Category: Politics

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has joined fellow Democrats in criticizing Zohran Mamdani, the progressive candidate for mayor of New York whose past comments on Israel have cost him support from within the party.

Mamdani has failed to condemn “blatantly antisemitic” rhetoric, Shapiro said in an interview with Jewish Insider published Wednesday.

“You have to speak and act with moral clarity, and when supporters of yours say things that are blatantly antisemitic, you can’t leave room for that to just sit there,” Shapiro said in the interview. “You’ve got to condemn that.”

The remarks from Shapiro, who is considered a likely Democratic candidate for president in 2028, are the latest sign that Mamdani still has work to do to win over some of the prominent figures in the party as he runs to unseat New York Mayor Eric Adams.

New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who endorsed Mamdani after running against him in the Democratic primary, defended the nominee.

“Let’s be clear: Zohran Mamdani won the votes of a large majority of NYC Democrats, including thousands of proud Jews like me, inspired by his vision of a city everyone can afford and confident about his commitment to combating antisemitism and hate,” Lander said in a statement. “Josh Shapiro won’t help keep Jews safe in NYC or Pennsylvania by feeding Trump’s narrative about our Democratic nominee for mayor.”

Some Democrats have been hesitant to fully embrace Mamdani, with elected officials from battleground districts distancing themselves from his campaign’s anti-Israel rhetoric. He met with Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Friday but has still yet to secure his endorsement.

Mamdani faces opposition for his advocacy of economic plans he describes as socialist, including free buses and city-run grocery stores. He’s also faced attacks for his refusal to condemn use of the phrase “gloablize the intifada” by anti-Israel protesters — a Palestinian resistance slogan regarded by some as a call to violence against Jews.

Shapiro had some faint words of praise for Mamdani: “He seemed to run a campaign that excited New Yorkers,” the governor said, before discussing his criticism of the candidate’s refusal to condemn inflammatory rhetoric about Israel and the ongoing war in Gaza.

“He also seemed to run a campaign where he left open far too much space for extremists to either use his words or for him to not condemn the words of extremists that said some blatantly antisemitic things,” Shapiro said.

Republicans have sought to brand the mayoral candidate as their new Democratic boogeyman while members of his own party are still weighing what lessons to take away from the 33-year-old democratic socialist’s upset primary win. The New York race is also rippling through next year’s midterm elections and the lead-up to the presidential campaign, with figures like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear — both seen as likely 2028 contenders — saying the party should consider Mamdani’s affordability-focused messaging.

​Politics

The first six months of President Donald Trump’s term have produced a cash cow of historic magnitude for the lobbying industry, with record-breaking demand for help navigating the administration’s constant stream of policy pronouncements — or trying to avoid becoming a pay-for in the GOP’s megabill.

The result is a new set of power brokerse in Trump’s swamp. Firms with strong ties to the White House have skyrocketed to the top of the pecking order of lobbying outfits in town, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest quarterly lobbying disclosures filed this week.

No firm has benefitted more than Ballard Partners, which is led by Trump fundraiser Brian Ballard. The firm previously employed White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Ballard brought in $20.6 million in lobbying revenues during the second quarter of the year from clients including Palantir, American Express, TikTok, Ripple Labs and UnitedHealth. Its haul is more than four times what the firm brought in during the second quarter of 2024.

But the gusher has benefited the entire lobbying industry, new firms and old, the analysis shows. Of the top 20 firms by revenue, only two saw their lobbying revenues decline last quarter compared to the same time a year ago. The lobbying figures reported this week don’t include revenue from public affairs or consulting work, or foreign agent work.

“The number of people who feel they need representation at this point is huge, and we’re really just getting into sort of the day-to-day of governing,” said Rich Gold, who heads up the public policy and regulation group at law and lobbying firm Holland & Knight. Gold’s firm, which ranked fifth among the top earners on K Street last quarter with $13.8 million in revenue, signed 57 new clients during the first half of the year, a record intake for the firm.

“The largest driver of business right now is the overarching trend of uncertainty and the need for C-suites to try to minimize uncertainty and political risk as much as possible,” he said. While specific legislation like the recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act has certainly drummed up lobbying business, “the number of people who needed political intelligence work and advocacy” in D.C. this year stretches far beyond that one law, Gold said.

As for Ballard, its blowout earnings were enough to dethrone Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, which has topped the quarterly revenue rankings since 2021. Brownstein reported $18.5 million in lobbying revenues during Q2, setting the firm’s own quarterly record.

Ballard’s Trump-linked competitors are also cashing in. Miller Strategies, which is run by top GOP fundraiser Jeff Miller and employs several former Trump administration alumni, brought in nearly $13 million during the second quarter from clients like Zoom, OpenAI, Apple, Softbank, Crypto.com and Blackstone. That’s up almost 80 percent from the beginning of the year, and four times what it brought in during the second quarter of 2024.

Continental Strategy, whose staff includes former Trump appointee Carlos Trujillo as well as a former top aide to then Sen. Marco Rubio, reported $6.5 million in lobbying revenues last quarter, making it the 15th biggest firm by lobbying revenue in Q2. During the same time last year, Continental reported just $292,000 in lobbying fees.

Another firm that found itself knocking at the doorstep of D.C.’s most prestigious lobbying shops didn’t even exist in the nation’s capital a year ago.

North Carolina-based Checkmate Government Relations, which announced plans to open a D.C. office in December, brought in $4.5 million in lobbying fees in Q2, more than quadruple the $910,000 it reported at the beginning of 2025. Among its clients were Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, UNC Chapel Hill, General Dynamics and Juul.

