Category: Politics

With help from Amira McKee

THE UNI-TEA: Brooklyn Democrats can be a fractious, feuding bunch. Today, for a short while at least, they buried the hatchet.

Bitter rivals stood side by side in boisterous support of Zohran Mamdani at the Flatbush Gardens housing complex, the second stop of the Democratic mayoral nominee’s “Five Boroughs Against Trump” tour.

The group included the leader of the Kings County Democratic Party and members of the New Kings Democrats faction, which sprung up as the reformist response to county bosses. It featured moderate Democrats as well as progressives and democratic socialists.

“First of all, media, I need you to understand what’s going on right now because I don’t think this group of people agree about nothing,” Public Advocate Jumaane Williams observed to chuckles before he launched into his remarks.

Williams said New York Democrats more broadly should follow their example in supporting the party’s nominee for mayor. Key party and Brooklyn leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Rep. Yvette Clarke, were not in attendance and have yet to endorse Mamdani.

Mamdani defeated Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary seven weeks ago, but many in his party say they still don’t know the young Queens state assemblymember well enough to get behind him. Some say his proposals to freeze rent and make buses free are too unrealistic. Others cite his criticisms of Israel and his reluctance to condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada” as reasons for concern. Mamdani has struggled to shore up support among politically moderate Black and Jewish voters.

For House Democrats focused on winning the majority next year, there’s additionally the concern that having a democratic socialist as the face of the party could hurt moderate Democrats in suburban battlegrounds.

But their colleagues in state and city government said today in central Brooklyn that the party needs Mamdani to face President Donald Trump.

State Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn, chair of the county party, endorsed Eric Adams in 2021, Cuomo in this year’s primary and Mamdani immediately after he trounced the former governor in June by nearly 13 points.

“People just don’t understand that we all want the same thing,” Bichotte Hermelyn told Playbook, referring to Brooklyn Democrats. “The little political fights, it’s just surface. But we all want affordability. We’re all fighting for a working class, we want equity, we want fairness.”

The vibe had enough kumbaya to it that Bichotte Hermelyn and City Council Member Justin Brannan stood next to each other. Yes, the same two Democrats who waged one of the nastiest intraparty clashes in recent memory during Brannan’s 2023 campaign. (She revived bullying accusations against him, he won without party resources and concluded on election night that she’s “gotta go.”)

Progressive New Kings members had praise for both Mamdani and Bichotte Hermelyn in explaining how a diverse cross-section of Democrats could get on the same page.

“It’s indicative of his campaign and who he is,” Council Member Crystal Hudson said of Mamdani. “If all of us can come together behind him, he’s doing something.”

Council Member Chi Ossé told Playbook, “I really do applaud Rodneyse on immediately getting into lockstep and showing that Democratic unity is important here. … I think the entire party needs to continue doing what we’re doing in there.” — Emily Ngo

GOP SPLIT IN ASSEMBLY SPECIAL: Republicans are beginning to coalesce around a candidate for the looming special election to replace Democratic Assemblymember Billy Jones — but not the party leader with the most say in choosing a nominee.

Malone Mayor Andrea Dumas locked down support from Rep. Elise Stefanik last week. She was endorsed today by the Conservative Party and Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay.

But Stefanik put out a lengthy statement this afternoon calling on Clinton County GOP Chair Jerika Manning to resign for “threatening to tank” the special. “I am not going to let her torpedo Republican candidates in the North Country,” Stefanik wrote.

Manning controls 53 percent of the vote as party leaders choose a nominee for the race that’ll likely be held on Election Day.

Two individuals familiar with the situation said Stefanik’s statement came about after the county chair declined to join other Republican leaders in endorsing Dumas and continued searching for a new candidate. Manning did not return a request for comment.

Plattsburgh Supervisor Michael Cashman has been widely seen as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. Bridie Farrell, a Child Victims Act advocate and former speed-skater who briefly ran against Stefanik in 2022, formally joined the Democratic field today as well. — Bill Mahoney

NOT SWEATING: Gov. Kathy Hochul shrugged at a Siena University poll released this morning that found Stefanik, a potential gubernatorial rival, running competitively in the suburbs and among independent voters.

“I’ll let you all figure it out,” she told reporters. “I’m working hard every single day putting money back in peoples’ pockets, making streets safer and fighting the damn Trump administration.”

The survey found Hochul with a 14-point lead over Stefanik, 45 percent to 31 percent. The gap between the Democratic governor and the House Republican, while comfortable, is smaller than the 23-point difference Hochul held in June.

“I’ve been through countless polls and, guess what, team, there’s going to be a lot more between now and November,” she added. — Nick Reisman

ADULT LEARNERS EYE FREE TUITION: More than 16,500 New Yorkers applied to a free community college program for older students, Hochul announced this morning.

The City University of New York received about 7,000 of the applications from students seeking associate degrees in high-demand fields, CUNY Chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez said. The remainder went to the State University of New York. The initiative — aimed at adult learners between the ages of 25 and 55 — applies to the 37 community colleges run by SUNY and CUNY.

The program, set to begin this fall, is part of Hochul’s affordability push, as she faces a tough reelection bid next year.

“I’m going to keep doing my part, focusing on families — my fight is for your family,” Hochul said during a press conference at LaGuardia Community College in Queens. “Focusing on affordability — this is a major part of it, but also putting more money back in people’s pockets.”

Hochul insisted the state “has no limit” on the number of applicants because enrollment is still lower than it was before the Covid-19 pandemic. Some 4 million working-age adults in New York do not have a college degree or credential, according to the governor’s office.

