republicans

LINCOLN, Calif. — One thing Anne Smull, a retired feedstore owner, was looking forward to on election day was voting for the man who currently represents her in Congress, conservative Rep. Kevin Kiley. Now she can’t.

That’s because California Democrats sliced Kiley’s district six ways as payback for Republican redistricting in Texas and elsewhere. The chunk of the district that Smull, who identifies as a conservative, lives in is now grafted onto an overwhelmingly Democratic seat based in the state’s wine country.

During a recent lunch at a cafe in Lincoln, a onetime agricultural town that has morphed into a bedroom community on the edge of Sacramento’s exurban sprawl, Smull was heartbroken to hear she can no longer vote for Kiley.

“He believes in the same things I do,” Smull said. “It feels sneaky and underhanded.”

Republicans started the redistricting competition. Democrats might finish it

Democratic voters in several other states know how Smull feels.

President Trump last year told GOP-controlled states to redraw their maps before this year’s midterm elections to increase the number of winnable seats for Republicans in order to help the party hold on to the U.S. House. The effort was turbocharged by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the spring of this year that neutralized a key provision of the Voting Rights Act and cleared the way for Republicans to redraw more seats across the South that had elected Black Democrats.

Democratic-leaning and heavily minority communities from Texas to Tennessee have been split into multiple congressional districts that dilute the Democratic vote by stretching deep into conservative areas.

In the future, it is likely that more Republican voters in other states will go through what Smull and other conservatives in Northern California are facing. Democrats in Maryland, New York, Illinois and other strongholds have pledged to retaliate in time for the 2028 elections and split Republican-leaning districts the way their California counterparts did Kiley’s.

Democrats have been hindered nationally by stricter rules against partisan line-drawing in their states, but California showed a way around that. California Democrats won voter approval last year to redraw the state’s congressional map, originally made by an independent commission, and formed five new Democratic-leaning seats.

‘We have zero voice,’ says voter angry at the Democratic drive for a new political map

Kiley’s is one of them. The reworked political lines led the two-term congressman to leave the Republican Party and run as an independent in the slightly Democratic-leaning district that now includes his home.

He spoke out against partisan gerrymandering, even unsuccessfully trying to force the Republican-led House to allow a vote on a bill to ban mid-decade redistricting.

“We’ve seen partisan divisions really spin out of control in really harmful ways, and I think Exhibit No. 1 is the redistricting wars,” Kiley recently told a group of voters in the suburb of Citrus Heights.

Democrats contend Kiley’s party switch is purely a political trick to survive in a more liberal district. They note that he still caucuses with House Republicans and has voted for many of the GOP’s priorities, including Trump’s sweeping budget and tax cut bill last year, and that political organizations run by House Republicans are spending money to back his reelection.

Even some of Kiley’s supporters think the election was a factor in the congressman’s decision to become an independent.

“My original thinking was he did it because of redistricting — maybe it’d help him get reelected,” said John Coburn, a 68-year-old retired business owner, at the Citrus Heights event.

Coburn is furious at the Democrats’ redistricting and hopes Kiley wins. Coburn does not care that they did it in retaliation for Texas, where Republicans at Trump’s directive revised that state’s map to carve out up to five new winnable conservative seats.

“I don’t care about Texas, I live in California,” Coburn said, adding that “40% of the state is Republican, and we have zero voice. Zero. It’s not how our Founding Fathers intended.”

For Democrats in the district, a rare political opportunity

In an interview, Kiley said his switch to independent was no political gambit. If he wanted to stay in the House, he argued, he could have had an easier time staying in the GOP, moving to a more conservative district that included parts of his old one and running in a Republican primary there.

“I could have gone there and run and played the same game these other politicians are playing,” he said.

Kiley said that he is caucusing with Republicans to avoid losing his seats on committees and that in the next Congress he will try to change rules so independent members do not lose committee seats because they do not caucus with one of the two major parties.

Among his backers, he noted, is onetime Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang, a former technology entrepreneur who co-founded a centrist party for independents.

The Democrat running against Kiley, former state Sen. Richard Pan, scoffs at his rival’s newfound independent status.

“He was a MAGA champion when he first ran for Congress, and now he’s trying to say ‘I’m not,’” Pan told a crowd at a senior community in Roseville, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement.

Earlier that day, Pan swung by the Placer County Democratic Party office, tucked away on the second story of a brick shopping arcade in Lincoln’s compact downtown.

Placer is a Republican county that stretches from the Sacramento suburbs to the northwestern shores of Lake Tahoe. The entire county is in Kiley’s current district, but it will be divided among three districts in the new map.

Kathleen Crawford, chair of the county Democratic Party, was enthusiastic about the county getting carved up.

“It’s worth it, because we have an opportunity to get Democratic representation, which has been missing from our county,” Crawford said. “I’ve been here 15 years, and this is my first real opportunity to elect a Democrat.”

A never-ending cycle that cuts out ‘the little people’

Lincoln’s downtown is flanked by fruit, vegetable and flower farms, as well as new subdivisions. The community and its neighboring suburbs have become a destination for people fleeing the San Francisco Bay Area’s housing prices. That has helped change the once solidly conservative area into a political battleground where skilled mapmakers can draw winnable seats for Democrats.

Ed Church, a 61-year-old risk manager, was eating lunch at Simple Pleasures cafe in Lincoln when he contemplated Kiley’s shift. A Democrat, Church has not been a Kiley fan and he was bemused by the congressman’s move.

“If that’s how he’d been initially and not so MAGA, I probably could have supported him,” Church said of Kiley’s independent status. Now Church, as a Lincoln resident, is in a purely Democratic district and will not have a say in Kiley’s fate in November. His main criteria in the election will be “who’s going to stand up to Trump?”

Across the street at a gun store, Wesley Johnson, 43, who considers himself a conservative independent, said he was dispirited by the state’s redistricting.

“I feel Northern California is not represented fairly,” Johnson said. “San Francisco, Sacramento and Los Angeles control everything.”

He acknowledged Republicans were doing the same thing in states they controlled and said he did not know how it could stop.

“You’re just cutting out the little people,” Johnson said.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — It is among the most famous phrases in presidential history: “The buck stops here.” Except with President Trump, it almost never does.

Concerns about a weak economy and still-high inflation? His predecessor, President Biden, saddled him with that, he says, even though the Democrat has been out of office for 18-plus months and despite Trump once promising an immediate turnaround.

The problem-plagued revamp of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool? That was marred by vandalism, the president insists, even though the office of a prosecutor he put in the job has said the damage was due to shoddy workmanship.

The increasingly unpopular war in Iran that has kept oil prices high, Trump’s approval rating low and sent shock waves through the global economy? Actually, this was Trump making up for timid earlier presidents who, he argues, squandered nearly 50 years of opportunities to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Pithy slogans aside, all modern presidents shift responsibility onto others to some degree, frequently blaming the White House occupant who preceded them or Congress — or both. But Trump has taken it to a new level, essentially embracing a de facto political strategy of being in charge of everything but responsible for nothing when things go badly.

“Taking responsibility being a characteristic of presidential leadership — or any kind of leadership — is absolutely true,” said Nicole Anslover, a history professor at Florida Atlantic University and author of “Harry S. Truman: The Coming of the Cold War.”

Trump’s tendency to point fingers at others is increasingly in the spotlight in the run-up to November’s midterm elections, when Republicans are trying to retain control of Congress. His unwillingness to accept blame sometimes leads him to deny that there are problems at all, and could leave GOP leaders in tight races with little reassurance for voters that their concerns are being addressed.

The White House counters that Trump is working to correct long-festering challenges, not simply throwing up his hands and ignoring them.

The president is “rightfully addressing the failures of his predecessors while taking action to deliver big wins for the American people,” spokesperson Taylor Rogers said, pointing to a series of policies that she said Republicans can run on, including tax cuts, efforts to lower prescription drug prices, cracking down on immigration and the U.S.-Mexico border, increasing domestic energy production and a strong stock market.

A pattern dating to Trump’s first term

Truman famously kept a “the buck stops here” sign on his desk as president. That came from “pass the buck,” which, according to Truman’s presidential library, dates to frontier times, when poker players would pass a buckhorn handle knife to the person whose turn it was to deal the cards.

“The president, whoever he is, has to decide,” Truman said during his farewell address in 1953. “He can’t pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That’s his job.”

The understanding of the phrase has broadened over the years to include taking responsibility for the outcome of tough decisions. Trump used to espouse similar beliefs, saying back in 2013 that in running a business, “Whatever happens, you’re responsible. If it doesn’t happen, you’re responsible.”

Accepting the 2016 presidential nomination, Trump said, “Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.” But as president, he has often suggested that the solution and blame rest elsewhere.

“The buck stops with everybody,” Trump said in 2019, during a lengthy government shutdown. In 2020, on the same day he declared the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, he said, “I don’t take responsibility at all” for a lack of coronavirus testing.

Anslover said Truman took full responsibility for dropping atomic bombs on Japan even though he was not informed that the U.S. was developing such weapons until his predecessor, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, died.

President Kennedy saw his approval ratings rise after he acknowledged he was to blame for the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba. President Reagan said he was sorry for any involvement he may have had in the Iran-Contra scandal even while saying he wasn’t sure he was to blame. “The buck stops here with me,” he said then.

At his final news conference in early 2009, President George W. Bush listed a series of mistakes he had made, including failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His successor, President Obama, said, “I screwed up,” after his nominee for health chief, Tom Daschle, withdrew because of unpaid back taxes.

Presidents before Trump “really usually take accountability,” Anslover said.

‘We inherited a total catastrophe,’ Trump says

The president acknowledged in a recent Punchbowl interview that voters are angry, but he said they are not mad at him but at congressional Republicans.

Trump believes his party can hold its congressional majorities after November, but he was clear that if Republicans lose, it won’t be his fault — echoing his comments before the 2018 midterms that he would not accept blame if his party lost control of the House, which it did.

Trump’s approval rating on the economy, once seen as among his strongest issues, has fallen throughout his time in office, from 40% in March 2025 to 32% in July, according to Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research polling. About 6 in 10 U.S. adults say Trump’s economic policies have made economic conditions worse, according to Pew Research Center polling.

“The public certainly expects the president to be concerned about, and focused on, making life more affordable,” Republican pollster Frank Luntz said.

Trump instead points to Biden, under whom inflation hit a four-decade peak of 9.1% in 2022 as the pandemic was still roiling the world economy, before declining to 2.7% by November 2024. Last month, pressured by the Iran war, it was 3.4%.

“When we took office, we inherited a total catastrophe,” Trump said at a recent rally, later adding, “I inherited those high prices, just so you understand.”

Andrew Bates, a Democratic strategist and former Biden White House spokesperson, noted that Trump no longer mentions his campaign promise to “immediately end inflation” on Day One.

“He may not remember having made those promises, but swing voters sure as hell do,” Bates said.

Iran and the Reflecting Pool

The president has characterized the Iran war as “a little excursion” or “detour.” To play down how long it has lasted, he frequently notes that U.S. wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan dragged on for years, though the Iran conflict — which he initially said would be over in four or five weeks — is now in its sixth month with no clear end in sight.

Trump has sought to shift blame to the past on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, falsely suggesting that Biden and Obama spent “hundreds of millions of dollars” trying unsuccessfully to fix it.

But Trump’s main defense claim has been vandalism. And so far at least four cases alleging that, including the most prominent case against an Olympic canoeist, have been dropped due to a lack of evidence.

Anslover said that, after more than a decade in politics, Trump has proved he is not afraid to violate norms of presidential comportment. Lots of his core supporters do not seem bothered.

“For many Americans, it has either been a shift in how they view the presidency, or, like with so many things, they just feel empowered to say, ‘These are my priorities. My priority is not the facts,’” she said.

Weissert writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Amelia Thomson DeVeaux contributed to this report.

Profile

RON UNZ

* Born: Sept. 20, 1961, Los Angeles

* Residence: Palo Alto

* Current position: Full-time candidate for governor, on leave from managing his small software company.

* Education: Bachelor’s degrees in physics and history, Harvard University. Phi Beta Kappa. Recipient of a Churchill Science Fellowship to Cambridge University in England, where he studied quantum gravitation under Stephen Hawking.