Checkmate’s president, Ches McDowell, is a hunting buddy of Donald Trump Jr. and the brother of freshman Rep. Addison McDowell (R-N.C.). The firm also employs the son of Trump’s co-campaign manager and the nephew of Trump’s HHS secretary.

BGR Group, a bipartisan but Republican-heavy firm whose alumni include Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, posted its best quarter in its 35-year existence, said Loren Monroe, the co-head of the firm’s lobbying group.

BGR’s lobbyists include Trump adviser David Urban as well as Florida powerbroker Nick Iarossi, and the firm reported $17.7 million in lobbying fees in Q2 — which was third overall and marked a nearly 60 percent increase from the same time last year.

Mercury Public Affairs also posted a banner quarter, raking in almost $6.5 million from April through June, compared to $3.2 million in Q2 of 2024. Wiles served as a co-chair at the K Street mainstay before joining the White House this year, and the bipartisan firm also employs former Trump adviser Bryan Lanza, who’s signed dozens of new clients since the election.

Elsewhere on K Street, the all-Republican firm CGCN Group doubled its lobbying revenues compared to a year ago, and Michael Best Strategies, whose leadership includes Trump’s first White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus, and Trump’s 2024 co-campaign manager, Chris LaCivita, more than tripled its Q2 lobbying earnings.

Lobbyists anticipate the good times will last, at least for the foreseeable future, even after the signing of the megabill this month — though not everyone believes the Trump-driven realignment will remain.

“We’ve had sort of personality-based firms in town before,” said Gold. “They kind of come and go. I expect that to be the case here.”

In addition to ongoing trade policy disruptions, multiple lobbyists pointed to the various executive orders and presidential memoranda the White House has been churning out since day one as another key driver of business this year.

“The beginning of any new administration is a very busy time,” added Karishma Page, a partner at K&L Gates. “This, I think, is a high watermark.”

K&L Gates saw its lobbying revenue last quarter surge by 25 percent from the same period a year ago thanks to the flurry of activity on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

“There seems to be an insatiable appetite” from clients for insight into the Trump administration, added Will Moschella, who co-leads the lobbying practice at Brownstein.

“A lot of those executive orders require departments and agencies to report back with policy proposals,” he said. “So they weren’t one time events — those are documents and directives that are going to drive further executive branch action.”

From an advocacy perspective, the fight over Republicans’ massive reconciliation package this spring and summer “is kind of like having your dessert,” Gold said. Those negotiations touched off lobbying by everyone from universities to business groups, hospitals, the renewable energy industry and beyond.

The day-to-day regulatory work at various agencies, which Gold compared to “eating your spinach,” is “really just gearing up,” he added.

There’s also the widespread uncertainty over Trump’s tariff policies, to say nothing of must-pass legislation to fund the government and reauthorize the nation’s farm and defense policies.

Those issues — while less sexy than things like crypto or AI policy — have been the focus of increased attention from clients, lobbyists said, thanks to Trump’s large-scale slashing of government funding across the country and the recissions bill passed by Congress this month.

“There is a need in the current moment to really be able to justify the work of an organization that may be a federal contractor or grantee,” Page argued.

That’s also the case for clients that have sought to avoid the president’s ire. “I think there was a sense at the beginning of the administration that maybe you could just duck and cover and just be left alone,” said Monroe. “The experience of the last six months suggests that the best defense is a strong offense … and telling your story, otherwise you risk it being told for you.”

​Politics

President Donald Trump promised Americans they would get tired of winning — for now, it appears they are getting tired of reading about him.

Trump’s first term saw books authored by prominent journalists sell hundreds of thousands of copies each as the public rushed to learn the inside details of Trump’s norm-shattering presidency.

But similar books aren’t exactly flying off the shelves in his second term, and the bar to getting onto the coveted New York Times bestseller list has been lowered as the overall nonfiction book market has dipped. In these tenuous times for the nonfiction political book market, industry insiders say there are fewer big advances being paid and narrower routes to success that rely on brand-name authors or a partisan perspective.

“Everyone is desperately looking for the next Michael Wolff or James Comey for next year, but it’s not clear there could ever be one again,” said one concerned publisher, referencing two of the authors with biggest book successes of Trump’s first term.

“There’s definitely a slump, and it’s across all of nonfiction,” added a book agent. “Part of it is that we were just actually tired of this, and we’re exhausted, and we don’t want to spend 30 bucks and six or eight hours of our time feeling worse.” (Publishing insiders and authors were granted anonymity for this story because they didn’t have authorization to speak from their employers or wanted to speak candidly about the state of the industry.)

The latest example is “2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,” by political journalists Josh Dawsey, Tyler Pager and Isaac Arnsdorf. “2024” sold roughly 6,000 hardcover copies in the first week of publication, according to data released last Wednesday from NPD BookScan. Yet even with that sales figure, it hit the New York Times bestseller list at No. 4. (The Times bestseller list does not disclose its data sources.)

It has become somewhat easier to get on to the Times bestseller list because it measures comparable sales across the board. One point of comparison: In a similar week in July 2017, the No. 4 book on the Times nonfiction list was former Sen. Al Franken’s book, which had been out for weeks and still sold almost 11,000 copies that week.

Dawsey and Pager referred a request for comment to a publicist for their publisher, who said she was “very happy” with sales, while Arnsdorf didn’t respond to a request for comment. Their agent Elyse Cheney said the numbers, including all formats, “far exceed” the BookScan figure but declined to give exact numbers. A person with direct knowledge of the sales said they were more than double 6,000 including all formats, and that e-book and audio sales were almost as high as print sales. (BookScan data is not a full account of a book’s success as it captures around 70 percent of hardcover sales and does not track e-book and audio uploads.)

