Politics Desk

For just $95, the acquisitive President Trump could have a replica of the iconic “The Buck Stops Here” sign that sat atop President Truman’s Oval Office desk, gift-boxed from the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum Store. But this gewgaw isn’t gold; it’s wood. And yet that’s not the reason it wouldn’t be at home on Trump’s desktop.

Here’s why: As far as Trump is concerned, the buck never stops with him.

That’s never been more evident than this month, in the president’s fly-above-it-all attitude toward his administration’s armed occupation of Minneapolis. Ostensibly a campaign against immigrants who lack legal status, the occupation has (at this writing) killed two U.S. citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights to protest the anti-constitutional brutality of federal agents.

Trump couldn’t even be bothered to postpone his black-tie White House screening of Amazon’s $75-million gift documentary of his wife, “Melania,” on Saturday, just hours after 37-year-old VA nurse Alex Pretti died and as Minneapolis seethed. When the president did interject, he mostly just escalated tensions. Again.

After the earlier killing of Renee Good, Trump posted to Minnesotans: “The day of reckoning and retribution is coming!” and deployed an additional 1,000 armed, masked agents for a total of 3,000. Further mayhem was widely predicted. And on Saturday, after at least two of those agents pumped 10 shots point-blank at Pretti while he was pinned down, Trump’s first reaction was this escalatory, blame-the-victim post over a photo: “This is the gunman’s gun, loaded (with two additional full magazines!), and ready to go.”

Got that? According to the president, Pretti was the gunman in what I and many other Americans saw as his murder by Trump’s militia. The buck, and the bullets, stopped with Pretti.

Trump continued to blame the victim for days, including on Tuesday in Iowa, by repeatedly contending (over the angry opposition of his pals in the gun lobby) that Pretti “shouldn’t have been carrying a gun.” It was a holstered handgun that Pretti legally owned and carried, which he never “brandished” as the feds claimed and which was taken from him before he was shot.

Not once in the year since he loosed this militant deportation campaign in U.S. cities has Trump openly questioned the lawless tactics. Since Pretti’s killing, the president hasn’t publicly upbraided his Department of Homeland Security or his most senior advisors — Stephen Miller, the White House architect of Trump’s anti-immigrant policies; Kristi Noem, his puppy-killing Homeland Security secretary; and Gregory Bovino, his cruelly performative (former) Border Patrol commander in Minneapolis (after Los Angeles, Chicago and New Orleans) — for their immediate and repeated slanders of Pretti as a “domestic terrorist” and “an assassin” who aimed to “massacre law enforcement.”

Those were all lies, as the world soon saw thanks to the courageous protesters on the scene documenting the agents’ lawlessness with cellphone cameras. And now, even some (few) Republicans in Congress are assailing Noem, Miller and Bovino, calling for their resignation, firing or, in Noem’s case, impeachment.

Enough, however, with the focus on Noem, Miller, Bovino or others of Trump’s “best.” It’s good that Republicans are finally rousing to object to administration actions. But they should quit cloaking their complaints in language that absolves the boss. These Republicans would have us believe that Trump is faultless, ill-served and misled by his advisors.

Among the foremost modelers of this behavior is Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who grew a bit of spine in the summer after he announced that he wouldn’t seek reelection. Yet he still blames everyone around Trump, not Trump himself.

What Noem has done in Minnesota “should be disqualifying,” Tillis told reporters Tuesday. “It’s making the president look bad.” Later, he ranted about both Noem and Miller, lamenting that immigration used to be Trump’s and Republicans’ best issue until that duo “destroyed it through their incompetence.” Last week, he blamed Miller for “getting the president in a difficult circumstance” over Greenland, as if it wasn’t Trump himself who insanely demanded that Denmark and NATO allies hand over the island protectorate to the United States — because it’s “psychologically important for me.”

This is Trump’s paramilitary force at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol. These advisors are his hires at the White House and in the Cabinet. And these are his policies.

The president is consistently the arsonist who attempts to take credit for putting out his own fires (like last week’s conflagration at Davos over Greenland) when they get out of control. Which is to say, when poll after poll confirms both the policies’ and Trump’s growing unpopularity.

Forget that he won’t accept the buck: It still should stop with him.

As Noem insisted in a statement to Axios on Tuesday: “Everything I’ve done, I’ve done at the direction of the president and Stephen [Miller].”

She and Bovino, heretofore so fond of cosplaying in getups that scream “I’m tough,” are now wearing tire tracks. With Trump’s dispatch of border advisor Tom Homan to Minneapolis, they’ve essentially been designated as scapegoats for the tragedies in Minnesota. But not Miller: “The president loves Stephen,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios.

