The two premier statewide elections this fall are Democrats’ to lose, but they have a lot to prove.

Many Democrats won’t be satisfied with simply eking out a win — they are banking on resounding victories from Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and former Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia. The gubernatorial nominees, who are leaning into their national security pedigrees, are carrying the weight of a party's expectations.

The party is looking to them to springboard Democrats into next year's midterms, with control of Congress up for grabs. They’re eager to show that 2024’s drubbing was an anomaly.

“Democrats should be optimistic about these two races, but you know, the lesson from 2024 is we can't take anything for granted,” said veteran Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg, who added that President Donald Trump’s mastery of dominating news coverage runs the risk of drowning out his rivals' economic messaging.

After Democratic overperformances in local elections across the country this year, the party is bullish on their prospects. Recent polling has Sherrill and Spanberger leading their Republican opponents, Jack Ciattarelli and Virginia Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, respectively.

When pushed, operatives express more confidence about Virginia, and acknowledge maintaining their grip on the governor’s mansion in New Jersey for the third consecutive cycle presents a tougher challenge.

National Democrats have committed what they called some of their largest initial investments in these states — $1.5 million each in New Jersey and Virginia — to boost Sherrill and Spanberger. A group backed by the Democratic Governors Association also placed $20 million in advertisements in New Jersey, around twice as much as the DGA-backed group did in 2021.

The political climate in Virginia and New Jersey is far better than what they're facing in some battleground races next November. But the fear of being toppled by Republican nominees in states where Trump gained ground is adding pressure to the Sherrill and Spanberger campaigns, as are looming questions of whether they can unify their fractured coalition that cost Kamala Harris the election.

With two months before voters head to the polls in New Jersey and Virginia — and just weeks before early voting starts — here are some issues to watch.

Economy

Democrats are blaming Trump for rising costs as they emphasize affordability — an issue that catapulted him to the White House last year. If successful, that messaging is likely to serve as a blueprint for next year's midterms.

Rep. Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) argued that Sherrill’s focus on affordability will appeal to those who backed the president because he has “lied about every major campaign promise” regarding cutting costs.

Democrats see this as a way to recapture Black and Hispanic voters, who drifted toward Trump in part because they viewed him as stronger than Harris on the economy.

“Many of the voters, the Latino and Black community, were looking for possible change. They thought Trump would be that change,” said Rep. Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), who represents a diverse district that Trump won last year. “Sadly, he has not delivered on any of the promises he has made. He has not changed the economy, he has not lowered the costs. … I think the Latino and Black community will see him for what he is.”

Democrats are hoping the Trump administration's recent moves on tariffs and the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will sway voters in November. Republicans, meanwhile, are toying with how to market the megabill to voters ahead of next year’s elections.

This election will put Democrats’ Trump messaging to the test. But while they try to convince voters higher costs are the president’s fault, Ciattarelli and his fellow Republicans say outgoing Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy and Trenton Democrats are to blame.

In Virginia, Democrats are leaning into similar messages on affordability, arguing Trump has broken campaign promises on lowering costs since his return to the White House. The DOGE cuts, which are acutely felt in Northern Virginia suburbs outside of Washington, D.C., are paramount in the campaign as Democrats look to cast Earle-Sears as a cheerleader for Trump’s gutting of the federal workforce.

The Trump Factor

The GOP is hoping they can replicate the party’s success when Trump is not on the ballot — something that helped lift Virginia Republican Glenn Youngkin to the governor’s mansion four years ago. That red wave, however, was short-lived as Democrats successfully flipped control of the lower chamber of the Virginia legislature in 2023. Now Democrats are looking to expand their control of both chambers as well as usher in a clean sweep of all three statewide offices this year by leaning into anti-Trump sentiments.

But the president’s impact is an unknown factor in Virginia. Earle-Sears has yet to receive Trump’s endorsement, which some Republicans are bullish would help her make up ground.

An endorsement “would be a plus,” said Fairfax County GOP chair Katie Gorka. “I know that there are people, especially in Northern Virginia, who are not Trump fans. … But the bottom line is, Trump did really well for a Republican in Northern Virginia.”

In the meantime, Earle-Sears is borrowing from his 2024 culture-war playbook. In a campaign ad released Wednesday, she labeled her Democratic opponent a “woke Washington radical” who “wants boys to play sports and share locker rooms with little girls” and will allow kids to change genders “without telling their parents.”

The Spanberger campaign wants to remind Virginia voters that the Republican nominee, who advocated the Republican Party “move on” from the president just a few years ago, is now fully embracing Trumpism.

In New Jersey, Trump endorsed Ciattarelli in the Republican primary. But it’s unclear if the president’s support will provide a boost among the general electorate, in which Ciattarelli needs to earn the backing of unaffiliated and Democratic voters to chip away at Democrats’ large voter registration advantage. Recent surveys show Trump unpopular with New Jerseyans, and Democrats are confident he will drag Ciattarelli at the polls.

Ciattarelli recently told reporters he appreciates “that the White House isn't taking a heavy-handed approach” with his race, but offered to “do anything” that Ciattarelli thinks “can help the campaign.”

Ciattarelli criticized the president years ago, and Trump did not endorse the New Jersey Republican in 2021. But Trump now proclaims Ciattarelli as “100 percent MAGA” — something Democrats are eager to remind voters of. Ciattarelli argues that Democrats are more focused on talking about Trump than New Jersey.

Who will boost Democratic enthusiasm?

While Republicans can rally the base around Trump this November, Democrats lack that clear leader.

When asked about whether a campaign appearance from Harris would benefit Sherrill, New Jersey Democratic Party Chair LeRoy Jones said he is focused on “utilizing the celebrity base in New Jersey that we have,” and cited Sen. Cory Booker and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, the latter of whom came in second place during the June Democratic primary for governor.

“We have a number of individuals that give that turnout prowess,” he said.

Former President Barack Obama held rallies for Murphy and former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, as well as Virginia nominees Ralph Northam and Terry McAuliffe. Though he hasn't announced plans in either state yet, he participated in a fundraiser earlier this summer for Sherrill.

At least one potential 2028 Democratic White House candidate, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, is planning to campaign for Sherrill and Spanberger in the closing stretch of the campaign.

Black and Hispanic voters

Across the country, Republicans are looking to replicate Trump’s inroads with Black and Hispanic voters. New Jersey and Virginia will be the first post-2024 test of whether they are able to achieve that.

In the primary, Sherrill had a lower share of the vote in areas with large Black and Hispanic populations, and some have warned that Democrats are at risk of continuing to lose those voters. Ciattarelli and Sherrill are working to engage those communities, and Sherrill recently got a notable boost with an endorsement from Baraka, who performed well in areas with large Black and Hispanic populations in the primary.

In Virginia, Republicans tout their diverse slate of candidates, with a Black woman running atop the ticket, an openly gay lieutenant governor candidate in John Reid and incumbent attorney general Jason Miyares, who is of Cuban descent.

Earle-Sears' campaign also points to a recent $500,000 donation from Bob Johnson, the co-founder of Black Entertainment Television, as evidence she is making inroads with minority voters while picking up fundraising in the campaign’s final stretch. Spanberger enjoys a hefty 3-to-1 cash advantage, according to recent state campaign finance reports.

Spanberger was forced to play defense after a woman held a racially divisive sign last month at a campaign rally targeting the lieutenant governor. “Hey Winsome, if trans can't share your bathroom, then blacks can't share my water fountain," the sign read. Spanberger said in a social media post the sign was “racist and abhorrent.”

Democrats counter that their own diverse ticket, which includes an Indian-born woman as lieutenant governor nominee and a Black man running for attorney general, better represent the values of voters of the state than their GOP counterparts. The party also vows their ticket will, unlike the Republicans, work to protect residents from the federal government overreach.

“Folks aren't fooled in this campaign,” said Lamont Bagby, a state senator and chair of Virginia’s Democratic Party. “When we needed them to push back on the Trump administration … they did not.”

© Heather Khalifa/AP

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

When Jerry Nadler announced his retirement this week, he opted to directly address a question that’s been roiling the Democratic Party since Joe Biden’s withering debate performance last year: How old is too old to run for office?

The 78-year-old congressmember cited his age as a factor in his departure plans from a safe seat in New York City. And in doing so, he earned praise from some of the party’s younger agitators — though based on interviews, it’ll take more than a handful of elderly lawmakers like Nadler heeding their calls to step aside to repair the intra-party rift.

As it is, the vast majority of Democrats who are 70 or older are publicly running for another House term.

Against that backdrop, a trend of acknowledging the party’s age problem — often tacitly — is beginning to emerge, even as other senior members of the party are likely to stay put.

Four House Democrats, including Nadler, and four Senate Democrats over the age of 65 have said this year that they are stepping down from Congress. A fifth House Democrat said he would retire from his home district if Texas’ proposed redistricting maps survive legal challenges. Democrats believe even more departures could be coming with a government shutdown deadline looming and lawmakers evaluating their futures after returning from their August recess.

“These retirements are a great example of maturity from these leaders to make the difficult decision for them of knowing even after you've served somewhere for decades that it's time for somebody else to lead,” Leaders We Deserve co-founder David Hogg said in an interview, specifically responding to Nadler’s news.

But 25-year-old Hogg, who has become a leading voice for generational change within his party, also pledged to continue his plan to financially support some candidates who challenge older incumbent Democrats.

“There is still more of a need for us to bring in some fresh blood into this party and help rejuvenate it,” he said, “and show people how the party is changing in the wake of a pretty major loss last election cycle.”

More than 80 House members are 70 or older, a statistic younger Democrats like Hogg cite to underscore their argument that a party in turmoil needs generational change. Only one House member is in his 20s, and the vast majority of older congressional members are expected to run for reelection.

Still, some Democrats who have announced their retirement have explicitly cited age as a factor.

Nadler told the New York Times that “watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party, and I think I want to respect that.” Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 81, announced in the spring she wouldn’t seek reelection, saying, “It is now time for me to pass the baton” and this week praising the “new voices” as “so sharp, so articulate, so self-assured. It's wonderful.”

Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, 67, likewise said earlier this year that “it’s important that people in my position do what they can to lift up the next generation of leaders” when unveiling her retirement. And 83-year-old Illinois Rep. Danny Davis told supporters in July when he decided to retire that “this would be a great time to try and usher in new leadership.”

As Democrats search for a path out of the political wilderness, they have faced a push for fresh faces from voters and activists who have urged their leaders to mount a more visible resistance to President Donald Trump. The impatience from younger Democrats has led several primary challengers to attempt to turn incumbents' age into a liability. Three House Democrats have died in office this year, further fueling the contentious debate on the left.

“The boomer generation has held on to some of these seats for a long time,” said New York City-based Democratic strategist Evan Thies. “And we saw in the last election that even very accomplished, highly competent and productive elder electeds are now at risk of not winning their elections simply because they're older.”

Even agitators like Hogg have carved out exceptions to their push to oust senior Democrats, which he insists is motivated by effectiveness and not solely age. Hogg, whose primary plans caused an uproar within the Democratic National Committee that culminated in his ouster as a party vice chair, has exempted Democratic luminaries like Nancy Pelosi, 85, from his anti-incumbent movement. And he has said the same of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 83, who still draws huge crowds even as he signals this term could be his last in the Senate.

“Generational change has been underway in the House Democratic caucus for the last several years, and it's something that every caucus member, regardless of which generation they find themselves in, has embraced,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, 55, told reporters Tuesday when asked about generational change and Nadler’s decision. “What the record shows is leadership to rank-and-file-members to committee positions, and at all points in between.”

This year, House Democrats elevated a younger, rising star in the party, Rep. Robert Garcia, as their top member of the Oversight Committee, and Jeffries himself had participated in a changing of the guard when Pelosi stepped aside as speaker, along with her top lieutenants, Reps. Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn, to make way for a younger trio.

Rep. Jared Huffman took over as the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee from Rep. Raúl Grijalva, who stepped aside amid a cancer battle and later died. And Rep. Angie Craig won a caucus-wide election to be the top Agriculture Committee Democrat after Rep. David Scott also dropped his bid amid health questions.

In a move that some younger Democrats have criticized, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has actively recruited older, well-known Democrats like former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper in his long-shot bid to flip the upper chamber. Other Senate Democratic candidates are younger, including Rep. Chris Pappas, 45, in New Hampshire and the trio of Democrats running in Michigan.

Some senior House Democrats are keeping others in the party guessing about their future plans. Two top members of the previous generation of House Democratic leadership — Pelosi and Hoyer — have been publicly noncommittal on their re-election plans, though Pelosi has filed for re-election. And others who have faced competitive primary challenges amid broader health questions, like Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), have said they’re still running for re-election.

Hoyer spokesperson Margaret Mulkerrin said in a statement he was “focused on holding the Trump Administration accountable, protecting democracy at home and abroad, supporting federal employees and civil servants, and delivering for Maryland’s 5th District.”

Jumaane Williams, the 49-year-old New York City Public Advocate, applauded Nadler for stepping down after “watching what happened to the country, particularly around President Biden.”

"I think the party in general should be learning this lesson,” he said. “Hopefully, when it's my turn, I have that lesson, too.”

With additional reporting by Jeff Coltin and Shia Kapos.

CORRECTION: This spelling of Margaret Mulkerrin's name has been corrected in this story.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Democrats are scrambling to keep their nascent crusade against President Donald Trump’s national redistricting push from fizzling out.

House Democrats are considering establishing an organization to raise and spend for their remapping efforts as they look to counter an aggressive Republican move that could determine control of the chamber next year, according to three people granted anonymity to describe private conversations. And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has privately discussed redistricting with blue-state governors, according to another person.

The Center for American Progress is urging blue states to abandon their independent redistricting commissions. And, through private strategy sessions and public appeals, Texas House Democratic Caucus Chair Gene Wu is asking Democrats across red and blue states to take a no-holds-barred approach to resisting GOP redistricting. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin praised Wu during a meeting in Minneapolis last week for “igniting a national movement within this party.”

“This is an all-out call to arms,” Wu, who helped lead Texas Democrats’ quorum break, said in an interview. “That chorus of 'everyone needs to get off their ass and do something' is growing louder and louder. And more and more elected Democrats who are seen as doing nothing — their commitment to our country is going to be questioned.”

But Democrats face a lopsided fight.