* Career highlights: In the late 1980s, Unz took a leave of absence from Stanford University, where he was enrolled in a Ph.D. program in theoretical physics. He worked as an associate at a New York City mortgage finance company. In 1988, he founded Wall Street Analytics Inc., a financial services software company.

* Family: Unmarried

The Record

Ron Unz has no public record and brings an unusual, if not unique, background to his quest for California’s top public office. He has a strong record of academic and intellectual achievement. His IQ has been estimated at 214–what one expert calls “one in a million”–and as a teen-ager he won first place in the national Westinghouse talent search competition for a paper on black holes. He is a physicist as well as an expert on the Spartan naval empire.

After working for a New York City mortgage finance company, Unz founded his own small firm that sells specialized computer programs to Wall Street firms. The firm has become highly successful during the last six years and has made Unz a wealthy man.

Although he has no political experience, he says he has long had an interest in politics and has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to conservative think tanks and causes.

Unz says his years in the business world have prepared him well to govern California. “In terms of the sectors of the American economy that create wealth, I have more experience than the other four candidates together, times a factor of a few,” he said.

The Speech: In His Own Words

I believe that the Republican Party stands for clear principles and firm ideas–smaller government, lower taxes, fewer regulations and traditional values–and that Pete Wilson stands for nothing except his political ambition.

Over the past three years, Pete Wilson and the Democrats have enacted the largest state tax increase in American history, deepening our recession and destroying jobs. Pete Wilson and the Democrats have led our Golden State to the brink of ruin. A choice between Pete Wilson and the Democrats means no choice at all for the people of California.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I have not abandoned the mainstream of the Republican Party . . . and its basic principles. . . . Under Ronald Reagan, these were the ideas which swept the nation and the world. I am the Republican candidate for governor.

Unlike Pete Wilson, my affiliation with the Republican Party is not hereditary: I come from a family of Democrats. But when that former Democrat Ronald Reagan transformed the Republican Party into the party of the ordinary working people of America, it became my party.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I didn’t attend an elite prep school, but received my education in the public schools of Los Angeles, back when they still provided an outstanding education for all of our children, rich and poor alike. It was this education which provided me with the tools of opportunity I needed to achieve economic success. But today, I am disgusted by the decay of our school system.

Unlike Pete Wilson, I don’t believe we should raise taxes again and again, until our entrepreneurs and small businesses are faced with some of the highest tax rates in America, driving our jobs and prosperity to other states. . . .

Unlike Pete Wilson, who has been on government and political payrolls for almost 30 years as a lifelong career politician, I come from the private business sector, the part of our economy which actually creates the wealth, provides the jobs and pays the taxes. I understand the value of money and the long hours required to earn it. I reject the waste that is routinely accepted by the special interest politicians who don’t understand what it’s like to earn a living in the real world.

Unlike Pete Wilson, who has little or no comprehension of the industries of tomorrow, I come from a scientific and technological background. I know that California’s future prosperity cannot be based merely upon jobs to build and maintain Pete Wilson’s endless array of future prisons.

I know that the high-technology industries of tomorrow such as computers, telecommunications, biotechnology and the entertainment industry can be the foundation of California’s prosperity. I see that the widespread adoption of telecommuting could make our freeway traffic jams a thing of the past. . . .

My grandparents came to California in the 1920s and 1930s as poor European immigrants, willing to work hard to provide a better life for their children.

I am a native-born Californian who remembers the hope and optimism and endless sense of possibility which the California Dream once meant to us. Our state has the finest climate, enormous natural beauty, and tremendous scientific and technological resources unequaled any place in the world.

The primary obstacle on our road to recovery is the deep failure of our own overgrown state government. Join with me in overcoming this one obstacle, and together we can restore the Golden State which we all remember.

Aug. 7 (Asia Today) — Four Republican members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee have asked South Korea’s media regulator for a briefing on how it plans to enforce the country’s revised Information and Communications Network Act, arguing the law could infringe on the constitutional rights of U.S. companies and users and be used to suppress politically disfavored views.

The lawmakers said the revised law, which took effect July 7, could expose U.S. companies such as YouTube and their users to penalties without sufficiently clear standards for determining what constitutes false information.

The request follows a House Judiciary Committee subpoena issued to Coupang in February and a July report in which the Republican-led committee accused the South Korean government of discriminating against U.S.-owned businesses.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio and Reps. Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin, Darrell Issa of California and Michael Baumgartner of Washington sent a letter to the Korea Media and Communications Commission seeking details about its enforcement plans. Jordan made the letter public on X.

The lawmakers described the revised law as a significant threat to online speech and expression. They argued that the commission could take action against American companies and users for exercising rights protected under the U.S. Constitution.

Their concerns center on the scope of the law and the standards that will be used to enforce it.

The legislation passed South Korea’s National Assembly on Dec. 24 and took effect July 7. Under the revised law, certain media outlets and content publishers with at least 100,000 subscribers can face punitive damages for knowingly distributing false or manipulated information. Repeat violations covered by separate provisions can result in administrative penalties of up to 1 billion won, or about $705,000.

The Korea Media and Communications Commission has said the law is intended to protect people from harm caused by illegal, false and manipulated information.

The Republican lawmakers, however, argued that the law does not provide sufficiently clear standards for determining false information or explain in enough detail how those standards will be enforced.

They warned that vague provisions could be used against “politically disfavored opinions” and could have a chilling effect on online expression.

“No foreign government should be able to pressure American companies to censor constitutionally protected speech,” Fitzgerald said, describing South Korea’s law as “vague, expansive, and ripe for abuse.”

The Judiciary Committee also argued that the law could affect U.S.-based platform operators such as Google’s YouTube and their users.

The lawmakers said South Korea is following the path of the European Union’s Digital Services Act. The House Judiciary Committee has previously issued reports arguing that European digital regulation can restrict free expression by Americans and hinder innovation by U.S. companies.

The committee has been examining whether foreign digital regulations pressure U.S. technology companies to moderate speech or create barriers to American innovation.

The U.S. State Department has also raised concerns since the legislation passed the National Assembly in December, warning that the measure could create unnecessary barriers to digital services.

The latest congressional action comes as scrutiny of South Korean regulation of U.S.-owned businesses has intensified.

Jordan and Fitzgerald issued a subpoena Feb. 5 to Harold Rogers, Coupang’s chief administrative officer and general counsel, seeking communications between the company and the South Korean government as well as testimony before the committee.

The committee said it was investigating whether South Korean laws, regulations and judicial orders discriminate against U.S. companies or infringe on Americans’ due process rights.

Republican committee members cited a Nov. 13, 2025, joint fact sheet issued after a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung.

They said the agreement committed South Korea to ensuring U.S. companies are not treated discriminatorily or subjected to unnecessary barriers in digital services, including regulations governing online platforms.

The lawmakers have argued that South Korea’s investigation of Coupang and the possibility of criminal penalties against American executives could conflict with that commitment.

According to the Judiciary Committee, South Korean authorities assigned about 400 investigators from 11 agencies to the Coupang customer information case.

The committee said the investigation involved about 150 face-to-face meetings, 200 interviews and more than 1,100 requests for documents and other materials.

It also said a former employee had retained limited, non-sensitive information involving about 3,000 customers and that the information was later recovered. The committee said Coupang had also agreed to compensate users.

In a footnote to its subpoena letter, the committee cited a report that Coupang had announced a compensation package valued at $1.18 billion.

The Judiciary Committee followed the February subpoena with an interim report July 1 accusing the South Korean government of discriminatory treatment of Coupang and other American-owned companies and of violating commitments made between the two countries.

Fitzgerald said Congress would continue examining what he characterized as efforts by foreign governments to export censorship and interfere with Americans’ First Amendment rights.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260807010002272

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas voters will decide Tuesday whether to elect state Supreme Court justices rather than have the governor appoint them, a push from conservatives who have chafed for years over court decisions they disagreed with on issues such as abortion, school funding and the death penalty.

If the constitutional amendment passes, supporters hope to elect at least four conservative, antiabortion justices to the seven-member court by 2033.

Kansas is considering the change amid concerns that increasingly contentious and expensive judicial elections in other states are making their courts more partisan and less independent. Spending in a single state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin last year topped $100 million.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a term-limited Democrat who opposes the measure, said gerrymandering and dark money have put the Legislature out of step with the state’s voters, and “to think you can make the judicial branch a part of that dysfunctional system is frightening.”

Rulings the GOP dislikes

GOP lawmakers cite rulings by Kansas courts over the last two decades as reasons a change is needed.

Most recently, a district court judge in July reinstated a three-day grace period for voters to return mail ballots after election day, which GOP lawmakers had eliminated. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, called the decision “outrageous” and urged people to vote yes on the ballot question.

The same judge — a finalist to fill the most recent Supreme Court vacancy — blocked enforcement of a 2025 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Masterson described him as “radical.”

The list of rulings Republicans criticize also includes rulings on education funding back to 2004. Supreme Court decisions forced lawmakers to increase funding to comply with the state constitution.

“If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools,” Masterson said in remarks in November to a conservative group, the Marion County Patriots for Liberty, the Marion County Record reported.

Abortion remains a key issue

Electing state Supreme Court justices gained currency among Republicans after a 2022 public vote affirming the high court’s landmark 2019 decision that Kansas’ Bill of Rights guarantees bodily autonomy and access to abortion. Total spending by both sides has exceeded $12 million.

Legislators who worked to overturn the Supreme Court’s protections, including Masterson, helped write this proposal.

Seven weeks after that 2022 vote, state Atty. Gen. Kris Kobach, then a GOP candidate for the office, told a Republican club in Wichita that electing justices would “slowly and quietly” put antiabortion justices on the high court.

The vote-yes campaign’s biggest donor — providing $1.7 million toward the campaign’s $3.7 million in spending — is a Nashville-based nonprofit that supports Republican candidates, groups and causes. Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential antiabortion group, has spent at least $87,000 in a recent 11-day span on mailers and texts.

“Kansans can bring an end to this reign of abortion by voting ‘yes,’” Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said in an editorial written by a staffer on the antiabortion group’s website.

Meanwhile, the national and state affiliates for abortion provider Planned Parenthood contributed $1.6 million toward the vote-no campaign’s $8 million-plus in spending.

Jamie Swan, an engineer and college teaching assistant who knocked on doors for abortion rights in 2022, is doing the same to try to halt the proposal.

“I really believe that this is just a power grab,” she said.

Legislators have no say in appointments

Backers of the Kansas proposal brush aside arguments that electing the justices will give wealthy donors control over the Supreme Court.

“Globally and over history, even in its imperfection, the best system is democracy,” said Elizabeth Patton, state director of the low-tax, small-government group Americans for Prosperity, which has spent $935,000 to promote the vote-yes campaign.

Twenty-two states elect their top court’s judges, eight in partisan races. Governors in 26 states appoint them. In South Carolina and Virginia, legislators pick the justices.

Kansas elected justices for nearly 100 years before voters amended the state constitution in 1958. The governor now picks one of three finalists named by a nominating commission controlled by attorneys. Legislators have no role.

A review of every state’s current and past constitutions shows that the last state to add an amendment like the one Kansas is contemplating was Mississippi in 1914. Since then, 18 states’ amendments went the opposite way.

Voters weigh in every six years on whether a justice remains on the bench through a yes-or-no ballot question, but they’ve never booted a sitting justice. Conservatives say that means justices face no consequences for errant decisions.

Retirements and deaths on the bench allowed Kelly to appoint four of the current justices. Recently, the governor picked a district court judge who blocked enforcement of long-standing abortion restrictions in 2023.

“We don’t have a good way to fight back,” said state Sen. Mike Thompson, a conservative Kansas City-area Republican, who backs the measure.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Immigration remains a stronger issue for President Trump than the economy or Iran among Republican voters, according to a new poll, even after three people were killed in encounters with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents within a week in July.

But Trump’s immigration approach is unpopular among Americans overall, the new survey from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found. Only 39% of U.S. adults approve of his performance on immigration, a decline from 49% at the beginning of his second term.