“They are three great reporters, but they have a difficult time finding an audience, because at the end of the day, they play it pretty straight,” said another book agent. “A fundamental question in our divided politics, and it’s just as true for publishing — who are you marketing to? Are you selling a book to the MSNBC crowd or the Fox News crowd? There’s very little in between.”

To wit: “Butler: The Untold Story of the Near Assassination of Donald Trump and the Fight for America’s Heartland,” by conservative journalist Salena Zito, came out the same week as “2024” and sold about 23,000 hardcover copies, according to BookScan numbers, hitting No. 1 on the Times bestseller list. Zito said in a statement that she was “deeply humbled by this ranking” and “grateful to President Trump, who interviewed with me dozens of times for the book and generously encouraged people to read” it. Trump posted about the book on social media, including sharing a preorder link before its publication.

“That’s a book that’s being published to the MAGAs. So those books are always different in their numbers,” said a book agent.

This follows other second-term Trump books experiencing lackluster sales. “Trump in Exile,” by the Wall Street Journal’s Meridith McGraw, has sold roughly 2,000 copies since its release last August, according to BookScan. Axios’ Alex Isenstadt’s “Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power,” published in March, has sold around 3,000 copies so far, according to BookScan. McGraw and Isenstadt declined to comment.

Author Michael Wolff became one of the masters of the Trump genre with 2018’s “Fire and Fury,” which sold more than 25,000 copies during its first week on sale in 2018 and went on to sell more than 900,000. But the writer sold only around 3,000 print copies during the equivalent first week publicity campaign for his latest installment “All or Nothing: How Trump Recaptured America,” published in March. (It has now sold around 11,000 copies, according to BookScan.)

As these books have posted middling sales figures, publishers are finding it hard to justify signing big advances for new Trump books. That’s made it more difficult for political journalists to get lucrative book deals.

“Editors are not spending anywhere near the amount of money that they did this time eight years ago,” said one of the book agents. “The days of just writing a book to write a book and checking the box for someone’s career — those days are over.”

“We are taking on fewer projects in the space because the ones that we do take on, they basically have to rise to a mid six- or seven-figure deal,” said the agent. The person said that they talk with publishers who speak of “a lot of fatigue in the market” and that there has to be “a clear path on either breaking news or a ‘wow factor’ for a book to get that kind of money today.”

The skepticism in the marketplace for political nonfiction, particularly Trump books, has led publishers and agents to try to get authors who are big brand names with built-in fan bases like Ezra Klein or Jake Tapper. Both have seen significant success this year with their books “Abundance” (co-written with Derek Thompson) and “Original Sin,” respectively. “Abundance” has sold roughly 146,000 copies since its publication in March, according to BookScan.

Tapper, one of the most prominent CNN anchors, was attached to Axios’ Alex Thompson’s Biden book project after his book deal had been cancelled. “Original Sin,” which focused more on the 46th president than the 47th, became a No. 1 Times bestseller for two weeks and was on the bestseller list for almost two months. It has sold about 97,000 copies since its publication in May, according to BookScan.

“You gotta have podcasts or TV, unfortunately, these days,” said one of the book agents.

Authors are well aware of readers’ news exhaustion after a decade of Trump dominating the political conversation. “Trump as an angry president yelling at clouds is not news anymore,” said one author of a recent political book. “News is what sells books.”

Trump’s first term saw multiple major sellers besides “Fire and Fury.” Bob Woodward’s “Fear” sold 1.1 million copies in all formats in its first week, and Simon and Schuster called it the bestselling book in company history. “The Room Where It Happened,” the explosive 2020 memoir by former national security adviser John Bolton, and “A Higher Loyalty,” by former FBI Director James Comey, each logged more than 600,000 sales within their first few years of publication.

“[Trump] is so familiar to everyone by now, and people are less shocked by new revelations because it enforces their own ideas about who he is or they just don’t care,” said an author of a recent Trump book.

There have been some other bright spots for the industry this year. NBC News’ Jonathan Allen and The Hill’s Amie Parnes registered success with their 2024 election book “Fight: Inside the Wildest Battle for the White House,” which entered the Times list at No. 1 and has been optioned to become a feature film. The authors said in a statement they “are proud of our unmatched behind-the-scenes reporting on the last three presidential elections and deeply humbled by the response” to their latest work.

Dawsey, Pager, Arnsdorf, McGraw, Isenstadt, Allen, Parnes and Alex Thompson all previously worked for POLITICO.

Still, the broader shift in the market’s appetite for Trump books is clear. During the Biden presidency, books by former Trump aides similarly failed to generate much interest. (Biden books didn’t tend to sell well, either.)

The author of the recent Trump book said they didn’t even ask their publisher how many copies it sold.

“I didn’t go into it being like, ‘I’m going to make a bunch of money off of it,’” said the author. “I had a good advance, and I went into it for the experience of it, and as a reporting exercise, and a chance to put a mark on a certain moment in time that I knew really well and covered really closely.”

​Politics

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz recently sparked controversy by comparing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Nazi Germany’s notorious secret police, the Gestapo.

“Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets,” Walz said during a May 2025 speech at the University of Minnesota Law School’s commencement ceremony.

“They’re in unmarked vans, wearing masks, being shipped off to foreign torture dungeons, no chance to mount a defense, not even a chance to kiss a loved one goodbye, just grabbed up by masked agents, shoved into those vans, and disappeared,” Walz added.

ICE, tasked with enforcing immigration policies, has dramatically increased the number of nationwide arrests of immigrants since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025. ICE’s arrests of immigrants have more than doubled in 38 states since then.

In recent months, other Democratic politicians, including U.S Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, have also compared ICE to the Gestapo, or Adolf Hitler’s “secret police,” as Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts said in April.

