democrats

As the fight for control of the U.S. Senate grows increasingly competitive, eyes are turning north to Alaska and a contest pitting, among its contestants, Dan Sullivan vs. Dan Sullivan — and, no, it’s not about a candidate living a double life or wrestling demons within himself.

Confused?

That may be the point.

Daniel S. Sullivan is Alaska’s two-term Republican senator. He’s seeking reelection in November.

Daniel J. Sullivan is a retired school teacher and political novice. He calls himself an independent Republican cut from the same polar-fleece lining as the state’s maverick GOP senator, Lisa Murkowski.

Political handicappers give Daniel J. Sullivan little chance of winning the highly competitive race. So is there some other reason he’s running? Is his presence on the ballot intended to draw enough befuddled voters away from the incumbent to elect his Democratic challenger, former Rep. Mary Peltola?

That’s what Republicans think. And you don’t have to be standing on the banks of the Kenai River to smell something fishy.

When Daniel J. Sullivan launched his campaign in May, he did so as plain old “Dan Sullivan,” with a website closely resembling that of the incumbent. The press release announcing his candidacy was written by one “Amber Lee.” There is an Alaska political strategist named Amber Lee who has supported Peltola in the past.

(For such a sparsely populated state, there sure are a lot of doppelgangers in this political saga.)

Election officials say Daniel J. Sullivan asked to appear on the ballot as a Republican, even though he hadn’t previously been affiliated with the party. In fact, over the years he’d contributed money to Democrats, including Peltola. He also asked to be identified on the ballot as “Dan S. Sullivan” before changing his mind, an attorney for the state told Alaska’s Supreme Court, which took up the matter late last month.

“That’s not an innocent mistake, or random mistake,” Chris Murray told the justices. “There’s a lot of other letters in the alphabet that could have been a typo.”

The political consultant Amber Lee declined to comment when reached by the Anchorage Daily News. She did not respond to an email from your friendly political columnist.

For his part, Daniel J. Sullivan denied any malice or mischievous intent.

“This is my choice,” he told the Associated Press. He said he had no contact with Peltola’s campaign — “zero, none, zilch” — and denied anyone from the state Democratic Party or any national Democratic operatives had contacted him to run.

Peltola’s campaign has adamantly denied any involvement. So, too, have the Alaska Democratic Party and the Democrat’s national Senate campaign committee.

After an investigation, Daniel J. Sullivan was removed from the Aug. 18 primary ballot. Carol Beecher, head of Alaska’s Division of Elections, said his candidacy was intended to “confuse or mislead” voters.

Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) attends meetings at the U.S. Capitol in 2025.

(Francis Chung / Politico via Associated Press)

But the state’s high court overturned that decision, instructing elections officials to figure out a way to keep Daniel J. Sullivan’s name on the ballot “within the confines of existing Alaska ballot design law.”

It’s been nearly 20 years since the state sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate, but this election looks to offer the party its best shot in years, thanks to Peltola.

Jessica Taylor, of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, called her “the ideal recruit,” given Peltola’s fundraising prowess and her ability to outperform other Democrats by avoiding the toxic taint of the national party. (Peltola’s slogan —”Fish, family and freedom” — is about as far removed from the Whole Foods-shopping, Prius-driving Democratic image as it gets.)

Democrats need to win four seats in November to take control of the Senate, from a menu that includes Alaska, Iowa, Maine, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas while, at the same time, hanging on to contested Senate seats in Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska as one of the few toss-up races in the bunch.

The state has a ranked-choice election system in which the top four vote-getters advance to November. Ivan Moore, who does nonpartisan polling in Alaska, said that system virtually ensures Sullivan and Sullivan will face off against each other in a runoff that includes Peltola. At that point, Moore suggested, the choice to most voters will be clear.

Under the solution devised by state election officials, the senator will be listed as “Sullivan, Dan S.” and as “(Registered Republican) Incumbent.” His challenger will be identified as “Sullivan, Daniel J. Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“I imagine there’s some people out there who don’t know what the word ‘incumbent’ means,” Moore said. “But I find it pretty hard to believe that people who are dead set on voting for Dan S. Sullivan, the senator, are going to go in the voting booth and vote for the wrong person when Dan S. has the word ‘incumbent’ next to his name and Dan J. doesn’t have any party affiliation.”

Political hijinks are nothing new. But the level of partisan gamesmanship seems to be growing as the old saying about all being far in love and war is increasingly applied to campaigns and elections.

It was something of a novelty in 2002 when Democrats meddled in the California Republican primary to promote their preferred candidate. Now it’s common practice.

Redistricting, or redrawing the nation’s congressional lines to reflect changes in population, used to occur once a decade following the national census. But spurred by President Trump, the last year has seen an arms race among states, including California, which gerrymandered their political maps to boost a preferred party and, essentially, decide House races before a single ballot is cast.

Politics, another old saying goes, ain’t beanbag.

But it doesn’t have to be this slanted and cynical. There’s no need for fishy-smelling candidates like Daniel J. Sullivan.

July 10 (UPI) — Maine Democrats are hoping to convene by the end of July to find a Senate nominee to replace Graham Platner, it was reported on Friday.

Party leadership has been scrambling to replace Platner since he was accused by a former partner of sexually assaulting her while he was drunk.

Platner dropped out of the race on Wednesday under intense pressure from politicians and groups that had previously endorsed him.

Now, Democrats are hoping to choose delegates within a week, and hold a state convention to pick a replacement the following weekend, The New York Times reported.

The party has not finalized plans, including a date or location for the convention, The Times reported.

Whoever they chose will run against Republican Sen. Susan Collins, the five-term incumbent.

Platner has denied the accusations.

“It’s not the false allegations, though, that have brought us to where we are,” he said in announcing his departure from the race. “It’s the fact that they’re being used by the political establishment to put structural pressure on us.”

On Monday, a woman who once dated Platner said he forced her to have sex with him five years ago.

“I remember him grabbing my pelvis and being really forceful of me,” Jenny Racicot, 41, told Politico. “I remember the specific moment where I thought to myself, like, ‘This is no longer my choice.'”

Raciot added Platner was “very drunk and wouldn’t take no for an answer,” the New York Post reported.

Maine Democrats are hoping to have a nominee by July 27, according to The Times.

PORTLAND, Maine — Graham Platner on Friday submitted his paperwork to formally withdraw from Maine’s U.S. Senate race, officially ending an upstart yet troubled campaign, the dissolution of which threatens Democrats’ pursuit of chamber control.

Platner’s paperwork was received by the Maine secretary of state’s office and reflected shortly thereafter in its online withdrawal list.

In a letter to the secretary of state’s office, which Platner also posted on social media, he wrote that the Mainers who had nominated him “voted for a new kind of politics” that is “representative of people down here in the real world — not billionaires, oligarchs, or the political establishment.”

It was the same outsider chord that had been a trademark of his tumultuous campaign, in which Platner drew backing from progressive leaders including Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California. Both are among many who have since withdrawn their endorsements.

“I seek to further the movement we have built together and the future we believe in,” he went on, without elaborating.

Maine is considered a key state for control of the narrowly divided Senate, and Democrats were desperate for a candidate capable of defeating Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

The formal withdrawal comes two days after Platner said he would quit the race, facing an allegation of sexual assault that he has denied. Maine Democrats are seeking a new nominee, and several candidates have already begun jockeying for position.

State law includes a provision for Democrats to replace Platner before the general election, but the replacement must by named by July 27.

Just before Platner’s Wednesday announcement, more than 100 state Democratic Party committee members signed off on holding a nominating convention, in the event of his withdrawal, to choose the nominee. The state party has not publicly released details of when the convention will be held. Officials with the party did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Several Democrats have announced plans to run for the Senate nomination this week. They include three candidates who lost the June primary for governor — former Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention director Nirav Shah, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson.

Others who have announced runs include Maine Beer Co. co-founder Dan Kleban; former 2nd Congressional District candidates Jordan Wood and Paige Loud; and former Maine Senate candidates David Costello and Andrea LaFlamme. State Rep. Valli Geiger has also expressed interest in the post but has not formally announced.

Kinnard and Whittle write for the Associated Press.

SOUTH HAVEN, Mich. — U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens is spending the closing weeks of Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary making a simple case: she’s the candidate who wins.

Stevens flipped a Republican-held House seat in suburban Detroit in 2018 and hasn’t lost since, including surviving a bruising primary against a fellow Democratic incumbent after redistricting in 2022. She says it’s what sets her apart from her opponent in the Aug. 4 primary, progressive Abdul El-Sayed.

“It is not a hypothetical that I beat Republicans,” Stevens told The Associated Press after a campaign stop in West Michigan this week. “I win tough races. I have had Republicans throw everything at me and still managed to win.”

Holding Michigan’s Senate seat is essential to any Democratic path back to the Senate majority this fall. That imperative only grew this week after Democrats’ nominee in Maine, Graham Platner, said he planned to drop out after he was accused of sexual assault, threatening another seat the party had hoped to keep competitive. While no Republican has won a U.S. Senate seat in Michigan since 1994, former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers came within 20,000 votes of doing so in 2024.

That calculation has led Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and influential Michigan Democrats, including former Sen. Debbie Stabenow, to rally behind Stevens, arguing she gives Democrats their strongest chance in November against Rogers, who is running again.

But if electability is the party establishment’s top priority, it’s an open question whether Democratic primary voters agree.

“Democratic leadership should think more in terms of what we want to accomplish, and less about, ‘We’ve got to make it appeal to everybody,’” said Dave Burdick, 71, of Douglas, Michigan. He’s backing El-Sayed, who has surged by arguing that Democrats don’t have to run to the middle to win.

El-Sayed has built his campaign around bold policy proposals, rejecting corporate PAC money and casting himself as an alternative to the status quo of the Democratic Party.