Of course he does. Miller is Trump’s Mini-Me. Which brings us back to: Blame Trump.

The imperative to hold Trump accountable is why I’m cool to calls to impeach Noem. Democrats seeking her removal include House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and they’re joined by a few Republicans. It feels good to say it, and such calls are fine as a message of disgust, especially in a midterm election year. But Congress is Republican-controlled, remember, which is to say Trump-controlled.

For the same reason, Trump himself is insured — for now — against impeachment. But as he’s acknowledged, if Democrats take control after November, that would probably change. Forget that the Senate probably wouldn’t convict him, just as it declined to do twice after his impeachments in his first term. But at least, come 2027, he could be forced to take the buck.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

Although the two dominant political parties–Republican and Democratic–get most of the attention and their candidates win most offices, there are four other ballot-qualified parties in California: American Independent, Green, Libertarian, and Peace and Freedom. Buoyed by a surge in voter disaffection and disgust with the political status quo, the minor parties are fielding candidates in a number of major California races. Yet victory is likely to remain elusive: The combined voter registration of the four parties totals only 450,000. Most often, these parties enter races not so much to win as to force the discussion of certain issues that they feel might otherwise be ignored. Here is a look at the parties and the issues they stand for. All but the Green Party have entered candidates in the U.S. Senate races, and those candidates are also listed here. Candidates in other races are listed on Pages 6, 7 and 8.

AMERICAN INDEPENDENT:

Origins: Supporters of former Alabama Gov. George C. Wallace’s 1968 presidential bid formed this party. Today, it disavows the racism once associated with Wallace but promotes fiscal conservatism and a generally right-wing agenda. The party is loosely Loosely affiliated with the U.S. Taxpayers Party elsewhere in the nation. But it is not related, as some mistakenly believe, to businessman Ross Perot’s independent presidential candidacy.

Membership: 217,197 registered voters (1.54% of state’s total registration).

Issues: The party wants to reduce government spending across the board, including cuts in the military budget. It would terminate all foreign aid. American Independent candidates want to eliminate the federal income tax and the Internal Revenue Service. They would repeal many environmental and other government regulations and impose term limits for elected officials. They advocate removing the federal role in schools. They favor the death penalty and would outlaw abortion.

U.S. Senate candidates: Marketing consultant Paul Meeuwenberg for the two-year seat, Castroville businessman Jerome McCready for the six-year seat.

GREEN:

Origins: The newest of California’s alternative parties, the Greens were certified as an official party in January after a registration drive that targeted environmental rallies, anti-Gulf War marches and rock ‘n’ roll concerts. Members include environmentalists, feminists and peace activists, among others. Despite the party’s fledgling status, members have already won about a dozen nonpartisan local offices across the state. Sixteen Greens are running for seats in the Congress and the Legislature this fall , most of them in Southern California. Most members live in the San Francisco Bay Area The party is patterned after the European Green parties but there are no financial ties.

Membership: 95,116 registered voters (0.67% of total).

Issues: The Greens favor strong environmental protection, or “ecological wisdom.” The party would like to see deep defense cuts, with the “peace dividend” going to education and other domestic programs. The party favors abortion rights, nonviolence and community-based economics. It also advocates vegetarian meals in schools and jails.

U.S. Senate candidates: None.

PEACE AND FREEDOM:

Origins: The party grew out of the anti-war movement of the 1960s, first qualifying for the ballot in California in 1968. Party membership began to wane after the Vietnam War but it is making a small comeback as the party broadens its platform to include a variety of liberal and socialist issues. Still largely a California party.

Membership: 68,182 registered voters (0.48% of total).

Issues: The party promotes multiracial harmony and the righting of racial inequities as a prerequisite for bringing the national economy back to life. It advocates huge cuts in defense spending and the conversion of the nation’s defense industry to civilian business. The party also favors redistribution of the wealth, achieved through taxing the rich and raising the minimum wage.

U.S. Senate candidates: Gerald Horne, professor of history and chairman of the black studies department at UC Santa Barbara, running for the two-year seat. Genevieve Torres, a cancer researcher, is listed on the ballot as the party’s candidate for the six-year seat, but because of internal disputes, many in the party have distanced themselves from her campaign.

LIBERTARIAN:

Origins: On the ballot in all 50 states, the Libertarian Party was founded in 1971 in Colorado. It promotes a synthesis of social Darwinism, individualism and laissez-faire economics. The party is fielding 100 candidates in congressional and local races in California.

