democrats

ST. CLOUD, Fla. — Florida chef Elijah Button was chopping onions in June when his knife slipped and sliced his middle finger to the bone.

It was his worst kitchen accident to date. But having given up his Affordable Care Act health insurance plan in January because of a $100 monthly premium hike he couldn’t afford, the 21-year-old in St. Cloud didn’t have the money for emergency care.

“Going to the hospital for it wasn’t even an option,” he said, gesturing toward his finger before preparing a pot roast for his aunt and uncle in their suburban home. “My first thought was, ‘how am I going to fix this?’”

After Republicans in Congress let enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans expire in January, millions of Americans including Button had to decide whether to keep insurance that often doubled or tripled in cost — or risk going without it.

Months later, with no action from lawmakers to replace the lost funds, they’re facing the consequences. Some are dealing with strained budgets and exorbitant medical bills, while others avoid the doctor in fear of the cost.

Florida, whose large population of gig workers, entrepreneurs and small business owners relies heavily on the federal health insurance marketplace, has become one of the nation’s most visible epicenters of that impact.

Figures first reported by The Associated Press showed that about 440,000 Floridians dropped their Affordable Care Act plans this year — more than in any other state. Thousands more who kept coverage are struggling to get by, as prices of necessities like groceries and gasoline remain steep, and health insurers project another year of double-digit premium hikes.

While Florida had the most affected residents, its struggles are reflective of broader nationwide concerns over rising healthcare costs and a lack of meaningful policy to address them.

In the deep-red state where congressional districts were recently redrawn to strongly favor Republicans, the cost of healthcare is a major campaign issue. Republican midterm candidates have been promoting fraud crackdowns to protect federal health programs, while Democrats have been urging voters to help Congress change hands so they can restore subsidies.

Button, who is estranged from his parents, asked his uncle for help with his bloodied finger. With a butterfly bandage, splint and daily cleanings and dressings, it healed. But the scar still gnaws at Button as a symbol of what else could go wrong.

“It just feels like I’m living in a house of cards,” he said.

Florida’s population and politics make it ground zero for ACA fallout

Last fall, debate over the expiring subsidies consumed Congress, resulting in a record 43-day government shutdown as Democrats insisted on extending the COVID-era assistance and most Republicans refused.

Fast forward almost a year and lawmakers rarely reference the topic anymore. The administration says it is addressing affordability with fraud-busting efforts and deals with drug companies, but Congress hasn’t passed any significant legislation to lower health costs.

In part due to its large number of construction, hospitality and small business workers — and also because its Republican-led legislature never expanded the Medicaid safety-net health program — Florida has the largest Affordable Care Act enrollment in the country. At just over 3.8 million enrollees, it represents about a fifth of the nation’s total enrolled population.

Of the roughly 443,000 Floridians who left the marketplace, most are likely going without insurance, according to Cynthia Cox, a vice president at the healthcare research nonprofit KFF. She said that’s because it is typically a “place of last resort” to get coverage.

The data doesn’t tell the stories of those who kept insurance. Tracy Rand, a licensed mental health counselor in Leesburg, Florida, is one of them.

Ever since getting her ovaries removed last year due to benign but painful tumors, she has had severe menopause symptoms that require medication, including an overactive bladder and hot flashes that cause piercing headaches.

She uses clear plastic containers to organize the more than 30 medicines and supplements she takes daily, their bottles crammed into a living-room drawer and a tray on her kitchen counter.

The 51-year-old’s Affordable Care Act plan was going to surge in price this year from $55 a month to $1,100 a month, so she downgraded. Her new plan, with higher deductibles and copays, costs $160 a month.

To make that work in her budget, Rand quit a doctoral program she was working toward, started buying groceries at cheaper stores, gave up once-monthly dinners out with her husband and stopped meeting friends regularly at a paint-your-own pottery studio.

It’s been a difficult adjustment, but a necessary one for her health.

Rand said the prospect of insurers raising rates again fills her with dread.

“I don’t know what else we can get rid of,” she said, covering her face with her hands. “I don’t know if we’re going to have to file bankruptcy.″

Clinics for the uninsured are a saving grace — but they can’t take everyone

In Orlando’s leafy, brick-paved neighborhood of Colonialtown South, Tarsha Watson found her lifeline. A clinic there called Grace Medical Home provides low-income, uninsured Floridians with comprehensive care for a $5 per-visit fee.

Watson, 54, has a master’s degree in business administration, but she hasn’t been able to find work since losing her job two years ago. That means she doesn’t have health insurance. When she explored Affordable Care Act coverage, she was quoted $600 per month, far out of her reach.

At Grace, Watson learned her blood sugar is high and that she needed to lose weight. Now, she walks laps around her backyard pool and does Tai Chi YouTube tutorials to focus on fitness. She said she wishes everyone could have her experience.

“It’s very hard out here,” she said. “It’s not enough.”

At the clinic, patients cycle in and out of a wide hallway lined with appointment rooms as doctors scan supply shelves for complimentary over-the-counter medications. The expansive building has separate areas for dental, mental health, vision and pediatric care.

CEO Stephanie Garris said it’s one of 110 free or charitable clinics in Florida, but that’s not enough to handle demand. To treat more people in response to the Affordable Care Act changes, it recently started hosting a mobile acute care clinic for walk-in patients.

Garris said Grace Medical Home treated about 1,350 people last year. Every year, they take about 350 new patients.

“Would I love to double that, triple that? Of course,” Garris said. “I just think in the reality, with the huge number of uninsured that we have, it’s just not possible.”

Health costs become an issue in midterm campaigns

For U.S. Rep. Darren Soto, a Democrat defending his seat in a sprawling — and now much redder — redrawn district south of Orlando, health costs are a campaign focal point.

He said his district, which is near various theme parks, had the second-largest Affordable Care Act enrollment in the nation, in part because many small tourism businesses can’t offer employees health insurance.

“I just hear it everywhere I go,” he said. His Republican opponent, Navy veteran and former Trump administration official Dan Green, did not answer emailed questions about the subsidies but has emphasized affordability of groceries and property insurance as campaign priorities.

Soto voted with Democrats and some Republicans — including a few from Florida — to save the subsidies last year. The Republican majority declined and suggested other ideas, including funding Americans’ health savings accounts. No law along those lines has passed yet.

Button, a Democrat in Soto’s district, said he is open to different reforms for health costs, but said politicians aren’t acting fast enough.

“They keep trying to make excuse after excuse,” he said. “I don’t have six months to a year to wait for you guys to pass this through the hoops that you need to.”

Swenson and Martin write for the Associated Press.

OMAHA, Neb. — “Do they still like Trump in Nebraska? I think so,” the president said during a recent event in Washington.

Given that the state easily backed Republican Donald Trump three times and hasn’t supported a Democrat for the White House since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, the answer may seem obvious.

But in Nebraska’s largest city, it’s an open question and could decide one of the country’s most-watched congressional races. Retiring Rep. Don Bacon ’s open seat pits fellow Republican and Omaha City Councilmember Brinker Harding against Democratic activist Denise Powell.

The district encompasses an increasingly Democratic-leaning Omaha metro area of 1 million-plus and its more conservative suburbs — famous for steaks and the Reuben sandwich’s birthplace, though New York disputes that.

It’s one of just eight districts nationwide that elected Republicans in House races while supporting Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris over Trump two years ago.

Harding and Powell have been making the rounds at parades and festivals where meat raffles offer oversized sausages as prizes. However, those on-the-ground appeals could be drowned out by Trump who, like most things in politics, has moved to shape November’s midterm elections in his own image.

The president is organizing a Republican midterm convention in Dallas next month that will serve as much a two-day rally for him as a boon to party candidates nationwide. Trump is also frequently visiting tightly contested districts, despite his low approval ratings and the unpopular war in Iran.

While Trump centers himself, Democrats are happy to oblige.

When Powell knocks on doors to talk to voters, she asks, “What’s keeping you up at night?” On a sweaty Saturday afternoon, John Rosseter responded without hesitation. “Well, Trump.”

“I want to see the history books written years from now,” said Rosseter, 67, who owns a carpentry business. “They won’t be pretty.”

The ‘Blue Dot’ hasn’t helped Democratic House candidates

Nebraska splits its presidential electoral votes, and the 2nd Congressional District’s delegate has gone to Democrats three out of five times since 2008, making it a “ blue dot ” in an otherwise Republican red state. But a Democrat has won the House seat just once since 1994.

Harding plays up Trump’s primary endorsement, and House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise campaigned for him. Harding said he has “the full confidence of, not only the White House, but leadership in the Congress.”

He has also tried to appeal to swing voters and says he knows the district better than does Powell, co-founder of Women Who Run Nebraska, which supports female candidates.

Two possible Democratic 2028 presidential candidates — ex-Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and Rahm Emanuel, an ex-Chicago mayor who was President Barack Obama’s first White House chief of staff — have campaigned with Powell.

She talks about how Medicare cuts have increased anxiety about affordability. Powell also points to Trump and his family’s business dealings as an example of “the choices that they have made while people on the ground are struggling” and she says that resonates with Republicans.

“Even the ones who aren’t necessarily anti-Trump,” Powell said, “understand the need for checks and balances.”

Some Democrats want a ‘Blue Dot Wave’

Jason Brown and his wife, Ruth Huebner-Brown, caused a sensation in 2024 by spray painting about 50 reused lawn signs with blue dots and distributing them around Omaha’s Dundee neighborhood. The couple has since expanded to professionally produce signs promoting a “Blue Dot Wave.”

Brown said the Republican-controlled Congress has capitulated on “every Trump nominee, every Trump policy, all the way down to putting gilding gold on statues.”

Supporters of Harding have countered with red “Brinker Dot” signs.

“We need to make sure that we keep this country on the track to being even better,” Harding said.

Jack Hosking, the 90-year-old retired former head of a title insurance company, organizes a weekly coffee to discuss political and community issues. He estimated that about 70% of attendees are Trump voters and “maybe even more so lately, because of the crap that the New York mayor started,” referring to Zohran Mamdani’s efforts at pushing the Democratic Party to the left.

Both Powell and Harding have addressed Hosking’s group, though, and he predicted that as much as half will support the Democrat.

“She spoke well enough that, my sense is, a lot of them will cross over,” Hosking said, noting that when it came to campaigning, “Brinker’s not doing much.”

The president seen as a base motivator

The Republican National Committee views Trump as a national asset, betting he can prevent complacency in a year without a presidential race, when enthusiasm for the party in power typically wanes.

The committee rebranded its “Young Guns” program for key candidates to “MAGA Majority” in deference to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement, and many congressional candidates will be at the Dallas convention with Trump.

Others aren’t waiting that long.

Republican Reps. Mike Lawler of New York and Tom Barrett of Michigan, whom Democrats are aiming to unseat, both appeared with Trump during his rallies in their districts. When the president visited Macungie, Pennsylvania, in June, he joined Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, saying, “I’m here for him.”

Trump also traveled to the Wisconsin district of Republican Rep. Derreck Van Orden, as have Cabinet members.

Rep. Juan Ciscomani, facing a reelection fight, appeared with Trump during an April event in Arizona. Two Iowa Republicans in what could be toss-up reelection contests, Reps Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, both were by Trump’s side when he kicked off his midterm campaign outside Des Moines.

Bacon sometimes defied the White House in his final term. He criticized Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and tried to curb Trump’s ability to impose tariffs and was the only House Republican who opposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

Mary Jane Truemper, who heads the Nebraska Republican Party, said Powell and the state’s Democrats have moved too far to the left. She called Harding “a steady force” and said the nominee is not as fond of picking high-profile fights the way Bacon sometimes was.

“I think he speaks to the moderate Democrats as well as the Republicans,” said Truemper, who managed Bacon’s reelection campaign in 2018 and also worked for an unsuccessful primary challenger to him.

Even Powell said, “Don Bacon was a good representative of this district, and I think that there are a lot of people drawn to a pragmatic style of leadership in a state like ours.” But that may not be enough this year.

“People are worse off than they were before,” Powell said.

A local race may expose a wider party divide among neighbors

In the Elmwood Park neighborhood, Andy Maxwell, a 58-year-old pediatrician, said he likes to find the middle ground in politics and his community. But he recalled that, after putting up a Biden sign in his yard in 2020, his neighbors erected a Trump one.

