Democratic

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Wednesday that his social media posts mocking President Trump, his podcast interviews with right-wing influencers and his push to redraw California’s congressional districts are all in service of one goal: making the Democratic Party look anything other than weak.

“The essence of the challenge to the party is weakness,” Newsom said during an on-stage interview Wednesday at an event hosted by the news outlet Politico.

Newsom said some of his more combative messaging choices, including sitting for interviews with Fox News host Sean Hannity and debating Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, were efforts to break the cycle of Democrats responding to grievances ginned up by right-wing media, rather than setting their own agenda.

The same applies to his bombastic social media posts, posted by the governor’s media office, mocking Trump’s unhinged missives (complete with capital letters and exclamation points) and his new online store, called the Patriot Shop, that is peddling a tank top that says, “Trump is not hot,” among other not-to-subtle digs at the president. Newsom said he’s even toying with offering a “Trump corruption” crypto coin, a shot at the president’s own cryptocurrency, which the governor called a grift so great that it makes “dictators blush.”

Newsom said the problem with the Democrats, who are shut out of every branch of government in Washington, D.C., was best summed up by President Clinton after his party was shellacked in the 2002 midterm elections: American voters, given the choice, prefer “strong and wrong to weak and right.”

“Our party needs to wake up to that,” Newsom said. “We have to use every tool at our disposal to not only assert ourselves, but prove ourselves to the American people.”

Newsom’s comments come as he flirts with a 2028 presidential bid and the Democratic Party’s popularity hits record lows.

Proposition 50, the redistricting measure that California voters will see on their ballot Nov. 4, is in the same combative vein, Newsom said.

At Newsom’s urging, leaders at the Capitol shoved the measure through the state Legislature and onto the ballot in record time last week. If voters approve the measure, California would scrap its independently drawn congressional lines for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections in favor of partisan districts that could help California Democrats win as many as five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, helping the party’s effort to win control and neutralize Trump’s far-right agenda.

Democrats have cast the effort as a way to counter the Texas GOP, which recently redrew the state’s congressional districts to help Republicans pick up five House seats.

Democratic leaders in the United States are warning that President Donald Trump does not have the authority to deploy US troops to Chicago amid reports of administration plans to send National Guard soldiers to the Midwestern city.

Trump, a Republican, has said he would likely expand the deployment of federal forces to oversee policing in Washington, DC, to other cities, including Chicago. On Sunday, he also suggested the possibility of sending troops to Democratic-run Baltimore in Maryland.

Democratic House of Representatives Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Sunday denounced plans to deploy federal forces to Chicago. Crime rates, including murders, have declined in Chicago in the last year.

“There’s no basis, no authority for Donald Trump to potentially try to drop federal troops into the city of Chicago,” Jeffries told CNN.

The US Constitution gives the power of policing to the states.

The Washington Post reported on Saturday that the Pentagon has been drawing up plans for a potential troop deployment in Chicago for weeks.

JB Pritzker, the Democratic governor of Illinois, where Chicago is located, was quick to reject the push.

“Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a crisis, politicize Americans who serve in uniform, and continue abusing his power to distract from the pain he is causing working families,” JB Pritzker said in a statement.

Leveling criticism at Maryland’s Democratic Governor Wes Moore over crime rates in Baltimore, Trump said he was prepared to deploy troops there, too.

In July, the Baltimore police department said there had been a double-digit reduction in gun violence compared to the previous year. The city has had 84 homicides so far this year – the fewest in over 50 years, according to the mayor.

“If Wes Moore needs help… I will send in the ‘troops,’ which is being done in nearby DC, and quickly clean up the Crime,” Trump said on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Sunday.

Since he entered politics in 2015, Trump has described major cities, which are almost all run by Democrats, as infested by crime, drugs and homelessness.

That perception echoed some rural conservative attitudes towards liberal cities.

Earlier this month, several Republican governors sent hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington at Trump’s request. The president has depicted the capital as being in the grip of a crime wave, although official data shows crime is down in the city.

On Sunday, Trump asserted without evidence that there was now no crime in the US capital and credited it to his deployment of troops and hundreds of federal law enforcement personnel.

The US president’s critics have warned that the crackdown in Washington may be a test run for the broader militarisation of US cities.

Trump has much less power over Chicago and Baltimore than he does over the District of Columbia, the seat of the federal government, which is not part of a US state.

Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, includes a provision allowing the president to deploy National Guard units to repel an invasion, to suppress a rebellion or to allow the president to execute the law.

Trump cited this provision, known as Section 12406, when he sent National Guard units to California earlier this year to counter protests, over the objections of Governor Gavin Newsom.

In the case of Chicago, Trump may argue that local laws that bar city officials from cooperating with federal immigration agents justify the military presence.

Trump is almost certain to face legal challenges if he uses Section 12406 to send National Guard troops from Republican-led states into Democratic strongholds.

Opposition party dismisses possibility of talks as President Aleksandar Vucic urges debate after nine months of angry protests.

Serbia’s populist president has called for dialogue with antigovernment protesters in the Balkan country following more than nine months of demonstrations that have challenged his rule.

“Serbia has to solve its problems with democratic dialogue, not with violence,” President Aleksandar Vucic wrote in a post accompanied by a video that he shared on Instagram on Friday.

“I invite the representatives of the blockade movement to a conversation and a public debate about visions, to discuss our plans and programmes for the future and all together condemn the violence on our streets,” he added.

In the video address from his office in Belgrade, Vucic said he was ready to speak with the representatives of students and other antigovernment protesters, including in TV debates.

“I propose … discussion and debate on all our televisions, on all our [internet] portals with legitimate representatives, that is, those they choose,” Vucic said.

The months of protests across Serbia were prompted by the deaths of 16 people when a roof on a renovated railway station in Novi Sad collapsed last November.

Protesters have blamed corruption for the station disaster and are demanding early elections in the hope of ousting Vucic and his party.

They also accuse the government of using violence against political rivals and suppressing media freedoms. The government denies all the allegations.

The protests were mainly peaceful until earlier this month, when dozens of police officers and civilians were injured in clashes, and hundreds were detained.

‘You don’t make a fire department with an arsonist’

“I want us to confront visions … to solve that through dialogue and conversation … no conflict, no violence. To rebuild the country again, to get it back on track where it was nine months ago,” Vucic said.

Savo Manojlovic, the head of the centrist opposition Move-Change party, dismissed the possibility of talks.

“A president who resorts to violence is not someone with whom you can debate about political issues, this is a … corrupt government that tramples on … democracy and human rights,” Manojlovic said.

“You don’t make a fire department with an arsonist.”

Vucic’s second and final five-year presidential term ends in 2027, when parliamentary elections are also due.

Representatives of the students said they would debate with Vucic only during an election campaign.

“He [Vucic] has no answer to the popular rebellion … We will debate … during the campaign, after the elections are announced,” students from the Belgrade-based Faculty of Philosophy said in a statement.

Today we discuss flora, fauna and self-gratification.

You’ve been away.

Yes, I was living in a tent for two weeks, communing with the pine trees and black bears of the Sierra.

You heard about California’s likely special election?

I did.

It seems Gov. Gavin Newsom will have his way, with help from the Democratic-run Legislature, and voters will be asked in November to approve a partisan gerrymander aimed at offsetting a similar Republican power grab in Texas.

As many as five GOP House seats could be erased from the congressional map drawn by California’s independent redistricting commission, which voters established more than a decade ago — expressly to take the line-drawing away from a bunch of self-interested politicians.

Fighting fire with fire!

Could we please retire that phrase.

Huh?

Also references to knife fights and Democrats showing up with pencils, rubber bands, butter knives and other wimpy implements. The campaign hasn’t even started and already those metaphors have grown stale.

Fine. At least Democrats are showing some fight.

In an impulsive, shortsighted fashion.

Look, I get it. Donald Trump truly knows no bottom when it comes to undermining democratic norms, running a familial kleptocracy and, in the felicitous phrase of Gustavo Arellano, my fellow Times columnista, treating the Constitution like a pee pad.

Democrats are powerless in Washington, where a pliant Republican-controlled Congress and a supine right-wing Supreme Court have shown all the deference of a maître d’ squiring Trump to his favorite table. So the idea of doing something to push back against the president is quite invigorating and, no doubt, gratifying for Democratic partisans.

It’s also expedient and facile, sparing the party from looking inward and doing the truly hard work it faces. Taking on Republicans over redistricting — a fight among insiders, as far as many voters are concerned — does absolutely nothing to address the larger problem confronting Democrats, which is the absence of any broader message beyond: Trump, bad!

We saw how that worked for them in 2024.

But this is a “break-the-glass” moment for our democracy. Gov. Newsom said so!

Please.

The only thing worse than a grasping and nakedly calculating politician is a politician who wraps his grasping and naked calculation in all sorts of red, white and blue bunting.

At bottom, this is all about Newsom’s overweening presidential ambitions.

How so?

The whole episode started when our gallivanting governor went on a left-wing podcast during a Southern campaign swing and huffed and puffed about responding to Trump and Texas by executing a similar gerrymander in California. (He elided the fact that, under the state Constitution, he has no such authority. Hence the need for a special election to seek voter approval of new, slanted political lines.)

Soon enough, Newsom’s threat took on a life of its own. Normally, redistricting is done once every 10 years, after the latest census. Suddenly, mid-decade redistricting became a new front in the ever-escalating war between red and blue; now several more states are talking about rejiggering their congressional maps for partisan gain.

