campaign

ALBANY, N.Y. — Rep. Elise Stefanik announced Friday that she is suspending her campaign for New York governor and will not seek reelection to Congress, bowing out of the race in a surprise statement that said “it is not an effective use of our time” to stay in what was expected to be a bruising Republican primary.

Stefanik, a Republican ally of President Trump, said in a post on X that she was confident of her chances in the primary against Bruce Blakeman, a Republican county official in New York City’s suburbs. But she said she wanted to spend more time with her young son and family.

“I have thought deeply about this and I know that as a mother, I will feel profound regret if I don’t further focus on my young son’s safety, growth, and happiness — particularly at his tender age,” she said.

Stefanik has been an intense critic of incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is also seeking reelection but faces a primary challenge from her own lieutenant governor, Antonio Delgado.

The announcement marks an abrupt end, at least for now, for a once-promising career for Stefanik. She was the youngest woman ever elected to Congress when she won her first campaign in 2014 at just 30 years old, representing a new generation of Republicans making inroads in Washington. She ultimately rose to her party’s leadership in the House when she became the chair of the House Republican Conference in 2021.

First viewed as a moderate when she came to Washington, Stefanik became far more conservative as Trump began to dominate the party. Once someone who refused to say Trump’s name, she became one of his top defenders during his first impeachment inquiry. She would go on to vote against certifying the 2020 election results, even after a violent mob stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Stefanik was expected to have a bitter Republican primary against Blakeman, who also counts himself as an ally of Trump. The president had so far seemed keen on avoiding picking a side in the race, telling reporters recently: “He’s great, and she’s great. They’re both great people.”

Stefanik’s decision follows a clash with Speaker Mike Johnson, whom she accused of lying before embarking on a series of media interviews criticizing him. In one with the Wall Street Journal, she called Johnson a “political novice” and said he wouldn’t be reelected speaker if the vote were held today.

The tumultuous early December episode appeared to cool when Johnson said he and Stefanik had a “great talk.”

“I called her and I said, ‘Why wouldn’t you just come to me, you know?’” Johnson said. “So we had some intense fellowship about that.”

Still, Stefanik, the chairwoman of the House Republican leadership, has not fully walked back her criticisms. A Dec. 2 social media post remains online in which, after a provision she championed was omitted from a defense authorization bill, Stefanik accused Johnson of falsely claiming he was unaware of it, calling it “more lies from the Speaker.”

State Republican Chairman Ed Cox said the party respected Stefanik’s decision and thanked her for her efforts.

“Bruce Blakeman has my endorsement and I urge our State Committee and party leaders to join me,” Cox said in a prepared statement. “Bruce is a fighter who has proven he knows how to win in difficult political terrain.”

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Steven Sloan and Joey Cappelletti contributed from Washington.

ATLANTA — Democrats will not issue a postelection report on their 2024 shellacking after all.

The Democratic National Committee head has decided not to publish a formal assessment of the party’s defeat that returned Donald Trump to power and gave Republicans complete control in Washington.

Ken Martin, a Minnesota party leader who was elected national chair after Trump’s election, ordered a thorough review of what went wrong and what could be done differently, with the intent they would circulate a report as Republicans did after their 2012 election performance. Martin now says the inquiry, which included hundreds of interviews, was complete but that there is no value in a public release of findings that he believes could lead to continued infighting and recriminations before the 2026 midterms when control of Congress will be at stake.

“Does this help us win?” Martin said in a statement Thursday. “If the answer is no, it’s a distraction from the core mission.”

Martin’s decision, first reported by the New York Times, spares top Democrats from more scrutiny about their campaigns, including former President Biden, who withdrew from the race after announcing his second-term run, and his vice president, Kamala Harris, who became the nominee and lost to Trump.

Keeping the report under wraps also means Martin does not have to take sides in the tug-of-war between moderates and progressives or make assessments about how candidates should handle issues that Trump capitalized on, such as transgender rights.

“We are winning again,” Martin said.

Martin’s announcement follows a successful string of 2025 races, both in special elections and off-year statewide votes, that suggest strong enthusiasm for Democratic candidates.

In November, Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill won races for governor in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively. In New York’s mayoral election, Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, defeated establishment Democrat-turned-independent Andrew Cuomo.