They’re hamstrung by constitutional restrictions or independent commissions in some states, while Republicans are generally free of those legal barriers and have leadership trifectas in Indiana, Florida, Missouri and Ohio, promising state lawmakers fewer restrictions to draw Democratic rivals out of their seats. Florida's constitution has language restricting partisan gerrymandering, though its conservative-majority state Supreme Court recently upheld a GOP redraw.

Against this backdrop, Democrats are grasping for ways to counter Trump’s maximalist campaign to redraw congressional maps to protect Republicans’ three-seat House majority in the midterms. With a counteroffensive already underway in California, Democrats are turning to other blue states to take up the charge — and finding some open-minded participants in governors with 2028 ambitions.

Democrats see the promise of netting three seats in Maryland and Illinois, whose governors — Wes Moore and JB Pritzker, respectively — have spoken with Jeffries about redistricting, according to one person granted anonymity to describe those private conversations. The minority party is also eyeing a pickup opportunity in Utah, after a judge ruled the state must redraw its map. Jeffries has also spoken with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, though any changes in the Empire State are unlikely before 2028 and thus wouldn’t impact the upcoming midterms.

The blowback started as a tit-for-tat response to Trump’s efforts to grow the GOP’s majority next year, kicking off with a push for five more red House seats in Texas. Now Missouri is moving ahead with a new map as the White House bears down on Indiana.

One national Democratic operative, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the tumultuous situation, described jumping into the redistricting arms race as “the price for entry to the 2028 presidential primary.”

Caifornia Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose popularity is soaring as he emerges as Democrats’ remapping champion, has been encouraging his counterparts to follow his lead, saying at POLITICO’s California Summit Wednesday, “We’re going to have to see other governors move in a similar direction.”

An array of party officials and organizations are lining up.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee is fielding calls, providing technical support and legal expertise to state leaders looking at their own congressional maps, according to a person directly familiar with their efforts.

Wu, the Texas House Democrats leader, discussed messaging and other tactics with legislators from seven states where Republicans are eyeing redistricting during a Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee strategy session last week, per a summary of the call provided to POLITICO. And former President Barack Obama called Texas state Rep. James Talarico — a potential U.S. Senate candidate — to voice support for his role in his state's redistricting battle.

But in some states, messaging is all Democrats can do. Republicans in Indiana, for example, hold a supermajority and can pass any map without a single Democrat in the chamber.

It's not just Democratic officials who are getting involved. Unions that banded together to condemn Republicans’ gerrymandering in Texas are now pledging to put manpower behind Newsom’s ballot campaign in California and holding strategy discussions about combating Trump’s next moves in other states. And activists affiliated with the progressive group Indivisible have made roughly 5,000 calls to governors and lawmakers across 15 states with Democratic trifectas urging them to responsively redistrict.

“This isn’t something we had to go pitch people on the importance of. This is something people were banging down our doors about,” said Andrew O’Neill, Indivisible’s national advocacy director.

And it “does seem that this is something that has broken through with these governors and has the potential to create what I’ve been calling a productive ambition,” O’Neill said. “These people might be thinking about future job prospects for themselves and they view being a leader in this fight as a route to do that.”

Democrats’ pressure campaign is struggling in Colorado, Washington and Oregon, whose governors have all but closed the door to redistricting, and the party lacks the legislative means or the interest to change their maps.

Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib sent a recent memo to county officers outlining the near-insurmountable challenges in mimicking California’s ballot campaign, according to a copy obtained by POLITICO. Petitions attempting to circumvent the state’s independent redistricting commission are being filed without the state party’s backing.

Washington Senate Majority Leader Jamie Pedersen shut down the possibility in a letter to a concerned constituent shared with POLITICO, noting Washington’s Democratic-heavy congressional delegation already does not reflect the political makeup of the state. And state Democratic Party Chair Shasti Conrad acknowledged “lots of pressure and desire” to take up redistricting, but pointed to a broad recognition that it’s “practicably impossible.”

On the East Coast, New Jersey Democrats are similarly hamstrung by state constitutional issues and though Moore told POLITICO "everything's on the table" when it comes to redistricting, a state court tossed Maryland Democrats' previous attempt to gerrymander.

But Democratic activists are increasingly discontent to let anyone in their party sit on the sidelines as they fight what they view as Trump’s latest power grab.

“These are serious times, and I’m not sure how much more serious things have to be for [Democratic governors] to get off their ass and get in the batters box and swing for the fences,” said California-based Democratic strategist Michael Trujillo. “This is infuriating.”

Natalie Fertig and Brakkton Booker contributed to this report.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

The age of the millennial politician is here — nowhere more obviously than in city halls around the country. Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb surprised Ohio’s political establishment in 2021 by soaring to victory at the age of 34. The former Obama intern-turned-Key Bank executive is now the president of the Democratic Mayors’ Association and a rising star within the party.

I met up with Bibb — clad in his signature round tortoiseshell glasses and a slim-cut navy suit suit even on a hot and humid Sunday in July. We talked about his city and its relationship with the federal government — from the impact federal cuts may have on his city’s hospital system to his desire to work with Republicans and President Donald Trump on permitting reform.

Over a plate of mac and cheese at trendy Cleveland bistro Luxe, Bibb said that Democrats at large have missed the fact that millennials are impatient — not willing to wait their turn to run for office, deeply entrepreneurial and chomping at the bit to solve the crises they’ve spent their entire lives navigating.

“When I ran for mayor, a lot of folks — a lot of establishment Democrats in the party — told me to wait my turn,” Bibb explained. “We are impatient about this country, because we know what crises look like … because we've experienced them firsthand.”

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

You're from Cleveland.

Born and raised in Cleveland. I lived in the southeast side, in the Mount Pleasant/Union Miles neighborhood.

I'm not that familiar with Cleveland. So tell me what that means, vibes- or identity-wise.

It's got a crazy identity in terms of its history. At the height of Cleveland's prominence — and we were once the fifth largest city in the United States — it was a Jewish middle-class neighborhood. Then you have white flight, redlining, and it became a Black middle class neighborhood.

To this day, there's still remnants of that. When I was growing up in the 1990s at the height of the crack epidemic in the city, it still had a strong Black middle class, still strong main streets. And one of the reasons why I ran was to try to reverse that decline.

In an interview earlier this year, you mentioned that housing was a policy space where this Congress might make some progress. Have you seen anything helpful since then?

Nothing yet. And what concerns me is that with the passage of this “big beautiful bill,” it's adding to the deficit, which is going to lead to an increase in interest rates, which is going to lead to an increase in the cost of buying a home.

If there was one space where I think Trump could have some real bipartisan support, it’s around housing. He's a builder, right?

I think every mayor or governor you talk to wants to see Congress support us on permitting reform at every level of government. And every mayor or governor you talk to wants HUD to streamline regulations so it's easier to build in America.

Are there other places you see a missed opportunity, where interests align?

I know that the administration is looking at opportunity zones and … childcare tax credits.

And then on immigration reform … The best thing for us to do to be a competitive economy is to pass common sense immigration reform. So instead of all this theater and chaos and this other bullshit, let's get back to work and let's find common sense immigration reform. Everybody wants a secure border, but we also need to give people a pathway to citizenship, because if we don't, we can't be globally competitive.

You have connections with many other mayors because of the Democratic Mayors Association. Is there any housing policy you're seeing in other cities that excites you?

A lot of us right now focus on permitting reform. Cleveland will be launching that effort this fall, where we're streamlining the process to upload your drawings and to get a permit from City Hall.

Really proud of the work that Mayor Todd Gloria has done in San Diego, where he has really worked quickly to decrease street homelessness in the downtown parts of San Diego. That’s declined over 60 percent since he took office.

I look at what Andre Dickens has done in Atlanta, where he has taken old shipping containers and vacant lots and made it a homeless shelter where people have dignity and support to get the second chance they deserve.

What about some of the cuts that have come out of D.C. recently, on education funding or Medicaid. Are you finding any ways to backfill these cuts? 

I think every mayor in the country will agree with this: There is no replacement that we can find to plug in the gaps from the federal government.

Cleveland is home to our only safety net hospital, Metro Hospital, and they could go out of business if these cuts go through. What's striking is that [Trump] worked to put some provisions in this bill with Republican senators to help rural hospitals, but nothing to support urban hospitals. That's gonna decimate our public health infrastructure.

And residents in Ohio are going to feel any impacts sooner, because Ohio also rolled back state Medicaid expansion — right?

Correct.

The state cuts … will put a further strain on hospitals like the Cleveland Clinic, Metro Health and emergency hospitals. It's an issue of public safety, because people may be committing crimes out of survival now, because we no longer have a strong social safety net.

All these things are interconnected. It's easy for the president and Republicans in DC to try to say, “Democrat-run cities are unsafe.” But they're the ones making our country less safe by passing these uncompassionate, crazy bills.

I totally understand that you can't replace the federal cuts. But you said at your State of the City address that you were looking for philanthropic avenues to try to help in other ways. 

I'll be convening healthcare CEOs and hospitals, I'll be convening my foundation leaders, to figure out what we can do to stand in the gap until we get change from the federal government.

One idea is how do we start to promote more preventative care to make sure that folks aren't getting sick before they need to go to hospital. I'll be working with Metro Health Hospital, our local social safety net hospital, to get folks enrolled in the exchanges before these changes occur so they can get the care they need. And I have a mobile health clinic that we deploy at my department of public health as well. So all of the above is on the table.

You’re a millennial. What are Democrats missing about millennials?

That we're impatient.

Say more. 

When I ran for mayor, a lot of folks — a lot of establishment Democrats in the party — told me to wait my turn. We are impatient about this country, because we know what crises look like … because we've experienced them firsthand — from 9/11 to the great recession to two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the pandemic.

But we're also the most entrepreneurial generation as well.

Follow-up question — though I don’t know how qualified we (millennials) are to talk for them — about Gen Z. In the 2024 election, nationally, millennials stayed the most blue. Gen Z swung toward Trump. 

Gen Z sees a rigged system.

But we (millennials) do too, right? Why does it hit different?

I think for Gen Z … they see all the massive amount of wealth being created because of technology and the proliferation of Amazon, Uber, what have you. They don't understand why we can't get our shit together and fix this stuff quickly.

They looked to someone like Donald Trump, who is the disrupter, to fix it.

The reason why he's losing his base on Epstein and the Epstein files is because they thought they could trust him as the disruptor. He would be transparent. We want transparency … and now they're not getting that.

What do you want Democrats in D.C. to do more of?

Listen to mayors. We are closest to the challenges and the pain of what this federal destruction looks like, but we're also closest to the damn solutions. We know how to fix America's housing problem because we're doing it. We're fixing public safety in cities like Cleveland, Baltimore, Atlanta. We know how to create good quality jobs with union and labor being a key partner.

The answer to the Democratic Party's future and problems will not come from congressional D.C. Democrats. It needs to come from America's mayors and America's governors.

Your summer playlist — What are you listening to right now?

Drake is solid. I listen to a lot of Jungle, I love Jungle. I've been in a classic Jay Z mode too, recently. I feel like Jay Z [and] Memphis Bleak is like my quintessential growing up in this city [in the] summer vibe that gets me in a good mood.

I just sent my barber my [Spotify] day list. It was called “luxury barber shop Sunday afternoon.” And he’s like “Dude, it’s straight bangers.”

You know he’s playing it at the barbershop right now … And they’re like, “this is the mayor’s playlist.”

[laughing] Exactly, yeah.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article misstated Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb's neighborhood residency. He does not currently live where he grew up.

© Natalie Fertig/POLITICO

Locked out of power throughout the country, Democrats see ruby-red Iowa as one of their best shots at mounting a conservative state comeback in the upcoming midterms.

And they believe Sen. Joni Ernst’s retirement, made public Friday, is the latest sign that a state President Donald Trump won by double digits presents an offensive opportunity for them next year.

Ernst’s pending exit comes as Iowa Auditor Rob Sand, the only Democrat elected statewide, runs for governor to replace departing Republican Kim Reynolds. Democrats are also enthused about picking off Republicans in Congress in a couple of potentially competitive House races in the Hawkeye State.

And while Iowa presents an uphill climb for Democrats, who have not won a presidential election there since 2012, the party has some cause for optimism: they overperformed in four state legislative special contests this year, including winning in a plus-11 Trump district this week. Democrats are anticipating air cover from their party nationally as they head into an election cycle that will determine whether they can claw back any control in Washington.

“We haven't, as Democrats, had an organized, coordinated campaign since 2018 and that's one of the many things that I think is going to happen,” said state Rep. J.D. Scholten, a Democrat who came 3 points from defeating a House Republican in a deep-red district in 2018. He predicted the state’s Senate and gubernatorial candidates would be well-funded, adding, “I think that will go a long ways."

Catelin Drey, the Democrat whose victory this week broke Republicans’ legislative supermajority, received significant financial support from the state party as the Democratic National Committee deployed its organizing team toward the end of the campaign. From Florida to Pennsylvania, Democrats have outperformed the 2024 presidential ticket in nearly 40 specials across the country this year, but the party has found the most consistent success in Iowa.

The idea that Democrats are going to reclaim any ground in Iowa two years after they lost complete control in Washington — and while they piece their party together amid record-low approval ratings — is difficult to imagine. Many Republicans dismiss it outright. Even some strategists and party officials on the left admit they may be overly hopeful. But Democrats in Iowa think Republicans are vulnerable because they have fumbled both hyper-local and national issues in the state, and believe that anti-Trump sentiment will drag down the GOP.

The prospect of taking back the Midwestern state that was once a top national battleground — one that is home to many working-class and rural voters whom the party has lost to the GOP — is too alluring for Democrats to ignore. Former President Barack Obama won Iowa twice and Democrat Tom Harkin held a Senate seat there from 1985 to 2014.

Perhaps recognizing the state could be an opportunity for the opposing party, the White House privately tried and failed to persuade Ernst to run for reelection.

Democratic leaders said their key to success in the recent special elections has been hammering an affordability message.

“Democrats have really risen. They're very motivated,” said Rita Hart, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. “They recognize how important it is that we win some elections here, and that's why all eyes are now on 2026.”

Despite Hart’s positive assessment, Democrats were clobbered in 2024 and have yet to recover their reputation nationally, leading to endless intra-party debate about the best path forward.

Most Iowa Republicans laughed off the possibility of a blue wave in Iowa. They said they are confident about their odds of hanging onto Ernst’s Senate seat despite losing a proven incumbent. Rep. Ashley Hinson plans to enter the Senate field by the end of September with wide backing among Iowa Republicans.