The problem for Newsom and his fellow Democrats is that Republicans have a lot more gerrymandering opportunities than they do. So instead of those five Democratic-held seats in Texas, many more could be at risk for the party in 2026.

Golly.

Though, it should be said, at this point all that election handicapping is nothing more than speculation.

What do you mean?

Democrats need to flip three congressional districts to seize control of the House. That’s why Trump prodded Texas Republicans to try to nab those five extra seats, to give the GOP some padding.

But there’s no guarantee Republicans will win all five seats. They’re counting on the same strong Latino support Trump received in 2024, and recent polling suggests some of that pro-GOP sentiment may be waning.

Beyond that, the ever-insightful Amy Walter, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, makes an important point.

“Even as the possibility of new maps in Texas and California may change the size and the shape of the 2026 playing field,” she wrote in a recent analysis, “the fate of the Republican-controlled House is ultimately still going to be determined by two fundamental questions: how do voters feel about the state of the economy, and how do independent voters assess the party in power?”

It’s a long way to November 2026. But at this point, neither of those factors augurs well for Trump and Republicans.

Well, they started it, by messing with Texas.

True. And none of this is meant to defend Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott or the president’s other political henchmen.

But effectively disenfranchising millions of California Republicans isn’t any better than effectively disenfranchising millions of Texas Democrats.

Huh?

If Democrats have their way, the GOP would hold just a handful of California’s 52 House seats, or even less. How is that possibly fair, or representative, in a state that’s home to millions of Republican voters — more, in fact, than any state other than Texas.

There are already countless residents, many living outside Democrats’ city and suburban strongholds, who feel ignored and politically impotent. That’s not healthy for California, or democracy. It breeds anger, resentment, cynicism and a kind of political nihilism that, ultimately, helps lead to the election of a middle-finger president like Donald Trump.

Of course, Newsom may not care, since at this twilight point of his governorship it’s all about his White House hopes and desire to pander to the Democrats’ aggrieved political base.

By fighting fire with fire!

And potentially burning the whole place down.

A decade and a half after California voters stripped lawmakers of the ability to draw the boundaries of congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom and fellow Democrats are pushing to take that partisan power back.

The redistricting plan taking shape in Sacramento and headed toward voters in November could shift the Golden State’s political landscape for at least six years, if not longer, and sway which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2026 midterm elections — which will be pivotal to the fate of President Trump’s political agenda.

What Golden State voters choose to do will reverberate nationwide, killing some political careers and launching others, provoking other states to reconfigure their own congressional districts and boosting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s profile as a top Trump nemesis and leader of the nation’s Democratic resistance.

The new maps, drawn by Democratic strategists and lawmakers behind closed doors, were expected to be submitted to legislative leaders by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and widely leaked on Friday. They are expected to appear on a Nov. 4 special election ballot, along with a constitutional amendment that would override the state’s voter-approved, independent redistricting commission.

The changes would ripple across hundreds of miles of California, from the forests near the Oregon state line through the deserts of Death Valley and Palm Springs to the U.S.-Mexico border, expanding Democrats’ grip on California and further isolating Republicans.

The proposed map would concentrate Republican voters in a handful of deep-red districts and eliminate an Inland Empire congressional seat represented by the longest-serving member of California’s GOP delegation. For Democrats, the plans would boost the fortunes of up-and-coming politicians and shore up vulnerable incumbents in Congress, including two new lawmakers who won election by fewer than 1,000 votes last fall.

“This is the final declaration of political war between California and the Trump administration,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

How will the ballot measure work?

For the state to reverse the independent redistricting process that the electorate approved in 2010, a majority of California voters would have to approve the measure, which backers are calling the “Election Rigging Response Act.”

The state Legislature, where Democrats hold a supermajority in both the Assembly and Senate, will consider the ballot language next week when lawmakers return from summer recess. Both chambers would need to pass the ballot language by a two-thirds majority and get the bill to Newsom’s desk by Aug. 22, leaving just enough time for voter guides to be mailed and ballots to be printed.

The ballot language has not been released. But the decision about approving the new map would ultimately be up to the state’s electorate, which backed independent redistricting in 2010 by more than 61%. Registered Democrats outnumber Republican voters by almost a two-to-one margin in California, providing a decided advantage for supporters of the measure.

Newsom has said that the measure would include a “trigger,” meaning the state’s maps would only take effect if a Republican state — including Texas, Florida and Indiana — approve new mid-decade maps.

“There’s still an exit ramp,” Newsom said. “We’re hopeful they don’t move forward.”

Explaining the esoteric concept of redistricting and getting voters to participate in an off-year election will require that Newsom and his allies, including organized labor, launch what is expected to be an expensive campaign very quickly.

“It’s summer in California,” Kousser said. “People are not focused on this.”

California has no limit on campaign contributions for ballot measures, and a measure that pits Democrats against Trump, and Republicans against Newsom, could become a high-stakes, high-cost national brawl.

“It’s tens of millions of dollars, and it’s going to be determined on the basis of what an opposition looks like as well,” Newsom said Thursday. The fundraising effort, he said, is “not insignificant… considering the 90-day sprint.”

The ballot measure’s campaign website mentions three major funding sources thus far: Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign, the main political action committee for House Democrats in Washington, and Manhattan Beach businessman Bill Bloomfield, a longtime donor to California Democrats.

Those who oppose the mid-decade redistricting are also expected to be well-funded, and will argue that this effort betrays the will of the voters who approved independent congressional redistricting in 2010.

What’s at stake?

Control of the U.S. House of Representatives hangs in the balance.

The party that holds the White House tends to lose House seats during the midterm election. Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House, and Democrats taking control of chamber in 2026 would stymie Trump’s controversial, right-wing agenda in his final two years in office.

Redistricting typically only happens once a decade, after the U.S. Census. But Trump has been prodding Republican states, starting with Texas, to redraw their lines in the middle of the decade to boost the GOP’s chances in the midterms.

At Trump’s encouragement, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas congressional map to favor five more Republicans. In response, Newsom and other California Democrats have called for their own maps that would favor five more Democrats.

Texas Democratic lawmakers fled the state to deny the legislature a quorum and stop the vote. They faced daily fines, death threats and calls to be removed from office. They agreed to return to Austin after the special session ended on Friday, with one condition being that California Democrats moved forward with their redistricting plan.

The situation has the potential to spiral into an all-out redistricting arms race, with Trump leaning on Indiana, Florida, Ohio and Missouri to redraw their maps, while Newsom is asking the same of blue states including New York and Illinois.

California Republicans in the crosshairs

The California gerrymandering plan targets five of California’s nine Republican members of Congress: Reps. Kevin Kiley and Doug LaMalfa in Northern California, Rep. David Valadao in the Central Valley, and Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa in Southern California.

The map consolidates Republican voters into a smaller number of ruby-red districts known as “vote sinks.” Some conservative and rural areas would be shifted into districts where Republican voters would be diluted by high voter registration advantage for Democrats.

The biggest change would be for Calvert, who would see his Inland Empire district eliminated.

Calvert has been in Congress since 1992 and represents a sprawling Riverside County district that includes Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Palm Springs and his home base of Corona. Calvert, who oversees defense spending on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, comfortably won reelection last year despite a well-funded national campaign by Democrats.

Under the proposed map, the Inland Empire district would be carved up and redistributed, parceled out to a district represented by Rep. Young Kim (R-Anaheim Hills). Liberal Palm Springs would be shifted into the district represented by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Bonsall), which would help tilt the district from Republican to a narrowly divided swing seat.

Members of Congress are not required to live in their districts, but there would not be an obvious seat for Calvert to run for, unless he ran against Kim or Issa.

Leaked screenshots of the map began to circulate Friday afternoon, prompting fierce and immediate pushback from California Republicans.

The lines are “third-world dictator stuff,” Orange County GOP chair Will O’Neill said on X, and the “slicing and dicing of Orange County cities is obscene.”

In Northern California, the boundaries of Kiley’s district would shrink and dogleg into the Sacramento suburbs to add registered Democrats. Kiley said in a post on the social media site X that he expected his district to stay the same because voters would “defeat Newsom’s sham initiative and vindicate the will of California voters.”

LaMalfa’s district would shift south, away from the rural and conservative areas along the Oregon border, and pick up more liberal areas in parts of Sonoma County,

In Central California, boundaries would shift to shore up Reps. Josh Harder (D-Tracy) and Adam Gray (D-Merced). Gray won election last year by 187 votes, the narrowest margin in the country.

Valadao, a perennial target for Democrats, would see the northern boundary of his district stretch into the bluer suburbs of Fresno. Democrats have tried for years to unseat Valadao, who represents a district that has a strong Democratic voter registration advantage on paper, but where turnout among blue voters is lackluster.

Feeding frenzy for open seats

The maps include a new congressional seat in Los Angeles County that would stretch through the southeast cities of Downey, Santa Fe Springs, Whittier and Lakewood. An open seat in Congress is a rare opportunity for politicians, especially in deep-blue Los Angeles County, where incumbent lawmakers can keep their jobs for decades.

Portions of that district were once represented by retired U.S. Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, the first Mexican American woman elected to Congress. That seat was eliminated in the 2021 redistricting cycle, when California lost a congressional seat for the first time in its history.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Hilda Solis has told members of the California Congressional delegation that she is thinking about running for the new seat.