Membership: 66,994 registered voters (0.47% of total).

Issues: The Libertarian Party stands for a hands-off style of government and the defense of personal liberties. Libertarian candidates believe in putting a cap on federal spending, reducing defense spending and eliminating foreign aid. They would phase out federal subsidies to businesses and to state and local governments. They support a voucher system in schools and would eliminate the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency and most government offices. Because they believe in limited government, Libertarian candidates advocate legalization of drugs, prostitution and gambling.

U.S. Senate candidates: Self-described entrepreneur and motivational speaker Richard Boddie for the two-year seat; computer programmer June Genis for the six-year term.

A Los Angeles County judge ruled Wednesday that a corruption case against L.A. City Councilman Curren Price can move forward to trial, ensuring the misconduct scandal will hang over the veteran politician’s final year in office.

L.A. County Superior Court Judge Shelly Torrealba determined that prosecutors had provided enough evidence to move forward on four counts of voting on matters in which Price had a conflict of interest, four counts of embezzlement and four counts of perjury.

Price, who is set to leave the City Council after reaching his term limit at the end of the year, declined to comment after the hearing.

The councilman, who has represented South L.A. for more than a decade, was charged in June 2023. Prosecutors allege Price repeatedly voted to approve sales of land to developers or funding for agencies who had done business with his wife, Del Richardson, and her consulting company. Some of the votes involved funding and grants for the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the city housing authority.

Price, 75, is also accused of perjury for failing to include Richardson’s income on disclosure forms and embezzlement for including her on his city health insurance plan before they were legally married. He is due back in court in March, Torrealba said.

Richardson was named as a “suspect” in the district attorney’s office’s initial investigation in 2022, according to documents made public last year, but she was never charged with a crime. She has been among a group of Price’s supporters who have been in court for the past week. The two wore matching burgundy suits during Wednesday’s hearing.

Much of the weeklong proceeding centered around whether Price knew of potential conflicts of interest before casting votes, or intended to hide his financial stakes in them from the public. Delphi Smith, a former staffer for the councilman, and Price’s deputy chief of staff Maritza Alcaraz took the stand to explain the process they used to flag problematic council votes for Price and insisted they made their best efforts to highlight agenda items linked to vendors or agencies who had worked with Richardson.

“If the Councilman voted on something that was a potential conflict, he did so without knowing,” Alcaraz testified Wednesday.

L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Casey Higgins, however, said Price is ultimately responsible for disclosing conflicts of interest and argued blaming his subordinates was not a defense to corruption charges.

“It’s not only hiding. It’s trying to create a wall around himself, to create this plausible deniability,” Higgins said. “It’s this ostrich with his head in the sand approach.”

Higgins said Alcaraz and Smith were “trying to jump in front of the bus” and that it was impossible to believe that Price had no knowledge of the conflicts. The dealings allegedly took place between 2019 and 2021 — after a 2019 Times investigation revealed he voted on decisions involving at least 10 companies in the same years they were listed as providing at least $10,000 in income to Richardson’s firm.

Price’s defense attorney, Michael Schafler, has argued there is no evidence that Price knew of the conflicts, and claimed payments to Richardson had no influence on Price’s voting decisions. All of the votes referenced in the criminal complaint passed with overwhelming support, and Price’s vote made no difference in the final result.

“There’s been no evidence presented that Mr. Price acted with any wrongful intent. No testimony from any witness … who said Mr. Price acted with willful intent,” Schafler said Wednesday. “I’ve never seen a public corruption case like that in my life.”

There were enormous sums of money on the line in each vote referenced in the criminal complaint. Richardson took in more than a half-million from October 2019 to June 2020 from the city housing authority before Price voted in favor of millions in grant funding for the agency, according to an amended complaint filed against Price last year.

Prosecutors also alleged Price wrote a motion to give $30 million to the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation Authority during a time frame when Richardson was paid upward of $200,000 by the agency.

After Torrealba’s ruling, Schafler said he was “disappointed” but thought the evidence presented over the past week revealed that “the prosecution’s case has a lot of gaps, a lot of holes, it’s based largely on speculation.”

Some of Price’s City Council colleagues have said Price’s alleged crimes were tantamount to paperwork errors, and should have been handled by the city’s Ethics Commission.

While questioning former employees of Price and Richardson, Higgins sought to paint a more nefarious picture. He repeatedly scrutinized the way that Price’s staff and a former employee of Del Richardson & Associates compiled a list of the firm’s projects that could represent conflicts and communicated about them.