However, a GOP strategist, granted anonymity in order to speak freely, said Republicans are more worried about Sand’s gubernatorial campaign, which raised $2.25 million in the first 24 hours after its launch, breaking a state record. Republican Rep. Randy Feenstra has formed an exploratory committee, and will likely face a crowded primary field.

“Rob is a proven communicator,” the strategist said. “Rob is just running as ‘I'm not actually a Democrat.’ He’s just different.”

Democrats’ spree of special election wins — starting in January when a Democrat flipped a statehouse seat in a district Trump won by 21 points — has made some Iowa Republicans uneasy. But most GOP operatives maintain that Democrats lack the necessary base of support to pull off a statewide win, and dismiss the results as isolated bursts of energy.

“While that's a big get for the Democrats here, I just still do not see the type of organizing on the ground or the infrastructure that's necessarily going to yield widespread statewide results in 2026,” said Tyler Campbell, a Republican strategist in Iowa.

Some in the GOP said there is a deeper dissatisfaction at play in the results.

Republican Woodbury County Supervisor Mark Nelson took to Facebook this week to unload after Drey won her state Senate race, which he said prompted “a lot of questions” and “anger” at GOP officials.

“I don’t think it was about Donald Trump at all,” he said. “I think it was about Kim Reynolds and I think it’s about what the Republicans have done in the Iowa legislature for several years now.”

He cited a state battle over eminent domain, which culminated in June when Reynolds vetoed a bill that would have limited private pipelines’ use of the controversial practice. “The taking of private property for private gain is just wrong. It just is. I’m sorry, governor,” he added.

Democrats cite other issues driving voters to question their allegiance to the GOP, including a lackluster regional economy, a controversial privatized Medicaid system and environmental concerns. Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said earlier this month that “what we’re seeing is basically a recession economy in Nebraska and Iowa right now.”

Democrats also argue Iowa’s massive expansion of school vouchers under Reynolds has hurt public schools, another issue the party believes helps them with independents and Republicans. Private schools have boomed since the passage of Iowa’s school choice law in 2023 — which allows parents to send children to those institutions using state funds — while more than a dozen public schools have closed.

“The health care issue, the education issue, the water quality issues and eminent domain are kind of like a perfect storm of dissatisfaction right now in Iowa,” said Irene Lin, a Democratic strategist and veteran of races in the state.

She acknowledged Democrats might be fueled by hopium in Iowa, but added, “it's still worth fighting for because there's no path to the House or Senate without Iowa going blue.”

© Photo courtesy of Rob Sand for Iowa

Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe said Friday that the state’s Legislature will draw new congressional maps in a special session, officially inserting the deep-red state into the nationwide redistricting battle that will reshape the fight to control the House in 2026.

Missouri’s redistricting push could see the state add an additional Republican-majority district to its eight-member congressional delegation. The delegation is currently split between six Republicans and two Democrats.

Kehoe released its proposed maps on Friday, which target the Kansas City-area 5th Congressional district held by Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. The special session will be Wednesday.

The move is the next phase of President Donald Trump’s effort to pressure GOP-controlled states to take up mid-decade redistricting to strengthen Republicans’ chances of retaining control of the House.

Last week, Trump preemptively declared Missouri had signed up for mid-decade redistricting and stressed its importance in helping Republicans win in 2026.

“The Great State of Missouri is now IN. I’m not surprised. It is a great State with fabulous people,” Trump wrote on Truth Social last week. “I won it, all 3 times, in a landslide. We’re going to win the Midterms in Missouri again, bigger and better than ever before!”

Trump played a key role in pushing Texas Republicans to draw new maps with five additional Republican-friendly districts. In response, Texas Democrats left the state to deny the Legislature a quorum and temporarily delay approval of the new maps.

Democrats in Missouri will face more obstacles to oppose a GOP gerrymander — Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers of Missouri’s Legislature, meaning they can power through any Democratic opposition.

Republicans are hoping other states follow Texas and Missouri. Trump and Vice President JD Vance this week ratcheted up their pressure campaign on Indiana Republicans in hopes the state will redraw its maps to create another favorable district. Ohio could also produce as many as three additional Republican-leaning districts when the state takes up its mandatory redraw.

Democrats have limited paths to counter the White House’s redistricting effort beyond California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom and statewide Democrats are seeking to form five new Democratic-leaning districts through a ballot measure. Some Democrats are eyeing an unexpected opportunity to potentially challenge for a seat in Utah after a judge ordered the state’s Legislature to draw new maps compliant with state rules restricting partisan gerrymandering.

But other Democratic governors have yet to take concrete steps towards redistricting — and the party is outnumbered in the redistricting arms race. Republicans control the governor’s office and the state Legislature in 23 states, compared to only 15 states for Democrats.

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin attacked Missouri’s redistricting plan as an attempt to undermine Missouri voters.

“Time and time again, Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe has undermined the voice of Missouri voters,” Martin said in a statement on Friday. “Now he is attempting to dilute their power altogether by removing the ability of Missourians to stand up against this power grab.”

© Jeff Roberson/AP

Barack Obama called Texas state Rep. James Talarico last week to express support for his leadership in the state’s redistricting battle, according to two people familiar with the call.

The former president specifically praised Talarico as an effective spokesperson for showing up on different media and platforms, including his recent interview with Joe Rogan — which Obama told him requires risk and authenticity.

Obama’s call to Talarico comes as the Texas Democrat weighs entry into the state’s Senate race, which would pit him against former Rep. Colin Allred in a Democratic primary. The recent call between the two was not Obama signaling a preference in such a primary, the sources familiar said, and the two did not discuss a potential Senate run.

The call also comes as Obama has reengaged in the political moment in ways broadly uncommon for a former Oval Office occupant in response to President Donald Trump’s actions during his second term.

In private, he’s holding calls with the party’s rising stars. Earlier this summer, Obama called Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor in New York City, where the former president “offered him advice about governing and discussed the importance of giving people hope in a dark time,” The New York Times reported.

In public, he’s rallying Democrats in a number of ways. He’s actively encouraging Democrats to fight the GOP’s Trump-inspired mid-cycle gerrymandering efforts — “an existential threat to our democracy,” Obama said in a video he posted Thursday. This week he trumpeted the party’s upset victory in a special election for a seat in the Iowa state Senate. “When we are organized and support strong candidates who are focused on the issues that matter, we can win. Let's keep this going,” he said.

He’s endorsed, via X, Wednesday’s edition of Ezra Klein’s New York Times show. In that episode, the host shared his concern that Trump is “creating crisis and disorder so he can build what he has wanted to build: an authoritarian state, a military or a paramilitary that answers only to him — that puts him in total control.”

It all amounts to something of an escalation for Obama. In April, he spoke about the importance of the “rules-based” order and criticized the Trump administration’s crackdown on Big Law. In June, he shared his concern that America was fast approaching a “situation in which all of us are going to be tested in some way, and we are going to have to then decide what our commitments are.”

Perhaps now that test has arrived.  

It comes at a moment when the Democratic Party is largely rudderless at the national level, seemingly adrift. In that vacuum — no clear leader, no clear vision, no identifiable cause at the moment aside from stopping Trump — Obama may be the party’s most unifying figure.

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

💾

© Scott Olson/Getty Images

President Donald Trump discontinued former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Secret Service protection on Thursday, according to a memo reviewed by POLITICO.

In a memo titled “Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security,” and dated Aug. 28, Trump directed the Secret Service to revoke Harris’ security protections, effective Sept. 1.

“You are hereby authorized to discontinue any security-related procedures previously authorized by Executive Memorandum, beyond those required by law, for the following individual effective September 1, 2025: Former Vice President Kamala D. Harris,” the memo read.

The move, first disclosed by CNN, comes as Harris is set to embark on a 15-city tour to promote her new book, “107 Days,” starting next month. The tour will place the former vice president — who has remained largely out of the public eye since leaving office in January — back in the spotlight.

“The Vice President is grateful to the United States Secret Service for their professionalism, dedication, and unwavering commitment to safety,” Harris spokesperson Kirsten Allen said in a statement.

Former President Joe Biden had initially extended Harris’ Secret Service protection — which had been set to last until only mid-July — for an additional year, according to a person familiar with the move who was granted anonymity to discuss security arrangements. While presidents receive lifelong protection after leaving office, coverage for vice presidents typically lasts only six months after they leave office.

A White House spokesperson confirmed protection has been revoked but did not comment further.

Trump similarly ended extended security protections for Hunter Biden and his half-sister Ashley Biden earlier this year.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

As Republicans charge forward with their national gerrymandering gambit, Democrats are rushing to take advantage of an unexpected gift in Utah.

All of Utah’s congressional seats are held by Republicans, and the minority party has begun strategizing how to seize a seat in the Salt Lake City metro area — a blue corner of a deep-red state — following a judge’s orders this week for a new congressional map. President Donald Trump, aggressively pushing his party to redraw maps to maintain their slim House majority next year, immediately slammed the ruling.

Should a competitive seat emerge from the state legislature’s required remapping, former Rep. Ben McAdams, a conservative Democrat, would seriously consider entering the race. He has begun phoning donors to gauge interest, according to two people with direct knowledge of his thinking. Other names circulating within Democratic circles include state Sen. Nate Blouin. And some of the state’s Democratic donors say they are eager to back a candidate who would break Republicans’ grip on the state.

Meanwhile Utah Republican Party Chair Robert Axson said he’s had conversations with the White House since the ruling about their shared concerns around the “legislative process being undermined, and courts, rather than the people's voice, weighing in on determining these maps through the legislative process.”

The legal curveball comes amid a national redistricting battle the GOP has been dominating, with its attempted five-seat pickup in Texas and White House-backed plans for redrawing maps in Indiana and Missouri. And it offers Democrats a slight boost in the national arms race that will determine whether they will regain any power in the midterms next year.

A court hearing is scheduled for Friday in the case that found Utah Republicans unlawfully bypassed voter-approved safeguards against partisan gerrymandering while creating the current map. That hearing will likely reveal how they plan to delay implementation of the ruling until after the midterms. Meanwhile, GOP leaders in the state legislature announced Thursday they will “attempt to redistrict under these unprecedented constraints.”

Democrats' best hope of regaining power in Washington next year is through the House — increasing pressure on the party to respond to Republicans’ attempt to protect their majority by carving out seats across the country. But Democrats are hamstrung by independent redistricting commissioners and state constitutions, such that even a single seat in Utah would prove meaningful for the struggling party.

Monday’s decision from District Court Judge Dianna Gibson resulted from a lawsuit challenging the legality of the map adopted in 2021, which argues that when Republicans in the state legislature unlawfully ignored recommendations from an independent redistricting commission by cracking Salt Lake City into four districts. Its timing – on the heels of Texas and California engaging in tit-for-tat gerrymandering, and other GOP states following suit – thrusts Utah into the pitched national redistricting war.

“We've now finally got this decision years later that conspicuously comes during the conversation around what Texas has done, and that makes it super interesting and very relevant,” said Utah state Sen. Nate Blouin, a Democrat.

The judge found legislators improperly repealed a voter-backed measure that required independent oversight of redistricting and prohibited partisan gerrymandering. She ordered the legislature to submit a new map for her approval within 30 days. The lawmakers are set to convene a special session Sept. 15.

Democrats and aligned groups are gearing up for the possibility of a protracted legal fight and potential delays from the legislature in adoption of a new map. Elizabeth Rasmussen, executive director of anti-gerrymandering group Better Boundaries, said that “whatever the legislature decides to do next, we're ready to continue to fight for fair maps.”

GOP legislative leaders indicated they will attempt to preserve the current maps’ goal of having districts that represent “both urban and rural voices,” implying that any new map may dilute Democratic voters.

“This race has the potential of of doing exactly the opposite of what you're seeing in in Texas and California: to take partisan gerrymandering and partisan interests out of the election and get the power back to the voters,” said McAdams, the last Democrat to represent Utah in Congress and who lost in 2020 before the Legislature redrew the map. “[This is] an opportunity, really, for the voters to choose the type of person they want to have represent them, instead of having it as a foregone conclusion."

Utah Republicans have cast the decision as judicial overreach, a view Trump echoed by calling the ruling “absolutely unconstitutional” and pledging to do “everything possible” to protect the state’s four Republican House members.

State Sen. Scott Sandall, a Republican who chaired the recent redistricting process, called the decision “an attack from the left” and said the judge has “thrown redistricting into chaos.” He added he’s “positive that some kind of delay could be sought. That's within the purview of the legislature to try to get a stay.”

Former Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican who appointed Gibson to the bench in 2018, dismissed Trump’s comments as “hyperbole” and called it wrong to “politicize” the judiciary, noting “it should not matter whether you're a Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, it should not matter one iota.”

Any Democratic candidate will receive support from a surprisingly robust donor class composed of executives of Utah’s tech giants and startups who enjoy the state’s business-friendly climate. The business hub, dubbed “Silicon Slopes,” counts Adobe, eBay and Microsoft among the companies with major offices in Utah.

Recently, a group of progressive donors formed the Utah Donor Collaborative to unite Democratic donors and deliver targeted legislative wins throughout the state.

“We've got an infrastructure now that is a real positive,” said Jonathan Ruga, a major Democratic donor. “When new people come in that do have a moderate or a left-leaning ideology, I think they're more apt to participate.”

CORRECTION: This article originally misstated McAdams' prior electoral circumstances.

💾

© George Frey/AFP via Getty Images

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

Democratic governors are urging President Donald Trump to back off his threats to deploy National Guard troops in cities led by his political opponents across the country.

A letter signed by most of the nation’s Democratic governors argues that Trump’s deployment of soldiers ostensibly to aid in civilian law enforcement is unnecessary and illegal.

“Whether it’s Illinois, Maryland and New York or another state tomorrow, the President’s threats and efforts to deploy a state’s National Guard without the request and consent of that state’s governor is an alarming abuse of power, ineffective, and undermines the mission of our service members,” they said in the letter, organized by the Democratic Governors Association.

Trump has deployed troops to Washington and Los Angeles and threatened to send them to Chicago and other cities led by Democrats in what he has portrayed as an effort to address violent crime, though the soldiers have done little in the way of law enforcement and overall criminality has declined in the U.S.

Trump made Washington the face of his crime crackdown in mid-August, taking control of the district’s police force and sending in the National Guard. The president has also floated plans to send the National Guard to Chicago, telling reporters at the Oval Office on Monday that it is “a killing field” and “disaster.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced a contrasting plan to send additional California Highway Patrol officers to several cities in the state to assist local law enforcement in addressing auto theft and drug crimes. Trump sent troops to Los Angeles in response to protests over the administration’s deportation agenda in June.