Another possible contender, former Assembly speaker Anthony Rendon of Lakewood, launched a campaign for state superintendent of schools in late July and may be out of the mix.

Other lawmakers who represent the area or areas nearby include State Sen. Blanca Rubio (D-Baldwin Park), state Sen. Bob Archuleta (D-Pico Rivera) and state Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier).

In Northern California, the southern tip of LaMalfa’s district would stretch south into the Sonoma County cities of Santa Rosa and Healdsberg, home to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire. McGuire will be termed out of the state Senate next year, and the new seat might present a prime opportunity for him to go to Washington.

Aug. 12 (UPI) — Gov. Greg Abbott has threatened to remove 10 Democratic districts from Texas if California makes good on its threat to remove five Republican districts from its maps, the latest salvo in the deepening fight between the two states over the Lone Star State’s redistricting efforts.

“If California tries to gerrymander five more districts; listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state,” the Republican governor told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview Monday.

“We can play that game more than they can, because they have fewer Republican districts in their state.”

The threat comes as Texas state Democrats have fled their home state to Democratic strongholds such as Illinois and other states to prevent Republicans from passing controversial redistricting maps that give the GOP five more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Critics have accused Abbott and Texas Republicans of conducting a power grab, seeking to redraw districts now as opposed to at the end of the decade, when it is traditionally done, in order to try to give President Donald Trump and the Republican Party an additional five seats in the House ahead of next year’s midterms.

Texas Democrats fled the state earlier this month in opposition, denying their Republican colleagues a quorum, meaning the minimum number of lawmakers necessary to pass legislation.

The GOP’s redistricting efforts in Texas have angered Democrats throughout the country, with Gov. Gavin Newsom responding that he will redraw California’s maps to produce five more Democratic seats in the House to neutralize Abbott’s move.

Texas has 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the House of Representatives. California has nine GOP legislators and 43 Democrats.

William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, was the last commander in chief born a British subject and the first member of the Whig Party to win the White House. He delivered the longest inaugural address in history, nearly two hours, and had the shortest presidency, being the first sitting president to die in office, just 31 days into his term.

Oh, there is one more bit of trivia about the man who gave us the slogan “Tippecanoe and Tyler Too.” Harrison was the last politician to lose his first presidential election and then win the next one (Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson managed that before him). Richard Nixon lost only to win way down the road. (Grover Cleveland and Trump are the only two to win, lose and then win again.)

Everyone else since Harrison’s era who lost on the first try and ran again in the next election lost again. Democrat Adlai Stevenson and Republican Thomas Dewey ran twice and lost twice. Henry Clay and William Jennings Bryan each ran three times in a row and lost (Clay ran on three different party tickets). Voters, it seems, don’t like losers.

These are not encouraging results for Kamala Harris, who announced last week she will not be running for governor in California, sparking speculation that she wants another go at the White House.

But history isn’t what she should worry about. It’s the here and now. The Democratic Party is wildly unpopular. It’s net favorability ( 30 points) is nearly triple the GOP’s (11 points). The Democratic Party is more unpopular than any time in the last 35 years. When Donald Trump’s unpopularity with Democrats should be having the opposite effect, 63% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the party.

Why? Because Democrats are mad at their own party — both for losing to Trump and for failing to provide much of an obstacle to him now that he’s in office. As my Dispatch colleague Nick Cattogio puts it, “Even Democrats have learned to hate Democrats.”

It’s not all Harris’ fault. Indeed, the lion’s share of the blame goes to Joe Biden and the coterie of enablers who encouraged him to run again.

Harris’ dilemma is that she symbolizes Democratic discontent with the party. That discontent isn’t monolithic. For progressives, the objection is that Democrats aren’t fighting hard enough. For the more centrist wing of the party, the problem is the Democrats are fighting for the wrong things, having lurched too far left on culture war and identity politics. Uniting both factions is visceral desire to win. That’s awkward for a politician best known for losing.

Almost the only reason Harris was positioned to be the nominee in 2024 was that she was a diversity pick. Biden was explicit that he would pick a woman and, later, an African American running mate. And the same dynamic made it impossible to sideline her when Biden withdrew.

Of course, most Democrats don’t see her race and gender as a problem, and in the abstract they shouldn’t. Indeed, every VP pick is a diversity pick, including the white guys. Running mates are chosen to appeal to some part of a coalition.

So Harris’ problem isn’t her race or sex; it’s her inability to appeal to voters in a way that expands the Democratic coalition. For Democrats to win, they need someone who can flip Trump voters. She didn’t lose because of low Democratic turnout, she lost because she’s uncompelling to a changing electorate.

Her gauzy, often gaseous, rhetoric made her sound like a dean of students at a small liberal arts college. With the exception of reproductive rights, her convictions sounded like they were crafted by focus groups, at a time when voters craved authenticity. Worse, Harris acquiesced to Biden’s insistence she not distance herself from him.

Such clubby deference to the establishment combined with boilerplate pandering to progressive constituencies — learned from years of San Francisco and California politics — makes her the perfect solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.

Her choice to appear on Stephen Colbert’s “The Late Show” for her first interview since leaving office was telling. CBS recently announced it was terminating both Colbert and the show, insisting it was purely a business decision. But the reason for the broadcast network’s decision stemmed in part from the fact that Colbert narrow-casts his expensive show to a very small, very anti-Trump slice of the electorate.

“I don’t want to go back into the system. I think it’s broken,” Harris lamented to Colbert, decrying the “naïve” and “feckless” lack of “leadership” and the “capitulation” of those who “consider themselves to be guardians of our system and our democracy.”

That’s all catnip to Colbert’s ideologically committed audience. But that’s not the audience Democrats need to win. And that’s why, if Democrats nominate her again, she’ll probably go down in history as an answer to a trivia question. And it won’t be “Who was the 48th president of the United States?”

@JonahDispatch

Texas Republicans, at President Donald Trump’s urging, are preparing to redraw the state’s congressional map in a way that could flip up to five seats to the GOP in 2026. Trump hopes to boost Republicans’ chances of maintaining a narrow House majority amid the headwinds of the midterm election.

The manoeuvre in Texas would be legal and not unprecedented for the state, which also undertook a Republican-driven redistricting in 2003. But Democrats have called the move a partisan power grab and an affront to the traditional practice of drawing new congressional districts every 10 years, after a new Census.

But the debate over Texas’s electoral map has also prompted broader questions over the fairness of the way in which voting districts are outlined. And the one state bigger than Texas – California – has caught the attention of Vice President JD Vance.

“The gerrymander in California is outrageous,” Vance posted July 30 on X. “Of their 52 congressional districts, 9 of them are Republican. That means 17 percent of their delegation is Republican when Republicans regularly win 40 percent of the vote in that state. How can this possibly be allowed?”

So, does California have an unfair map, as Vance said?

By the numbers, California is not a dramatic outlier when it comes to the difference between its congressional and presidential vote. However, because this difference is multiplied by a large number of districts – since California is the United States’ most populous state – it produces a bounty of House seats beyond what the state’s presidential vote alone would predict.

Vance’s description of California’s map as a “gerrymander” is also doubtful – it was drawn by a bipartisan commission, not Democratic legislators. Gerrymandering is done by politicians and political parties.

Vance’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.

What the numbers show

Our first step was to measure the difference between each state’s House-seat breakdown by party and its presidential-vote breakdown by party, which is what Vance cited. (Our analysis builds off of a 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball story written by this author. Sabato’s Crystal Ball is a publication of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.) We removed from consideration any state with one, two or three House members in its delegation, because these small states have wide differentials that skew the comparison.

For red states won by Trump, we took the percentage of Republican seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Trump won in that state. Conversely, for blue states won by Kamala Harris, we took the percentage of Democratic seats in the House delegation and subtracted the percentage of the vote Harris won in the state.

Our analysis found that California did elect more Democrats to the House than its presidential vote share would have predicted, but the state was not an outlier. With 83% of its House seats held by Democrats and 58% of its 2024 presidential votes going to Democrats, California ranked 13th nationally among 35 states that have at least four seats in their delegation.

California has the nation’s 13th widest difference between House and presidential results

The top 13 differentials were split roughly evenly between blue and red states.

In six states that have at least four House seats – red Iowa, Utah, Arkansas and Oklahoma, and blue Connecticut and Massachusetts – a single party controls every House seat, even though the winning presidential candidate won between 56% and 66% of the vote in those states.

Another six states had a differential equal to or wider than California’s: Red South Carolina and Tennessee, and blue Oregon, Illinois and Maryland, plus purple Wisconsin.

California does stand out by another measure, because of its size.

If you multiply the House-to-presidential differential by the number of House seats in the delegation, you get a figure for “excess House seats”, the term used in the 2023 Sabato’s Crystal Ball article – essentially, a majority party’s bonus in House seats beyond what presidential performance would predict.

Because California has a large population represented by many House districts, even its modest differential produces a lot of extra Democratic House seats – 12, to be exact. That’s the largest of any state; the closest competitors are blue Illinois and New York, and red Florida, each of which has more than four excess seats for the majority party.

Texas’s current congressional map has 3.7 excess seats for the Republicans. That would increase to an 8.7-seat GOP bonus if the GOP can flip the five seats they’re hoping for in 2026.

Is California a “gerrymander”?

Vance described California’s map as a gerrymander, but political experts doubted that this term applies. A gerrymander typically refers to a map drawn by partisan lawmakers, and California’s is drawn by a commission approved by voters specifically to remove the partisanship from congressional map drawing.