“We don’t like all the turmoil part of it,” Maxwell said of politics nationally.

Nearby, 80-year-old Jerard Pearson called Democrats “feckless,” but said of Trump’s base supporters, “I’ve always been curious about this one-third level of crazy out there, a third of the population.” He is also no fan of a neighbor’s large “Harding for Congress” sign.

Truemper said Harding appreciates Trump’s endorsement but Nebraskans like to be wooed “person-to-person, rather than a national entity coming in.”

“Is that going to be the deciding factor?” she asked of Trump. “I don’t know.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

The high desert is not typically a place you look for a wave. But in the vast expanse between the Sierra Nevada and Utah border, a not-exactly-wide-open race for Congress is testing whether a blue wave, should one come November, is ankle-high or something more akin to a political tsunami.

Nevada’s 2nd District has been represented by just four lawmakers since its creation more than 40 years ago. All those representatives have been Republicans.

November’s contest should be another shoo-in for the GOP and its nominee, David Flippo. The district, which takes in northern Nevada, is overwhelmingly white and rural, which makes it solidly conservative. In 2024, Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by a decisive 56% to 42%; only Washoe County, home to Reno, kept things that close. Trump won other portions of the district by 50 percentage points or more.

But inflation, Trump’s sagging approval rating and other factors — northern resentment toward southern Nevada, where Flippo lived until fairly recently, the refusal of the incumbent to support his party’s nominee — offer Democrats the not-entirely-far-fetched hope of a major upset.

“It will be an interesting summer and fall,” Mark Amodei, who has represented the district for 15 years, wrote on social media after the June primary. “But I believe it’s fair to say that CD-2, for the first time in its history, isn’t a Republican guarantee.”

That’s just about the kindest thing the congressman has had to say about his would-be successor.

All of which make the sprawling district in Nevada’s rough and rocky Great Basin an improbable political bellwether. A win on such forbidding terrain would almost certainly mean a nationwide Democratic gain of 30 or more seats in November; they need to flip just three to take control of the House.

Flippo, 63, a 25-year Air Force veteran and Trump stalwart, arrived in the district from Las Vegas. He ran for Congress there in 2024, losing in the Republican primary. He was preparing for a second try in the Democratic-leaning 4th District when Amodei unexpectedly announced his retirement in February. So Flippo hightailed it north to run in the far more hospitable 2nd District.

He took on the favored candidate of Amodei and others in the GOP establishment, James Settelmeyer, a former minority leader of the state Senate. Backed by a constellation of MAGA celebrities, Flippo waged a fiercely negative campaign, accusing “Tampon Jim” of voting to put menstrual products in boys’ bathrooms and coddling undocumented immigrants, among other distortions. With Trump’s endorsement, Flippo handily defeated Settelmeyer and 11 other primary opponents.

“”Absolutely scurrilous campaign against … one of the nicest guys around,” Amodei said afterward, on the program “Nevada Newsmakers.” “The voters are never wrong. But guess what? Mark Amodei’s not endorsing [Flippo.] I wish him all the best. No way. No, thank you.”

Apart from his exceedingly short-term residency in the district, questions have also been raised about Flippo’s opaque finances. He has lent his campaign more than $1.6 million and failed to provide the personal disclosure information required of federal candidates. There is also no record of Flippo filing the required statement during his 2024 campaign, according to the Washington news outlet NOTUS.

In addition, it reported that Flippo was fired from a job in the financial services industry after his company accused him of violating policies and regulations.

So, a carpetbagger with a sketchy history.

Flippo’s main opponent is Teresa Benitez-Thompson, 48, a longtime Reno resident, former member of the state Assembly and a relatively moderate Democrat. Those credentials also buoy Democratic hopes. The party’s congressional campaign committee has, for the first time in decades, added Nevada’s 2nd District to its target list, though it remains to be seen how much time and money national Democrats commit to the race.

To prevail, Benitez-Thompson would have to defy political gravity, which is to say overcome the reflexive partisanship that has typified politics in this age of deep voter polarization.

In the last two midterm elections, according to the Pew Research Center, more than 90% of Republican and Republican-leaning voters supported GOP candidates for the House. In other words, the kind of crossover voters that Benitez-Thompson needs to win have become rare indeed.

““Trump is a huge liability for Republicans; there is no question that the GOP is going to have huge turnout problems, meaning that in a lot of races, Democrats are going to greatly exceed expectations,” the veteran election handicapper Charlie Cook wrote in a recent midterm analysis. “But converting Republican voters to actually back a Democrat — even for a day — is so much harder now.”

Jon Ralston, one of Nevada’s leading political savants, agreed.

“Some of those rural Nevada voters would rather commit hara-kiri than vote for a Democrat,” Ralston said. (No, Japan’s ancient suicide ritual is not particularly associated with honor or custom in the cow counties, as Nevada’s lightly populated stretches are known. But you get the point.)

“I don’t think it’s impossible,” Ralston, founder and chief executive of the Nevada Independent news site, said of a Democratic upset. “But I remain skeptical.”

Here’s the thing, though, about wave elections — and, to be clear, your friendly political columnist is offering no predictions ahead of November. Like a massive ocean swell, which can bear all kinds of flotsam and jetsam ashore, a political wave that is big enough, broad enough and strong enough can carry all manner of unlikely candidates to victory.

Even in the bone-dry desert.

Big-city mayors are giving poll workers panic buttons in case election skeptics question their work. County and state officials are gaming out responses to immigration raids near voting centers.

Lawyers for Democratic states and civic groups are pre-writing legal challenges to ballot seizures. And Democratic aides in Washington are preparing members of Congress to push back in the court of public opinion against any baseless claims of voter fraud in competitive districts.

Across California and the nation, civic organizations, voting rights advocates and Democratic leaders are preparing for a raft of potential actions by the Trump administration to interfere in, subvert or deny November’s midterm vote.

President Trump, an election denier for years, has without evidence described the U.S. election system as badly corrupted by fraud and dangerously vulnerable to both domestic and foreign interference.

He has said he would do “anything necessary” to have “honest elections,” and has tried since returning to office to unilaterally rewrite the rules for voting nationwide and wrest control of elections from the states through executive orders and other administrative measures.

Now, he has declined to rule out additional and unprecedented steps to force his will on the November election, including through emergency declarations and military deployments, and in February suggested Republicans should simply take over voting in blue states.

Election experts say there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in American elections, despite Trump’s allies searching for years.

A worker looks through ballots at a Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center on Monday, June 8, 2026 in City of Industry, CA. Counting continues on ballots cast for the state’s primary election held June 2.

(Eric Thayer/Los Angeles Times)

Much of the work to resist any Trump interference or power grab is being done quietly to avoid revealing too much of the strategy to the Trump administration or stoking unnecessary fear among voters.

It is designed to match what Trump’s opponents see as his three-part “interference playbook” — to “deceive” voters before the election, “disrupt” the vote itself and “deny” any unfavorable results after, said Justin Vail of Protect Democracy, a prominent litigant against the administration.

“The threats are real,” Vail said, “but the preparation is larger and more coordinated than ever before.”

The scenarios being planned for include the president deploying troops or immigration agents to polling sites to intimidate voters, fomenting unrest as a pretext to declare a national emergency, claiming fraud in the ballot counts of key congressional races or commanding the U.S. Postal Service to intervene in mail ballot delivery.

All told, the efforts amount to an unprecedented exercise to ensure the nation’s elections are safe from its own federal government.

They also reflect a deterioration in trust between states and counties overseeing elections, voting rights and pro-democracy advocates and a federal administration that has denigrated their work and tried to take control of voting away from states.

As public frustration with the economy mounts and Trump’s approval rating sinks, Democrats have become hopeful their party will retake power in Congress. Trump, meanwhile, has suggested that alleged election integrity problems will be the culprit if Republicans lose.

In California, 61% of voters recently identified federal inference in November as a “major concern,” according to a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll co-sponsored by The Times.

“We are taking this threat really seriously,” said Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who helped form a Senate task force to prepare. “Politically, I’m very optimistic about the midterms. But I’m also deeply concerned with the president’s willingness to interfere with them — and the fact that, unlike even in 2020, where there were at least some people around him to try to constrain what he was doing, all those people are gone.”

President Donald Trump is seen on a screen as his supporters cheer during a rally on the National Mall on January 6, 2021 in Washington, DC. Trump supporters gathered in the nation’s capital today to protest the ratification of President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory over President Trump in the 2020 election.

(Samuel Corum / Getty Images)

Much of the work is legal preparation among Democratic state attorneys general and lawyers with leading civic organizations. Nothing is being ruled out after Trump’s supporters, at his goading, violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, following his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.

Other preparation is political, as members of Congress, mayors and other elected officials position themselves to use their bully pulpits and legislative powers to punch back. And grassroots campaigns are also unfolding, as community leaders recruit voters to defend their local elections, including online.

“This is an all-hands-on-deck task,” said Skye Perryman, president of the nonpartisan legal organization Democracy Forward. “We’re anticipating scenarios we haven’t seen before in the United States.”

Trump, who has never accepted his 2020 loss to Biden despite scores of reviews and audits confirming the result, has consistently sought to undermine Americans’ trust in elections, telling the nation in a prime-time speech last month that the voting system was “broken” and claiming that the SAVE America Act, a strict Republican-proposed voter ID and citizenship measure, is necessary to fix it.

The White House said it wouldn’t respond to hypothetical questions about the midterm election, but said anyone who breaks voting laws will be held accountable. Lauren Bis, a White House spokesperson, blamed “extreme liberal Democrats” for undermining U.S. confidence in elections by blocking the SAVE America Act, which Trump has failed to push through Congress.

Bis claimed voters support such changes, and said “President Trump is absolutely right: We fix this now, or we lose our country.”

Causes for concern

The fears of interference are driven by Trump’s long record of election denial; his recent insistence that the midterms are vulnerable to both domestic fraud and foreign interference; his success installing loyalists and fellow election deniers in powerful positions throughout his government; and his current administration’s many attempts to usurp control over state voting processes, including through executive orders, lawsuits and legislation.

Trump and his allies have sued to compel blue states to turn over voter rolls; seized ballots in Georgia; tried to limit mail voting via new U.S. Postal Service rules; pushed stricter citizenship and voter ID requirements via executive order and in Congress; diminished independent agencies tasking with helping states secure elections; kicked off a nationwide gerrymandering effort to boost Republican chances in the House; and threatened to imprison Democratic leaders who stand in their way.

Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) (C) departs after a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and Republican senators at the U.S. Capitol on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. President Trump is visiting Capitol Hill to attend a closed-door luncheon with the Republican Senate Steering Committee to push his SAVE America Act, which would impose strict voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements in federal elections.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

Some analysts saw Trump’s speech last month as laying the groundwork for greater intervention in November, and he raised further alarm this month by entertaining a suggestion from conservative radio host and election conspiracy theorist Wayne Allyn Root that the president has “the right to declare a national security emergency” to unilaterally enforce new voting restrictions.

“Stranger things have happened,” Trump responded.

The White House has previously downplayed the likelihood of immigration agents being deployed to polling locations, but Trump has refused to rule it out. Legal experts say such a move would probably be swiftly blocked by courts, as would any unlawful deployment of military troops to polls.

Some voting experts said Trump’s efforts shouldn’t be blown out of proportion, particularly given federal courts’ dim view of them to date.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, noted Trump’s executive orders on elections were blocked, the Justice Department is 0 for 23 in cases demanding state voter rolls, and the primaries have run smoothly with high turnout — showing the president is “having very little effect.”

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, said it is “important that people be aware that there are threats, but to not let those threats be debilitating” or prevent them from voting.

Civic experts are urging regular voters to help debunk misinformation about voting within their communities. Democracy Forward has asked people to take one civic-minded action per day leading up to the election, while Indivisible, a progressive grassroots organization, is training volunteers nationwide to mount public push-back to any interference.

Coordination in Congress

A Senate aide who spoke with The Times on condition of anonymity said members of the Senate task force meet regularly to plan for as many potential forms of interference as possible — and that there is “no bottom” to what they’re considering.

Task force members are studying nuanced local election laws to understand how Congress members should respond to any federal interference in their home states, and working on “coordinated messaging” that all members can use in response to immigration raids or other broad interference, the aide said.