Chicago officials are preparing for the possible arrival of federal troops by dusting off plans they used for last year’s Democratic National Convention.

Four governors — Josh Green of Hawaii, Ned Lamont of Connecticut, Katie Hobbs of Arizona and Tim Walz of Minnesota — did not sign the letter.

“Every American deserves to feel safe in their neighborhood and community,” the governors wrote. “But instead of actually addressing crime, President Trump cut federal funding for law enforcement that states rely on and continues to politicize our military by trying to undermine the executive authority of Governors as Commanders in Chief of their state’s National Guard.”

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson in a statement accused the Democrats of “doing publicity stunts,” and said their communities would be safer if they focused on combating crime instead of attacking the president.

“They should listen to fellow Democrat Mayor Muriel Bowser who recently celebrated the Trump Administration’s success in driving down violent crime in Washington DC,” she said.

© J. Scott Applewhite/AP

President Donald Trump attacked the Utah judge who ordered the state to redraw its congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms — a decision that could result in less favorable districts for Republicans in the deeply red state.

Trump, who sparked a redistricting battle after demanding that Texas redraw its political boundaries to favor Republicans ahead of the midterms, called Monday's ruling “absolutely unconstitutional” and urged his party to preserve the state's four GOP-majority districts.

The president accused Judge Dianna Gibson of political bias for ruling that the state can no longer use its current maps and must draw new lines in compliance with an independent commission.

“How did such a wonderful Republican State like Utah, which I won in every Election, end up with so many Radical Left Judges?,” Trump wrote on social media. “All Citizens of Utah should be outraged at their activist Judiciary, which wants to take away our Congressional advantage, and will do everything possible to do so.”

Gibson was appointed to the district court by former Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican, in 2018.

Trump’s criticisms of the Utah decision come as both Republicans and Democrats push for mid-decade redistricting around the country. After Trump pressured Texas Republicans to draw new lines, California Democrats responded with a ballot measure that asks voters to approve new congressional maps that would adopt five new Democratic-leaning districts.

Gibson said in her ruling that the state must obey a 2018 ballot measure approved by Utah voters that required districts to be drawn by an independent commission. Nonpartisan congressional maps could present an opportunity for Democrats to challenge for a seat in the Salt Lake City-area.

Trump’s comments echo the defense used by members of the state Legislature who argued the provisions of the 2018 ballot measure were unconstitutional. In her ruling, Gibson said that ballot measures to reform Utah’s voting laws aren't prohibited by state law or the Constitution and are binding.

“Neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Utah Constitution grants sole and exclusive authority over redistricting to the Legislature,” Gibson wrote. “Because legislative power is shared co-equally and co-extensively between the Legislature and the people, and because redistricting is legislative, the people have the fundamental constitution right and authority to propose redistricting legislation that is binding on the Legislature.”

© Mark Schiefelbein/AP

CHICAGO — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker pushed back Monday on a threat by President Donald Trump to deploy federal troops in Chicago to fight crime, calling it “unconstitutional and unamerican,” and designed more for theater than public safety.

Pritzker, speaking at a news conference along with top Democratic officials from across the state and with the iconic Chicago skyline in the background, said there is no justification for Trump to use soldiers to patrol the city.

“We have crime like other cities do, but let’s be clear, we are actually in better shape than the 30 biggest cities across the United States,” the governor said. “It’s important to understand that the president of the United States is doing this for theatrics.”

Pritzker’s comments came hours after Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House, renewed his threat to make Chicago the next focus of his effort to draw public attention to crime even as violent incidents fall back to pre-pandemic levels throughout the nation.

No request for federal assistance has been made, Pritzker said — nor has any communication come from the Trump administration.

“No one from the White House or the executive branch has reached out to me or to the mayor,” the governor said. “No one has reached out to our staffs. No effort has been made to coordinate or to ask for our assistance in identifying any actions that might be helpful to us.”

While most officials in a state dominated by Democrats agree with Pritzker, the leader of the Chicago Police union, John Catanzara, told POLITICO that the department is short 1,000 officers and could use reinforcements. “More manpower is still needed,” he said.

The governor, who arrived by water taxi to emphasize the city’s vibrancy and beauty, made his remarks days after Trump floated the idea of federal intervention in Chicago.

“If we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago, which is a disaster,” Trump said at a White House briefing last week, referencing prior National Guard deployments. On Monday, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric, suggesting the federal government may need to “barge in” on Illinois.

Pritzker, who was joined by Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, Sens. Tammy Duckworth and Dick Durbin, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and numerous city and state officials, civic and faith leaders, said Illinois has the authority and the resolve to block any attempt to override local control.

They vowed to fight any National Guard action in the courts, and they urged protests to be peaceful.

Johnson echoed Pritzker in criticizing Trump’s motives. The mayor noted that crime was on the decline in Chicago, down more than 30 percent. “We are being targeted because of who we are as a city,” said Johnson, pointing to Chicago’s progressive roots in labor and immigration.

Chicago Alderwoman Samantha Nugent, who previously worked with the Cook County Department of Homeland Security, said she’s concerned that the National Guard potentially converging in Chicago would only create confusion because there would be a question about “who’s controlling the mission.” The Chicago Police superintendent is in charge of the chain of command, not the Guard, she said.

The high-profile press conference followed Johnson speaking out against Trump over the weekend, telling MSNBC that if the president moves ahead with his threat, it would be a “flagrant violation of our Constitution.”

Over the weekend, former Chicago mayors Rahm Emanuel and Lori Lightfoot also criticized Trump.

“When you look at what he did in D.C., he’s not going to actually deal with crime,” Emanuel said on CNN. “This is an attempt to deal with cities that are welcoming cities, known as sanctuary cities, and deal with immigration.”

Trump also said a group of African American “ladies” are “screaming” for the Trump administration to address violence in Chicago. It was an apparent reference to Chicago Flips Red, whose members have criticized Johnson’s handling of the large influx of migrants who needed housing and other services during the Biden administration.

© Nam Y. Huh/AP

Democrats have been warning for months that President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” would wreak havoc on state budgets.

But Colorado is the first state to call lawmakers back to the Capitol to grapple with the ramifications of the massive federal tax and spending bill.

In a special session that began Thursday, the Democratic-led state Legislature is considering bills to cover a budget gap of roughly $1 billion by increasing taxes, reallocating funding and tapping the state’s reserves — as well as set the stage for future cuts. The session — which is also attempting to address artificial intelligence policy — is expected to continue at least through Tuesday.

“The only reason we're even talking about this is because HR1 passed,” Democratic Gov. Jared Polis told POLITICO on Thursday, referring to the GOP megabill. “[It] not only increased the federal deficit by trillions of dollars, but also increased the state deficit by hundreds of millions of dollars.”

Republicans top legislative priority — or HR1, passed in July — extended Trump’s 2017 tax cuts and made major cuts to social safety net programs. The bill’s passage came after most states had already set their budgets for the current fiscal year, and now many have been scrambling to sort out how it impacts their finances this year and down the road.

Colorado’s response will likely serve as a preview of how other states will address the financial ramifications in the coming months.

The financial adjustments being made by Colorado lawmakers in the special session only address the short-term impacts of the bill, and legislators say they are only the first of many changes their state will undergo as a result of the legislation.

Colorado legislators and the governor told POLITICO that the special session was necessary because changes to the federal tax code — which the state’s tax code is tied to — are estimated to reduce the state’s income tax revenue by as much as $1.2 billion. That could create a deficit of about $750 million in the budget passed in April. Add on funds to fill in cuts to school lunch programs and to soften the looming rise of health insurance premiums due to smaller federal subsidies and it’s estimated that Colorado faces a financial gap of more than $1 billion.

To address the shortfall, legislators are proposing a range of solutions: selling tax credits to increase funds for health care, raising taxes on the state’s highest earners, ending some tax incentives and reallocating funds from less critical programs like the reintroduction of gray wolves.

“Can we fix it 100 percent? No,” House Majority Leader Monica Duran said in an interview on Thursday. “But we're trying to make it less painful for everyone.”

Sarah Mercer of Denver-based lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck describes the funding strategy as “a third, a third, a third” — filling equal portions of the budget hole by closing tax exemptions, tapping the state’s reserves and cutting costs.

The budget cuts, however, would come later, through a bill already advancing through the Legislature that would allow Polis to propose mid-year cuts if the state cannot meet its fiscal obligations. The governor would still need to work with the legislature’s Joint Budget Committee to enact those cuts.

“It gives the governor some pretty unusual powers,” Mercer explained. “What is really the full scope of this new power, and when else might it be used in the future?”

Colorado Republicans, meanwhile, are accusing Democrats — who hold a trifecta in the state government — of mishandling the state budget and then trying to pass the blame onto Washington.

“For years, Democrats at the Capitol have spent beyond their means and ignored Republican solutions. Now, they want taxpayers to bail them out,” House Minority Leader Rose Pugliese said in a press release. Colorado House Republicans’ communications team did not respond to an interview request.

Mercer said some of the shortfall may stem from funding that states like Colorado received from Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act — which was used to fund some programs and has since run out.

“I think [lawmakers] did try to think through and craft programs that were limited,” Mercer said. “[But] I think our government and our budget did grow a little bit as well during that time.”

State Rep. Shannon Bird, vice chair of the Joint Budget Committee who is vying for the congressional seat currently held by GOP Rep. Gabe Evans, pushed back on the notion that one-time federal dollars led to this problem.

“To the extent that we understood funds to be one time … Colorado, I believe, did a very fair job of using that money either for infrastructure investment or just to fund one time grants,” Bird said, pointing the finger instead at withheld funding that the state expected to be ongoing, like school grants and Medicaid dollars.

Why Colorado faces this financial dilemma

The Colorado tax code’s direct relationship to the federal tax code led it to this point. The state automatically adopts any changes to federal tax code, and also is one of just a handful of states that uses federal tax rates for state taxes. That means the minute the federal tax code changes, so do Colorado’s taxes — leaving a shortfall where the state expected a surplus.

To make matters more complicated, in 1992 Colorado passed the taxpayer bill of rights. It requires the state to ask permission from the voters for any tax changes via ballot measure. When the state increased taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products to pay for universal preschool in 2020, for example, voters had to approve the proposal via ballot measure before it became law.

To that end, the Legislature over the weekend approved a bill that would allow leftover revenue from a ballot measure already approved for November — which would increase taxes on residents with taxable incomes over $300,000 — to be used for school meals. If approved by voters, it could provide an additional $95 million annually to the state’s healthy school meals program, Healthy School Meals For All. The legislature on Friday also approved a bill to fund Medicaid reimbursements for Planned Parenthood.

The state is also concerned about a possible increase to health insurance premiums. Because Congress has yet to renew higher federal health care subsidies for Obamacare plans that expire at the end of this year, the costs for consumers are expected to substantially increase. Colorado’s insurance division estimated in July that premiums would rise 28 percent on average in the state and as much as 38 percent in the state’s more rural western slope.

“I'm hopeful that the United States Congress takes action and renews the [health care] tax credits,” Polis said. There has been some talk on Capitol Hill of finding another vehicle for the subsidies, but it’s unclear if Congress will act before the year’s end, and Colorado lawmakers are looking to soften the blow by selling tax credits.

“We’ll do what we can,” Polis added. “It's not going to negate those huge increases, but it'll at least reduce them.”

The Legislature is also considering removing some tax incentives, including breaks for companies that employ a certain percentage of Coloradans and deductions that allow retailers to cover the cost of collecting taxes, to increase the state’s revenues.

But there are many more details that Colorado will need to iron out in the months and years to come.

“A lot of these cuts will likely need to be ongoing cuts, not just for the current year,” Polis said, explaining that they couldn’t continue to dip into the reserve indefinitely. “The reserve is there for a recession. And this is not a recession. This is caused by HR1.”

© Hyoung Chang/AP

The redistricting war is officially on.

After weeks of bluster from dueling governors and state lawmakers, California and Texas raced forward with parallel action this week to draw new congressional maps, setting into motion a national redistricting fight that could upend the midterms and determine control of the House.

Texas Republicans on Saturday passed a new map that will help the GOP flip as many as five House seats — a partisan play at the hand of President Donald Trump. On Thursday, California Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom preemptively agreed to send a retaliatory ballot measure to voters — the first step in potentially offsetting Texas’ maneuver by creating new Democratic-leaning seats.

The nation’s two largest states had fired the opening salvo in what is likely to become an intense and protracted redistricting campaign by both parties to grasp power in Washington. Now other red and blue state governors face pressure to follow their lead and aggressively gerrymander their congressional maps.

Republicans hold a clear advantage in the arms race: The GOP is poised to move forward with redistricting in Florida, Ohio, Missouri and Indiana, which could yield at least half a dozen more seats. Democrats, meanwhile, have struggled to get gerrymandering efforts moving in blue states beyond California, though leaders in New York, Illinois and Maryland say they are weighing options.

“Right now, these other states need to step up,” said Rep. Robert Garcia, a Democrat from Long Beach, Calif. “I know it’s hard, I know it’s complicated … But, if you’re a blue state governor, the time is now to step up and get it done.”

As the map battles continue, at stake is a national shift away from the norm of once-a-decade, Census-aligned redistricting and toward a more polarized landscape in which both parties redraw political maps at will to shift the balance of power. The escalation has major implications for Trump's post-midterm agenda and the political prospects of several prominent Democrats, including Newsom and his likely presidential run in 2028.

Democrats in the California Legislature framed their vote Thursday in that national context, casting it as a fight to save American democracy from Trump’s “election rigging” — even as they voted nearly unanimously to toss aside lines drawn by the state’s independent commission and put forward a partisan map. The ends, they argued, justified the means.

“We don’t want this fight and we didn't choose this fight, but with our democracy on the line, we cannot and will not run away from this fight,” said Assemblymember Marc Berman, a Democrat from Silicon Valley.

The vote sets off a Nov. 4 special election for Californians, and both parties are gearing up for an all-out campaign sprint. Democrats estimate they will have to raise up to $100 million to mount an advertising blitz across the state’s large and expensive media markets to convince voters, whom early polling shows are skeptical.