In U.S. House special elections throughout 2025, Democratic nominees have consistently outperformed the party’s 2024 showing, often by double-digit percentages. Democrats have flipped state legislative districts and some statewide seats around the country, even in Republican-leaning places.

Although the DNC’s report will not be made public, a committee aide said some conclusions will be integrated into the party’s 2026 plans.

For example, the findings reflect a consensus that Democratic candidates did not adequately address voter concerns on public safety and immigration, two topics that Trump hammered in his comeback campaign. They also found that Democrats must overhaul their digital outreach, especially to younger voters, a group where Trump saw key gains over Harris compared with previous elections.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. — Former U.S. Sen. Doug Jones, the last Democrat to hold statewide office in Alabama, kicked off his campaign for governor Friday, saying voters deserve a choice and a leader who will put aside divisions to address the state’s pressing needs.

“With your help we can finish what we began. We can build the Alabama we’ve always deserved,” Jones told a packed crowd at a Birmingham campaign rally featuring musician Jason Isbell.

He said the state has urgent economic, healthcare and educational issues that are not being addressed by those in public office.

The campaign kickoff came on the eighth anniversary of Jones’ stunning 2017 Senate win over Republican Roy Moore, and Jones said Alabama proved back then that it can defy “simplified labels of red and blue.”

“You stood up and you said something simple but powerful: We can do better,” Jones said. “You said with your votes that our values, Alabama values, are more important than any political party, any personality, any prepackaged ideology.”

His entry into the race sets up a possible rematch with Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who defeated Jones by 20 points in the 2020 Senate race and is also now running for governor. Both parties will have primaries in May before the November election.

Before running for office, Jones, a lawyer and former U.S. attorney, was best known for prosecuting two Ku Klux Klansmen responsible for Birmingham’s infamous 1963 church bombing.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Jones said families are having a hard time with things like healthcare, energy bills and making ends meet.

“People are struggling,” he said. “They are hurting.”

Jones used part of his speech to describe his agenda if elected governor. He said it is time for Alabama to join most states in establishing a state lottery and expanding Medicaid. Expanding Medicaid, he said, would protect rural hospitals from closure and provide healthcare coverage to working families and others who need it.

He criticized Tuberville’s opposition to extending Affordable Care Act subsidies in the Senate. Jones said many Alabama families depend on those subsidies to buy health insurance “to keep their families healthy.”

Alabama has not elected a Democratic governor since Don Siegelman in 1998.

When Tuberville ousted Jones in 2020, the Democrat won about 40% of the vote, which has been the ceiling for Alabama Democrats in recent statewide races.

Retired political science professor Jess Brown said Jones lost in 2020 despite being a well-funded incumbent, and that’s a sign that he faces an uphill battle in 2026.

“Based on what I know today, at this juncture of the campaign, I would say that Doug Jones, who’s a very talented and bright man, is politically the walking dead,” Brown said.

Jones acknowledged being the underdog and said his decision to run stemmed in part from a desire that Tuberville not coast into office unchallenged.

Jones pointed to recent Democratic victories in Georgia, Mississippi and other red states as cause for optimism.

Tuberville, who formerly led the football program at Auburn University, had “no record except as a football coach” when he first ran, Jones said. And “now there are five years of being a United States senator. There are five years of embarrassing the state.”

Jones continued to question Tuberville’s residency, saying he “doesn’t even live in Alabama, and if he does, then prove me wrong.” Tuberville has a beach house in Walton County, Fla., but has repeatedly said Auburn is his home.

Tuberville’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment but has previously noted his commanding defeat of Jones five years ago. The Republican senator spent part of Friday with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in Huntsville to mark the official relocation of U.S. Space Command from Colorado to Alabama.

Jones’ 2017 victory renewed the hopes, at least temporarily, of Democratic voters in the Deep South state. Those gathered to hear him Friday cheered his return to the political stage.

“I’m just glad that there’s somebody sensible getting in the race,” Angela Hornbuckle said. “He proved that he could do it as a senator.”

Chandler writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.

The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.

For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress.
And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.

The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.

“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”

He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called SuperPACs.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.