About 8 in 10 Republicans continue to approve of how Trump is handling immigration. That’s a slight decline from the beginning of his second term, when about 9 in 10 Republicans approved, but his support on the issue within his base has been mostly stable since last summer despite a chaotic year of immigration enforcement actions including several shooting deaths.

Republicans are also more likely to approve of how Trump is handling immigration than the economy or Iran. In just the last month, GOP voter approval of Trump’s handling of Iran dropped slightly in AP-NORC polling.

The poll found that about half of U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” on deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. That number also has remained steady for more than a year, despite multiple immigration crackdowns that deployed federal law enforcement to large cities and at least 10 deaths involving encounters with immigration officers since the mass deportation campaign began. Republicans are much less likely to say Trump has overstepped in his immigration enforcement actions.

Overall, Trump’s popularity has fallen since he took office last year, but the findings highlight the relatively muted impact of the last year’s aggressive immigration enforcement on his public standing. That’s a contrast with views of his handling of Iran, where he’s seen more recent signs of slippage, even among supporters.

Partisan divide

Americans remain divided on whether Trump has overstepped on immigration.

About half of U.S. adults say Trump has “gone too far” when it comes to restricting legal immigration, in line with the last time the question was asked in February. Roughly half — 47% — say Trump has exceeded his authority when it comes to deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In each case, about 3 in 10 say Trump’s actions have been “about right,” and closer to 2 in 10 say he hasn’t gone far enough.

Few Republicans — about 2 in 10 or fewer — say he’s “gone too far” on deporting immigrants in the country illegally or restricting legal immigration.

Most Americans, however, say he’s gone too far when it comes to using traffic stops to find and arrest immigrants living in the U.S. illegally — a practice that was at the center of two recent ICE shootings in Texas and Maine — and when it comes to sending federal immigration agents into U.S. cities. Republicans were also less likely to see these as oversteps.

James Leatherman, a 68-year-old Republican from San Antonio, is generally supportive of Trump’s handling of the presidency and backs him on immigration in particular.

“You cannot come in here illegally — you’re breaking the law,” he said.

More Americans disapprove than approve of the way ICE is enforcing immigration laws. About half of Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove of the agency’s approach, while roughly 3 in 10 “strongly” or “somewhat” approve. There’s a wide partisan split, though: About 6 in 10 Republicans approve of ICE’s approach, compared with about 2 in 10 independents and just 4% of Democrats.

Eric Coursen, 76, an independent from Chincoteague, Va., agrees with the president that there were problems with the immigration system that needed to be addressed. He said doesn’t believe in “open borders,” but he’s deeply opposed to how the administration has been enforcing immigration law.

“It’s like taking some bread when you’re hungry, and you take it, you’re going to shoot that person rather than just, you know, get them for theft?” he said. “It’s just overkill.”

Poor marks on economy

About 3 in 10 U.S. adults, 32%, approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s down from 40% at the start of his second term, and marks a shift from his first presidential term when the economy was a relatively strong issue for Trump.

During Trump’s first term, his lowest approval on the economy was 40% in December 2017. Now, his rating is well below that.

Roughly 7 in 10 Republicans — 69% — approve of how Trump is handling the economy. That’s roughly in line with the share who approve of how he’s handing the presidency, but it’s slightly below the 78% who approved early in Trump’s second term.

Leatherman, despite his support for Trump, said he’s feeling the pinch of higher prices in his budget. “I almost have to go to the bank to get a loan before I go grocery shopping,” he said.

About 7 in 10 U.S. adults describe the nation’s economy as “very” or “somewhat” poor, in line with April. Republicans are more optimistic, with about 6 in 10 saying that the economy is doing well, compared with about 2 in 10 independents and roughly 1 in 10 Democrats.

Healthcare remains a weak issue

Healthcare never has been a strong issue for Trump. Unlike with immigration and the economy, a clear majority of U.S. adults has disapproved of Trump’s performance on healthcare across both terms. That hasn’t changed in the new poll, which found that only about 3 in 10 Americans approve of how Trump is handling healthcare, in line with when the question was last asked in December.

He’s experienced a rebound on the issue among his own supporters since late last year, though. Roughly 71% of Republicans now approve, compared with 59% in the December poll.

That shift comes as Democrats kicked off 100 days until the midterm elections last week, with leaders saying they’ll focus on healthcare cuts, in addition to the cost of living and the war in Iran. Democrats and independents continue to overwhelmingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of healthcare.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,165 adults was conducted July 23-27 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 6 points for Republicans overall and plus or minus 5.4 points for Democrats overall.

Thomson-Deveaux, Sanders and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Pursuing a narrow path to retake control of the U.S. House, Democrats are seeing fresh opportunity in a northeast Ohio congressional district where the Republican incumbent is facing mounting pressure over domestic abuse allegations and a GOP senator, his former father-in-law, said Sunday he is unfit to serve.

Allegations against Rep. Max Miller, a White House advisor during President Trump’s first term who is endorsed by Trump, have been public for years but recently have drawn increased media scrutiny amid an escalating legal back-and-forth with his former spouse, who is the daughter of U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio). That has Democrats sensing Miller could be vulnerable in a district he won two years ago with a little more than 51% of the vote.

The threat to Miller’s candidacy heightened significantly Sunday, as Moreno said his former son-in-law should not be serving in the House and should “seek professional help,” while Miller defended himself against the allegations in a live video on social media.

Miller says he won’t drop out

Moreno, who had been publicly restrained in recent months as the custody dispute between Miller and his daughter Emily played out, said in a lengthy post: “If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them. He should not serve in the House of Representatives.”

Moreno wrote that Miller “needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter, and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter.”

Miller said Sunday that he will remain in his race for reelection before a Wednesday deadline to replace him.

“I’m not dropping out of this race and I’ll win in November,” he said.

Emily Moreno has said that Miller scalded, hit and threatened her while they were married. Miller denied those allegations in the video, as he has in the past.

“It’s incredibly upsetting,” Miller said as he went through a list of the allegations.

Miller also said he had nothing to do with a broken collarbone on their 2-year-old daughter that led Emily Moreno to contact authorities. The pair, who were married in 2022 and finalized their divorce last year, have presented different versions of how the injury occurred, according to court filings and police reports detailed in the magazine Mother Jones that first revealed the child’s injury.

Miller accompanied his announcement with the release of a cache of investigative and court documents related to the custody dispute.

A spokesperson for Emily Moreno, Stefan Mychajliw, said Sunday that the video was “shameful.”

“No loving parent would have ever used their daughter as a PR pawn to save their own political career,” Mychajliw said. “Miller can lie and spin on X, but he cannot do so under oath in a court of law. We are confident that justice will prevail in court.”

Republican reaction

Sen. Moreno’s statement prompted some hand-wringing behind the scenes in his home state, where Trump-endorsed candidates like Miller typically win with ease. The White House did not respond to a request for comment Sunday.

Miller’s Democratic opponent, Brian Poindexter, said no one facing such accusations “belongs in the halls of power.”

State Rep. Mike Dovilla, a U.S. Navy veteran and former presidential appointee to the Office of Personnel Management, and Kevin Coughlin, a former state senator and representative who ran for the U.S. House in 2024 and 2026, were among Republicans whose names were being floated should Miller drop out, according to a high-ranking Republican who discussed the sensitive subject on condition of anonymity.

Democrats have called on Miller to resign, requested a congressional ethics investigation and suggested more help could be directed in the fall toward Poindexter, a union ironworker.

Republicans generally had remained in Miller’s corner until now, saying he has delivered for his district and is electable in November.

Republican Gov. Mike DeWine told Ohio’s Capital Journal that the accusations were troubling and “very serious” but that Miller’s fate should be up to voters.

The tension comes as Republicans are defending their narrow majority in the House in the November races.

Terry Casey, a longtime Republican consultant in Ohio, said Miller remains in a strong position to win the Republican-leaning district, which stretches south from Cleveland and was won decisively by Trump two years ago.

That is unless Poindexter, who has been endorsed by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), can attract money significant enough to step up his advertising in the 7th Congressional District’s media markets.

“Unless serious people are willing to put in serious money, I’d say beginning around $2 million, it’s all nothing but lip exercises,” Casey said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee declined to discuss whether it would match any influx of Democratic cash. Miller has significantly outraised Poindexter, although the Democrat’s campaign said it has received a surge in social media followers in recent weeks.

Democrats call for ethics probe

Last week, U.S. Rep. Shontel Brown, a Cleveland Democrat, said it “would be wise” for Miller to resign. The House Democratic Women’s Caucus called for an ethics investigation.

“The recent reports of domestic violence and child abuse against Representative Max Miller are deeply disturbing, and Congress can’t ignore them,” Democratic Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández of New Mexico, Emilia Sykes of Ohio and Hillary Scholten of Michigan wrote in their letter. “Allegations of violence against women and children have to be met with the utmost seriousness.”

Other allegations

Miller has denied all allegations of abuse. Last spring, his spokesperson provided documentation to the Associated Press that showed several allegations that he had abused his daughter had been investigated by the Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services and were deemed unsubstantiated. He has sued Emily Moreno for defamation.

The couple’s dispute escalated last week.

On Thursday, lawyers for Emily Moreno asked a judge for a temporary restraining order barring Miller from contact with her attorney, Andrew Zashin. The filing alleges that Miller shouted insults at Zashin and goaded him to “Come at me!” outside a court hearing last May, then grabbed Zashin during a different proceeding on Tuesday.

The court filing quotes Miller’s lawyer as saying his client “just can’t control himself.” The attorney did not return a call seeking comment.

Last month, Miller’s ex-girlfriend, former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham, filed a lawsuit against him. She accused Miller of violating terms of a confidential settlement agreement they struck to resolve his 2021 lawsuit against her.

That lawsuit alleged Grisham defamed him in her book and in a Washington Post op-ed when she said a former White House staffer — later identified as Miller — physically abused her while they were dating. While the book is vague on the specific allegations, Politico reported at the time that Grisham and Miller’s relationship ended “when he pushed her against a wall and slapped her in the face in his Washington apartment after she accused him of cheating on her.”

Grisham alleged in the new lawsuit filed July 7 that Miller dragged her name into his dispute with Moreno and violated their agreement not to disparage each other.

Democrat’s strategy

For Poindexter, t the accusations against Miller provide a possible path to an upset in November if some conservative-leaning voters opt for him or enough Republican voters are turned off by the domestic abuse allegations and stay home.

“These are serious allegations and deserve the full attention of law enforcement,” Poindexter said in a statement. “If all the allegations against Congressman Miller prove to be true, Max Miller should be in jail, not worried about retaining a seat in Congress.”

Jim Trakas, a former state lawmaker and GOP party chair in northeast Ohio, said Miller is not helped by the fresh developments so close to the election.

“It’s a difficult year for any incumbent,” he said. “Now you have to spend time on this when you want to focus on the main event, which is the pocketbook issues.”

Smyth, Jalonick and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The nation is set to have its least competitive congressional election cycle in years by some measures, with California partly driving the shift.

The redistricting carried out in California and nine other states since 2024 has left the nation with an unusually low number of truly competitive districts, narrowing the battle for U.S. House control in this year’s historically consequential midterms cycle to a few dozen races at best.

In California, that looks like a paradox: The state has both a shrinking number of political battlegrounds and a handful of critical races that could help decide which party controls the House. Both are a result of Proposition 50, the Democratic-led, voter-passed redistricting effort designed to offset new maps drawn by Republicans in Texas and other states.

Only three California races are rated as competitive by Cook Political Report, the nonpartisan analyst, compared with 12 races in 2024 and nine in 2022, according to a Times analysis of Cook data.

California was also the biggest driver in the nationwide decline of competitive seats, according to a separate Cook analysis released Wednesday. Six of the 14 U.S. House seats that dropped out of the swing-seat zone in 2026 were in the Golden State.

“There’s no question that we’re seeing the consequence” of the state’s redistricting, “of having fewer competitive districts,” said Michael Latner, a professor of political science at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

That doesn’t dilute the key role California is expected to play in Democrats’ effort to win the House majority, however. The new map made some blue seats safer and gave the party the chance to flip up to five red seats.

