Tiny Reporter

Please note that SCOTUS Outside Opinions constitute the views of outside contributors and do not reflect the official opinions of SCOTUSblog.The Supreme Court shapes constitutional and statutory meaning in an era defined by rapid technological change. But, despite presiding over disputes that involve online conduct, the court itself is strikingly absent from that world. This absence is especially notable in social media. Can – or should – the court continue to remain so disconnected?This is not idle speculation. Across the globe, high courts have begun to embrace social media as a tool for transparency and civic engagement, offering real-time updates, summaries of their decisions, and direct communication with the public. By contrast, our Supreme Court continues to rely on traditional methods – written opinions, limited audio of oral arguments, transcripts, and occasional public appearances – to convey its work. At the same time, the justices have acknowledged the profound influence of digital platforms on speech, governance, and public perception and have expressed concerns about misinformation and the real-world harms that can stem from online ignorance.The court needs to bridge this gap. To so, it should adopt a semi-limited, institutional approach to things like social media – using official, nonpartisan channels to communicate clearly with the public while preserving judicial neutrality, in a manner comparable to how some state court judges have used their platforms in furtherance of their official duties. This model would enhance transparency and accessibility without exposing individual justices to the risks associated with certain kinds of online engagement. In other words, the judiciary should recognize that thoughtful participation – not complete disengagement, as is the case now – is the best path forward. And it should do so sooner rather than later.SCOTUS’ mixed relationship with social mediaThe Supreme Court maintains a striking institutional distance from social media. As far as we know, none of the nine sitting justices operate public personal accounts on platforms like X, Facebook, or Instagram, a choice that reflects longstanding norms of judicial neutrality and a desire to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. (Of note: in 2020, Justice Elena Kagan did say she “lurks[s] on Twitter.”)Although some close relatives of the justices maintain limited and largely private presences online, they are careful to maintain personal and professional identities without implicating the court. One notable exception is Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. In the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, Thomas used social media and private communications to promote claims of election fraud and to urge political officials to take action related to the certification of the election results. Her outspoken online activity and broader political advocacy brought renewed attention to the potential risks posed by even indirect connections between the court and online discourse.These activities, which became public through reporting and congressional investigation, sparked widespread debate over judicial ethics, recusal, and the extent to which a justice may be affected by the political conduct of a justices’ close family members. But, above all, they made one thing clear: while the justices themselves remain absent from social media, the realities of modern communication inevitably reach the court’s orbit.Perceptions of social media at the high courtAs for the court’s engagement with social media through its opinions, this has not amounted to any sort of unified doctrine, but a collection of various concerns that cut across ideological lines.During oral argument in Moody v. NetChoice in 2024, for example, Justice Amy Coney Barrett candidly acknowledged that the regulatory landscape surrounding digital platforms makes her “a little bit nervous.” That hesitation was not simply about the novelty of this medium, but about the difficulty of applying traditional First Amendment frameworks to a space shaped by private actors, algorithmic enhancement, and global reach. This in turn has led the court to question how far regulation can – or should – go in such a rapidly developing area.In Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, decided in 2021, a GVR (grant, vacate, and remand) decision, Thomas, in a concurring opinion, suggested that dominant social media companies may function as “common carriers,” and raised alarms about their ability to control access to speech in what increasingly resembles a modern public square. In contrast, the court’s other members have tended to focus more on social media as a source of misinformation and real-world harm, emphasizing the risks of under-regulation. At a 2021 event, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the digital information ecosystem poses an “extraordinary challenge” to how Americans receive news. At the same event, Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed those concerns, emphasizing that misinformation can erode democratic stability from within – highlighting that anxieties about social media’s impact on democracy are not confined to one ideological perspective but reflect a broader, bipartisan concern. Building on this theme, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2024 suggested that an overly rigid application of the First Amendment could “hamstring” the government’s ability to respond to harmful content, particularly in high-stakes contexts like public health crises.Social media among judges not on the Supreme CourtThe justices’ concerns have played out, albeit in very different ways, throughout the judiciary. Although, as noted, the Supreme Court’s engagement with social media has been sparing (to put it lightly), that is not the case with the judiciary in general. For federal judges, there isn’t a defined code of conduct explicitly for social media, though judges are supposed to uphold the same standard online that they would in person. In many states, however, judges are generally permitted under codes of conduct to operate on social media within carefully constructed ethical frameworks that prioritize impartiality, restraint, and public confidence. In Texas, the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct permits online engagement so long as judges avoid political activity, public commentary on pending cases, and any conduct that undermines the judiciary’s integrity. Similarly, Illinois allows judges to maintain a presence on platforms like Facebook or LinkedIn but cautions against connections or communications that could suggest bias or improper influence. California takes a slightly different approach, explicitly recognizing social media as a permissible tool for outreach while warning against ex parte communications and online interactions with attorneys or litigants. And New York emphasizes an “appearance of impropriety” standard, instructing judges to use social media cautiously to avoid any perception that their neutrality could be compromised. Taken together, these jurisdictions reflect a consistent principle: social media is not prohibited, but it is tightly regulated so as not to damage judicial legitimacy.With this in mind, some state court judges are beginning to explore how digital platforms can translate complex legal processes into accessible information. Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Dillard, for instance, recently argued that social media, when used carefully, offers a way for judges to explain procedures, highlight court operations, and humanize the judicial role without compromising judicial impartiality. In this sense, judges can act as interpreters not only of the law, but “legalese” itself, making the work of the courts more transparent and understandable to the communities they serve.This is not without its dangers, somewhat highlighted by the example of former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Willett. Prior to becoming a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, Willett was widely known for his active and often engaging presence on social media, using Facebook and X (then Twitter) to promote civic education and make the judiciary more accessible to laypersons. But during his 2017 nomination to the circuit court, Don Willett’s social media presence – though widely regarded as humorous and accessible – subjected him to increased scrutiny. That attention highlighted a broader concern that even well-intentioned, informal posts can be removed from their original context and, in a judicial setting, raise questions about impartiality and judicial bias. In response, Willett indicated that he would step back from social media use as a federal judge to avoid any potential issues and to preserve the appearance of neutrality.Other judges have demonstrated how social media can be used to meaningfully enhance public trust in the judiciary. One of the most prominent examples is Rhode Island Judge Frank Caprio, whose courtroom clips – widely circulated on platforms like Facebook and YouTube – have reached millions of viewers. Through these videos, Caprio explains legal outcomes in plain language, often emphasizing fairness, compassion, and judicial discretion. In doing so, Caprio has acted as a bridge between the public and the often-opaque language of the law, reinforcing the idea that social media, when used thoughtfully, can strengthen confidence in judicial institutions rather than undermine it.At the same time, more recent examples illustrate how digital and visual communication can raise new concerns. In a dissent in Duncan v. Bonta, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke included a self-produced video demonstrating firearm mechanics – an unusual form of judicial expression that circulated widely online. VanDyke framed this as an effort to clarify the factual basis of his argument. Critics, however, dismissed it as a stunt, which cheapened the judiciary. Earlier this year, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick reassigned several cases involving Elon Musk after Musk’s attorneys alleged that her LinkedIn activity reflected bias against him. The controversy stemmed from a LinkedIn “support” reaction tied to a post celebrating Musk’s loss in separate litigation (McCormick denied any bias and stated she may not have intentionally engaged with the post). Both incidents demonstrated how online activity can generate intense scrutiny and complicate public perceptions of judicial impartiality in the digital age.The Supreme Court and the online worldAs the examples above demonstrate, the judiciary’s engagement with social media has begun, even if it is still in its infancy. And whether it likes it or not, the Supreme Court cannot remain immune from this. This is especially true as Millennials and Gen Z, many of whom have lived much of their life on social media, come to fully dominate the legal profession – and eventually the judiciary itself. So where does this leave us?First, as some state courts have done, the justices should adopt official, nonpartisan social media channels to provide plain-language summaries of opinions, highlight oral arguments, and explain procedural developments. Such an approach would enhance transparency without compromising judicial neutrality or inviting the risks associated with personal commentary. Judge Caprio provides a great example here, explaining his opinions and courts processes in plain language while avoiding any partisan or inflammatory rhetoric.Second, justices’ family members should remain free to express themselves online without being pressured into silence due solely to their proximity to the court. A justice should not automatically be viewed as endorsing or aligning with every statement, opinion, or post made by a spouse, child, or other relative, particularly where the activity is personal, nonpolitical, or unrelated to matters before the court. At the same time, situations involving direct political advocacy, active involvement in matters connected to pending litigation, or online activity that creates a substantial appearance of bias may reasonably raise serious ethical and recusal concerns.Third, and perhaps most controversially, I would encourage Supreme Court justices to go beyond purely institutional communication and, within appropriate ethical boundaries, use social media to express limited aspects of their personality and public identity. While official court accounts can improve transparency and procedural understanding, carefully managed personal accounts could help make the judiciary appear more human and accessible to the public. For example, justices could share educational interests, civic initiatives, historical reflections on the court, or moments from public events that allow the public to better understand the individuals behind the institution. At a time when many Americans perceive the judiciary as distant or opaque, this type of measured personal engagement could strengthen public trust by reinforcing that even those on the highest court are not abstractions, but flesh-and-blood public servants operating within the realities of modern civic life.The question is not whether social media will shape public understanding of the judiciary – it already does – but whether the courts, and the Supreme Court in particular, will play an active role in informing that understanding or remain defined by it from the outside.Read more