But do ICE’s tactics actually resemble those of the Gestapo?

Because I am a scholar of modern Germany and the Holocaust, people regularly ask me if this analogy is accurate. The answer is complicated.

Understanding the Gestapo

The Nazi regime established the Gestapo, short for the German phrase Geheime Staatspolizei, meaning secret state police, soon after Hitler became chancellor of Germany in January 1933. Among other responsibilities, the Gestapo was tasked with investigating political crimes and monitoring opposition activity. It later enforced racial laws in Germany and across occupied Europe.

As part of its daily work, the Gestapo identified and monitored the regime’s political enemies. It arrested, interrogated, detained and tortured suspects and sent others to concentration camps. To identify suspects, it often relied on anonymous denunciations that came not only from zealous Nazis, but also from disgruntled neighbors or business competitors who tipped off the Gestapo to Jews and other people.

While the Gestapo was relatively small in terms of personnel, it projected an image of being, as one scholar wrote, “omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.”

It enforced the regime’s will and suppressed dissent not through sheer manpower but by creating a pervasive sense of fear. This aura of menace and terror has long outlived the Nazi regime itself.

ICE’s operations

ICE, with around 21,000 officers and staff operating in a country of more than 340 million, is smaller both in absolute terms and on a per capita basis. At its height between 1943 and 1945, the Gestapo had between 40,000 and 50,000 personnel in a country of 79 million.

ICE is set to expand its work in the next few years with an additional US$75 billion in funding that Congress appropriated in July as part of Trump’s tax and spending bill.

And while ICE focuses on immigration, the Gestapo had a more expansive role. It was responsible for suppressing all forms of political dissent, not just violations of immigration law.

ICE operates with vastly more advanced technologies that did not exist in the 1940s, including facial recognition and social media monitoring.

There is technically more transparency around ICE’s work than the Gestapo’s, since ICE is a federal agency that is subject to its work and information being reviewed by politicians and the public alike. But in June 2020, the first Trump administration reclassified ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, as a “security/sensitive agency.” This designation makes it harder for people to request and receive information about ICE’s work through Freedom of Information Act records requests.

Like the Gestapo, ICE can seem performative in its work, like when it carried out a dramatic July raid of a cannabis farm in California in which balaclava-wearing officers used tear gas against protesters.

The Gestapo in today’s world

Since World War II and the fall of the Nazi regime, the term Gestapo has become shorthand in the United States to describe police repression.

Using the word Gestapo to describe the worst possible authoritarian oppression has been popularized in popular movies in everything from the 1943 film “Casablanca” and “The Black Gestapo” in 1975 to “Inglourious Basterds” in 2009 and “Jojo Rabbit” in 2019.

Walz’s remarks in May, though provocative, were also far from isolated in politics. Politicians from both sides of the aisle, as well as political observers, regularly use Gestapo and Nazi metaphors to attack their opponents.

In 2022, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia famously confused the term Gestapo with gazpacho soup in a gaffe that went viral. “Now we have Nancy Pelosi’s gazpacho police spying on members of Congress,” she said.

In 2024, Trump accused President Joe Biden of running a “Gestapo administration” as the Justice Department prosecuted Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.

Overall, mentions of the word Gestapo in social media increased by 184% between 2017 and 2024, according to the nonprofit group Foundation to Combat Antisemitism.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum is among the organizations that have condemned making comparisons to the Holocaust and the Nazis for many reasons, including their historical inaccuracy and because they are insulting to people whose families remain scarred by the Holocaust.

What historical comparisons really say

Analogies can be useful for clarifying complex ideas. But especially when they stretch across decades and vastly different political contexts, they risk oversimplifying and trivializing history.

I believe that comparing ICE to the Gestapo is less a historical judgment than a reflection of modern anxiety – a fear that the U.S. is veering toward authoritarianism reminiscent of 1930s Germany.

If politicians and other public figures are looking for historical comparisons to modern law enforcement agencies that use severe tactics, there is, unfortunately, no shortage of options: the Soviet Union’s secret police agencies NKVD and KGB, Iran’s former secret police and intelligence agency SAVAK or East Germany’s Stasi, to name just a few.
All of those organizations denied suspects due process and grossly violated human rights in order to protect political regimes – but they don’t necessarily easily compare to ICE, either.

Still, politicians and political observers alike most often turn to the Gestapo and other Nazi references instead.

Ultimately, the Gestapo, Nazi Germany and the Holocaust serve as a powerful, shared cultural reference point. The catastrophes of World War II epitomize the worst possible outcomes of evil left unchecked.

They have become the master moral paradigm and an ethical compass for the world today. In an age of polarization, World War II and the Holocaust remain the mirror in which Americans examine their present.

Daniel H. Magilow received funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities (although DOGE cancelled the grant in April 2025).

He serves as Co-Editor-in-Chief of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, the journal of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump’s nomination of his former criminal defense attorney, Emil Bove, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, has been mired in controversy.

On June 24, 2025, Erez Reuveni, a former Department of Justice attorney who worked with Bove, released an extensive, 27-page whistleblower report. Reuveni claimed that Bove, as the Trump administration’s acting deputy attorney general, said “that it might become necessary to tell a court ‘fuck you’” and ignore court orders related to the administration’s immigration policies. Bove’s acting role ended on March 6 when he resumed his current position of principal associate deputy attorney general.

When asked about this statement at his June 25 Senate confirmation hearing, Bove said, “I don’t recall.”

And on July 15, 80 former federal and state judges signed a letter opposing Bove’s nomination. The letter argued that “Mr. Bove’s egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position.”