“The path to the House majority still runs through California,” said Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who said the party is investing heavily to flip those seats.

‘Not backing off’

The fight for the majority at the halfway point of President Trump’s second term is fierce. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress, face headwinds fueled by voters’ feelings on the economy and the war in Iran. Democrats have built their campaigns around Americans’ economic frustration in an attempt to win the House majority and regain some power in Trump’s Washington.

Having more safe seats positions California to have a greater effect on the election, said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego, and in Congress afterward, where the state is expected to have a large blue delegation.

The less-competitive map is a return to the 2000s for California, when the state’s two parties agreed on a congressional map that created safe districts for both, Kousser said.

That decade saw fewer competitive House races before new maps created more battleground areas in 2010 and 2020, the result of regular redistricting that occurs every decade after the U.S. census.

The shift in the state’s competitive seats caused by Proposition 50’s partisan redistricting was so acute because the existing 2020 map was relatively neutral, Cook senior editor David Wasserman said in the report. In Florida, Missouri and Texas, by contrast, the maps Republicans replaced were already partisan, making the shifts less extreme.

Three of the seats Democrats targeted with Proposition 50 are rated as solidly blue, while two present fights: the Central Valley seat held by Republican David Valadao, the state’s only toss-up race per Cook, and the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Darrell Issa in the San Diego area, where the redrawn district now slightly favors Democrats.

Just one seat Republicans hope to flip is rated competitively by Cook, that of Democrat Adam Gray in the Central Valley. Democrats are slightly more favored there under the new map, but it presents a challenge for both parties.

Both parties view California’s three most competitive races as key to win, and each is putting resources toward a few additional contests.

“We’re not backing off a single seat in California,” said Christian Martinez, spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “We’re on offense.”

Shrinking battlegrounds nationwide

This year’s push by Republicans to redo state maps ahead of the November election — and California’s move to respond in kind — was without precedent. Ten states approved new maps; before this year, only two states had voluntarily redrawn maps between censuses for partisan advantage since 1970, according to a Pew Research Center analysis.

It was partly enabled by a spring Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for states to redraw their election maps to eliminate voting districts that were drawn with race as a consideration.

The 10 new maps supercharged an ongoing national trend of polarization that has seen the number of competitive seats shrink over the last 30 years. The country used to see election cycles with as many as 50 seats rated as toss-ups, said Erin Covey, who leads the Cook Political Report’s U.S. House coverage, something that has not happened since 2010. As of this week, just 18 of 435 House districts are rated as toss-ups by Cook.

California is not alone in having fewer battlegrounds; no state has a high concentration of competitive seats this cycle. Michigan had four under Cook’s ratings, and Pennsylvania, Iowa, New York and Texas each had three as of this week.

That could be unhealthy for democracy, experts said. Voters can feel as though their votes matter less, and it may contribute to negative public opinion about how the electoral system functions, Latner said.

“The very premise of a free republic is that you are going to have differences in views,” Latner said. “The way those differences get resolved is through electoral competition.”

The erosion of “free and fair competition … is a threat to all voters, regardless of their partisanship,” he added.

Eyes on key races

In California’s most competitive race, Valadao is being challenged in the redrawn 22nd District by progressive college professor Randy Villegas. Republicans are bullish about their chances to retain the seat.

In the neighboring 13th District, which the new map aimed to make safer for Democrats, Gray faces former Stockton mayor and Marine veteran Kevin Lincoln. Also important for both parties is the battle for the 48th District, the seat vacated by Issa. Republican Jim Desmond, a San Diego County supervisor, faces Democrat Marni von Wilpert, a San Diego City Council member.

Republicans have also targeted Rep. Derek Tran’s Democratic seat in the 45th District, another former battleground that Proposition 50 made safer for Democrats, and three other seats that Cook rates as solidly Democratic.

Democrats’ safer flips target Northern California’s 1st and Sacramento County’s 6th districts. They also expect to gain a seat in the new 41st District, which now covers parts of Los Angeles and Orange counties. The new map gave Democrats a Democratic voter registration edge there and forced Republican incumbent Ken Calvert to run in the newly drawn 40th District against fellow Republican Rep. Young Kim.

AMARILLO, Texas — When Gina Hinojosa, the Democratic nominee for Texas governor, began her campaign last year, candidates weren’t talking about — or hearing about — data centers that power artificial intelligence.

But with barely three months until November’s contest, the perceived threat to rural life, ranchland and dwindling water supplies could become a defining issue for her long-shot challenge to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, dividing conservative rural areas that have traditionally served as a counterweight to Democrats’ urban strongholds.

The backlash to energy-guzzling server warehouses is also shaping other statewide campaigns from Arizona to Ohio to New York, and even giving Democrats a glimmer of hope in Texas, where Republicans have dominated for three decades.

“There is this little issue that I recently started hearing about that I wanted to tell you about, in case you don’t know,” Hinojosa quipped to a Democratic Party-organized crowd of about 160 seated on fold-out chairs at an Amarillo social club in Texas’ panhandle. “It’s this issue of data centers.”

The crowd booed, and she went on: “They are owned by the richest men in the world. We’re all footing the bill. There are no rules. It is the wild west of data centers.”

The fast growth of massive data centers has already upended races for local offices across the country, often uniting conservatives and liberals in revolting against projects in their midst.

People don’t like the secrecy surrounding the projects or the prospect of air, noise, water and light pollution. They fear electric bills going up, wells going dry and losing open space, farmland or forest.

Now the ripple effects have spread to top-of-the-ticket races, where incumbents and challengers are trying to show that they hear an angry electorate.

In Ohio, Democratic nominee Sherrod Brown aired a television advertisement attacking Republican U.S. Sen. Jon Husted as the “face of data centers in Ohio” as people gather signatures for a statewide referendum to outright ban their construction.

In Wisconsin, a Democratic candidate for governor, Francesca Hong, is pledging to “tax the rich, fund our schools and stop AI data centers” as she campaigns for her party’s nomination in a crowded primary.

In Pennsylvania, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro is facing heat from some voters who feel like he’s been too welcoming to tech behemoths. Sam Burleigh, a Democrat whose rural community is fighting off data center projects, accused Shapiro of “allowing these data centers to come in and take over acres and acres of prime farmland.”

Texas is fertile ground for data centers

Any political unrest may be felt most acutely in Texas.

The state is poised to overtake northern Virginia as the largest global data center market by 2030, according to a report by commercial real estate giant JLL. It has lots of land, lots of energy and a friendly regulatory environment under Republican leadership.

In rural west Texas and its panhandle, gargantuan data centers are under construction, including one near Amarillo touted as the world’s largest. Some come with designs for natural gas-fired turbines to power them.

Rumors are flying about others popping up — Google, which is building four data centers in northwest Texas, sponsored moderated conversations with officials and business elite in Lubbock and Amarillo in recent weeks — and it is sowing an outcry across small cities, tiny towns and sprawling ranches where people vote overwhelmingly Republican.

Google says its investments are advancing American innovation, fortifying cybersecurity and boosting energy capacity, while President Trump has made data centers a top priority to help the U.S. compete against China for AI superiority.

But tech giants and developers can be secretive about their plans, making it impossible to know what will be built or what sort of pollution they’ll create, critics say. Some worry that data centers will destroy rural Texas’ low cost of living and sully sunsets and sweeping views that stretch toward the horizon.

Others say construction and an influx of workers are already causing havoc for ranchers and towns, driving up rents, snapping up farmland, illuminating the night sky, clogging roads and turning parts of rural Texas into industrial zones.

Opposition crosses partisan divide

Democrats are prominent among the data center critics, but so are Republicans, including Texas’ sitting agriculture commissioner, Sid Miller. They say there are many more Republicans who are quieter because they fear publicly opposing their governor and party.

“They’re upset with Greg Abbott,” said Suzanne Bellsnyder, a former Republican activist from Spearman who writes a syndicated column that advocates for rural Texas. “Whether that translates into voting against him, I don’t know.”

Abbott has aggressively advocated for big projects in Texas and, in November, he helped make Google’s announcement of a $40-billion investment there, saying, “Texas is the epicenter of AI development.”

Compounding that, Texas counties don’t have zoning authority — precisely the local land planning authority that communities around the country are increasingly using to fight off data centers.

Abbott seems to recognize that data centers are dividing his base. In recent weeks, he ordered regulators to take steps to ensure Texans weren’t paying higher electricity bills because of data centers and promised to push a legislative agenda next year to impose regulations on data centers.

At an East Texas campaign stop, Abbott said that includes taking away the state’s billion-dollar-plus-per-year tax break and preventing data centers from being built in “rural Texas neighborhoods.”

Hinojosa and others derided Abbott’s words about “rural Texas neighborhoods” as meaningless — “doublespeak that makes no sense to anyone,” Hinojosa said — and lacking urgency or seriousness.

“Now we have this gold rush of data centers in our communities,” Hinojosa said in an interview, adding that “people want a say, and I think that’s fair.”

As governor, she said she’d block a permit for a data center if it wasn’t a good deal for Texans or residents hadn’t gotten a say in the matter.

Abbott tries to soothe concerns

Abbott’s campaign season turnabout on data centers doesn’t seem to have soothed many.

Of great concern is the prospect that data centers will consume massive amounts of water and worsen drought conditions for ranchers and farmers in a state where water shortages already crippled the sugar cane industry.

“Oh, I guarantee you, it’s on everybody’s mind,” said Giles Dalby, a cattle rancher and a Republican county commissioner in west Texas.

Dalby, who raises Angus and Brangus cattle on ranchland that’s been in his family for 125 years, pointed to fast-growing cities where water authorities have had to go to greater lengths to procure water, including the “water wars” between San Antonio and ranchers several years ago.

Texas is increasingly steamrolling over landowner rights in the quest for public water, Dalby said, and that could mean that data centers get in line ahead of ranchers when shortages or rationing worsen.

Clayton Tucker, a rancher and the Democratic nominee for state agriculture commissioner, said his campaign events are consumed by talk of data centers. It doesn’t matter whether he’s meeting with Democrats or Republicans.

“This is the most cross-partisan issue I’ve ever seen in my life,” Tucker said.

Meanwhile, protest groups are springing up, including one in Lubbock that is led by Republicans. The founders, Stephen Sanders and Hallie Bertrand, like some other Republican opponents of data centers, say it’s possible or even certain they won’t vote for Abbott, although they may not necessarily vote for Hinojosa.

There is still time for Abbott to push through major legislation before the election and “be a hero,” Sanders said.

The big question is whether enough rural voters will turn against Abbott to give Hinojosa a shot. It’s hard to tell, Bertrand said, especially when some know nothing about the issue.

“They’ll just hit that button, Republican all the way down,” Bertrand said. “But I think it’s a step towards something that we have not seen in Texas in a long time, with people on the right switching to the left. Or scooting a little closer to the middle, maybe.”

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The House adopted a Republican-only $95-billion budget proposal Wednesday, a long-shot effort to fund the Iran war and other White House priorities over objections from Democrats and a few GOP holdouts in a final push before the midterm elections.

House Republicans were divided over the plan, with conservatives wary because there are no offsetting budget cuts. But Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) plunged ahead, viewing the go-it-alone process as the best chance to usher President Trump’s priorities through the split Congress, despite skepticism in the Senate.

The vote tally was 216-214, with two Republicans and one independent joining Democrats in opposition.

“Just bullets and bombs to finish the job,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), the chairman of the Budget Committee.

Democrats argued the money should be spent at home, particularly on efforts to lower costs for Americans.

“Republicans plan to spend tens of billions of dollars on Trump’s failed war in Iran,” Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, said this week. “Think about what we could spend with these resources instead.”

Congress is at a standstill over the U.S. war against Iran — unable to stop Trump’s military strikes, but not having authorized the use of American military force — and politically torn over having to provide billions of taxpayer dollars to pay for it. Most Americans disapprove of Trump’s Iran strategy, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.

The budget battle comes as Trump attended the dignified transfer of four service members killed in the Middle East, bringing the military death toll to 18. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told senators at a fiery hearing this week that the Pentagon is running short of cash, despite a massive $150 billion one-time allotment in last year’s big budget bill.