Much of the conflict information was placed on a flash drive and given to Smith in person by Martisa Garcia, an employee of Richardson, Higgins said. Updates to the file were then made over the phone, and not discussed via e-mail, according to Higgins. When Smith and Alcaraz discussed votes in which Price might have to recuse himself, they did so on personal phones rather than city-issued devices, according to evidence Higgins put forth.

Higgins suggested Price’s staff was trying to hide the conflicts of interest.

“Was the thumb drive used to avoid public records requests?” Higgins asked Alcaraz, who curtly replied “No.”

Generally speaking, California Public Records Act requests for an elected official’s communications will only capture what is contained on government devices, not personal phones or e-mails. A spokeswoman for Price, Angelina Valenica, said there was no “intent to avoid PRA requirements” on the part of Price’s staff.

“The Councilmember was not involved in the handling, transport or storage of this information,” she said. “He relied on and trusted his staff to handle the matter appropriately and to seek guidance as necessary.”

While it’s unlikely Price will stand trial before his term runs out, the case could loom large over the race to replace him. A field of seven candidates is running for his council seat, including Price’s deputy chief of staff, Jose Ugarte, who has faced allegations that he failed to disclose consulting income that are similar to the basis of the perjury charges against his boss.

Chris Martin, a candidate and civil rights attorney with Black Lives Matter Los Angeles, said Wednesday that if the allegations are true, Price and his staff need to step down.

“It’s a serious breach of public trust. It’s important that we have leaders in the 9th District who will walk with integrity,” Martin said. “It also seems like he’s got a major issue with his staff enabling him. They should all resign.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush, in a surprise announcement, disclosed Friday that he will seek a $500-million increase in government funding next year for Head Start, a 25-year-old program intended to help disadvantaged youngsters prepare for elementary school.

Bush said the proposed 36% jump in federal spending is intended to expand the program–one of the few remaining elements of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty–so it can reach 70% of the disadvantaged 4-year-olds in the nation.

Elsewhere in the draft $1.23-trillion federal budget for the fiscal year that begins next Oct. 1, Bush is expected to propose $37 billion in spending cuts and revenue increases to meet a congressionally mandated deficit-reduction target of $64 billion next year.

The budget–Bush’s first full-scale statement of his priorities for the federal government–will include a renewed call for a lower capital gains tax rate, tax credits for adoptions and for child care, and a proposed “family savings account” that would allow people to accumulate tax-free earnings on up to $5,000 put away each year.

Although the package contains no general tax hikes, it is expected to include as much as $12 billion in various revenue increases that would take money out of people’s pockets, including $5 billion in proposed user fees.

The plan calls for further cuts in Pentagon spending after adjusting for inflation, but Congress is expected to demand even deeper savings. Bush’s spending blueprint will call for modest savings of about $3.8 billion from holding defense outlays to $292 billion next year, compared to the $286 billion total for this fiscal year.

Deputy Defense Secretary Donald J. Atwood, who briefed congressional staff members Friday, called the Pentagon’s budget request “realistic” and said its efforts to scale back its budget in the next five years deserve support.

In tentative spending plans for the next five years, the Pentagon has proposed to reduce its budget by 2% annually after accounting for inflation, which would allow only a gradual rise from $292 billion next year to $311.8 billion in fiscal 1995.

Congressional sources said that Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had slated a long list of relatively small weapons and ordnance programs for termination. None of the Pentagon’s most costly programs, including the B-2 Stealth bomber–for which $5.5 billion will be sought in 1991–were killed or scaled back significantly.

Cheney is certain to raise hackles on Capitol Hill with decisions not to seek additional funds for production or development of the Marine Corps’ V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft and the Navy F-14 fighter jet. The Pentagon last year proposed to terminate both programs, prompting angry lawmakers to restore some funds to keep the programs alive.

The budget also contains about $5 billion in proposed Medicare savings, along with another $2.5 billion from yet another Administration attempt to require state and local workers to pay for Medicare coverage.

Altogether, about 18 or 19 programs would be terminated.

On the other side of the ledger, Bush is expected to call for increased spending on the environment, particularly a stepped-up program to combat global warming, and a boost in spending on space, drug enforcement and treatment, and AIDS research and prevention.

The overall education budget would rise by $500 million, but not enough to keep up with inflation. As a result, some college students would lose their eligibility for Pell Grants, and others would be required to accept smaller stipends.