“People don’t want a moderate. They want somebody who’s going to come in and effect change,” Burdick added.

Stevens makes the case for retail politics

On a summer afternoon in South Haven, a community along Lake Michigan, Stevens walks into a pet supply store with the ease of a seasoned campaigner. Within minutes, she’s chatting with the owner about the area, greeting reporters by first name and striking up conversations with customers. She slips easily between small talk and campaign mode, asking about customers’ lives before mentioning legislation she’s championed and asking for their vote.

“I thought she was great fun,” said owner Roxanne Leder. “She was energetic and had a positive outlook.”

It’s the kind of campaigning Stevens’ allies say has defined her political career. They acknowledge she lacks the viral progressive moments that have fueled El-Sayed’s rise, but say she’s at her best in small rooms, union halls and local businesses — which they say is where elections are won.

Stevens has leaned into that contrast herself.

“Unlike my opponent, I’m not running at the first mic or camera I see,” Stevens said during a debate Tuesday. “We do not need a celebrity senator. We need a workhorse.”

It’s also a style familiar to Michigan Democrats. From former Gov. Jennifer Granholm to current-Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, successful statewide candidates have often paired an upbeat, personable campaign style with a pragmatic message centered on economic issues.

But unlike Granholm or Whitmer, Stevens has yet to generate the kind of broad grassroots enthusiasm that defined their statewide campaigns. El-Sayed, meanwhile, has packed rallies with progressive supporters and high-profile endorsers.

Stevens has leaned more heavily on tens of millions of dollars in outside spending, which could become one of Stevens’ biggest liabilities in the primary. Outside groups have spent more than $30 million to boost her candidacy, dwarfing the spending behind El-Sayed. The largest spender, United Democracy Project, the super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, has spent more than $13 million on Stevens’ behalf and reserved another $7 million before the primary.

For Burdick, the 71-year-old El-Sayed supporter, that spending is disqualifying. He said he would not vote for Stevens in the general election because of her support from AIPAC.

Leder, by contrast, said she expects to vote for Stevens in August because she’s far more familiar with the congresswoman than with El-Sayed. She said she still plans to do more research before making a final decision.

“I’m just a Democrat,” said Leder. “Please, please no Mike Rogers.”

Michigan has a populist streak

El-Sayed is running on Medicare for All, campaign finance reform, abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and ending all U.S. weapons sales to Israel. He’s also a Muslim who has never held elected office.

To many Democratic leaders in Washington, that makes him a risky nominee in a battleground state often viewed as moderate and centered on manufacturing.

But Michigan has repeatedly rewarded candidates who cast themselves as outsiders challenging the political establishment. In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton in the state’s Democratic presidential primary by running against party leaders. Donald Trump later built his own anti-establishment coalition, carrying Michigan in 2016 and again in 2024.

Burdick, a self-described “old white guy living in rural Michigan” who is a democratic socialist, said Trump and Sanders resonated with voters because they were upset.

“Well, you know what? They’re still mad,” he said. “They portray people like Abdul as unrealistic, but I think it’s unrealistic to think that we can continue the way that we’re heading.”

A two-person race changes the calculus

On Sunday, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow suspended her campaign. It prompted establishment Democrats to jump off the sidelines and back Stevens, including Democratic group EMILY’s List and Attorney General Dana Nessel.

“Haley is wicked smart, has won multiple highly competitive races, and she connects with people on a level so sincere and genuine that everyone who meets her feels truly seen and heard,” Nessel said in a statement.

El-Sayed has also built support among labor groups that have played an influential role in Democratic politics, including an endorsement from the United Auto Workers.

Fems for Dems, an influential Democratic grassroots group in the state, is not endorsing in the primary. But its founder, Lori Goldman, told AP in an interview that she planned to vote for El-Sayed.

“I personally am not going to have business as usual when I go to the ballot box. I want to vote for people, candidates that are going to go there and fight on our behalf,” she said.

Goldman, who founded the group 10 years ago in the politically important Oakland County, acknowledges the changing dynamics of Democratic primaries.

“Who would the natural choice be 10 years ago? Haley Stevens, right? Because we just followed the party line,” she said.

“People are breaking away from the party line. People want change.”

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

SCARBOROUGH, Maine — The Maine Democratic Party has voted to hold a convention now that Democrat Graham Platner has announced he’ll drop out of the state’s U.S. Senate race after a former girlfriend accused him of sexual assault.

Platner, who denies the allegation, faced considerable pressure from his own party to quit the race. The first-time candidate also was accused of trying to influence how his replacement is selected — a claim he also denied. He announced his decision to leave the race Wednesday.

His exit leaves a crucial U.S. Senate race unsettled just months before the November midterm elections. The Maine Democratic Party, which by law is responsible for naming a replacement, announced it’ll move forward with holding a nominating convention to choose a new nominee. Meanwhile, potential contenders have already begun teasing their interest.

Here’s what we know about the Maine Senate race and what could be next:

The clock was ticking

According to Maine law, there’s a narrow provision for replacing general election candidates. Platner needed to step aside voluntarily by 5 p.m. July 13 before other contenders could have been considered.

Once he formally withdraws, the law then says the Maine Democratic Party can choose a replacement, which must be done by July 27.

The state Democratic Party held an emergency meeting Wednesday, where more than 100 state committee members signed off on holding a nominating convention in the event of a vacancy.

“There is an unprecedented amount of energy and enthusiasm among Maine Democrats, driven in part by many of the dedicated volunteers and supporters who were inspired by Graham Platner’s campaign,” Maine Democratic leaders said in a joint statement.

It’s incredibly rare for a general election candidate to bow out of a race, in Maine or elsewhere.

Platner campaign denies trying to influence the process

A key question surrounding how Platner is replaced has come down to just how much leverage the oyster farmer and Marine veteran has in this situation.

Maine Democratic Party’s executive director, Devon Murphy-Anderson had previously released a statement accusing Platner’s campaign of repeatedly trying to “put their thumb on the scale” in determining the next Democratic nominee.

Platner’s team responded with a statement saying “at no point has the campaign tried to ‘put its finger on the scale’” but said they were trying to understand the process. Thousands of Maine residents voted and volunteered for Platner, a progressive who outlasted establishment-backed Gov. Janet Mills, which the campaign believes should count in the decision.

The sparring between Platner’s campaign and the party continued Wednesday. Murphy-Anderson said in a statement that Platner’s campaign “remains focused on distracting from the job of defeating Susan Collins in November with false accusations against us” and the party “remains hyper focused on developing a representative, transparent and inclusive process to select a new nominee when he chooses to withdraw from the race.”

Platner’s campaign sent a survey with a 48-hour deadline to supporters on Wednesday that asked recipients two questions: what message they have for the Maine Democratic Party, and what message they have for Platner.

Separately Wednesday, President Trump was asked if Democrats should be allowed to replace Platner on the Maine Senate ballot.

“So he won the primary. It’s very hard for them. So, you question whether you believe the woman. A lot of people say big falsehoods,” Trump said.

Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One as he returned from a NATO summit in Turkey, the president added of Platner: “He’s in a bind. But, should they be able to do it? Well I guess he’s gonna lose. I’d imagine he’s going to lose.”

List of possible replacements continues to grow

One possible contender, Nirav Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, has said he was “evaluating” whether to join the race. Shah said he’s been in contact with the Maine Democratic Party about ensuring that a possible replacement process is based on “openness, transparency and robustness.”

Troy Jackson, Maine’s former state Senate president, announced Wednesday he was officially entering the race. Jackson unsuccessfully ran to be the Democratic nominee for governor earlier this year with the backing of Platner and Our Revolution, the political organization started by Sen. Bernie Sanders. Jackson had filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Tuesday to launch a Senate exploratory committee.

Jordan Wood, a former U.S. Senate candidate who then switched to run for Maine’s 2nd District and lost, posted Tuesday that he was “continuing conversations” with voters about joining the race.

Other names circulating include Shenna Bellows, the current Maine secretary of state; Dan Kleban, founder of Maine Beer Co.; and Hannah Pingree, now Maine’s Democratic nominee for governor.

One name that definitely won’t be on the ballot? Actor Patrick Dempsey. The “Grey’s Anatomy” star and Maine native wrote an editorial Wednesday saying despite being asked, he’s not interested.

Voters say they are disillusioned

Platner’s campaigned galvanized hundreds of volunteers around the state. This week, they’ve been expressing disappointment about the behavior Platner is accused of and pondering the right course of action.

Many called for him to drop out.

Paul Attardo, 64, of Scarborough, said he couldn’t continue supporting Platner after the allegation, though he still has a sign promoting the candidate at the end of his driveway. He called the accusation “disappointing” as well as “indisputably sincere,” and said the party needs to get to work finding a replacement.

The scenario reminded Attardo of the hasty replacement of Joe Biden during the 2024 election campaign.

“We rally behind somebody, and not unlike the Biden administration, when everybody rallied behind Joe Biden, at the eleventh hour that failed,” he said. “I sort of feel we’re in a similar boat.”

Kruesi and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Kruesi reported from Providence, R.I. AP writer Will Weissert contributed to this report from Washington.

She is concerned, however, that it will be difficult for voters to coalesce around any new candidate in just three months.

“The thing I’m the most worried about is we run somebody and he or she loses, and then we spend the next four years pointing fingers at whose fault that was,” she said.

In primary contests across the country this year, Democrats regularly opted for outsider congressional candidates offering a vivid vision for what the party should stand for and promising to fight for their beliefs in the face of Republican resistance.

Platner was one of the earliest and most prominent examples of this trend. With his gravelly voice, scruffy appearance and working-class back story, he gained a passionate following both in Maine and nationally.

He presented himself as a candidate who could advocate for liberal policies – like universal healthcare, wealth taxes, and low-cost housing – in a way that appealed to the kind of rural voters who have moved away from Democrats recently.