“California’s congressional map is no gerrymander,” said Nathaniel Rakich, a contributing analyst to Inside Elections, a political analytics publication. “It was drawn by an independent commission consisting of five Republicans, five Democrats, and four independents that is generally upheld as one of the fairest map-drawing entities in any state.”

Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, said commissions tend to produce a more competitive House battleground than a fully partisan system. Of the 19 House seats his outlet currently rates as toss-ups going into 2026, only two come from states where one party had a free hand to gerrymander the current district lines.

“I think it’s fair to say that commission and court-drawn maps can inject some competitiveness into the process,” Kondik said.

Because the seats were drawn by a commission, California has a lot of competitive seats. This helps California Republicans despite the state’s Democratic tilt.

According to the 2024 pre-election ratings by Sabato’s Crystal Ball, California had three Democratic-held seats in the “lean Democratic” category, and two more that were rated “likely Democratic”.

So, going into the election, five of California’s 40 Democratic-held seats are at least somewhat vulnerable to a Republican takeover. Texas Democrats aren’t so lucky, under its existing map: They are able to realistically target only one “likely Republican” seat out of 25 held by the GOP.

Sometimes, geography is the enemy of a “fair” map

Despite map makers’ efforts, it is sometimes impossible to produce a map that jibes perfectly with a state’s overall partisan balance. The cold facts of geography can prevent this.

One oft-cited example is Massachusetts, which hasn’t elected a Republican to the US House since 1994. There are few Republican hotbeds in Massachusetts, and experts say they can’t be easily connected into coherent congressional districts.

“Especially in deep-red or deep-blue states, parties tend to get a higher share of seats than they do of votes,” Rakich said. “Imagine a state where Republicans get two-thirds of the vote in every district; obviously, they would get 100 percent of their seats.”

Rakich said Democrats are geographically distributed more favourably in California. But in other states, Republicans benefit from better geographic distribution.

“I haven’t heard Vance complain about the fact that Democrats only get 25 percent of Wisconsin’s congressional seats despite regularly getting 50 percent of the vote there,” Rakich added.

Hunter Biden finally made news outside the MAGA mediasphere for something that’s usually the work of Fox News and other deep state disseminators: He verbally bashed the Democratic Party, CNN’s Jake Tapper, former Obama aides and even Hollywood’s devastatingly handsome ambassador George Clooney.

President Biden’s son, whose very name inspires a Pavlovian response among right-wing conspiracy theorists, appears to have pulled a page from the opposition’s playbook when during two recent interviews he leaned into grievance politics, repeatedly hurled expletives and condemned those who “did not remain loyal” to his father.

Hunter Biden’s first round of interviews since the 2024 election started out tame enough when last week on a new podcast hosted by Jaime Harrison, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he said that Democrats lost to Donald Trump because they abandoned his father. There was no “grand conspiracy” to hide his father’s health issues, he said. “We lost the last election because we did not remain loyal to the leader of the party. That’s my position. We had the advantage of incumbency, we had the advantage of an incredibly successful administration, and the Democratic Party literally melted down.”

Fair enough. Then it was on to Clooney, one of the first high-profile figures on the left to call for Biden to step aside from his reelection campaign after a disastrous debate performance. Hunter Biden disparagingly referred to the actor as “a brand” and told Harrison, “Do you think in Middle America, that voter in Green Bay, Wis., gives a s— what George Clooney thinks about who she should vote for?”

Then came the knockout punch. In a separate, three-hour-plus interview released Monday with YouTuber Andrew Callaghan, he said of the star: “George Clooney is not a f— actor. He is a f—, I don’t know what he is. He’s a brand. … F— him and everybody around him.”

George Clooney was among Kennedy Center honorees welcomed by President Biden at the White House on Dec. 4, 2022.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

Hunter Biden also had some words for senior Biden aide Anita Dunn. “The Anita Dunns of the world, who’s made $40 [million], $50 million off the Democratic Party, they’re all going to insert their judgment over a man who has figured out, unlike anybody else, how to get elected to the United States Senate over seven times, how to pass more legislation than any president in history, how to have a better midterm election than anyone in history and how to garner more votes than any president that has ever run.” Former Obama aide and political analyst David Axelrod was also on the list. He said Axelrod “had one success in his political life, and that was Barack Obama, and that was because of Barack Obama.”

And if the above sentiments were attributed to the current president’s sons, who’ve characterized the Democratic Party as Nazis and referred to those who were protesting immigration sweeps by the patently offensive term “mongoloids”? Meh, it’s just another Monday. But Hunter Biden, like most public-facing Democrats, is held to a different standard. When they go low, we go high. Remember that sage advice that worked for Democrats back in the late aughts and early 2010s but now sounds like advice pulled from a 1950s guide to etiquette? The younger Biden not only deviated from that lefty code but also mirrored his tormentors, then unleashed his ire onto his own party.

Hunter Biden‘s own reckless actions over the years made him grist for all manner of right-wing helmed investigations. Then there are the stupid conspiracies, whether it’s the missing laptop or that mysterious bag of cocaine found in the White House. Hard to keep track, but the younger Biden went there during his recent interview. “I have been clean and sober since June of 2019. I have not touched a drop of alcohol or a drug, and I’m incredibly proud of that,” he told Callaghan. “And why would I bring cocaine into the White House and stick it into a cubby outside of the Situation Room in the West Wing?”

But he also attributed at least one recent alleged conspiracy to those outside the right-wing cabal or, more specifically, to Jake Tapper. The CNN anchor co-wrote “Original Sin,” a provocative book that claimed President Biden’s confidants worked to conceal his declining health from the public.

Hunter Biden argued that it was nonsense and that the “ability to keep a secret in Washington is zero.”
“What sells, Jaime?” he asked Harrison. “What sells is the idea of a conspiracy.” And the public spectacle of flaming your enemy’s enemy.

WASHINGTON — Democrats may not agree on a solution to the country’s broken immigration system — but President Trump’s crackdown in Los Angeles has finally given them a line of attack.

‘Better terrain’

A flicker of hope has emerged from a brutal polling environment for the party suggesting the public is torn over Trump’s blunt tactics in the immigration raids. The recent set of numbers have been an outlier on an issue that has otherwise been Trump’s strongest since taking office.

“Absolutely, sentiment is shifting,” said G. Cristina Mora, a sociology professor at UC Berkeley. “You’re seeing more dissatisfaction and less agreeance with the president’s strategy on immigration enforcement.”

Polls released over the course of the last month found that, while a plurality of Americans still support Trump’s overall approach to immigration, a majority believe that ICE has gone too far in its deportation efforts. And a new survey from Gallup found record public support for immigration, with public concern over crossings and support for mass deportations down significantly from a year ago.

Top Democratic operatives are testing new talking points, hoping to press their potential advantage.

“The only place in the world that Donald Trump has put boots on the ground and deployed troops is in America,” Rahm Emanuel, a veteran party insider who served under President Obama before becoming mayor of Chicago, said this week. “In L.A., they get troops on the ground. That’s the Trump Doctrine. The only place he’s actually put boots on the ground is in an American city.”

In Washington, efforts to corral Democratic lawmakers behind a unified message on immigration have been futile ever since the party split over the Laken Riley Act, one of the first bills passed this term. The law allows ICE to detain undocumented immigrants that have faced charges, been arrested or convicted of nonviolent crimes such as burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.

But last month, when the shock of Trump’s military deployment to Los Angeles was still fresh, every single Democrat in the Senate joined in a call on the White House to withdraw the troops. The letter had no power or influence, and was paid little attention as the nascent crisis unfolded. But it was a small victory for a party that saw a rare glimpse of political unity amid the chaos.

Now, Democrats are hoping in part that Trump becomes a victim of his own success, with focus pulled from a quiet border that has seen record-low crossings since he resumed office.

In the House, Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands) is leading an immigration working group, sources said, hoping to foster consensus in the party on how to proceed.

“The issue has gotten a little less hot, because the border is calmed down,” said one senior Democratic congressional aide, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “Now the focus is raids, which is better terrain for us.”

A party split

In May, Ruben Gallego, a Democrat who won a statewide race for his Senate seat in Arizona the same year that Trump handily won the state’s presidential contest, released a vision for immigration policy. His proposal, titled “Securing the Border and Ensuring Economic Prosperity,” received little fanfare. But the plan called for significant border security enhancements as well as an increase in visa and green card opportunities and a pathway to citizenship.

It was a shot at the middle from an ambitious politician scheduled to visit Iowa, a crucial state in the presidential nominating contest, early next month.

Yet it is unclear whether efforts by Gallego, a border state senator, to moderate the party’s messaging on immigration will resonate with its base. Gallego was one of only 12 Democratic senators who voted for the Laken Riley Act.

On the other side of the party, leaders like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, as well as Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City, have focused their criticism on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, with Mamdani calling the agency “fascist” in its tactics.

“Democrats built the deportation machine that Trump has now turbocharged,” said Elliott Young, a history professor at Lewis & Clark College. “The Democrats have an opportunity to stake out a humane and economically sensible position of encouraging immigration and welcoming our future citizens from around the world. The Republicans will always be better at cruelty and xenophobia, so better to leave that to them.”

In her research at UC Berkeley, Mora still sees “very strong support” across party lines for a pathway to citizenship, as well as for the constitutional preservation of birthright citizenship. But she is skeptical of an emerging strategy from a segment of Democrats, like Gallego, to adopt a prevailing Republican narrative of rampant criminal activity among immigrants while still promoting legal protections for the rest.

Having it both ways will be difficult, she said. The Trump administration says that anyone who crossed the border without authorization is a criminal, regardless of their record once they got here.

“The Democratic Party is in this sort of place where, if you look at the Ruben Gallegos and that element, they’re sort of ceding the narrative as they talk about getting rid of the criminals,” Mora said. “Narratives of immigrants and criminality, despite all the data showing otherwise, are so tightly connected.”

“It’s a tricky dance to make,” she added.

An L.A. opportunity

Before Gallego’s visit to Iowa, California Gov. Gavin Newsom visited South Carolina earlier this month, a transparent political stop in another crucial early primary state by a Democratic presidential contender.

For Newsom, the politics of the raids in his home state have been unavoidable from the start. But the governor’s speech in Bennettsville teased a political line of attack that appears to reflect shifting public opinion against ICE tactics.

Linking the raids with Trump’s response to the Los Angeles fires, Newsom noted the president was silent on the six-month anniversary of the devastating event, while that day ordering hundreds of federal troops into MacArthur Park in the heart of the city.

“Kids were taken away and hidden into the buildings, as they paraded around with American flags on horseback in military garb and machine guns — all masked,” Newsom said. “Not one arrest was made.”

“He wanted to make a point,” Newsom added. “Cruelty is the point.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom threatens Texas over power grab. He’s blowing smoke
The deep dive: Trump cuts to California National Weather Service leave ‘critical’ holes: ‘It’s unheard of’
The L.A. Times Special: These California tech hubs are set to dominate the AI economy
More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Early this month, the U.S. military and masked federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and from Customs and Border Protection invaded a park near downtown Los Angeles — ironically, a park named after Gen. Douglas MacArthur. They came ready for battle, dressed in tactical gear and camouflage, with some arriving on horseback, while others rolled in on armored vehicles or patrolled above in Black Hawk helicopters. Although the invasion force failed to capture anyone, it did succeed in liberating the park from a group of children participating in a summer camp.

The MacArthur Park operation sounds like a scene from “South Park,” but it really did happen — and its implications are terrifying. As Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol agent in charge, said to Fox News: “Better get used to us now, ’cause this is going to be normal very soon. We will go anywhere, anytime we want in Los Angeles.” And President Trump is sending the same message to every Democratic governor and mayor in America who dares oppose him. He will send heavily armed federal forces wherever he wants, whenever he wants and for any reason.

The United States stands at the threshold of an authoritarian breakthrough, and Congress and the courts have given Trump a lot of tools. He’s learned from Jan. 6, 2021, that he needs tight control over the “guys with the guns,” as retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley put it. And that’s what he got when Congress dutifully confirmed Trump loyalists to lead all of the “power ministries” — the military, the FBI and the Department of Justice, the rest of the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security.

As commander in chief, the president can deploy troops and, under Title 10, he can also put National Guard troops under his command — even against the wishes of local officials. Gov. Gavin Newsom challenged the legality of Trump’s exercise of this authority in Los Angeles last month, and we will see what the courts say — but based on its initial rulings, the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit appears likely to defer to the president. Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the troops cannot currently enforce laws, but Trump could change that by invoking the Insurrection Act, and we have to assume that the current Supreme Court would defer to him on that as well, following long-standing precedents saying the president’s power under the act is “conclusive.”

Trump could send the military into other cities, but the most dangerous weapon in his authoritarian arsenal might be the newly empowered Department of Homeland Security, which has been given $170 billion by Congress to triple the size of ICE and double its detention capacity.

No doubt, this will put Trump’s “mass deportation” into overdrive, but this is not just about immigration. Remember Portland in 2020, when Trump sent Border Patrol agents into the city? Against the wishes of the Oregon governor and the Portland mayor, the president deployed agents to protect federal buildings and suppress unrest after the killing of George Floyd. Under the Homeland Security Act, the secretary can designate any employee of the department to assist the Federal Protective Service in safeguarding government property and carrying out “such other activities for the promotion of homeland security as the Secretary may prescribe.”

Under that law, DHS officers can also make arrests, on and off of federal property, for “any offense against the United States.” This is why, in 2020, Border Patrol agents — dressed like soldiers and equipped with M-4 semi-automatic rifles — were able to rove around Portland in unmarked black SUVs and arrest people off the streets anywhere in the city. Trump could do this again anywhere in the country, and with the billions Congress has given to immigration and border agencies, DHS could assemble and deploy a formidable federal paramilitary force wherever and whenever Trump wishes.

Of course, under the 4th Amendment, officers need to have at least reasonable suspicion based on specific, articulable facts before they can stop and question someone, and probable cause before they arrest. And on Friday, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order blocking ICE and Customs and Border Protection from making such stops without reasonable suspicion, and further holding that this could not be based on apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; presence at a particular location, such as a Home Depot parking lot; or the type of work a person does. This ruling could end up providing an important constitutional restraint on these agencies, but we shall see. The Trump administration has appealed the ruling.

However, this litigation proceeds, it is important to note that the DHS agencies are not like the FBI, with its buttoned-down, by-the-book culture drilled into it historically and in response to the revelations of J. Edgar Hoover’s abuses of power. DHS and its agencies have no such baggage, and they clearly have been pushing the envelope in Los Angeles — sometimes brutally — over the last month. And even if Frimpong’s ruling stands up on appeal, ICE and Customs and Border Protection will no doubt adapt by training their officers to articulate other justifications for stopping people on the street or in workplaces. Ultimately, these agencies are used to operating near the border, where, in the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s words, the federal government’s power is “at its zenith,” and where there are far fewer constitutional constraints on their actions.

These are the tools at Trump’s disposal — and as DHS rushes to hire thousands of agents and build the detention facilities Congress just paid for, these tools will only become more formidable. And one should anticipate that Trump will want to deploy the DHS paramilitary forces to “protect” the 2026 or 2028 elections, alongside federal troops, in the same way they worked together to capture MacArthur Park.

A fanciful, dystopian scenario? Maybe, but who or what would stop it from happening? Congress does not seem willing to stand up to the president — and while individual federal judges might, the Supreme Court seems more likely to defer to him, especially on issues concerning national security or immigration. So, in the words of Bruce Springsteen, “the last check on power, after the checks and balances of government have failed, are the people, you and me.” Suit up.

Seth Stodder served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for borders, immigration and trade and previously as assistant secretary for threat prevention and security. He teaches national security and counterterrorism law at USC Law School.

NEW YORK — Zohran Mamdani has won New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary, a new vote count confirmed Tuesday, cementing his stunning upset of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and sending him to the general election.

The Associated Press called the race after the results of the city’s ranked choice voting tabulation were released and showed Mamdani trouncing Cuomo by 12 percentage points.

In a statement, Mamdani said he was humbled by the support he received in the primary and started turning his attention to the general election.

“Last Tuesday, Democrats spoke in a clear voice, delivering a mandate for an affordable city, a politics of the future, and a leader unafraid to fight back against rising authoritarianism,” he said. “I am humbled by the support of more than 545,000 New Yorkers who voted for our campaign and am excited to expand this coalition even further as we defeat Eric Adams and win a city government that puts working people first.”

Mamdani’s win had been widely expected since he took a commanding lead after the polls closed a week ago, falling just short of the 50% of the vote needed to avoid another count under the city’s ranked choice voting model. The system allows voters’ other preferences to be counted if their top candidate falls out of the running.

Mamdani, who declared victory the night of the June 24 primary, will face a general election field that includes incumbent Mayor Eric Adams as well as independent candidate Jim Walden and Republican Curtis Sliwa.

The former governor, down but not out

Cuomo conceded defeat just hours after the polls closed last week but is contemplating whether to run in the general election on an independent ballot line. After the release of Tuesday’s vote count, Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi said, “We’ll be continuing conversations with people from all across the city while determining next steps.”

“Extremism, division and empty promises are not the answer to this city’s problems, and while this was a look at what motivates a slice of our primary electorate, it does not represent the majority,” Azzopardi said. “The financial instability of our families is the priority here, which is why actionable solutions, results and outcomes matter so much.”

Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist and member of the state Assembly, was virtually unknown when he launched his candidacy centered on a bold slate of populist ideas. But he built an energetic campaign that ran circles around Cuomo as the older, more moderate Democrat tried to come back from the sexual harassment scandal that led to his resignation four years ago.

The results, even before they were finalized, sent a shockwave through the political world.

Democratic support?

Mamdani’s campaign, which was focused on lowering the cost of living, claims it has found a new blueprint for Democrats who have at times appeared rudderless during President Trump’s climb back to power.

The Democratic establishment has approached Mamdani with caution. Many of its big players applauded his campaign but don’t seem ready to throw their full support behind the young progressive, whose past criticisms of law enforcement, use of the word “genocide” to describe the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza and “democratic socialist” label amount to landmines for some in the party.

If elected, Mamdani would be the city’s first Muslim mayor and its first of Indian American decent. He would also be one of its youngest.

Opposition mounts

For Republicans, Mamdani has already provided a new angle for attack. Trump and others in the GOP have begun to launch broadsides at him, moving to cast Mamdani as the epitome of leftist excess ahead of consequential elections elsewhere this year and next.

“If I’m a Republican, I want this guy to win,” said Grant Reeher, a political science professor at Syracuse University. “Because I want to be able to compare and contrast my campaign as a Republican, in a national election, to the idea of, ‘This is where the Democratic Party is.’”

New York City’s ranked choice voting model allows voters to list up to five candidates on their ballots in order of preference. If a single candidate is the first choice of more than 50% of voters, then that person wins the race outright. Since no candidate cleared that bar on the night of the primary, the ranked choice voting process kicked in. The board is scheduled to certify the election on July 15.

Mamdani has been a member of the state Assembly since 2021, and has characterized his inexperience as a potential asset. His campaign promised free city buses, free child care, a rent freeze for people living in rent-stabilized apartments, government-run grocery stores and more, all paid for with taxes on the wealthy. Critics have slammed his agenda as politically unrealistic.

Cuomo ran a campaign centered on his extensive experience, casting himself as the only candidate capable of saving a city he said had spun out of control. During the campaign, he focused heavily on combating antisemitism and leaned on his name recognition and juggernaut fundraising operation rather than mingling with voters.

Confronted with the sexual harassment allegations that ended his tenure as governor, he denied wrongdoing, maintaining that the scandal was driven by politics and that voters were ready to move on.

Cuomo did not remove his name from the November ballot last week, ahead of a procedural deadline to do so, and has said he is still considering whether to mount an actual campaign for the office.

Adams, while still a Democrat, is running in the November election as an independent. He dropped out of the Democratic primary in April after he was severely wounded by his now-dismissed federal bribery case. Though he had done little in the way of campaigning since then, he reignited his reelection operation in the days after Mamdani declared victory, calling it a choice between a candidate with a “blue collar” and one with a “silver spoon.”

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — Zohran Mamdani declared victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary Tuesday night after Andrew Cuomo conceded the race in a stunning upset, as the young, progressive upstart who was virtually unknown when the contest began built a substantial lead over the more experienced but scandal-scarred former governor.

Though the race’s ultimate outcome will still be decided by a ranked choice count, Mamdani took a commanding position just hours after the polls closed.

With victory all but assured, Mamdani, a 33-year-old democratic socialist who ran an energetic campaign centered on the cost of living, told supporters, “I will be your Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City.”

“I will be the mayor for every New Yorker, whether you voted for me, for Governor Cuomo, or felt too disillusioned by a long-broken political system to vote at all,” he said. “I will work to be a mayor you will be proud to call your own.”

Cuomo, who had been the front-runner throughout a race that was his comeback bid from a sexual harassment scandal, conceded the election, telling a crowd that he had called Mamdani to congratulate him.

“Tonight is his night. He deserved it. He won,” Cuomo told supporters.

Cuomo trailed Mamdani by a significant margin in the first choice ballots and faced an exceedingly difficult pathway to catching up when ballots are redistributed in New York City’s ranked choice voting process.

Mamdani, a member of the state Assembly since 2021, would be the city’s first Muslim and Indian American mayor if elected. Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams skipped the primary. He’s running as an independent in the general election. Cuomo also has the option of running in the general election.

“We are going to take a look and make some decisions,” Cuomo said.

Cuomo and Mamdani were a study in political contrasts and could have played stand-ins for the larger Democratic Party’s ideological divide, with one candidate a fresh-faced progressive and the other an older moderate.

Cuomo characterized the city as a threatening, out-of-control place desperate for an experienced leader who could restore order. He brought the power of a political dynasty to the race, securing an impressive array of endorsements from important local leaders and labor groups, all while political action committees created to support his campaign pulled in staggering sums of cash.

Mamdani, meanwhile, offered an optimistic message that life in the city could improve under his agenda, which was laser-focused on the idea that a mayor has the power to do things that lower the cost of living. The party’s progressive wing coalesced behind him and he secured endorsements from two of the country’s foremost progressives, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Unofficial results from the New York City’s Board of Elections showed that Mamdani was ranked on more ballots than Cuomo. Mamdani was listed as the second choice by tens of thousands of more voters than Cuomo. And the number of votes that will factor into ranked choice voting is sure to shrink. More than 200,000 voters only listed a first choice, the Board of Elections results show, meaning that Mamdani’s performance in the first round may ultimately be enough to clear the 50% threshold.

The race’s ultimate outcome could say something about what kind of leader Democrats are looking for during President Donald Trump’s second term.

The primary winner will go on to face incumbent Adams, a Democrat who decided to run as an independent amid a public uproar over his indictment on corruption charges and the subsequent abandonment of the case by Trump’s Justice Department. Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels, will be on the ballot in the fall’s general election.

The rest of the pack has struggled to gain recognition in a race where nearly every candidate has cast themselves as the person best positioned to challenge Trump’s agenda.

Comptroller Brad Lander, a liberal city government stalwart, made a splash last week when he was arrested after linking arms with a man federal agents were trying to detain at an immigration court in Manhattan. In the final weeks of the race, Lander and Mamdani cross endorsed one another in an attempt to boost their collective support and damage Cuomo’s bid under the ranked choice voting system.

Among the other candidates are City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, state Sen. Zellnor Myrie, hedge fund executive Whitney Tilson and former city Comptroller Scott Stringer.

Mamdani’s grassroots run has been hard not to notice.

His army of young canvassers relentlessly knocked on doors throughout the city seeking support. Posters of his grinning mug were up on shop windows. You couldn’t get on social media without seeing one of his well-produced videos pitching his vision — free buses, free child care, new apartments, a higher minimum wage and more, paid for by new taxes on rich people.

That youthful energy was apparent Tuesday evening, as both cautiously optimistic canvassers and ecstatic supporters lined the streets of Central Brooklyn on a sizzling hot summer day, creating a party-like atmosphere that spread from poll sites into the surrounding neighborhoods.

Outside his family’s Caribbean apothecary, Amani Kojo, a 23-year-old first-time voter, passed out iced tea to Mamdani canvassers, encouraging them to stay hydrated.

“It’s 100 degrees outside and it’s a vibe. New York City feels alive again,” Kojo said, raising a pile of Mamdani pamphlets. “It feels very electric seeing all the people around, the flyers, all the posts on my Instagram all day.”

Cuomo and some other Democrats have cast Mamdani as unqualified. They say he doesn’t have the management chops to wrangle the city’s sprawling bureaucracy or handle crises. Critics have also taken aim at Mamdani’s support for Palestinian human rights.

In response, Mamdani has slammed Cuomo over his sexual harassment scandal and his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cuomo resigned in 2021 after a report commissioned by the state attorney general concluded that he had sexually harassed at least 11 women. He has always maintained that he didn’t intentionally harass the women, saying he had simply fallen behind what was considered appropriate workplace conduct.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jake Offenhartz contributed to this report.

Video shows Zohran Mamdani declaring victory in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary after Andrew Cuomo conceded. The 33-year-old democratic socialist would become the city’s first Muslim and Indian American mayor if elected.

Eric Bauman, a gruff and tireless political operative who led two of California’s most powerful Democratic organizations before resigning amid misconduct allegations, died Monday.

His family said in a statement that Bauman died at UCLA West Valley Medical Center after a long illness. He was 66.

Born in the Bronx to an Army doctor and a registered nurse, Bauman went to military school and moved to Hollywood just before he turned 18. He became a nurse and met his husband, also a nurse, in a hospital cafeteria during an overnight shift in the early 1980s.

Motivated in part by the AIDS crisis, Bauman became active in the Stonewall Democratic Club Los Angeles, a progressive political group, and was elected president of the organization in 1994.

Bauman grew L.A. County Democratic Party into a political force as chairman from 2000 to 2017 and expanded the number of Democrats winning elections at every level of government, from water boards to the U.S. House of Representatives.

“I turned the L.A. Democratic Party from a $50,000-a-year organization into a $1.5 million-a-year organization,” he told a reporter in 2011.

With a Bronx affect and a gold signet ring on his pinkie finger that he twisted when he was under pressure, Bauman built a reputation as an old-school party boss who would give you the bad news straight. Democrats compared him to Ray Liotta, and some called him the “Godfather of Democratic politics.”

“People come up to me on the street all the time and think I’m Joe Pesci,” he told the Times in 2017. “I try to work with that.”

Bauman ran for state Democratic Party chair in 2017. After a bruising election that exposed the fractures between the progressive and establishment wings of the party, Bauman was elected by a mere 62 votes.

He was the first openly gay and first Jewish person to chair the party.

“I don’t wear a button that says, ‘Look at me, I’m gay,’” Bauman said in a 2009 interview with the UCLA Film and Television Archive. But, he said, “I never fail to recognize my partner from any podium. It is in my bio. It is a part of who I am.”

The high point of his tenure was the 2018 midterm elections, when California Democrats flipped seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and won back a veto-proof supermajority in the state Legislature.

Bauman said he wanted to overturn California’s voter-approved “jungle primary” system, which allows the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, regardless of party. Bauman argued that Democrats should pick their own nominees, rather than spending millions of dollars fighting in the primaries.

In late 2018, The Times reported that Bauman had made crude sexual comments and had engaged in unwanted touching or physical intimidation in professional settings, citing 10 party staff members and political activists.

Bauman resigned, saying he planned to seek treatment for health issues and alcohol use. The state Democratic Party fired top staffers in the wake of the allegations and eventually paid more than $380,000 to settle a sexual misconduct lawsuit brought by three of his accusers. A party spokeswoman did not respond to requests for a statement on Bauman’s death Tuesday.