The 1,592-page budget document was in its final press run on Friday, said Donna Alexander, a spokeswoman for the Government Printing Office. Some 24,000 of the blue-jacketed documents are being printed, and they will go on sale Monday at government book shops for $38 each.

Bush, his aides, and other government officials have carefully disclosed most of the key elements on his agenda this year. He will be free in the State of the Union address Wednesday evening to focus on the overall direction he would like to see the country take this year, rather than having to present a “laundry list” of problems and programs.

In disclosing the Head Start funding proposal to an audience of adopted children and parents taking part in a White House program on adoption, Bush said he would seek “the largest increase ever–half a billion additional dollars–for Head Start.”

“This new funding will increase the Head Start enrollment to 667,000 children and bring us to the point where we can reach 70% of this nation’s disadvantaged 4-year-olds through Head Start,” he said.

Bush said “every American child with special needs, whether physical, emotional, or material, deserves the opportunity for a full and happy life.”

The increase is approximately 10 times as big as the additional amount sought for the program by the Department of Health and Human Services, White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater said.

The President’s announcement surprised advocates of assistance for children and Democratic politicians, with one Democratic political adviser remarking: “That’s smart politics.”

Bush, who said frequently during the 1988 political campaign that he wanted to become the “education” President, had come under increasing pressure to move toward that goal by increasing federal funding for a variety of education programs.

Such pressure emerged at the meeting Bush led at the University of Virginia last September, where he conferred with the nation’s governors on education needs across the country. Fitzwater said the Head Start proposal stemmed directly from that conference.

The Head Start program grew steadily during the Ronald Reagan Administration from about $800 million in 1981 to about $1.2 billion when he left office. In 1990, the Head Start program is receiving $1.386 billion. It provides early educational skills, health care and social counseling for preschool children from families living at or below the poverty level. Staff writer Melissa Healy contributed to this story.

A third round of “No Kings” protests is coming this spring, with organizers saying they are planning their largest demonstrations yet across the United States to oppose what they describe as authoritarianism under President Trump.

Previous rallies have drawn millions of people, and organizers said they expect even greater numbers on March 28 in the wake of Trump’s immigration crackdown in Minneapolis, where violent clashes have led to the death of two people.

“We expect this to be the largest protest in American history,” Ezra Levin, co-executive director of the nonprofit Indivisible, told The Associated Press ahead of Wednesday’s announcement. He predicted that as many as 9 million people will turn out.

“No Kings” protests, which are organized by a constellation of groups around the country, have been a focal point for outrage over Trump’s attempts to consolidate and expand his power.

“This is in large part a response to a combination of the heinous attacks on our democracy and communities coming from the regime, and a sense that nobody’s coming to save us,” Levin said.

Last year, Trump said he felt attendees were “not representative of the people of our country,” and he insisted that “I’m not a king.”

‘No Kings’ shifts focus after Minneapolis deaths

The latest round of protests had been in the works before the crackdown in Minneapolis. However, the killing of two people by federal agents in recent weeks has refocused plans.

Levin said they want to show “support for Minnesota and immigrant communities all over” and oppose “the secret police force that is murdering Americans and infringing on their basic constitutional rights.”

“And what we know is, the only way to defend those rights is to exercise them, and you do that in nonviolent but forceful ways, and that’s what I expect to see in ‘No Kings’ three,” Levin said.

Trump has broadly defended his aggressive deportation campaign and blamed local officials for refusing to cooperate. However, he’s more recently signaled a shift in response to bipartisan concern over the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday.

Previous ‘No Kings’ protests have drawn millions across the U.S.

In June, the first “No Kings” rallies were organized in nearly 2,000 locations nationwide, including cities, towns and community spaces. Those protests followed unrest over federal immigration raids and Trump’s deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, where tensions escalated with protesters blocking a freeway and setting vehicles on fire.

They were organized also in large part to protest a military parade in the nation’s capital that marked the Army’s 250th anniversary and coincided with Trump’s birthday. “No Kings” organizers at the time called the parade a “coronation” that was symbolic of what they characterized as Trump’s growing authoritarian overreach.

In response, some conservative politicians condemned the protests as “Hate America” rallies.

During a second round of protests in October, organizers said demonstrations were held in about 2,700 cities and towns across the country. At the time, Levin pointed to Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown, his unprecedented promises to use federal power to influence midterm elections, restrictions on press freedom and retribution against political opponents, steps he said cumulatively represented a direct threat to constitutionally protected rights.

On social media, both Trump and the official White House account mocked the protests, posting computer-generated images of the president wearing a crown.

The big protest days are headline-grabbing moments, but Levin said groups like his are determined to keep up steady trainings and intermediate-level organizing in hopes of growing sustainable resistance to the Trump administration’s actions.

“This isn’t about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about do we have a democracy at all, and what are we going to tell our kids and our grandkids about what we did in this moment?” Levin said. “I think that demands the kind of persistent engagement. ”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

Democrats Jasmine Crockett and James Talarico differed more on style than substance in their first debate for U.S. Senate in heavily Republican Texas, though they distinguished themselves somewhat on the future of ICE and impeachment of President Trump.

Crockett, an outspoken second-term U.S. House member, and Talarico, a more soft-spoken four-term state representative, generally echoed each other on economic issues, healthcare and taxes.

Both called for a “fighter” in the role. Crockett, who is Black, said she was better positioned to attract disaffected Black voters, while Talarico, a Presbyterian seminarian who often discusses his Christian faith, suggested he could net rural voters unhappy with Republicans.

The hourlong discussion, before hundreds of labor union members and their families at the Texas AFL-CIO political convention, served as an early preview for themes Democrats hoping to overtake the Republican majority in the Senate in November are likely to stress throughout the midterm campaign.

The nominee chosen in the March 3 primary will face the winner of a Republican contest between four-term Sen. John Cornyn, Rep. Wesley Hunt and state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton.

Impeachment of Trump

Crockett said she would support impeachment proceedings against Trump, beginning with investigating his use of tariffs. Crockett has supported impeachment measures in the House.

“I think that there is more than enough to impeach Donald Trump,” Crockett said. “Ultimately, do I think we should go through the formal process? Absolutely.”

Talarico stopped short of suggesting whether he would support impeachment proceedings, except to say, “I think the administration has certainly committed impeachable offenses.”

Instead, Talarico said he would, as a senator, weigh any evidence presented during an impeachment trial fairly, given that the Senate does not bring impeachment charges but votes to convict or acquit. “I’m not going to articulate articles of impeachment here at a political debate,” he said.

Both candidates address ICE funding

Both candidates condemned the shooting of a man in Minneapolis by federal immigration officers Saturday, and ICE’s heavy presence in the city, though Talarico was more adamant about cutting funding to the agency.

Both said they support bringing impeachment proceedings against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, under whom ICE serves. But Crockett was less specific about cutting their funding.

“We absolutely have to clean house,” she said. “Whatever that looks like, I’m willing to do it.”

Talarcio more specifically said of ICE funding, “We should take that money back and put it in our communities where it belongs.”

Differences of style

While both candidates said the position requires “a fighter,” Crockett cast herself as a high-profile adversarial figure while Talarico said he had been confronting Republicans in the Texas Statehouse.

“I am here to fight the system, the system that is holding so many of us down,” said Crockett, a 44-year-old Dallas civil rights lawyer and former public defender who has built her national profile with a candid style marked by viral moments.

“It is about tapping into the rawness of this moment,” Crockett said of what Democratic primary voters are seeking.

Talarico, a former public school teacher, cast himself as someone who had been actively opposing the Republican-controlled state legislature.

He pointed to his opposition to Texas’ Republican Gov. Greg Abbott’s agenda in Austin, notably on tax credits for Texans who choose private schools for their children.

“We need a proven fighter for our schools, for our values, for our constituents in the halls of power,” he said. “I think we need a teacher in the United States Senate.”

Taxes, healthcare and economy

Crockett and Talarico generally aligned on domestic policy, including support for higher taxes.

Both candidates proposed ending tariffs as a way of lowering consumer prices.

“We have to roll back these tariffs,” Crockett said. “It’s hurting farmers and ranchers who are filing a record number of bankruptcies.”

Talarico was more direct about his support for higher taxes on the nation’s wealthiest earners.

“What I will not compromise on is making sure these billionaires pay for all that they have gotten from this country,” Talarico said, though he stopped short of suggesting how much he would seek to raise taxes.

Crockett voted last summer against the tax-cut and spending-reduction bill passed by the Republican-controlled Congress and signed by Trump. The bill extended tax cuts enacted during Trump’s first administration.

She also said she supported Medicare for all, a government-backed health insurance plan for all Americans.

“If we truly believe that everyone should have access to healthcare, we can make that a reality with bold leadership,” she said.

Talarico supports the concept, and spoke favorably about universal basic income, without suggesting he would specifically support it in the Senate.

“I’m very encouraged by some pilot programs of universal basic income,” he said.

Beaumont writes for the Associated Press.