Republicans, who have a thin minority in the California statehouse, unsuccessfully tried to derail the vote with a host of procedural maneuvers. They argued California Democrats betrayed voters' trust by adopting a map drawn behind closed doors, sidestepping the state’s voter-created redistricting commission. A GOP-backed legal attempt to thwart Democrats’ map was also dismissed by the California Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego, called the vote a “political stunt.” When Democrats said he couldn't use props during his floor speech, he retorted, “Then, why have you become props to Gov. Gavin Newsom's presidential campaign?”

Texas Democrats, a minority in their state House, have pulled their own stunts. House members prolonged passage of the map by leaving the state for two weeks in protest, denying Republicans the quorum needed to conduct official business. When they returned, Rep. Nicole Collier refused to sign a permission slip ordered by GOP leadership allowing law enforcement to supervise her movements and instead staged a sit-in on the House floor.

Unlike California Democrats’ map, which requires voter approval to take effect, the Republicans in the Texas Legislature were able to approve their map without going to voters or mounting a statewide campaign. Both parties have vowed to fight the maps in court, disputes that could ultimately lead to the U.S. Supreme Court. A lawsuit in Texas was filed just hours after the map was approved by the legislature early Saturday.

“The fight is far from over,” Texas Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said on the floor after the map passed the House on Wednesday. “Our best shot is in the courts. This part of the fight is over, but it is merely the first chapter.”

In Texas, Democrats argue the GOP’s map illegally dilutes the voting power of Hispanic and Black voters. In California, where the state’s map preserves minority-opportunity districts, Republicans say the map illegally sidelines the state’s independent redistricting commission.

But in the redistricting wars, voting rights and other legal considerations are taking a backseat to purely partisan interests.

Efforts are underway to carve out more GOP seats in Indiana, Ohio, Missouri and Florida — and Trump’s political operation is pressuring individual state lawmakers to act. On Thursday, Trump declared on X that Republicans in Missouri — where the GOP could pick up one more seat by splitting a district in Kansas City — are “IN!” to call a special session to redistrict.

The legal hurdles for Democrats in other deep-blue states could prove more formidable, hampering their party’s quest to retake the House in the 2026 midterms.

In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul wants to disband a quasi-independent commission in charge of drawing House map. But the panel, created by a voter-approved constitutional amendment, cannot be erased until 2027 at the earliest.

And while the New York governor has talked tough about redistricting, she acknowledged to reporters her hands are tied by the state’s lengthy constitutional amendment process. Any changes must be approved by two separately elected sessions of the Legislature before going to voters in a referendum.

“Now, everyone says, ‘Why don't you do what Gavin Newsom does?’ Gavin Newsom has a very different situation, because if I could, I would,” Hochul told reporters this week. “But I have to have the Constitution changed, and also the voters approved that change, before I can do that.”

Albany Democrats are under pressure to act faster anyway.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a Brooklyn Democrat, has talked several times in recent weeks with Hochul about their options and this week urged her and other top New York Democrats to expand the state’s voting rights law — which enables legal challenges to local legislative districts — to include congressional seats.

That would open the door to a legal challenge to the existing house lines, a maneuver designed to force a mid-decade redistricting if the map is thrown out. But two New York Democratic officials, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said that would be a long shot given the complexities of the strategy. One of them said there are “no clear options” for what New York can do ahead of the midterms.

That’s leaving Democrats to scour the map for potential redistricting pick-up opportunities outside California.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker has spoken boldly about the importance for Democrats to not let Texas go unmatched, and the state hosted many of the Democrats who left the Texas state House. But Illinois has been known for its aggressive Democratic gerrymanders, and it currently has just three Republican seats it can target.

It’s also unclear Illinois Democrats have the political will to take on redrawing the congressional map — most of the redistricting talk this week has been on a whole other set of maps. Former Barack Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Chicago Democrat, and Ray LaHood, a Peoria Republican who served as Obama’s transportation secretary, rolled out a “Fair Maps Illinois” proposal this week that would end the process of state lawmakers drawing their own districts.

In Maryland — one of Democrats’ few options to wage a response to the GOP — House Majority Leader David Moon is pushing legislation to open its redistricting process. Gov. Wes Moore has said that “all options are on the table,” but has not laid out any specifics.

“It is not our first choice to fight back against this, and I think it's everybody's preference that we stand down and everyone steps back from the brink here,” Moon said in an interview. “But I think the common sentiment you're seeing from everyone is that we have to be prepared in the event that this thing does explode.”

Shia Kapos and Jeremy B. White contributed to this report.

© AP

Texas Republicans approved a new, aggressively gerrymandered congressional map early Saturday morning, moving forward with a power grab pushed by President Donald Trump.

The GOP-controlled state Senate approved the map on a party-line vote after hours of debate that began Friday morning. Republicans used a procedural move to block a Democratic senator’s plans to filibuster the bill, forcing it to a vote — one final show of force from GOP leadership after weeks of partisan fighting.

The map could ultimately help flip as many as five seats for the GOP starting with next year’s midterms. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is set to quickly sign the legislation, capping off a turbulent few weeks in Texas over Republicans’ now-successful effort to further skew the maps in the GOP’s favor ahead of the 2030 census.

Under the new map, Republicans in Texas are aiming to earn 30 House seats — up from their current 25 — as they attempt to hold onto control of the chamber in what could be an unfavorable environment for them next year. Republicans currently have just a three-seat majority in the House, so the new Texas map alone will significantly affect their chances.

The unusual offcycle redistricting effort in Texas has set off a contentious national tit-for-tat. California formally launched its preemptive retaliation on Thursday, with lawmakers approving a ballot measure redrawing the state’s map to create five new Democratic seats to offset Texas. That measure — which would temporarily circumvent the state’s independent redistricting commission — now goes to voters on the November ballot, a gerrymander Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has cast as necessary to preserve democracy.

But Republicans could soon have the advantage as a redistricting battle escalates nationwide: The White House is pressuring other GOP states, like Indiana and Missouri, to take on their own redistricting gambits. Democratic governors in New York and Illinois have vowed to fight back, but have so far taken no concrete steps to do so.

The National Redistricting Foundation, an arm of the Democratic Party's main redistricting organization, immediately challenged the new map in federal court.

The complaint — a supplement to a long-running lawsuit over the state's now-outdated, post-2020 census map — lodges a bevy of challenges against the new lines, including that it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and that it violated the Voting Rights Act.

"The Texas Legislature subordinated other redistricting criteria — including partisan advantage — to race" in drawing the new maps, the challengers allege.

The case, in particular, homes in on the new map dismantling so-called coalition districts, which are districts where no single racial group makes up a majority, but Black and Latino voters collectively do. Democrats argue that the "intentional targeting" of those districts would be impossible to do without taking race into account.

Republicans, however, contend that they redrew the districts explicitly for partisan purposes and did not account for race or ethnicity.

“I did not take race into consideration when drawing this map,” said state Sen. Phil King, the Texas Republican who wrote the redistricting legislation, at a committee hearing. “I drew it based on what would better perform for Republican candidates.”

The Trump administration's Department of Justice spurred the redistricting into motion by arguing Texas' previous map was unconstitutional because it contained several of these types of coalition districts.

At the time, the DOJ cited a 2024 ruling by the 5th Circuit — which controls Texas-based cases — that found that the Voting Rights Act does not allow for distinct minority groups to join together to make a claim, meaning mapmakers were not required to draw these coalition districts. That ruling, however, did not find that coalition districts were unconstitutional as the Justice Department asserted.

Racial gerrymandering claims are one of the last remaining ways to challenge a political map in federal court, since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 barred them from policing partisan gerrymandering. The new map — which was drawn using 2024 election data — creates four new majority-Hispanic districts, drawn to reflect Hispanic voters’ shift toward the GOP.

The Voting Right Act has faced significant legal challenges, with the Supreme Court gradually chipping away at the landmark civil rights-era legislation over the last decade and a half. Two significant pieces of federal litigation — including one the Supreme Court will hear in October — could further weaken the VRA, potentially undermining some of the claims in Texas.

The Democrats' lawsuit also challenges the premise of voluntary mid-decade redistricting — which is legal in many states — by bringing a "malapportionment" claim, which argues that some voters are more powerful than others because the congressional districts are not equal in population when they were drawn this week.

"Texas’s population has grown by nearly five percent since the 2020 census — more than any other state in the country," the suit read. "Although states generally 'operate under the legal fiction' that plans remain constitutionally apportioned for ten years after they are adjusted for a given census, states should not get the benefit of that legal fiction when they choose to engage in unnecessary, mid-decade redistricting."

Before the maps passed, Democrats asked a federal district court to be prepared to quickly rule on the legality of the new maps. Lawyers are set to conference with the court on Wednesday to discuss that request.

Texas House Democrats protested the maps by leaving the state for two weeks, depriving Republicans of the ability to conduct legislative business. Those lawmakers returned on Monday — clearing the way for Republicans to quickly pass the legislation. Democrats racked up thousands of dollars in fines for ducking their legislative duties, and when they returned, House Speaker Dustin Burrows sought one last punishment: He ordered law enforcement to chaperone the Democrats to ensure they would be present for passage of the map.

One Democrat, state Rep. Nicole Collier, refused to sign a permission slip allowing an officer to monitor her movements, instead staging a three-day sit-in on the House floor.

“When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents — I won’t just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination,” Collier said from the chamber.

The Senate passed its map on Saturday morning after thwarting an attempted filibuster by another Democrat who planned to stage one last protest against the legislation. But Republicans made a procedural move that ended debate and the chamber approved the map along party lines.

© AP

Democrats seem to think they can talk their way out of the political wilderness.

Listen closely and you can hear it through the din of their all-caps Trumpian X feeds, their hourslong “manosphere” podcast interviews and their more frequent swearing.

Nearly 10 months after the 2024 elections, and the party is still embroiled in self-recriminations over where they’re talking, what they’re talking about and, now, the actual words they’re using. Or, more precisely: which words they shouldn’t utter.

In a new memo, shared exclusively with POLITICO, the center-left think tank Third Way is circulating a list of 45 words and phrases they want Democrats to avoid using, alleging the terms put “a wall between us and everyday people of all races, religions, and ethnicities.” It’s a set of words that Third Way suggests “people simply do not say, yet they hear them from Democrats.”

They span six categories — from “therapy speak” to “explaining away crime” — and put in sharp relief a party that authors say makes Democrats “sound like the extreme, divisive, elitist, and obfuscatory, enforcers of wokeness.” In the document, titled “Was It Something I Said?” Third Way argues that to “please the few, we have alienated the many — especially on culture issues, where our language sounds superior, haughty and arrogant,” according to the memo.

Among the blacklisted terms: privilege … violence (as in “environmental violence”) … dialoguing … triggering … othering … microaggression … holding space … body shaming … subverting norms … systems of oppression … cultural appropriation … Overton window … existential threat to [the climate, democracy, economy] … radical transparency … stakeholders … the unhoused … food insecurity … housing insecurity … person who immigrated … birthing person … cisgender … deadnaming … heteronormative … patriarchy … LGBTQIA+ … BIPOC … allyship … incarcerated people … involuntary confinement.

“We are doing our best to get Democrats to talk like normal people and stop talking like they’re leading a seminar at Antioch,” says Matt Bennett, Third Way's executive vice president of public affairs. “We think language is one of the central problems we face with normie voters, signaling that we are out of touch with how they live, think and talk. In recent weeks, this has become a bit of a thing, with comedians like Jimmy Kimmel and Sarah Silverman highlighting how insane Dems can sometimes sound. Also, elected officials like [Delaware Rep.] Sarah McBride and [Kentucky Gov.] Andy Beshear are begging their colleagues to just be normal again.”

“People can’t relate to something unless it has some edge about it,” Lanae Erickson, Third Way’s senior vice president, tells Playbook. “And we had shaved off all of our edges in an attempt to never make anyone upset about anything.”

The group doesn’t base its list on any specific polling. And the authors don’t offer specific counter recommendations for these terms. But they do outline the values their vision of the party includes.

“We will never abandon our values or stop doing things to protect those who need help, encouragement, trust, a second chance, acceptance, a fair shake, and the opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness But as the catastrophe of Trump 2.0 has shown, the most important thing we can do for those people and causes is to build a bigger army to fight them,” the memo reads. “Communicating in authentic ways that welcome rather than drive voters away would be a good start.”

It’s worth noting that in certain parts of the country, a lot of people, especially now, do talk in this language and use the phrases Third Way recommends against, even if it doesn't scream big tent enough. It’s also worth noting an inherent irony in all of this: it’s hard to police how politicians talk at the same time that you're asking them to be authentic.

The memo’s authors write “we are not out to police language, ban phrases or create our own form of censorship. Truth be told, we have published papers that have used some of these words as well. But when policymakers are public-facing, the language we use must invite, not repel; start a conversation, not end it; provide clarity, not confusion.”

“The Democratic Party brand is toxic across the country at this point with way too many people — enough that there’s no way for us to win a governing majority without changing that,” Erickson said. “Part of the problem was that we were using words that literally no normal people used — that we were sticking to messages that were so overly scripted that they basically sounded like nothing.”

What about bright spots for the party? Erickson cited three potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders who she says are good examples of how to communicate: Beshear, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

• “Gallego is doing a great job talking about economic success,” she says. “He goes into communities and he’s like, ‘I want you to have a big ass truck, if that’s what you want.’”

• Buttigieg, she said, is “doing a great job of going into spaces that are maybe not hostile, but unusual spaces for him to be in and having real conversations about complicated topics, like transgender people in sports, and saying, ‘you know, I think you should have empathy toward people that are figuring this issue out for the first time. And you should have empathy toward transgender kids and their families.’ But he's not afraid to say those things, and he’s getting yelled at.”

• And Beshear is “getting this so exactly right, talking about how these terms aren't even what those communities use to call themselves,” she said. She recalled Beshear “talking about the fact that ‘justice-involved individuals’ is not a thing that any justice-involved individual would call themselves. They would call themselves incarcerated, call themselves convicted, or they would call themselves a whole lot of other things, but that's not what they or their families would call themselves. So inventing terms that the people that we're talking about and trying to protect don't even use, and then enforcing that that's the only way you can talk about those people, is crazy.” 

So, can Democrats really talk their way back to power? It’s an Aaron Sorkin-eqsue idea to think that everything can be solved by the right words and a compelling speech. (And it’s one that the party has been tantalized by, on and off, for decades.) Of course, Democrats face bigger and deeper problems — a yawning voter registration gap among them — and are still figuring out which policies to advocate.