National Guard troops stand in the shade at The Park at LeDroit in Northwest on August 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump is claiming credit for Washington’s dramatic crime decline a year after Trump sent thousands of National Guard troops to the nation’s Capitol, but the evidence shows crime was already falling before his federal intervention and the extent to which his policies accelerated that decline remains disputed.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

They are also reading “line by line” through recent legal decisions limiting National Guard deployments and other federal actions to identify any “loopholes” the administration might exploit.

They are paying particular attention to districts with competitive congressional races and where past problems have arisen. In California, they’ve studied the recent seizure of ballots by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and the criticism of slow ballot counting statewide, the aide said.

Schiff said the scenario he is “most concerned” about is one in which the president or his allies “seed” unrest in big cities to “give the president a pretext, Reichstag fire-like, to call out the military or invoke the Insurrection Act or call out ICE or Border Patrol.”

The Reichstag fire erupted in the German parliament four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as chancellor in 1933, and was used to justify a sweeping crackdown on political opponents and the suspension of civil liberties — ushering in Nazi rule.

Schiff said lawsuits will be a necessary but “very imperfect remedy” in such a scenario, and Democrats will need to develop a more robust response combining “litigation with mobilization” and legislative oversight.

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which has election oversight, is helping to create an election observer program for hotly contested races, and has warned his colleagues that he will call a vote on any election-related emergency Trump declares, so that they must co-sign or resist it.

Separately in the House, staffers have been building their own “road map” for how to deal with a laundry list of “terrible things that bad-faith actors who seek to subvert the election could do,” with a principal focus on any ways they might disrupt the Jan. 3 swearing in of new Congress members, said a House aide involved in the preparations there, who spoke with The Times on the condition of anonymity.

The U.S. Capitol, on July 20, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Tom Brenner / Getty Images)

House staffers are also looking at how court imposed limits on Trump’s emergency powers might be “exploited, weaponized [or] ignored” by the administration, including the Justice Department.

A Justice Department spokesperson said the department is “working diligently” to fulfill the demands of Trump’s election-related executive order purporting to “strengthen the integrity of our elections,” which courts have blocked, and has “statutory authority to enforce our nation’s election laws, including through requesting state voter rolls,” which courts have also blocked.

Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the department’s civil rights division and has threatened local elections officials with legal consequences if they don’t comply with her voter roll demands, said her division “has a statutory mandate to enforce our federal voting rights laws, and ensuring the voting public’s confidence in the integrity of our elections is a top priority of this administration.”

State and local preparations

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said attorneys from his office and similar Democratic ones across the country are “hard at work planning, preparing, strategizing, researching, getting ready for all the different ways the Trump administration can break the law.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, right, holds a press conference at the Ronald Reagan State Building in downtown Los Angeles on Thursday, May 14, 2026.

(Christina House/Los Angeles Times)

That includes any attempts to seize ballots, deploy federal law enforcement or the military, or command the U.S. Postal Service to interfere with mail ballots, he said. “The right to vote is the right from which all other rights flow. It’s fundamental. We need to protect it.”

Dean Logan, registrar-recorder and county clerk for Los Angeles County, said he has a responsibility to ensure that “election operations remain secure and uninterrupted” no matter the threat, and is taking steps to do so, though he declined to address potential acts by Trump. Long Beach Mayor Rex Richardson said big cities are also preparing, including to prevent harassment of voters or election workers.

“Cities are where we host vote centers. It’s where the volunteers come from, where people go with their questions,” Richardson said. “We have to pay attention to national rhetoric. We have to be aware of anxiety that might — tensions that may — arise.”

Progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab will replace former Rep. Eric Swalwell in Congress and finish his current term.

Wahab (D-Hayward) defeated Melissa Hernandez, the president of the Bay Area Rapid Transit Board and the former mayor of Dublin who was seen as the more moderate candidate. The two faced off in a special runoff election on Tuesday, and the Associated Press declared Wahab the winner Thursday afternoon.

The two Democrats will face each other again in the Nov. 3 general election to determine who will represent a slightly redrawn district in the East Bay for a full term beginning in 2027.

Following a Thursday update from Alameda County elections officials, Wahab led with 53.1% of the vote to Hernandez’s 46.9%, according to the secretary of state’s website. The additional ballots widened the slim lead Wahab held on election night.

“This victory belongs to the voters who made clear that our district cannot be bought,” Wahab posted on Facebook Thursday after the race was called. “Through one of the ugliest, most expensive elections we’ve ever seen, we never took the bait or went negative. We stayed focused on the people, and I will fight for this district that raised me. From foster care to Congress, this journey shows the possibility of the American Dream. Today this district made history by electing the first Afghan American to Congress.”

In an email to supporters, Hernandez said the November election “will be in the new district lines, adding 26,000 Dublin voters who didn’t have the chance to vote for me in August. We’re looking forward to winning this on November 3rd with a more favorable district and a much larger electorate. Game on!”

Swalwell, a Dublin Democrat, resigned from the seat and dropped his bid for California governor in April after multiple women accused him of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies.

Though Wahab was favored to win the seat and finished first in both the regular and special election primaries, the race became more competitive after the pro-Israel group American Israel Public Affairs Committee spent millions of dollars on ads attacking her. Though the war in Gaza was not a central campaign issue, Wahab has criticized Israel’s military actions in Gaza and described it as a genocide. Hernandez has defended Israel’s right to defend itself.

Progressives celebrated Wahab’s victory despite the heavy spending against her.

Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, a group founded by progressive Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said her campaign “should be studied by every progressive running for office in America.”

“The lesson from CA-14 is simple: Democrats do not have to surrender to the biggest checkbook in the race,” Geevarghese said. “Big money can buy television ads, mailboxes and endless attacks. It cannot buy the trust built through thousands of conversations between neighbors. That is the model: Unite the movement, organize everywhere, and make billionaire money fight us on our terrain.”

Democrats on Thursday narrowed the list of potential host cities for their 2028 presidential convention to Boston, Denver and Philadelphia as their party looks ahead to a wide-open primary to succeed President Trump.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin said in a statement the cities put forward “incredibly strong bids,” and he promised the convention would be an “inspiring celebration of our party’s future nominee.”

A final decision is expected to be made later this year by party leaders. Republicans have already chosen Houston for the site of their 2028 convention.

The Democratic convention, scheduled for Aug. 7-10, 2028, traditionally gives the party a chance to formally introduce its nominee to the country, rally the base and kick-start the most intense period of campaigning ahead of the general election.

The party didn’t specify why Atlanta and Chicago, which was the site of the 2024 convention, were eliminated. Officials visited all five cities in April and May, considering logistical and fundraising capacity among other factors.

The three finalists are liberal strongholds surrounded by the type of suburban areas that have become increasingly important to the party in recent elections. They also provide access to fundraising and key demographic and interest groups, like labor unions.

While Colorado and Massachusetts have gone Democratic in recent presidential elections, Pennsylvania has been among the biggest battlegrounds. Trump, a Republican, won Pennsylvania in 2024.

Philadelphia last hosted the convention in 2016, Denver in 2008 and Boston in 2004.

Before the presidential primary gets into gear, Democrats are looking at this year’s midterm elections as an opportunity to flip the narrowly divided Republican-led House and maybe take back control of the Senate.

Democrats face fundraising disadvantages compared with Republicans, along with financial debt, and Martin has confronted criticism over his stewardship of the party.

During a recent DNC meeting in Texas, Martin downplayed the critics and called for the party to unite as it tries to win the midterms and look ahead to 2028 and the end of Trump’s second term.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press.

Californians are more concerned about the Trump administration interfering in the state’s midterm elections than they are about voter fraud, noncitizens voting illegally or foreign interference, according to a new poll.

A majority of voters — 61% — identified potential federal interference as a “major concern” heading into November, slightly more than the 59% who cited possible foreign interference as such, according to the poll from the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times.

By comparison, 41% of California voters identified voter fraud and 37% identified noncitizens voting as major concerns, the poll found.

The polling reflects the liberal leanings of the state, where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, as well as the nation’s hyperpartisan divide on voting issues and vulnerabilities.

That divide has been driven for years by President Trump’s relentless criticism of U.S. elections, particularly in large blue states such as California, and recently by his administration’s attempts to wrest control over voting processes from the states based on unverified claims of widespread fraud and the fierce pushback against those claims from California Democrats and other liberal leaders around the country.

The White House has dismissed concerns about interference and accused Democrats of obstructing its efforts to protect American elections from fraud, including through the proposed SAVE America Act — which would enforce strict new ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voters nationwide.

While 80% of Democratic respondents to the poll said potential federal interference in the state’s elections was a major concern, just 28% of Republican respondents identified it as such.

Voter fraud was identified as a major concern by 84% of Republican voters but just 21% of Democratic voters, the poll found. Noncitizens voting illegally also was identified as a major concern by 85% of Republicans but just 12% of Democrats.

Republicans also have substantial concerns about the security of mail ballots and how slowly California counts its vote, while Democrats were far less concerned about those issues, the poll found.

Mark DiCamillo, the poll’s director, said it clearly reflects the partisan divide around election issues and “shows that in this state, federal interference is a big deal — more so than in other places around the country.”

He called that a “big finding” in line with previous polls that found “Californians are very concerned about prioritizing efforts to defend democracy and to protect election systems,” including in the face of threats from Trump — who routinely has focused on the state in his regular attacks on election integrity.

“For 61% of Californians to say that’s a major concern to them in terms of the threats to the election system, I think that’s very newsworthy,” DiCamillo said.

He also noted the particularly stark difference between state Democrats and Republicans on the issue of noncitizens voting.

“Nearly 90% of Democrats say that’s not a concern, whereas 85% of Republicans feel it is,” he said. “Californians have a lot of noncitizens in the state, but Democrats don’t think they’re infecting the voter rolls, so they’re not concerned about it.”

That was striking, DiCamillo said, given how much Trump has pointed to California to claim that noncitizens are voting.

“Obviously, the Democrats are very strongly opposed to the president, what he’s trying to do, and the Republicans are supportive,” DiCamillo said.

Other findings in the poll also support that conclusion.

For instance, while Trump has claimed without evidence that mail ballots are a major source of fraud and their use should be reined in, the poll found that 72% of Californians approve of mail ballots as a primary method for voting in the state — with 58% saying they strongly approve.

California law requires every registered voter in the state to be sent a mail ballot, and more than 80% of voters have used such ballots in recent elections.

Trump also repeatedly has accused California officials of failing to secure state elections against fraud and of cheating as they count later-arriving mail ballots. But the poll found that Californians by greater than a 2-to-1 margin — 65% to 31% — are confident local election officials are accurately and fairly counting ballots. However, the poll did find that more than half of respondents, 53%, had concerns about delays in California’s vote-counting process.

Overall, 64% of respondents were confident in the integrity of the state’s election system, compared to 34% who were not.

Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation, downplayed the threats of voter fraud and noncitizens voting in the state, but acknowledged they are real concerns for some voters — which is a problem in itself.

“I see election security as both a matter of actual security and perceived security. And the truth is that we have a great deal of actual security in California elections, but, unfortunately, that security is not being perceived by some voters,” she said. She attributed that in part to the “constant drumbeat that we’ve had now for a decade, coming from the occupant of the White House, that our elections are rigged.”

Alexander said California law requires registering voters to prove and attest to their identity and has multiple verification measures to ensure people casting ballots are who they say they are. She said there are “common sense” reasons why noncitizens do not try to vote — including that it requires them to turn over personal information and could be grounds for criminal charges and deportation, which is “a huge disincentive.”

Alexander also said Trump administration interference in the midterms is a real concern, but so is overhyping the threat to the point it discourages voters from casting ballots.

“Not to dismiss the threats — the threats are real — but the more we talk about them, the more we scare voters,” Alexander said. “I’ve encountered voters who’ve said this to me: ‘What’s the point in voting when they’re just gonna cheat?’ Or, you know: ‘It’s all rigged.’ And that’s part of the play here — is to scare people into thinking that voting doesn’t matter.”

To counter that, Alexander said it is “really important that people be aware that there are threats, but to not let those threats be debilitating or to allow them to dissuade people from wanting to participate.”

The poll surveyed 4,207 registered voters in California from Aug. 3 to 9, online in English and Spanish, and has an estimated margin of error of about 2.5 percentage points in either direction.

WASHINGTON — Federal regulators have given preliminary approval for a cryptocurrency venture tied to President Trump and his family to operate a digital-asset bank, a decision that has drawn immediate condemnation from Senate Democrats who are now pushing legislation to bar such an action.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, and nine other Senate Democrats introduced a bill Saturday that would bar the president, the vice president, their immediate family members and other senior government officials from owning or controlling banks.

The measure was proposed a day after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — which is part of the Trump administration — granted conditional approval for World Liberty Trust Co. to become a trust bank. The firm was founded in 2024 by two of Trump’s sons and the sons of Steve Witkoff, the Trump administration’s special envoy to the Middle East.

If the firm gets final approval, it would not act like a conventional bank and take deposits or make loans. Instead, the chartered bank would be able to issue and manage cryptocurrencies and digital assets. But the move would grant new financial powers to the Trump family’s crypto business, which has already shown to be profitable for the president in his first year back in the White House.

Trump’s financial disclosures show the president has earned more than $1.2 billion from crypto-related projects as he has pushed to deregulate the digital-asset industry. He hauled in more than $500 million from his World Liberty Financial business selling new crypto products and is a significant owner of the firm through an entity called DT Marks DEFI LLC, which holds about a 38% stake.

Aside from World Liberty Financial, Trump last year took in more than $600 million from sales of souvenir-type “meme” coins stamped with his likeness.

Trump’s crypto windfall has lately fueled Democrats’ argument that the president stands to personally gain from the same regulatory apparatus he oversees, and has led to acrimonious negotiations in Capitol Hill over how to regulate the industry.

The White House said Tuesday “there are no conflicts of interest.” But the recent decision by federal regulators in relation to World Liberty Financial is now giving more ammunition to Democrats, who have pushed for more ethical guardrails to crack down on the Trump family’s crypto ventures.

“This is the most brazen act of self-dealing our financial system has ever seen — and Congress cannot allow it to stand,” Warren said in a statement. “The Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act will close the door on this kind of unprecedented corruption.”

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) said the decision to allow a Trump-linked crypto firm to charter its own bank is “injecting risk into our financial system and fueling the Trump family’s business endeavors.”

“It is Congress’ responsibility and duty now to rein in this corruption and ensure that bank charters, deposit insurance, and other banking licenses cannot be handed out to entities influenced or controlled by any President’s family,” Alsobrooks said in a statement.

David Wachsman, a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial, disputed the criticism, saying the preliminary approval is “great news for consumer and investor protection advocates and for the American financial services industry.”

“Critics are missing the point: World Liberty Financial is running towards regulation and continuous oversight, not away from it,” Wachsman said in a statement. “World Liberty Trust Company’s national charter will ensure robust and permanent regulatory supervision from the OCC, a federal banking regulator, that will outlast the Trump administration.”

Wachsman said World Liberty will be required to provide weekly reports about its operations that will be subject to independent reviews. He added that federal banking laws such as anti-money-laundering rules and consumer protection statutes will be “directly applicable and enforceable.”

The White House did not comment directly about the administration’s involvement with the World Liberty application to charter a bank. But in a statement, the White House disputed claims that the president’s decisions in office have financially benefited him and his allies.

“All of President Trump’s investment holdings are in held in fully discretionary accounts managed by independent third-party financial institutions,” Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. “The President only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

Kelly added: “There are no conflicts of interest.”

Lawmakers in the United States have renewed calls for answers about conditions on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that reports emerging from the aircraft carrier may belie a troubling pattern.

In at least three separate appeals, Democrats called for more information about how the Navy prepared for the vessel’s record-breaking deployment.

The aircraft carrier has been involved in military operations against Venezuela as well as the US-Israel war on Iran since it departed from San Diego, California, in November.

The ship has yet to dock for a port call in the time since. Having spent more than 260 days at sea, it has broken the US Navy’s record for the longest deployment without a stop.

Reports have emerged in recent weeks about crew members attempting to jump overboard amid shortages of food and other supplies.

On Tuesday, US Representative Pat Ryan published a letter sent to acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and signed by 22 members of Congress.

It noted that the lengthy deployments “have become a pattern in the Administration’s handling of its war against Iran”.

The war, which began on February 28, shows no sign of ending. Ryan pointed out that the USS Gerald Ford had also broken records for the length of its deployment as part of the Iran war, and it, too, was the subject of worrying reports about strain on sailors’ health. The ship returned to the US in April.

“The reported conditions on the Lincoln, following so soon after the reported conditions on the Ford, leave Congress and the public concerned that the Department is not adapting quickly enough to the conditions,” Ryan wrote in his letter, dated August 14.

He also questioned whether US Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees military operations in the Middle East, was “taking the appropriate steps to mitigate the continued challenges in our fleet”.

A delegation of California lawmakers, including Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, has also sent a letter to the Pentagon calling for an inquiry.

Separately, a group of Democratic senators addressed another letter, dated August 15, to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, demanding answers and calling for accountability.

“This is a symptom of poor planning by both you and the President and exacerbated by the deeply unsound decision to start a war with Iran,” that letter said.

“Open-ended deployments driven by an open-ended war have real consequences for our servicemembers, and we are seeing those consequences now.”

The appeals for more information come as the USS Lincoln prepares to navigate home.

Cao revealed last week that the USS Lincoln would soon return to the US. The announcement coincided with reports that the USS George Washington has been rerouted from the Pacific Ocean to replace its fellow aircraft carrier.

But the USS Washington’s departure leaves no aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific, long portrayed as a region of strategic interest for the US as it seeks to check China’s territorial ambitions.

President Donald Trump and his defence officials, meanwhile, have argued that reports about the USS Lincoln’s conditions have been overblown.

Hegseth, for instance, has called the reports of conditions “completely misrepresented”. Trump last week also said the vessel had not been deployed “nearly long enough”.

On Monday, the president brushed aside questions about the USS Lincoln’s conditions as part of a “CNN fake report”.

Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, has also released a statement on social media this week, saying he has visited the USS Lincoln in recent days and found the crew “awe-inspiring”.

“This doesn’t mean that all is perfect,” he wrote. “Find any of the nearly 4 million Navy veterans in America today and they will likely tell you that service at sea for long periods isn’t for everyone.”

But he applauded the USS Lincoln’s leadership for having made “mental health and crew resilience” a priority.

Unlike Democrats, members of Trump’s Republican Party have largely not responded to the reports of mental health strain and supply shortages on the USS Lincoln.

However, Representative Don Bacon voiced concern during an interview on CBS News’s Face the Nation programme on Sunday.

“We should have oversight,” he said.

The youth movement among our political leaders, especially among Democrats, is in full cry. On the whole, this looks to be a positive inflection point in our political leadership, empowering a new generation of leaders advocating needed changes in the government’s relationship with its constituents.

But in some particulars it’s misplaced. As the smoke from the recent party primaries clears, it’s proper to take stock in what we’ve lost, alongside what we may gain from a changing of the guard.

For example, take Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), 78, who was turfed out of his seat in his state’s Aug. 11 primary by his Democratic challenger, former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, 47.

Given that Larson is in his 28th year as a member of congress, it sounds reasonable to suggest that it’s his time to go. But that means overlooking Larson’s most important role in the House, as a member of both the majority and (currently) the minority. And that’s his persistent campaign to preserve Social Security — indeed, to enhance it so it serves today’s workers as well or better than it has served Americans since its enactment in 1935.

There doesn’t seem to be much risk that Bronin’s election, which looks likely, will undermine the progressive faction in the House.

Connecticut’s 1st Congressional District, which Larson represents, is perhaps the bluest district in a blue state, and Bronin’s policy positions tick all the appropriate progressive boxes. But it will probably take years for Bronin to acquire the credibility on Social Security that Larson possessed, even assuming that he wishes to do so.

Larson’s instrument has been the Social Security 2100 Act, which he first introduced in 2017. The act has never passed, but in its draft versions it has embodied several principles that remain fundamental to the Democratic approach to Social Security.

Among them: augmenting benefits to the lowest-wage workers; providing coverage to those whose work has been outside the system, such as family caregivers; and raising Social Security taxes on the rich, who have increasingly avoided paying their fair share of the costs of this all-important antipoverty program. More on that in a moment.

Larson’s loss didn’t result from his championing Social Security. The thrust of Bronin’s campaign was almost entirely that Larson had grown too old in the job, and the path should be cleared for new blood (i.e., himself).

Nothing is new about the drive to bring fresh faces and fresh ideas into the political mainstream. Youth movements arise regularly in politics, especially in times of partisan discontent.

George Orwell, whose observations about the politics and mores of his time remain relevant to the present, wrote (in 1932) of the youth movement that erupted in Britain in 1918.

“At that time,” he wrote in “The Road to Wigan Pier,” his classic about class and economics, “there was, among the young, a curious cult of hatred of ‘old men.’ The dominance of ‘old men’ was held to be responsible for every evil known to humanity, and every accepted institution from [Sir Walter] Scott’s novels to the House of Lords was derided merely because ‘old men’ were in favor of it.”

Orwell traced the phenomenon to Britain’s experience in World War I, which he wrote “had been conducted mainly by old men and had been conducted with supreme incompetence. By 1918 everyone under forty was in a bad temper with his elders, and the mood of anti-militarism which followed naturally upon the fighting was extended into a general revolt against orthodoxy and authority.”

Today’s youth movement, which is concentrated among Democrats, has an analogous origin. It’s rooted in distaste for a politics that has impoverished a generation while filling the pockets of the wealthy.

In some cases, the need to usher superannuated politicians out the door is indisputable. A prime specimen was Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.), whose mental and physical incapacities became manifest as she neared the end of her life; in 2023 she died in office at 90.

On the other hand, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), led her Democratic caucus with a firm hand as Speaker until she yielded the gavel in 2023 at age 82, having notched one of the most successful speakerships in history. (She’s not running for reelection this year.)

Joe Biden, whose apparently faltering faculties became a political talking point during his 2024 presidential reelection campaign, when he was 82 and was in the process of returning the U.S. economy to its pre-pandemic strength when he lost to Donald Trump — who at the age of 80 has been systematically dismantling Biden’s economic policies to the disadvantage of middle-class and working Americans.

Meanwhile, has anybody heard recently from Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), age 84? He hasn’t been seen in public since mid-June. At the moment, he’s regarded as one of those politicians determined to hold on to their seats with what Orwell (him again) described as their “prehensile bottoms.”

As I wrote in 2023, when the age issue was all the rage, “concern-trolling about the advanced age of government leaders hasn’t always been a path to political success.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt cited a “hardening of the judicial arteries” in announcing his 1937 scheme to pack the Supreme Court, which involved shifting the politics of the court to the left by trying to force justices to retire when they reached the age of 70, or adding a justice to the court for every sitting justice who refused. FDR’s plan collapsed after it provoked widespread opposition, the most significant political failure of the New Deal.

That brings us back to the Social Security 2100 Act. The measure, which was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), isn’t perfect. In fact it has been revised at least three times, typically to address political wavelets that come and go.

In all versions, over time it would eliminate the cap on payroll taxes, which are currently limited to 12.4% on wage income up to a maximum of $184,500. That’s a maximum tax of $22,878, divided 50/50 between workers and their employers.

Because of the cap, the effective payroll tax rate on someone with income of $1 million falls to about 2.3%; in reality it’s even lower, because unearned income such as capital gains, interest and dividends, which constitute half or more of the income of wealthy households, isn’t taxed at all.

Originally, the bill called for raising the payroll tax rate by one-tenth of a percentage point a year, to an employer/employee combined 14.8% by the 2040. On the other hand, Larson would reduce the income tax on Social Security earnings, returning a bit to middle- and lower-income workers. Social Security’s actuaries calculated that Larson’s bill would ensure the program’s solvency for at least 75 years, but in practical terms into the almost limitless future.

The rate increase was dropped in subsequent versions, but it was supplanted by a 12.4% tax on net investment income for taxpayers with income over $400,000. That would guarantee the system’s solvency into the 2060s, the actuaries calculated.