A day later, more than 900 former Department of Justice attorneys submitted their own letter opposing Bove’s confirmation. The attorneys argued that “Few actions could undermine the rule of law more than a senior executive branch official flouting another branch’s authority. But that is exactly what Mr. Bove allegedly did through his involvement in DOJ’s defiance of court orders.”

On July 17, Democrats walked out of the Senate Judiciary Committee vote, in protest of the refusal by Chairman Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, to allow further investigation and debate on the nomination. Republicans on the committee then unanimously voted to move the nomination forward for a full Senate vote.

As a scholar of the courts, I know that most federal court appointments are not as controversial as Bove’s nomination. But highly contentious nominations do arise from time to time.

Here’s how three controversial nominations turned out – and how Bove’s nomination is different in a crucial way.

Robert Bork

Bork is the only federal court nominee whose name became a verb.

“Borking” is “to attack or defeat (a nominee or candidate for public office) unfairly through an organized campaign of harsh public criticism or vilification,” according to Merriam-Webster.

This refers to Republican President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 appointment of Bork to the Supreme Court.

Reagan called Bork “one of the finest judges in America’s history.” Democrats viewed Bork, a federal appeals court judge, as an ideologically extreme conservative, with their opposition based largely on his extensive scholarly work and opinions on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

In opposing the Bork nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts took the Senate floor and gave a fiery speech: “Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Ultimately, Bork’s nomination failed by a 58-42 vote in the Senate, with 52 Democrats and six Republicans rejecting the nomination.

Ronnie White

In 1997, Democratic President Bill Clinton nominated White to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. White was the first Black judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

Republican Sen. John Ashcroft, from White’s home state of Missouri, led the fight against the nomination. Ashcroft alleged that White’s confirmation would “push the law in a pro-criminal direction.” Ashcroft based this claim on White’s comparatively liberal record in death penalty cases as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court.

However, there was limited evidence to support this assertion. This led some to believe that Ashcroft’s attack on the nomination was motivated by stereotypes that African Americans, like White, are soft on crime.

Even Clinton implied that race may be a factor in the attacks on White: “By voting down the first African-American judge to serve on the Missouri Supreme Court, the Republicans have deprived both the judiciary and the people of Missouri of an excellent, fair, and impartial Federal judge.”

White’s nomination was defeated in the Senate by a 54-45 party-line vote. In 2014, White was renominated to the same judgeship by President Barack Obama and confirmed by largely party-line 53-44 vote, garnering the support of a single Republican, Susan Collins of Maine.

Miguel Estrada

Republican President George W. Bush nominated Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2001.

Estrada, who had earned a unanimous “well-qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, faced deep opposition from Senate Democrats, who believed he was a conservative ideologue. They also worried that, if confirmed, he would later be appointed to the Supreme Court.

However, unlike Bork – who had an extensive paper trail as an academic and judge – Estrada’s written record was very thin.

Democrats sought to use his confirmation hearing to probe his beliefs. But they didn’t get very far, as Estrada dodged many of the senators’ questions, including ones about Supreme Court cases he disagreed with and judges he admired.

Democrats were particularly troubled by allegations that Estrada, when he was screening candidates for Justice Anthony Kennedy, disqualified applicants for Supreme Court clerkships based on their ideology.

According to one attorney: “Miguel told me his job was to prevent liberal clerks from being hired. He told me he was screening out liberals because a liberal clerk had influenced Justice Kennedy to side with the majority and write a pro-gay-rights decision in a case known as Romer v. Evans, which struck down a Colorado statute that discriminated against gays and lesbians.”

When asked about this at his confirmation hearing, Estrada initially denied it but later backpedaled. Estrada said, “There is a set of circumstances in which I would consider ideology if I think that the person has some extreme view that he would not be willing to set aside in service to Justice Kennedy.”

Unlike the Bork nomination, Democrats didn’t have the numbers to vote Estrada’s nomination down. Instead, they successfully filibustered the nomination, knowing that Republicans couldn’t muster the required 60 votes to end the filibuster. This marked the first time in Senate history that a court of appeals nomination was filibustered. Estrada would never serve as a judge.

Bove stands out

As the examples of Bork, Estrada and White make clear, contentious nominations to the federal courts often involve ideological concerns.

This is also true for Bove, who is opposed in part because of the perception that he is a conservative ideologue.

But the main concerns about Bove are related to a belief that he is a Trump loyalist who shows little respect for the rule of law or the judicial branch.

This makes Bove stand out among contentious federal court nominations.

Paul M. Collins Jr. 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

Champions of the almost entirely party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to erase US$1.1 billion in already approved funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting called their action a refusal to subsidize liberal media.

“Public broadcasting has long been overtaken by partisan activists,” said U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, insisting there is no need for government to fund what he regards as biased media. “If you want to watch the left-wing propaganda, turn on MSNBC,” Cruz said.

Accusing the media of liberal bias has been a consistent conservative complaint since the civil rights era, when white Southerners insisted news outlets were slanting their stories against segregation. During his presidential campaign in 1964, U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona complained that the media was against him, an accusation that has been repeated by every Republican presidential candidate since.

But those charges of bias rarely survive empirical scrutiny.

As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on journalism that is independent of both market pressure and partisan talking points.

That independence in the United States – enshrined in the press freedom clause of the First Amendment – gives journalists the ability to hold government accountable, expose abuses of power and thereby support democracy.

Trusting independence

Ad Fontes Media, a self-described “public benefit company” whose mission is to rate media for credibility and bias, have placed the reporting of “PBS NewsHour” under 10 points left of the ideological center. They label it as both “reliable” and based in “analysis/fact.” “Fox and Friends,” by contrast, the popular morning show on Fox News, is nearly 20 points to the right. The scale starts at zero and runs 42 points to the left to measure progressive bias and 42 points to the right to measure conservative bias. Ratings are provided by three-person panels comprising left-, right- and center-leaning reviewers.