In some ways, Third Way is reaching the same political conclusion VP JD Vance arrived at during his interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham this week. “I mean, look, the autopsy for the Democrats, some free political advice from the president of the United States is: stop sounding like crazy people,” Vance said.

Vance’s remarks came on the same day he had burgers with the National Guard troops at Union Station. Which is itself a glaring reminder of some of the stakes if Democrats don’t get this right.

Erickson mentioned crime as a key issue on which Democrats need to recalibrate, citing Trump’s “invasion of D.C.”

“It shows that people don't think Democrats want to hold criminals accountable at all,” she said. “Like we don't care about violent crime and we don't care if someone hurts someone, that they should be held accountable. That's not true. We’re afraid to say that because we’re afraid that someone is going to criticize us for being too ‘tough on crime.’”

Third Way sees it as a place to start. “We need to reflect on the ways that our bubble and our fear of being criticized by anyone on the left has led to a problem with both our policy and our language,” Erickson said.

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

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

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

Texas Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett said he will not run for reelection in his home district if the Texas redistricting proposal is approved, avoiding a potential member-on-member primary with Rep. Greg Casar, who was drawn into Doggett’s district in the new maps.

Doggett did not say whether he would retire from Congress if the maps are approved or if he plans to run in another Texas district.

The 78-year-old lawmaker has faced pressure from some Democrats to allow Casar to run in the new Austin-area district. A primary in the 37th District between Doggett and Casar could have reopened old fissures in the party over elderly incumbents — a debate amplified last year by Doggett, who was the first Democrat in Congress to call on then-President Joe Biden to drop out of the presidential race.

“If the courts give Trump a victory in his scheme to maintain control of a compliant House, I will not seek reelection in the reconfigured CD37, even though it contains over 2/3rd of my current constituents,” Doggett said in the statement.

Doggett said he will run for reelection in his current district if Texas Republicans’ “racially gerrymandered Trump map” is rejected. Doggett’s office did not immediately respond to requests for clarification about his intentions if the maps are approved.

A spokesperson for Casar declined to comment.

Doggett quickly announced his intention to run in his home district last month after Texas released its redrawn maps. Last week, he leaned on Casar to run in the new 35th District, a bloc east of San Antonio where Trump won 54 percent of the vote last year.

Days later, Casar’s chief of staff said he would only run for Congress in his native Austin, and chastised Doggett for attempting to force him to run elsewhere.

“I had hoped that my commitment to reelection under any circumstances would encourage Congressman Casar to not surrender his winnable district to Trump,” Doggett said in the statement. “While his apparent decision is most unfortunate, I prefer to devote the coming months to fighting Trump tyranny and serving Austin rather than waging a struggle with fellow Democrats.”

Pressure against Doggett ramped up in recent days after David Hogg’s super PAC said it planned to financially support Casar if the two members squared off in a primary. Doggett, who holds over $6 million in his campaign account, had said he planned to spend significantly to defend his seat. Hogg’s group said they had intended to help Casar make up some of the difference.

“Thank you, Congressman Lloyd Doggett, for letting the next generation lead and for your decades of progressive service. I hope more members of Congress follow his example and pass the torch,” Hogg said in a statement to POLITICO.

© Rodolfo Gonzalez/AP

Donald Trump has strong-arming Congress down to a science. Now his redistricting gambit is putting his methods through a stress test.

It’s a strategy of intensifying levels of private coercion and public threats of consequence, driven by Trump and amplified by aides and allies behind closed doors and through the online MAGA echo chamber: White House visits, calls from the president, online insults and even primary threats.

The more-stick-than-carrot approach has delivered Trump major wins in Washington by helping him barrel through initial GOP resistance to controversial Cabinet picks and a politically perilous policy package in a stunningly short turnaround.

That machine is whirring into gear again as the White House pushes Texas, Missouri and Indiana to gerrymander their congressional districts to protect Republicans’ House majority in the midterms. Vice President JD Vance and top aides have been dispatched to Indiana and staffers have phoned into Missouri. Trump is summoning Hoosier Republicans to the White House next week. Both his political operation and right-wing influencers have begun floating primary challenges.

“These folks are not sitting around thinking about redistricting. But in an instant, Trump can prioritize that issue for them and subsequently he can mobilize them on his behalf,” said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who has worked for House GOP leadership and on presidential campaigns. “I think he recognizes that formidable power and he’s willing to apply it far and wide.”

Now that redistricting pressure campaign is providing a significant test of whether the approach Trump has near-perfected within his governing trifecta in D.C. can translate beyond the beltway.

Every president has the power of the bully pulpit, wielding the heft of the Oval Office and inside-the-beltway pressure tactics to advance his agenda. But Trump also retains a uniquely powerful hold over the most enthusiastic voters in the GOP, and is able to leverage the grassroots support of his MAGA movement and Truth Social platform to compound pressure on any resistant Republicans to accede to his demands.

Marrying the two, Trump has a singular strategy that he’s employed to great effect so far this term to compel Republican lawmakers into supporting his appointees and legislative agenda.

There are very few exceptions, in part because Trump has made clear the consequences for dissent. Trump and his team have repeatedly threatened primary challenges for GOP lawmakers who do not bend to his will, going as far as standing up a super PAC that’s raising millions of dollars to target Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) for voting against the “big, beautiful bill.” And the White House is vetting potential primary challengers to Massie, including Kentucky state Sen. Aaron Reed, who traveled to Washington for a meeting last month, two people familiar with the trip confirmed to POLITICO.

“Incumbent presidents have broad sway over their party…The only real difference is that Trump will operate with language and threats we haven’t seen from other presidents,” said Doug Heye, a GOP strategist who has worked for House Republican leadership. “He’s more YOLO than lame duck.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Now Trump and his team are trying their playbook on GOP governors and state lawmakers as they push as many red states as possible into mid-decade redistricting. They are on the cusp of success in Texas, where the Republican-controlled Legislature is imposing a new map designed to net the party five seats.

Missouri Republicans are widely expected to follow suit when they return to Jefferson City in September for their annual veto session — despite still smarting from a knock-down, drag-out redistricting fight just two years ago in which they ultimately rejected drawing an additional GOP district.

While Republicans in the state Legislature are reluctant to revisit the difficult inter-party politics at play, the Trump administration is working to force them to submit anyway, calling up Gov. Mike Kehoe and local lawmakers who have expressed skepticism about the effort.

There’s also a less direct form of pressure at play — one that has guided GOP decision-making throughout Trump’s time as the party’s standard-bearer.

“No one wants to be seen as anti-administration or anti-Trump,” said a Missouri GOP operative granted anonymity to speak candidly about private deliberations. “That does not do anyone any good when they go back to their district.”

But the potential limits of Trump’s pressure-campaign playbook are showing in Indiana, where Republicans are so far resisting a more intensive — and public — push. That includes several GOP state lawmakers who have publicly panned the effort, with one hard-right representative slamming it as "politically optically horrible.”

The White House dispatched Vance and top administration aides to Indiana to pitch the governor and GOP legislative leaders on gerrymandering the map. White House Intergovernmental Affairs Director Alex Meyer, in his personal capacity, hascalled several lawmakers to press them to redistrict. A group called Forward America flooded voters’ phones with robocalls and text messages urging them to call their lawmakers to back the effort. Trump’s political operation is considering primarying lawmakers who refuse to fall in line — a threat amplified by MAGA influencer and Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk.

As the pressure mounted, all seven of Indiana's Republican representatives in Congress issued a series of rapid-fire statements over six hours on Monday supporting Trump’s redistricting push — a clearly coordinated piling-on of pressure as state House Republicans huddled behind closed doors. The state’s two Republican senators backed the effort the following morning.

But progress remains elusive: Gov. Mike Braun is still undecided on whether to call a special session to advance a new map, and GOP resistance is still flaring from within the state house.

Trump and his team show no signs of letting up, bullish about Republicans’ advantages in the redistricting arms race that has exploded between red and blue states. The administration is planning to court more than four dozen Indiana Republicans — including the state House speaker and Senate president — at the White House next week.

And Trump’s allies believe his ability to get his party to fall in line on his agenda is nearly infinite.

“As Trump has said before: The party is what I say it is,” said David Urban, a Trump 2016 campaign adviser and longtime ally. “And that is largely true.”

Adam Wren contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misidentified the state Vance visited. It was Indiana.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison is jumping on the Substack trend, but he seems to have overlooked the fine print.

Harrison appears to have run afoul of Substack’s terms of service by mass-subscribing his former campaign email list and other personal contacts. Substack’s rules say: “Don’t add people to your mailing list without their consent, and don’t import your contacts list or social graphs.” And Substack emphasizes that subscribers should have “explicitly opted in,” according to a Substack spokesperson.

Harrison recently uploaded those on his 2020 Senate campaign list and other contacts he had collected over the years, though he made that clear to subscribers when he started his Substack. His introductory email last week stated, “As a past member of my email list, you have been automatically subscribed to my new hub on Substack.” Harrison has a Substack podcast where he’s interviewed Democrats including Hunter Biden, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and he also started a paid subscription section for superfans to get early access to podcasts and bonus content.

The way he built his Substack list, however, has attracted negative attention online, with several X users expressing outrage that they were added to his Substack without their permission or even knowledge. One user wrote, “The horrors of giving my email to Democrats never cease. Why tf did I get auto-subscribed to Jaime Harrison’s Substack,” while another wrote, “Just found out I was automatically subscribed to Jaime Harrison’s Substack without my knowledge or consent.”

The spokesperson for Substack, granted anonymity to speak freely, declined to comment on Harrison’s case but said the company’s guidelines “require that any mailing list a publisher imports be made up of people who have explicitly opted in to receive emails from that publication” and that lists purchased or collected without consent (which frequently happens on campaigns) are not permitted. The spokesperson bolded the phrase “explicitly opted in.”

The spokesperson said Substack runs basic checks for issues including invalid addresses but that it doesn’t have a way to verify how emails were collected.

Harrison said in a brief phone interview that he “assumed” his team had followed Substack’s rules but added, “For me, knowing email stuff and all that other stuff, I don’t follow this stuff.” In a follow-up text message, he said he had abided by all Substack policies and that his team “worked directly with Substack to upload our list, which was collected from my Senate campaign and other personal activities.” A spokesperson for Harrison declined to give POLITICO the name of the Substack representative they dealt with and said such interactions were done only over the phone.

Several other Democratic politicians with Substacks have chosen different ways to build up their newsletter lists. A person familiar with Pete Buttigieg’s Substack, granted anonymity to discuss the matter, said the former transportation secretary is only using organic ways to grow his Substack, which has around 600,000 followers, and that his team doesn’t pull any lists over.

A spokesperson for Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said he’s also grown his Substack organically and didn’t think it was necessary to pull subscribers from his campaign email list. The person said the video interviews the senator has done with anti-Trump influencers Jim Acosta and Jennifer Rubin, as well as journalist Anand Giridharadas, have been very helpful in adding new subscribers, now totaling more than 65,000.

Last week, Harrison’s Substack showed that he had a million subscribers, but most of Harrison’s posts have less than a dozen likes. After POLITICO started asking questions, the number of subscribers became private. A Harrison spokesperson declined to comment on why the subscription number is no longer public.

For years, Democratic consultants have raised concerns that Democratic politicians are exhausting donors with too many emails, but Substack is a new platform on which Democrats can grow — and annoy — people in their orbit.

“Substack prohibits unsolicited spam for a reason,” said Josh Nelson, CEO of progressive ad platform Civic Shout. “Jaime Harrison, as a former DNC chair, should know better than to add people to an email list without their knowledge or consent.”

Another Democratic consultant, granted anonymity because of fear of business consequences, said leaders of many progressive organizations and other influential Democrats now have Substacks that he joked they view as their “retirement plan.”

“It’s so dumb because obviously there’s not enough people on Substack to pay $5 a month for all these people, and they all use tons of organizational resources to pump up their own Substacks, which is so corrupt and such a misallocation of resources,” the consultant said.

A version of this story first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score newsletter. Sign up for POLITICO Pro.

© AP

NEW YORK — The former top aide to New York City Mayor Eric Adams ran audacious bribery schemes out of City Hall — selling off her help as a public official four different times to people willing to shower her with money or gifts, according to a series of indictments unsealed Thursday.

Ingrid Lewis-Martin, the former chief adviser to the mayor, is accused by a grand jury of helping friends secure lucrative city contracts and expediting their regulatory issues with city government in exchange for cash payments to her son, free home renovations, nearly $10,000 worth of seafood for city events and even a guest appearance on the TV show “Godfather of Harlem.”

Lewis-Martin used her influence as Adams’ longest-serving aide and “overrode other City officials’ expertise and decision making to ensure that certain required actions were accomplished for the benefit of her co-conspirators,” prosecutors with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office wrote in a sweeping and detail-rich summary of the indictments.

Adams, who is facing long odds as he runs for reelection as an independent, is not accused of wrongdoing in any of the cases. But they are just the latest allegations of corruption to cloud Adams’ time in City Hall — an issue that seems destined to define his tenure in office.

That includes the mayor’s own federal corruption charges alleging a bribery conspiracy by the Turkish government — a case that was dismissed following the intervention of President Donald Trump’s administration. But the allegations also include state corruption charges against Adams’ former buildings commissioner, a series of guilty pleas involving straw donor schemes to the mayor’s campaign and other federal criminal investigations leading to the resignation of several high ranking administration officials.

Lewis-Martin was arraigned in criminal court in Manhattan Thursday morning and pleaded not guilty to four counts of conspiracy in the fourth degree, and four counts of bribe receiving in the second degree. Her lawyer downplayed the charges and specifically denied the accusation she received a $2,500 cash payment in exchange for fighting against a street safety redesign.

“Her only so-called ‘offense’ was fulfilling her duty—helping fellow citizens navigate the City’s outdated and often overwhelming bureaucracy. At no point did she receive a single dollar or any personal benefit for her assistance,” Arthur L. Aidala said in a statement.

“Yet, the District Attorney seeks to portray a dedicated and honest public servant as a criminal. This is not justice — it is a distortion of the truth and a troubling example of politically motivated ‘lawfare,’" Aidala added, saying Lewis-Martin will “vigorously fight these charges.”

Adams defended Lewis-Martin in a statement, and said he wouldn’t let the indictments distract him.

“I have not been accused of any wrongdoing, and my focus remains on serving the 8.5 million New Yorkers by making our city safer and more affordable every day,” Adams said. “While Ingrid Lewis-Martin no longer works for this administration, she has been a friend and colleague for over 40 years, and I know her as a devoted public servant; she has declared her innocence, and my prayers are with her and her family.”