A win in November would have given Democratic progressives a chance to see blue-collar liberalism triumphing in battleground states like Maine.

And that, in turn, could have become a compelling argument for nominating a left-wing presidential candidate in 2028.

Now, that opportunity is likely dashed.

That Platner survived the series of scandals as long as he did was in part a testament to Democrats’ hunger for a different kind of candidate. It also, however, underlined the risks of opting for charismatic political neophytes who haven’t received close scrutiny before they run for higher office.

With Platner’s exit, a group of more traditional candidates are already expressing interest in stepping in – including a handful who unsuccessfully ran for governor and one of the state’s open House seats last month. They have recent campaign experience and some name recognition.

Troy Jackson, a former Maine Senate leader, campaigned side-by-side with Platner during his bid for governor, and came in third.

Nirav Shah, a state epidemiologist who gained prominence through regular public appearances during the Covid pandemic, finished a close second.

Shenna Bellows, the Maine secretary of state, is known for her lawsuit to block Trump administration attempts to gain access to state voter data. She was the party’s nominee in 2014 but was soundly beaten by Collins.

According to Melcher, many Platner supporters will be hit hard because of the connection they made with their unconventional candidate. He believes they will ultimately back his replacement, however, because of the high stakes in this race.

Many Maine Democrats supported Platner with some reluctance because of his past scandals, he added, and this latest twist might end up a blessing in disguise for the party.

“If they play their cards right, I think that they will be fine and, with some voters, even better than they would have been before,” he said, “as long as the party doesn’t handle this in a way they see as disrespectful or a cabal taking things over.”

The clock is ticking, however, and Collins awaits whoever emerges from whatever process Democrats ultimately follow. She has proven a formidable adversary for Democrats for 30 years, most recently defeating a better-funded opponent in 2020 despite polls showing her trailing right up to election day.

“It’s not as though it was going to be easy before, and now it’s hard,” said Melcher. “Beating Collins was always going to be hard.”

WASHINGTON — The campaign of U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner was buckling in Maine on Tuesday after he was accused of rape, injecting uncertainty into a contest that is central to determining which party wins Senate control in November’s midterms.

The situation set off swift debate about how state Democrats would choose Platner’s replacement if he were to withdraw, and which Maine figures might be best positioned to play off the progressive messaging he used to win over voters.

With Maine viewed by Democrats as a key seat to win in their long-shot bid for a Senate majority, the decision would be high stakes, analysts said. In the meantime, with uncertainty clouding the race, the shake-up could put additional pressure on the party to win Senate races in states seen as more difficult to flip.

Platner has denied the rape allegation, which came in a Politico report Monday from a woman who said Platner forced her to have sex with him when he was intoxicated. Platner said Monday that he would “reflect” on his candidacy but has not withdrawn.

“The calculation that almost everyone on the Democratic side is making is that with Platner in it, it is an unwinnable race,” said John Cluverius, director of survey research for the Center for Public Opinion at UMass Lowell, “and without Platner in it, they have a much better chance.”

An oyster farmer and Marine veteran, Platner had entered the race to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins as an outsider and was seen as riding an anti-establishment wave of support.

His candidacy highlighted the split within his party between progressives and establishment Democrats and represented a matchup between an older incumbent and a younger outsider candidate.

By Tuesday afternoon, Platner’s financial backing was disintegrating and prominent Democrats had withdrawn their support — including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a key endorser of Platner’s, who said Tuesday afternoon that he had told Platner to withdraw.

A spokesperson for Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), who had been one of Platner’s most visible backers, quickly withdrew his endorsement Monday.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line. These allegations are very serious and credible,” Khanna, who has been a prominent supporter of victims of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, wrote on X.

The California congressman had been among progressives, including Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who previously stood by Platner. Khanna had rallied for Platner at a pre-primary event in June after a set of allegations about the candidate’s “unsettling” conduct from his exes reported by the New York Times and the revelation that he had sent sexually explicit messages to women outside his marriage.

Platner’s collapse comes after the fall of former California Rep. Eric Swalwell, whose ascendant campaign for governor was ended in April after he was accused of sexual assault.

As in Swalwell’s case, Platner’s support has unraveled quickly, leaving him with little path forward.

The Democrats’ formal Senate campaign arm and the Senate Majority PAC, which is aligned with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, both pulled investment from the race, their leaders said in statements. Swing Left, an organization working to flip seats for Democrats, removed Maine from its target Senate races for now.

“We continue to believe this seat is winnable if Platner is not on the ballot,” said Senate Majority PAC spokesperson Lauren French.

Under state law, Platner has until Monday to withdraw in order for the Maine Democratic Party to be able to nominate a replacement. The committee would have until July 27 to do so.

For Collins, facing a new candidate could make for a harder race than going up against Platner, analysts said.

The fifth-term senator has survived reelection repeatedly, including in 2020, when the state went blue in the presidential election, but drawn ire from some moderate and left-leaning voters who want her to push back more forcefully against President Trump.

Without Maine, Democrats would have to pick up an additional race in a state that went for Trump in 2024 in order to flip the four seats required to win a majority.

To get to four, the party needs to win some mix of Maine, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Iowa and must also retain its seats in Michigan, Georgia and New Hampshire.

That scenario could be within reach for Democrats but they face a steep climb, a New York Times/Siena poll released last week found.

“This does put enormous pressure on Democrats across the country with every viable race,” said David Niven, who teaches American politics at the University of Cincinnati. “The margin of error was already slim, and it’s approaching none.”

In Texas, a heated and expensive race has shaped up between Democrat James Talarico, a state representative who is facing Republican Ken Paxton, the state attorney general.

“I would suspect that Democrats are going to be relatively all-in on Texas simply because they can no longer rely on Maine in the way they thought they were going to be able to,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University.

The Politico report came after a string of other controversies for Platner, who had successfully batted them away ahead of the state’s June primary.

His quick rise in the campaign excited Democrats looking for younger, non-establishment leaders. His primary opponent, Maine Gov. Janet Mills, suspended her campaign in late April, clearing his path.

But questions about the rushed vetting of Platner soon arose.

He faced scrutiny over a tattoo on his chest that was widely recognized as a Nazi symbol, which he then said he had covered up, and a tranche of deleted Reddit posts that he said were “stupid” comments from a time when he had post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ahead of the primary, the report of his extramarital texts and the allegations by exes about volatile behavior revived questions about his candidacy; Platner described them as politically motivated and privately assured Democratic leaders that nothing else was coming.

The situation “reinforce[s] the need for more careful vetting [of] first-time outsider candidates,” said Dan Schnur, who teaches political communications at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.

“Every political professional knows that the most important type of candidate research is not opposition research — it’s research on your own candidate,” Schnur said.

Progressive leaders on Monday sought to validate the success of Platner’s campaign in energizing Maine voters while disavowing Platner. They urged Democratic leaders to stick with a candidate who shares Platner’s working-class image if he withdraws — something Platner may hope to influence, the New York Times reported.

“To the Democratic establishment: this is not your opening,” Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of the progressive organization Our Revolution, said in a statement. “Whoever leads this movement forward must be someone who has actually lived the fight Graham Platner ran on.”

Some Democrats were already looking to the party’s gubernatorial primary candidates as possible replacements, including Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, former state Sen. Troy Jackson and former state health official Nirav D. Shah.

The July deadlines would leave enough time before November for Democrats to persuade voters of a new candidate, said Mark Brewer, a political science professor at the University of Maine, but how the party chose to select a replacement would probably be as important as whom it chose.

“Having a 100-person executive committee select it on their own would probably not sit well with Platner’s supporters,” Brewer said. “A caucus they could pull off; if they want to be as open and inclusive as possible, that’s probably their best option.”

McDaniel reported from Washington and Kwok from Los Angeles.

Monday’s accusations are the latest in a long string of controversies surrounding the Maine Democratic Senate candidate.

Leading US Democrats are withdrawing their support from Maine Democratic Senate candidate Graham Platner after a former girlfriend accused the politician of sexual assault.

In an exclusive interview with media outlet Politico published on Monday, Jenny Racicot alleged that Platner forced her to have nonconsensual sex in late 2021. She alleged that Platner had entered her Maine home uninvited while intoxicated and forced himself on her, despite her repeatedly telling him to stop.

Platner, whose status as a progressive outsider has gained him popularity, has denied the allegations.

Following Politico’s interview, top US Democrats and Democratic-leaning political groups have pulled their endorsements of Platner.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line,” California Democrat Ro Khanna, a member of the US House of Representatives, said. “These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement.”

Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego also announced he was pulling his endorsement, while the Maine Democratic Party called on Platner to withdraw his candidacy.

Democratic-leaning political group End Citizens United pulled its endorsement as well, calling the allegations “profoundly disturbing and disqualifying”.

“The conduct described is fundamentally inconsistent with the standards we expect from the candidates we support,” End Citizens United said in its statement.

Hasan Piker, a leftist commentator and streamer who has backed Platner, seemed to reverse his position on Monday following the Politico report. “If new evidence presents itself, I’m going to change my perspective – it’s that simple,” Piker said during a livestream on Twitch.

“This is a clear-cut instance of verifiable sexual assault allegations. It’s completely irredeemable,” he added.

Platner won Maine’s Democratic primary in April, defeating a centrist Democrat from the party’s establishment wing. The race is a must-win for Democrats, facing off against incumbent Republican Susan Collins. Maine state law allows Platner to be replaced on the ballot if he withdraws by July 13. The replacement candidate must be named by July 27.

In a video released on social media, Platner denied the latest allegations but said he was rethinking his campaign.

“Regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting but mindful of the political reality it will inflict, we’re taking the time to reflect on the best path forward,” he said in the video.

Racicot’s accusations are the latest in the long string of controversies surrounding Platner. A Marine veteran who also worked for a private security contractor, he has a chest tattoo resembling a Nazi symbol – which he denied knowledge of and later had covered up. He has also had a history of controversial statements on social media, as well as reportedly sexting with other women shortly after getting married.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and his fellow Republicans are reviving a line of attack against Democrats heading into the midterm elections: They’re communists.

In just the past week, Trump has issued dark warnings that members of the Democratic Party’s ascendant left are communists who want to “completely destroy the traditional American way of life” and even engage in assassinations. Vice President JD Vance has similarly called out communism as a political shift that is “something we haven’t seen in the U.S.” House Speaker Mike Johnson has decried “radical candidates” who are “self-described, self-identifying Marxists.”

The GOP’s ideological focus conflates democratic socialism, which often centers on securing universal healthcare, higher taxes on the wealthy and stricter corporate regulation, with communism, under which private ownership is largely eliminated. It has been building since Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, won the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor last year.

But it’s kicked into a higher gear recently after democratic socialists won several New York City congressional primaries last week. The primary victory on Tuesday by another democratic socialist, Melat Kiros, for a Denver congressional seat suggested the trend may extend beyond Manhattan liberalism.

“The Democrats are making this easy for us,” Rep. Richard Hudson, the North Carolina Republican who leads the House GOP’s strategy and fundraising arm, said in an interview. “They’re nominating extreme liberals, leftists who are out of touch even with mainstream Democrats.”

Republicans are holding onto slim majorities

The messaging effort comes as Republicans scramble to hold onto threadbare congressional majorities in the November midterms. It risks overlooking public frustration, particularly among younger voters, with unfettered capitalism at a time of growing income inequality and rising costs.

But it also gives Republicans a much-needed opportunity to shift the conversation back to territory that is more comfortable for them after their party has spent much of the year on defense over the fallout from Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran, which contributed to widespread price spikes.

Ralph Reed, the longtime conservative activist who hosted Trump last week at a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference, acknowledged that Republicans are facing steep headwinds this year. But the recent string of wins by democratic socialists, he said, allows Republicans to present a contrast between “common sense and crazy.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks during a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) rally at Kings Theater on June 18, 2026 in New York City. Sanders joined Mayor Zohran Mamdani ahead of next week’s primary, and the start of early voting on Saturday, as the pair campaigned for Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, who are challenging incumbents in Democratic primary contests.

(Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images)

Democrats are uncertain over the party’s direction

The renewed push could tug at tensions among Democrats who are largely united in their loathing of Trump but are divided over the party’s direction. This year’s primaries are shaping up as a referendum between centrists who are eager to course correct from what they see as progressive overreach earlier in the decade and a left-wing pushing for even more sweeping change.

“A lot of this anger has been boiling under the surface,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, which was founded by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who caucuses with Democrats. “It’s coming to the fore in this moment in a very powerful way.”

But Rep. Josh Gottheimer, a centrist New Jersey Democrat, called the victories in Colorado and New York “aberrations.”

“We’ve got to fight like hell to keep our party from being hijacked by socialists,” he said. “Most of them are bomb throwers, not problem solvers.”

Nevada Atty. Gen. Aaron Ford easily dispatched a more progressive rival earlier this year in his Democratic bid for governor in a state Trump carried in 2024. As he eyes a general election challenge to Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, he insisted candidates like those who won in New York don’t represent all Democrats.

He said the Democratic Socialists of America “is not the face of our party.”

Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who chairs the House Democratic campaign committee, said in a statement that Republicans were “resorting to desperate attacks that aren’t actually about the pocketbook issues.”

Trump risks overreaching with communism argument

Trump and fellow Republicans risk missing the mark when the public’s embrace of capitalism might not be as strong as it was decades ago.

About half of U.S. adults, 54%, have a positive view of capitalism, according to an August poll from Gallup, a slight decline from 61% in 2010. Democrats have driven some of the shift, but favorable opinions of capitalism have fallen among independents as well.

Only 42% of Democrats viewed capitalism favorably, while 66% had a positive view of socialism. The poll found that both younger and older Democrats have warmed slightly on socialism since 2010, but Democrats under age 50 are much less likely to view capitalism favorably. Democrats age 50 or older didn’t shift meaningfully.

“Young voters, who I would argue are driving a lot of the electoral energy that we’re seeing, came of age politically in a post-Soviet world,” Geevarghese said. “The attacks don’t land in the same way when Donald Trump was politically of age.”

Hudson, who is running the House GOP campaign committee, acknowledged the communism line might not resonate in the same way with all voters, particularly younger people. That’s why, he said, it’s important for Republicans to tailor their message to the needs of individual districts.

“I’ve never run cookie-cutter campaigns where we just say one thing over and over everywhere,” he said.

Still, the argument was high on Trump’s mind again on Wednesday as he visited the newly built Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota. He called the former president a “ferocious opponent of a thing called communism.”

“It’s the biggest threat to our country, including World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, September 11,” he said. “It’s a bigger threat, potentially a bigger threat than that, because it’s like a cancer that spreads, and you better stop it fast.”

Beverly Gage, a history professor at Yale University who has written on the rise and fall of Sen. Joe McCarthy, said earlier eras of anti-communism politics took hold because there was a large and active Communist Party in the U.S. and the Soviet Union was the country’s primary foe. But she said Trump’s focus on the issue is notable given his ties to Roy Cohn, a onetime confidant of Trump who earlier worked for McCarthy.

“It’s not very many steps to get from McCarthy to Roy Cohn to Donald Trump,” she said.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, shrugged off Trump’s communism focus as “bunk.” In an interview, he said the direction of the party isn’t all that different from the dynamics he’s navigated for decades in California politics.

“I governed in an environment where the DSA was otherwise known as progressives,” he said. “This dialectic is so deeply familiar to me, and I don’t over read any of it.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

Kara Swisher is everywhere.

She’s filling in for Joy Behar on ABC’s “The View.” Appearing alongside Meryl Streep in “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” Starring in a CNN documentary. Preparing a national tour. And churning out four podcasts most weeks featuring long-form interviews and commentary.

It’s a ubiquity born of more than three decades chronicling the technology industry with a professed indifference to power that vaulted her into a rare echelon of journalism celebrity.

She harnessed that reputation to persuade rivals Steve Jobs and Bill Gates to appear onstage together and make Mark Zuckerberg so uncomfortable under questioning that he broke out into a sweat. She had Elon Musk’s cellphone number — the two aren’t currently speaking — and often texts tech and business leaders.

She’s betting the influence that made her a Silicon Valley force will translate into politics as podcasts supplant traditional media as a destination for candidates seeking attention.

During President Donald Trump’s second Republican term, potential Democratic presidential candidates ranging from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Vice President Kamala Harris to onetime Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel have appeared on Swisher’s shows. She expects that roster to grow.

“We get called by all the presidential candidates,” the 63-year-old Swisher said in an interview at her home in a leafy corner of Washington, where her trademark high self-regard was on display. “We’re going to get to all of them.”

Swisher is hardly the only podcaster talking politics. Conservatives like Megyn Kelly and Tucker Carlson and some liberals like the former Barack Obama aides who host “Pod Save America” have larger audiences. They’re all dwarfed by Joe Rogan.

But Swisher, who has evolved from a traditional print journalist to business owner and podcast host, has few rivals who can match her technology expertise and connect those observations to the broader political debate.

“When I first went on her podcast when I just got into Congress in 2017, she was very well respected in tech circles,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, the California Democrat whose district includes Silicon Valley. “But now she’s emerged as a larger cultural force, especially at a time where there’s such anger at the tech billionaires and tech arrogance.”

Interviews that produce revealing moments

When she’s not on the road, Swisher typically records from a basement studio in the Washington home she shares with her wife and children and a cat named Lovely. The conversations on her interview podcast “On with Kara Swisher” are often referenced later on “Pivot,” which she co-hosts with entrepreneur Scott Galloway.

They frequently produce revealing moments, as when Newsom filled in for Galloway on “Pivot.” Swisher derided him for being too easy on Steve Bannon when the longtime Trump aide appeared on Newsom’s own podcast.

“You had an opportunity to engage,” Swisher pressed. “Why not engage?”

Swisher pushed Buttigieg on why he took so long to say President Joe Biden, a fellow Democrat, shouldn’t have sought reelection. Buttigieg said he wasn’t consulted.

“Sure, but you have eyes,” Swisher responded.

In an interview, Newsom said Swisher calls him out.

“She’ll send me missives unsolicited,” he said. “She’s usually right, and it drives me crazy.”

Even Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, a rare Republican to go on her show, said it was a worthwhile experience despite being pressed on whether his willingness to speak out against the Trump White House emerged only after he opted against reelection.

“If you’re a politician, you should be able to walk up anywhere and hold your own,” Tillis said, adding, “You may end up having an opportunity, like in my experience, to give a completely different perspective.”

‘Pivot’ was initially focused on tech and business

Shaping the political conversation wasn’t the objective when “Pivot” launched in 2018. Galloway, who hosts his own “Prof G” and “Raging Moderates” podcasts, recalled the idea for “Pivot” was to focus on the intersection of technology and business.

“Show me a big business or tech story, and I’m going to show you a political overlay,” Galloway said.

The expansion converges with a sense of urgency among Democrats to be more aggressive on digital platforms, where audiences are increasingly concentrated.

“The single most important quality that every candidate needs to have is the ability to talk and the ability to talk anywhere,” said Teddy Goff, the co-founder of Precision Strategies and the digital director for Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Democrats are still stung by Rogan’s nearly three-hour Trump interview in the final weeks of the 2024 campaign. Rogan who doesn’t consider himself a journalist, has said Harris’ campaign didn’t agree to his terms. Harris has described being spurned by Rogan.

The podcasts add up to influence and financial success.

Galloway said “Pivot,” which is effectively a joint venture between himself, Swisher and Vox Media, will be a $15 million to $20 million business this year, with a staff of just five.

“Podcasts are the NBA,” Galloway said. “There’s a small amount of people making a lot of money.”

A goal to be popular ‘among the entire populace’

While Swisher largely hosts Democrats, she hopes to soon bring on additional Republicans and said she texted Steve Hilton’s wife, a former Google executive, in hopes of booking him shortly after he advanced in California’s governor’s race.

“What we’re going for is to be popular among the entire populace,” she said. “So that people who don’t feel they want to be in a constant state of anger, whether it’s on the left or the right, can have a place to go.”

But her barbed comments about Trump and other Republicans could complicate that goal. Swisher describes her work as “reported analysis.”

“We don’t shy away from our faults,” Swisher said. “We don’t shy away from our biases. You know, we don’t shy away from things that most people try to.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed his final state budget as governor, a $351.7-billion spending plan that seeks to uplift the poorest Californians through a tax system reliant on the stock market gains of the wealthy.

In a video message, Newsom extolled free school meals, universal transitional kindergarten, 130,000 subsidized childcare slots and other accomplishments in his tenure at the state Capitol, a period in state history marked by a dramatic expansion of state government and over $100 billion in increased spending.

“Over the past eight years, we built great things for the people of California — some of the boldest actions any government in this country has taken in a generation,” Newsom said. “And we did this without breaking the bank. We did this by design.”

The agreement ends weeks of lobbying by outside interests and negotiations among lawmakers and the governor at the state Capitol about how to handle a surge of income tax collected on stock market gains related to artificial intelligence.

Economists have warned that the revenue bump is potentially temporary and analysts say the growth in state spending could leave California in a challenging position if the economy declines.

Assemblymember David Tangipa (R-Fresno) agreed with Democrats that the budget is “compassionate.”

“My fear is that it’s not too much of a competent budget, and the budget continues a pattern that Californians know all too well: Spend now, justify it later, and hope somebody else pays the bill,” he said during a floor debate Monday.

Here’s what you need to know about the spending plan, which takes effect July 1.

Who decides the state budget?

The simplest answer is: Democrats. California voters have elected Democrats to represent 30 of the 40 seats in the Senate and 60 seats of the 80 seats in the Assembly. The budget was passed through a majority vote in each house of the Legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, also a Democrat.

A more complex answer is that the budget is a product of dozens of legislative hearings, millions of dollars spent on lobbying by outside interests, talks among lawmakers and the governor and ultimately subject to the same political dynamics that rule the Democratic party.

Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), in consultation with the chairs of the budget committees, represent their Democratic caucuses and reach a final agreement on the details of the spending plan with Newsom. In reality, staff members for the three parties handle most, if not all, of the back of forth negotiations to get there.

Union leaders seeking better pay, working conditions, benefits for workers and opportunities to expand their ranks are often brought in to consult or hammer out thorny deals as business groups try to fight off more regulations, taxes and costs, and support policies that increase their financial performance.

Democrats are spending more than ever before. How is that possible?

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, the nonpartisan fiscal advisor for lawmakers, recently examined the increase in state spending since 2019-20, Newsom’s first full year in office.

Between the budget approved that year and the spending proposal Newsom unveiled in January, spending from the state’s main operating fund had grown by over $100 billion, or 70%. That was largely by a 60% increase in revenue during that time. California typically operates with a spending deficit because Democrats spend more money than the state brings in.

The LAO found that the increase in spending stemmed from the growing cost of sustaining programs and services that were already in place when Newsom took office. About 30% of the remaining spending growth was categorized as new, either by newly created programs or the expansion of existing services.

Among the report’s conclusions: California could not afford the programs that predated Newsom and the ones he and the Legislature adopted.

To balance the budget over the last few years, Newsom and lawmakers have dipped into the state’s reserves at a time when California is experiencing strong revenue growth, which the LAO has cautioned against. Democrats have also increased taxes on businesses, paid for programs out of other funds and suspended reserve deposits among other solutions.

This year, the state budget places $6.4 billion in higher than expected revenue into a temporary holding account to knock down a deficit and balance the budget through 2027-28.

Democrats are pursuing a change to the state constitution on the November ballot that would allow them to set aside more money in years of good revenue growth to prevent cuts in future downturns.

Where is the money going?

Education and Medi-Cal are the two largest costs for the state.

Medi-Cal is the state’s version of subsidized health insurance for low-income Californians and provides medical, dental and vision care for an estimated 14.5 million people, or about one-third of the state population.

The federal government pays for more than half of the cost of the program. California is expected to spend about $50 billion from the general fund next year out of a total estimated at more than $220 billion in costs shared between the state and federal government, according to the LAO. State taxes and fees on providers also help fund Medi-Cal.

Overall, Medi-Cal costs more than any other state program and takes up about 40% of total spending, including federal funds the state receives, according to the LAO.

Spending on Medi-Cal has more than doubled over the last 10 years, which the LAO attributes to an increase in costs per enrollee, more enrollees and a greater share of seniors seeking care, among other factors.

Under Newsom, California has expanded Medi-Cal, including offering coverage to include all immigrants regardless of their immigration status, which the governor said has dropped the state’s uninsured rate down to 5.9%

The cost of Medi-Cal has grown beyond what Democrats expected and resulted in Newsom suggesting spending cuts.

The final budget agreement rejects a call by Newsom to lower the asset limit to $2,000 now and instead lowers it to $21,000 in 2027-28 to be eligible for Medi-Cal. The Legislature also delayed the governor’s proposal to reduce dental coverage and shift asylum seekers and other immigrants to restricted scope Medi-Cal, according to Jason Sisney, the lead budget advisor for the Assembly who posts about the budget on Substack.

The budget includes Newsom’s proposal to shift enrollees with unsatisfactory immigration status, a term that includes undocumented immigrants and others, from managed care to fee-for-service to save costs.

Under Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, California has a minimum funding guarantee for schools and community colleges and dedicates roughly 40% of general fund revenue to education.

Sisney said the budget increases the Local Control Funding Formula by $2.2 billion and provides historic general fund per pupil spending of $21,148. Support for special education also grew by $1.8 billion.

The California Community Schools Partnership Program received a $1-billion boost and Democrats directed $2.8 million in additional funding to the program that provides free meals for school children.

The budget also establishes 22,770 new slots for free or reduced childcare, which Newsom had proposed decreasing.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive later.

The 5-4 decision rejects a Republican challenge to laws in California and 13 other mostly Democratic states which permit the counting of these late-arriving ballots.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the three liberals to form the majority.

The decision is a mild surprise and should bolster Democrats in the fall election.

While California’s seven-day grace period for mail ballots has contributed to slow tabulations, it has not been shown to trigger fraud or unreliable vote counts.

Election law experts blame slow tallies on the surge in voting by mail combined with the need to carefully match signatures on these ballots.

The court said federal law since 1845 has set election day nationwide as the Tuesday after the first Monday in November and voters were required to cast their ballots that day.

Citing that fact, the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration joined a challenge to a Mississippi law adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic that allowed counting ballots that were up to five days late.

Trump’s lawyers said federal law preempted or overrode the state law.

“From the dawn of America, election day has meant the day the ballot box closes — and when election officials must be in receipt of all ballots,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

Democrats said the Constitution says the “time, place and manner of holding elections” for Congress “shall be prescribed in each state” by its legislature. However, Congress was given the power to override those state rules and set its own regulations for federal elections.

Barrett said the federal election day requires only that the voter must decide by then.

“The election-day statutes require the electorate’s choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote — as it is in Mississippi,” she wrote. “But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward.”

While Congress could have prohibited the counting of late-arriving ballots, it had not done so. That may be because states wanted to count ballots from members of the military stationed overseas even if they arrived late.

Last year, however, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans struck down Mississippi’s law that allowed for counting ballots that were cast by election day but arrived up to five days later.

The opinion by three judges, all Trump appointees, concluded that the election day set by Congress “is the day by which ballots must be both cast by voters and received by state officials.”

In its appeal, Mississippi stuck with a states’ rights view and argued that the federal election-day statutes mean that ballots must be cast — not received — by election day.

“This is a victory for voters and for an election system that meets the needs of the people it serves,” said Common Cause President Virginia Kase Solomón. “Eligible Americans shouldn’t lose their voice because of mail delays outside their control.”

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan is eligible to challenge the senator in the August primary, a judge ruled Friday.

Superior Court Judge Thomas Matthews’ ruling overturns a June 15 decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher to disqualify the challenger and keep him off the primary ballot. Matthews’ ruling can be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Attorneys for the state have said Tuesday is the deadline for a final ruling so that ballots for the Aug. 18 primary can be printed.

The judge ruled that the Division of Elections decision to exclude Dan J. Sullivan because his candidacy was not “in good faith” was not based on the Constitution, Alaska law or the division’s own regulations. The retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg filed to challenge the incumbent.

“Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, ‘good faith’ criteria,” the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the state did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday’s ruling. Jeffrey Robinson, Dan J. Sullivan’s attorney, said in an email he expects the division to appeal the ruling and couldn’t comment until the Alaska Supreme Court rules on the case.

The controversy over the two Dan Sullivans has underscored the stakes involved in the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The Alaska race is one of about half a dozen U.S. Senate races expected to be highly competitive in the fall, and the seat is one Democrats are trying to flip in their efforts to regain the majority.

The senator and allies, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee, have condemned the challenger’s efforts to join the race, arguing his presence could confuse voters. Under Alaska’s election system, the top four candidates from the primary, regardless of party, move on to the ranked-choice November general election.

The senator has accused the challenger Sullivan of working with Democrats and the campaign of Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola — who is considered the senator’s main opponent — to cause confusion and boost Peltola’s chances. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile candidates in the crowded race and the only ones to report raising any money.

Beecher has said she determined the challenger Sullivan is not eligible to run because his candidacy was not filed in good faith and instead was done with an intent to confuse voters. She said he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and, in conjunction with his candidacy, changed his party affiliation to Republican.

She also cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats. She did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination.

In arguing to keep the challenger disqualified, attorneys for the state disputed suggestions that the ballot could be designed in a way to reduce voter confusion over two candidates with the same name and party running for the same office.

“The Constitution does not require States to place a sham candidate on the ballot and then attempt to mitigate the damage through design choices,” Rachel Witty, an attorney with the Alaska Department of Law, and outside attorneys Christopher Murray and Michael Francisco wrote in court filings.

Attorneys for the challenger Sullivan argued that the Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate — age, citizenship and residency. They said Beecher lacked the legal authority to boot their client off the ballot.

The challenger Sullivan has said that sharing a name and party affiliation with the incumbent gave him “an instant megaphone.” But the 69-year-old retired teacher and former U.S. Forest Service employee said he had considered a run for some time and had grown frustrated with the senator.

He initially was certified on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan, with the senator listed as Dan S. Sullivan and identified as the incumbent.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee is organizing hundreds of community events across the country this weekend in hopes of harnessing the same concerns about affordability that President Trump capitalized on to return to the White House.

The events include school supply giveaways, food bank drives, neighborhood door knockings and organizer trainings.

“Everything costs too damn much under Donald Trump and the Republicans,” Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin said in a statement.

Martin said party members planned “to reach, engage, register, and mobilize voters who will make the difference in races up and down the ballot.”

Two years ago, Democrats were the ones accused of being indifferent to Americans’ anger about rising prices. Now they’re pointing the finger at Trump, who has downplayed the effect of lingering inflation.

He has described affordability concerns as a “hoax” and recently said, “I love the inflation” because he expects costs to drop as he tries to resolve his war with Iran.

About one-third of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling the economy, according to an AP-NORC poll from June. That’s down from the start of his second term, when 40% approved.

About 7 in 10 U.S. adults say the country’s economy is “poor,” according to an AP-NORC poll from June. That’s up from 65% in March, and underscores Americans’ ongoing unhappiness with the cost of living, which is being compounded by high gas prices because of the war in Iran.

Slightly more U.S. adults say the Democratic Party would do a better job than the Republican Party in handling inflation and the cost of living, according to a Marquette Law School/SSRS poll from May. Roughly one-third of U.S. adults — 35% — said the Democrats would do a better job, while 28% believe the Republicans would. Roughly one-third say the parties would be the same, or neither would be good.

This weekend’s events vary by region.

In New Mexico, Gov. Michelle Luján Grisham will convene a training for 150 potential campaign staffers. Nevada’s statewide campaigns will knock on doors in rural and working class neighborhoods. Others will call voters in swing districts with competitive U.S. House races to talk about the rising price of gas.

Some events are geared toward directly helping voters to persuade them that Democrats are concerned about affordability.

For instance, the local party in Kenosha County, Wis., plans to collect and distribute school supplies to poor families. And canvassers will fan out to discuss affordability issues in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Republican National Committee dismissed the weekend’s events.

“Despite being millions of dollars in debt, the DNC is choosing to throw pitiful pep rallies to distract from the fact they created the inflation crisis,” said Delanie Bomar, an RNC spokeswoman. “Meanwhile, Republicans are hard at work fixing the economic mess Joe Biden and the Democrats created.”

Democrats hope that the events will show that their time in the political wilderness has made them more serious and effective at tackling kitchen table issues. But some fear their agenda may not be heard by voters in an increasingly fractured media environment.

“One of Donald Trump’s greatest strengths is that he’s so loud,” said Brian Derrick, a Democratic strategist. He said that events like the weekend’s itinerary help Democrats focus on an “Achilles’ heel” issue for Trump, “which right now is his lack of interest in addressing everyday costs for people.”

Brown writes for the Associated Press.

June 24 (UPI) — Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration Wednesday of seeking to push through a multimillion-dollar arms deal with Turkey by bypassing congressional review, the latest executive action critics say usurps the lawmakers’ authority.

Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was informed by the Trump administration late Tuesday that it would bypass congressional review of an arms sale to Turkey worth more than $700 million.

“The State Department did not even attempt to justify its decision,” Meeks said in a statement.

“It did not invoke any emergency authority, did not present a written rationale and for months refused to make a good-faith effort to brief me on implications of the sale for the U.S.-Turkey relationship, Turkey’s continued possession of the Russian S-400 system and other regional security concerns,” he continued.

“It simply informed my office that it would immediately proceed with a formal notification of the sale.”

Turkey is a U.S. ally and NATO member with a robust defense industry. However, it’s led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, an increasingly authoritarian leader who has maintained ties with Russia and whose government uses the Kremlin’s S-400 Triumph missile defense system.

The United States and NATO opposed Turkey’s adoption of the S-200 system, and Washington removed Turkey from the F-35 fighter program in 2019 during Trump’s first administration.

Meeks called the decision to bypass congressional review “yet another deeply troubling example of this administration’s open contempt for Congress’ oversight authority.

“There can be no pretense that this was urgent or unavoidable,” he said, stating the items will not be delivered to Turkey for years.

“This was a deliberate choice to shut Congress out and to treat legitimate oversight as an inconvenience to be brushed aside.”

Trump is scheduled to visit Turkey early next month. During a White House press conference alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Tuesday, he praised Erdogan as “a great friend.”

Erdogan is known to be seeking to acquire U.S.-made fighter jets, including the F-35. Asked if he was planning to announce a potential deal when he visits Ankara, Trump replied: “I’m going to probably do something that’s going to make him very happy.”

It was unclear if jets were part of the arms deal.

UPI has contacted the State Department for comment and to detail the contents of the sale.

Democrats and other critics of President Donald Trump have repeatedly accused his administration of bypassing Congress through executive orders and unilateral decisions, particularly in its use of the military.

The Trump administration has faced staunch criticism from opponents for launching a war against Iran in late February without congressional authorization. Democrats have frequently argued that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war.

Democrats have also criticized the administration’s use of the military to attack suspected drug-trafficking boats in the Pacific and Caribbean without congressional authorization.

NEW YORK — When Varun Venkatesh cast his ballot in New York’s primary this week, he thought about “a good litmus test for me as a voter.” He wanted to know what the candidates are doing for the Palestinian cause.

The 27-year-old Brooklyn resident decided to support Claire Valdez, who was backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani, over Antonio Reynoso, another progressive who was the choice of the Democratic establishment, because she had “a clear and more consistent stance.”

Valdez triumphed in her congressional primary, as did two other insurgent candidates endorsed by Mamdani, and Israel was a key issue in each of the races. Now the question for Democrats is how many more voters like Venkatesh are out there as the party charts its path toward the November midterms and the next presidential election.

The war in Gaza, which began during Joe Biden’s presidency and undermined Kamala Harris’ bid to replace him, remains an open wound, and how Democrats attempt to stitch it closed will help define their future. A step in any direction risks alienating pieces of the party’s unwieldy coalition at a time when it’s trying to unify around the mission of retaking control of Congress.

“The Israel question has become defining,” said Matt Bennett, who leads the centrist Democratic group Third Way and frequently criticizes progressives as jeopardizing outreach to independent voters. He said some in Mamdani’s camp have embraced “a new level of extremism,” warning that “Republicans are very good at weaponizing crazy ideas on the fringe against mainstream candidates.”

Mamdani has no such concerns as he tries to reshape the Democratic Party from the mayor’s office of the country’s largest city. He sharply criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for defending what he calls “a status quo of immorality” in Gaza, and voters who celebrated his slate’s victories on Tuesday night chanted “Free Palestine.”

The mayor, meanwhile, argues that New York should shape Democrats’ search for their national identity in the coming years.

“When does the race for 2028 begin?” Mamdani asked last week on a stage with his slate of candidates. “It starts now.”

Israel-Palestine conflict animates Democrats’ left flank

Even for a party accustomed to searing debates between progressives and moderates, the schism over Israel has been blistering. Although the U.S. alliance with Israel once had bipartisan support, the ascendancy of Israel’s right wing led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu strained those ties over the years. Then the war in Gaza shredded them.

Biden was denounced as “Genocide Joe” by pro-Palestinian supporters, who shifted their attention to Harris once she replaced him as the Democratic nominee for president two years ago.

“She was trying to the right thing,” said Jamie Harrison, who led the Democratic National Committee at the time. “It was a hard and awkward place to be in.”

Harrison said the war in Gaza helped cost Harris the state of Michigan, which has a sizable Arab American population. However, he doubts that it was a defining national issue then or now.

“It’s one thing to be in New York. But I can tell you that most places, including where I am in South Carolina, it’s not what people are talking about,” he said. “They are concerned about affording gas and groceries and housing.”

Harrison expects Democrats to look for middle ground in the future, which includes “still supporting Israel’s sovereignty” while calling for “reducing U.S. aid to Israel and changing the nature of the relationship.”

One primary victor blasted the ‘hug Bibi’ strategy

Finding middle ground has been difficult so far, as demonstrated by the primary in New York’s 10th congressional district.

Brad Lander, the former city comptroller backed by Mamdani, successfully challenged U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman in the race.

Both candidates are Jewish, and both have criticized the Israeli government. But Lander says the war in Gaza is a genocide, and Goldman does not.

“Our party needs to admit that Joe Biden’s ‘hug Bibi’ strategy was a catastrophic mistake,” Lander said in his primary victory speech. He added, “We cannot keep paying for Netanyahu’s wars with our tax dollars. Democratic voters are saying this, loud and clear.”

Ari Rassouli, a voter in the district, said the incumbent’s views on Israel were “one of the many reasons that I didn’t like Dan Goldman.”

Describing the war as a genocide, she said “a candidate that is in support of that has no place in our democracy at all.”

While talking to reporters on Tuesday, Lander acknowledged that Israel was among the top issues along with affordability and immigration.

“I like talking to Jewish voters who feel anxiety about the times we live in and say, ‘I have these values, I want to treat everyone like they’re equal and with dignity and created in God’s image. How do we navigate the times we’re in?’” he said.

He added with a smile, “Those are probably the longest conversations at the polls.” ___

Barrow, Peoples and Offenhartz write for the Associated Press. AP writers Anthony Izaguirre and Larry Neumeister contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Senate for the first time approved a war powers resolution Tuesday seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran, as lawmakers warily watch President Trump’s efforts to resolve a conflict that the administration launched on its own and now needs Congress to fund.

It was the 10th time the Senate has tried to stop the war, and the outcome, on a vote of 50 to 48, was a stunning turnaround from past efforts. While the resolution is largely symbolic, and does not fully carry the force of law, it reflects the growing concerns from a number of Republican lawmakers in both the House and Senate over both the war and the deal Trump struck with Iran to end it. The House approved the resolution earlier this month.

“Time after time, the vast majority of Senate Republicans sided with Trump and his war instead of the American people,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Schumer said Americans have paid the price for “Trump’s historic blunder in Iran. It’ll go down in the history books as one of the worst foreign policy forays America has ever made.”

In the past, as many as four GOP senators have voted for the war powers resolutions, and they did so Tuesday — Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana. One Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against the resolution.

On this vote, the absence of two Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who was admitted to the hospital recently for an undisclosed matter, left the GOP without a full majority to halt the effort. Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) also missed the vote.

The vote also comes as the Pentagon is seeking $80 billion from Congress, mostly for the Iran war as it backfills munitions and stockpiles.

Trump to meet senators as Republicans balk at Iran deal

Trump himself is headed to the Capitol this week to meet with GOP senators as Vice President JD Vance has been overseas working to negotiate with Iran to end its nuclear ambitions — which had been among the stated rationales for the war.

The president is not pleased with the Republicans who have been critical of the deal he struck with Iran, according to one GOP senator granted anonymity to discuss the private dynamics.

The terms of the Iran deal are spelled out in a memorandum of understanding that Trump signed last week, starting a 60-day clock for the sides to reach a broader agreement over ending Iran’s nuclear program.

But Republicans have particularly objected to the $300-billion fund to help Iran rebuild, which is far greater than the $1.7 billion then-President Obama refunded the country under his administration’s 2015 Iran deal.

“I believe President Trump is getting very poor advice on Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said last week on his podcast after the deal was made public.

Democrats have repeatedly forced Iran votes

Over and again, Democrats have been forcing votes on the Iran war, almost since the U.S. and Israel launched missile strikes on Iran on Feb. 28.

Nearly each week they’re in session, the Senate Democrats have put forward war powers resolutions, but they have failed to amass the majority needed for passage in the narrowly split chamber, where Trump’s Republican Party holds the majority.

The House pushed its own version to passage earlier this month, with four Republicans joining all Democrats in approving the war powers resolution, over the objections of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and the GOP leadership.

While such resolutions do not go to the president for his signature, passage stands as a powerful, if symbolic, statement from Congress and a rebuke of the administration’s military actions.

Sen. Tim Kaine, the Democrat from Virginia who has led his party’s efforts, said the pause in warfighting, as Trump’s team works to shore up a fragile ceasefire, provides the perfect time for Congress to step back and assess “what should the next chapter be.”

Hegseth seeks $80 billion from Congress for the Iran war

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is also on Capitol Hill this week, seeking roughly $80 billion in supplemental funding to shore up defense supplies in the aftermath of the Iran war, which is drawing scrutiny when many Americans are reeling from high gas prices and costs of living.

The Pentagon early on had estimated the war cost $11.3 billion during its first week, and experts have put the overall price tag at close to $100 billion.

The Defense Department’s funding request is part of a broader beef-up of military money the White House wants as part of its budget request this year.

The Trump administration is seeking $1.5 trillion in defense funding this year — a 50% increase — including $350 billion that it wants in a so-called budget reconciliation package. Johnson and GOP leaders are working to pass that package on their own, over the objections of Democrats, much the way they approved Trump’s big tax cuts bill last year.

The 2025 tax cuts package also included a sizable increase of about $175 billion for the military.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders of the California Legislature plan to approve a proposed constitutional amendment this week that would ask voters to give them more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The proposal seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

“Putting money aside to protect ourselves from future uncertainties isn’t just good government; it’s common sense,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is strong and resilient, but we’re not immune to economic headwinds. At a time when our essential services are under pressure, we have a responsibility to safeguard the programs and investments that Californians rely on.”

Assembly Constitutional Amendment 20, which Democrats are calling the “Save for California’s Future Act,” could receive push back from taxpayer advocates.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes into consideration annual tax proceeds and changes to the population and cost of living. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

With few exceptions, the limit applies to most appropriations of tax revenue, including money that lawmakers tuck away into the rainy day fund and other reserves. California voters have also capped the amount of money lawmakers can set aside in the rainy day fund to 10% of general fund proceeds in a given year.

Since taking office, Newsom has argued that it doesn’t make sense for savings to count as spending under state law.

State budget revenue is subject to dramatic swings from year to year based on stock market activity. The law, Newsom has said, prevents the state from saving more money in good years to stave off cuts to programs in bad years.

The proposed changes would exempt deposits into the rainy day fund and a short term reserve, called the “Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account,” from the state appropriations limit. The cap on the rainy day fund would grow from 10% of general fund tax revenue to 20%.

“Californians live by a simple, bipartisan truth: set money aside when times are good so you’re ready when they’re not,” Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) said in a statement. “The Save For California’s Future Act is what responsible leadership looks like — and future taxpayers will thank us for it.”

The measure could incentivize Democrats to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

The measure is slated for a vote Thursday. If approved by two-thirds of lawmakers, voters will consider the proposal on the November ballot.

ATLANTA — Legislation to keep Georgia’s embattled vote-counting method in place for this year’s midterm elections faced strong opposition from state Democrats on Monday after Republicans in the Georgia Senate approved an amendment that would require a hand recount of ballots.

Georgia’s governor, Republican Brian Kemp, had called lawmakers into a special session in part to address a July 1 deadline that was set to ban the QR codes used for the official vote count. Legislators passed a law two years ago that set that deadline, but then failed to find a replacement for tabulating votes.

Some voting rights activists had warned that any changes so close to the midterm elections could create confusion at polling sites. Georgia is a political swing state where voters will decide high-profile races for U.S. Senate and governor in the fall.

State lawmakers last week appeared to have reached a deal on a bill to push the July 1 deadline back to 2028. But Republicans in the Senate approved an amendment over the weekend that would require a full hand recount of the two races at the top of ballot. In November, that would be the governor’s contest and a U.S. Senate election.

The amended bill passed the Senate on a party line vote, but the House did not immediately schedule it for a vote on Monday.

Georgia Democrats say a hand recount in November would create chaos that could sow doubt about the results. Research has shown that hand-counting is more prone to error, costlier and likely to delay results. It has gained traction, however, with Republican lawmakers in some states amid President Trump’s repeated false claims about a stolen 2020 election.

“What we are experiencing is a Republican Senate who’s acting extraordinarily irresponsibly with Georgia’s elections and people’s votes,” state Rep. Saira Draper, a Democrat, said Monday.

Republican state Sen. Max Burns defended the Senate bill, saying hand counts and machine counts can “coexist and confirm each other’s ultimate results.”

“This amendment to a good bill is to strengthen it so that the voters have confidence in election security,” he said.

Georgia’s current election system uses a QR code printed on ballots to tally the votes. It has drawn the ire of Trump, who claimed without evidence that voting machines in Georgia deleted or switched votes in the 2020 election. He narrowly lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden that year.

Georgia voting machines have been the subject of conspiracy theories, which manufacturer Dominion Voting Systems fought vigorously in court. But election integrity advocates also have raised concerns about the machines, arguing that they are vulnerable to hacking and that voters cannot be sure their selections are accurately reflected because people can’t read QR codes.

The Georgia Senate bill would extend the July 1 deadline to Jan. 1, 2028. It also would create a committee to recommend requirements for a new voting system. The committee would have until Jan. 31, 2027, to report its findings. State lawmakers would be responsible for funding, buying and implementing the new system for the 2028 election cycle.

The special session also was supposed to redraw Georgia’s congressional and legislative districts for the 2028 election, but state lawmakers postponed those plans.

Thanawala writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — More than $350 million from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has been quietly directed to White House security, an allotment that Democrats warn appears to be helping fund his new ballroom project — despite the president’s insistence that no taxpayer dollars would be used.

The apportionment of funds, which the White House’s Office of Management and Budget made late Friday, comes from two accounts that were intended to provide the U.S. Secret Service with extra money for hiring and training in the aftermath of last year’s assassination attempts on the president, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The shift was made days after Congress rejected a $1-billion request for the White House in a Homeland Security bill that Trump signed into law and as the ballroom project is tangled in legal challenges.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel initially drafted the security funding, said Thursday he was unaware of the allocations.

“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley (R-Iowa). “And that’s what the country expects.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, charged that Trump’s actions are potentially illegal.

“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.

“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley said. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”

Ballroom project hits setbacks

Trump has faced setbacks in his attempts to build the ballroom on the White House grounds, where he ordered the demolition of the storied East Wing to make way for it.

Touring the construction site last month, Trump called the development a “gift” to the American people. He has repeatedly said that it is being paid for by donations — which has also run into ethics questions from watchdogs concerned about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

Congress refused the Trump administration’s request for $1 billion for the ballroom last month. The administration wanted the money as part of a Homeland Security bill, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers rejected efforts to tack it on. It became politically toxic at a time when Americans are reeling from inflationary high costs of living.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the price tag for the project has ballooned to $600 million, according to a project summary prepared by the contractor, with more than half of that funding coming from taxpayers. Roll Call first reported on the apportionment of new funds for White House security.

At its core, arguments are swirling over how much of the White House project is to bolster security underground, with bomb shelters and a medical facility, and how much of the costs are related to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom on top.

White House says Trump and donors are paying for the ballroom

A spokesman for the White House said that Trump and donors are funding some $400 million for the ballroom development, and that the coordination with the Secret Service had been noted in the initial announcement of the project.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” said White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle in a statement.

He said the events over the past weekend, including an alleged attack plan targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, proves why the project is needed.

“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.

Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones and missiles.

The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the White House’s $1-billion request would go to harden the ballroom addition, with bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other systems.

The rest of the money would go for other security improvements, according to a document provided to Senate Republicans, including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” White House visitors screening facility.

Congress holds power of the purse

The shifting funds are certain to ignite growing concerns in Congress over the separation of powers, and the president’s use of federal funds allocated by lawmakers.

The money comes from Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that the president signed into law last summer. It provided more than $1 billion for Secret Service resources, including “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”

The provision was uncontested at the time, even as Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats said they did not challenge this section or try to strip it out from the package.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the specific authority to allocate funds across the federal government, including the executive and judicial branch operations.

While the president holds the power to sign — or veto — those appropriation bills, once the funding becomes law, it largely must stand.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

EVIAN-LES-BAINS, France — President Trump said Wednesday that he was delaying federal prosecutor Jay Clayton’s nomination to lead the U.S. intelligence community in a bid to force Congress to act on a voter ID bill that currently lacks enough support for passage.

The Republican president said in a social media post just hours before Clayton’s scheduled confirmation hearing that he will keep Bill Pulte, a top U.S. housing official, as acting director of national intelligence. Democratic and Republican lawmakers had opposed Trump’s selection of Pulte, citing his lack of known experience in intelligence and his use of his current administration perch to target perceived adversaries of the president — resistance that last week forced Trump to turn to Clayton.

The abrupt announcement creates instant uncertainty over the long-term leadership of the 18-agency intelligence community and dashes hopes for a swift renewal of a crucial surveillance program that expired in Congress last week due to bipartisan anger over Trump’s pick of Pulte.

That tool, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, permits spy agencies to collect without a warrant the communications of targeted foreigners located outside the United States. National security officials across both major political parties have for years described Section 702 as vital for gathering intelligence that can disrupt terror attacks and espionage operations, though some lawmakers and civil liberties advocates have raised concerns over the government’s use of information about Americans that is incidentally collected through the program.

Clayton had been set to appear on Wednesday for a Senate confirmation hearing that was fast-tracked because of the program’s lapse. Democrats had said they would not renew the expired surveillance programs until Trump withdrew the selection of Pulte.

Trump’s post suggests that debate to revive Section 702 could be indefinitely postponed. Lawmakers have sounded the alarm about the government operating without congressional authorization of the powerful spy tool.

A court order from last March certified that the program could continue for another 12 months, though it’s possible that communications companies could challenge the government’s authority to force them to cooperate and share data.

In his social media post, Trump accused Democrats of breaking a deal to renew the program after he nominated Clayton. Trump also said he does not want to remove Clayton from his current position as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York before his replacement, James McDonald, is approved. McDonald was named to the Justice Department post on Saturday.

And Trump added another condition: linking his approval of the surveillance program to the passage of a bill requiring people to show ID to vote.

“Therefore, to add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said, using the acronym for the surveillance program and his name for the voter ID bill.

The Republican-controlled Congress has not acted on the voting bill because it does not have enough support in either chamber, particularly from Democrats.

Trump made the announcement in Evian-les-Bains, France, where he was participating in the final day of the Group of Seven summit of leading industrial economies.

The intelligence director position became available after Tulsi Gabbard, who had held the job, announced last month that she was resigning to spend time with her husband as he fights cancer.

Clayton, a chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, has spent the last 14 months as the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan, one of the Justice Department’s premier posts.

His office during that time facilitated the unsealing of thousands of pages of court records from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, documents that were made public as part of the Justice Department’s release of records related to the late sex offender and his longtime confidant.

Clayton has also overseen the prosecution of former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and Maduro’s wife, Cilia Flores, on drug trafficking charges.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Maxwell was convicted of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein but insists she’s innocent. Maduro and his wife have protested their capture and said they’re not guilty.

Madhani, Superville, Tucker and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. Superville reported from Geneva. Tucker and Jalonick reported from Washington.

Today, we discuss political jockeying, litigation and Hail Mary passes.

There’s so much going on these days …

Indeed.

Between the war with Iran, the World Cup and President Trump slapping his filigreed (emphasis greed) name on everything in sight, I’ve completely lost track of the fight for control of Congress.

Well, now that the California gubernatorial primary is in the rear view, let’s catch up. The midterm election is not until November, of course. But a fierce political competition, aimed at skewing the result, has been underway since last summer.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

It started in Texas, where Trump strong-armed Republican lawmakers into redrawing their congressional map in hopes of boosting the GOP’s chances of keeping control of the House. That led California voters to pass an eye-for-an-eye measure aimed at boosting Democratic prospects.

Other states joined the skirmishing, capped by Virginia, where voters in April approved new political lines aimed at netting Democrats as many as four additional seats.

For a short time, it looked as though Trump’s move had backfired and Democrats might actually come out ahead, at least on paper, by a seat or two.

And then?

And then the courts stepped in.

In a 4-3 decision in May, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the state’s new congressional map, ruling that the Democratic-run legislature had violated procedural requirements when it placed the constitutional measure on the ballot.

But the more significant legal decision came a week prior, when the U.S. Supreme Court nullified a major part of the federal Voting Rights Act, freeing several Southern states to hastily redraw a number of congressional districts to Republicans’ advantage.

What’s the bottom line?

It looks as though the GOP has come out ahead, but not by more than a handful of seats, give or take. It’s important to note that all that cartographic competition offers no guarantee of success.

“Cartographic competition?”

Those gerrymandered maps were drawn for the express purpose of helping out one party or the other, but the partisan manipulation doesn’t make all those redrawn districts a lock come November.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signs legislation calling for a special election to redraw the state’s congressional map

(Godofredo A. Vasquez / Associated Press)

In California, for instance, the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao — a perennial Democratic target — remains highly competitive. In Texas, GOP lawmakers redrew their map assuming the substantial Latino support that Trump enjoyed in 2024 would carry over to Republican candidates in this year’s midterm election. That seems increasingly less likely, given shifting Latino attitudes, which means at least two of those redrawn Texas seats are more competitive than Republicans would like.

Bottom line, where does that leave things in the fight for control of the House?

There are no certainties …

… Beyond death and taxes. Understood.

It still seems more likely than not that Democrats will win the House in November.

They just need to gain three seats. Going back more than half a century, the out party (which is to say the one not in the White House) has gained an average of more than two dozen House seats in the midterm election. So Democrats have that going for them.

President Trump kicked off a redistricting battle by strong-arming Texas into redrawing its congressional map.

(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)

Also, more significantly, Trump’s approval ratings — in a word — stink. There’s a very strong correlation between a president’s standing in polls and his party’s performance, given midterm elections are almost always a referendum on the party in the White House. Since disgruntled voters are more likely to turn out, that means the out party typically gains seats.

“It would be one thing if Republicans were trying to buck a historical trend and they were doing so strengthened by a popular Republican president,” said Jacob Rubashkin, an analyst with the authoritative nonpartisan political guide Inside Elections. “But that’s simply not the case. … [Trump] is less popular than any president heading into a midterm election in a very long time.”

What about control of the Senate?

Advantage Republicans.

How so?

Part of it is straight-up math. Democrats need to flip four seats. There are 35 Senate races being decided this fall, but only 10 or so are even remotely competitive. Nearly all are in states that Trump carried.

That said, things are looking up considerably for Democrats from where they were a few months ago.

Oh?

There’s much less correlation between presidential approval and the outcome of Senate races. Still, Trump is putting up some pretty strong headwinds that Republicans will have to overcome this fall, including in battleground states such as Georgia, Michigan and North Carolina. (His gaseous effusions — “I love the inflation,” “Affordability is a con job” — are not helpful, to put it mildly, when gasoline and hamburger are costing hard-pressed voters an arm and a leg, respectively.)

And Democrats have done about as well as they could have hoped in landing their preferred candidates in the Republican-leaning states of Alaska, Ohio and Iowa, making those contests far more competitive than they would have been.

What about Maine?

That started out as Democrats’ top target this election cycle. Five-term incumbent Susan Collins has the distinction of being the only Republican senator running in a state that Kamala Harris won. The race is still considered a toss-up.

But the nomination of Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran with a history that is, um, problematic — a tattoo resembling a Nazi SS symbol he did or did not apprehend; extramarital sexting; coarse online commentary — could turn the race into more of a referendum on the Democrat than either Trump or Collins.

And Texas?

You mean the boneyard of Democratic dreams?

It’s been decades since the party won a statewide race in Texas, despite all manner of attempts. (The “dream team” of a white/Black/Latino slate; the streaking-comet candidacies of Beto O’Rourke and Wendy Davis, who both flamed out short of victory.)

Democrats are giddy again, this time over 37-year-old state Sen. James Talarico, who’s built a national following with his telegenic, Christian-infused progressive platform. More pertinent, he’s running against a singularly flawed Republican nominee, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, whose dubious resume is muddied with a felony indictment, impeachment by the GOP-run Texas House and allegations of repeated adultery.

Still, it’s Texas. Electing Talarico would be like connecting on one of those last-second, desperation, alley-oop passes in the end zone. Not impossible.

But don’t bet the ranch.