Yesterday’s decision in M&K Employee Solutions v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund was pretty much exactly what you would have expected given the argument: a brisk rejection of the idea that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 obligates actuaries to use out-of-date assumptions when they work on pension plans.The case involves a multiemployer pension plan, a common arrangement in which a group of employers in a particular industry band together, collectively agreeing to provide specifically defined benefits to all covered employees. A natural question under those arrangements is what happens when one employer decides to leave the group. Under ERISA, the departing employer must make a payment to the plan equal to the employer’s share of any benefits attributable to past work that are unfunded, based on an actuary’s calculation “as of” the “measurement date,” the last day of the year before the employer withdraws.Because the calculation necessarily is made after the date of the employer’s withdrawal, but “as of” the “measurement date” in the preceding year, the statute contemplates a gap between the state of contributions and obligations that set the departing employer’s responsibility and the date on which the responsibility is calculated. The issue in this case is whether the background economic assumptions – in particular the discount rate of interest that is crucial to the amount of liability – are supposed to be accurate on the date of calculation or based on assumptions the actuary was using during the preceding year (before the employer withdrew). The question often matters a lot. In this case, for example, the departing employer owed more than three times as much under the interest rate that was current on the date the actuary made the calculation as it would have owed under an interest rate set the previous year.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s brisk opinion for a unanimous court is squarely on the side of accuracy as of the date that the actuary in fact makes the calculation. Jackson’s take on the statute is that the requirement to make the calculation “as of” the measurement date “means two things. First, the hard data about the plan that feeds the … calculation must be fixed on the measurement date. Second, … the actual … calculation can be performed after the measurement date.” For her, “the key question is whether actuarial assumptions [like the proper discount rate] are akin to the facts about the plan that must be fixed on the measurement date, or whether they are a part of the … calculation itself and can therefore be selected after the measurement date.”Once she has posed that as the question for decision, the case is pretty much over. Jackson explains that “actuarial assumptions … are not factual inputs. Instead, they are predictive judgments about a plan’s anticipated future performance—tools actuaries use to calculate the plan’s [unfunded future obligations].” In practice, she points out, “actuarial assumptions are adopted for the purpose of a particular calculation or measurement; they are not generally ‘in effect’” for some particular time period. In short, “[b]ecause actuarial assumptions are tools used to calculate [unfunded future obligations] rather than hard data about the plan, they cannot be ‘frozen’ on the measurement date.” Thus, Jackson concludes, the statutory “as of” requirement only “sets the reference point for the factual inputs into the … calculation. It has no bearing on when actuaries must select the tools, including assumptions, they use to calculate a plan’s [unfunded future obligations].”Jackson buttresses her conclusion by pointing out that the statute requires only that the actuary’s assumptions must be “reasonable,” “tak[e] into account the experience of the plan and reasonable expectations,” and “offer the actuary’s best estimate of anticipated [future] experience under the plan.” It did not, though, directly specify that actuaries should select assumptions as of any particular date. For other calculations under the statute, in contrast, Congress did much more to specify the relevant assumptions. Congress’ failure to specify the relevant assumptions here, Jackson “presume[s,] is intentional.”In the grand scheme of ERISA litigation, I doubt this will be an important decision. The justices needed to decide it because courts in New York were applying a contrary rule, but it seems unlikely to shed light on the general provisions governing plan administration that spark the great bulk of ERISA litigation.Read more

Last month, The New York Times published a major scoop: the inside story of the Supreme Court’s 2016 order blocking then-President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, an environmental initiative intended to address climate change, on its interim docket.In the story, Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak suggested that the order “marks the birth … of the court’s modern ‘shadow docket,’ the secretive track that the Supreme Court has since used to make many major decisions.” But Kantor and Liptak’s story was notable for another reason: it relied on a series of confidential internal memos that the Times had obtained from an undisclosed source. This was a rare leak from an institution that prides itself on keeping its internal workings out of the public eye – and has mostly, but not entirely, succeeded.Perhaps the leak that will come to most readers’ minds was also one of the most significant leaks in Supreme Court history. On May 2, 2022, Politico reporters Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward published what they described as a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that would overturn the constitutional right to an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade.The Supreme Court confirmed that the draft opinion was authentic and announced that the court’s marshal, Gail Curley, would lead an investigation into the leak. In January 2023, however, the court released a report in which it revealed that Curley’s team had “to date been unable to identify a person responsible” for the leak “by a preponderance of the evidence.”The draft opinion itself sparked protests around the country, including at the Supreme Court building and some justices’ houses. Justice Brett Kavanaugh was also the target of an attempted assassination in June 2022. The would-be assassin, who cited the leak of the draft opinion as a motive, pleaded guilty last year and was sentenced to eight years in a federal prison.Although the Dobbs leak was one of the most dramatic leaks in Supreme Court history, leaks of confidential information (without confidential documents accompanying that information) have been significantly more common – if not commonplace – for more than a century.Some of these leaks occurred before the decisions involved were released. Shortly after the Dobbs leak, for example, law professor Jonathan Peters noted that in the 1850s, the New York Tribune revealed the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision in a dispute between Pennsylvania and the Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Company not once but twice – in 1852 and then again when the case came back to the court in 1854.In 2002, John Owens, now a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, recounted the story of Ashton Embry, a former law clerk to Justice Joseph McKenna who was indicted in 1920 on charges that he had leaked the results of the Supreme Court’s decision in a case involving Southern Pacific Railroad to investors, who made money by selling the company’s stock before the decision was released. Embry’s indictment was dismissed nearly a decade later.Although the draft opinion itself was not leaked in Roe, there were two different leaks disclosing the machinations behind the scenes, and ultimately the results, in that case. The first leak, Peters noted, was an unsigned 1972 article in The Washington Post that described the “internal court struggle over” the case, including the results of the initial vote and efforts by then-Chief Justice Warren Burger to delay the court’s decision. The story also discussed the substance of several private notes and memoranda exchanged among the justices, although it did not publish the notes and memoranda themselves.And in 1973, a law clerk revealed the results of the decision to a reporter for Time magazine, giving him the information “on background” to use after the opinion was released. But the opinion was delayed, and Time instead published the story shortly before the opinion announcement on Jan. 22, 1973. According to Peters, the incident led to Burger’s creation of what became known as the “20-second rule” for law clerks: any law clerk seen talking to a reporter would be automatically fired within 20 seconds.Court insiders have also disclosed confidential information to reporters after decisions have already been released, often shedding new light on the court’s decision-making process even if the results in a particular case are already public. In 1979, journalists Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong published The Brethren, a detailed, behind-the-scenes look at the first few years of Warren Burger’s tenure as the court’s chief justice. Closed Chambers, published in 1998 by Edward Lazarus, pulled back the curtain on his year as a law clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun.And in October 2004, law clerks who were working at the court when the justices issued their 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the presidential election recount in Florida and allowed for the victory of George W. Bush, spoke with reporters for Vanity Fair. The clerks, who were not identified, offered a detailed look behind the scenes of the court’s handling of the litigation and criticized the court’s decision as driven by partisanship on the part of the court’s conservative justices; the article, and the clerks’ decision to speak with Vanity Fair, in turn drew criticism from other former law clerks and judges. Eight years later, Jan Crawford of CBS News broke the story of an about-face by Chief Justice John Roberts on the validity of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which required nearly everyone in the United States to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Roberts, Crawford wrote, “initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, … but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law.” Crawford attributed her reporting to “two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.”In 2019, CNN’s Joan Biskupic reported that Roberts had changed his vote in the challenge to the inclusion of a question about citizenship on the 2020 census, ultimately agreeing with the court’s (then) four Democratic appointees that there was “a significant mismatch between the decision the Secretary made and the rationale he provided.” Much like Crawford, Biskupic wrote that her information came from “sources familiar with the private Supreme Court deliberations.”Just over a year and a half after the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs, Kantor and Liptak reported on the “inside story” of the Dobbs decision. Among the many details revealed for the first time in their story was that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who eventually joined Alito’s opinion overturning Roe, at one point voted against taking the case. Moreover, they wrote, although the justices agreed in early January 2021 to grant review, the court delayed its announcement that it would hear oral argument in the case until May, at Kavanaugh’s suggestion.In 2024, Kantor and Liptak pulled back the curtain on yet another set of proceedings at the court that had already concluded, this time involving (among others) the court’s decision granting President Donald Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his acts as president. Roberts, Kantor and Liptak reported, had sent his colleagues “a confidential memo that radiated frustration and certainty.” “He wrote,” they continued, “not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it.”In a recent appearance on Fox News Sunday to promote his new children’s book, Justice Neil Gorsuch criticized the recent spate of leaks, saying that the court needs to be able to “leave room for candid conversations and deliberations with one another.” But with the current divisions on the court, and the aggressive efforts by outlets like The New York Times to uncover more information about what is going on behind the scenes, we may well see even more leaks in the years to come.Read more