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office alleges four different schemes.

Another longtime Adams ally Jesse Hamilton, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, is charged alongside Lewis-Martin in one case where the pair is accused of promoting real estate developer Yehiel Landau’s projects in exchange for more than $5,000 worth of renovations on homes owned by both city officials.

Hamilton resigned Thursday, DCAS Commissioner Louis Molina said in a statement, and noted that Hamilton never had independent authority to execute leases and he was subject to increased oversight.

In another case, Lewis-Martin is accused of steering city contracts providing housing for asylum seekers to a friend who owned a karaoke club. In return, prosecutors allege Tian Ji Li paid Martin’s son Glenn Martin II $50,000 and provided karaoke parties for Lewis-Martin.

“Whatever site TJ wants, I need him to get them,” Lewis-Martin texted Hamilton about Li, according to the indictment, “Because that’s our fucking people.”

In a third case, Lewis-Martin is accused of advocating against the city’s plans for a street redesign to help Gina and Tony Argento, leaders of a film production company who opposed the project. Gina Argento paid Lewis-Martin $2,500 for her help, prosecutors claim, provided free catering services to the city and helped Lewis-Martin secure a speaking role on the TV show “Godfather of Harlem.”

From her perch in City Hall, Lewis-Martin eagerly fought the redesign plan that had been chosen by the Department of Transportation. Prosecutors say she texted Gina Argento a flyer promoting the plan. “We do not care what they say,” Lewis-Martin wrote. “We are ignoring them and continuing with our plan. They can kiss my ass.”

And finally, Lewis-Martin is accused of helping expedite issues with the Department of Buildings for an unnamed friend in exchange for “free seafood … valued at almost $10,000” for various events at City Hall and the mayor’s residence in the spring and summer of 2024.

Along with Lewis-Martin, her son and Hamilton, the four business people were charged with conspiracy and bribery Thursday. All pleaded not guilty.

Judge Daniel Conviser expressed frustration trying to schedule the first appearance for the defendants across four cases. “I’m sorry, there’s like ten people, and I’ve got to have everybody here at one time and everybody’s got different schedules,” he said, predicting there would be “a massive amount of discovery.”

Lewis-Martin resigned from City Hall in December before being indicted on separate corruption charges to which she pleaded not guilty. She continued to volunteer for Adams’ reelection campaign despite that, playing the role of political adviser in which she served Adams for two decades.

Married to one of Adams’ friends from his time in the NYPD, Lewis-Martin helped Adams get elected to the state Senate in 2006, and the two of them masterminded a long-term plan to make him mayor — culminating in his 2021 election.

The indictments were unsealed just a day after another longtime Adams aide, Winnie Greco, gave a reporter from THE CITY cash stuffed in a potato chip bag in an apparent bribery attempt, the nonprofit news outlet reported. Greco has been mentored by Lewis-Martin and worked with her in City Hall until she resigned under pressure last October.

© Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Former President Barack Obama is supporting California’s mid-cycle redistricting effort as a “responsible approach” to Republicans drawing new maps in Texas.

Obama praised California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ballot measure proposal to redraw congressional districts and tilt at least five congressional districts in the state towards Democrats at a fundraiser on Tuesday for the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.

“I believe that Governor Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach,” he said, according to excerpts obtained by POLITICO. “I think that approach is a smart, measured approach, designed to address a very particular problem in a very particular moment in time.”

California Democrats are expected this week to allow voters to bypass an independent commission established by voters and decide whether to approve the new partisan maps for the next three election cycles in response to the Republican’s move in Texas.

Obama’s remarks comes as both parties in California gear up for what is expected to be a hard-fought campaign over the ballot initiative to redraw political boundaries in the state in response to President Donald Trump’s efforts to keep the House in Republican hands in the 2026 midterms.

The former president said redrawing the lines is “not my preference,” but that the Democratic-led effort in California is “responsible” in this context.

“We cannot unilaterally allow one of the two major parties to rig the game,” he said. “And California is one of the states that has the capacity to offset a large state like Texas.”

The Associated Press first reported Obama’s remarks.

Obama said he hopes that the NDRC and national Democrats will work to eliminate partisan gerrymandering as a “long-term goal,” but applauded Newsom’s response to the new Texas maps and Trump’s broader campaign to push other red states to draw new, more favorable maps.

“Given that Texas is taking direction from a partisan White House that is effectively saying: gerrymander for partisan purposes so we can maintain the House despite our unpopular policies, redistrict right in the middle of a decade between censuses — which is not how the system was designed; I have tremendous respect for how Governor Newsom has approached this,” he said.

Newsom thanked Obama for his support in a social media post and promised that California’s redistricting proposal will “neutralize any attempts Donald Trump makes to steal Congressional seats.”

💾

© Scott Olson/Getty Images

With an inescapable, smashmouth, all-caps-laden and meme-filled X account, California Gov. Gavin Newsom is holding a mirror up to MAGA — and MAGA doesn’t like what it sees.

There’s Newsom on Mount Rushmore. There’s Newsom getting prayed over by Tucker Carlson, Kid Rock and an angelic, winged Hulk Hogan. There’s Newsom posting in all caps, saying his mid-cycle redistricting proposal has led “MANY” people to call him “GAVIN CHRISTOPHER ‘COLUMBUS’ NEWSOM (BECAUSE OF THE MAPS!). THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.”

If this genre of social media post provokes deja vu, there's a good reason for that.

“He’s trying to mimic President Trump,” MAGA vanguard Steve Bannon tells POLITICO. “He’s no Trump, but if you look at the Democratic Party, he's at least getting up there, and he's trying to imitate a Trumpian vision of fighting, right? He looks like the only person in the Democratic Party who is organizing a fight that they feel they can win.”

For a decade, President Donald Trump has blazed trails online. And now, Newsom has found that by replicating Trump’s posts to the point of outright parody and trolling, he’s effectively gamed social media algorithms and colonized X’s typically right-coded “for you” tab.

In doing so, Newsom is not only getting on Republicans’ nerves, but also potentially redefining how Democrats function as the opposition party in the age of Trump.

Michelle Obama famously advised Democrats to live by a dictum: “When they go low, we go high.” Newsom has approached it a bit differently: When they go low, we go low, and — backed by lots of AI-generated slop — end up high in the algorithm.

"I’ve changed,” Newsom told Fox LA when asked about his new media approach in an interview that posted overnight. “The facts have changed; we [Democrats] need to change.”

Newsom’s MAGA-flavored posts have birthed an organic outburst of user-generated memes — not dissimilar to the dynamic Trump has inspired (and from which he has drawn over the years in posts on his @realDonaldTrump accounts). There’s Newsom riding a raptor into battle, a tattered Old Glory rippling in the wind behind him. There’s Newsom riding a different dinosaur while shirtless and sporting an eight-pack of abs, raising pistols in the air. (Newsom’s office tells POLITICO they don’t use AI to generate written content, though lean on it to create visuals.)

Newsom “isn’t just trolling MAGA; he’s proving to Democrats that stepping off your digital high horse and entering the fray is both messy and worth it,” says Stefan Smith, a digital strategist who was online engagement director on Pete Buttigieg’s 2020 campaign. “The man was political roadkill a few months ago but, with a shift in strategy, he’s become a cause célèbre of the Resistance 2.0. No doubt the rest of the 2028 shadow primary entrants are taking notes.”

In some ways, it’s like peering into the near future of what a post-literate presidential campaign might look like. (In case you have trouble imagining who might occupy such a race, look no further than the side-by-side post of Newsom and fellow meme lord Vice President JD Vance, which has been seen on X at least 54 million times.)

“Newsom has entered the digital dojo, and he’s performing the sort of memetic jujitsu that’s scaring Republican white belts unused to actual competition,” Smith tells POLITICO. “For too long, Democrats have been posted up in the parking lot, too afraid of getting it wrong to throw a jab. This should energize folks to get into the octagon.”

Voices on the right are noticing, too. “If I were his wife, I would say you are making a fool of yourself,” Fox News’ Dana Perino said, speaking of Newsom’s antics on X. “He's got a big job as governor of California, but if he wants an even bigger job, he has to be a little more serious.”

In private, staffers in Newsom’s press office smiled. Perino said nothing about the leader of the free world’s own social posting — the very thing Newsom is emulating.

“ALMOST A WEEK IN AND THEY STILL DON'T GET IT,” the account responded. The next morning, “Governor Newsom Press Office” again flickered to life. “FOX IS LOSING IT BECAUSE WHEN I TYPE, AMERICA NOW WINS!!!”

Perino responded to Newsom’s post during Tuesday’s episode of “The Five” on Fox News. “I thought they hated Trump, but they’re trying to be more like him and they have to pay people to do it. The thing is, what I was saying yesterday is that I believe that everybody needs to find their own way,” Perino said.

She continued, drawing a parallel to New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo. “If you think about Mamdani, his authenticity is what rocketed him to the top. And now you have Cuomo trying to copy him, and it’s just cringe. And that was my point. Is that if you’re doing this and it’s not authentic and you’re trying to do somebody else who you say is Hitler and you think that we don’t get the joke, oh no, we get the joke, it’s just not funny.”

Newsom’s press office says that Trump has used all-caps less in his own posts of late. White House communications director Steven Cheung is posting about the account, and recently said that Newsom is a “coward and Beta Cuck” for not fielding questions at a press conference. (He was, in fact, as a livestreamed video showed.) Newsom’s press office shot back: “Steven Cheung (incompetent Trump staffer) doesn’t know how to use his computer. SAD!” White House deputy press secretary Abigail Jackson called Newsom’s posts “weird and not at all funny.”

Newsom’s staff count these critiques as wins. In their minds, the Trump aides are, in an indirect way, critiquing their own boss when attacking Newsom’s tactics.

“I hope it’s a wake-up call for the president of the United States,” the California governor said recently, breaking character when asked about his X posts. “I’m sort of following his example. If you’ve got issues with what I’m putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he’s putting out as president. … I think the deeper question is how have we allowed the normalization of his tweets, Truth Social posts over the course of the last many years, to go without similar scrutiny and notice?”

Asked for a comment, the White House sent POLITICO an original meme, referencing a famous scene from the show “Mad Men.” (It is, to our knowledge, the first official White House press statement delivered exclusively in meme form.)

Added Abigail Jackson: “Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The “Governor Newsom Press Office” account has humble origins. The handle, @GovPressOffice, was created by aides to Jerry Brown — a man more given to Zen Buddhism than the fever swamps of the internet — and belongs to the California governor’s office. Because of that, just as Brown’s aides passed it off to Newsom in January 2019, Newsom will hand it off to his successor in January 2027; he won’t be able to take what he built with him when his term ends.

And what his team has built is substantial. As of this writing, the “Governor Newsom Press Office” account has 408,000 followers on X. Since the beginning of August, it has gained more than 250,000 followers and earned more than 225 million impressions, according to Newsom’s office.

Though some online observers speculated that Newsom digital director Camille Zapata primarily steers the effort, POLITICO has learned that the account is helmed by a team of four or five people — a sort of "brain rot" trust that includes Newsom communications director Izzy Gardon and rapid response director Brandon Richards. Newsom’s office declined to describe the governor’s level of involvement, but told POLITICO that he leads the effort.

No other prospective 2028 candidate — Democrat or Republican — is breaking through in the online attention economy like Newsom. And it’s not just his press office’s account: His campaign X account tops 2.4 million followers. On his campaign accounts alone, since 2025 began, Newsom has gained 2.96 million followers across TikTok, Instagram, X and Substack. All of that has earned him a billion-plus views and impressions, his team tells POLITICO.

Still, AI slop and dinosaur memes don’t vote in Democratic primaries. But Democrats who are way more offline — and who hail from far beyond the Golden State — are also noticing Newsom.

“I’ve heard a lot of people say how happy they are to see a Democrat fighting back,” says Jim Demers, a former New Hampshire state representative and member of Stand Up New Hampshire, a group organizing town halls in the early primary state. “There’s this feeling that Democrats are not fighting hard enough, and he's showing the fight people are looking for."

“People in the MAGA movement and the America First movement should start paying attention to this, because it’s not going to go away,” Bannon tells POLITICO. “They’re only going to get more intense.”

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

© Meg Kinnard/AP

Donald Trump’s political operation is considering primarying Indiana lawmakers who don’t embrace his mid-decade redistricting plans.

“They have a mountain of cash and even more motivation to win the redistricting wars Democrats started long ago,” a person familiar with the White House’s thinking told POLITICO.

The electoral threats are an escalation of a pressure campaign as Trump and his allies try to extract more GOP seats in Congress across the country. Indiana has been a top target of those efforts, but resistance among some rank-and-file officials has grown as a number of state lawmakers have publicly opposed those efforts in recent days.

“Politics is a team sport, and they prefer to do things with the team … but if Republicans refuse to play team ball, they will very likely begin to focus on upgrading players,” said the person, who was granted anonymity to discuss private operational plans.

The comments came as Indiana House Republicans were preparing to convene for an afternoon caucus Monday to discuss redistricting. Lawmakers have already been targeted by robocalls and text messages from a mysterious group called Forward America. There is little public information about the group and its aggressive voter outreach campaign; a POLITICO reporter who lives in Indiana has received about two dozen calls and messages in recent days.

A number of Indiana lawmakers are planning a pilgrimage to the White House later this month, responding to an invitation extended prior to Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the state to talk redistricting.

“This doesn’t get any easier for Hoosier Republicans who oppose Trump on this issue,” said an Indiana Republican who supports the redistricting push. The Indiana Republican was granted anonymity to speak openly about a sensitive intraparty issue.

The threats of primaries are the latest signal that Trump’s political shop intends to amp up the redistricting arms race as Texas lawmakers move forward this week with passing a map creating five new GOP seats in Congress. It also shows they are eager to clamp down on any discomfort within the party over creating new maps ahead of the 2030 Census.

Turning Point USA CEO Charlie Kirk said on X Monday that “We will support primary opponents for Republicans in the Indiana State Legislature who refuse to support the team and redraw the maps. I’ve heard from grassroots across the country and they want elected Republicans to stand up and fight for them. It’s time for Republicans to be TOUGH.”

The pressure on Indiana lawmakers comes as Texas is moving forward with a redraw of its congressional map at the request of Trump — and California is crafting its own retaliation.

On Monday, dozens of Texas Democrats returned to Austin after protesting redistricting by remaining out-of-state for two weeks, denying Republicans the ability to conduct legislative business. As Texas Republicans are back on path to passing their new, more aggressive gerrymander, national Republicans have turned their attention to other states like Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

A spokesperson for the Indiana House Republican Caucus did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The White House also did not respond to a request for comment.

© Michael Conroy/AP

Republicans have a warning for their base: If you let Democrats retake the House, they’ll impeach Donald Trump again.

“Democrats would vote to impeach (Trump) on their first day,” Speaker Mike Johnson claimed in an interview with the Shreveport Times this month. Conservative columnist Bryon York warned Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to redistrict California was a veiled threat to "end the Trump presidency by using the constitutional procedure to end presidencies — impeachment.” And the National Republican Congressional Committee recently unleashed a digital ad framing the stakes of the midterms this way: Democrats' “Project 2026” agenda is to "impeach President Trump."

As the GOP is girding for potentially tough midterms battles, it sees the spectre of impeachment as a reason for conservative-leaning voters to come to the polls in a year when Trump is not on the ballot.

But so far, at least, Democrats seem wary of even talking about it. In conversations with roughly a dozen Democratic strategists and elected officials, there is little consensus about the party's strategy on impeachment. Many warned against focusing on it.

“We should never, at least in the near future, use the ‘I’ word,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.). “One of the things we learned is that articles of impeachment are also articles of recruitment for Trump.”

Trump survived removal efforts and found his way back into power, even though Democrats said he was a threat to democracy. If anything, impeachment and his legal troubles before returning to office resulted in a fundraising boon for Trump.

House Democratic leaders appear vexed at the prospect of making a third run at removing Trump from office after previous attempts ended in acquittals in the Senate. With the party needing only a handful of seats to take back the majority in the House, it is not clear the broader electorate is clamoring for another impeachment fight.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' office declined to comment for this story. But a person close to House leadership, granted anonymity to discuss campaign strategy, blasted Republicans for going into “full fear mode” about the midterm elections.

“There will be some emotional members who want to grab headlines with impeachment, however [House Democratic] leadership has thus far shown that it’s not a tool in our box” to hold Trump accountable, the person added, with House Democrats blocking attempts by some members to impeach him.

“Of course impeachment is a tool of the Congress that should always be available and appropriate,” said Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), who also chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus. “But right now, I think we're in a stage where we're trying to try this case out in the court of public opinion before we do anything else.”

Even outside groups that were leading agitators for Democrats to launch impeachment efforts during Trump’s first term seem reluctant to deploy that same strategy again.

“Impeachment is good, but it’s a symbolic act. It’s not enough,” said Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible.

So far this year, House Democrats have doomed efforts by their own caucus members to impeach Trump, including a majority of the caucus joining House Republicans to kill an impeachment push from Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) over Iran airstrikes in June. House leadership successfully dissuaded Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) from moving forward with another article of impeachment stemming from Trump’s push to annex Greenland and on tariffs.

Green plans to keep trying.

“I will not stop and I promise you this president is going to be brought down. He’s got to be brought down,” Green said during a press conference this month in suburban Chicago. Speaking alongside several Democrats from the Texas legislature that left the state to prevent a quorum in Austin to pass the new Texas maps, Green vowed: “He will be impeached again.”

For now, Green is considered an outlier among the caucus, but he was in 2018, too.

Back then, House Democrats, led by then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, were initially uneasy about leaning fully into impeachment talks heading into the midterms. But the burgeoning blue wave that helped Democrats take back the House was propelled by a broader message from the party's base, who harnessed anti-Trump sentiment promising to hold Trump to account.

Just two weeks after Trump was inaugurated in 2017, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said her “greatest desire is to lead him right into impeachment,” and she continued to call for his impeachment. Four articles of impeachment were introduced in that Congress, by Reps. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and Green of Texas on a range of offenses ranging from obstructing investigation by firing then-FBI Director James Comey, violations of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution and a pair of articles citing Trump's use of “racially inflammatory statements.”

By 2019, about a week after being sworn in, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) revved up an anti-Trump audience proclaiming, “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!”

While many of these key figures from past impeachments are still in Washington, the politics of impeachment have changed. Democrats have struggled to craft a coherent message and maintain a sustained fight against Trump and his Republican allies.

Many Democrats see it as a fool's errand to go down that path again.

“Absolutely not. It is bananas to even think about it,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way.

His organization has been trying to warn Democrats against engaging in maneuvers that make them look weak compared to Trump’s aggressive dismantling of federal government and political norms. Impeachment would be a “Trump dream,” he said, that plays into the president’s political strengths.

Some frontline Democrats aren’t running away from impeachment, but they caution that more energy needs to be spent convincing voters Democrats have an agenda worth supporting.

“Impeachment is simply one tool in the tool belt of opportunities to hold the other branch to account,” said Rep. Janelle Bynum, one of incumbent House members Democrats are preparing to defend in next year’s midterms.

There are other tactics Democrats should deploy, according to Levin of Indivisible: “We want hearings, investigations, subpoenas, testimonies, oversight. Trump isn’t the only or even the most important target here — collaborators, capitulators, and enablers should know what’s coming.”

For some, that includes going after those in the president’s orbit who are ramping up pressure campaigns on elected officials in red-leaning states like Texas, Indiana, and Missouri to take up off-year redistricting to create more winnable districts for Republicans to maintain control of the House.

As both parties become entrenched in redistricting battles, some GOP operatives fear it may muddle the party’s ability to elevate a third Trump impeachment as top issue in the midterms.

Republicans worry that without control of the House, Trump’s agenda will grind to a halt. Even with their slim control of both chambers of Congress, Republicans have had difficulty passing much legislation. Trump’s signature tax law was passed through a special reconciliation process requiring a simple majority of both chambers to pass.

If Democrats get power back, Republicans warn, they’ll be looking to wield it.

"If Hakeem Jeffries and Democrats get the majority, day one they're going to pass articles of impeachment," said Indiana Republican strategist Pete Seat, pointing to calls from the Democratic base to push back against Trump."How could they not?"

Shia Kapos contributed to this report.

© Francis Chung/POLITICO

Texas Democrats who left the state to stymie Republicans over redistricting have returned to Austin, ending a two-week standoff over President Donald Trump's plan to carve out five new GOP congressional seats.

Their return to the state means the Texas House now has the sufficient number of legislators needed to pass a new map benefiting the GOP. Democrats had used the gambit to stall legislative business and bring national attention to Republicans’ decision to pursue off-cycle redistricting ahead of the midterms.

In a statement, the Texas House Democratic Caucus said that members returned on Monday morning “to launch the next phase in their fight against the racist gerrymander that provoked a weeks-long standoff with Governor [Greg] Abbott and President Trump.”

The drama in Texas set off a national redistricting battle, most prominently with California Gov. Gavin Newsom vowing to retaliate against Texas Republicans by extracting an equal number of Democratic-leaning districts from California’s congressional map. Trump has also been pushing to take his redistricting plan to other Republican-led states, like Indiana and Missouri.

After Democrats returned to the state capitol, the House gaveled into session Monday afternoon with enough members to make quorum and conduct official business for the first time in weeks. The map and other legislation now heads to committees before the session resumes Wednesday.

That prompted one more public show of force from the GOP: House Speaker Dustin Burrows on Monday assigned state law enforcement officers to escort the returned Democrats over the next two days, ensuring they come back to Austin on Wednesday. Texas Republican leaders had previously authorized Department of Public Safety officers to canvass the state and stationed them outside lawmakers' homes while they were outside the state.

Texas Democrats debated how long to stay away from the state, but ultimately laid out two conditions for their return: that the legislature end its first special session and that California lawmakers introduce their own map granting Democrats five more seats to counter Texas. Both of those occurred on Friday, prompting the Texas lawmakers to start returning home.

By breaking quorum, the members racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. It also set off a legal fight brought by Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sought to remove some of the Democrats from office.

Aid for Central Texas flood victims was held up by the standoff. Republicans put redistricting first on the legislative calendar, ahead of disaster relief considerations — a move that Democrats called out as irresponsible. The GOP, in response, argued that Democrats were delaying that relief by remaining out of state.

Abbott had promised to continue calling special sessions after the first one ended, beginning with a second one that began on Friday — a move that added to the pressure he and other GOP leaders exerted on Democrats to end their protest.

© Nam Y. Huh/AP

The Democratic National Committee has fallen far behind in the cash race.

After a brutal 2024 election and several months into rebuilding efforts under new party leadership, the DNC wildly trails the Republican National Committee by nearly every fundraising metric. By the end of June, the RNC had $80 million on hand, compared to $15 million for the DNC.

And the gap — nearly twice as large as it was at this stage in Donald Trump’s first presidency — has only grown in recent months, a POLITICO analysis of campaign finance data found, fueled by several distinct factors.

Major Democratic donors have withheld money this year amid skepticism about the party’s direction, while the small-dollar donors who have long been a source of strength are not growing nearly enough to make up the gap. And the party has quickly churned through what money it has raised in the first half of the year, including spending more than $15 million this year to pay off lingering expenses from Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign.

The DNC has less cash this summer than it did at any point in the last five years.

“I understand that donors want some kind of a reckoning,” said Steve Schale, a Florida-based Democratic strategist. “But I also think that the kind of state party building that I think [DNC Chair] Ken [Martin] wants to do at the DNC is really vital to our success. And so I hope people kind of get over themselves pretty quick.”

The fundraising troubles reflect ongoing questions about the DNC’s direction under Martin, who was elected earlier this year, and comes as the DNC has faced months of bitter infighting. Continued cash shortages could limit the party’s ability to rebuild for a new cycle. And the DNC’s money woes stand in particularly stark contrast to Republicans, who have leveraged President Donald Trump’s fundraising prowess to raise record sums.

“Chair Martin and the DNC have raised more than twice what he had raised at this point in 2017, and our success in cycles thereafter is well documented. Under Ken, grassroots support is strong,” former DNC Executive Director Sam Cornale said in a statement. “It’s now time for everyone to get off the sidelines and join the fight. Rebuilding a party is hard — rebuilding relationships and programs take time and will require all hands on deck to meet this moment.”

The DNC’s money woes stand out among major Democratic groups, POLITICO’s analysis found: Democrats’ House and Senate campaign arms are near financial parity with their Republican counterparts, and several major donors who have withheld funds from the DNC are still giving to those groups.

“Donors see the DNC as rudderless, off message and leaderless. Those are the buzzwords I keep hearing over and over again,” said one Democratic donor adviser, granted anonymity to speak candidly about donors’ approach.

The DNC, on the other hand, touts Democrats’ success in state and local elections this year as proof the party’s investments are paying off. The group also began transferring more funds to state parties this year, and argues it is better-positioned financially than it was at this time in 2017, when it also significantly trailed the Trump-powered RNC.

Some Democrats attribute the slowdown among donors primarily to the need for a break after 2024, and the challenges of being the party out of power. Large donors would rather bump elbows with high-profile figures like a president or House speaker; Democrats cannot put on those kinds of fundraising events right now. The DNC also struggled for cash during Trump’s first presidential term, and that did not stop Democrats from taking back the House in 2018, or winning the presidency in 2020.

Still, the longer the DNC struggles to build up cash, the harder it will be to close that gap heading into the 2026 midterms and beyond. And the fact that other party committees are not seeing the same financial struggles puts more responsibility on Martin and his team to figure out a way to right the ship.

“Obviously, the sooner the DNC and other Democratic-aligned groups can get investment, the better. It’s better for long-term programs on the ground, it’s better to communicate our message early on,” said Maria Cardona, a DNC member and Democratic strategist. “However, I think you're going to see donors coming into those things because they are starting to see Democrats fighting back, and that’s what they want.”

Just 47 donors gave the maximum contribution to the DNC in the first half of the year, according to the POLITICO analysis of the party’s filings with the Federal Election Commission. Over the same period in 2021, more than 130 donors gave a maximum contribution. (In 2017, when the party was similarly struggling with large donors, the figure was 37.)

That means dozens of the DNC’s biggest donors from early last cycle have not yet given to it this year — accounting for several million dollars the party group has missed out on this time.

Many of those biggest donors have continued to contribute to other Democratic groups and candidates, indicating they are still aligned with the party and willing to dole out cash — though often not as much, and not to the DNC.

In the run-up to the DNC chair election earlier this year, several large donors publicly preferred Ben Wikler, the Wisconsin Democratic Party chair, to Martin, who long served as the leader of Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party and also led the Association of State Democratic Parties.

“If Ken [Martin] really wanted to impress donors, he’d go do 20 or 30 salon events with donors and let them yell at him,” said the Democratic donor adviser. “If you take that on the chin, make some changes, then I think we could see some movement. But [he’s] not going to do that.”

With large donors lagging, the DNC has touted record grassroots fundraising from online donors. On ActBlue, the primary Democratic online fundraising platform, the group raised $33.8 million over the first six months of the year, up from $27 million over the same time in 2021.

But the total number of online donors was roughly the same in both periods — suggesting online donors are giving more than they were four years ago, but the group’s donor base has not expanded substantially.

Most DNC donors this year were contributors to Harris’ campaign or the DNC last cycle, according to the POLITICO analysis. Another 14 percent of donors had no record of donations on ActBlue last cycle, suggesting the DNC is finding new small donors — but not nearly fast enough to make up for the drop-off among large donors.

In fact, the rate of online giving to the DNC has slowed in recent months. The party’s best online fundraising month was March, when it raised $8.6 million on ActBlue from 254,000 donors; in June, the party raised $4.1 million on the platform from 157,000 donors.

And reaching those online donors comes at a cost: The DNC has spent $5.7 million on online fundraising this year, according to its FEC filings. On Meta, which includes Facebook and Instagram, it is one of the largest political spenders this year, according to the platform’s data. The total spent on fundraising expenses so far is nearly as much as the DNC has sent to state parties this year.

Another set of major expenses also stands out for draining the DNC’s coffers: continuing to pay off expenses from Harris’ failed 2024 presidential bid.

Her campaign ended last year’s election with roughly $20 million in unpaid expenses, according to people familiar with its finances, although none of Harris’ campaign committees or affiliates ever officially reported debt. The DNC has spent $15.8 million total on coordinated expenses with the Harris campaign this year, including $1.3 million in June. A party spokesperson declined to comment on future campaign-related payments.

Elena Schneider contributed to this report.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this report misstated Sam Cornale’s title. He is the former executive director of the DNC.

© Rod Lamkey, Jr./AP