Social Security’s advocates plainly could see Larson’s defeat coming. The day before the Connecticut primary, three of them published an op-ed calling Larson an “irreplaceable” asset to their cause. “When it comes to fighting for Social Security,” they wrote, “no one has worked harder than Rep. Larson.” They pointed out that the “Social Security 2100 Act earned in the last Congress support from over 90% of House Democrats, representing all corners of the Democratic coalition.”

Bronin hasn’t said anything specific about Social Security, beyond a campaign pledge that he’ll work for “strengthening” the program. I asked his campaign whether he had any details to offer, but didn’t get a reply. Larson, for his part, has reacted to his defeat with a gentlemanly call for all Democrats to come together to defeat Trump.

Unlike Republicans, who have spent decades slandering Social Security as an undeserved “entitlement” and suggesting that it’s responsible for federal budget deficits (impossible, as a matter of law) and sluggish economic growth (untrue, as a matter of fact), Democrats have worked to preserve it, if not always effectively.

In coming Congresses, Republicans will be offering all sorts of nostrums to “save” Social Security. History says that these will aim to impose benefit cuts on workers to protect the rich from higher taxes.

Will the Democrats stand fast against this long GOP campaign? With Larson’s defeat, they’ll be short one leader. Let’s hope the rest of the party keeps the faith.

Democrats in the United States have approved a shakeup to their 2028 presidential primary calendar as the party looks to take back the White House.

During a meeting on Saturday in Austin, Texas, Democratic National Committee (DNC) members voted to overhaul which states have the first say in picking the party’s presidential nominee.

South Carolina will once again take centre stage as the party’s first official nominating contest, with its Democratic primary scheduled for January 22, 2028.

Nevada will go second on February 1, followed by New Hampshire on February 8. New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia will round out the early states over the course of that month.

The new calendar formalises a change that began during the last presidential election cycle in 2024, when the national Democratic Party similarly put South Carolina at the front of its primary lineup.

The 2028 primaries set up a more competitive calendar for Democrats, giving greater influence to states with more racial diversity, in an effort to better represent the party’s key constituencies.

Debate over primary calendar

But plans to reshape the primary calendar have been met with controversy in the past.

In 2024, for instance, local leaders in New Hampshire defied party leaders by holding a state-run primary ahead of the first party-led vote in South Carolina. As justification, New Hampshire officials cited a state law requiring their primary to be the first in the nation.

There was also pushback in Iowa, whose state caucus had ushered in the primary season for decades.

Iowa Democrats warned that moving the state lower in the party’s calendar could send the wrong signal to rural voters, who often feel overlooked in national politics and tend to lean rightward.

Still, proponents of the calendar change argue that it will help the Democratic primaries better mirror the overall population of the US.

South Carolina has normally been Democrats’ first contest in the southern US, and it has a significant population of Black voters. Roughly a quarter of the state identifies as Black, according to census estimates.

Nevada and New Mexico, meanwhile, have large Latino or Hispanic populations, with 31 percent and 49 percent of their residents identifying as such, respectively. All three states will be at the forefront of the primary calendar, come 2028.

DNC Chairman Ken Martin took to social media on Saturday to tout the changes as capturing the demographic shifts in the country.

“These states reflect the diversity of America and will help ensure our nominee is best positioned to take back the White House in 2028,” Martin wrote on X.

Ongoing party feud

Iowa and New Hampshire both have overwhelmingly white electorates, and critics have long argued the two states have played outsized roles in shaping presidential elections.

Notching early victories in the party primaries can help a candidate build momentum, and that, in turn, can help presidential hopefuls secure party nominations.

Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who led the DNC from 2005 to 2009, told The Associated Press (AP) news agency that the calendar changes will make for a more representative nominating process.

“These states look more like the country,” Dean said, pointing to places like South Carolina and Nevada, “whereas Iowa and New Hampshire don’t”.

But it remains uncertain how the new calendar could affect the growing intra-party feud between progressive and more moderate, establishment candidates.

Democrats in Michigan, one of the states given a boost in the calendar shakeup, narrowly voted earlier this month to select progressive Abdul El-Sayed as their Senate nominee.

Given that Michigan will now have an earlier say in the voting process, some experts have speculated that the swing state could help progressives assert greater influence over the party overall.

But other states given more prominence in the 2028 lineup have a more moderate streak.

South Carolina, for instance, favoured then-candidate Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries over his more progressive opponents, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

“I think our primary voters up north are probably a little different than primary voters in South Carolina,” Boyd Brown, a former DNC member from South Carolina, told AP.

Here is the full list of the six states that will have the first say in Democrats’ 2028 presidential primaries:

• South Carolina: January 22, 2028
• Nevada: February 1, 2028
• New Hampshire: February 8, 2028
• New Mexico: February 15, 2028
• Michigan: February 22, 2028
• Virginia: February 29, 2028

AUSTIN, Texas — Democrats seeking the party’s presidential nomination in 2028 will need to prove themselves early on in states where Black and Latino voters and union members are key supporters, under an election year calendar approved Saturday.

The primary lineup pushes Iowa from the traditional top spot and makes South Carolina the leadoff state, voting on Jan. 22, 2028, followed by Nevada on Feb. 1. New Hampshire, New Mexico, Michigan and Virginia round out the early states, throughout February, according to the plan endorsed by the Democratic National Committee at its meeting in Texas.

DNC Chairman Ken Martin said that to win the general election, “you have to be battle-tested in a way that you already have campaigned in front of and for the support of various communities throughout the country.” That is why the calendar designed by the party matters, he said in an interview.

Some potential candidates in what is expected to be a large field have visited early-voting states such as South Carolina. Party leaders have said the order gives candidates the best shot at winning back the White House after President Trump’s final term.

“They have to show that they can go to the South and talk to Black voters and rural voters, as well as out west, talking ranching and mining issues, to a border state, to union members,” said party strategist Karen Finney, who has worked on multiple presidential campaigns. “Whoever survives will be battle-tested.”

Former presidential candidate Howard Dean, a onetime Vermont governor, recalled his tenure as national party chairman, when Democrats solidified Nevada and South Carolina as early states behind Iowa and New Hampshire. The latest change is even better, he said.

“These states look more like the country” as a whole, he said, “whereas Iowa and New Hampshire don’t.”

Rita Hart, chair of the Iowa Democratic Party, said bypassing her state in the early going would sideline important voter voices and give a political edge to Republicans, who are expected to keep Iowa atop their calendar.

Nonwhite voters claim top billing

As the first-in-the-South primary, South Carolina was more decisive than Iowa and New Hampshire for nominees Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020. All three dominated among South Carolina’s large Black population, which can yield more than half the state’s Democratic primary electorate.

With Nevada and New Mexico following, that will require candidates to court more Latino voters early in the process.

Shifting from Iowa and New Hampshire does not mean little-known candidates cannot catch fire, as Pete Buttigieg did in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2020, when he was a 37-year-old former mayor. They just will not be able to do it with an almost entirely white audience.

“If you can’t go to every part of this country and make your case, you should not be running for president,” Finney said.

Progressive vs. establishment dynamics

There is disagreement over how Democrats’ split between progressives and mainstream liberals may or may not surface in the nominating calendar.

“I think our primary voters up north are probably a little different than primary voters in South Carolina,” said Boyd Brown, a former DNC member from South Carolina. “It’s not the woke ideologies that we just can’t get away from” in other places, Brown said.

Nina Smith, a former Buttigieg advisor who works closely with progressive causes, disagreed. Smith said Black South Carolinians, especially, have gravitated to more moderate candidates — twice rejecting Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in favor of Clinton and Biden.

But, she said, “Southern Black voters are more progressive than they’re given credit for” on policy but also “realists” about what is possible.

“Living through Jim Crow and other oppressive structures will force you to take that approach,” she said.

Smith said that with South Carolina leading off and many Southern states following on Super Tuesday soon after the early lineup concludes, progressives will have to take the time to listen and then tailor their messages.

“A lot of Black voters don’t necessarily see themselves in the ideas and arguments that progressives put forward,” she said.

Unions in the spotlight

Nevada has the service industry unions because of Las Vegas; Michigan has the auto industry and associated manufacturing support industries; Virginia is home to more federal workers than any other state.

“Labor is still so important,” Dean said.

Beyond seeking the backing of organized labor, the campaigns and the party will look to unions for help in spreading Democrats’ message to voters and getting people to the polls.

Scheduling efficiency

Campaigns struggle to balance many demands such as meeting voters in person, raising money and the logistics of travel. As a result, places such as Nevada have gotten short shrift in the past because candidates, most from the eastern part of the country, have concluded the investment of time is not worth it.

An expanded calendar offers more clustering opportunities.

A swing to the West could hit two early states — Nevada and New Mexico — and include a fundraising stop in California, full of Democratic donors. A South Carolina trip could mean fundraisers and public appearances in Atlanta along with Charlotte and Raleigh, both in North Carolina. Virginia offers proximity to donors and national TV studios in Washington; the same options are available by adding a New York City stop on the way to New Hampshire.

Bre Maxwell is a DNC member from South Carolina who said the state’s smaller size and lower media costs are a financial equalizer, allowing not only the best-funded candidates to have an impact.

“They can campaign from the top to the bottom in a day,” Maxwell said.

Keeping a focus on November

Of the six early states, all but South Carolina have been competitive in general elections.

That means that even before Super Tuesday, the Democratic candidates will have spent significant time and resources in states worth a combined 43 electoral college votes. That is not insignificant on the way to the 270 needed to win.

Television ads and news coverage can spill over, as well. Markets targeting parts of South Carolina also reach portions of North Carolina and Georgia.

After all, Brown said, the point is to put a Democrat in the White House.

“This is not a social or a debate club. It is a political party,” he said.

Catalini and Barrow write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta. AP writer Meg Kinnard in Columbia, S.C., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Democratic voters are showing up for this year’s primaries in numbers not seen in decades, a pattern emerging across several states that has the party optimistic about its prospects in November when control of Congress will be at stake.

In Tuesday’s primary, Wisconsin Democrats cast nearly 800,000 ballots, their highest total for a midterm in more than 20 years. That followed 1.5 million Democratic voters in Michigan the week before, a midterm record for the state.

The enthusiasm extends beyond the Midwest. Democratic primary turnout also surged this year in Texas and Georgia, states that will have competitive Senate races in the fall.

It is giving Democrats a string of strong showings heading into the midterms, when the president’s party is normally at a disadvantage. That is compounded this year by President Trump’s weak approval ratings, persistent inflation and an unpopular war with Iran.

“The big news is that Democrats are getting huge turnouts,” said David Axelrod, who was a top advisor to President Obama. “That’s been a steady story throughout this period.”

Competitive Democratic primaries have helped drive the surge, giving the party’s voters more reason to participate. Republican primary turnout remained closer to historic norms in Michigan, even with a competitive statewide contest.

Voter turnout in primary elections is an imperfect predictor of general election results, especially when one party has the more compelling early contests. Republicans say they are responding with a major effort to turn out their voters in the fall.

GOP leaders say they can energize voters by tapping into a major fundraising advantage over Democrats and sending Trump back out campaigning, including during a midterm convention in Texas next month.

“Primary turnout doesn’t win general elections,” said Mike Marinella, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “House Republicans are entering November with the money, momentum, stronger candidates and a battle-tested operation built to turn out voters when it actually counts.”

A pattern in many states, many contests

The scale of the Democratic turnout advantage varied across states, but the pattern extended across much of this year’s competitive landscape for House, Senate or governor’s races.

In Wisconsin, more than 790,000 people voted in the Democratic primary for governor, putting turnout at about 22% of registered voters. More than 1.5 million people voted in Michigan’s recent Democratic Senate primary, which accounted for a little more than 18% of registered voters. It was the state’s highest midterm turnout rate in a Democratic primary since at least 2002 — the same as in Wisconsin, according to an analysis of Associated Press election data.

In Minnesota, Democratic primary turnout was on par with the 2018 midterm election, with both years marking the state’s highest Democratic primary turnout in a midterm year so far this century.

For Republicans in Wisconsin and Michigan, turnout in last week’s primary was in line with previous GOP midterm primaries in each state. In Michigan, turnout for the Republican governor’s race was about 11%. In Wisconsin’s Republican primary for governor, it is expected to be about 14%.

“Republicans in Michigan will close the enthusiasm gap by highlighting the massive differences between our nominees and the extreme, out-of-touch politicians the Democrats have nominated,” said Ted Goodman, a spokesperson for the Michigan GOP. “It’s one thing to lead in enthusiasm before we know who is running. Now, the differences are clear.”

Other states that held elections this year also saw significant Democratic primary turnout. In Georgia and Texas, the midterm turnout in the Democratic primaries was higher than it’s been since at least 2002. In Georgia, just over 1 million people voted in May in the Democratic governor’s race, a little more than 13% of registered voters. In Texas, about 2.3 million people voted in March in the Democratic Senate primary, a little more than 12%.

‘Good sign,’ but ‘not a very solid predictor’

The robust primary turnout has been a “good sign for Democrats,” said Corwin Smidt, a political science professor at Michigan State University. But he cautioned that it is “not a very solid predictor” of how voters will break in November.

Smidt pointed to several factors behind the numbers, including high turnout in recent elections, which has created a larger pool of regular voters.

“Voting is a lot of habit-forming,” he said.

He also noted that many of the states with high turnout had what he described as “media spotlight candidacies.”

Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota all held races in August that the news media framed as marquee progressive-versus-moderate contests that probably helped drive Democratic participation.

In Michigan, spending in the Democratic Senate primary topped $80 million, making it one of the most expensive races of the year so far, according to AdImpact. Progressive Abdul El-Sayed narrowly defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a campaign that drew national attention and energized younger voters and university communities.

Stevens carried Wayne County, the state’s largest source of Democratic votes, and some of the congresswoman’s supporters said before the primary that they would not back El-Sayed if he became the nominee.

In Wisconsin, the governor’s primary was repeatedly reshaped as moderate Democrats left and reentered the race while democratic socialist Francesca Hong consolidated progressive support. Hong lost narrowly to Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, a more traditional Democrat.

The races highlight how competitive primaries helped drive attention and also how the winning candidates have work to do to bring their party together for November. Both Wisconsin and Michigan Democrats held unity breakfasts in the days after the primaries.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who backed El-Sayed and Minnesota Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan but did not endorse Hong, said in an interview this week that he expects Democratic voters to bridge their differences for the general election.

“At the end of the day, when it comes to taking on Trump and creating a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, there is going to be unity, because I think everybody knows how important that is,” he said.

A favorable environment, but a difficult map

Democrats have reason to believe the primary enthusiasm could last. The president’s party has historically lost ground in midterm elections, and Trump enters the fall deeply unpopular amid economic unease and an unpopular war.

Some 33% of American adults approve of his job performance, according to the most recent polling by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs.

But a favorable national environment may not be enough for Democrats. They will need unusually strong turnout to overcome a congressional map that has become more favorable to Republicans.

The number of competitive House races has shrunk considerably this year after Republican-controlled states redrew congressional districts in their favor at Trump’s urging. Some Democratic-controlled states responded, most notably California, but the new lines are expected to produce a net benefit for Republicans, who hold a slim House majority.

Republicans control the Senate 53 to 47, with Democrats needing to pick up four seats to win the majority. Democrats will have to generate energy similar to that of Republicans two years ago, Smidt said.

“If we have a national tide like we had in 2024, suddenly that opens the map a little more,” he said.

Cappelletti, Askarinam and Boak write for the Associated Press. Pamela Jo Martin and Samuel Jens of the Associated Press Election Services team contributed to this report from Washington.

WASHINGTON — Democrats seeking to retake control of Congress are planning broad investigations into President Trump and his family’s business dealings as part of an agenda focused on alleged corruption and economic harm, while keeping impeachment an option rather than an immediate priority.

The strategy would use subpoenas, committee hearings, possible criminal referrals and the budget as leverage to examine whether Trump, his family and close associates have used the federal government and public contracts for personal or financial gain.

House Democrats in key leadership posts told The Times the groundwork is already being laid out for probes into the president’s reported $2.2 billion in gains last year, the business ventures of his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his sons Eric and Don Jr., and the family’s crypto projects. There is also interest in scrutinizing Trump’s pardons and commutations to allies and the Department of Justice’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

With less than three months before the midterm elections, the prospect of sweeping investigations has hung over Trump as his approval ratings hit new lows and Democrats gain momentum. But the White House has dismissed Democrats’ plans as partisan and unfounded.

“President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re‑elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.”

Asked about the possibility of being impeached for a third time and being investigated, Trump told Punchbowl News last week that it would be “very unfair,” in part because “a lot of people are saying I am one of the greatest presidents ever.”

For Democrats, impeachment remains an option, but they are reluctant to make it a centerpiece of their agenda this time around. They argued the process could distract from oversight that would address alleged corruption and the ways it is hurting Americans economically.

“We shouldn’t take off the table that he can be impeached again,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “But I think right now we’ve got to stop the Trump harm and investigate those who are helping him.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, which plays a key role in the impeachment process, has also paused at making impeachment a priority. The Maryland lawmaker argued that Trump is “very eager” for Democrats to impeach him so he can mobilize his political base.

“We’re not going to play into the game,” Raskin told MS NOW’s “The Weekend” on Sunday.

In a statement to The Times, Raskin said the priority would be in expanding ongoing investigations into Trump’s pardons, what he called the “weaponization of the Department of Justice against chosen enemies in the nonprofit world,” “rampant violations of the foreign emoluments clause,” and the “theft and waste of public resources by Trump and his Cabinet of corruption.”

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who led the investigation that resulted in Trump’s first impeachment, said he is keeping his “mind open” on whether another impeachment would make sense for Democrats a third time. He argued the “power of the purse” — or using the budget to take aim at Trump’s agenda — would be a more effective tool.

“We’re going to need to do a lot of oversight of this administration, and I think it will be important in doing that oversight to always bring it back to why people should care about it and how the corruption of this regime is really raising their costs,” Schiff said.

Other Democrats are equally wary about using their renewed power to launch a third impeachment trial against Trump.

“We all know that this man has already been impeached twice. … I don’t know that we have to go to that well a third time,” Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Los Angeles) said.

Probes trickle down

Beyond the president’s business dealings, rank-and-file Democrats are coordinating other efforts to target Trump administration officials and senior aides over policy decisions they argue should force them out of their jobs.

Last week, Kamlager-Dove introduced articles of impeachment against Russell Vought, the White House budget director, arguing that he broke the law when the administration canceled federal funding to Democratic states including California for political reasons.

While she is cautious about impeaching Trump for a third time, she believes it would be effective to “remove Trump’s reapers who are willfully breaking the law.”

“I’m coordinating with leadership so that we have the best path forward for this,” she said. “It’s about being unified. It’s about working in a coordinated fashion, and it’s about understanding the end goal.”

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said there needs to be more scrutiny over the White House’s budget-cutting team, the Department of Government Efficiency. Democrats should inquire more, he said, into allegations that a former DOGE official copied the Social Security numbers, names and personal information of millions of Americans to a private cloud that lacked adequate security.

He said the public still does not know enough about the situation or whether the data is secure or if it was breached, and said lawmakers should examine whether any laws or policies were violated.

“If there was political motivation to access and put at risk the Social Security numbers and the personal information of every single American, that sounds pretty criminal to me,” Walkinshaw said.

In May, three Democrats — Reps. Mike Levin of California, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Jason Crow of Colorado — launched the End Corruption Caucus, creating another vehicle for oversight ideas should Democrats take control of the House.

The push and pull

As Democrats prepare for investigations, there are already questions about the type of resistance that could come from Trump and administration officials, all of whom have shown a willingness to buck Congress.

In a sign of what could be a potential hurdle, the Department of Justice issued a memo Monday evening that says communications between Trump and advisors who do not work for his administration can be protected under executive privilege.

“Restricting executive privilege to purely intragovernmental communications would foreclose the President from relying on an array of important sources that he may find necessary to the effective discharge of his responsibilities of office,” the memo from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel said.

The White House described the memo as a “narrow legal analysis, not an extension of executive privilege.”

But some Democrats see it as an example of how the Trump administration may be gearing up for Democratic-led investigations.

“This dubious expansion of executive privilege to cover Trump’s outside advisors is a clear attack on Congress’ oversight powers, and creates an environment ripe for corruption that protects only the president and his friends. We are ready to fight to uphold our power and authority,” Garcia said.

Walkinshaw added that he predicts the Trump administration is going to “flat-out refuse to engage with or respond to Democrats” if they take control.

If that happens, Democrats already expect to fight back.

“We have contempt tools, we have inherent contempt, we have criminal contempt,” he said. “We just have to be prepared to exercise the full extent of our constitutional tools, and I predict that will happen very early.”

Aug. 12 (UPI) — Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are escalating their criticism of Paramount Skydance’s attempt to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, with one lawmaker accusing the Paramount CEO of “colluding” with President Donald Trump and his administration.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, sent Paramount CEO David Ellison, a letter Wednesday, inviting him for an interview to “answer the committee’s questions about your Donald Trump-enabled shopping spree to consolidate news organizations, movie studios, cable channels and streaming stations.”

Raskin opened his letter referring to a New York Times opinion piece by Ellison in which the CEO defended the deal and said he would stay silent “no more.”

“This is great news,” Raskin wrote. “Over the past 12 months, I have sent you four letters. You have responded to none of them.”

“I have repeatedly sought answers from you about the Paramount Skydance merger and your planned acquisition of Warner Bros.Discovery in light of troubling reports that your company is colluding with President Trump and his administration to curtail media independence, spread political censorship and suppress dissent.”

Raskin also wrote that he’s sought answers about alleged political interference in CBS News reporting and that he has “significant concerns” that the acquisition would “dangerously” consolidate power in a single conglomerate.

Paramount had not commented on the letter Wednesday afternoon. However, Makan Delrahim, during a summit this week hosted by Politico, said the company is “transparent” and responsive to lawmakers’ concerns.

As of now, Raskin cannot require Ellison’s cooperation. However, if Democrats win control of the House in the upcoming midterm elections, Raskin — who is expected to become committee chairman — could subpoena Ellison.

Raskin previously told Politico that he plans to increase oversight of the merger and that “anyone involved should be prepared to answer under oath for their roll in this brazen campaign to bend America’s free press to Donald Trump’s political, financial and personal will.”

In 2025, Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit (which many called “meritless”) brought by Trump, and Democrats have said the money could be considered a bribe to allow the Paramount-Skydance merger, which was approved shortly afterward.

However, the merger has been postponed because of an antitrust lawsuit brought by attorneys general of 12 states and the Writers Guild America. A trial is set for March.

WASHINGTON — In another major test of how far left Democratic voters in swing states are willing to go, moderate David Crowley narrowly defeated democratic socialist Francesca Hong to become the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin.

The surprise result in Tuesday’s primary — in a closely watched swing state seen as a possible bellwether of Democratic sentiment — came after polls had shown Hong leading the field by double digits. With 95% of the vote counted, Crowley clinched the nomination early Wednesday by just 3,000 votes.

It was the second purple-state race between Democrats in two weeks to have an extremely narrow result, following the slim win by progressive Abdul El-Sayed in the Michigan Senate primary last week. Polling also overestimated progressive performance in that race.

In the November general election, Crowley, the Milwaukee County executive, will face Republican Rep. Tom Tiffany, who was endorsed by President Trump. If Crowley were to defeat Tiffany, he would become the first Black governor in the state’s history.

The race had been closely watched as an example of the national fissure between progressive and establishment Democrats.

“Hong’s candidacy is a sign of the broader trends in the party, with outspoken progressives and socialists emerging in some primaries and having real sway in the party,” said University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Barry Burden. “With Crowley, he has a more conciliatory approach … that probably sits better with the average independent voter or moderate in the state who’s just looking to get some problems addressed.”

Crowley and his backers had undertaken an intense late-July sprint to persuade Democrats to coalesce around him. He suspended his campaign amid low poll numbers, then rejoined the race with less than a month before election day after establishment frontrunner Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez dropped out.

“It was fast and furious very late in the campaign to try to build a movement in the party behind Crowley as the establishment candidate who is presumably more likely to win in a general election,” Burden said.

In another upper Midwest contest highlighting the choices confronting Democratic voters, progressive Lt. Gov. Penny Flanagan defeated center-left Rep. Angie Craig. Flanagan will face former television sports reporter Michele Tofoya, a Republican, in November for the seat held by Democratic Sen. Tina Smith, who is retiring.

As Democrats grapple with creating a party identity that will draw swing voters away from President Trump’s Republican Party in November and in 2028, a fierce debate has taken hold between the party’s factions — progressives who argue their approach is the key to the party’s fresh path forward, and moderates who fear that a far-left presidential candidate could cost Democrats the presidency in 2028.

Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidate Francesca Hong waves to supporters on Tuesday night.

(Nam Y. Huh / Associated Press)

Progressive candidates so far have fared well in blue strongholds such as Denver, New York and Minnesota this cycle, but they have struggled in Missouri and Wisconsin.

“Democrats of all ilk are winning elections all across the country,” said strategist Hyma Moore on Wednesday on CBS News, “and it’s very specific to what that state or that district needs.”

Moore said Hong’s loss was not “a setback for progressives,” arguing that she was a weaker political candidate than Crowley regardless of her ideology.

In his victory remarks Wednesday morning, Crowley rejected the framing of an intra-party conflict.

“We may not agree on every policy, we may not use the same labels, but we all want safe communities, strong schools, affordable healthcare, good-paying jobs and a brighter future for all of our children,” Crowley said.

Hong, a member of the state Assembly, ran into controversy late in the campaign with resurfaced social media posts in which she called for defunding the police and shared her negative opinions on Thanksgiving. Although she sought to retract or revise many of those comments in televised interviews, moderates and centrists seized on these points to argue against her electability.

“She had a whole smorgasbord of positions that were perfectly designed to repel voters in the middle that Democrats have to win,” said Kate deGruyter of the centrist Democratic group Third Way, which is funneling money into an effort to discredit democratic socialism ahead of the 2028 presidential election.

The race remained exceedingly tight until early Wednesday, when the Associated Press projected Crowley as the winner. In counties where Crowley was expected to dominate, such as Milwaukee, Hong performed better than expected. While Hong won the city of Madison and areas with University of Wisconsin satellite campuses. the margin was too small to push her past Crowley, according to AP election data.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) chose to publicly back Hong, but she was unable to secure key national endorsements from the two most prominent progressives in Congress, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Hong told her supporters Tuesday night, hours before she conceded, that regardless of the result, progressive politics would have to be reckoned with in Wisconsin’s electoral future.

“We have built something that will change politics forever,” she said. “I am so deeply grateful, to my core, for how hard you have all fought, and for what this fight, our movement, means for all of Wisconsin.”

Times staff writer Justine McDaniel in Washington contributed to this report.

Sacramento — The two candidates for California governor came to Sacramento on Tuesday offering policy agendas that were both sweeping and vague on details, with both warning of the dangers posed by their rival’s political party.

Democrat Xavier Becerra vowed to lower healthcare costs for Californians and teased two new policies on energy and artificial intelligence. Republican Steve Hilton pledged to slash gas prices and utility bills to help remedy his dystopian view of California under Democratic rule.

The two candidates will face off in the Nov. 3 election to succeed outgoing Gov. Gavin Newsom, and took time to deliver their campaign messages at an afternoon political forum in the state capital.

Hilton pointed to the size of the state budget, the homelessness crisis, high taxes, the cost of living, the unemployment rate and the business climate to argue that 15 years of Democratic control has proved disastrous in California.

“It’s just a complete failure on every front, and it seems to have been immune to any kind of challenge because it’s very powerful. The machine is very powerful, funded by government unions, and you’ve got this alliance of the government unions and nonprofits, and the Chamber of Commerce, and all of this,” he told hundreds of people at a convention center in Sacramento.

Becerra defended California’s Democratic leadership, which controls the state Legislature, the governor’s office and every other statewide political office, as a staunch bulwark against the ruthless agenda of the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress.

“We’re a state. We’re a family. You don’t blame just one parent when things go awry with one of the children,” he said in reference to more than a decade of Democratic governance in California. “We’re all in this together. We all have to work together. I could say that one of the members of the American family in Washington, D.C., has created more chaos than any Democrat in the state of California.”

After a chaotic and competitive June primary, Tuesday marked one of the few times the two men have addressed the same audience. They appeared at a forum hosted by the news organization Politico and sponsored by Airbnb, AT&T, energy company California Resources Corp., Google and the Western States Petroleum Assn.

In a state with a pronounced Democratic tilt, Becerra, a former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary, is the front-runner in the race. Nearly 45% of the state’s voters are registered Democrats, while 25% are Republicans, according to a May report by the secretary of state’s office. Becerra has raised millions of dollars more than Hilton and benefited from well-funded independent groups that spent millions supporting his campaign.

Becerra repeatedly said he would not promise anything he could not deliver, saying that voters “want to see actual outcomes.”

“That’s also why I think you can’t do pie in the sky, inflated promises, because people want to see you deliver, and you can talk a great game, but unless you can deliver, people are going to crucify you,” he said.

He said he could not promise to build 3 million new housing units, as Newsom did eight years ago as a candidate for governor.

“That’s an inflated promise. But I will tell you, we will build, and I will tell you, there will be more Californians who own a home,” Becerra said.

Later, he told reporters he was not specifically referring to the figure Newsom had promised. “I could have said 2 million. I could have said 5 million. What I was saying is, it’s gonna be something that’s realistic,” he said.

Becerra was willing to make some big promises on healthcare.

“Am I going to promise you that I can drop the price of prescription drugs? Yes, because I did it before, and I know I can do it again. Am I telling you that I can keep Californians insured for healthcare, even though the guy in the White House stripped a trillion dollars out of the healthcare system? Yes, because I know how much money is in the healthcare system,” he said.

Pressed for specifics on how he would prevent people from losing their health insurance, Becerra hinted that the solution could be within the healthcare industry itself.

“There’s money in them there hills,” he said. “Healthcare is more expensive in California than anywhere else in the country, and healthcare is more expensive in the U.S. than it is anywhere else in the world. There is money that’s being spent that does nothing to dispense healthcare to you, and we’ve got to stop that game.”

Hilton acknowledged the long odds he faces in the November general election.

“I know I’m probably the only person in this room that actually thinks I can win this election,” he said.

Since the June primary, Hilton has been a constant presence on the campaign trail, crisscrossing the state, holding town halls and news conferences, making speeches and giving media interviews. Becerra has been far less visibly active.

Hilton argued that California is at a crossroads, pointing to residents and businesses moving out of the state.

“I’m here to say we can turn them around,” he said. “It’s an absolute crisis that we’re in if we don’t change direction.”

Hilton has vowed to cut gas prices to $3 per gallon, reduce utility bills, eliminate income taxes for Californians making under $150,000, increase the supply of starter homes and overhaul the business climate, particularly in the entertainment and agricultural industries. Just how Hilton would deliver on his agenda, given that Democrats control the California Legislature, remains unclear.

While he did not make any formal policy announcements at the summit, Becerra said there is “a lot of room to expand” on regulations and protections on AI, and he signaled support for a government-purchased stake in AI companies. “We can make it so they can prosper, but we prosper with them,” he said.

Hilton, who has released several AI-generated campaign ads, criticized Sam Altman of OpenAI and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei for doing little to earn the public’s trust on the fast-emerging technology. He also said there is space to both regulate and give AI more freedom.

“I think we’re in danger of both over- and under-regulating at the same time. I think we’re under-regulating some of the harms, for example, in relation to children and in relation to the creative community and their output, but we’re in danger of over-regulating some of the potential benefits,” including in the medical field, he said.

When asked whether the state’s voters are “stupid” for continuing to vote for Democrats, Hilton replied that they are not, but rather had not been offered a clear, positive alternative.

“There is a sense of inevitability about it, and I think that’s infected perhaps a lot of the political discourse in California,” he said. The notion that “it’s California. Democrats are always going to be in charge. What can you do?”

He said he believes he has a shot in the November election because he has a positive message, similar to that which helped propel the right-leaning Tories to a 14-year reign in the United Kingdom when he was a senior advisor to then-Prime Minister David Cameron.

Hilton labeled Becerra “unqualified” and didn’t discuss his endorsement by President Trump, which propelled his advancement to the general election.

“We’ve got everything going for us in California. We’ve got incredible assets and resources. We’ve got natural beauty, the best weather, great universities, amazing people, the incredible innovation ecosystem, the kind of startup hustle rebel spirit,” he said. “We just need, I think, a proactive, pro-business governor [who] recognizes that we’ve just ended up …, often with good intentions, frankly, in a situation where we’ve just got this massive, bloated bureaucratic government that’s stifling the spirit of California.”

Trump labels US Democratic nominees ‘jihadists’ in inflammatory remarks made in the Oval Office.

United States President Donald Trump has described Democratic candidates in the midterm US elections as “jihadists” in an apparent reference to Muslim Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed securing his party’s nomination for the Michigan primary elections last week.

The pronouncements fuel a proliferating wave of Islamophobic discourse among Republican lawmakers and elected officials in the sprint to lock down ballots ahead of November’s midterm elections.

“We have jihadists being elected all over the place, whether it’s communism [or] jihadism,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “A friend of mine called up, he said, ‘You know […] you should use the word jihadist’, that’s what’s happening. If you take a look at what’s happening in other countries, I’m not really sure that’s the way we want to live.”

Trump also hurled another tirade against people of Somali descent, of which there are upwards of 260,000 across the US. He called them “not smart”, and said they have “no aptitude” and “nothing going” for them to “tell us how to run our country”.

Edward Ahmed Mitchell, the national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation in the US, said that Trump’s hateful anti-Muslim rhetoric “is putting a target on the back of Muslim elected officials across our nation” and that “this type of dangerous rhetoric is fueling the surge in complaints of anti-Muslim bigotry that our civil rights organization has documented over the past three years”.

Although the president refrained from explicitly naming any individual candidate, hours later, he focused his attention on El-Sayed, who is a son of Egyptian immigrants. The president shared a photo on Truth Social showing the Democratic contender positioned before a gathering that featured two women in headscarves, accompanied by the caption: “They are coming for your home and your belongings.”

Trump also targeted El-Sayed’s victory directly last week, calling him a “hater of Jews” and “hater of Israel” who will bring “filth, crime, death, destruction, embarrassment”.

Several other Republicans also beefed up their anti-Muslim rhetoric, following El-Sayed’s win, parroting remarks that Muslims do not belong in American society. Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina claimed on social media that “every single Muslim holding public office in America is a Trojan horse, and a threat to both national security and our republic”.

Meanwhile, Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville labelled El-Sayed a “TERRORIST” and wrote on social media that “Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed is a RADICAL ISLAMIST.”

This outburst occurred just two days after Trump shared a social media post comparing a photo of himself and First Lady Melania Trump with one of El-Sayed and his wife Dr Sarah Jukaku, who is a psychiatrist. The image was captioned: “Two VERY DIFFERENT America’s.”

Speaking on CNN’s State of the Union with host Jake Tapper on Sunday night, the Democratic Senate candidate hit back, saying, “Sarah and I actually like each other”, adding “I don’t know about the first lady and the president, but from what I’ve heard, it’s a bit of a rocky road”.

With less than 90 days to go until the highly anticipated midterm elections come to a head, and with all 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 34 Senate seats up for grabs, Democrats are confronting an ideological schism between moderate leaders and triumphing democratic progressives, some of whom are increasingly being characterised as an endangerment to Washington’s national security establishment altogether.

“People don’t want to have radical lunatics involved in running our country,” said Trump on Monday, “and that’s what we have.”

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says she is freezing her eggs as she decides her next political moves ahead of the 2028 presidential election campaign.

“This is a choice that I am making to feel more in control of my life,” Ocasio-Cortez, 36, said on Instagram about her decision regarding her reproductive options.

The New York congresswoman, a leading figure of Democrats’ progressive left flank, did not say explicitly whether she plans to have children. She said in her social media posts that she was taking a “political risk” in talking so personally about her potential family plans.

She said later on ABC “This Week” on Sunday that she has not ruled out running for president or for the U.S. Senate seat held by Democrats’ floor leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, in 2028. She explained that she wants to normalize conversations about what women face in their professional and personal lives, while also highlighting the policies of President Donald Trump’s administration.

“In this political environment, where this administration is denying reproductive care to women across the country, from abortion rights to the ability to carry out a healthy pregnancy, I think it’s important for us as leaders to have these conversations,” she said.

Trump’s administration opposes abortion rights, and the Republican president’s first-term appointees to the Supreme Court provided the margins in the 2022 ruling that struck down the Roe v. Wade decision that had established a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy.

Separately, however, Trump in 2025 signed an executive order designed to lower the costs of in vitro fertilization.

Ocasio-Cortez sponsored a Democratic bill in 2022, when the party controlled the House, to codify abortion rights into federal law after the Supreme Court’s abortion decision.

As part of her weekend announcement, Ocasio-Cortez noted that women — in politics and other fields — face different standards and scrutiny about their family status.

“Men run for office, or frankly they interview for jobs, and people don’t think in the back of their minds, ‘OK, this guy’s running for office, how old is he? Oh, well, is he going to want to start a family?’” she said.

Barrow writes for the Associated Press.

A spate of recent polls signals that Democrats are gaining traction in both the races for United States Senate and the governor’s mansion in Texas, turning a reliably Republican state into a battleground ahead of the November midterm elections.

On Friday, the nonpartisan research initiative Texas Pulse, helmed in part by the Texas A&M Bush School of Government and Public Service, released its latest public opinion survey into the state’s midterm races.

It found that James Talarico, the Democratic nominee, is now leading the US Senate race by four points, with 47 percent support. His Republican rival, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, trailed at 43 percent.

Those statistics suggested growing momentum for Talarico, who was tied with Paxton in an earlier Texas Pulse poll from June.

Texas Pulse’s findings echo another poll, released on Thursday, that showed Talarico leading Paxton 48 percent to 45 percent. Another 6 percent of respondents said they were undecided.

That poll, conducted by the research firms YouGov and 254 Labs, suggested that Talarico had a significant advantage among undecided and independent voters in the Lone Star State.

An estimated 57 percent of independent voters preferred the Democratic candidate over his Republican competitor, although 20 percent said they remained undecided.

A Fox News poll from late July similarly found that 68 percent of independents are getting behind Talarico, a 37-year-old state representative.

While polls can vary dramatically in the months leading up to an election, the latest survey results are likely to serve as a bellwether for Democratic odds in November’s midterms.

The left-leaning party is hoping to wrest both chambers of Congress from Republican control.

Should Democrats succeed in doing so, their majorities could serve as a bulwark against President Donald Trump’s legislative agenda during the final two years of his presidency.

But analysts believe the Senate may be more difficult to flip than the House of Representatives. While all 435 seats in the House are up for grabs in November, only a third of the Senate is on the ballot.

That makes every Senate race critical to either party maintaining — or retaking — control of the upper chamber.

Cost of living concerns

Texas has long-established bona fides as a Republican stronghold. No Democrat has held statewide office in Texas in more than three decades.

But the open Senate seat in Texas has created an unusually competitive race for Democrats.

Paxton, the Trump-endorsed candidate, defeated the incumbent Senator John Cornyn in the Republican primary in May.

But the longtime state attorney general has generated concerns among Republicans about his ability to appeal to centrist voters.

Paxton’s career in politics has been riddled with corruption scandals. During his tenure as the state’s attorney general, he has faced allegations of abuse of office and misconduct involving a political donor, the latter of which resulted in his impeachment — though he was not removed from office.

He also faced a separate, nearly decade-long securities fraud case that was dismissed last year. His support for the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, and accusations of adultery have also been sources of criticism.

A Texas Public Opinion Research poll, released last week, found Paxton trailing Talarico by five points, 45 percent to 40 percent.

Notably, that poll suggested that the Democrat leads by 34 percentage points among self-described moderates, with 54 percent support to Paxton’s 20 percent.

Experts like Evan Roth Smith, the lead pollster for Texas Public Opinion Research, credit that upward momentum to a solid campaign pitch.

“Talarico is up because he’s running the race every Democrat in this country should be running. When they go on TV, podcasts and talk to reporters, they should focus on affordability. If we can win on affordability, we can win elections,” Smith told Al Jazeera.

Talarico, a former educator with a seminary background, has largely concentrated his campaign on cost-of-living and economic issues, proposing to raise the federal minimum wage.

He also recently unveiled a plan late last month to end tax breaks for tech companies building data centres.

Paxton’s economic agenda, meanwhile, has focused on tax breaks, including a $25,000 tax deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses and a $50,000 deduction for first-time homebuyers.

But Texas’s Senate contest is not the only statewide race generating attention for its competitiveness this election cycle.

The gubernatorial race is also getting tighter between Democratic state Representative Gina Hinojosa and Republican incumbent Greg Abbott. That race is neck and neck.

Abbott’s lead has shrunk from six points to a single point, with Abbott at 46 percent and Hinojosa at 45 percent, according to Friday’s Texas Pulse poll.

The Texas Public Opinion Research poll has Abbott leading by three points, with 45 percent support compared with 42 percent for Hinojosa. A wild card, however, remains in the 10 percent of respondents who identify as undecided.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, said Friday he will vote to confirm Todd Blanche as attorney general, likely delivering the decisive vote needed to push President Trump’s embattled nominee to oversee the Justice Department.

Cassidy, who had expressed reservations about Blanche’s nomination, had been the last undecided Senate Republican, and his support all but locks in the 50 votes Blanche needs to be confirmed after two other GOP moderates — Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine — said they would vote no. All Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the nomination.

Speaking from the Senate floor, Cassidy acknowledged Blanche was an imperfect pick, but that he had come to the conclusion that he would be better positioned to lead the Justice Department than another candidate, in part because he “knows the law.”

“Mr. Blanche is not perfect and he will tell you this,” Cassidy said. “But the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche. It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general, who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.”

Cassidy, who lost his reelection bid to a Trump-backed challenger, said he is aware his decision will come with criticism, but said: “What’s new?” He then appeared to become emotional, as he assured his constituents that he worked “hard to understand the issue and make the right decision.”

The Louisiana lawmaker’s decision puts Blanche’s turbulent nomination process back on course. His path to confirmation was complicated over his involvement in a settlement agreement that included the creation of a nearly $1.8-billion so-called anti-weaponization fund that would have been used to pay Trump allies, including Jan. 6 rioters.

In an order issued Sunday night, Blanche declared the settlement dead. It was seen as an effort to appease GOP senators who threatened to block his confirmation. Despite the promise to terminate the settlement, Murkowski said she was worried the Trump administration could proceed with the proposed compensation fund, noting that the Senate only had leverage over the fund because Blanche’s nomination is pending.

“Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds,” she said.

The Justice Department also clarified in writing that a tax audit immunity agreement, which was part of the settlement agreement Blanche negotiated, would apply only to claims open at the time of the settlement and does not protect Trump from examination of future tax filings.

It also makes clear that only the parties that brought the lawsuit — Trump, two of his sons and the Trump Organization — are covered by the tax agreement. The fund and the immunity were the result of the settlement reached after Trump, two of his sons and their businesses sued the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of tax documents.

Lawmakers and legal experts have questioned the lawfulness of the tax protections for Trump. A federal judge who oversaw the IRS case has described Trump’s lawsuit as an improper exercise in self-dealing, and on Thursday the union representing IRS workers asked another judge to block the immunity agreement.

Trump has continued to support the idea of the fund and told reporters this week that he would still like to compensate Jan. 6 rioters, who he said have been “hurt so badly.”

Asked about Trump’s continued support for the fund on Tuesday, the day the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said “there’s nothing we could do” to change Trump’s mind on it.

“Well, there’s nothing we could do to rein in the president when he said he likes the fund and he wishes it still exists. But the fact of the matter is it’s dead, and that’s all we could do under these circumstances,” Cornyn said.

When Cassidy announced his decision, Blanche was in Colombia, leading a U.S. presidential delegation to the inauguration of the country’s new president, Abelardo de la Espriella. As of Friday afternoon, he had not commented on the developments in Capitol Hill.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, posted on social media a news article with only its headline: “Todd Blanche wins votes for Senate confirmation.”

This article includes reporting from the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The narrow victory of progressive doctor Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan’s bitterly fought Democratic Senate primary sets up a defining test of the party’s progressive wing in one of the highest-stakes U.S. Senate contests of the midterms.

Whether El-Sayed, a former public health official, can carry swing voters in a battleground state could both determine the outcome of a Senate seat viewed as crucial to determining control of Congress and have broader ramifications on the Democratic Party’s struggle for its identity.

El-Sayed, a 41-year-old epidemiologist, defeated U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens, a moderate Democrat, by a narrow margin Wednesday after a long and intense campaign that was seen as a proxy for the party’s fissures.

The race was far closer than some polls had indicated. El-Sayed was leading Stevens by 15,000 votes, about 1 percentage point, with 99% of votes counted Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.

El-Sayed will face former Rep. Mike Rogers, a Republican, in the general election. The winner will succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, whose seat Democrats see as critical to retain for the party to have a chance at flipping the Senate.

“We’ve got an opportunity to bring ourselves back together, to come together around a movement, to take our democracy back,” El-Sayed said Wednesday on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe.”

El-Sayed’s victory will put to the test in a swing state the broader strength of the progressive movement, which has found success in deep-blue places like New York City, where Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor last year, and Los Angeles, where City Councilmember Nithya Raman is locked in a tight race mayoral contest with incumbent Karen Bass. Both Mamdani and Raman are democratic socialists.

As Democrats struggle over the party’s post-2024 identity and grapple with how to win back voters, the divide between the party’s progressive and centrist wings has been on display in primary fights. Both camps have notched victories: Many of the leftist wins have come in intensely blue districts, such as in New York, while more moderate districts have chosen centrists, as in Iowa.

On Tuesday, two progressive congressional candidates in Michigan beat out establishment Democrats in House races — in one case, ousting an incumbent. But in Missouri, democratic socialist and former Rep. Cori Bush lost to incumbent Rep. Wesley Bell, a moderate, for a key House seat.

In California, a handful of progressive candidates are on the November ballot, including the challengers to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento) and Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford). In the Aug. 18 runoff to fill the vacant seat of former Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, progressive state Sen. Aisha Wahab is battling it out with fellow Democrat and BART board president Melissa Hernandez.

Progressive leaders celebrated El-Sayed’s win on Wednesday. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who backed El-Sayed, argue that his working-class-centered politics are more likely to have mass appeal.

“If you’re a working-class Republican in Michigan, I think you’re going to listen to what El-Sayed says,” Sanders told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “I think many of them will end up voting for him, independents as well, of course.”

Throughout the campaign, Stevens argued that El-Sayed would not be able to defeat Rogers, a refrain some moderates repeated Wednesday. El-Sayed vowed to unite Democrats around defeating Rogers, who previously served seven terms in Congress, saying that he and Stevens would be focused on “bringing the party back together.”

Rogers on Wednesday portrayed El-Sayed as an “extremist,” saying in a statement that the election is “about deciding whether Michigan has a future built on common sense — or whether we hand the keys to the most fringe extremists in the nation.”

El-Sayed, a former city and county health official, focused on opposing money in politics and pushing for Medicare for All, among other issues. His opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza and Stevens’ support for Israel became a major issue in the campaign. AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobbying group, spent millions in support of Stevens.

Early in the primary race, El-Sayed sought to temper some of the concerns around his progressive agenda by presenting himself as a Michigan-first, working-class-focused candidate, said John Barry Ryan, a University of Michigan professor of political science.

But as excitement over his campaign began to mount among progressives on a national level, Ryan said, El-Sayed’s public posture swung to a middle ground.

“The signal he’s trying to send is, I’m not a moderate, but I’m also not an extremist,” Ryan said.

Whether El-Sayed can effectively sell his message to undecided voters against Rogers now becomes a key question of the general election, said Corwin Smidt, a politics professor at Michigan State University.

“[Rogers] has experience. He has credentials,” Smidt said. “El-Sayed doesn’t have that. But I do think he’s got the skill and the right language to get him over.”

At least two key Michigan Democrats signaled a desire to move past the primary’s fights. Late Tuesday, Mallory McMorrow, a Michigan state senator who launched her own bid for the seat but suspended her campaign in early July, released an endorsement of El-Sayed.

“Whatever differences there were between the candidates in this race, those differences are nothing compared to the contrast in November,” McMorrow wrote on X. “The only way we get there is together.”

After conceding, Stevens sent a similar signal in a statement:

“We need to win this Senate race,” she said.