Last year, Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.

Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.

Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.

At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.

Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.

“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.

If a big-money donor hopes for win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” he said.

The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.

Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.

Precedents might have stood in the way.

In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.

“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.

Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.

“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”

The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.

Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.

Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.

“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”

Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.

“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy admiral who is retiring early from command of the campaign to destroy vessels allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela spoke to key lawmakers Tuesday as Congress seeks more answers on President Trump’s mission, which, in one instance, killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of an initial strike.

The classified video call between Adm. Alvin Holsey, who will be retiring from U.S. South Command in the coming days, and the GOP chairs and ranking Democrats of the Senate Armed Services Committee represented another determined step by lawmakers to demand an accounting from the Department of Defense on the threats against Venezuela and the strikes, especially after a report that two survivors were killed during one operation in September.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to discuss the specifics of the call but described Holsey as a “great public servant.”

Congress is also demanding that the Pentagon turn over unedited video of the strikes, as well as the orders authorizing the attacks, as part of its annual defense authorization bill. Wicker said that the Pentagon is weighing whether the video had “classified sections.”

The demands were evidence of the intense scrutiny being placed on the Sept. 2 strike, which legal experts say may have violated the laws governing how the U.S. military uses deadly force. Congressional leaders will also receive a wider foreign policy and national security briefing from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday afternoon.

“They are using expensive, exquisite American military capabilities to kill people who are the equivalent of corner dealers and not making progress interdicting the trafficking by the cartels,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Congress presses for more information

What lawmakers learn from Holsey could shed new light on the purpose and parameters of Trump’s campaign, which has struck 22 boats and killed at least 87 people since it started in September. Trump has also been making threats against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, sending a fleet of warships near the South American country, including the largest U.S. aircraft carrier.

Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command just over one year ago, but in October, Hegseth announced that Holsey would be retiring early from his post. As commander of U.S. forces in the region, Holsey oversaw a command structure that has in recent years been mostly focused on building stability and cooperation across much of Latin America.

Trump’s drug boat campaign, however, has added a new, deadly dynamic to its mission. Rather than trying to interdict drug vessels, as forces such as the U.S. Coast Guard have traditionally done, the Trump administration asserts that the drugs and drug smugglers are posing a direct threat to American lives. Officials say they are applying the same rules as the global war on terrorism to kill drug smugglers.

Lawmakers are also questioning what intelligence the military is using to determine whether the boats’ cargo is headed for the U.S. As they have looked closer at the Sept. 2 strike, lawmakers learned that the destroyed boat was heading south at the time of the attack and that military intelligence showed it was headed toward another vessel that was bound for Suriname.

Still, it remains to be seen whether the Republican-controlled Congress will push back on the Trump administration’s campaign.

“I want a full set of data to draw my conclusions from,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who had demanded accountability after it was revealed that two survivors had been killed.

Trump this week justified the strike by claiming that the two suspected drug smugglers were trying to right part of the boat after it had capsized in the initial attack. However, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the special operations commander who ordered the second strike, told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing last week that he ordered the second strike to ensure that the cocaine in the boat could not be picked up later by cartel members.

Groves and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

Dec. 9 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in a case questioning whether limits on how much political parties can spend in support of candidates violate the First Amendment of the Constitution.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee brought the case against the Federal Election Commission, saying the spending limits restrict the parties’ abilities to reach and influence voters, The New York Times reported.

The FEC has set limits on coordinated spending according to each state’s voting-age population and number of members in Congress.

Attorneys for Public Citizen, a voter advocacy group, filed a brief to the Supreme Court in support of maintaining the limits.

“If those contributions, which dwarf the base limits on [individual] contributions to candidates, are effectively placed at a candidate’s disposal through coordinated spending, they become potent sources of actual or apparent corruption,” the brief said.

The effort to free up coordinated spending is one of many in recent years by Republicans that have sought to loosen campaign purse strings across the board, including the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC.

The Democratic National Committee, meanwhile, is expected to argue in favor of preserving coordinated spending limits, first enshrined in 1974 as a way to prevent bribery.

“This has been held constitutional at least twice before by the Supreme Court and more times by lower courts,” Democratic attorney Marc Elias said, according to ABC News.