Even as the House action advanced the resolution, Johnson’s strategy faces uncertainty in the Senate.

The package has $60 billion for the Pentagon and $13 billion for other national security needs, $12 billion for farmers struggling under Trump’s tariffs and $10 billion for voting law changes aligned with the SAVE America Act and proof-of-citizenship requirements that are Trump’s top priority.

Republicans are relying on the budget reconciliation process, which enables approval on a majority vote in Congress, bypassing the Senate’s ability to filibuster the measure to stall or kill it.

Once rare, the reconciliation process is now Johnson’s preferred strategy for pushing proposals through Congress. It’s the way Republicans approved Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill last summer and funded Homeland Security this year over Democrats’ refusal to fund Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

“No matter how you feel about current events, these funds are necessary to ensure our fighting forces remain ready, our troops are paid and our nation is safe,” said Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee.

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said, “Republicans have literally ripped food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors and veterans to sustain the Trump war machine.”

Among those opposed was Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, a former Republican turned independent who said he felt any war funding bill should be bipartisan. He also wanted to ensure Congress had a “much higher level of involvement” in bringing the war to an end, and he said this proposal did not set that process in motion.

Republicans Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio also voted against.

This is the third time GOP leaders have relied on reconciliation, dubbing this version 3.0, and it’s a lengthy process. If the House approves the budget resolution, it next goes to the Senate for a round-the-clock session to consider politically tough amendments — something senators would rather avoid in an election year.

The budget resolution sets out instructions for the various committees to draft legislation, which Johnson hopes could be done this summer, with final voting on the package once lawmakers return after the August recess.

Senators pan House’s budget and have their own ideas

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has been noncommittal on the House package that also divides his own GOP majority, with some Republican senators preferring more money for the military and others demanding the costs be offset with cuts elsewhere.

“We’ll see,” Thune said this week.

Thune’s focus, at the moment, is avoiding another government shutdown. He wants the Senate to approve a stopgap funding measure, called a continuing resolution, to provide routine government funding before lawmakers leave for the summer break.

If senators are unable to reach agreement on government funding, Thune has said he may hold onto the House’s budget resolution and use it later in the fall as a way to push the resolution through the Senate over objections. He wants to prevent a federal shutdown when current funds expire on Sept. 30.

“It’s a possibility that, if necessary, we could pull that budget resolution passed by the House and use it to fund government,” Thune said. “I hope that’s not necessary.”

Thune has also clashed with Trump over the president’s push for the SAVE America Act, which would require proof of citizenship for voting. The measure, while popular among Trump’s most ardent supporters, does not have enough support among Senate Republicans for passage.

It’s already against the law for noncitizens to vote in federal elections and experts warn the proposed new rules could make it more difficult for eligible Americans to cast ballots.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Troy Jackson, a former Maine lawmaker and fifth-generation logger from the North Maine Woods, has emerged as the likely new replacement for the state’s Democratic Senate nominee after former candidate Graham Platner quit the high-stakes race less than two weeks ago.

Platner’s departure came after a sexual assault allegation that he denied but forced his exit anyway. It sparked a wave of potential candidates eager to prove to Mainers that they could take on longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins.

But by Sunday, the field had largely been cleared after Jackson supporters spent the weekend securing hundreds of delegates who promised to back him at the upcoming state convention.

Under a never-before-used system to replace Platner, delegates will vote Saturday in Bangor on a new Senate nominee. Out of the 601 delegates who will gather this weekend, Jackson’s campaign says it has 481 delegates committed to supporting him.

Top opponents — including Secretary of State Shenna Bellows and Nirav Shah, former director of Maine’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention — have since dropped out, and Jackson announced Monday that he was focusing his attention on ousting Collins.

“I’m grateful to Democrats across Maine for putting their faith in me and in what we’re fighting for,” Jackson said in a statement.

“This didn’t happen because of one person,” he added. “It happened because hundreds of volunteers put in the hours, knocked on doors, made phone calls, and believed we could build something bigger than ourselves.”

Yet securing the nomination is only just the beginning of challenges facing Jackson. There’s little more than 100 days until the general election, meaning Jackson faces an uphill battle raising campaign funds when Collins already has millions. Jackson also must implement a statewide campaign network and woo over the state’s large independent base.

As former state Senate president, Jackson may be more politically vetted than Platner was running as a first-time candidate, but the logger’s backing of progressive policies will leave him open to plenty of attacks by Republicans, said Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College in Maine.

“The guy does have some pretty interesting positions,” Jacobs said. “Positions that are pretty far to the left of the median voter.”

Jackson supports ‘Medicare for All’ and eliminating ICE

Like Platner, Jackson has said he wants to “get rid of” Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has become top of mind for many Mainers after an ICE officer fatally shot a driver last week. Democrats have rushed to connect Collins to the embattled federal agency, while Jackson has reiterated his support of dissolving ICE altogether.

Jackson has also called for “Medicare for All,” which would replace job-based and individual private health insurance with a government-run plan that guarantees coverage for all with no premiums, no deductibles and only minimal copays for certain services.

Republicans were already criticizing Jackson as a “socialist” Monday.

“This entire process is just as bad as Kamala’s rigged coronation,” said Republican National Committee spokesperson Kristen Cianci, nodding to former President Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race in July 2024, leaving Vice President Kamala Harris to head up the Democratic ticket and ultimately lose to Republican Donald Trump.

“Maine voters have had their voices stolen by party insiders,” Cianci added.

Jackson first ran for office as a Republican

However, unlike the scrutiny Platner faced from a series of controversies, Jackson’s background coming from “old Maine” and his decades of working in the logging industry will help him, Jacobs said.

“He’s the real deal,” Jacobs said.

In 1998, Jackson helped lead a weeklong blockade along the Quebec border in an effort to protest the hiring of Canadian loggers who were coming into Maine and driving down pay rates. The standoff ended with Jackson being escorted away by police, but resulted in Jackson fighting for better logger and wood hauler protections as a state lawmaker.

Jackson initially ran as a Republican in 2000 when he sought a seat inside Maine’s House of Representatives. He lost, but won two years later when he ran as an independent. He switched to the Democratic Party in 2004, and eventually became the Maine Senate president before leaving the statehouse in 2024.

He came in third while running for governor in this year’s Democratic primary election, but had the backing of Platner, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution, the political organization founded by Sanders.

Democrats must net four Senate seats to gain control of the 100-member chamber, and party leaders viewed Maine as a crucial piece of the puzzle, along with Alaska, Ohio and North Carolina.

Kruesi writes for the Associated Press.

It pains me to say that most of us are missing the point when it comes to President Trump’s rambling election fraud speech. Which is exactly what he wants.

Within minutes of its airing Thursday night, the internet and pundits were abuzz debating whether voting machines were secure and whether the federal government has a right, or even a duty, to oversee voter rolls (it has neither). Long posts were written condemning voter identification efforts, and more posts written attacking those condemnations.

This, friends, is exactly what the speech was meant to accomplish — myopic bickering.

To be specific, myopic bickering about the past, as a dark future creeps ever closer — like, say, Nov. 3.

The question we should be asking now isn’t whether there is massive fraud in U.S. elections — even the conservative Heritage Foundation has documented only 71 cases of such fraud in California in more than 25 years.

The question is will we allow Trump to sow just enough doubt in the minds of average Americans that what comes next seems inevitable and even necessary?

Trump falsely claimed that he was revealing “an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.”

“This cannot be allowed to continue,” he said.

Those are ominous words, ones we should take seriously.

“This is a very sad thing to be able to say about the president of the United States, but I think it’s quite clear,” said Mindy Romero, director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy, a nonpartisan research facility. “This is about a certain set of political goals, and using this misinformation to achieve those political goals.”

Trump knows that the midterms present a threat to his power and he, and those around him, have been working for years to create a strategy to invalidate our election results just in case they don’t fall in his direction. Whether the overall outcome favors Democrats or Republicans in the midterms, the wins and losses are going to be close, giving him the chance to attack Democratic wins.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Trump learned from the unlikely teacher Mike Pence the difficult lesson that plans work only when people are in place to implement them. As vice president, Pence, you may recall, refused to stop the election certification process that legally, rightfully, fairly allowed Joe Biden to take office.

Since then, Trump has purged dissenters from top roles, instead putting in flat-out sycophants, election deniers and conspiracy theorists — more than one of whom has been associated with the racist Great Replacement theory that Democrats are secretly helping Black and brown people to illegally cross the border in exchange for these folks illegally voting for Democrats, thereby replacing the “true” America of conservative white people.

So the apparatchiks are in place, Soviet-style. There will be no Penceian savior on the inside this time around.

More than one election expert I have spoken to in recent months fear that because there is no one left on the inside to object, we could see post-election turmoil like this: Republicans lose one or both houses of Congress. Trump calls fraud. The Department of Justice or outside lawyers, or both, sue to overturn results. Congress, the Republican one still in place, refuses to seat newly elected Democrats until the court cases are resolved.

A constitutional crisis is at hand. Democrats say they were elected. Republicans won’t let them serve. No one is clear who is in Congress and who isn’t. In effect, the body is frozen and it’s legitimacy undermined. Into that vacuum, Trump pushes his already great power even further.

As movie-terrible as that sounds, that internal structure is in place and this scenario is far less impossible or even improbable than we could hope.

“What we’re talking about is just misinformation and what could be used as a justification for potentially interfering with seating of elected officials,” Romero said. “Particularly Congress.”

Now, with the internal stuff squared away, Trump’s focus is neutralizing outside dissent. That’s you and me, and that’s what this speech was about. Sowing doubt, tossing seeds of chaos into the soil to see what grows. Letting us know it’s coming, so we as Americans have time to bicker, argue, and tear away at our trust in elections so that by the time we vote, we expect the worst to happen.

“Unfortunately, there are some members of the public that are going to believe what they’re being told and when they hear election results, question it,” said Chad Dunn, legal director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “This kind of communication misleads Americans and does a disservice to our democracy.”

Dunn told me he’s “as worried as I’ve been in my life” about the next election.

Trump’s far right is wasting no time on this effort. After Trump’s speech, the Department of Homeland Security sent out a letter to California and three other states claiming California has more than 190,000 non-citizens registered to vote, and demanding the state “confirm their intentions to collaborate with DHS in order to ensure free, fair, and honest elections.”

This is a misleading, erroneous count and does not include the obvious fact that there is no evidence that undocumented people actually voted in any California election in any noticeable numbers.

But it creates that chaos and doubt. California isn’t going to share its voter rolls willingly with the federal government because elections — according to the Constitution — are state affairs. And there is no evidence that the federal government has a better way of vetting citizenship than California does. So it becomes one more point of bickering.

But what Dunn, Romero and other honest elections experts want Americans to know is that our elections are free and fair and all is not lost. Far from it.

The answer to the propaganda and lies is to remain aware of it, remain above it. Spread truth and refute falsehoods.

Dunn said that Americans should demand that any voter fraud be taken to the courts — where it belongs, and where we can determine the validity of the evidence.

“If you’re concerned about this, if you’re inclined to believe the president, demand proof, demand resolution in court at trial with the the showing of evidence,” he said. “And reserve judgment until you see that.”

Romero has her own advice — never underestimate the power of the vote.

“Show up and to participate,” she said. “Regardless of how [you’re] going to vote — Democrat, Republican, otherwise — just to show up and participate.”

Because in the end, we only lose democracy if we willingly let it go.

Thirty years ago this fall, a Republican politician cried electoral fraud after losing a close race.

Orange County Rep. Bob Dornan couldn’t accept the most logical explanations for why Loretta Sanchez beat him in a historic upset: that voters had tired of his polarizing politics. That his Latino-majority district wanted one of their own to represent them. That he was an ideologue who never brought anything back from D.C. for his constituents.

Instead, Dornan and his supporters settled on the craziest excuse of them all: Illegal immigrants.

California voters were passing anti-immigrant laws by the boatful, so Dornan’s fevered tales about nonprofits registering noncitizens to vote and take him down landed with Republicans. A compliant Congress investigated Dornan’s claims, while local lawmakers proposed bills that would force voters to show government-issued identification every time they cast a ballot — a voter suppression tactic going back to the segregationist South.