President Donald Trump’s trade war has driven Canadians from Las Vegas. Democrats think it will help them protect their Nevada battleground seats in November. Last year, as Trump levied tariffs on Canada, visits from Canadians — who account for up to half of Las Vegas’ foreign tourism — dropped off by 17 percent. That played a large role in a 7.5 percent year-over-year decline in total tourist visits, making 2025 the worst non-pandemic year for Las Vegas since the city started tracking data in 1970. Now, as peak tourism season arrives in a battleground state where Republicans’ control of the House could be won or lost, Democrats are pushing voters to see the tourism slump as a direct impact of Trump’s levies. “Trump instituted his reckless tariffs. In response, Canadians have literally boycotted traveling to America,” said Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), whose Las Vegas-area seat is Republicans’ top target in the state. “That has had a significant impact on our tourism.” Trump narrowly carried Lee’s district in 2024 and nearly won two other Vegas-area districts held by Democrats. Republicans are less bullish than they were a year ago about flipping the seats, but they view Lee’s as their best chance. The races are a rare example of the international politics of tariffs — beyond their direct economic impact — playing a major role in an election. Unlike the upper Midwest or the Great Plains, Nevada doesn’t have a large manufacturing or agricultural sector jolted by the tariffs. Instead, the product most affected is the state’s Canadian visitors — who, on any given year, make up between 25 and 50 percent of Las Vegas’ foreign tourism market. Spokespeople for the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee criticized Nevada’s Democratic congresspeople for voting against last year’s reconciliation bill, which included a “no tax on tips” provision. “If they actually cared about affordability, they wouldn’t have spent years making Nevada harder and more expensive to live in,” NRCC spokesperson Christian Martinez said. Kush Desai, spokesperson for the White House, noted the “vast majority of Las Vegas tourists are Americans,” adding that the Trump administration “is focused on unleashing the historic job, wage, and economic growth that the American people experienced during President Trump’s first term with the President’s proven agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, and energy abundance.” Many Canadians, incensed by Trump’s tariffs and his “51st state” taunts, have boycotted U.S. products and tourist destinations in retaliation. It coincides with an overall dropoff in Canadians’ view of their southern neighbor: According to a POLITICO Poll in February, a majority of Canadians now think the U.S. is an unreliable ally. Even some Nevada Republicans acknowledge the problem. “The Canadians aren’t coming the way they were. Wonder why that is, huh?” Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), who isn’t running for reelection in his northern Nevada seat, said with a chuckle. “The communications for the tariff stuff was suboptimal.” The dropoff in Canadian visitors played a role in stagnating a Las Vegas hospitality sector reliant on wealthy international visitors spending in the city’s casinos and hotels. A string of Las Vegas restaurants closed in recent months, some citing a downturn in visitors. And while employment has increased recently in the entertainment and recreation sectors, hiring in food and accommodation has been stagnant, according to Andrew Woods, an economist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. The decline has been severe enough that local industry is taking dramatic steps to try to lure back lost business amidst an ongoing boycott from Canada. A group of Las Vegas resorts is offering to treat Canadian dollars at par with U.S. dollars, effectively a 30 percent discount, and hosting free concerts featuring Canadian artists. And the city’s tourism office recently launched a $3.5 million marketing campaign targeting Canadian visitors. But it’s hard to overcome national patriotic fury with an ad campaign. “Despite the efforts of our major operators in Las Vegas, the headwinds are coming from these external forces and the policies of this administration, and that’s what’s creating the economic uncertainty that we’re facing right now in Las Vegas,” said Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), whose district Trump lost by less than 3 points. Overall tourist visits ticked up in February and March from those months the year earlier, offering a silver lining to the service industry. But the previous year of declining numbers created a deep hole to dig out of, said Ted Pappageorge, secretary/treasurer of the state’s powerful Culinary Union, which represents 60,000 cooks, roomkeepers and other hospitality workers in the state. If the low numbers continue, the union — which endorsed Democrats in all four of Nevada’s congressional races — is considering putting together relief efforts for its struggling members like it did during Covid, which included food, utility and rent assistance. “If there’s anything like the reduction in visitation that happened last year, if that happens this year, then we’ll be in relief effort territory for our members,” said Pappageorge, noting “thousands and thousands of hours” have been cut for his union’s members this year due to reductions and restaurant closures. Marty O’Donnell — the GOP front-runner to face Lee, who has the backing of Trump and the NRCC — was once skeptical of tariffs, but now says he “fully support(s)” the president’s trade policy. “I’m now a convert, because what I see Donald Trump doing with tariffs is not something I ever anticipated,” O’Donnell said in an interview. “He uses it as a negotiating tool in a way that I never anticipated, and I actually love what he’s doing.” O’Donnell said tariffs aren’t at the top of voters’ list of concerns. “I don’t hear anybody complaining about tariffs,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s an issue. I think there are way, way more important issues.” One Nevada Republican strategist assisting multiple campaigns this cycle, granted anonymity to speak candidly about GOP strategy, admitted that Canadians were upset by Trump’s threats to make the country the “51st state” last year. But he and other Republicans pointed to an uptick in visitors in February and March. The strategist also noted the fact that Nevada added jobs at a faster rate than any other state in April, even though it has the nation’s third-highest unemployment rate. Those recent economic wins take the air out of Democrats’ attack, the strategist said. “There are some bright spots,” O’Donnell senior adviser Keith Schipper said. “We’re talking about tariffs less so now than even six months, eight months ago.” Republicans also point to the popularity of Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, who they hope can win reelection in a tough environment and pull down-ballot candidates over the finish line. In a February poll, he was still viewed positively by a majority of Nevada voters even as Trump’s job approval dipped to 41 percent. Not all economic indicators are dire, said Woods, the UNLV economist. The high-end hospitality sector is doing well, and an uptick in convention and business travelers has more than replaced the loss of Canadian tourists in numbers. “Canadian visitors, though, tend to stay longer and make Vegas their prime destination compared to other international tourists, which is good for our economy,” he said. The local tourism drop lands on top of other economic concerns that are impacting everyone. A new CNN/SSRS poll conducted in late April and early May found that 77 percent of U.S. voters say Trump’s policies have increased the cost of living in their own community. And a surge in energy prices driven by the war in Iran led to inflation reaching its highest point in three years. But Las Vegas is still an industry town. And with the main industry suffering, Democrats are banking on their races going their way. “There’s a lot of service industry folks here, and so those folks are in the social circles in town,” said John Oceguera, the former Democratic speaker of the Nevada Assembly. “Whether you’re at a little league baseball game or a school event or whatnot, people are talking about that.”Read more

The D.C. mayor’s race is crowded. Seven Democratic candidates are dueling to succeed Muriel Bowser — a job that will mean sharing custody of the District with Donald Trump, and threading a needle between defending home rule without running afoul of the president’s popular initiatives touting safety and beautification. The shift in management is certain to spark a flurry of new fates for the capital, spanning public parks, national monuments and the Metropolitan Police Department. Janeese Lewis George, one of two frontrunners in the race alongside Kenyan McDuffie, said restorations like the Meridian Hill Park fountain represent “the type of investment we want to see the federal government making in our city.” “My only issue is if this is one-time funding and not consistent funding,” Lewis George said in an interview, adding that the National Park Service, which aids beautification, has been notoriously underfunded, and many NPS employees were fired in the administration’s DOGE days. She wants to find a sustainable way to keep the projects rolling with help from the Interior Department. Rini Sampath is a federal contractor who’s never run for public office, and the first-ever South Asian to qualify for the D.C. mayoral ballot. She’s skeptical of Trump’s efforts to make D.C. beautiful again. “Trump is not necessarily the safest actor in all of this,” Sampath said. “He does so much of this haphazardly,” she added, pointing to other projects like the proposed 250-foot triumphal arch. “There’s no such thing as free lunch with a relationship with the president of the United States,” Sampath said. “While you want to immediately go toward praising his accomplishments, I just don’t think it comes for free. I think there’s always some kind of a caveat.” The fountain at Meridian Hill Park, known to locals as Malcolm X Park, shut off in 2019, just four years into Bowser’s tenure. Vincent “VO” Orange, who’s spent nearly 15 years in D.C. politics, said “it felt like a gut punch” when the fountain was turned off. Orange, the former president of D.C.’s Chamber of Commerce and at-large council member, acknowledged the effort requires maintenance and funding to keep projects alive. But he’s “all in” for future endeavors. Police reform has also roiled the race — particularly in light of Trump’s push to crack down on crime. There’s general consensus an MPD shakeup is coming. Interim Chief Jeffery Carroll is likely on the way out no matter who wins the race. In a forum this month, zero of the six participating candidates raised their hand when asked if they would keep Carroll in the post. Three of the candidates told POLITICO they’d remove Carroll, one was on the fence, and the other two said their lack of a raised hand was equivalent to declining comment. Gary Goodweather, a business executive who’s never run for public office and is third in polling, is one of the candidates in the removal camp. Why? “Primarily, controversy,” Goodweather said. “Drama.” Carroll is part of an ongoing lawsuit filed by several Black female MPD officers who claim he and other high-ranking officers contributed to a “toxic work environment” with continuous systemic disparate treatment and discriminatory actions toward them, according to the suit. The events occurred when Carroll was MPD assistant chief. MPD declined to comment. The MPD put 13 officers on administrative leave earlier this month following an internal investigation into how the department records crime stats — a concern that rose all the way to Congress and U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro’s office. There are also questions about the MPD’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. McDuffie, a former at-large councilmember, said in a statement he’d “appoint a chief who restores accountability and transparency.” Ernest Johnson, CEO of the Frank Reeves Center nonprofit, said he wouldn’t announce his position publicly. But not everyone agrees. Hope Solomon, a small business owner who’s never run for public office, is the only candidate who plainly told POLITICO they wouldn’t fire Carroll, who she said faces “a difficult task.” “It’s a balancing act with the federal law enforcement and then pressure from Congress about policing in D.C.,” Solomon said, adding she aims to boost officer recruitment and address staffing shortages that have stretched the department. That mirrors the task that whoever wins the June 16 primary will likely face come November — with two more years of the Trump presidency to go. “It’s a delicate dance that we are playing with the federal government,” she added. Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.Read more