After his resignation, Bauman disappeared from public life for several years. More recently, he began hosting a radio show called “The UnCommon Sense Democrat” on the Inland Empire’s KCAA-AM 1050.

In the mid-2000s, when Republicans still represented many outlying areas of Los Angeles County, Bauman set up a “red zone program” at the L.A. County Democratic Party that funneled money and volunteers to Democrats running for seats in GOP strongholds.

The investments were a gamble, but they built relationships and better candidates — and sometimes, a long shot candidate actually won, said former state lawmaker Miguel Santiago, who first got involved with the party in the early 2000s.

“He was really hungry for Democratic wins,” Santiago said. “There was no seat that that guy left on the table, whether it was a community college seat, a school board race, a water board race.”

Bauman also worked to strengthen ties with organized labor, now the California Democratic Party’s most powerful ally, and build voter registration and turnout.

State Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez, who chaired the county party after Bauman, said he spent countless hours as a young volunteer entering information about newly registered voters into the party database.

The data came from a booth that the Democratic Party set up outside citizenship ceremonies where newly eligible voters could register to vote as Democrats, he said. Bauman sent a signed card to each person, congratulating them and welcoming them to the party.

“That touched people, and it showed them that they matter,” Gonzalez said.

Bauman also worked for Gov. Gray Davis and insurance commissioner John Garamendi and as a consultant to several Assembly speakers, including Anthony Rendon of Los Angeles and Toni Atkins of San Diego.

He is survived by his husband and partner of 42 years, Michael Andraychak, and his father and sister, Richard and Roya Bauman.

A California Democratic Party employee sued the organization in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday, alleging he was repeatedly groped and sexually assaulted by former Chairman Eric Bauman.

William Floyd, who served as Bauman’s assistant from March 2016 until November 2018, claims in the suit that Bauman performed oral sex on him without his consent on at least three occasions. He said he became fearful of Bauman after the party leader allegedly told him, “If you cross me, I will break you.”

Floyd, 28, is seeking damages for lost income, emotional distress and pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The complaint names Bauman, 60, and the state and Los Angeles County Democratic parties as defendants, alleging that the two organizations failed to prevent Bauman’s harassing behavior and retained him in “conscious disregard of the rights and well-being of others.”

“We have not yet been formally served with this lawsuit and have only learned about the filing of it through media inquiries this evening,” said Neal S. Zaslavsky, Bauman’s attorney. “As with the other pending matter, Mr. Bauman will not be trying this case in the media. Mr. Bauman denies the allegations in the complaint and looks forward to complete vindication once the facts come out.”

Mark Gonzalez, chairman of the L.A. County Democratic Party, said the group was “reviewing the allegations of the complaint” and had no further comment.

Lawsuit against California Democratic Party details alleged harassment by former chair Eric Bauman »

Alexandra “Alex” Gallardo Rooker, who stepped in as acting chairwoman of the state party after Bauman’s resignation, said in a statement that the allegations “are very serious and deserve a hearing. The most appropriate venue for us all to learn the truth, whatever it may be, is ultimately in the courtroom where we can let the sun shine in.”

The lawsuit comes amid continued turmoil in the party after the resignation of Bauman, who stepped down in November following claims of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior toward party staff members and activists.

At the time, Bauman said that he planned to seek treatment for health issues and alcohol use.

“I deeply regret if my behavior has caused pain to any of the outstanding individuals with whom I’ve had the privilege to work. I appreciate the courage it took for these individuals to come forward to tell their stories,” Bauman said.

“In the interest of allowing the CDP’s independent investigation to move forward, I do not wish to respond to any of the specific allegations. However, I will use the time I am on leave to immediately seek medical intervention to address serious, ongoing health issues and to begin treatment for what I now realize is an issue with alcohol,” he added.

Bauman and the party were earlier sued by three other employees in January, who alleged discrimination and a culture of harassment and sexual misconduct that was “well-known and apparently tolerated” by top officials.

According to the new lawsuit filed Wednesday, Floyd first met Bauman in 2015 while he was interning for the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. By then, the complaint says, “Bauman had a reputation for excessive drinking, making crude sexual comments to LACDP and CDP employees and volunteers, and engaging in unwanted sexual touching and/or physical intimidation” in professional settings.

In an June 2016 incident in Long Beach, Floyd alleges, he was in Bauman’s hotel room with other members of the L.A. County party and fell asleep after having too much to drink. When he woke up, the complaint alleges, he found Bauman performing oral sex on him and quickly pulled up his pants and fled the room. The lawsuit alleges that in later conversations, Bauman implied that he had penetrated Floyd during the incident.

On two other occasions alleged in the suit, Floyd said “felt he had no choice” to comply with Bauman’s demands and allow him to perform oral sex.

The lawsuit says that on Nov. 1, just days before the 2018 midterm election, Floyd told a senior party staffer that Bauman had sexually assaulted him. Several days later, the complaint says, Floyd was contacted by the party’s human resources director, Amy Vrattos.

California Democratic Chairman Eric Bauman accused of sexually explicit comments, unwanted touching »

But officials with the party “looked the other way, and failed to confront Bauman” because of his success helping Democratic candidates across the state, the lawsuit alleges.

“Maybe I was naive, but I really thought that, by working for the Democratic Party, I could advance the causes I believed in,” Floyd said in a statement provided by his attorney. “Most of us lived in fear of [Bauman].”

Floyd’s attorney, Scott Ames, said the party has “stonewalled” his client and has “not done anything to rectify the situation.”

After Bauman resigned, the suit says, Floyd met with the state party’s investigator, who was examining allegations against Bauman. Less than a week later, the complaint alleges, state party officials told Floyd that they were closing the organization’s Los Angeles office and that he would be terminated unless he agreed to work at Sacramento headquarters.

Floyd agreed to move to Sacramento in January 2019 to keep his job, the complaint says. He is still employed by the party but plans to move back to Los Angeles County this year for graduate school.

The suit is the latest in a series of blows to the fractured California Democratic Party, which despite historic wins in last year’s elections has faced a reckoning in the #MeToo era. In addition to fallout from Bauman’s resignation, Rooker was criticized for firing two colleagues who helped file a sexual harassment complaint against Bauman.

“This is not unusual when there is a change in leadership,” Roger Salazar, a spokesman for the party, said in a statement. “These moves are not necessarily a reflection upon the work of each of the individuals involved, but are part of a desire by the acting chair to start fresh and keep the party moving in the right direction.”

[email protected]

For more on California politics, follow @cmaiduc.

Randi Weingarten, the head of the American Federation of Teachers, and Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, resigned from their positions on the Democratic National Committee. This could be great news.

I don’t really know, because the actual reasons remain murky.

“While I am proud to be a Democrat,” Weingarten told DNC Chair Ken Martin in her resignation letter, “I appear to be out of step with the leadership you are forging, and I do not want to be the one who keeps questioning why we are not enlarging our tent and actively trying to engage more and more of our communities.”

Color me skeptical this is the real reason. I doubt Martin’s stated policy is to shrink the Democratic tent or refrain from engaging with “more and more of our communities” — whatever that means. Much of the reporting on the resignations revolves around old-fashioned Democratic disarray and internal power struggles. Weingarten and Saunders had supported Martin’s opponent in the recent election of a new DNC chair. That may be all there is to it, which would be a shame.

That’s because the Democratic Party is a mess. Don’t get me wrong, so is the Republican Party, but for different reasons. The GOP is also in charge, controlling the White House and both branches of Congress. Moreover, for all the problems the Republican Party has, it has the wind at its back and remains more popular than the Democrats. In 2024, it made impressive strides with many core Democratic demographic constituencies, including Black, Latino and young voters.

The GOP has a story to tell voters. You may not like the story. You may think it’s not actually following through on the vision it’s selling, but Republicans know how to articulate what they’re for. Democrats not so much.

Historically, the Democratic Party is the party of government. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “It is the purpose of government to see that not only the legitimate interests of the few are protected but that the welfare and rights of the many are conserved.”

The Democratic Party has gotten itself into a mess because it has evolved — or devolved — into a party fairly perceived as more concerned with the interests of the few and less concerned with the welfare and rights of the many. That was the underlying message of that ad the Trump campaign played more than any other (30,000 times!). It showed a clip of Kamala Harris explaining her support for government-funded sex-change surgeries for illegal immigrants. It closed with: “She’s for they/them. He’s for you.” The anti-transgender message was obvious (and broadly popular), but the subtext was more important: Harris is for niche issues that excite activists while Trump is for the meat-and-potatoes concerns of the common American.

Few groups represent the Democrats’ broader problem better than groups such as Weingarten’s AFT (teachers unions typically make up about 1 in 10 of the delegates at Democratic conventions). During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, Weingarten consistently put the needs of union members over the general welfare, while insisting she was putting children first. She opposed reopening schools long after it was remotely necessary to operate remotely and successfully badgered Joe Biden to violate his pledge to reopen them quickly.

AFT and other public-sector unions, such as AFSCME, are an ATM for the Democratic Party. And the Democratic Party is responsive to donors. For instance, one of the first things President Biden did when he took office was issue an executive order repealing a Trump administration policy that restricted government employees from spending more than 25% of their time doing union business while on the job. He put the number back up to 100%.

There’s a reason FDR disliked the idea of unionizing government employees. The government shouldn’t be captured by special interests that use state power to further their ends over the general welfare. Democrats instinctively understand this when it comes to corporate interests but seem blind to it for members of their own coalition. Biden’s effort to lawlessly cancel student debt wasn’t just terrible policy; it also sent the signal that the party put the interests of the few above the many.

As a conservative, I don’t typically root for the Democratic Party. But I’ve come to realize that our system depends on two healthy, sane parties competing over best policies. When one party goes off the rails, it gives permission for the other party to do likewise. If the departure of Weingarten and Saunders is a sign the party is coming to realize that, that’s good news indeed.

@JonahDispatch

June 17 (UPI) — Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has thrown support to a pair of progressive candidates running in Democratic primaries against more established candidates.

Sanders is expected to officially endorse Zohran Mamdani in the party’s mayoral primary in New York City on Tuesday.

A Brooklyn native, Sanders joins Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. in support of Mamdani, a left-wing Democrat who must compete against former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the primary. Current mayor Eric Adams is running for reelection as an independent.

“Our nation faces a fundamental choice: Will we continue with a corporate-dominated politics driven by billionaires or will we build a grass-roots movement fueled by everyday people, committed to fighting oligarchy, authoritarianism and kleptocracy?” Mr. Sanders has said about Mamdani.

“The New York City Democratic primary presents a clear choice as to the path forward,” he added.

Sanders has also announced his support for Michigan state Rep. Donavan McKinney, who seeks to unseat current Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich.

“As a Member of Congress, Donavan will fight to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, fully fund our public schools, invest in public housing and support Medicare for all,” said Sanders of McKinney. “A former union leader, he has dedicated his life to standing with working people, and is ready to lead the struggle against Donald Trump, the oligarchy, and the corporate interests who prioritize profits over people.”

McKinney, who also has the support of Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said in a statement that “Senator Sanders has long been a progressive champion for working class Americans, and I am honored to receive his endorsement.”

Sanders had also announced in May he had partnered with the Run for Something young candidate recruitment organization, which posted to X in May that “His message is clear-run for office-and we’re here to make sure new leaders have the tools to win.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has fired a Democratic commissioner for the federal agency that oversees nuclear safety as he continues to assert more control over independent regulatory agencies.

Christopher Hanson, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a statement Monday that Trump terminated his position as NRC commissioner without cause, “contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.”

The firing of Hanson comes as Trump seeks to take authority away from the independent safety agency, which has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades. Trump signed executive orders in May intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach. To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. Energy secretary authority to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects.

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in an emailed statement that “all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction” and that the Republican president reserves the right to “remove employees within his own executive branch.”

Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an independent federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. In a similar move, two National Labor Relations Board members were fired. Willie Phillips, a Democratic member and former chairman of the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stepped down in April, telling reporters that the White House asked him to do so.

Trump also signed an executive order to give the White House direct control of independent federal regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, called Hanson’s firing illegal and another attempt by Trump to undermine independent agencies and consolidate power in the White House.

“Congress explicitly created the NRC as an independent agency, insulated from the whims of any president, knowing that was the only way to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the American people,” Pallone said in a statement.

Senate Democrats also said Trump overstepped his authority. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray and Martin Heinrich said in a joint statement that “Trump’s lawlessness” threatens the commission’s ability to ensure that nuclear power plants and nuclear materials are safe and free from political interference.

Hanson was nominated to the commission by Trump in 2020. He was appointed chair by former President Biden in January 2021 and served in that role until Trump’s inauguration to a second term as president. Trump selected David Wright, a Republican member of the commission, to serve as chair. Hanson continued to serve on the NRC as a commissioner. His term was due to end in 2029.

Wright’s term expires on June 30. The White House has not said if he will be reappointed.

Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Hanson a dedicated public servant and a strong supporter of the NRC’s public health and safety mission. Firing Hanson is Trump’s “latest outrageous move to undermine the independence and integrity” of the agency that protects the U.S. homeland from nuclear power plant disasters, Lyman said in a statement.

The NRC confirmed Hanson’s service ended on Friday, bringing the panel to two Democrats and two Republicans. The commission has functioned in the past with fewer than the required five commissioners and will continue to do so, the statement said.

McDermott and Daly write for the Associated Press. McDermott reported from Providence, R.I.

In a news statement this week, the White House cherry-picked personal income tax-related elements in the “big, beautiful bill”, the wide-ranging tax and spending bill being pushed by United States President Donald Trump, and claimed that, in opposing the legislation as a whole, the Democratic Party was opposed to every individual item contained within it.

Such a tactic is misleading, particularly since the White House cited measures in the bill that have been championed by Democrats to improve the lives of Americans and are not the reasons the Democrats have given for opposing the “big beautiful bill”.

Here’s a fact-check of what the White House claims Democrats oppose:

“They’re opposing the largest tax cut in history, which will put an extra $5,000 in their pockets with a double-digit percent decrease to their tax bills. In fact, Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay around 15% less in taxes.”

The specifics of the tax bill have not been finalised. In its current form, it would cut taxes by an average of 2.4 percent, for middle-income households, according to analysis by the Tax Policy Center.

While it is a significant tax cut, it is not the biggest in history. That was under Ronald Reagan in 1981 at 2.9 percent.

It is accurate that there will be a double-digit percentage decrease in tax bills, at least in the immediate term, at a little more than 11 percent across all tax brackets. It is also true that people earning between $30,000 and $80,000 will pay 15 percent less, according to the Non-Partisan Joint Committee on Taxation.

“They’re opposing NO TAX ON TIPS for the millions of Americans who work in the service industry and NO TAX ON OVERTIME for law enforcement, nurses, and more.”

This is true only in their opposition to Trump’s tax and spending bill.

Democrats and Republicans have supported the concept of no tax on tips. Both Donald Trump and the Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris pledged to do so on the campaign trail. Senate Democrats backed the No Tax on Tips Act, passed by the US Senate on May 20. The bill, authored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, was co-sponsored by notable Democrats, including Jacky Rosen of Nevada and passed unanimously.

“They’re opposing historic tax cuts for senior citizens”

Outside of the “big beautiful bill”, Democrats have generally not opposed tax cuts for seniors. Many Democrats have championed legislation that would expand tax cuts for seniors. California Democrat Jimmy Panetta co-sponsored a Republican led bill that would increase the standard deduction for adults over the age of 65 by $4,000.

In 2024, House Democrats introduced the “You Earned It, You Keep It Act”, which would effectively eliminate taxes on social security benefits. The bill, however, has never made it past committee.

“They’re opposing a boost to the child tax credit.”

Again, they are opposing Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, not objecting to the child tax credit.

In fact, Democrats have long pushed to expand the child tax credit. In April, Senate Democrats, including Georgia’s Raphael Warnock and Colorado’s Michael Bennett, introduced legislation that would expand the child tax credit. The bill would increase the tax credit, from $2,000 where it currently stands, to $6,360 for newborns, $4,320 for children ages one to six and $3,600 for children six to 17, permanently.

While the “big beautiful bill” would also increase the child tax credit, it would do so only by $500, and that would kick in in 2028.

“They’re opposing new savings accounts for newborns and the chance for children across America to experience the miracle of compounded growth.” 

In the “big beautiful bill”, House Republicans introduced new savings accounts for children. The accounts would include a $1,000 handout for every child born between January 1, 2025 and January 1, 2029.

Democrats have not only been supporters of the idea for savings accounts for newborns, but prominent Democrats actually championed it.

In 2018, Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the American Opportunity Accounts Act, which would also give $1,000 to newborns and up to $2000 in annual contributions. He reintroduced the bill again in 2023.

“They’re opposing expanded access to childcare for hardworking American families.”

This appears to be false. The White House link refers to the Paid Family and Medical Leave Credit, not child care access. Trump’s bill offers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees who have worked a year and earn $57,600 or less.

While that gives parents more time at home, Democrats have focused on expanding access to child care, including universal pre-K. In 2023, Republicans opposed a Democratic plan to keep child care centres open that struggled in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“They’re opposing historic border security to keep their communities safe.”

Last year, Trump pressured Republicans to vote against a bipartisan border security bill, a move that reportedly helped Trump’s chances of winning in November 2024. Democrats have opposed Republican plans to use US military bases for migrant detention, arguing that it misuses Department of Defense resources. Democrats have long opposed border wall funding, including during Trump’s first term.

A 2018 Stanford University analysis estimated that a border wall would reduce migration by just 0.6 percent. Despite this, the “big beautiful bill” allocates more than $50bn to complete the wall and maritime crossings, $45bn for building and maintaining detention centres, and $14bn for transportation.

“They’re opposing expanded health savings accounts that give Americans greater choice and flexibility in how they spend their money.”

This is sort of true. Democrats have not been huge proponents of health savings accounts. The belief is that healthcare savings accounts do not help the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who may not have the financial resources to contribute to the accounts. Democrats have also objected to other cuts to healthcare in the bill, including the potential $880bn that could be cut from essential government programmes like Medicaid.

“They’re opposing scholarships that empower Americans to choose the education that best fits the needs of their families.”

In the bill, the White House is conflating the longstanding debate on school choice with scholarships. Under school choice, funds otherwise allocated to the public school system can be re-allocated to private institutions, which Republicans argue will allow students to have potential access to a higher quality education.

Democrats have opposed school choice because it diverts funds from public school systems, many of which are already drastically underfunded. In Texas, Senator Ted Cruz, for example, pushed legislation that would expand school choice, even as three out of four school districts in the state are underfunded, according to a Kinder Institute analysis.