The congressional investigation flopped like a soccer player fishing to draw a red card, finally concluding in 1998. Yes, noncitizens did vote for Sanchez, but only an infinitesimal number — less than 1% of the total votes tallied and not enough to overturn the results. No one was charged for illegally voting on purpose or improperly registering noncitizens to vote.

When Dornan ran again in 1998, with volunteers vowing to pursue any election irregularities, Sanchez walloped him, and he was swept into the dustbin of political history.

I teach this episode in my O.C. history college classes as a case study in what happens when political parties succumb to the spell of a vindictive demagogue who blames everyone for their failures except themselves. I also point out that Dornan had the last laugh: the idea that illegal immigrants regularly vote in elections, throwing them toward Democrats, has become gospel for many Republicans.

And here we are.

Republican U.S. Congressional candidate Bob Dornan speaks to a group of young adults at the Orange County Conservation Corps. in Anaheim, California in 1998. He was seeking to regain his old seat from Democratic incumbent Loretta Sanchez, who beat him in a historic 1996 upset.

(John Hayes/Associated Press)

On Thursday, President Trump’s obsession over losing to Joe Biden in 2020 reached a phlegmatic nadir with a speech on debunked election fraud theories that weaved in everything from communist China to deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro to — who else? — alleged noncitizen voters.

The tirade was so pathetic and noneventful that most networks didn’t bother to air it. Even Fox News host Sean Hannity — whose tongue is probably two parts shoe polish after spending the last decade as Trump’s personal spit shine — moved on just minutes after Trump finished.

The president insisted that the U.S. Senate pass a bill ahead of this November’s midterms, mandating in the name of election integrity that voters show proof of citizenship before casting a ballot.

In California, a clown car of MAGA loyalists — state Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, state Senator Tony Strickland, wannabe Southern California U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli — are pushing something similar. Proposition 39 would require California election officials to verify the citizenship of registered voters and require voters to show government-issued identification when they cast a ballot.

By law, voters in federal elections must be U.S. citizens. Only a handful of municipalities allow noncitizens to vote in local elections. Despite Trump’s trumpeting of supposed evidence that 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada, actual instances of them casting a ballot are as rare today as in Dornan’s time.

That hasn’t stopped Trump and his lackeys from claiming, as Dornan and his supporters did, that they are trying to restore faith in a system corrupted by liberals and their undocumented puppets. But, just like back then, this amounts to a dog whistle for people freaked out about changing demographics and massive GOP midterm losses.

It’s the last, most dangerous gasp of a wheezing political movement whose supporters are clinging to power at all costs and just can’t understand why more and more voters are tired of Trump’s flailing foreign policy and failing economy.

These people are so delusional that they point to last month’s California primaries as proof of election fraud, arguing that the results in two prominent races should have been different.

No Republican has won a statewide election in 20 years, so it’s not surprising that Republican Steve Hilton finished second to Democrat Xavier Becerra in the gubernatorial primary, with both advancing to the general election. Nor was it a shock that in the primary for Los Angeles mayor, progressive incumbent Karen Bass and democratic socialist City Councilmember Nithya Raman finished first and second over Republican reality television star Spencer Pratt.

That didn’t stop Trump from insisting that both Republicans should have won outright and crying conspiracy when they didn’t. The president continued his laughable tune in his White House speech.

“Took a month to count the votes,” he whined about California’s sloth-like approach to counting ballots. “I wonder what they were doing. This is worse than any third world country. There’s no third world country that has elections like we have.”

Actually, many third world countries elect despots like Trump — but that’s neither here nor there.

A May poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that Prop. 39 was in a statistical dead heat, with 49% of voters favoring it and 51% opposed. All Prop. 39’s opponents have to do is cite Trump’s stark-raving mad comments about electoral fraud, and support for the ballot initiative will melt faster than the Sierra snowpack.

The Republican crusade against imaginary noncitizen voters may pay off in the short run but will inevitably, spectacularly backfire.

Look at what happened in my native Orange County. Sanchez’s victory was the first ripple in a blue wave that eventually turned O.C. purple. Our once-mighty GOP is now increasingly isolated to wealthier pockets of the county and no longer commands national attention — hell, they couldn’t even deliver O.C. to Trump in any of his elections.

The crazy thing is, when Republicans put in the work to appeal to immigrant and Latino voters instead of obsessing about how they’re supposedly anti-democracy invaders, it pays off. Just look at 2024, when a record number of Latino GOP legislators won seats in California and Trump won a larger share of the national Latino electorate than any Republican presidential candidate ever had.

That happened because the party largely stayed quiet on noncitizen voting and focused on what swing voters wanted to hear: a promise to clamp down on unchecked migration and too much wokeness, while fattening average Americans’ pocketbooks.

Trump’s success with Latino voters seemed to represent a tectonic shift in American politics. Now, it feels like an aberration.

Trump still doesn’t seem to get how desperate the situation is for Republicans, just four months before Election Day, and how much of it is of his own making.

Near the end of his speech, he sputtered, “The only reason you wouldn’t do [mandated voter ID] is you want to cheat because your policies are so bad, and your candidates are so pathetic that you can’t get away or can’t get elected any other way.”

Paging Bob Dornan …

WASHINGTON — Democrats are making a growing effort to adopt a pragmatic focus as they campaign on affordability in the midterms, as some within the party push for moving away from ideological arguments.

Across the country, Democratic candidates are trying to win over voters by talking about real-life scenarios, framing other platform issues in economic terms and, strategists say, aiming to shift a perception that Democrats deal in the abstract.

They see an opening created by voters’ focus on the economy and their ability as the party not in power to leverage affordability as the key midterms issue as Trump’s economic approval remains low. Trump has dismissed the issue, calling affordability a “hoax” by Democrats while also promising economic improvements.

“There has been a learning process in being able to take what Trump and the Republicans are doing and make sure that [candidates] are coming back to the real-world economic implications of whatever that might be,” Democratic strategist Alex Jacquez, who served in the Biden White House. “That’s where maybe [Democrats] haven’t always, in the recent past, made the full connection all the way through.”

Now, “the moment is ripe,” he suggested, for the party to shift its image.

The Democrats’ concentration on affordability and the economy has defined their midterm messaging, playing off elevated inflation, the effects of Trump’s tariffs and high gas prices caused by the war in Iran. The party is attempting to capture enough swing voters to win a House majority in November, and some believe the Senate could also be within reach.

Polling shows pessimism about the economy has increased among all Americans and most believe the country is in an affordability crisis. Americans most frequently mention government leadership and economic issues as the country’s most important problems in Gallup polling.

Voters also increasingly disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy, including working-class white voters who make up a key part of his base. In an NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll last month, Americans gave the president his lowest-ever approval rating on the economy at 33%.

Speaking in Pennsylvania on Thursday, Trump said of affordability: “That’s a fake word that they use. They caused the affordability problem. It’s called high prices.”

Rep. Adam Gray, a Democrat who represents a purple Central Valley district and is a member of the center-left Blue Dog Coalition in Congress, said he believes voters have grown frustrated by the failure of Washington lawmakers to pay attention to what the people want out from government.

He pointed to Central Valley growers whose business has been affected, he said, by the rising price of fuel and fertilizer, the squeeze on the labor market caused by immigration enforcement and changes to federal programs.

“How regular people experience politics, it’s not the kind of ideological debates we have in Washington,” Gray said. “It’s the experience of doing something, whether that’s shopping for groceries or going to the lake to go boating with your family and realizing the price of gas is through the roof or the road to the lake is in disrepair.”

At a time when Democrats have debated how to embrace a party identity beyond opposing Trump and intra-party fights between progressive and moderate candidates have drawn attention, some believe the “practical” tactic may offer one key to the party’s path forward.

In Texas, Democratic candidates are pointing to the impact of data centers on water supply or the consequences of the state’s abortion ban, said Matt Angle, director of Lone Star Project, a political research organization that works to help get Democrats elected.

“The fact that Corpus Christi is running out of water … [or] you have women who have died because they were denied abortion services,” Angle said. “It’s very important that those things not be talked about in ideological terms but in practical terms. I think Democrats are doing a better job of that than ever before.”

“Real life is happening on the ground,” Angle added. “I think Democrats see that.”

Republicans pursued a similar strategy successfully in 2024, and their attacks on Democrats for focusing on cultural issues may have been successful in pushing Democrats away from that messaging, said Republican strategist Brittany Martinez.

“They have made it clear that’s the direction in which they’re trying to go,” she said of Democrats. “I also think you have outliers of the party that sometimes suck all the oxygen out of the room and maybe derail that message.”

National Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson Christian Martinez said Democrats’ economic record, including in California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, demonstrates a failure to prioritize working families.

“It’s laughable that Democrats are trying to make kitchen-table issues their brand,” he said. “It only proves their political brand is broken, while Californians continue living every day with the receipts from Democrats’ failed agenda.”

Republican National Committee Chair Joe Gruters said Thursday at a summit convened by the Washington-based news outlet the Hill that he was confident the party would retain the House and Senate and projected optimism about the economy.

“He’s going to bat for the American worker every single day,” Gruters said of Trump. “He’s going to continue to do everything he can to get the nose of the economy in this country up and to get prices down.”

But as Trump appears to prioritize other issues, Martinez said, Republicans are facing their own uphill battle to win over swing voters.

“When the president has mocked affordability, said it’s not a crisis, I don’t think that helps [Republicans],” Martinez said. “Democrats have an opportunity to capitalize on that right now.”

Both moderate and progressive Democrats see the moment as a chance to define what the party stands for beyond opposing Trump, and both have seized on real-life arguments, though the approaches differ.

Progressives have long framed a spectrum of issues in economic terms, said Usamah Andrabi, spokesperson for the progressive caucus Justice Democrats.

“That has always been the progressive economic playbook, and I think it’s about time that the other wings of the Democratic Party catch up to us,” Andrabi said.

That also means, he said, not backing away from other issues, such as abortion, foreign wars and healthcare.

“It has always been the right that has sought to divide our communities on these so-called culture war issues,” Andrabi said. “Our vision forward should be one that includes everyone… That does not mean simply ignoring some people’s most urgent crises to focus on something else, because these are interconnected.”

Climate advocates, for instance, are “effectively connecting” climate to top midterm issues, including including gas and utility costs, AI data centers and the Iran war, said Jamie Henn, executive director of nonprofit communications lab Fossil Fuel Media, and have encouraged Democratic candidates to do the same.

“Climate, like many issues, doesn’t win itself on its own merits. It’s in the ways that you talk about it and connect it to kitchen-table issues,” Henn said. “Do it in the right way – it’s not a science lecture on global warming, it’s a story about how clean energy can reduce your bills.”

Still, getting more candidates to pick up those messages can be a steep climb, he said. Advocates in some spaces, including climate, have worried about their issues being sidelined.

“There are Democrats that could be threading this needle who aren’t,” Henn said. “We know the issues that climate needs to be connected to, but [politicians] need… to do a better job to clearly articulate the messages.”

CHARLESTON, S.C. — President Trump said Monday he’s recommended that Lindsey Graham’s sister be named as his temporary replacement in the U.S. Senate.

Trump posted on social media that Gov. Henry McMaster should appoint Darline Graham Nordone to fulfill the rest of Graham’s term, which expires in January. Graham died over the weekend at age 71, and McMaster is expected to announce his pick later Monday.

After their parents died at a young age, Graham was left to raise his sister, whom he later adopted. The pair were very close, and Graham’s sister was by his side as he filed reelection paperwork earlier this year.

A special election will be held next month to pick a new Republican nominee in the general election for Graham’s seat. He had been seeking a fifth term this year.

The rare open Senate seat has ignited a scramble among South Carolina’s most ambitious conservatives, who have been eager to climb the political ladder.

Republicans just finished a sprawling and bruising contest to figure out their nominee for succeeding McMaster, who is wrapping up his second term. State Atty. Gen. Alan Wilson won the nomination, overcoming a field that included Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette, Rep. Nancy Mace and Ralph Norman — all of whom are now eyeing Graham’s seat following his death over the weekend.

How will a special primary work?

According to South Carolina law, a one-week filing period for a special primary election begins on the second Tuesday after the candidate’s death, or July 21.

The special primary election would be held on the second Tuesday after that filing period closes, or Aug. 11. Any necessary runoff would follow two weeks after that, or Aug. 25.

From that point, the new nominee would have just over two months to campaign for the general election on Nov. 3.

All of this is problematic according to federal law, which requires military and overseas ballots to go out 45 days before any federal election. For the general election primary, that would have been June 27. Federal Election Commission officials didn’t immediately return a message seeking clarity about the process.

Who could replace Graham?

Graham died on Saturday night, and a preliminary medical examiner report said he suffered a tear in his aorta, known as an aortic dissection.

In the hours after Graham’s death was announced, South Carolina’s Republican circles were already swirling with rumors about possible replacements. Given the proximity of November’s election, it’s likely that whomever McMaster appoints could be a top contender in the special primary, although it’s possible that McMaster’s choice will only serve as a temporary caretaker.

Evette, who has served nearly eight years alongside McMaster and received his endorsement in the governor’s race, is one possibility. She lost the June 23 runoff to Wilson.

A person with knowledge of Evette’s thinking but not authorized to discuss it publicly said that she was getting encouragement from across the state and feels she would have good chances in the special primary.

It’s unlikely that any House member would be appointed to finish Graham’s current term, since Republicans have such a slim majority in the chamber.

U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, a rumored replacement, said he assured Trump on Sunday that “my goal is to remain in the House to keep his two-vote majority for the American people!!!”

However, that doesn’t mean that House members won’t run for the next full term. A person with knowledge of Mace’s thinking but not authorized to speak about it publicly said she was considering the race. Mace is not running for reelection to the House.

But another Republican from the state, Rep. Russell Fry, could be a possibility. The two-term lawmaker represents the growing area around Myrtle Beach, and he’s been a top Trump ally.

A spokesman for businessman Mark Lynch, whom Graham defeated in the primary, didn’t return a message Sunday.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who lived in South Carolina before joining the Trump administration, has fielded calls about potentially replacing Graham but doesn’t have interest in the role, according to a person who insisted on anonymity to describe private conversations.

How does Graham’s death affect the general election?

No Democrat has won a Senate seat in South Carolina in decades, and Republicans in recent history typically take statewide seats by double digits. When he last ran in 2020, Graham defeated his Democratic opponent, Jaime Harrison, by a 10 percentage point margin.

So while history suggests that Graham was en route to a fifth term, Republicans are carefully surveying the landscape.

Charleston pediatrician Annie Andrews won the Democratic nomination last month and has raised more than $8 million in the race, and she had just under $3 million cash on hand at the end of May, according to federal filings. Graham had taken in $6 million, with just over $4 million on hand.

In a statement Sunday, Andrews called on South Carolinians to join her “in setting partisanship aside and offering gratitude” to Graham for his service.

Harrison, noting that he and Graham “had our share of political disagreements,” wrote on social media that he “always appreciated that even in our fiercest political battles, we could still share a conversation, a laugh, and a mutual respect for South Carolina and the institutions we were both privileged to serve.”

What happens to South Carolina’s Republican clout?

Graham leaves a major void in the Senate, where seniority can determine influence. He served more than two decades in the chamber, positioning himself to lead committees and set the agenda.

Sen. Tim Scott, South Carolina’s junior senator, has been in office only since 2012 — short by the state’s standards. Fritz Hollings served for 38 years, and Strom Thurmond was there for 47.

Scott, who co-chaired Graham’s reelection effort, described his former colleague as “irreplaceable.”

“America lost a statesman, but I lost a friend,” he told ABC’s “This Week.”

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

As a student years ago, I dove deep into the history of the Red-hunting McCarthy era and became familiar with the actor who emerged second only to Wisconsin Sen. Joe McCarthy as the villain of that insidious time: his shameless, conniving young lawyer, Roy Cohn. Never would I have imagined that a future president would count Cohn as a mentor and role model.

Then came Donald Trump.

Now, in Cohn-inflected McCarthyesque style, President Trump is channeling his tutor yet again, baselessly labeling his political enemies — all Democrats — as communists as he looks ahead to the fall’s midterm elections. Once more Trump shows that his catchphrase “Make America great again” means regressing, this time to Trump’s formative 1950s and the McCarthy era that sadly helped define it.

In recent speeches, including on the Fourth of July, Trump’s utterances of “communist” or “communism” reached double digits each time. (As that implies, the president didn’t set aside his divisive rhetoric even for the nation’s 250th birthday.)

“Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America,” Trump said late on the Fourth on the National Mall.

Trump couples his commie-baiting with a dash of his trademark xenophobia. “There is now a resurgence of the communist menace in our land, including by newcomers to our country who embrace ideas totally opposed to our way of life and our great success,” he said at Mount Rushmore a day earlier. (He’s got it backward, of course: Immigrants come here for the American way of life and promise of success.)

Here’s the irony: Trump’s actions in his second term make him look more like the commie. He’s projecting again.

Now that Trump is exploiting a few victories lately by left-wing democratic socialists in Democratic primaries to paint the entire party as communists, it’s time to review the record — his record.

A hallmark of communism is government ownership of companies and control of the economy, at the expense of private property and free markets. In just over a year, Trump has used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to buy shares for the government in a growing list of private companies — U.S. Steel, Intel, Westinghouse and more — citing national security. The companies don’t always welcome their new stakeholder; at a minimum, they rightly fear it for the demands the government could make about prices and production.

“It’s what Putin did,” the estranged Republicans at the Lincoln Project posted online Monday. “Trump is the closest we’ve ever come to communism.”

“What began as a populist revolt against so-called elites has become a program of state ownership, price fixing and top-down industrial control,” free-market economist Veronique de Rugy wrote in The Times last October of Trump’s actions. “The power to ‘partner’ with business is the power to control it.”

Comrade Trump’s first big government grab, and a model for those to come, was in June last year, when he wrested a permanent “golden share” in U.S. Steel in return for approving its sale to Japan’s Nippon Steel. The company’s charter was revised to give the U.S. president extraordinary veto power over nearly a dozen corporate activities, including closing or relocating plants, supply-chain decisions, even pricing.

“We have a golden share, which I control,” Trump told reporters at the time, in words I never thought I’d hear from a president of the party once associated with free markets.

Just last week, Trump boasted to CNBC how he’d extracted a 10% stake in beleaguered chip giant Intel last August, after first demanding that its chief executive resign. “Intel came in. They had a problem. I said, ‘I can solve your problem, but I want 10% of the company.’ … Somebody said that’s not very American. I said, ‘No, I think it is very American, actually.’ And I’ve done that with other deals.”

And so he has.

The Pentagon is now the largest stockholder in struggling MP Materials, a large rare-earth mine in California, and guarantees a 10-year price floor for its output that stunned competitors. The administration has since taken shares in other rare-earth companies. The Commerce Department took an option for an 8% stake in Westinghouse, to spur construction of nuclear reactors, and has the right to 20% if the government decides the company should go public. The government takes a 15% cut of Nvidia’s and Advanced Micro Devices’ AI chip sales to China.

As much as anything he does, Trump’s direct intervention in private enterprise invites the question “What if Biden/Harris/Obama did that?” The answer, of course: Trump and Republicans would cry “Communist!”

Trump’s actions are the sort Americans generally have only seen during economic emergencies or major wars, and then rarely. I covered the frenzied and ultimately successful response to the near-collapse of the global financial system and the U.S. auto, insurance and housing industries. Behind the scenes in the Obama White House (and George W. Bush’s at the outset) was constant, angst-filled debate about any actions smacking of government takeovers and a determination that interventions be temporary, unlike Trump’s schemes. (For all the still-lingering unpopularity of the banking bailout, the Treasury — the taxpayers — got all the money back and then some, and exited the business.)

Trump’s economic big-footing isn’t the only way in which he resembles the commies Americans know best, and whom he so admires: Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jung Un. There are also the images of himself everywhere, monuments planned, drearily long and self-adulating speeches and interference in the nation’s cultural, educational and legal spheres and — worst of all — in elections.

At Rushmore, Trump closed with a demand that Congress pass his so-called SAVE America Act to restrict voting. “We do that and we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said, speaking of course about Republicans.

One-party rule through central government election finagling? Now that’s a communist.

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

WAUSAU, Wis. — Michael Alfonso, the 26-year-old son-in-law of U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, has an answer for people who say he doesn’t have the experience necessary to join Congress as its youngest member.

He points to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

“They were 26 when they were first elected to public office,” said Alfonso, a Republican.

Alfonso is trying to ride support from his father-in-law to win his old House seat in rural northern Wisconsin. Duffy has repeatedly jetted back to the district to campaign and raise money for Alfonso, and he’s tapped $1 million from his old congressional account to support Alfonso’s candidacy.

Alfonso has also scored the endorsement of President Trump, who called him a “MAGA warrior.” But to Alfonso’s detractors, including prominent Republicans in the 7th Congressional District, he’s too young and inexperienced for the job.

“I think it’s insulting to people in the 7th that someone who lacks qualifications and any life experiences and any kind of demonstrable leadership skills or experience is even being touted as a candidate,” said Meg Ellefson, a 20-year resident of the district who voted for Trump three times and now opposes him. “It’s super aggravating to me.”

The Aug. 11 primary will test whether Trump’s endorsement of Alfonso, Duffy’s star power in his old congressional district and Alfonso’s fundraising advantage will be enough to put the political newcomer over the top.

Alfonso leans into Duffy’s ‘Real World’ past

Alfonso is taking a page from his father-in-law’s playbook by participating in a reality show. He appeared alongside Duffy, a 1997 alum of MTV’s “Real World,” in the “Great American Road Trip” video series that Duffy launched with his wife and 11 children on YouTube in June.

Duffy was elected to Congress in 2010, flipping a seat that had been under Democratic control for 41 years. He served for just under nine years before leaving politics. He returned last year when Trump tapped him to serve as transportation secretary.

Alfonso has leaned into his youth and lack of political experience.

“I’m a young man with the energy of a young man, but I have the values of someone who’s in their 60s,” Alfonso said, citing the fact that he got married to Duffy’s daughter Evita Duffy at age 22 and became a father in May.

Alfonso graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 2022 and then moved to Florida, where he worked for about a year on a podcast hosted by Trump supporter Dan Bongino. Prior to that, he worked construction jobs while in college.

Alfonso said that conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination inspired him to run to continue what he calls a “spiritual battle for the soul of our nation.” Kirk’s Turning Point Action has endorsed Alfonso.

Duffy’s son-in-law faces a former Iranian hostage and a dog musher

One of Alfonso’s rivals in the Republican primary, Kevin Hermening, has deep ties to the district.

Hermening is a former Marine who was one of 66 Americans held hostage by Iran for 444 days starting in 1979. Framed photos of the then-20-year-old Hermening meeting with former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter hang on his office wall.

He has worked nearly 40 years as a financial planner, spent 16 years on a local school board and was chairman of the Marathon County Republican Party for 24 years, helping Duffy and scores of other Republicans win local, state and federal races across the district.

Hermening also previously ran for Congress in 1986, when he was the same age as Alfonso is now — 26. He lost by 25 percentage points to Democratic incumbent Rep. David Obey.

“The voters told me that I wasn’t ready or prepared yet,” Hermening, who’s now 66, said in an interview at his Wausau office. “I was ill prepared to have actually done the job, and I’m not saying that because Mr. Alfonso’s in the race. It’s a fact.”

Another candidate in the primary, Ashley Furniture executive Jessi Ebben, has the backing of powerful Republican megadonors. Others running are Niina Baum, a dog musher, and Don Raihala, an accountant and real estate broker.

Longtime Republicans are publicly opposing Alfonso despite Trump backing

While Alfonso has endorsements from House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and four of Wisconsin’s six Republican congressmen, local Republican officials in the district have publicly questioned the young candidate’s credentials.

Leaders in at least three counties have publicly spoken out against Alfonso as being too inexperienced for the job and questioned Duffy’s influence.

Iron County Republican Party Chair Tanner Hiller accused Duffy of trying to use his connections to get his son-in-law elected.

“I think what they’re doing is wrong morally,” Hiller told Wisconsin Public Radio in May. “There’s a lot of people that have better credentials, that know this district, that will represent this district better than Michael Alfonso.”

Donations in question as GOP megadonors are divided

Alfonso has benefited from tens of thousands of dollars in donations from transportation interests, raising more questions given that Duffy leads the federal agency that oversees the nation’s transportation system.

When asked whether he would be beholden to those donors, Alfonso said he answers only to God and the voters.

“That’s it,” Alfonso said.

But Hermening said Alfonso will feel indebted to the donors.

“I would think that the people would want to get paid back,” he said.

Duffy, despite his repeated visits back home to the district to campaign and raise money for Alfonso, is focused exclusively on executing the president’s agenda, his Transportation Department spokesperson Nathaniel Sizemore said when asked about the donations.

A super political action committee backing Alfonso has received $1 million from Duffy’s old congressional account and another $1 million from Republican megadonor Richard Uihlein, whose shipping and packaging business, Uline, is based in Wisconsin.

However, Uihlein’s wife, Elizabeth Uihlein, has donated $1 million to another PAC supporting Ebben. Ebben also has the backing of Club for Growth and Diane Hendricks, a billionaire builder from Wisconsin who is another GOP megadonor.

Alfonso hopes Trump endorsement overcomes GOP pushback

Alfonso is leaning into the Trump endorsement, while saying it will be hard work and not the president’s backing that gets him elected. His red, white and blue campaign signs say, “Endorsed by President Donald Trump.”

Jack Hoogendyk, chair of the Republican Party in Marathon County, which is home to the district’s largest city of Wausau, said Trump’s endorsement is “solid gold” in a district where Trump won by 22 percentage points two years ago.

But Ellefson, the longtime district resident, who hosted a conservative talk radio show in Wausau for five years, isn’t so sure that Trump’s blessing carries the same weight now that it used to.

“I personally would like to believe that voters in the 7th are intelligent enough and critical thinkers and won’t be swayed by a Trump endorsement,” she said. “I’m going to give the voters credit for not being that foolish.”

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

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.

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.

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans who were berated by President Trump over opposition to his war in Iran held a late-night vote Wednesday to try to appease him, rejecting a war powers resolution a day after a similar measure passed.

Trump harangued GOP senators face to face earlier in the day for allowing a vote to block his war in Iran on Tuesday, further escalating a feud that has diverted GOP efforts to focus on election-year affordability issues and brought much of the chamber’s business to a halt. He exchanged particularly harsh words with Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, one of four Republicans who had voted with Democrats on the measure.

Hours later, though, Cassidy was invited to receive a personal briefing on the war at the White House from Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff. Cassidy then returned to the Capitol to vote against a separate but nearly identical war powers resolution.

“I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns,” said Cassidy, who lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed his opponent, in a post on X.

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican who has repeatedly voted with Democrats to halt the war, voted present this time “to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace,” he said on X. The measure failed 47-50-1 just before midnight on Wednesday, and the Senate then left town for a two-week recess.

It’s unclear whether the move will be enough to appease Trump, who had called the Republicans “losers” for voting against his war and had called Cassidy a “lunatic” at the lunch after their tense exchange. But the vote was a clear signal to the president from Republican senators who still want to placate him, despite increasing tensions in recent weeks and his decision Wednesday morning to reverse himself and delay signing a housing bill that received overwhelming bipartisan support.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and a small group of his Senate GOP colleagues called Trump after the vote. Thune told reporters that the president was “pleased with the outcome.”

Trump later thanked Thune in a social media post and noted that Cassidy and Paul had switched their votes. “This vote puts Iran on notice!” he wrote.

The war powers measure blocked by the Senate on Wednesday was on a separate track from the nearly identical resolution adopted on Tuesday, which had also been passed by the House. Both votes were largely symbolic, and the measures do not carry the full force of law.

Cassidy had sharp words for Trump

Invited by Florida Sen. Rick Scott to speak at a GOP luncheon in the Capitol, Trump had signaled ahead of time that he would use the closed-door meeting to push senators to pass his proof-of-citizenship voting bill. But the conversation was more focused on Tuesday’s vote on war powers.

Most Republicans stayed quiet. But Cassidy stood up and defended his vote.

“I stood and said, ‘You have not told the American people what’s going on,’” Cassidy told reporters after the meeting. “This was supposed to last four weeks, it’s lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved.”

The two men “went back and forth,” Cassidy said, and he “matched his tone and volume.” Cassidy said that he eventually de-escalated, but he did not want to be bullied.

“I am voting for war powers until I get a briefing,” he said afterward.

Trump repeatedly told Cassidy to sit down, according to a person familiar with the private meeting who was not authorized to discuss it. At one point, the president called the senator a “lunatic.”

Publicly, Trump said afterward that they had “a really great meeting.” But he hinted at the discord.

“We like everyone in the room,” Trump told reporters on his way out. “I don’t like a few people, but that’s OK.”

The luncheon capped weeks of friction between Trump and Senate Republicans and added a new layer of frustration as Tuesday’s vote was the first time the Senate had adopted a war powers resolution on the Iran war. Trump made clear he was in no mood to compromise before it even started, calling off a scheduled signing ceremony on a housing bill that passed both chambers overwhelmingly this week and that GOP lawmakers were touting as an election-year achievement.

Trump reverses on housing bill

Republican senators were eager for a conciliatory meeting with the president after escalating tensions in recent weeks. But Trump upended their plans when he declared on social media just beforehand that he wouldn’t sign the legislation until they send him the SAVE America Act, his bill to require proof of citizenship for all voters.

North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said he doesn’t know why Trump is holding the housing bill “hostage” for the voting bill that “will never pass in this Congress.”

“It makes no sense to me,” Tillis said as he walked into the luncheon.

Thune said the housing legislation, which aims to lower costs, is “an affordability issue,” and that ”eventually I hope he finds a way to sign it.”

It’s unclear if Trump might veto the legislation or if the late Wednesday night vote will change his outlook. But by rejecting a public bill signing, Republicans worry that Trump is indicating a level of indifference to voters’ affordability concerns heading into November’s midterm elections.

Trump and Senate Republicans have been at odds

Trump’s move on the housing bill is his latest reversal after weeks of being at odds with Senate Republicans.

Trump has blocked the Senate from confirming one of his own nominees, asked them to fund parts of his White House ballroom project despite opposition and forced them to defend the Iran war even as they question the strategy and endgame.

Trump has also helped whittle down his own support in the Senate after endorsing primary challengers to two GOP incumbents who were previously reliable votes for his agenda — Cassidy and Texas Sen. John Cornyn. Both men have become more critical of Trump since losing reelection.

“If we’re going to win the midterm elections, we need to get on the same page,” Cornyn said ahead of the meeting. “We’re not on the same page now, and that I think is dangerous.”

Trump pushes Thune on SAVE America Act

Trump has pressed Republicans for months to kill the Senate filibuster and focus on the proof-of-citizenship voting bill, even though Thune has repeatedly told him that neither has the votes.

While Thune remains popular in his conference and cordial with the president, he has spent much of his time lately telling Trump what he doesn’t want to hear. Thune said Tuesday that while Trump and some in their conference want to see the voting bill pass, “it’s just not realistic.”

Thune devoted weeks of floor time to the voting bill earlier this year and has said he supports it. But he has repeatedly said there aren’t enough votes to scrap the filibuster that triggers a 60-vote threshold to pass most bills in the 53-47 Senate. And Democrats are uniformly opposed to the bill.

“I think people at some point have to come to grips with that,” Thune said.

Jalonick, Sloan, Cappelletti and Mascaro write for the Associated Press. AP writers Josh Boak and Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Wednesday he would not sign the landmark housing bill Congress passed this week as scheduled, in a striking decision to jeopardize a rare bipartisan success in order to demand that lawmakers pass voter ID legislation.

It escalated tension between Trump and Senate Republicans, which had already neared a breaking point this week over the proof-of-citizenship bill, dubbed the SAVE America Act. GOP leaders have told Trump the bill does not have the votes to pass.

“Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency,” Trump wrote online.

The president’s willingness to threaten a bill that he could have framed as a win on affordability ahead of the midterm elections is a remarkable gamble as Republicans fight to keep House control.

The reversal also underscored Trump’s fixation on asserting some federal control over elections processes and his apparent indifference to the cost-of-living issues that voters are most focused on. He has repeatedly dismissed affordability as a “fake” concept, and inaccurately claimed on Sunday that the U.S. has the “BEST ECONOMY EVER.”

Last week, polls from NPR/PBS News/Marist Poll and Fox News poll showed record dissatisfaction with the economy among Americans and Trump’s support slipping among key demographics. Trump also lashed out about that on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, writing without evidence: “MY REAL POLL NUMBERS ARE THE HIGHEST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN. THANK YOU!!!”

The housing bill, which passed with overwhelming support in the House on Tuesday evening and the Senate on Monday, aims to boost housing supply. It is the most significant legislation Congress has passed on housing in more than 30 years, and it contains a host of provisions aimed at removing regulatory barriers, improving federal programs and incentivizing new building.

As president, Trump has 10 days to sign or veto bills after they are presented. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) indicated to reporters Wednesday that a signing could still be on the table, saying he had spoken to Trump about “delaying” the housing bill before the president announced the cancellation.

Johnson said he had promised an effort to advance the SAVE America Act.

“He decided — I didn’t announce it, I wanted him to announce it — but we’re delaying this,” Johnson said. “As you know, he has a window of time before he has to sign a bill and he’s going to use a little bit more of that window of time and we’re gonna go through this together.”

Bill Owens, chairman of the National Assn. of Home Builders, telegraphed hope that the legislation would be signed at some point.

“Although there was no bill signing today, we are confident the 21st Century Road to Housing Act will eventually become law,” said Owens, a home builder and remodeler from Worthington, Ohio.

Democrats were shocked, angry and confused when they found out about the cancellation Wednesday morning, according to a source within the House Committee on Financial Services, which led the legislation.

Lawmakers believed the bill was a done deal and are now scrambling, the person said. A stage for the bill signing had already been set up in the Capitol when Trump posted online. The night before, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt had posted on X: “Tomorrow’s historic bill signing is another promise made, promise kept.”

Frustration with the president has been steadily mounting among Senate Republicans for more than a month, triggered by a host of issues including Trump’s endorsement of Republican primary challengers to sitting lawmakers. On Tuesday, four Republican senators joined with Democrats to approve a war powers resolution seeking to block U.S. military action in Iran.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has told Trump the SAVE America Act doesn’t have enough support to pass, the Associated Press reported this week.

The legislation would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security. Voting rights advocates say it would create unnecessary barriers to voting for citizens.

The effort is rooted in Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud and cheating by Democrats. He has said the bill would “guarantee” the midterms for Republicans.

Trump has previously called for the federal government to “nationalize” elections and “take over” voting in some states. He renewed accusations against Democrats of cheating in California this month.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) said Trump was holding the bill hostage in a bid “to control California’s elections.”

“The stage was set both physically and metaphorically for the president to sign a historic housing bill for the American people,” said Sherman, who contributed a provision to the housing bill that would help disabled veterans get rental assistance. “Trump must put his ego aside and put the American people first and sign this bill into law.”

Less than an hour before Trump posted online that he had canceled the bill signing, he labeled the legislation “the Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” in a Truth Social post, and railed about the SAVE America Act.

“That is what Americans, both Dumocrats, Republicans, and everyone else, care about. Get the bad Republicans to approve it or, better yet, Terminate the Filibuster and approve it, AND EVERYTHING ELSE REPUBLICANS HAVE EVER DREAMED OF,” Trump wrote.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was one of the four bipartisan lawmakers leading the deal across the two chambers, said Wednesday morning on CNBC that Trump’s reversal “doesn’t make any sense.”

“It’s a complete indifference to the cost squeeze on American families and to genuine efforts to do something about it,” Warren said. “He could be over here claiming a victory lap and instead he’s saying no, no, he doesn’t want anything to do with it.”

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.