Programming note: We’ll be off this Monday but will be back in your inboxes on Tuesday. DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 52 ALBANY AUTOPSY ANGST: National Democrats entrusted their 2024 autopsy to a strategist entwined with another long-ago party calamity: the Obama-era implosion of the New York Senate. Paul Rivera previously served as a key adviser to state Senate Democratic leader John Sampson, a Brooklyn lawmaker who led an infamously dysfunctional majority for part of 2009 and into 2010 — and was later convicted of federal fraud charges. Rivera arrived in the Senate with a strong resume after working on gubernatorial and presidential campaigns, including Al Gore and John Kerry. Staffers and lawmakers alike found him to be an inscrutable, enigmatic aide who murmured advice in the background. It was the kind of shapeless profile many advisers hone in power centers across the globe, but seemed especially befitting a state Capitol known for its bewildering opacity. “The man lurked in the shadows. No one knew where he came from,” former Democratic Senate press aide Travis Proulx said. “It was like a ship in the night working with him. Of everyone I’ve ever worked with he stands out as the man behind the curtain. No one knew how he got there.” Rivera did not return five phone calls and text messages seeking comment on Thursday and Friday. Sampson also did not return messages seeking comment. The strategist has little national profile, but his involvement in crafting the widely panned autopsy report was befuddling to Albany Democrats who recall with unease a deeply broken era of New York politics. They still shudder when thinking about their unhappy two-year state Senate majority during the Obama years. Rivera’s Zelig-like reputation was fostered during that benighted era and even lawmakers struggled to figure out where his power flowed from in the building. “You never know who he was really loyal to, on whose behalf he was acting,” said former Democratic state Sen. Diane Savino. Rivera’s name does not appear on the Democratic National Committee’s 192-page report on the 2024 election, formally released Thursday after it was published online by CNN. The autopsy was widely criticized by party officials, ex-Harris campaign aides and former Biden staffers. The report did not include any references to the party’s challenges over Israel and Gaza, while only making passing references to President Joe Biden’s decision to step aside — widely considered two crucial reasons for the party’s failure two years ago. DNC Chair Ken Martin apologized for the document in a long statement. But that hasn’t stemmed widespread calls for him to resign the leadership post he’s held for less than 18 months. Democratic alumni of the fractious state Senate Democratic conference in Albany were flabbergasted that the national party would hand such an important job — analyzing why droves of Americans backed President Donald Trump’s unlikely White House return — to a strategist associated with a disastrous era for Empire State Democrats. “He sold himself as a guy who knew everything and that he was a master of politics,” Savino said of the former Senate aide’s Albany tenure. “He didn’t know what the fuck he was talking about.” Read more from POLITICO’s Nick Reisman. From the CapitolMICAH’S SUPERNATURAL VOTE: Assemblymember and former teen magician Micah Lasher seemingly made a miraculous journey to New York City from Albany on Thursday. And Lasher — who is running for the congressional seat held by retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler — is refusing to answer questions about how it happened. The assemblymember apparently was able to cast his vote from Albany at around 4:50 p.m. and make it to Manhattan’s Upper West Side in time for a 7 p.m. candidate forum. Anyone who’s ever driven the roughly 150 miles from Albany to New York City knows that timetable stretches the limits of reality — unless you’re driving well over the speed limit and get a lucky streak of zero traffic congestion. Lasher’s campaign refused to say where he physically was at the time he voted, and then ignored multiple follow-up calls from Playbook. The vote was on a budget bill that included a slate of measures designed to protect immigrants from the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics. Lasher has called for the abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the campaign trail, and even traveled to Minnesota in January to join protests against the federal agency. Earlier today, Lasher touted passage of the bill, saying “I am incredibly proud to have authored this legislation to protect the dignity and safety of all.” Assembly rules state members need to be in the “bar of the House” in order to be considered present. The “bar” is defined as “the entire Assembly Chamber and lobbies contiguous thereto as designated by the Speaker.” As our Playbook colleague Bill Mahoney reported last month, members have taken advantage of the policy by routinely being absent from the chambers during votes and debates. Instead, many clock in during the morning and then spend session elsewhere in the Capitol or the adjacent Legislative Office Building. Because they’re technically checked-in and considered present, the members are automatically counted as a “yes” vote on legislation — even if they’re holed up somewhere else in the Capitol complex. But there’s no indication the “bar” of the House extends to the Catskill exit of the New York State Thruway — a reasonable, but still tight, starting point for someone hoping to make it all the way to West 97th St. in 130 minutes. And if members do need to leave town early, they’re instructed to tell Assembly leadership so they don’t get mistakenly counted in the vote tally when they’re in another zip code. Assemblymember Alex Bores, who is also running for the congressional seat — along with Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg and former Republican Trump antagonist George Conway — made it to the forum late because he voted for the bill and also took time to explain his vote on the floor. After Bores apologized for his tardiness at the forum, which was hosted by a group of tenant associations, he expressed befuddlement at how Lasher was seemingly able to beam across the Hudson Valley and also cast his vote. “You got to tell me the route that gets me here in two hours. That’s remarkable,” Bores said, in a video reviewed by Playbook. “You voted on it?” “I did,” Lasher said, giving a nod. — Jason Beeferman BURSTING INTO TIERS: A package of changes to the Tier 6 pension plan have been finalized as state budget talks come to an end, two people familiar with the conversations said. “Tier 6 is done,” said one of the people, who was granted anonymity to relay the closed-door negotiations. The changes will allow teachers to retire at age 58 after 30 years of service. Employee contribution rates for many public workers will fall to 3 percent of their pay checks. The total cost stands at more than $550 million a year spread out between the state government, municipalities and school districts. The provision is expected to be tucked inside the transportation and economic development budget bill. The overhaul represents a major victory for labor, which has detested the less-generous pension tier since its 2012 inception. Read more from POLITICO Pro’s Nick Reisman.FROM CITY HALLSIGNS OF LIFE: The zombie charter revision commission created by former Mayor Eric Adams will release a report next week listing proposed changes to the City Charter the body may pursue — even as state legislation seeks to kill the outfit altogether and ensure it stays dead. The report, which was obtained by Playbook, is set to appear in the City Record Tuesday. In addition to the prospect of open primaries, it suggests more reforms to the city’s land use process, prohibiting elected officials from giving themselves pay raises and making it harder to change term limit laws. The report also muses about making permanent several mayoral offices relating to combating hate crimes and antisemitism and forcing City Hall to fund future charter revision commissions. That last one is key. This particular commission was created on the last day of Adams’ tenure and is being spearheaded by his first deputy mayor, Randy Mastro. The rogue body is advancing proposals that would make life difficult for Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Open primaries, for example, would empower more moderate candidates and complicate the mayor’s reelection prospects. The report also recommended putting to voters several executive orders related to combating antisemitism that were signed by Adams — also in the waning days of his term — and left to lapse by the current mayor. The expiration of the executive orders predictably sparked consternation with many Jewish residents. The commission has been criticized as an abuse of the process by city and state government ethics organizations — even by those who support the concept of open primaries. And while Mamdani has starved the commission of funds, Albany went a step further by passing legislation Thursday that effectively dissolves the body. The mayor has been playing coy about what he will do (despite being the person who asked for the state provision in the first place). He said at a press conference Thursday he is still considering his options. The commission remains undeterred, however. It plans to sue over the state legislation while plowing ahead with its work. A public hearing remains on the schedule for next week. Kayla Mamelak Altus, a commission member, said state lawmakers are attempting to silence the will of the people, who would otherwise be able to help shape the commission’s eventual ballot questions. “That should send chills down the spines of all New Yorkers who care about having a voice in our local democracy,” she said in a statement. “This attempt to retroactively dismantle a legally constituted Charter Revision Commission in the middle of its work flies in the face of municipal home rule.” — Joe Anuta FROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAILBREWING SUPPORT: City Council member and Upper West Side fixture Gale Brewer has endorsed Stephanie Ruskay in the race for an open state Assembly seat covering the vote-rich enclave. “We need leaders who are smart, compassionate, and deeply rooted in the communities they serve,” Brewer said in a statement shared exclusively with Playbook. “That’s why I’m proud to support Stephanie Ruskay for State Assembly.” Ruskay, who would be the first female rabbi elected to the state Legislature, is running for the seat being vacated by Assemblymember Micah Lasher, who himself is vying for an open congressional seat. In addition to Brewer, who has represented the area over two stints in the Council, Ruskay is being backed by a number of sitting officials including City Comptroller Mark Levine, Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal and City Council member Shaun Abreu. She’s locked in a battle with Eli Northrup, a public defender who has received endorsements from local Democratic clubs and organizations farther to the left in a proxy war between different wings of the Democratic Party. — Joe AnutaIN OTHER NEWS— PRESSURE FROM WITHIN: Hundreds of immigrants detained at a Newark immigration detention center went on a hunger and labor strike, demanding the facility’s closure, their release and visits from elected officials. (Gothamist) — PLAY NICE!: Kathy Wylde, former head of the Partnership for New York City and a key business broker, is again playing go-between for Mamdani and corporate leaders. (New York Post) — FARE FIGHT: World Cup fans are opting for $20 buses over $98 train rides to MetLife Stadium, amid backlash over steep transit prices. (The New York Times) Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.Read more

Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here’s an offering of the best of this week’s crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.Read more

Ukraine’s ambassador on Trump, Putin and the path to peace lead imageRead more

DAYS THE BUDGET IS LATE: 51 CROWD CONTROL: State Democrats are aligned on reining in ICE — but there’s sharp disagreements over whether the measures will meaningfully impact the NYPD. Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers passed a package of measures this afternoon that seek to curtail federal immigration enforcement agents’ operations in New York. “Tom Homan can shove it,” Brooklyn state Sen. Andrew Gounardes said at a press conference this morning, referring to the Trump administration’s border czar. The package aims to restrict the ability of police departments like the NYPD to control crowds while federal officers conduct immigration enforcement actions. “If ICE or DHS ask a local police department to facilitate their operations — lock down the street, clear out traffic, cordon off an area, put up, ‘do not cross signs,’… those types of actions would no longer be allowed,” Gounardes said of the immigration package. Also in the agreement: banning masks for federal and local law enforcement and creating a list of “sensitive locations” that ICE won’t be able to enter without a judicial warrant. The slew of anti-ICE measures are just the latest effort by Democrats in blue states like New York to push back against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration tactics. But the push to prohibit local police departments from cooperating with federal immigration authorities is likely to prove messy on the ground — as evidenced by a recent fracas in Brooklyn. A host of elected allies of Zohran Mamdani pointed fingers at the mayor and police commissioner Jessica Tisch earlier this month when the NYPD took steps to control a crowd of anti-ICE protesters who tried to obstruct federal officers that detained an undocumented man and transported him to Wyckoff Heights Medical Center. The NYPD says officers were doing their job by responding to 911 calls about disorderly protesters — and they also say these new measures wouldn’t have had any effect on how they operated that evening in front of Wykoff. During those efforts, eight people were arrested due to scuffles with cops and attempts to block the federal officers’ exits. Videos depict a chaotic scene, with the NYPD seen throwing a protester to the ground. But protesters say the NYPD’s efforts to control the crowd made it so the city’s cops, directly or indirectly, were supporting ICE and clearing a path for their movements. Brooklyn state Sen. Julia Salazar, a key backer of the immigration measures, insists the new language from the state would’ve stopped the NYPD from interfering with anti-ICE protesters outside the Brooklyn hospital that day. “Someone was quite violently taken into ICE custody by ICE agents,” Salazar said, recounting the incident. “Then they were taken to Wyckoff Heights Medical Center in Bushwick, and the police officers from the NYPD facilitated the entry and exit of those officers — which would be prohibited going forward.” An NYPD spokesperson told Playbook the “legislation will not impact the NYPD because we do not engage in civil immigration enforcement, period.” The actual language of the bill would bar any “informal agreement” with federal immigration authorities “under which an officer or employee may engage in or assist immigration enforcement, or otherwise may perform a function of an immigration officer.” The dispute over its actual effect prompts questions about the role of local cops to ensure order in the face of anti-ICE demonstrations, especially after similar protests turned deadly in Minnesota. Mamdani’s spokesperson Dora Pekec said city policy already prohibits coordination between the NYPD and ICE and that “the Mayor supports this piece of legislation and has made clear that he believes ICE has no role in promoting public safety here in New York City.” Tomorrow Mamdani will release a report – resulting from a February executive order – examining all city interactions with federal immigration enforcement efforts. At a May 12 event hosted by the Association for a Better New York, Tisch slammed critics who said the NYPD was colluding with ICE at Wyckoff. “NYPD officers, in the middle of the night, amid chaos outside of their control, did their job professionally and skillfully and made sure events did not spiral into a calamity,” she said. “The critics of the NYPD’s actions — those who would have us stand aside and call cops doing their jobs collusion – have lost sight of the lives at stake.” The Wyckoff incident prompted rare public criticism of the Mamdani administration from left-leaning lawmakers who held an emergency press conference and wrote a letter decrying the NYPD’s actions that evening. “They provided security for ICE,” City Council member Sandy Nurse, who represents the area, said of the incident. In a statement, Hochul spokesperson Jen Goodman said the new law “would not ban local law enforcement from actions like crowd control in the interest of protecting New Yorkers.” — Jason BeefermanFROM THE CAMPAIGN TRAILPOLL-A-PALOOZA: We’ve got the latest snapshots of the city’s most competitive primaries in a trio of surveys from Emerson College Polling for PIX 11 — rare outside polling in these races. The biggest gap: Former City Comptroller Brad Lander, who’s challenging Rep. Dan Goldman, is leading by a whopping 34 points. The survey has Lander with 57 percent support, compared to the incumbent’s 23 percent. One in five likely Democratic primary voters are undecided. Goldman’s campaign was quick to dispute the results: “This poll is not remotely close to an accurate read of this race,” campaign manager Simone Kanter wrote on X. “The data we’ve seen shows a dead heat after messaging.” He went on to argue that the survey oversampled college-educated voters and young people, writing that the poll “is assuming an electorate that looks exactly like the once-in-a-generation turnout Mamdani mobilized when he was on the ballot.” (Mamdani has endorsed Lander in the race, which will be a test of the mayor’s political muscle.) Emily Minster, a spokesperson for Lander’s campaign, said they are “taking nothing for granted.” A recent internal poll from a pro-Goldman super PAC found the incumbent trailing Lander by 5 points. Goldman has been up on the air for weeks; Lander began advertising today. The polls showed far tighter races in the other primaries for NY-07 and NY-12, which are being vacated by retiring Reps. Nydia Velázquez and Jerry Nadler, respectively. In NY-07, state Assemblymember Claire Valdez has 23 percent support, followed by Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso with 21 percent. City Council member Julie Won comes in at 13 percent and public defender Vichal Kumar at 1 percent. Valdez leads among Hispanic voters and is running about even with Won among Asian voters. An eye-popping 43 percent of respondents are undecided — giving the campaigns a major opportunity to grow their support. The race for NY-10 is competitive between state Assemblymembers Micah Lasher and Alex Bores, who come in at 22 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg has 11 percent, while anti-Trump commentator George Conway has 10 percent and public health practitioner Nina Schwalbe has 3 percent. Around a third of respondents are undecided. Recent surveys — nearly all of which have been internal polls — also showed a tight race, with Lasher and Bores toward the front of the pack. Earlier this year, Schlossberg had a slight lead in polls. Heavy outside spending has occurred in recent weeks in favor of Lasher, as well as groups both spending for and against Bores. Mamdani has a strong approval rating in all three districts: 78 percent approve of him in the 7th, 79 percent in the 10th and 66 percent in the 12th. The polls were conducted May 16-17 among likely Democratic primary voters. In the 7th, there were 350 respondents and a margin of error of plus-or-minus 5.2 percentage points. In the 10th, there were 450 respondents and a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.6 percentage points. In the 12th, there were 425 respondents and a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4.8 percentage points. — Madison Fernandez NOT THERE: Democrats are feeling good heading into this year’s midterms. But good enough to not donate to battleground Rep. Laura Gillen? Oath, a donor platform that measures which Democrats it would be most effective to support, shared new recommendations for which candidates should make the cut, our colleagues in D.C. reported this morning. Among those who fall into the do-not-donate category is Gillen, whose Long Island seat that she narrowly flipped in 2024 is widely considered a crucial 2026 contest for control of the House. In a memo, Oath rationalized that Gillen’s seat is “moving into safe Democratic territory” and “does not have a Republican opponent who even raised $100,000.” However, it’s unclear how much Hempstead Receiver of Taxes Jeanine Driscoll, local Republicans’ candidate of choice, has raised. She entered the race in April — after the second fundraising quarter began — and has not filed a financial report with the Federal Election Commission. Driscoll’s primary opponent, Air Force veteran Marvin Williams, has raised close to $90,000 — most of which was self-funded. Also adding uncertainty to upcoming elections is a pending case in the Supreme Court that could open the floodgates to massive political spending from the national parties and benefit Republicans. “Laura Gillen is running in a fiercely competitive Frontline seat,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Riya Vashi said in a statement. “The DCCC is committed to ensuring Laura has the resources and support she needs to win this November.” — Madison FernandezFrom the CapitolTHE WHEELS ON THE BUS: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has spent months working with other agencies planning for “nightmare scenarios” involving waylaid trains and buses during the World Cup, its executive director said Thursday. Those plans could come in handy given the history of heat-related problems in the region and a pair of fires that disrupted service in and out of Penn Station in the past week. New Jersey Transit’s backup plan for waylaid trains is a fleet of buses to carry fans. But those buses also break down in the heat and will need to get through the Port Authority’s tunnels to reach MetLife Stadium where eight World Cup matches will be played. So the Port Authority is working on a backup plan for the backup plan, including freeing up lanes in the Lincoln Tunnel that normally go in one direction to go in another. “It’s going to be July, it’s going to be hot, on any given day we have bus break downs because the engine gets too hot,” Port Authority head Kathryn Garcia told reporters following a board meeting today. “We need to be able to be very flexible.” Port Authority Chair Kevin O’Toole said during the hottest day last week he was behind a bus that broke down in the Lincoln Tunnel. Within five minutes a tow truck was there and another bus came to pick up the passengers. “We are going to anticipate certain breakdowns and hopefully we can do our best to accommodate the public,” he said. — Ry RivardFROM CITY HALLNOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE: Mamdani announced a deal today to provide 1,000 World Cup tickets to New Yorkers at $50 a pop. The mayor unveiled his discount ticket scheme this morning at a beer garden in Harlem, rattling off teams, players and moments from World Cups of yore before getting to the meat of his announcement. “We’re so excited, frankly, because we know that there are so many New Yorkers who thought that there was no way they could afford to go to this tournament, and now there is that glimpse of an opportunity,” the mayor said. But New Jersey Democrats were having none of it. They attacked FIFA – soccer’s global governing body – for the discounted tickets, which are only available to New York residents, even though the matches are being played in the Garden State. “This publicity stunt does nothing to address the cost of tickets,” New Jersey Democratic Reps. Nellie Pou and Frank Pallone said in a joint statement. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s spokesperson, Stephen Sigmund, said “FIFA not caring about costs for New Jersey residents isn’t new.” FIFA said the agreement was between the local host committee and the mayor’s office, and that FIFA was only involved in ensuring the tickets went to fans who genuinely planned to attend rather than sell tickets. New York and New Jersey officials have repeatedly sparred over how to run the upcoming tournament, despite being co-hosts. Most of that dust up to date has been over dueling bus and train services to get fans to matches. — Ry Rivard and Joe Anuta In Other News— SUITED UP: Mamdani’s top lawyer, Ramzi Kaseem, brings a history of suing the NYPD and defending high-profile civil liberties cases to City Hall. (The New York Times) — ICED OUT: A Manhattan parking garage removed federal vehicles after protesters alleged they were being used by immigration enforcement agents. (Gothamist) — SHEIK UP: The Mamdani administration distanced itself from the views of an Islamic leader who has cast doubts on basic facts about the Holocaust. The mayor has met with the controversial figure at least three times since January 2025. (Washington Free Beacon) Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.Read more

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton says he wants to end his campaign on a “positive” note. Sen. John Cornyn, however, is prepared to go down fighting. Paxton said Thursday he’s pulling his negative ads against Cornyn in the final days ahead of their bruising GOP primary for Texas’ Senate seat. The move reveals that the MAGA warrior, bolstered by President Donald Trump’s endorsement, is confident in his ability to clinch the Republican nomination. But Cornyn, who’s facing an uphill battle to keep his seat, responded that he will keep his own attacks coming, leaning into Paxton’s long trail of personal and political scandals. In a race that’s been defined by personal shots, the latest online dustup between the two underscores the difficult path forward for the Texas GOP after next week’s runoff election. The Paxton-Cornyn matchup has deepened divisions between the MAGA and establishment wings of the GOP, and the fighting between the two camps has gotten so ugly that some Republicans are fearful it will dampen turnout in the midterms, hurt down-ticket Republicans — and possibly cost them the seat. Paxton’s announcement came after Texas GOP Chair Abraham George, a fellow conservative hardliner, asked the candidates to move beyond their feud out of consideration of the fight ahead to keep the seat red. The attorney general, who has gone after Cornyn for being too old to continue serving in Congress, wrote on X that his campaign has “already changed our TV ad traffic starting today to ensure our campaign ends on a positive note and that we can focus on beating the leftist lunatic in the fall,” referring to Democratic nominee James Talarico. He called on Cornyn “to do the same for the good of our party. A Super PAC supporting Paxton, Lone Star Liberty, also announced Tuesday it was pulling its own negative ads. Cornyn respondedin a post on X that Paxton is “desperate to avoid accountability” — and laid out exactly how bruising his ads will remain, saying the campaign needs a few more days to make sure voters know “that you plea bargained with a child sex offender, offering them only one day in prison and no sex offender registry as a favor” to a donor. He was referring to a recent report by the Texas Tribune on a plea deal Paxton offered to a man facing sexual abuse charges. Cornyn and his allies have poured millions into brutal, personal ads trying to defeat Paxton — and they’ve had a lot of material to work with. Paxton has faced an impeachment attempt by the state legislature, ethics complaints from his staff and a federal securities fraud investigation. He’s currently going through a divorce that his wife filed for on “biblical grounds.” Republicans are increasingly concerned that a Paxton nomination would put the seat in jeopardy, given his significant personal and political baggage, and bracing to spend upwards of $100 million to bail him out in the general election. Cornyn finished narrowly ahead of Paxton in the March primary, but the Trump endorsement puts Paxton in a strong position to overcome that deficit. “We are going to continue to tell the truth about Paxton,” Cornyn said in another post. “He’s escaped accountability for too long. Judgment day is coming.”Read more

Democrats’ long-awaited autopsy of the 2024 election backfired almost immediately after it was released on Thursday. The Democratic National Committee’s biting and gloomy portrait of the party immediately kicked off a fresh round of infighting, with strategists and party officials lambasting chair Ken Martin for releasing a haphazard, typo-ridden report that failed to fully capture why, exactly, the party was crushed by President Donald Trump. Martin explained his reasoning to DNC members on a private call Thursday afternoon, according to three people on the call granted anonymity to share details. One person said Martin’s post as chair is “absolutely at risk,” though they were not sure “if DNC members have enough votes to actually pass a vote of no confidence.” Martin appeared to acknowledge his shaky standing at the end of his remarks to members, thanking them for their “continued support.” “Being a leader at any level means you own every single mistake — those of your creation and frankly those not of your creation. This was a major mistake. I own it,” he said, per a recording of the call obtained by POLITICO. “And now it’s time for us to move forward at the DNC, and I hope that you’ll move forward with me.” The 192-page document — which the DNC only made public after it had been published by CNN — made no mention of Israel or Gaza and included sparse references to former President Joe Biden’s decision to run for reelection, two key elements that contributed to Trump’s 2024 win. “We should take this autopsy with a massive grain of salt. Clearly, the people who put it together ran a highly ineffective, ill-researched process. Therefore it’s difficult to draw constructive conclusions,” said Adrienne Elrod, a senior adviser on the Biden and then Harris campaigns. “What’s important is what’s missing, what they’re not releasing,” said Ashley Etienne, a former communications director for Vice President Kamala Harris who left the administration in 2021. “It feels like what the DNC is doing is cherry-picking the parts of it that it wants to actually release, that [are] less problematic for the party going forward, because most of the stuff that we’re reading right now is … not groundbreaking.” The Democratic Party is still navigating its path forward while it remains fully locked out of power in Washington and struggles to match Republicans’ cash-on-hand advantage. The report’s release comes after months of internal and external pressure on the DNC to provide lessons from 2024 in order to move forward with the looming midterms. Martin released a lengthy statement apologizing for how he handled the autopsy, which was written by Democratic strategist Paul Rivera, although his name does not appear on the released copy and he is no longer working for the DNC. The DNC never received a finished report, according to a person within the party granted anonymity to share details, and the author did not turn over a list of interviewees or transcripts despite multiple requests. The post-election analysis contains interviews with hundreds of operatives from all 50 states. David Hogg — the former DNC vice chair who was ousted over a procedural issue and has embarked on a primary spree against fellow members of his party — unsurprisingly called for Martin’s resignation. Asked why in an interview with POLITICO Thursday, Hogg responded: “I mean, have you read the report?” “This cannot be the best person to lead us in this moment,” Hogg said, emphasizing the missing elements of the report like Biden’s age and the war in Gaza. “I can think of 100 different people that could do a better job.” One Democratic operative who worked for the DNC and the Harris campaign called the autopsy a “self-inflicted wound and unfortunate given victories in New Jersey and Virginia.” Another senior Democratic operative close to the process who was granted anonymity to speak candidly said simply: “The report’s so stupid, it’s hard to make sense why something’s in there and why it’s not.” Still, James Zogby, a longtime DNC member, said the backlash to Martin may be overblown. “I’m getting calls from people saying ‘do I think he should step down?’ And the answer is no, not at all,” he said. “The people who are making the biggest fuss are the people who didn’t want him in the first place.” Even in its draft-like state, the report drew scathing conclusions as to why the party lost. Rivera, in the autopsy, wrote that Democrats “have proven incapable of projecting strength, unity, and leadership, and voters have drifted away,” citing Latino voters’ shifts to Trump and highlighting the GOP’s immense spending. The report also dings the Biden White House for saddling Harris with the immigration portfolio, which Trump and running mate JD Vance used to great effect after she took over the Democratic ticket. And simply put, Rivera implies that Republicans are better at running campaigns. “At times, it seems Democrats are trying to win arguments while Republicans are focused on winning elections,” the report says. “Democrats operate in an ecosystem defined by reason even in cycles when the electorate is defined by rage.” The Harris campaign in particular struggled to respond to an attack ad the Trump campaign ran featuring statements on transgender Americans: “They all recognized the attack was very effective,” Rivera wrote, “and felt the campaign was boxed.” Not every Democrat was upset by the release Thursday. Prominent centrist groups that argue the party has drifted too far to the left found validation in the report. “Ken Martin’s autopsy of the autopsy was excellent!” said Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist WelcomePAC. “After spending a decade accepting all edits from every progressive interest group, better to just delete all DNC strategy docs and admit we need to start from scratch. Admitting incompetence is much better than denial.” Jonathan Cowan, president of center-left group Third Way, suggested the report was shelved because it would anger progressives. “I think it’s very clear why this report was buried, because as it says in the opening, it calls for Democrats to return to the vital center,” Cowan said. “Now I understand why a lot of very Twitter-friendly, super liberal DNC staff didn’t want this to come out.” The overwhelming takeaway from the autopsy, after conversations with dozens of Democrats on Thursday, was that it’s time to move on. “Folks want to point fingers and navel gaze, and this internal fight doesn’t get us where we want to go,” said Tory Gavito, president of Way to Win, a Democratic donor table. “We are months away from an existential election period. The economy is in free fall, but the Constitution is in shreds. Democrats have to win and have to focus on what they need to do to win, and we weren’t waiting for the DNC to release a report to do that.” The postmortem’s release ends a monthlong fight within the DNC over whether or not it should have been made public at all. Martin pledged to release the document publicly in January 2025, then reversed course in December. The move infuriated Democrats at war with themselves over what went wrong in the election even as Martin said he was attempting to steer the party toward focusing on a series of post-2024 overperformances rather than continuing to publicly rehash its botched presidential effort. But pressure continued to build on the DNC to release it, with liberal groups like RootsAction flooding DNC officers with thousands of emails, as activists and allies traded conspiracy theories about what could be in the report that the organization didn’t want publicly aired. Martin reversed course — again — on Thursday, acknowledging in a Substack post that by trying to avoid creating a distraction after the party’s wins last November, “I created even bigger distraction. For that, I sincerely apologize.” By putting a bright red disclaimer atop every page noting that the “document reflects the views of the author, not the DNC” — the party made one thing very clear: It still hasn’t formed its own conclusion of what went wrong, or where it’s headed next. Dasha Burns, Samuel Benson, Gregory Svirnovskiy and Liz Crampton contributed to this report.Read more

Colorado Democrats censured Gov. Jared Polis late Wednesday for his decision to grant clemency to Tina Peters, a former county clerk who is serving a prison sentence after being convicted of allowing unauthorized access to voting machines in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The two-term governor’s decision, which he made last week, “materially harmed the Colorado Democratic Party’s institutional credibility and efforts to defend democratic institutions and election integrity,” the party said in a statement. “Colorado has spent years building trust in our elections and proving they are secure,” the party said. “At a time when democracy and voting rights are under attack across the nation, weakening accountability for someone convicted of undermining that trust is a mistake.” Peters was sentenced to roughly nine years in prison in 2024 after being convicted of state charges of assisting in the breach of state election equipment. Peters allowed a man affiliated with Mike Lindell, a conspiracy theorist aligned with President Donald Trump, to access Mesa County election systems. The state was forced to spend nearly one million dollars to replace it all, Secretary of State Jena Griswold said. In the years since, her case has become a rallying cry for Republicans who continue to falsely insist that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump. Trump himself has championed Peters’ cause. “The Governor made this decision based on the facts of the case and what he believed was the right thing to do,” Eric Maruyama, Polis’ press secretary, said in a statement. “Sometimes the right thing isn’t the popular thing with everybody. Democracy is strongest when disagreement is met with debate and dialogue, not censorship.” Polis shortened Peters’ sentence from nine years to 4.5, and she is eligible for parole soon. The governor, who has been careful to insist that his move to halve Peters’ prison term did not constitute a pardon, told CNN last week that the 2024 sentence was draconian and connected to Peters’ political beliefs. “There should be no consideration of what we say — how unpopular it is, how inaccurate it is — in sentencing or in criminal proceedings,” he said. But Democrats, including Polis’ potential successor in Colorado, were harshly critical of his decision. Sen. Michael Bennet, who is running for the state’s governor post in November, told CNN this week that Polis’ “terrible” Peters decision would disqualify him from being considered for the open Senate seat should Bennet win. “She is a stone-cold election denier,” Bennet said. “She’s never said anything other than that.”Read more

BEZOS’ BLESSING: Mayor Zohran Mamdani found an unlikely supporter today for his push to raise taxes on rich property owners: Jeff Bezos, one of the wealthiest men in the world. “The pied-à-terre tax is a fine thing for New York to do,” Bezos said in a wide-ranging interview this morning on CNBC. The billionaire Amazon founder was referring to the new surcharge that the state — after prodding from Mamdani — is expected to levy on individuals who own secondary homes in the city worth more than $5 million. Bezos, who resides mainly in Miami, gave his thumbs up even though he owns multiple homes in the city — reportedly worth well over $5 million each — meaning he’s likely to be impacted by the new tax. But Bezos, who ranks as the fourth richest man in the world, also had plenty of flack for the mayor and his democratic socialist philosophies. On pied-à-terre, Bezos blasted Mamdani for releasing a social media video in which he stood outside billionaire hedge fund manager Ken Griffin’s Manhattan penthouse to tout the tax. “To go stand in front of Ken Griffin’s house and act like he’s some kind of villain — Ken Griffin isn’t a villain,” Bezos said in the interview, which was shot inside his Florida space rocket manufacturing facility. “He hasn’t hurt anybody. He’s not hurting New York. In fact, quite the opposite. And so that piece of it isn’t right, and there was no reason to do that.” Mamdani’s video stunt has triggered a sustained uproar from business leaders who say the video was in poor taste. They’ve also argued a pied-à-terre tax is flawed because it could drive the rich to sell their properties, depleting the local tax pool. Griffin himself threatened to pull the plug on a $6 billion office development project in the city in response to Mamdani’s video. The mayor has since taken pains to meet with local business giants, like the chief executives of JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, though Griffin himself has so far rejected Mamdani’s entreaties for a sit-down. While Bezos gave Mamdani an unexpected boost on the pied-à-terre front, the Amazon honcho’s gripes with the mayor went well beyond Griffin. Mamdani has long favored raising income taxes on the rich — on both the state and federal level — arguing such hikes would create more revenue to fund services for the average person. Bezos contends that’s nonsense and pointed to the fact that the city’s public school system spends about $44,000 on every student annually — a markedly higher sum than other major U.S. cities — with little to show for it in terms of educational outcomes. “You could double the taxes I pay and it’s not going to help that teacher in Queens, I promise you,” said Bezos. Instead, he said the focus should be on eliminating taxes altogether for low-income earners. “A nurse in Queens who makes $75,000 a year pays 12 — more than $12,000 a year in taxes. Does that really make sense?” he said. “So, people talk about making the tax system more progressive. How about we start by having the nurse in Queens not pay taxes?” CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin pressed Bezos on whether billionaires like himself would need to pay more in income taxes if nurses and teachers are given a pass on their bills, given there might otherwise be a revenue shortfall. Bezos replied that is “certainly a perfectly valid policy debate.” A spokesperson for Mamdani would not comment on Bezos’ support for the pied-à-terre tax. But responding to a CNBC clip of Bezos criticizing higher taxes on the wealthy, Mamdani wrote on X: “I know a few teachers in Queens who would beg to differ.” Queens holds a special place in Bezos’ mind. In 2019, Amazon canceled plans to build a massive headquarters in Long Island City after progressives such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and former Mayor Bill de Blasio fought against awarding the mega-corporation $3 billion in public subsidies for the project. Indeed, Bezos kept coming back to Queens in his CNBC hit, even while talking about what a great career choice he believes Amazon is for working class Americans. “Amazon, we have our entry level wage for, in Queens, is $23 an hour,” he said. “That works out to be like $52,000 a year, and this is an entry level job that doesn’t require any educational attainment. It doesn’t require any preexisting skills. We will train you. It’s actually a great first job.” — Chris Sommerfeldt From the CapitolZOMBIE FIGHT: State lawmakers are expected to grant Mamdani the power to dissolve a Charter Revision Commission launched by his predecessor, providing him with a clear path to kill the controversial panel. The new authority, set to be approved in a budget bill scheduled for a Thursday vote, will give Mamdani until June 1 to either approve or rescind the commission’s creation by former Mayor Eric Adams, two people familiar with the deal said. The people, who were granted anonymity to discuss details of the yet-to-be released legislation, said Mamdani asked state officials to insert the language into the tax-and-spending plan. They also said Mamdani — who has for months sought a way to kill the Adams commission — is expected to use the authority to disband the panel once and for all. Kayla Mamelak, Adams’ former press secretary who’s among several aides and political loyalists he appointed to the commission, told POLITICO on Wednesday that no one from the panel received a heads up from state lawmakers or the mayor’s administration about the new legislation. Read more from POLITICO Pro’s Nick Reisman and Chris Sommerfeldt. LANDFILL LATTE: A plastic cup tossed into the recycling bin at a Starbucks in Park Slope traveled 463 miles to its final resting place at Apex Landfill in Amsterdam, Ohio. The cup’s long and winding road from eco-minded, brownstone Brooklyn to a tiny Ohio village underscores how little consumer plastic ends up getting recycled — even through a corporation that touts its sustainability cred. The journey was tracked by Beyond Plastics, which released a report today documenting how it attached trackers to plastic cups in Starbucks recycling bins to see where they ended up. Not a single cup ended up at a recycling facility. “When a company tells you something is being recycled and it isn’t, it doesn’t just mislead the customer, it also takes the pressure off for real solutions, which is using less plastic in the first place,” Judith Enck, president of Beyond Plastics, told reporters Wednesday. The group, a non-profit that advocates for ending plastic pollution, is lobbying for the Packaging Reduction and Recycling Infrastructure Act to pass in Albany this session. The bill is aimed at reducing single-use packaging in New York and is sponsored by Assemblymember Deborah Glick and state Sen. Pete Harckham, both Democrats. The cups in question are made of polypropylene, or No. 5 plastic. And while they are indeed recyclable, Beyond Plastics could only find a handful of commercial recycling operators in the country that claim to recycle post-consumer polypropylene. Starbucks is already using fiber to-go cups in hundreds of its outposts across 14 states. The report calls on the coffee chain to use those cups nationwide. Starbucks pushed back on the report. “Our cups are designed to be recyclable, and the ‘widely accepted for recycling’ designation reflects that,” Emily Albright, a spokesperson for Starbucks, said in a statement. “Obviously, recycling in practice also requires local community infrastructure. That’s why we work closely with others, including the recycling companies, to help expand access and help improve the system.” — Mona ZhangFROM CITY HALLEYES ON AI: Council member Julie Won is rolling out legislation that would establish an artificial intelligence oversight office in the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection. The director of the office would be responsible for investigating “allegations of the use of artificial intelligence in violation of the consumer laws” and for implementing an “outreach and education campaign to raise public awareness regarding the use of artificial intelligence to harm the rights, safety, or interests of consumers.” The Council has long attempted to regulate AI. Won is running for Congress in the competitive Democratic primary to succeed retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez. As part of her campaign, she’s put out a technology policy platform focused heavily on AI and using the technology “responsibly.” “We have to change the public sentiment from being so afraid of becoming obsolete to making sure there’s protections so that people don’t become obsolete,” Won said in a recent interview. The debate over the path forward for AI has reshaped elections across the country — especially in the Democratic primary for retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler’s seat, where millions of dollars have poured in from groups on both sides of the regulation conversation. There’s no indication, though, that those entities are planning to get involved in this race, where Won is up against Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and Assemblymember Claire Valdez. — Madison Fernandez BUFFERING, PLEASE HOLD: City Council Speaker Julie Menin is planning to introduce a revised version of the “buffer zone” protest bill for educational facilities, scaling back the proposal after Mamdani vetoed the original measure in late April. The new legislation narrows the definition of educational facilities to early childhood sites and most K-12 schools, explicitly excluding libraries, teaching hospitals and — notably — colleges and universities. The bill, similar to the buffer zone protest bill for religious institutions, would require the NYPD to create and publicize security perimeter plans around those schools during protests. Both measures have undergone significant revisions compared to earlier versions, which initially proposed 100-foot buffer zones between protestors and the sites in question. The changes mark a significant concession from Menin on the bill’s core scope, as she moves to address member concerns rather than attempt an override — despite saying she had the votes to do so. “We have the ability to do an override, but to jam through an override on an issue where even members who were going to support the override had real concerns — I don’t think that’s a responsible path forward,” the speaker said. “It’s my job as speaker to build consensus.” Changes to the school-focused bill also include replacing its original prime sponsor, Council member Eric Dinowitz, with Council member Elsie Encarnacion. Under the new version, Dinowitz will appear as second co-prime sponsor. Menin pushed back on criticism that the revisions weaken the legislation. “I don’t view it as a watering down. I actually view it as a strengthening,” Menin said. “It means we’re going to get more members involved in supporting this bill.” The original proposal — part of the Council’s five-point plan to combat antisemitism — was driven in part by concerns over campus protests tied to Israel’s war in Gaza. Mamdani vetoed it in April, citing constitutional concerns and the bill’s broad definition of educational institutions, which he argued could have applied to libraries, museums and hospitals. “The Mamdani administration has not seen the specific legislative language, and we look forward to reviewing it,” a spokesperson for the mayor said. “The Mayor believes New York City must remain a place where students can access their schools safely as well as exercise their constitutional right to protest.” — Gelila NegesseIN OTHER NEWS— CHECKERS, NOT CHESS: OpenAI is pivoting to a state-by-state lobbying strategy to shape AI regulation, aiming to build momentum as federal efforts stall. (POLITICO) — CASE NOT CLOSED: Citizens Union, a government watchdog group, is urging the Manhattan district attorney to pursue state charges against Eric Adams despite the Trump administration dropping a federal case against him. (The New York Times) — NO PLAYING AROUND: New York health officials say they are closely monitoring an Ebola outbreak in the Congo as international travel ramps up ahead of the World Cup. (Gothamist) Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.Read more

President Donald Trump has finally delivered on his promise a decade ago: He has made Republicans “so sick and tired of winning.” The winning — a series of retributive primary challenges this month that settled scores up to five years old — has led to a fresh round of chest-thumping from MAGA allies boasting about their victories in Indiana, Louisiana and Kentucky. Trump ended his vendetta spring Tuesday by dropping a two-stage MAGA bomb, backing Attorney General Ken Paxton for Senate in Texas on the same day he ushered Rep. Thomas Massie to the exits in Kentucky. But the revenge tour is increasingly imperiling Trump’s midterm agenda on the Hill. That’s because for every apostate ousted by Trump this month, there’s a sign of not only his waning political capital on the Hill, but that his backward-focused endeavors have damaged his own legislative ambitions, leaving him a victim of his own primary success. “Those so-called victories over the last couple weeks are just a mirage. They are self-owns,” said one senior Senate Republican operative, granted anonymity to speak candidly about frustration with the White House. “We’re not actually beating Democrats, and we’re not actually advancing legislation. Instead, gas is up 45% due to our actions and the President’s decision to go to war with Iran. He’s focused on the ballroom. He’s announced a $1.8 billion restitution fund with zero details or congressional authority to do so. It just is crazy.” In just one day, a conquered — and, consequently, unbridled — Sen. Bill Cassidy joined Democrats to become the 50th yes vote on a war powers resolution, opposed Trump’s ballroom funding in reconciliation and called Trump’s freshly picked Paxton a “felon.” And that was just day three of Cassidy unchained. Cassidy is not alone. Trump’s ballroom funding is stalled, the SAVE America Act is mired in the Senate and Majority Leader John Thune is pushing back on his desire to fire the parliamentarian. That’s not to mention the pushback even from the likes of the friendlier senator from Louisiana, John Kennedy, who expressed doubt about the Justice Department’s $1.8 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund. “There are still many, many months to go before the election, and this president is going to have to continue to deal and work with, and partner with, or battle with this group of lawmakers,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska told reporters Tuesday. “Even though Bill Cassidy lost his primary, he is still a voting member of the Senate until January. … So the president may have just opened some opportunities for people.” Now Cornyn could join their ranks. After Trump endorsed Paxton, the senior Texas senator faces increasingly slim chances of surviving next week’s runoff election. Should he lose, Cornyn will be liberated to vote his conscience — unmoved by threats of further political vengeance from Trump — for the final months of his term. “What is the return on investment for Trump?” said Greg Lamantia, a Texas businessman who supports Cornyn, about Trump’s Paxton endorsement. “I don’t understand why you take this risk, versus sitting back and doing nothing. Now you’ve created an enemy for six months, when you have a razor-thin majority.” “Republicans are united behind President Trump because we share one vision: securing the border, strengthening the economy, restoring common sense, and putting America First,” said RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels. “While the media tries to manufacture division, Republicans remain focused on delivering results for the American people and building momentum heading into 2026.” Come November, if Paxton loses to state Rep. James Talarico, this week and Trump feeling himself after victories in Indiana and Louisiana could be remembered as the week where he overreached. “Some of the issues I hear about when I’m at home in the grocery store, in the hardware store, are not the same issues we’re talking about in Washington, so I think it’s really important that we prioritize what people are talking about,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo). That daylight between Trump’s priorities and the top issues for voters is widening. The economy and cost of living remain voters’ top priorities, even as patience for the Iran war wavers. And though Trump has flexed his electoral muscle in primary after primary, his endorsement may hurt more than it helps in battleground races this November, according to a recent analysis from The POLITICO Poll. “It seems to me his agenda is mostly vengeance,” said former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who spent 15 months as a vocal Trump critic after deciding not to run for reelection during Trump’s first term. “It’s not just those that he’s going after he’s gonna have to deal with — Massie and Cornyn and Cassidy — it’s anybody who’s gotten past the filing deadline, or past their primary, and realizing that supporting a lot of what he wants is not good for the general election.” At the end of a month that put on full display Trump’s dominance over his own party, his season of settling scores may not have advanced the ball toward November. That dynamic could pose a problem for Republicans, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley told POLITICO. “Congress doesn’t do much,” he said. “In November, voters are going to say to Congress, ‘What have you done for me?’ And it’s not going to be enough to say that, ‘Well, you know, we liked some stuff President Trump did, but we didn’t do any of it,’” Hawley said. “I mean, we better do some stuff.” What does it mean that Trump has vanquished his foes at the expense of his own agenda? “It means President Trump and his team have completely lost sight of how DC operates and why the American people elected him in the first place,” said the senior Senate Republican operative. Last year, chief of staff Susie Wiles told Vanity Fair that she had a “loose agreement that the score settling will end before the first 90 days are over.” That was 395 days ago. Ali Bianco contributed to this report.Read more

The MAGA takeover of the Georgia GOP is nearly complete. The old-guard of the Republican Party in Georgia has fallen after withstanding MAGA’s furor since 2020, replaced by a new breed of candidates — up and down the ballot — closely aligned with President Donald Trump. On Tuesday, the Trump allies marched on: Trump-backed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones clinched a spot in the gubernatorial runoff on Tuesday alongside billionaire Rick Jackson, who told supporters he’d govern like the president “with a southern tone.” In the GOP Senate primary, Rep. Mike Collins, a staunch MAGA ally, advanced to a runoff. And House candidates Jim Kingston, Houston Gaines and Clay Fuller won their races by wide margins, boosted by the president’s endorsement. Meanwhile, longtime Trump antagonists — especially those who denied the 2020 election was “stolen” — lost their primary battles: Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Attorney General Chris Carr and Gabriel Sterling, a former top Raffensperger aide. The results offered the clearest sign yet that Georgia Republican voters increasingly want their political future tied to Trump-style politics and messaging — a shift in one of the nation’s premier battlegrounds that could shape elections in 2026 and beyond. “It’s key to success in a Republican primary in Georgia today to either have the president’s endorsement or be able to make the case to voters that you’re certainly a Trump-aligned candidate,” said Georgia Republican Party chair Josh McKoon, a loyal Trump ally. Candidates like Raffensperger may now be “relics of the past,” said Chip Lake, a longtime Republican strategist who helped Jones’ campaign. “That doesn’t mean they’re bad human beings, it just means that their style of politics is not consistent today with where the base of the party is.” But hugging Trump that tightly in the primary has proved lethal for some Republicans in the general election, and Democrats in Georgia hope 2026 will echo the GOP’s 2022 election losses. The Republican Party in Georgia, like in other states, has been drifting more and more toward a full-throated populist approach during the Trump era. But the old guard led by outgoing Gov. Brian Kemp (R) as well as Raffensperger and Carr managed to hold on through the 2022 midterm primaries against a number of Trump-backed challengers, delaying the hard MAGA takeover that occurred in many other states earlier on. The sharp shift this cycle comes as the GOP pushes for more resources and attention in the key swing state. Now, some GOP strategists increasingly view aligning with Trump not just as an ideological litmus test, but as a practical necessity — especially as Trump’s political operation sits on  roughly $300 million in campaign funds.  “It is good for the state of Georgia to choose these MAGA-aligned candidates in that the president has a huge war chest, and that war chest can be utilized for candidates that he likes,” said one Georgia-based Republican strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly about the state’s dynamics. Across the state’s marquee Senate and governor’s primaries, the winning GOP candidates all embraced Trump’s brand. The expensive and rancorous primary for the governor’s mansion quickly evolved into a contest over who best carried the MAGA mantle — Jones, who has the president’s explicit support, or Jackson, who tried to convince voters that he, too, was closely aligned with Trump. Trump has stayed out of the Senate primary so far, but the candidates still raced to align with his movement. Collins, a hardline immigration hawk and loyal Trump ally on Capitol Hill who appeared at a rally with Trump earlier this year, said that he is “unapologetically Pro-God, Pro-Trump, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-Strong Military” after advancing to the runoff. Even former football coach Derek Dooley — Kemp’s handpicked candidate who will face off against Collins in the June runoff — leaned into his status as an outsider (à la Trump) and adopted a “Georgia First” pitch. “We haven’t made any attempts to alienate Trump whatsoever. Derek supports the agenda. He’s made it clear through the debate and multiple interviews that he supports the president,” said a senior Dooley adviser, who was granted anonymity to speak openly about the race, prior to Election Day. It’s a notable gamble for a party that was punished during the 2022 midterms for nominating hardline MAGA candidates across the country — including former football star Herschel Walker for Georgia Senate — who later lost in key races. This midterms cycle appears to be trending much harder toward Democrats, given Trump’s low approval ratings, voters’ concerns with the economy and the unpopular war in Iran. Democrats are more than eager to tie Republicans to the president. Devon Cruz, a spokesperson for the Georgia Democratic Party, said in a statement that the Senate runoff will leave Collins and Dooley “terminally inseparable” from Trump. Still, Tuesday’s results underscored how Trump’s dominance is increasingly shaping which Republicans can win statewide primaries in key races. And it’s not just in Georgia. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has long been a thorn in the president’s side, lost his seat to a Trump-endorsed challenger in a bitter retributive campaign. Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy was ousted by the president’s favored candidate. Trump vanquished a majority of the Indiana Republicans who bucked him on redistricting. And he finally backed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton for the Senate race after deeming Sen. John Cornyn to be an insufficient ally. “The party has completely changed in 50 states,” Lake, the Republican strategist, said. “It looks nothing like it did a decade ago, and it looks absolutely nothing like it did 15 years ago.” “We’re a party that’s a lot different, that’s got a sharper focus, that’s willing to fight more, ” he added. Raffensperger, who had become the biggest icon of standing up to the president, acknowledged to reporters following his loss that conspiracies about the 2020 election – despite no evidence to support any claims of fraud – helped tank his chances with Republican voters. But he stopped short of blaming Trump’s grip on the party on his failure to advance in the runoff: “I just think terms are up, and so it’s a changing of the guard and turning over a new leaf,” he told reporters after his election loss. “We’ll have new people with new plans, new hopes, new visions, and we’re going to see where it goes.”Read more

Rep. Mike Collins and former football coach Derek Dooley advanced to a runoff in Georgia’s Republican Senate primary, dragging out a bitter contest to take on Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in November. The result plunges Republicans into another monthlong intraparty fight. Meanwhile, Ossoff, who already has a massive name ID and $31 million and counting in his warchest, can continue building and conserving his resources in the marquee race. It also sets up a proxy battle between President Donald Trump, who holds Collins as a close ally, and Georgia’s GOP Gov. Brian Kemp, who backed Dooley for the nomination. Dooley, who was polling in third place ahead of Election Day, had a late burst of momentum after casting himself as a political outsider and leaning on his ties to Kemp. The outcome now intensifies pressure on Trump, who didn’t support a candidate in the primary, to intervene. The president’s endorsement in a runoff — where the electorate tends to be highly engaged voters — could prove decisive.The primary was marked by infighting and state Republicans’ escalating concerns that the national GOP was shifting its attention to other battleground states instead of Georgia. A runoff looked all but inevitable in the contest’s final weeks with polls showing none of the candidates near the 50 percent support they’d need for an outright win. Dooley and Collins will face off again June 16, though Tuesday’s result suggests the latter holds an advantage. Early public polling of hypothetical general election match-ups shows Ossoff with a lead over both Republicans. The general election is expected to be one of the most expensive in the country. The GOP-aligned Senate Leadership Fund has already pledged an initial $44 million in spending for the fall, while the Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC recently committed $20 million.Read more

Chris Rabb, a progressive state representative and self-styled “rabble-rouser,” clinched the Democratic nomination Tuesday for the nation’s bluest House district. Rabb is all but guaranteed to succeed retiring Rep. Dwight Evans in Pennsylvania’s 3rd District. It’s a major win for the party’s left flank and a significant blow to the city’s storied political machine, which split between two other candidates in the race. The progressive five-term state lawmaker toppled state Sen. Sharif Street, a former state Democratic Party chair and scion of a prominent North Philadelphia political family who had the backing of much of the city’s establishment. He also defeated Evans’ preferred successor, Ala Stanford, a pediatric surgeon who was running her first political campaign. The race became a microcosm of the ideological and stylistic fights roiling the party nationally and a proxy battle between its progressive and center-left wings.In a field where each candidate claimed progressive bona fides, Rabb tacked furthest to the left. He racked up endorsements from members of the “Squad,” won the backing of the local chapters of the Working Families Party and Democratic Socialists of America and held rallies with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and polarizing left-wing political streamer Hasan Piker. He pushed his rivals to join him in calling Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide” and attempted to tie his competitors to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has become a lightning rod in Democratic primaries. AIPAC said it was not involved in the race. His victory is as much an exclamation point for progressives as it is a remarkable rebuke of Philadelphia’s Democratic machine. In an interview ahead of Election Day, Rabb said his win would signal “that the era of establishment politics is coming to an end.” Nationally, he said it would show that “folks who are framed as radical or far left by mainstream media and establishment politics … are very much in the moral center.”Read more

Keisha Lance Bottoms is the Democratic nominee for Georgia governor, as the party seeks to flip the state’s top seat for the first time in nearly three decades. Bottoms, who defeated a crowded field to win the race outright Tuesday, can pivot to the general election — even as Republicans are headed toward a costly runoff of their own. Georgia hasn’t elected a Democrat to the governorship since 1998 but has trended hard toward purple-state status in recent years, with Democrats carrying the state in the 2020 presidential election and winning Senate races there that year and in 2022. But the governor’s mansion has remained elusive — and some Democrats have already questioned Bottoms’ ability to win in a general election, noting that her rocky tenure as Atlanta’s mayor from 2018 to 2022 makes her vulnerable to general election attacks. Bottoms’ outright win lets her get a head start at closing her fundraising gap in the race: Both Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and health care executive Rick Jackson — the two leading candidates on the Republican side — have amassed war chests that exceed hers by millions of dollars, but much of that money has come from personal loans to their campaigns.With the primary now behind her, she is likely to ramp up efforts to tap national donors and support from Democratic leaders who had largely stayed on the sidelines. Bottoms, who served as a senior adviser during the Biden administration and earned the former president’s endorsement, boasted higher name recognition than her primary opponents. She easily defeated former state Sen. Jason Esteves, former DeKalb County executive Michael Thurmond and former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan to clinch the nomination Tuesday. Public polling before the primary showed Bottoms as the clear front-runner, but the state’s rules — which require candidates to win more than 50 percent of the vote — increased the likelihood of a runoff. Still, even before the primary concluded, she was already the subject of attack ads from Republicans, including Jackson, foreshadowing the onslaught likely to come.Read more