A 2020 peer-reviewed study in Science Advances that tracked more than 6,000 political reporters likewise found “no evidence of liberal media bias” in the stories they chose to cover, even though most journalists are more left-leaning than the rest of the population.

A similar 2016 study published in Public Opinion Quarterly said that media are more similar than dissimilar and, excepting political scandals, “major
news organizations present topics in a largely nonpartisan manner,
casting neither Democrats nor Republicans in a particularly favorable
or unfavorable light.”

Surveys show public media’s audiences do not see it as biased. A national poll of likely voters released July 14, 2025, found that 53% of respondents trust public media to report news “fully, accurately and fairly,” while only 35% extend that trust to “the media in general.” A majority also opposed eliminating federal support.

Contrast these numbers with attitudes about public broadcasters such as MTVA in Hungary or the TVP in Poland, where the state controls most content. Protests in Budapest October 2024 drew thousands demanding an end to “propaganda.” Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism reports that TVP is the least trusted news outlet in the country.

While critics sometimes conflate American public broadcasting with state-run outlets, the structures are very different.

Safeguards for editorial freedom

In state-run media systems, a government agency hires editors, dictates coverage and provides full funding from the treasury. Public officials determine – or make up – what is newsworthy. Individual media operations survive only so long as the party in power is happy.

Public broadcasting in the U.S. works in almost exactly the opposite way: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private nonprofit with a statutory “firewall” that forbids political interference.

More than 70% of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s federal appropriation for 2025 of US$1.1 billion flows through to roughly 1,500 independently governed local stations, most of which are NPR or PBS affiliates but some of which are unaffiliated community broadcasters. CPB headquarters retains only about 5% of that federal funding.

Stations survive by combining this modest federal grant money with listener donations, underwriting and foundation support. That creates a diversified revenue mix that further safeguards their editorial freedom.

And while stations share content, each also has latitude when it comes to programming and news coverage, especially at the local level.

As a public-private partnership, individual communities mostly own the public broadcasting system and its affiliate stations. Congress allocates funds, while community nonprofits, university boards, state authorities or other local license holders actually own and run the stations. Individual monthly donors are often called “members” and sometimes have voting rights in station-governance matters. Membership contributions make up the largest share of revenue for most stations, providing another safeguard for editorial independence.

Broadly shared civic commons

And then there are public media’s critical benefits to democracy itself.

A 2021 report from the European Broadcasting Union links public broadcasting with higher voter turnout, better factual knowledge and lower susceptibility to extremist rhetoric.

Experts warn that even small cuts will exacerbate an already pernicious problem with political disinformation in the U.S., as citizens lose access to free information that fosters media literacy and encourages trust across demographics.

In many ways, public media remains the last broadly shared civic commons. It is both commercial-free and independently edited.

Another study, by the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School in 2022, affirmed that “countries with independent and well-funded public broadcasting systems also consistently have stronger democracies.”

The study highlighted how public media works to bridge divides and foster understanding across polarized groups. Unlike commercial media, where the profit motive often creates incentives to emphasize conflict and sensationalism, public media generally seeks to provide balanced perspectives that encourage dialogue and mutual respect. Reports are often longer and more in-depth than those by other news outlets.

Such attention to nuance provides a critical counterweight to the fragmented, often hyperpartisan news bubbles that pervade cable news and social media. And this skillful, more balanced treatment helps to ameliorate political polarization and misinformation.

In all, public media’s unique structure and mission make democracy healthier in the U.S. and across the world. Public media prioritizes education and civic enlightenment. It gives citizens important tools for navigating complex issues to make informed decisions – whether those decisions are about whom to vote for or about public policy itself. Maintaining and strengthening public broadcasting preserves media diversity and advances important principles of self-government.

Congress’ cuts to public broadcasting will diminish the range and volume of the free press and the independent reporting it provides. Ronald Reagan once described a free press as vital for the United States to succeed in its “noble experiment in self-government.” From that perspective, more independent reporting – not less – will prove the best remedy for any worry about partisan spin.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 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

Ben Jacobs on what Deja Foxx’s loss means for Democrats | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

The unlikely alliance of the populist left and right has strengthened over the Jeffrey Epstein controversy.

Leading the charge for Congress to vote on publicizing Epstein-related records are Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The odd couple — a libertarian from rural Kentucky and a progressive from Silicon Valley — is piecing together Republican and Democratic support for the House to take an up-or-down vote on releasing the so-called Epstein files. If successful, their efforts would further complicate President Donald Trump’s ability to move on from the spiraling scandal that has angered his political base.

“I do believe that there are issues that populists on the right and left can collaborate on,” Khanna said in an interview. “In this case, it’s about going after the corruption in our government. Rich and powerful men shouldn’t have impunity from accountability. And that’s something that both people on the left and right are sick of.”

Discharge petitions, which allow any member of the House to force legislation to the floor if a majority of members agree, are usually a long shot. As of Friday afternoon, Massie, a frequent White House foil, and Khanna had convinced 10 Republicans and five Democrats to get on board as cosponsors. It’s not the first time they’ve teamed up: Massie and Khanna collaborated on legislation aiming to limit U.S. involvement in the wars in Yemen and Iran.