State lawmakers and higher education advocates told POLITICO earlier this year that community colleges don’t have enough money to implement the plan. The governor allocated $47 million in the state budget for the upcoming school year.

When asked by Playbook about those concerns, Hochul pointed to record investments in SUNY and CUNY. — Madina Touré

TAKEOVER TAKES: Trump’s unprecedented effort to take over law enforcement in Washington drew a reaction from Mayor Eric Adams today.

Asked about Trump’s actions, Adams touted recent decreases in major crime categories to make the case that New York City does not need the type of federal intervention playing out in the nation’s capital.

“I’m not part of the group that says we don’t want to work with the federal government, but we don’t need anyone to come in and take over our law enforcement apparatus,” Adams, who is running for reelection as an independent, said during an unrelated news conference. “We’ve got this under control.”

Rival independent candidate Andrew Cuomo claimed the turn of events in Washington is “exactly what will happen” if Mamdani wins the general election this fall, though Trump would be more limited in the control he could exert over the NYPD.

“Trump will flatten him like a pancake,” Cuomo posted Monday on X. “In 2020, Trump sent the National Guard into other states. Not New York. There’s only one person in this race who can stand up to Trump: the one who already has, successfully and effectively.”

Mamdani warned Trump against trying a similar militarization in New York City, as the president has repeatedly floated, while chiding Cuomo for comments he made during a June CBS interview where he warned federal immigration officers are “going to do things that are illegal and unconstitutional” but cautioned New Yorkers not to overreact.

“Donald Trump is not above the law and if he comes for New York City, he will have to go through me,” Mamdani said in a statement today. “As Mayor, I will not downplay or enable his authoritarianism — and I certainly will not tell New Yorkers not to ‘overreact’ as Andrew Cuomo did when Trump’s militia tried to bulldoze Los Angeles.” — Maya Kaufman and Joe Anuta

ENDORSEMENT WATCH: Former Gov. David Paterson is set to endorse Adams’ reelection bid during a Wednesday event at City Hall, according to a person with direct knowledge of the gathering.

The nod comes a month after Paterson held a press conference that called for a united front to defeat Mamdani in the general election.

So far, the former elected’s wishes are not playing out.

Neither Cuomo, Adams nor GOP nominee Curtis Sliwa have expressed any intention of dropping out of the race. Paterson backed Cuomo in the primary, but his support has waned after Cuomo’s decisive loss to Mamdani in the June 24 primary. — Joe Anuta

GUILTY PLEA: A former Adams aide pleaded guilty today to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, admitting to organizing a fundraiser for the mayor at which he knew money would be raised by illegal straw donations.

Bahi’s plea in Manhattan federal court comes four months after Judge Dale Ho dismissed the related charges against Adams after Trump’s Department of Justice sought to drop the case.

Bahi said that an unnamed “volunteer of the campaign” had told him Adams’ political operation would raise money by straw donations at a December 2020 fundraiser with Uzbek-American business leader Tolib Mansurov and would then seek to match the contributions with public funds.

It wasn’t clear which volunteer Bahi was referring to, though Adams’ indictment suggests it was Ahsan Chugtai, another man who was later hired by Adams’ City Hall as a Muslim community liaison. Adams adviser Frank Carone did not respond when asked about it, saying the case has “no connection at all or relevance” to the Adams campaign. Adams’ lawyers have maintained that he was not aware of any of the numerous confirmed illegal contributions to his 2021 campaign.

Bahi did not respond when reporters asked how he felt about pleading guilty when Adams got off. Turkish-American developer Erden Arkan also pleaded guilty to making straw donations in January, and his sentencing is scheduled for this Friday.

Bahi was hired as a Muslim liaison in the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit after Adams won. He resigned last October, the day before he was arrested and charged with witness tampering and destruction of evidence. He’s been in plea discussions with the government since at least February. Bahi agreed to pay $32,000 restitution, Ho said, and could face up to six months in prison and a $20,000 fine at sentencing, which is scheduled for Nov.ember 18. — Jeff Coltin

— SPY-FI: The Adams administration is using its flagship broadband program to give police real-time access to NYCHA camera feeds — without telling anyone. (New York Focus)

— AI, ESQ.:  A Queens judge is fining a landlord’s attorney for using fake, AI-generated court cases to support his argument. (Hell Gate)

— TEAM ZOHRAN: Mamdani is growing his inner circle, a group of trusted advisers that lean younger and farther left than that of his rivals. (New York Times)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics

Donald Trump’s unprecedented takeover of Washington, D.C.’s police force is testing the limits of his presidential authority and ratcheting up fears that other cities also led by Black elected officials will soon be caught in his crosshairs.

Trump, citing flimsy and misleading statistics, declared a “crime emergency” in the nation’s capital, seizing control over local law enforcement from three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser and deploying some 800 National Guard troops to city streets.

“This is Liberation Day in D.C. and we’re going to take our capitol back,” Trump proclaimed, echoing World War II-era language associated with emancipation of Italy from facism and the German Nazi occupation. Trump added that his action would “rescue our nation from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.”

The National Guard troops, who will work alongside the Metropolitan Police officers, will be tasked with clearing homeless encampments, protecting landmarks and keeping order in the city. It’s an unprecedented presidential power grab that Bowser herself said is unnecessary, but has very little recourse to stop given the “special conditions” outlined in the Home Rule Act.

While Trump’s supporters have cheered him on, his detractors say the move is nothing more than the president, once again, leaning into racist tropes to cast Black elected officials as incompetent and minority citizens as threats to society.

“We don’t yet know the full impact this decision will have on D.C. and the Black and minority communities Trump has suggested he may target next,” said the Congressional Black Caucus in a statement posted on X, “we do know this: militarized over-policing will inevitably lead to increased fear and mistrust among communities that have too often been treated as occupied populations, rather than as citizens who deserve to be served and protected.”

During his wide-ranging press conference, Trump also singled out Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Oakland — all of which have Black mayors and large minority populations that overwhelmingly voted against him in his three presidential runs — as crime ridden.

“He has never thought well of Black elected leaders, and he’s been explicit about that,” said Maya Wiley, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. She added that she views Trump’s actions as a tactic to undermine liberal dissent.

“It’s also clear from his previous statements that he has always searched for excuses to assert might over places he does not have political support and that will not just do his bidding,” she added. “Washington, D.C., has been one of those cities.”

Bowser worked to quell tensions between her and Trump stemming from his first term, which included painting over the yellow letters of the city’s Black Lives Matter Plaza, which was formed in a response to police brutality during the national protests of 2020. Prior to Trump’s inauguration she traveled to Mar-a-Lago to discuss possible areas of collaboration.

In late April, with Trump’s backing, Bowser helped lure the Washington Commanders NFL franchise from suburban Maryland back to D.C. Days later, she appeared with him at the White House to announce the city would host the NFL Draft in 2027. (Last month, Trump injected himself again by threatening to scuttle the deal to bring the football team back to D.C. if the team didn’t return to its original name, which is considered a racial slur against Native Americans.)

None of that appears to have deterred Trump from launching his federal takeover.

“I think this is a moment for the mayor to question whether her strategy, which has been appeasement, has been a success,” said Paul Butler, a Georgetown law professor and former federal prosecutor.

He described Trump’s actions as a “bogus declaration” but suggested there is likely little reprieve D.C. officials will gain trying to challenge the president’s declaration in court.

“While the court reviews whether he appropriately has this power, the Supreme Court and other lower courts [have] generally allowed him to … proceed with what he wants to do, until they get around to deciding the case,” Butler added. “It opens the doors to further militarization of the police, not just in the District, but in the other cities that he named.”

New York City mayor Eric Adams on addressed the possibility of Trump deploying federal assets to his own city following a string of shootings over the weekend that left at least two dead and eight injured.

“When you have those high profile shootings it sends a signal sometimes across the country that we’re dealing with a crime issue in New York, and we’re not,” Adams said Tuesday. “I’m not part of the group that says we don’t want to work with the federal government, but we don’t need anyone to come in and take over our law enforcement apparatus. We’ve got this under control.”

Trump has ignored the wishes of local officials and deployed federal troops in recent weeks. During the height of federal immigration raids in Los Angeles, which sparked protests that turned violent, Trump federalized some 2,000 California Guard troops against the objections of Mayor Karen Bass, who is Black, and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott told The Recast that Trump’s actions in D.C. and his singling out of other Black-led jurisdictions, including his own, is nothing more than a “diversion and distraction tactic” to shift the focus from a volatile economic climate and the release of materials associated with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.

“It’s also the continuation of the president, unfortunately, spouting these racist-based, right-wing propaganda talking points about cities and Black-led cities,” said Scott, who last month said his city is in the midst of a historic reduction in violent crime. “For the president to say that we’re too far gone — it’s just obscene, obnoxious and just not based in reality.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, a combat veteran, chastised Trump for using military personnel for political gain.

“These actions by the president lack both data and a battle plan,” Moore said in a statement.

“[The president] is simply using honorable men and women as pawns to distract us from his policies, which continue to drive up unemployment and strip away health care and food assistance from those who need it most.”

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson echoed Moore’s sentiments.

“If President Trump wants to help make Chicago safer, he can start by releasing the funds for anti-violence programs that have been critical to our work to drive down crime and violence,” Johnson said. “Sending in the National Guard would only serve to destabilize our city and undermine our public safety efforts.”

The pretext of Trump’s actions appears to be a response to an attack on Edward Coristine, who is white and a former staffer at DOGE who goes by the nickname “Big Balls.” He was allegedly assaulted by approximately 10 juveniles near Dupont Circle this month, according to a police report obtained by POLITICO.

It caught the attention of Trump, who posted on his Truth Social platform a photo of a bloodied Coristine and called for D.C. laws to be changed so that teenagers who commit violence can be tried as adults “and lock them up for a long time, starting at age 14.”

Trump is deputizing key administration officials to help oversee the D.C. police, which he can maintain control of for up to 48 hours, but if he sends a special message to certain congressional leaders, he can extend that control for up to 30 days. Attorney General Pam Bondi will be in charge of D.C. police, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth will direct the order to call up troops, while the District’s U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said on Monday that she is preparing to bolster prosecutions.

Bowser, the D.C. mayor, delivered a measured response to the federal takeover in her remarks following Trump’s announcements.

“While this action [Monday] is unsettling and unprecedented, I can’t say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we’re totally surprised,” she said.

Maya Kaufman and Shia Kapos contributed to this report. 

Like this reporting? Subscribe to The Recast.

​Politics

A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set for Aug. 15, 2025, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not attend, barring a last-minute change. The Conversation’s politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University’s Fletcher School, to get his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it’s likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal.

How do wars end?

Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, “Yeah, we’re ready to come to the peace table.”

And then the third is – we’ve seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the U.S. or Europe come in and say, “That’s enough. We’re imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.”

What we’ve seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory.

So the fighting continues. And the role that Trump and his administration are playing right now is that third possibility, an outside power comes in and says, “Enough.”

Now you have to look at Russia. Russia is maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it’s got nuclear arms and it’s got a big army. This is not some small, Middle Eastern country that the United States can completely dominate. They’re nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don’t want to? I kind of doubt it.

How does this upcoming Trump-Putin meeting fit into the history of peace negotiations?

The analogy a lot of people are using is the Munich Conference in 1938, where Great Britain met with Hitler’s Germany. I don’t like to make comparisons to Nazism or Hitler’s Germany. Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust and killed 30 or 40 million people. It’s hard to compare anything to that.

But in diplomatic terms, we go back to 1938. Germany said, “Listen, we have all these German citizens living in this new country of Czechoslovakia. They’re not being treated right. We want them to become part of Germany.” And they were poised to invade.

The prime minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, went and met with Hitler in Munich and came up with an agreement by which the German parts of Czechoslovakia would become part of Germany. And that would be it. That would be all that Germany would ask for, and the West gave some kind of light security guarantees.

Czechoslovakia wasn’t there. This was a peace imposed on them.

And sure enough, you know, within a year or two, Germany was saying, “No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.” And thus World War II started.

Can you spell out the comparisons further?

Czechoslovakia wasn’t at the table. Ukraine’s not at the table.

Again, I’m not sure I want to compare Putin to Hitler, but he is a strongman authoritarian president with a big military.

Security guarantees were given to Czechoslavakia and not honored. The West gave Ukraine security guarantees when that country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We told them, “If you’re going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we’ll make sure you’re never invaded.” And they’ve been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn’t step up.

So history would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low.

What kind of expertise is required in negotiating a peace deal?

Here’s what usually happens in most countries that have a big foreign policy or national security establishment, and even in some smaller countries.

The political leaders come up with their policy goal, what they want to achieve.

And then they tell the career civil servants and foreign service officers and military people, “This is what we want to get at the negotiating table. How do we do that?”

And then the experts say, “Oh, we do this and we do that, and we’ll assign staff to work it out. We’ll work with our Russian counterparts and try to narrow the issues down, and we’ll come up with numbers and maps.”

With all the replacement of personnel since the inauguration, the U.S. not only has a new group of political appointees – including some, like Marco Rubio, who, generally speaking, know what they’re doing in terms of national security – but also many who don’t know what they’re doing. They’ve also fired the senior level of civil servants and foreign service officers, and a lot of the mid-levels are leaving, so that expertise isn’t there.

That’s a real problem. The U.S. national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team – at best.

How will this be a problem when Trump meets Putin?

You have two leaders of two big countries like this, they usually don’t meet on a few days’ notice. It would have to be a real crisis.

This meeting could happen two or three weeks from now as easily as it could this week.

And if that happened, you would have a chance to prepare. You’d have a chance to get all kinds of documents in front of the American participants. You would meet with your Russian counterparts. You’d meet with Ukrainian counterparts, maybe some of the Western European countries. And when the two sides sat down at the table, it would be very professional.

They would have very similar briefing papers in front of them. The issues would be narrowed down.

None of that’s going to happen in Alaska. It’s going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented.

Could a peace deal possibly be enforced?

Again, the situation is kind of haunted by the West never enforcing security guarantees promised in 1994. So I’m not sure how well this could be enforced.

Historically, Russia and Ukraine were always linked up, and that’s the problem. What’s Putin’s bottom line? Would he give up Crimea? No. Would he give up the part of eastern Ukraine that de facto had been taken over by Russia before this war even started? Probably not. Would he give up what they’ve gained since then? OK, maybe.

Then let’s put ourselves in Ukraine’s shoes. Will they want to give up Crimea? They say, “No.” Do they want to give up any of the eastern part of the country? They say, “No.”

I’m curious what your colleagues in the diplomatic world are saying about this upcoming meeting.

People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable. It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won’t.

Donald Heflin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is warning President Donald Trump and Republican governors that if they go forward with redistricting proposals, he will also implement mid-decade redistricting efforts in his state.

In a letter to the president Monday, Newsom said California “cannot stand idly by” as Texas — and other GOP-led states — attempt to follow Trump’s directive to create Republican-favored congressional maps.

“If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states,” Newsom said. “But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Newsom’s letter comes as the battle over the Texas congressional map has begun to spread to other states, including Indiana.

With Democrats needing to flip just three seats to reclaim a House majority, Trump pressed the Texas Legislature to draw a new map that would give Republicans an additional five congressional seats. Democrats around the nation condemned the effort even as Texas officials began to move forward with a plan. Texas Democrats have left the state to avoid voting on the new map, with some settling indefinitely in California.

Vice President JD Vance, meanwhile, headed to Indiana last week to urge Republicans in the Hoosier state to also create a new map. Separately, Ohio is mandated to redraw districts in the state, while talks are underway in Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida. In total, Republicans could gain 10 or more seats ahead of the midterms.

Newsom on Monday called the efforts “hyper-partisan” and an attempt to “rig” upcoming midterm elections.

“You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of our democracy, while knowing that California can neutralize any gains you hope to make,” Newsom wrote. “This attempt to rig congressional maps to hold onto power before a single vote is cast in the 2026 election is an affront to American democracy.”

While Democrats have previously threatened to gerrymander their own maps if Republicans move forward with theirs, no moves have been made yet.

In his letter, Newsom said district maps should be drawn by “independent, citizen-led efforts.”

In a Monday afternoon interview with Fox News, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to escalate his state’s redistricting plans if Newsom moves forward with retaliatory redistricting.

“If California thinks they’re going to move their needle to the extreme and eliminate five Republican numbers of the United States Congress there, Texas is not going to do five: We will add 10 more Republican seats using the same procedure they are using in California,” Abbott said.

Jacob Wendler contributed to this report.

​Politics

It wasn’t just 2024: the Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien is signaling a more permanent realignment by donating to battleground Republicans in the upcoming midterms.

For the second year in a row, the labor union’s political arm donated to the Republicans’ House campaign arm after nearly two decades of mostly backing Democrats. The labor union’s D.R.I.V.E political action committee — Democrat, Republican, Independent Voter Education — gave the National Republican Congressional Committee $5,000 in the second quarter.

In addition to giving to the NRCC, Teamsters doled out a combined $62,000 in contributions to nearly two-dozen GOP congressional candidates, including in significant battleground districts:

• Rob Bresnahan, Mike Kelly and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania
• Pete Stauber and Tom Emmer of Minnesota
• Nicole Malliotakis, Andrew Garbarino, Nick LaLota and Mike Lawler of New York
• Jefferson Shreve of Indiana
• Dave Taylor, Bob Latta, Michael Rulli and Dave Joyce of Ohio
• Jeff Van Drew and Chris Smith of New Jersey
• David Rouzer of North Carolina
• Tom Barrett of Michigan
• Blake Moore of Utah
• Darin LaHood and Mike Bost of Illinois
• Troy Nehls of Texas
• Vern Buchanan of Florida 

The group also gave this year to GOP Sens. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jon Husted of Ohio, and Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania.
And it’s not just Congress: the Teamsters’ political arm donated $50,000 to the Republican Attorneys General Association this past June.

“Our members are working people whose interests cut across party lines,” Kara Deniz, a Teamsters spokesperson, told POLITICO. “And there’s no value in living in a bubble … where you only talk to certain people to the exclusion of others.”

The group hasn’t forsaken Democrats — it still gives them more, including $15,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in April.

“Congressional Republicans have betrayed America’s workers and union members by selling out our communities for the GOP’s billionaire backers,” said DCCC Spokesperson Viet Shelton. “House Democrats will continue to work hard to earn the support of unions and their members who have built this nation and will be critical in our comeback to victory next year.”

But the GOP donations signify a marked shift in the pivotal labor union’s strategy since 2024, when Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien delivered a historic address at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee and his outfit began more seriously supporting Republicans.

It comes as O’Brien has sought to reach out beyond the union’s traditional audience — and union members themselves are more open to backing Republicans. He recently hosted Ramaswamy on his podcast, and sat with The Free Press for an interview with Bari Weiss.

And it’s a warning sign for Democrats that their labor support — long a keystone of their base — continues to erode, as President Donald Trump chisels away at it in his effort to remake the GOP as a working-class party.

“Labor unions are finally recognizing the fact that their memberships are made up of workers from across the political spectrum,” said Bresnahan, who received $5,000 from the Teamsters and whose grandfather was a member of the IBEW.

Last year, the Teamsters donated $25,000 to the NRCC and gave $45,000 to the RNC in an effort to diversify their support as their rank-and-file members move rightward.

“Hard-working men and women across the country are rallying behind Republicans up and down the ballot because we fight for their jobs, their families, and their future,” said NRCC spokesperson Mike Marinella. “Democrats have abandoned them for their deeply out of touch, radical policies. We’re bringing these voters home, and they will be key in growing our House majority.”

​Politics

With help from Amira McKee

MAMDANI’S BIG FOIL: Affordability was at the center of Zohran Mamdani’s primary campaign for New York City mayor. Donald Trump is the focus of his general election bid.

The Democratic nominee launched a five-borough tour “against Trump” on Monday to amplify how he believes the president will bring harm to New York City — and why he thinks he should be elected to lead the vanguard.

He’s also tying opponents Andrew Cuomo, Eric Adams and Curtis Sliwa closely to Trump, adopting a classic Democratic general election playbook by casting two fellow Dems and the GOP nominee as the president’s favored picks.

Mamdani’s recalibration comes as Trump announced he’s activating the National Guard to respond to crime in Washington, D.C., listing New York and Chicago among the cities that could be next in line.

It also follows a New York Times story about how Trump has talked with Cuomo as the president considers involving himself with the election. Cuomo has denied discussing the race with Trump.

“We see far too many parallels between Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo, far too many stories that make clear that both administrations have been characterized by corruption, by a sense of impunity,” Mamdani told reporters Monday at the offices of 1199SEIU, which endorsed Cuomo in the primary but is backing Mamdani in the general election.

The young state assemblymember who stunned the Democratic establishment by defeating Cuomo in June — despite the former governor’s universal name recognition and a $25 million PAC in his corner — now faces the task of winning the November election by a hefty enough margin to bolster his mandate. Mamdani, a democratic socialist, is still seeking the endorsements of party leaders, including Gov. Kathy Hochul, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

But with or without them, he’s going after Trump — and anyone he argues would be used by Trump against New Yorkers.

He noted Monday that Cuomo conversed with Trump, Adams’ criminal fraud case was dropped at the urging of the Trump administration and that Sliwa shares a political party with the president.

“My administration will be Donald Trump’s worst nightmare,” Mamdani declared just last week, arguing his policies will lift up the same working class voters the president has left behind with cuts to health care and food benefits.

Trump has questioned Mamdani’s citizenship, vowed to arrest him if he interferes with federal agents’ crackdown on illegal immigration and threatened to cut federal funding to New York City if Mamdani doesn’t “do the right thing.”

Cuomo, making another bid for mayor after losing by nearly 13 points in June to Mamdani, has argued that Trump would step all over Mamdani. Cuomo said he already stood up to Trump as governor during the Covid pandemic.

“Trump will flatten him like a pancake,” Cuomo posted on X. (He used another food simile in a June primary debate, saying Trump would cut into Mamdani “like a hot knife through butter.”)

Adams, the incumbent mayor, has said he is not beholden to anyone, including the president. He has insisted that he seeks a working relationship with Trump for the benefit of the city.

And Sliwa, the longshot Republican making a repeat bid for mayor, has no direct relationship with Trump at all. In fact, the GOP nominee has encouraged Trump to stay out of the race for mayor.

“Comrade Mamdani is the American people’s worst nightmare,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded Monday, charging that Mamdani’s policies will tank the economy, increase crime and favor undocumented immigrants over American citizens. — Emily Ngo

PROGRESS IN READING AND MATH: The nation’s largest school system saw notable gains in reading and math scores this year, but disparities persist among Black, Hispanic and disabled students, according to results announced by New York City officials today.

About 56.3 percent of third through eighth graders were proficient in English during the 2024-25 school year, a 7.2 percentage point increase from the previous year, according to the latest data. Last school year’s figures represented a nearly 3 percentage point decrease from the year before — and coincided with the rollout of a new reading curriculum.

Math scores continued to rise, with 56.9 percent of students meeting standards, compared to 53.4 percent last year and 49.9 percent in 2023.

Schools Chancellor Melissa Aviles-Ramos acknowledged there were some “implementation hiccups” in the beginning.

“These numbers are telling us — both in [NYC] Reads and [NYC] Solves — that we’re heading in the right direction, but work still needs to be done,” she said in an interview. “So this is just fueling us to do better. It’s by no stretch of the imagination a time for us to rest.”

The percentage of Black, Hispanic and English language learners, as well as pupils with disabilities, scoring proficiently remain disproportionately low despite increases.

About 43 percent and 43.1 percent of Black and Hispanic students, respectively, demonstrated mastery of math, compared to 38.4 percent and 39.7 percent the previous year.

Aviles-Ramos called the persistent discrepancies “unacceptable” but also touted the improvements.

“They are huge increases and we beat pre-pandemic levels and so we know that what we’re doing is working,” she said. — Madina Touré

CUOMO’S ZOHRAN LAW PUSH: Cuomo promoted “Zohran’s Law” today, his new plan to block wealthy people from living in rent-stabilized apartments.

His proposal — while clearly political in origin — comes with a big practical question mark: Just how eager would the Democratic-dominated state Legislature be to work with Cuomo to pass such a measure if he were elected mayor?

Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi said the changes could be enacted if Albany agreed to repeal the Urstadt Law. “If that was successful, we could do that at the city level,” he said.

The law, a measure enacted during Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s tenure, gives Albany control over rent rules. Progressives have spent decades demanding Urstadt’s repeal, but their push has been met with long odds, with most Albany lawmakers over the past half century hesitant to give up the power to control housing rules, as well as donations from landlords who have historically been the state’s top campaign contributors. Even progressive legislators who’ve supported repeal in the past would likely be hesitant to move forward if it meant giving Cuomo more power.

As governor, Cuomo floated repealing the law when he attempted to force real estate groups to the table during housing talks in 2011, according to testimony in former Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos’ corruption trial. But he never publicly championed giving up that power while governor.

“There are people running for governor right now and I don’t know where they stand on Urstadt, including Gov. Cuomo,” then-City Councilmember Jumaane Williams said in 2014. “I would like to know where he stands on repealing Urstadt and bringing Urstadt back to New York City.” — Bill Mahoney

— MAMDANI’S PUBLIC SAFETY: Mamdani’s vision for a new Department of Community Safety shows promise, but public safety experts say transferring NYPD duties to the proposed agency could pose an administrative challenge. (Gothamist)

— SHUTTERED SHELTERS: New York City real estate developers are looking to convert closed hotel shelters into residential apartments. (The Wall Street Journal)

— ICE CAPITAL: New York City is leading the nation in immigration courthouse arrests by ICE authorities. (THE CITY)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

​Politics

Staff at the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism and Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, which led U.S. anti-violent extremism efforts, were laid off, the units shuttered, on July 11, 2025.

This dismantling of the country’s terrorism and extremism prevention programs began in February 2025. That’s when staff of USAID’s Bureau of Conflict Prevention and Stabilization were put on leave.

In March, the Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships at the Department of Homeland Security, which worked during the Biden administration to prevent terrorism with a staff of about 80 employees, laid off about 30% of its staff. Additional cuts to the center’s staff were made in June.

And on July 11, the countering violent extremism team at the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan organization established by Congress, was laid off. The fate of the institute is pending legal cases and congressional funding.

President Donald Trump in February had called for nonstatutory components and functions of certain government entities, including the U.S. Institute of Peace, to “be eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”

These cuts have drastically limited the U.S. government’s terrorism prevention work. What remains of the U.S. capability to respond to terrorism rests in its military and law enforcement, which do not work on prevention. They react to terrorist events after they happen.

As a political scientist who has worked on prevention programs for USAID, the U.S. Institute for Peace, and as an evaluator of the U.S. strategy that implemented the Global Fragility Act, I believe recent Trump administration cuts to terrorism prevention programs risk setting America’s counterterrorism work back into a reactive, military approach that has proven ineffective in reducing terrorism.

The US war against terrorism

Between 9/11 and 2021, the cost of the U.S. war on terrorism was $8 trillion and 900,000 deaths, according to a Brown University study. Nonetheless, terrorism has continued to expanded in geographic reach, diversity and deadliness.

Though it was territorially defeated in Syria in 2019, the Islamic State – designated a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government – has expanded globally, especially in Africa. Its nine affiliates on the continent have joined several al-Qaida-linked groups such as al-Shabab.

The Islamic State has expanded through a decentralized model of operations. It has networks of affiliates that operate semi-autonomously and exploit areas of weak governance in places such as Mali and Burkina Faso. That makes them difficult to defeat militarily.

These terrorist organizations threaten the U.S. through direct attacks, such as the ISIS-linked attack in New Orleans on Jan. 1, 2025, that killed 14 people.

These groups also disrupt the global economy, such as Houthi attacks on trade routes in the Red Sea.

To understand why terrorism and extremism continue to grow, and to examine what could be done, Congress charged the U.S. Institute of Peace in 2017 to convene the Task Force on Extremism in Fragile States.

This bipartisan task force found that while the U.S. military had battlefield successes, “after each supposed defeat, extremist groups return having grown increasingly ambitious, innovative, and deadly.”

The task force recommended prioritizing and investing in prevention efforts. Those include strengthening the ability of governments to provide social services and helping communities identify signs of conflict – and helping to provide tools to effectively respond when they see the signs.

The report contributed to the Global Fragility Act, which Trump signed in 2019 to fund $1.5 billion over five years of prevention work in places such as Libya, Mozambique and coastal West Africa.

Programs funded by the Global Fragility Act included USAID’s Research for Peace, which monitored signs of terrorism recruitment, trained residents in Côte d’Ivoire on community dialogue to resolve disputes, and worked with local leaders and media to promote peace. All programming under the act has shut down due to the elimination of prevention offices and bureaus.

What the US has lost

The State Department issued a call for funding in July 2025 for a contractor to work on preventing terrorists from recruiting young people online. It stated: “In 2024, teenagers accounted for up to two-thirds of ISIS-linked arrests in Europe, with children as young as 11 involved in recent terrorist plots.”

In the same month, the department canceled the program due to a loss of funding.

It’s the kind of program that the now defunct Office of Countering Violent Extremism would have overseen. The government evidently recognizes the need for prevention work. But it dismantled the expertise and infrastructure required to design and manage such responses.

Lost expertise

The work done within the prevention infrastructure wasn’t perfect. But it was highly specialized, with expertise built over 2½ decades.

Chris Bosley, a former interim director of the violence and extremism program at the U.S. Institute of Peace who was laid off in July, told me recently, “Adequate investment in prevention programs isn’t cheap, but it’s a hell of a lot cheaper than the decades of failed military action, and more effective than barbed wire – tools that come too late, cost too much, and add fuel to the very conditions that perpetuate the threats they’re meant to address.”

For now, the U.S. has lost a trove of counterterrorism expertise. And it has removed the guardrails – community engagement protocols and conflict prevention programs – that helped avoid the unintended consequences of U.S. military responses.

Without prevention efforts, we risk repeating some of the harmful outcomes of the past. Those include military abuses against civilians, prisoner radicalization in detention facilities and the loss of public trust, such as what happened in Guantanamo Bay, in Bagram, Afghanistan, and at various CIA black sites during the George W. Bush administration.

Counterterrorism prevention experts expect terrorism to worsen. Dexter Ingram, the former director of the State Department’s Office of Countering Violent Extremism who was laid off in July, told me: “It seems like we’re now going to try shooting our way out of this problem again, and it’s going to make the problem worse.”

What can be done?

Rebuilding a prevention-focused approach with expertise will require political will and bipartisan support.

U.S. Reps. Sara Jacobs, a Democrat from California, and Mike McCaul, a Texas Republican, have introduced a bill that would reauthorize the Global Fragility Act, extending it until 2030. It would allow the U.S. government to continue preventing conflicts, radicalization and helping unstable countries. The measure would also improve the way various government agencies collaborate to achieve these goals.

But its success hinges on securing funding and restoring or creating new offices with expert staff that can address the issues that lead to terrorism.

This analysis was developed with research contributions from Saroy Rakotoson and Liam Painter at Georgetown University.

Kris Inman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

When the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s urban search and rescue team resigned after the deadly July 4, 2025, Texas floods, he told colleagues he was frustrated with bureaucratic hurdles that had delayed the team’s response to the disaster, acccording to media reports. The move highlighted an ongoing challenge at FEMA.

Ever since the agency lost its independent status and became part of the Department of Homeland Security in the early 2000s, it has faced complaints about delays caused by layers of bureaucracy and red tape, leaders at the top with little experience in emergency response, and whiplash policy changes.

Now, the Trump administration is cutting jobs at FEMA and talking about dismantling the agency, which would push more responsibility for disaster response to the states.

Yet, federal emergency management is crucial in America.

I run the Hazards Vulnerability & Resilience Institute at the University of South Carolina and for years have worked with states and communities facing hazards and disasters. To better understand FEMA’s value, let’s take a look back at how the nation responded to disasters before the agency existed, and what history reveals about when FEMA was most effective.

Disaster response without the US government

Before 1950, disaster relief and response were not considered a federal responsibility. When a hurricane, flood or tornado hit, community members and humanitarian groups, such as the American Red Cross or Salvation Army, brought in food, shelter and medical aid and solicited charitable donations to help people rebuild.

State and local governments had primary responsibility for disaster response. But mostly people relied on family, neighbors and charity.

Federal aid was approved on a case-by-case basis. War Department guidelines in 1917 stated that aid would be allowed only if a senior military officer certified that responding to the disaster would exceed local and state resources.

Then the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927 and the 1930s Dust Bowl gave new meaning to the concept of disaster in America.

In 1927, the Mississippi River broke through its levees, submerging more than 1 million acres of land across seven states. An estimated 700,000 people were displaced from their homes and workplaces.

Herbert Hoover, then U.S. commerce secretary, was given full authority to create, coordinate and carry out the federal relief effort. The Red Cross set up camps using tents provided by the War Department. Coast Guard and Navy boats rescued people stranded by flooding. But the response drew criticism for the lack of direct federal money to help flood survivors and the treatment of Black sharecroppers and laborers.

A few years later, the droughts of the Dust Bowl era began destroying crops in the Great Plains, causing widespread damage.

Federal disaster aid begins to take shape

After the flood, the federal government began to formalize its role in disaster management.

Flood control projects became a federal responsibility with the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1928. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal provided emergency relief to farmers in the Great Plains and set up the Soil Conservation Service to help them reduce the effects of future droughts. These were among the first disaster mitigation policies at the federal level.

There was little coordination among agencies, however. Various aspects of disaster relief and recovery were handled by the departments of Defense, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development and the Small Business Administration. Each had its own rules and requirements.

In 1950, Congress passed the Federal Disaster Relief Act, establishing the first permanent authority for federal disaster relief.

The act gave the president the responsibility to determine how aid would be distributed and which agencies would be involved. The legislation also broadened the federal mission to include disaster preparedness and mitigation and formalized the process for issuing presidential disaster declarations.

The creation of FEMA

By the 1970s, large-scale disasters such as hurricanes Betsy (1965) and Camille (1969), and the fragmented disaster response, led the National Governors Association to call for a single comprehensive emergency management agency. Its report provided the blueprint for President Jimmy Carter’s 1979 executive order that established the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA.

The new agency became the home for emergency management within the executive branch. It was intentionally designed as an independent federal administrative agency that could work across federal agencies to support state and local governments in times of crisis.

FEMA wasn’t created to lead the disaster response. Instead it helps state and local officials by mobilizing federal resources, such as search and rescue, debris removal and funding when a disaster overwhelms the state’s capacity. FEMA could do this quickly because of established federal contracts and its ability to move equipment and responders into the region before a disaster hits.

When things began to fall apart

However, FEMA’s ability to act fast changed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The agency was restructured as a unit in the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. But the Department of Homeland Security’s focus was on terrorism and law enforcement, not natural disasters.

The loss of autonomy and direct reporting to Congress, unfunded mandates outside the scope of the 1988 Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and major increases in the number of large and complex disasters stretched FEMA’s capabilities.

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, FEMA’s response drew widespread criticism. It was slow to deploy people and supplies and lacked enough experienced responders who knew what to do. Decision-makers were not familiar with new national response plans. Further breakdowns in communications and a lack of coordination among agencies led Congress to declare the Hurricane Katrina response a failure of initiative and agility.

FEMA’s reputation improved after the government brought in more experienced leadership and committed to preparedness planning and better response capabilities.

However, the first Trump administration, from 2017 to 2021, reversed those gains. Three different heads of FEMA in four years led to understaffing and conflicting directions.

As Trump took office for the second time in 2025, he and his administration talked about dismantling FEMA and pushing more disaster management to states. Job cuts and resignations at FEMA reduced the number of employees with training and experience vital in disasters. Political appointees to senior roles in the agency and in the Department of Homeland Security lacked emergency management training and experience.

A new policy that all purchases over US$100,000 be personally approved by Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem led to more resignations. For disaster response, a delay in waiting for a signature to work its way up the chain can cost lives.

What now?

Dismantling FEMA and leaving little or no federal coordination of disaster response puts states in a difficult position.

States must balance their budgets every year, and increasingly “rainy day” funds are insufficient to cover unexpected large disasters. As the federal government shifts other financial responsibilities to states, funds will diminish further.

A single disaster can cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and require widespread disaster response and then relief efforts. Since 1980, the cumulative cost of weather-related disasters has exceeded $2.9 trillion. With a warming atmosphere producing more intense storms, increasing human and economic harm are likely.

Members of Congress have proposed making FEMA an independent, Cabinet-level agency again. I see some distinct advantages in doing so:

• Fewer management layers would enable faster deployment of federal supplies and personnel to assist disaster response.

• A streamlined, more nimble agency could cut red tape for disaster survivors needing assistance, meaning delivering relief funding faster and more equitably.

• If an independent FEMA had responsibility for recovery beyond its current 180-day reimbursement limits, that could improve long-term recovery efforts, especially if Congress provided permanent funding streams and consistent rules and regulations.

The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle FEMA are shortsighted in my view. Instead, I believe the best move is to restore FEMA as an independent executive agency as it was originally envisioned.

Susan L. Cutter receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The gerrymandering drama in Texas – and beyond – has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress.

The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who’s aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections.

Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind.

But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call “dummymandered.”

Democrats can finally fight back

Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states.

Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats’ losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year’s midterm elections.

Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York – led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively – have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side.

New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is “sick and tired of being pushed around” while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she’d even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission.

It’s unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile.

Dummymandering

Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness.

In responding to Democrats’ continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. “If they don’t start showing up, I may start expanding,” Abbott said. “We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we’re going to be adding on the Republican side.”

But Abbott might think twice about this strategy.

Parties that gerrymander their states’ districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations.

When parties gerrymander districts, they don’t usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts.

But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected.

This phenomenon, commonly referred to as “dummymandering,” has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide.

With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to.

There’s not much left to gerrymander

One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons.

First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses.

Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control.

But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024.

There’s also the fact that over the past half-century, “gerrymanderable” territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That’s because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties.

This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas.

As a result, it’s become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party’s voters in order to diminish the opponents’ ability to elect one of their own.

Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today’s clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion.

And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps – not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they’re unsatisfied with the odds in the next election.

Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation