Category: Politics

President Donald Trump is raking in cash for his political operation, building up funds that could allow him to continue to be a political kingmaker even as he cannot seek reelection.

The president’s primary super PAC brought in a whopping nearly $177 million in the first half of the year, while his leadership PAC raised $28 million, according to filings submitted to the Federal Election Commission late Thursday.

Those two groups alone reported a combined $234 million cash on hand at the end of June, the filings show — a massive sum. And a separate joint fundraising committee had $12 million more in the bank, much of which will later be transferred to other groups in Trump’s political network.

The Trump-linked groups have largely not begun to deploy that cash, instead building up a war chest the president could use next year in primaries or to boost Republicans’ prospects in the midterms. Trump has already shown substantial interest in the 2026 elections, with the White House intervening to encourage some GOP incumbents to run again, pushing potential challengers out of primary fields and asking Texas Republicans to draw new districts with the hopes of gaining seats.

Having millions of dollars at Trump’s disposal — an unheard of amount for a sitting president who cannot run again — could allow him to become one of the biggest single players in next year’s midterms, alongside longstanding GOP stalwarts like the Congressional Leadership Fund and Senate Leadership Fund. Trump could boost his preferred candidates in GOP primaries, or flood the zone in competitive general election races in an effort to help Republicans keep control of Congress.

Trump has a smattering of political groups. His primary joint fundraising committee, Trump National Committee, spent $17 million on operating expenses while transferring just over $20 million each to the Republican National Committee and Never Surrender. A range of other political groups, including his former campaign committees from his 2016 and 2020 presidential bids, continue to spend relatively small amounts of money and get transfers from older joint fundraising committees, but largely are not involved in building up his cash.

Trump’s primary leadership PAC now is Never Surrender, which was converted from his 2024 campaign committee. It ended June with $38 million cash on hand, after spending $16.8 million, the majority of which was expenses lingering from Trump’s campaign last year.

MAGA Inc., the primary pro-Trump super PAC, reported a whopping $196 million cash on hand, after spending only a few million dollars.

The group, which does not face donation limits, benefited from fundraisers featuring Trump and Vice President JD Vance this spring. It raised money from a range of longtime GOP megadonors and cryptocurrency interests:

• Jeff Yass gave $16 million
• The pro-Trump dark money group Securing American Greatness gave $13.75 million 
• Energy Transfer Partners gave $12.5 million, as did its CEO, Kelcy Warren 
• Foris DAX, Inc., a cryptocurrency-linked entity, gave $10 million
• Blockchain.com, a cryptocurrency company, gave $5 million
• Elon Musk, who has publicly feuded with Trump in recent months, gave $5 million

The super PAC also received some donations made in bitcoin. Trump signed a landmark cryptocurrency bill favored by the industry in June, and his business empire has quickly expanded its crypto interests.

​Politics

Roy Cooper has an early, six-point lead in the North Carolina Senate race, according to the first public poll of the marquee contest.

The Emerson College poll, released Friday morning, found the Democratic former North Carolina governor with 47 percent support to Republican National Committee chair Michael Whatley’s 41 percent. Another 12 percent of voters are undecided.

The North Carolina Senate race — likely between Cooper and Whatley, who have each cleared their respective primary fields — is expected to be one of the most competitive and expensive in 2026. It’s the top offensive target for Democrats, who must net four seats to retake the Senate. In June, North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis declined to run for reelection after clashing with President Donald Trump over his domestic agenda and warning fellow Republicans about the Medicaid cuts in their spending package.

Cooper, who finished his second term in 2024, starts the open race to replace Tillis with stronger name recognition and favorability than Whatley, a first-time candidate. Most voters view Cooper positively, one-third perceive him negatively and just 13 percent are unsure, the poll found.

By contrast, nearly two-thirds of voters do not know or are unsure of Whatley and another 17 percent view him favorably — capturing his challenge to quickly define himself with an electorate that isn’t familiar with him.

Cooper also holds a 19-point edge among independent voters, a significant bloc that supported him during his gubernatorial campaigns. For now, these voters prefer Cooper to Whatley 47 percent to 28 percent.

But in a preview of what will be a tight Senate race in a hyper-partisan environment, voters in purple North Carolina are evenly divided on whom they prefer on the generic congressional ballot: 41.5 percent support would back the Democrat and 41.3 percent would back the Republican.

In the 2028 presidential primary, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg leads among Democratic voters in North Carolina with 17 percent support. Former Vice President Kamala Harris, who opted against a gubernatorial run this week, receives 12 percent, followed by California Gov. Gavin Newsom with 10 percent and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders with 7 percent. Nearly a quarter of the Democratic voters are undecided.

Among Republicans, Vice President JD Vance dominates the GOP primary with 53 percent backing him, compared to 7 percent for Florida Gov. and failed 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and 5 percent for Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Emerson College conducted the poll from July 28 through July 30, interviewing 1,000 registered North Carolina voters. It has a 3-point margin of error.

​Politics

Thousands of K-12 students in Detroit consistently miss days of school.

Chronic absenteeism is defined as missing at least 10% of school days – or 18 in a 180-day academic year. In Detroit, chronic absenteeism rose during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains a persistent challenge.

To encourage attendance, the Detroit Public Schools Community District is getting creative. This past year, Michigan’s largest school district awarded US$200 gift cards to nearly 5,000 high schoolers for attending all their classes during a two-week period, and Superintendent Nikolai Vitti also floated the idea of providing bikes to help students get to class. Some district students lack access to reliable transportation.

To understand the consequences of kids regularly missing school, The Conversation U.S. spoke with Sarah Lenhoff, associate professor of education at Wayne State University and director of the Detroit Partnership for Education Equity & Research, an education-focused research collaborative, and Jeremy Singer, an assistant professor of education at Wayne State University. Lenhoff and Singer wrote a book published in March about the socioeconomic drivers of chronic absenteeism in K-12 schools and how policymakers and communities, not just educators, can help.

Is chronic absenteeism the same as truancy?

No. Truancy is how schools have thought about and dealt with student attendance problems since the early days of public education in the United States in the 19th century and is still defined in state law across the country. It focuses on “unexcused” absences and compliance with mandatory school attendance laws. By contrast, chronic absenteeism includes any absence – whether “excused” or “unexcused” – because each absence can be consequential for student learning and development.

Chronic absenteeism is usually defined as missing 10% or more school days. The 10% threshold is somewhat arbitrary, since researchers know that the consequences of missing school accumulate with each day missed. But the specific definition of chronic absenteeism has been solidified in research and by policymakers. Most states now include a measure of chronic absenteeism in their education accountability systems.

How big of a problem is chronic absenteeism in Detroit’s K-12 public schools?

Detroit has among the highest chronic absenteeism rates in the country: more than 50% in recent school years. Prior to the pandemic, the average rate of chronic absenteeism nationwide was about 15%, and it was around 24% in 2024.

In one of our prior studies, we found Detroit’s chronic absenteeism rate was much higher than other major cities – even others with high absenteeism rates such as Milwaukee or Philadelphia.

This is related to the depth of social and economic inequalities that Detroit families face. Compared to other major cities, Detroit has higher rates of poverty, unemployment and crime. It has worse public health conditions. And even its winters are some of the coldest of major U.S. cities. All of these factors make it harder for kids to attend school.

Rates of chronic absenteeism spiked in Detroit during the COVID-19 pandemic, as they did statewide. The Detroit Public Schools Community District has come close to returning to its pre-pandemic levels of absenteeism. The rates were 66% in the 2023-24 school year compared to 62% in the school year right before the pandemic began, 2018-19.

Detroit’s charter schools have struggled more to bring down their chronic absenteeism rates post-pandemic, but the numbers are lower overall – 54% in the 2023-24 school year compared to 36% in 2018-19.

How does missing school affect students?

The connection between attendance and achievement is clear: Students who miss more school on average score worse on reading and math tests. As early as pre-K, being chronically absent is linked to lower levels of school readiness, both academically and behaviorally. By high school, students who miss more school tend to earn lower grades and GPAs and are less likely to graduate.

And it’s not just the absent students who are affected. When more kids in a class miss school regularly, that is associated with lower overall test scores and worse measures of skills such as executive functioning for other students in that class.

Does chronic absenteeism vary by family income or other factors?

Rates of chronic absenteeism are much higher among students from low-income families. In these cases, absenteeism is often driven by factors outside a student’s control such as unstable housing, unreliable transportation, health issues, lack of access to child care, or parents who work nontraditional hours. These challenges make it harder for students to get to school consistently, even when families are deeply committed to education.

School-based factors also influence attendance. Students are more likely to be chronically absent in schools with weaker relationships with families or a less positive school culture. However, even schools with strong practices may struggle if they serve communities facing deep socioeconomic hardship.

Ultimately, we don’t view chronic absenteeism as an issue of student motivation or family values. Rather, we see it as an issue related to the unequal conditions that shape students’ lives.

Does punishing absent kids or their parents work?

Many schools have suspended students for absences, or threatened their parents with fines or jail time. In some cases, families have lost social services due to their children’s chronic absenteeism.

Research shows these strategies are not only ineffective, they can make the problem worse.

For example, we found that when schools respond with punishment instead of support, they often alienate the very students and families who are already struggling to stay connected. Harsh responses can deepen mistrust between families and schools. When absences are treated as a personal failing caused by a lack of motivation or irresponsibility rather than symptoms of deeper challenges, students and parents may disengage further.

Instead, educators might ask: What’s getting in the way of consistent attendance, and how can we help? That shift from blame to understanding can help improve attendance.

What can policymakers, school districts and community organizations do to reduce chronic absenteeism?

Chronic absenteeism is a societal issue, not just a school problem. In other words, we need to recognize that chronic absenteeism is not a problem that schools can solve alone. While educators work to improve conditions within schools, policymakers and community leaders can take responsibility for the broader factors that influence attendance.

This could look like investing more resources and fostering collaboration across sectors such as health care, housing, transportation and social services to better support students and their families. Community organizations can play a role too, offering wraparound services such as mental health care, access to transportation, and after-school programming, all of which can support families. In the meantime, educators can focus on what they can control: strengthening communication with families, building supportive relationships and helping families connect with existing services that can remove attendance barriers.

Sarah Lenhoff receives funding from the Skillman Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Kresge Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, the American Institutes for Research, and the Urban Institute.

Jeremy Singer 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

With help from Amira McKee

‘OUT OF STEP:’ Zohran Mamdani distanced himself from “defund the police” posts he made in 2020, saying today they were made “amidst a frustration that many New Yorkers held at the murder of George Floyd.” He said multiple times that the posts were “clearly out of step” with his current view of policing and his campaign platform.

The Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City was speaking at a press conference held hours after he returned from an 11-day vacation to Uganda.

Mamdani has faced backlash over his past comments critical of the NYPD following the city’s deadliest mass shooting in 25 years, where four people, including an off-duty police officer, were killed in Midtown Manhattan.

“I am not defunding the police; I am not running to defund the police,” Mamdani told reporters today. “Over the course of this race, I’ve been very clear about my view of public safety and the critical role that the police have in creating that public safety.”

There was little the NYPD could have done to stop the shooter, who drove in from out of state and was in public only briefly before he began pulling the trigger. Still, the tragedy has resulted in an outpouring of support for the department and its members, and has raised questions about how Mamdani would lead the force as mayor, POLITICO reports. 

Mamdani is returning to a city where polling shows him as the clear favorite, and he’ll try to maintain that lead through the tumult of a crowded general election in an unpredictable city. His opponents have homed in on his relatively limited political and management experience, and the past few days have served as a test of how the democratic socialist frontrunner would respond to a crisis — and the pressure that entails.

During the news conference, Mamdani stood with the Bangladeshi American Police Association, of which slain NYPD officer Didarul Islam was a member, and building service workers union 32BJ, which represented Aland Etienne, an office security guard who died in the attack.

Like other Democrats, Mamdani placed blame for the shooting on easy access to firearms.

“No matter how strong our gun laws are in this state, they are only as strong as the weakest laws in our nation,” he said. “I echo the call from Governor Hochul for a nationwide ban on assault rifles.”

Mamdani also slammed his opponent Andrew Cuomo for criticizing his prior calls to defund the police in the aftermath of the shooting, saying it was a way for Cuomo to “score such cynical political points.”

“We want to honor the New Yorkers who have been taken from us far too soon,” Mamdani said. “And yet, here we have a former governor calling every reporter he can find to speak about tweets. What kind of leadership is that?”

Cuomo spokesperson Rich Azzopardi said it was fair game.

“I liken that to every time there is a mass shooting, Republicans say it’s not the time to talk gun control,” he said in a statement. “This is very much the time to talk about what our candidates for mayor said then vs. now.” — Jeff Coltin & Jason Beeferman

A LONG FIGHT AHEAD FOR REDISTRICTING AMENDMENT: On the same morning that Texas Republicans unveiled a potential gerrymander to create five new Republican-friendly congressional seats, New York Democrats officially introduced a constitutional amendment that would let them make mid-decade changes to the Empire State’s maps.

But don’t expect any imminent or drastic action in New York, POLITICO Pro reported today. Any amendment couldn’t be approved any earlier than November 2027. That means any new lines wouldn’t take effect until 2028, even if they can avoid legal hiccups and court-ordered stays that spring.

And the new maps would still need to adhere to existing prohibitions on gerrymandering — so don’t expect districts combining Staten Island with Plattsburgh, as you might see in other states.

The amendment is sure to be at the center of an extremely expensive battle at the ballot box if it moves forward. A different proposal to change the redistricting process was defeated as a referendum in 2021 — a year with mayoral races that drove out more Democrats than can be expected in 2027.

“It’s the perfect type of legislation to beat at the ballot box,” state Conservative Party Chair Gerard Kassar said. “Frankly, it’s likely to turn out the vote and help us elect other officials.”

Democrats are hopeful they’ll be better prepared this time around, though.

“I would hope for a campaign from the national party, from the state party, from other interested parties,” Senate Deputy Leader Mike Gianaris said. “This is something with national implications, so I would hope there’d be a huge effort.” — Bill Mahoney

MAP FIGHT: Despite the severely limited menu of options for New York Democrats to redraw House lines before the 2026 midterm elections, Hochul today signaled she’s in ongoing talks over the issue.

In a statement to Playbook, Hochul blasted Texas GOP lawmakers for revising their House lines — a change that will add five additional seats Trump carried by double digits.

“We’re not going to sit by while Donald Trump and Texas Republicans try to steal this nation’s future,” she said. “I’ve been in active talks with local and national leaders, and in the coming days we’ll meet to align on our next move.”

Hochul has spoken with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffires about redistricting in New York, as red states — including Texas and Ohio — move forward with changing their maps this year.

Two state lawmakers have proposed a constitutional amendment that would allow New York to redistrict mid-decade, but such a change would not be in place soon enough to impact the high-stakes House races next year. — Nick Reisman 

CHILD HEALTH CARE ROLLBACK: A new federal policy slated to take effect in 2027 will jeopardize health insurance coverage for more than 750,000 children in New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul said today.

The Democratic governor bashed President Donald Trump’s administration in a statement, calling the rollback of programs that provide continuous Medicaid coverage a “misguided policy” that “threatens the progress we’ve made in keeping young children connected to care,” POLITICO Pro’s Katelyn Cordero reports. 

The federal government last year approved New York’s proposal for continuous Medicaid and Child Health Plus coverage for enrollees up to the age of 6. The state is now required to roll back that policy by 2027.

New York’s continuous coverage policy was implemented this year under a federal waiver. It requires continued access to health care for children regardless of changes to family income.

The waiver will not be revoked, but the Hochul administration received a letter from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services indicating that it will not be renewed in 2027.

“We will use every tool at our disposal to protect access to Medicaid and Child Health Plus for the more than 750,000 young children across New York State who depend on it for a healthy start in life,” Hochul said in her statement. — Katelyn Cordero

QUIT POLITICKIN’: Senate Republicans are decrying one of Hochul’s commissioners for using government resources to promote attacks against Republicans in D.C.

“We understand Governor Hochul is gearing up for a tough re-election, but the use of state resources to amplify partisan messaging must cease immediately,” the GOP state lawmakers wrote in a letter to Barbara Guinn, commissioner of the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance.

Guinn, who was appointed by Hochul to lead the office in 2023, penned an op-ed with Democratic state Sen. Roxanne Persaud criticizing the GOP’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Her agency — which is tasked with overseeing food, heat and cash assistance programs — then shared the opinion piece on its government website.

“If you are struggling to put enough food on the table and also struggling to find gainful employment, Republicans in Washington, including seven representing New York State, say you are on your own,” Guinn wrote in the piece, adding that the federal bill “cruelly slashes SNAP in ways that were previously unthinkable.”

In a separate letter sent to state lawmakers under government letterhead, she also decried how “actions by the federal GOP will likely lead to limited benefit access,” she wrote.

While Hochul freely uses her taxpayer-funded communications team to slam Republicans in Congress and the White House, many unelected commissioners in Albany steer clear of partisan attacks.

Senate Republicans are arguing that Guinn crossed a line: “These talking points are best left to the Democratic National Committee, not parroted by a state agency that performs vital public service,” they wrote in their letter.

Guinn’s office did not respond to a request for comment. — Jason Beeferman

— ALL AGAINST MAMDANI: Five separate groups have emerged, all planning to raise millions of dollars to defeat Mamdani. (The New York Times)

— OLD VS. NEW: 26-year-old Liam Elkind is launching a primary challenge to 78-year-old Rep. Jerry Nadler, saying he no longer has the energy nor mindset for the job. (CNN)

— BRONX CASINO BID IS ALIVE: The mayor vetoed a measure from the City Council that some thought permanently ended the chances of a Bronx casino. (POLITICO Pro)

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

​Politics

It has happened before: an upset victory by a Democratic Socialist in an important primary election after an extraordinary grassroots campaign.

In the summer of 1934, Upton Sinclair earned the kind of headlines that greeted Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory on June 24, 2025, in the New York City mayoral election.

Mamdani’s win surprised nearly everyone. Not just because he beat the heavily favored former governor Andrew Cuomo, but because he did so by a large margin. Because he did so with a unique coalition, and because his Muslim identity and membership in the Democratic Socialists of America should have, in conventional political thinking, made victory impossible.

This sounds familiar, at least to historians like me. Upton Sinclair, the famous author and a socialist for most of his life, ran for governor in California in 1934 and won the Democratic primary election with a radical plan that he called End Poverty in California, or EPIC.

The news traveled the globe and set off intense speculation about the future of California, where Sinclair was then expected to win the general election. His primary victory also generated theories about the future of the Democratic Party, where this turn toward radicalism might complicate the policies of the Democratic administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

What happened next may concern Mamdani supporters. Business and media elites mounted a campaign of fear that put Sinclair on the defensive. Meanwhile, conservative Democrats defected, and a third candidate split progressive votes.

In the November election, Sinclair lost decisively to incumbent Gov. Frank Merriam, who would have stood less chance against a conventional Democrat.

As a historian of American radicalism, I have written extensively about Sinclair’s EPIC movement, and I direct an online project that includes detailed accounts of the campaign and copies of campaign materials.

Upton’s 1934 campaign initiated the on-again, off-again influence of radicals in the Democratic Party and illustrates some of the potential dynamics of that relationship, which, almost 100 years later, may be relevant to Mamdani in the coming months.

California, 1934

Sinclair launched his gubernatorial campaign in late 1933, hoping to make a difference but not expecting to win. California remained mired in the Great Depression. The unemployment rate had been estimated at 29% when Roosevelt took office in March and had improved only slightly since then.

Sinclair’s Socialist Party had failed badly in the 1932 presidential election as Democrat Roosevelt swept to victory. Those poor results included California, where the Democratic Party had been an afterthought for more than three decades.

Sinclair decided that it was time to see what could be accomplished by radicals working within that party.

Reregistering as a Democrat, he dashed off a 64-page pamphlet with the futuristic title I, Governor of California and How I Ended Poverty. It detailed his plan to solve California’s massive unemployment crisis by having the state take over idle farms and factories and turn them into cooperatives dedicated to “production for use” instead of “production for profit.”

Sinclair soon found himself presiding over an explosively popular campaign, as thousands of volunteers across the state set up EPIC clubs – numbering more than 800 by election time – and sold the weekly EPIC News to raise campaign funds.

Mainstream Democrats waited too long to worry about Sinclair and then failed to unite behind an alternative candidate. But it would not have mattered. Sinclair celebrated a massive primary victory, gaining more votes than all of his opponents combined.

Newspapers around the world told the story.

“What is the matter with California?” The Boston Globe asked, according to author Greg Mitchell. “That is the farthest shift to the left ever made by voters of a major party in this country.”

Building fear

Primaries are one thing. But in 1934, the November general election turned in a different direction.

Terrified by Sinclair’s plan, business leaders mobilized to defeat EPIC, forming the kind of cross-party coalition that is rare in America except when radicals pose an electoral threat. Sinclair described the effort in a book he wrote shortly after the November election: “I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked.”

Nearly every major newspaper in the state, including the five Democratic-leaning Hearst papers, joined the effort to stop Sinclair. Meanwhile, a high-priced advertising agency set up bipartisan groups with names like California League Against Sinclairism and Democrats for Merriam, trumpeting the names of prominent Democrats who refused to support Sinclair.

Few people of any party were enthusiastic about Merriam, who had recently angered many Californians by sending the National Guard to break a Longshore strike in San Francisco, only to trigger a general strike that shut down the city.

The campaign against Sinclair attacked him with billboards, radio and newsreel programming, and relentless newspaper stories about his radical past and supposedly dangerous plans for California.

EPIC faced another challenge, candidate Raymond Haight, running on the Progressive Party label. Haight threatened to divide left-leaning voters.

Sinclair tried to defend himself, energetically denouncing what he called the “Lie Factory” and offering revised, more moderate versions of some elements of the EPIC plan. But the Red Scare campaign worked. Merriam easily outdistanced Sinclair, winning by a plurality in the three-way race.

New York, 2025

Will a Democratic Socialist running for mayor in New York face anything similar in the months ahead?

A movement to stop Mamdani is coming together, and some of what they are saying resonates with the 1934 campaign to stop Sinclair.

The Guardian newspaper has quoted “loquacious billionaire hedge funder Bill Ackman, who said he and others in the finance industry are ready to commit ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ into an opposing campaign.”

In 1934, newspapers publicized threats by major companies, most famously Hollywood studios, to leave California in the event of a Sinclair victory. The Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine and other media outlets have recently warned of similar threats.

And there may be something similar about the political dynamics.

Sinclair’s opponents could offer only a weak alternative candidate. Merriam had few friends and many critics.

In 2025, New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who abandoned the primary when he was running as a Democrat and is now running as an independent, is arguably weaker still, having been rescued by President Donald Trump from a corruption indictment that might have sent him to prison. If he is the best hope to stop Mamdani, the campaign strategy will likely parallel 1934. All attack ads – little effort to promote Adams.

But there is an important difference in the way the New York contest is setting up. Andrew Cuomo remains on the ballot as an independent, and his name could draw votes that might otherwise go to Adams.

Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will also be on the ballot. Whereas in 1934 two candidates divided progressive votes, in 2025 three candidates are going to divide the stop-Mamdani votes.

Religion also looms large in the campaign ahead. The New York City metro area’s U.S. Muslim population is said to be at least 600,000, compared to an estimated 1.6 million Jewish residents. Adams has announced that the threat of antisemitism will be the major theme of his campaign.

The stop-Sinclair campaign also relied on religion, focusing on his professed atheism and pulling quotations from books he had written denouncing organized religion. However, a statistical analysis of voting demographics suggests that this effort proved unimportant.

James N. Gregory 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

Immigration has dominated recent public discourse about Florida, whether it be the opening of Alligator Alcatraz, a migrant detention facility in the middle of the Everglades, or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis declaring an “immigration emergency” for the state that has lasted more than two years.

As demographers – that is, people who count people – we’ve noticed that this conversation has proceeded largely without the benefit of a clear description of Florida’s immigrant population.

Here’s a snapshot.

How many immigrants are in Florida?

We used data from the Office of Homeland Security Statistics and the American Community Survey, conducted annually by the U.S. Census Bureau. Homeland Security provides estimates of the state’s undocumented population and annual counts of authorized arrivals. Census data allow us to describe the social and economic characteristics of Florida’s immigrant population.

In 2023, the most recent year for which the Department of Homeland Security provides publicly available data, an estimated 590,000 immigrants without legal status were living in Florida. This is the third-largest population of immigrants without legal status in the U.S., behind California and Texas. But in contrast to those two states, the number of immigrants entering Florida illegally has been shrinking since 2018.

On the other hand, DHS data points to recent growth in Florida’s population of immigrants with legal status. This represents a rebound from declines between 2016 and 2020.

In 2023, Florida welcomed 72,850 residents from outside the country. This is just 0.3% of Florida’s population that year. About 95% of these new Florida residents were admitted as lawful permanent residents, or green card holders. The remainder entered as refugees (3%) and people granted asylum (2%).

For comparison, U.S. Census Bureau estimates suggest roughly 640,000 people moved to Florida in 2023 from other states.

Who makes up Florida’s immigrant population?

The American Community Survey data tells us even more about Florida’s immigrant population. The survey estimates that 4,996,874 foreign-born individuals lived in Florida in 2023, up from 3,798,062 in 2013. These numbers include those who are in the U.S. legally and illegally and encompass both recent arrivals and long-term residents.

In 2023, about 22% of Florida residents – and nearly 7% of Florida children – were immigrants. An additional 29% of Florida children have at least one immigrant parent.

According to the American Community Survey, nearly half of Florida’s immigrants were born in Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, Colombia or Mexico. Despite being born elsewhere, Florida’s immigrants in many ways resemble other Floridians: About 20% hold a bachelor’s degree, compared to 22% of nonimmigrant Floridians, and 13% of both groups have a graduate degree. Nearly all Florida immigrants, 89%, speak English, and the majority, 57%, are naturalized citizens.

Immigrants make up a disproportionate share of Florida’s workforce, particularly in essential sectors of the state’s economy. They account for more than 47% of Florida’s agricultural workers, 41% of hotel workers and 35% of construction workers.

Florida immigrants also work in sectors that many might not consider to be “immigrant jobs.” They constitute 33% of child care workers, 21% of school and university employees and 27% of the health care workers.

Across all sectors, immigrants have lower unemployment rates than nonimmigrants. Although available data cannot tell us the extent to which these numbers are bolstered by undocumented immigrants, the importance of Florida’s immigrants for the state’s economy is undeniable.

Florida’s population is growing at a faster rate than any other state in the country, boosted by people moving in from abroad and from other states. This growth both reflects and feeds the state’s economic vitality. Between 2019 and 2024, Florida’s GDP grew twice as fast as the nation’s as a whole.

Is Florida experiencing an “immigration emergency”? That’s for politicians to decide. Our research suggests that policies that discourage new arrivals or encourage – or force – migrants to leave could jeopardize Florida’s robust economy and the well-being of its population.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Roy Cooper raised $3.4 million in the first 24 hours of his Senate campaign — a record-breaking sum for the former North Carolina governor in one of the most competitive upcoming Senate races.

The fundraising haul, shared first with POLITICO, includes more than $2.6 million raised directly to Cooper’s campaign account, with 95 percent of those donations totaling $100 or less, according to his team. The former governor raised another $900,000 into joint fundraising committees with the party, which allows for bigger contributions.

Cooper is likely to face Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley, who will launch his own Senate bid in the coming days with the backing of President Donald Trump. Republican Sen. Thom Tillis announced his plans not to seek reelection last month, after clashing with Trump over passage of his megabill that Tillis voted against.

North Carolina represents Democrats’ best offensive opportunity for the Senate, a battleground state the former governor has won twice with Trump on the ticket. Cooper, the party’s top recruit, was expected to bring in big cash for the race, after growing a national fundraising network during his stint as Democratic Governors Association chair. Whatley, who took over the RNC last year, has built his own national donor relationships, raising expectations that the race will be one of the most expensive in 2026.

Cooper’s first-day total cracks a Senate Democratic candidate record set by Amy McGrath, a fundraising juggernaut, who nonetheless failed to unseat Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell in 2020. McGrath raised $2.5 million in her first 24 hours as a candidate.

​Politics