Their newest gambit would pay off if the entire Democratic caucus signs on — which Khanna guaranteed in a recent video clip. Democrats have been hungry to capitalize on Trump’s Epstein problem, given the president’s longstanding ties to the accused sex trafficker that were illuminated in a Wall Street Journal story this week. The paper focused on a letter Trump reportedly wrote to Epstein for his 50th birthday. Trump denies he wrote the note, and POLITICO has not independently verified it. The president has never been accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein.

Nevertheless, the political fallout has been widespread as it weds the divergent factions of Congress.

From conservative firebrand Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) to famed progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the cosponsors on Massie’s measure represent an eclectic mix of lawmakers who rarely agree on anything — or even speak to each other cordially. The list yokes one of the furthest left members of Congress, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, with Trump loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). And one Republican in a battleground district, Rep. Tom Barrett from Michigan, has also signed onto the push.

It’s not the first time that the populist left and right have converged: A handful of leaders on both sides have found agreement recently on wars in the Middle East, U.S. involvement in Israel, antitrust policies, artificial intelligence and the unaffordability of housing.

To that end, Khanna said he’s “exchanged a few texts” with MAGA godfather Steve Bannon, who has expressed support for a special counsel to examine the Epstein case. Their correspondence was “in the context of trying to stop the regime-change war in Iran,” Khanna said.

Asked for comment, Bannon listed Khanna as one of a group of figures on the populist left and right who have found common ground on “neo-Brandeisian antitrust.”

On X, Massie is keeping a live whip count of cosponsors for his proposal to release the Epstein files and encouraging his 1.3 million followers to ask their representatives if they support the idea. When Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Thursday the Justice Department will move to release grand jury transcripts — a decision seen as an attempt to appease the MAGA base — Massie declared: “Folks, Keep the pressure on, it’s working. But we want all the files.”

Should it come to pass, the resolution would be symbolic — Congress doesn’t have the power to force the Justice Department to release any information. But under procedural rules, action on the floor can’t take place until September, meaning that Trump’s Epstein problem could linger in Congress for several more weeks.

Khanna said he has a “very friendly” relationship with Massie. The idea for the discharge petition came about after Khanna introduced an amendment to release the Epstein files, and Massie texted him to propose they draft a bill on the topic.

“We text back and forth all the time. I will often see him on the House floor, pick up the phone and call him,” he said. “Obviously, we come from different ideological perspectives, but there are areas where we have agreement in making sure that we’re preventing wars of choice overseas and transparency.”

A spokesperson for Massie declined to comment. Earlier this week, Massie said in an interview that the pressure will intensify on House Republicans over the upcoming recess.

“They probably want to let the steam out, but this will build momentum over August,” Massie said. “They can’t sweep it under the rug.”

It’s not the first time Massie, often an iconoclast in his party, has found strange bedfellows in Democrats. He and other conservatives joined forces with libertarian-minded and anti-interventionist lawmakers on digital privacy and war powers measures. And just last month, he teamed up with Khanna on a measure to reign in Trump’s ability to use military force in the Iran-Israel conflict.

“It is very on brand for Thomas Massie to stick with his position, even under pressure,” said Marisa McNee, a Democratic strategist from Massie’s northern Kentucky district. “The thing that bugs his party about him is that he’s sort of unwavering once he has a position on something.”

Massie, who is up for re-election next year, has easily survived primary challenges. But he’s become a top target for Trump’s allies angered by his choice to break party lines and vote against the megabill.

Meanwhile, Democrats are angling to exploit their opposing party’s wedge over Epstein. As Democratic lawmakers filtered into a closed-door caucus meeting Thursday, one chanted “Epstein, Epstein, Epstein,” and Democrats frequently heckled their GOP counterparts as the House debated clawbacks of public media and foreign aid overnight.

House Democrats reveled this week in the pressure they and Massie applied to the GOP, underscored by a group of Rules Committee Republicans huddling with Speaker Mike Johnson for hours Thursday in search of political cover.

Republicans advanced their own non-binding resolution calling for the release of a limited scope of Epstein-related documents, while voting down a Democratic amendment to advance Massie’s bipartisan legislation.

“We’ll determine what happens with all that. There’s a lot developing,” Johnson told reporters, after declining to commit to put the GOP resolution to a full House vote.

The Epstein controversy is the latest example of Massie creating a major headache for his fellow Republicans, following his opposition to the megabill. Just a few weeks ago, Trump and Massie actually appeared headed to a sort of political truce. But it was short-lived.

House Republicans said Trump appeared to blow up the detente he and Massie struck during a late-night call to advance the struggling megabill on the House floor last month.

Shortly after, in a move that shocked some Republicans on Capitol HIll, Trump allies poured millions into a PAC attacking Massie, three House Republicans said this week as the Epstein chaos swirled. Trump allies say they wanted Massie to vote for the megabill final passage itself, not just the procedural move to advance it.

Massie going after Trump on Epstein “probably has the virtue of being able to poke Trump in the eye and appeal to important aspects of the base,” said former Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican. “It makes sense he’s engaging.”

Nicholas Wu, Meredith Lee Hill and Mia McCarthy contributed reporting.

​Politics

PAWLEYS ISLAND, South Carolina — Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear drew a standing ovation from Georgetown County Democrats Thursday night, after he shook hands and grinned for photos. California Gov. Gavin Newsom packed standing-room-only crowds into a two-day rural county tour of the state last week. California Rep. Ro Khanna kicked off his multi-day swing Friday to promote his populist message to Black voters.

The 2028 Democratic primary calendar isn’t set yet, but presidential hopefuls are already making bets that South Carolina will hold a powerful role in the nomination process — even if it doesn’t keep its number-one spot. While Iowa and New Hampshire are drawing some big names, no other state has seen as much action as this small Southern state.

