile was destroyed remains unclear.
Bannon voiced concern that the Iran strike was a “psy-op” and that the Trump administration’s stated goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was “cosplay” that could lead to further U.S. involvement in the war between Israel and Iran.
“Is this because the ultimate goal is regime change? And if that's fine, Israelis, have at it,” he said. “If you want regime change, go for it, baby. Just no participation by the United States government."
Bannon said he was “disappointed” by Pentagon leadership for losing the opportunity to “drive the narrative” around the strikes by not presenting an initial damage assessment on Sunday after the attack.
“We needed to see some grainy photographs,” he said. “I understand DOD that you don't have the battle damage assessment. That's going to take three or four weeks, as you said, but there's enough there to kind of take and start to drive the narrative. We lost that opportunity."
© Jose Luis Magana/AP
California Rep. Ro Khanna is one of the Democratic Party’s key progressive voices, but he has no problem picking fights with his fellow Democrats or aligning himself with conservatives when he sees common ground.
“I'm kind of blunt-spoken. I say what's on my mind,” he tells POLITICO’s Dasha Burns.
In this week’s episode, Khanna lays out his concerns about the U.S. getting involved in the Israel-Iran conflict, why he thinks Democrats lost voters to Trump and how he thinks the party can win them back. “I actually think that at the end of Trumpism, this country is going to be exhausted by the bombast,” he tells Burns. “I think we need to offer a substantive vision for the country and to elevate the American debate.” (Note: This interview was conducted prior to Trump’s announcement on Saturday evening that the U.S. bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Here is Rep. Khanna’s response to this announcement.)
Plus, senior politics editor Sally Goldenberg joins Burns to discuss the crowded, chaotic New York City primary mayoral race and its national implications for the Democratic Party.
Listen and subscribe to The Conversation with Dasha Burns on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
lead image
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson doubled down on their feud over U.S. involvement in the escalating war between Israel and Iran, with each releasing their own podcasts on Friday following up on the fiery debate earlier this week.
The ongoing war of words between the two high-profile conservative thought leaders — both of whom have left the door open to a possible 2028 presidential run — could offer a glimpse at what the first Republican presidential primary of the post-Donald Trump era might look like.
“It was a bloodbath,” Cruz said of his appearance on Carlson’s podcast on an episode of “Verdict with Ted Cruz,” the show he hosts. “The two of us, frankly, beat the living daylights out of each other for two hours straight.”
Carlson and Cruz’s contentious conversation — in which both men repeatedly shouted at each other and traded personal insults — revealed fissures on the right between pro-Israel Republicans urging the White House to launch an attack on Iran and conservative isolationists who hope the president will uphold his commitment to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts.
On Friday, both insisted on their respective podcasts that the other was leading the U.S. down the wrong path. Carlson said Cruz’s ominous warnings of Iran’s nuclear capabilities were part of an effort to “justify American involvement in regime change.”
“[Carlson] has gotten to a place of hardcore isolationism that I think is really dangerous,” Cruz said on his podcast.
Cruz and Carlson’s disagreement over the U.S.’ policy over the escalating conflict in the Middle East will play out in the coming days. Trump told reporters in New Jersey on Friday he’s taking “a period of time” to decide whether to strike Iran, and that the self-imposed two-week timeframe to launch a strike the White House announced on Thursday would be the “maximum.”
But the two men may also find themselves in competing lanes of the 2028 Republican presidential primary, where the intraparty debate between war hawks and isolationists could be a fault line for Republican primary voters.
Carlson said he would consider running for president in 2028 in an episode of his podcast last year, while conceding in the same breath, “I don’t think I’d be very good at it.”
“I would do whatever I could to help,” he told fellow conservative podcast host Patrick Bet-David. “I want to be helpful.”
Cruz, who ran for president against Trump in a bitterly-contested 2016 primary that was punctuated with personal attacks, has not closed the door on a 2028 presidential run.
When asked about the possibility of running in 2028 by POLITICO in April, Cruz said he’s focused on delivering legislative victories for Republicans — even as he uses his new post heading the Senate Commerce Committee to put his stamp on the direction of the party.
Perhaps further forecasting another dynamic of the 2028 primary, Trump refused to show a preference for Carlson or Cruz’s position, instead offering praise to both men when asked about the interview.
“Tucker is a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day, because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that,” Trump told reporters on Thursday. “And Ted Cruz is a nice guy. He’s been with me for a long time.”
© Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a combat veteran who led troops in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division in Afghanistan, accused President Donald Trump of displaying “a lack of seriousness” in dealing with the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.
“As someone who has worn this uniform, and you know, along with my fellow service members risked my life in defense of this country, to see such a free-wheeling conversation about issues of life and death is disappointing," Moore said in an interview Thursday.
Moore’s comments come a day after Trump said at the White House that he delivered an “ultimate ultimatum” to leaders in Tehran about disarming their nuclear program while also telling reporters “I may do it, I may not do it” with regard to the U.S. striking Iran’s nuclear sites.
On Thursday, the White House said Trump will make a decision on whether to strike Iran within two weeks.
Moore, seen as a rising star in the Democratic Party and a potential 2028 presidential contender, emphasized the huge stakes at play in the ongoing and escalating Mideast conflict.
“These are serious issues and these are very serious times,” Moore said. “The lack of seriousness that is surrounding these conversations, the whole ‘will I-won’t I’ playing games is not helpful to this larger conversation. … These are people’s lives on the line.”
A White House spokesperson responded to Moore's comment by reiterating Trump's position on disabling Tehran's nuclear capability.
"Americans overwhelmingly elected President Trump because they trust him to keep our country safe," Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, said in a statement. "As the President has said consistently, Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon."
The first-term governor has been sharpening his critiques of the Trump administration after previously saying he was “not the leader of the resistance.”
Moore had previously railed against the Trump administration's issuing pink slips to federal workers and said those moves posed a threat to the nation’s national security and global competitiveness.
Moore’s comments come as the nation is observing Juneteenth, a federal holiday that marks the official end of slavery in the nation and a day where the governor unveiled a series of actions, including one that makes some 7,000 people convicted for simple cannabis possession eligible for pardon.
The nation’s only Black governor, who is up for reelection in 2026, has been criticized by some in his party over a decision to veto a reparation’s bill passed by Maryland’s Democratic-controlled state Legislature. The measure called for a yearslong study of race-based inequality in the state.
Recently, Moore has been raising his national profile ahead of a potential bid for the White House — even as he continues to publicly deny he’s running.
He was in early primary state South Carolina last month delivering a brief speech at Rep. Jim Clyburn’s annual fish fry, and also served as the keynote speaker at a South Carolina Democratic Party dinner and fundraiser — both must-attend events for Democratic White House hopefuls.
In early May, Moore traveled to Pennsylvania, one of the nation’s most important swing states, to deliver a commencement address at Lincoln University, a historically Black college, while also appearing on “The View.” In March, he served as the headliner at the annual Gridiron Club dinner.
When asked Thursday whether his time in South Carolina changed his mind about launching a presidential run, he responded: “The reception was very good. And I'm still not running.”
© Francis Chung/POLITICO
Black church leaders are ramping up the pressure on corporate America as companies continue to roll back their diversity, equity and inclusion policies, trying to serve as a counterbalance to President Donald Trump’s aggressive push to end DEI initiatives across the country.
The pressure comes as liberals are still trying to figure out how to respond to Trump’s culture war — and as the Democratic Party grapples with Trump’s improvement among Black and Latino voters in the 2024 election.
“Diversity, equity and inclusion is not charity. It's not a handout and the African American community is a valuable partner,” said Jamal Bryant, a Georgia-based pastor who masterminded a boycott of Target after the retailer curtailed its DEI initiatives in January. “So we want to know: If you can take our dollars, how come you won’t stand with us?”
Shortly after Trump’s election, major companies like Meta and Google rolled back their DEI commitments made in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. Within his first week of returning to office, Trump signed an executive order eliminating DEI practices in the federal workplace. He called such programs “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences.”
“President Trump is bringing back common sense by eliminating DEI policies and making merit the standard once again,” White House Assistant Press Secretary Liz Huston said in a statement. “Performance-driven companies see the value in President Trump’s policies and are following his lead.”
But Black church leaders see these boycotts — Bryant announced in May that Dollar General would be the next target — as a way to push back against the Trump-fueled wave and hold companies accountable.
Bryant says his movement has garnered the support of 2,000 other churches and over 200,000 people signed his pledge to boycott Target.
Frederick Haynes, the pastor of the 13,000-member Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, said joining the movement reflected how he was raised, influenced by the values of the Civil Rights Movement. Companies, he said, must recognize that they have “a moral responsibility” to profiting.
“They have a responsibility to morally go inward and check themselves and recognize that you don’t have a United States without diversity, without equity, without being inclusive,” Haynes said.
In a statement to POLITICO, Dollar General said “our mission is not ‘Serving Some Others’ — it is simply ‘Serving Others.’” The company added that it serves millions of Americans “from all backgrounds and walks of life” in more than 20,500 stores. “As we have since our founding, we continuously evolve our programs in support of the long-term interests of all stakeholders.”
Rev. Al Sharpton — the civil rights leader who supported Bryant’s Target boycott — said the company boycotts are one of the most effective ways to push back against the rollback.
“The success of the Montgomery boycott is that it changed the law,” said Sharpton, founder and president of the National Action Network, referencing the famous mid-1950s bus boycott to protest segregation. “We can't just do things as a grievance, we must go for their bottom line.”
It is hard to tell exactly how much boycotts are hurting companies’ bottom lines. But Target’s CEO Brian Cornell in May acknowledged that at least some of its sales drop, including a quarterly sales decrease by 2.8 percent, was due to “headwinds” including “the reaction to the updates we shared on Belonging in January,” referring to the company’s announcement to end their DEI programs, along with consumer confidence and concerns around tariffs.
A spokesperson for Target told POLITICO that the company is “absolutely dedicated to fostering inclusivity for everyone — our team members, our guests and our supply partners.”
“Today, we are proud of the progress we’ve made since 2020 and believe it has allowed us to better serve the needs of our customers,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
But Sharpton said the boycott is still a powerful tool.
“The power the Black church has is that the people that attend church are your major consumers,” said Sharpton. “You go to a Black church that has 2,000 people and 1,900 of them are the ones that shop.”
Sharpton has his own demonstration planned for this summer — a rally on Wall Street on Aug. 28, the 62nd anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his renowned “I Have a Dream” speech. Sharpton said he chose the date for the rally on Wall Street intentionally.
“I wanted this year to show the pressure that we're putting on these companies with DEI, to go right to the bastion of industry and right where the stock exchange is and say to them that if you do not want to have diversity — in your boardroom, with your contracts and your employment — then you will not have diversity in your consumer base,” said Sharpton.
But the boycotts do present challenges for church leaders. In some cases, Sharpton said, congregants have forgotten the boycotts are still on — and he says Trump is in part to blame for this.
“One of the things that I learned during the Civil Rights Movement from [Rev. Jesse Jackson] and others is, you have to keep people's attention,” said Sharpton. “But there's so much going on now, Trump and them are so good at flooding the zone. You’ve got to make sure people don't forget, ‘I'm not supposed to be shopping at that store.’ Keeping public attention is a challenge."
But even with congregants who are engaged in the battle to retain diversity commitments across the country, Adam Clark, associate professor of theology at Xavier University, said the church cannot carry the burden alone, especially when the president has taken a stance.
“The attack on DEI is so much broader than the specific companies,” said Clark. “Trump is the culmination of all this type of white aggression against DEI. He has the authority to implement what's been going on in certain parts of the country and he makes it federal law, and I don't think the church by itself has the capacity to just overturn everything that's happening.”
© Pool photo by Jacquelyn Martin
As Republicans battle over direct military engagement with Iran, prominent conservatives and allies of the president have emerged as forceful voices against intervening, lashing out at a host of political players — except for President Donald Trump.
Warring factions within the Republican Party have sought to pull Trump in opposing directions on how to deal with Iran. Isolationists are seeking to hold Trump to his repeated campaign promises to not involve the U.S. in another major Middle East war, while interventionists like Sen. Lindsey Graham have urged the president to go tougher on Iran — an approach that appears to be winning Trump's favor.
Even as Republicans have spoken up against engaging in a conflict with Iran, criticizing everyone from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Graham for their role in the unfolding conflict, few dared to directly attack the president over his approach.
“Take screenshots of every single right winger who is shit talking Trump right now,” conservative social media personality Laura Loomer wrote on X on Monday, encouraging her followers to post the evidence in the replies. “I have most of them. But I don’t want to miss any.”
Loomer specifically slammed “grifters” for “turning on President Trump” in speaking out against possible military intervention in Iran.
Longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon cautioned against U.S. military involvement in Iran, warning at a Christian Science Monitor event on Wednesday that “we can’t have another Iraq.”
“The Israelis have to finish what they started. They started this. They should finish it,” he continued, criticizing Netanyahu for expecting the Trump administration to rush to his aid after launching an attack on Iran last week.
Still, many of Trump’s backers have been vocal in their support of his approach to Iran.
“President Trump is a President of peace, not of war,” Freedom Caucus member Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said on Tuesday. “I trust him and his Cabinet to put America First, and I’m with him all the way.”
The split within the party appeared to also motivate Vice President JD Vance — a veteran who historically sided with isolationists — to weigh in. In a 375-word post on X Tuesday, Vance acknowledged the concerns over a long- drawn-out war but staunchly defended the president and potential actions against Iran.
“Of course, people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy,” Vance said. “But I believe the president has earned some trust on this issue.”
Trump himself seems to be trying to balance the two sides. After initially shying away from directly supporting Israel’s campaign against Iran, he indicated the U.S. is poised to assist with direct attacks, and is considering using American “bunker buster” bombs to target Iran’s Fordow enrichment facility, which the Israeli military is not equipped to destroy alone.
The administration has stood firm on its position amid criticism from within the party.
“President Trump has never wavered in his stance that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon and repeated that promise to the American people since his victorious campaign. Americans trust President Trump to make the right decisions to keep them safe,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said.
One of the few conservative figures willing to directly attack Trump is former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who last week accused the president of being “complicit in the act of war” after Israel launched missiles at Iran.
Carlson continued his broadsides against more hawkish GOP figures and tangled with Sen. Ted Cruz in an episode of Carlson’s podcast that aired Wednesday, attacking the senator for his seeming obliviousness to the nuances of the Iranian nation that he was encouraging action against.
Carlson’s salvo against Trump elicited the president’s ire, with Trump on Monday criticizing him as “kooky” on Truth Social.
But Trump Wednesday seemed to suggest he and Carlson had smoothed things over.
“Tucker is a nice guy. He called and apologized the other day, because he thought he said things that were a little bit too strong, and I appreciated that,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a staunch supporter of the president, also came close to direct criticism of the president when she came out in support of the former Fox News host.
“He unapologetically believes the same things I do,” Greene wrote in a post on X. “Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction. That’s not kooky. That’s what millions of Americans voted for.”
In a separate post, Greene slammed the “neocon warmongers” she said were seeking a “proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, fighting Iran for Israel, and protecting Taiwan for China.”
But some Republican leaders seemed unfazed by the swell of protest from within MAGA circles.
"We have people as you know in our party who have different views about America's role in the world,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune. “But I think the president is well within his authority, understands what's at stake in ensuring Iran never has a nuclear weapon and will do everything he can to protect America and American interest."
Jordain Carney and Jake Traylor contributed to this report.
© Yuki Iwamura/AP
State police have advised local lawmakers across the country to be increasingly vigilant about their personal security as those members reel from a politically-motivated shooting in Minnesota that killed Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, and injured Sen. John Hoffman and his wife.
As they mourn one colleague and worry over another, state lawmakers from Pennsylvania to Arizona are receiving security briefings on how to ensure their own safety — and grappling with what it means to be a local public official in a political environment increasingly gripped by violence, according to interviews with nearly a dozen state lawmakers.
“It has all of us on edge,” said Arizona Rep. Alma Hernandez, who experienced a shooting outside her home two days before the Minnesota tragedy. An investigation into that incident is ongoing, but Hernandez said she has been targeted by threats like publication of her address over the last year over her pro-Israel stance and consequently spent thousands of dollars on home security measures like cameras and iron bars on windows.
Hernandez is not alone in her rising concern over the risks associated with serving in state legislatures, positions once viewed as an extension of local community service that have taken on a chilling dimension.
“It is incredibly depressing to see what’s going on in our country, and that political violence is on the rise, and that political violence is being normalized,” said the Tucson Democrat. It’s a scary time that we’re living in.”
Elected officials in multiple states have been advised to assess their home security systems, turn on location services on their devices and refrain from posting on social media in real time. In Wisconsin, House Speaker Robin Vos on Monday called for increased security ahead of an upcoming floor session, after learning that 11 lawmakers were named in a manifesto by the Minnesota shooter, who was arrested on Sunday and is facing federal and state murder charges. North Carolina General Assembly Police Chief Martin Brock told lawmakers on Monday afternoon they were “working on enhanced security plans” to keep members safe.
In Texas, state police arrested one personon Saturday linked to “credible threats” that person made to state lawmakers headed to an anti-Trump rally at the Capitol in Austin. Many Democrats got word of the shooting as they headed to similar demonstrations across the country, adding a layer of deep unease to the events.
“Nobody who has dedicated themselves to public service should ever be worried about that public service being used as a reason to murder or shoot or otherwise intimidate them,” said Michigan Rep. Bryan Posthumus, a Republican. “My hope is that it’s not an issue we’ll have to worry about in Michigan. But you know, that’s also why we have the Second Amendment.”
State police have provided daily briefings to Michigan lawmakers since the shooting, outreach that Rep. Carol Glanville said “is really helpful, because what you see on the news comes out sort of piecemeal.”
Glanville, a Democrat who experienced gun violence several decades ago, said she’s concerned the incident will keep people from running for office or volunteering in politics.
“People could be emboldened and even more motivated to participate and come out, or they might decide that this isn’t something worth risking my life for, and take a step back from their participation,” she said.
For North Carolina Minority Leader Sydney Batch, the shooting was a reminder of how she’s already had to learn how to be cautious in order to protect herself and her family. Over the years, Batch hired private security when threats were made against her, like for a 2020 election night watch party. And she was the target of a longtime stalker, who was recently released on parole after serving nine years in prison.
“You definitely have those days, like this weekend, where you consider whether or not the risk that you take on is worth the benefit and whether you should step back,” Batch said. The Democrat said she has considered leaving public office over those threats, yet “quickly jettisoned it” because she believes the work as a lawmaker is too important.
Other lawmakers expressed that same resolve to stay in the job despite the risks.
“The bad guys want folks to turn away from public service,” said Pennsylvania Sen. Vincent Hughes, a Democrat. “We may take extra precautions to make sure there’s extra security available to us. But … looking around my colleagues, this is not going to drive them away.”
© Stephen Maturen/Getty Images
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.
Martin did not respond to a request for comment.
© J. Scott Applewhite/AP
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.
lead image
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."
© Scott Applewhite/AP
Login