And while these top Democrats credited their appearances to local invitations — and in the case of Beshear, his son’s baseball tournament in Charleston — the 2028 implications are clear. Democratic hopefuls road-tested stump speeches and previewed their lines of attack against Republicans and President Donald Trump, all with an eye toward introducing themselves to a set of influential voters.

“I’m out there trying to be a common ground, common sense, get-things-done type of messenger for this Democratic Party,” Beshear told elected officials and party officials in Charleston Thursday morning. “Because I believe that with what we’re seeing coming out of Washington, D.C., the cruelty and the incompetence, that the path forward is right there in front of us.”

Christy Waddil, a 67-year-old Democratic voter who waited to shake Beshear’s hand Thursday night, said she was “excited” to meet all these potential contenders. But it’s a lot of responsibility to be the first state in the presidential primary calendar, she said: “We have our work cut out for us now.”

In June, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly spoke at an anti-gun event in Charleston to mark the grim anniversary of the Emanuel AME shooting. In May, Govs. Wes Moore of Maryland and Tim Walz of Minnesota headlined a pair of state party events to rub elbows with Rep. Jim Clyburn, the longtime South Carolina kingmaker whose nod helped anoint Joe Biden as the party’s nominee in 2020.

“It’s not a surprise,” said Clyburn when asked about the state’s revolving door of 2028 hopefuls nearly three years before the actual presidential primary. “Why argue with success? If it ain’t broke, why fix it?”

South Carolina Democrats know their grip on the top spot is tenuous, with traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire eager to reclaim their lead-off position, and others —like North Carolina and Georgia — seeking to emerge as new states to consider. And it comes as there’s been a major reshuffling on a powerful panel at the Democratic National Committee that has huge sway over the presidential nominating process.

“None of what those supposed candidates are doing right now is going to have any bearing on what the Rules and Bylaws Committee ultimately does for the calendar,” said Maria Cardona, a longtime member of the powerful panel. “That may or may not include all of the states that are in the early calendar now.”

Democrats haven’t won the state in a general election since 1976, and President Donald Trump won it by 18 points last year.

It’s led more competitive neighbors to wonder whether they should get top billing instead.

“[National Democrats] have a lot of mobility to get power back at the federal level by investing early in North Carolina. And I think a lot of people will hear that message loud and clear, especially after we just got our asses kicked,”said state party chair Anderson Clayton, who is interested in usurping its neighbor to the south and angling for one of the open at-large slots on the RBC. “The future of the state of the Democratic Party also runs right through North Carolina too.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker will deliver the keynote address at North Carolina’s state party unity dinner on July 26, and state party leaders are in talks with Sens. Kelly of Arizona and Cory Booker of New Jersey about visits to the state later this year.

But moving the order of primary states is easier said than done. North Carolina is hamstrung by state law from moving its date, and Democrats would need the GOP-controlled legislature to agree to any changes. DNC members have also emphasized smaller states to allow lesser-known candidates to build followings.

“The most powerful force in the universe is inertia, so South Carolina is probably the favorite to stay just because of that,” said an incoming member of the committee granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. “Every state has a chance to be first, but I do think we have to come into this with a degree of realism.”

The DNC is attempting to remain neutral.

“The DNC is committed to running a fair, transparent, and rigorous process for the 2028 primary calendar. All states will have an opportunity to participate,” Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman said in a statement.

Iowa Democrats are also gearing up on a bid to restore their caucuses to their traditional spot as the nation’s first presidential contest. Michigan replaced Iowa as the Midwestern early state in 2024.

Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said she planned to have “tough and direct conversations” with the party in a statement, even as the DNC removed Iowa’s only representative, Scott Brennan, from the Rules and Bylaws Committee this year.

Already, potential 2028 candidates have traveled there, including former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who held a town hall in Cedar Rapids in May. Walz stopped by the Hawkeye State in March, and former Japan Ambassador Rahm Emanuel and freshman Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego are both slated to visit the state in the coming months.

New Hampshire Democrats also openly clashed with top DNC officials last cycle — and plan to stick with their state law making it first primary in the nation. Pritzker went to an influential state party dinner there in April.

“The potential candidates on the Democratic side and, to some extent, the Republican side are coming through New Hampshire,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said in a brief interview.

The positioning at the national party over early states is already underway.

Party insiders are voting for the remaining open seats on the panel after DNC Chair Ken Martin named members to the governing body in recent weeks. Cardona said the goal of the committee is to ensure the strongest and most electable candidate emerges from what is expected to be a crowded field. Talks will begin on the next presidential primary calendar later this year, but will ramp up after the midterms.

South Carolina’s ascension was aimed at recognizing South Carolina’s significant Black electorate, long considered the backbone of the Democratic Party.

That’s partly why Khanna is there, he said in an interview on why he is focusing on reaching out to Black voters.

“I believe that’s critical for all the people who want to lead the Democratic Party, in whatever form, and to me it’s encouraging that people are going down to South Carolina” to reach them.

Beshear, too, expressed support for South Carolina’s representation, telling reporters that Democrats “need to make sure that the South is represented in the primary calendar” because “for too long, the investments haven’t been made in places like Kentucky and in places like South Carolina.”

In defense of remaining in the early window, South Carolina Democrats are playing up the state’s diverse electorate and inexpensive media markets that could allow for the best presidential candidates — not just the best fundraisers — to emerge in a wide open presidential cycle in 2028.

“The Democratic primary for president is not based on the state’s competitiveness in a general election,” said Parmley. “This is the same bullshit that loses us presidential elections, and we only play in eight competitive states.”

Lisa Kashinsky and Kelly Garrity contributed to this report.

​Politics

Sen. Eric Schmitt on being a White House whisperer and Senate budget reformer | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics