Category: Politics

Senator Slotkin on why Dems need their own ‘Project 2029’ | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

Turning Point Action, the political organization founded by the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk, will bring together U.S. and international politicians at a conference next week — including members of far-right parties across the globe.

Markus Frohnmaier, a political leader from the far-right German party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), is among the announced guests at the Alliance of Sovereign Nations, scheduled for March 4 to 6 in Washington. Other guests include House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.); Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.); George Simion, founder of the far-right Alliance for the Union of Romanians; and European Parliament members Barbara Bonte of the far-right Vlaams Belang party and Petra Steger of Austria’s right-wing Freiheitliche Partei (FPÖ).

In an interview, Turning Point Action COO Tyler Bowyer said the event was “spurred” by Luna and that more attendees will be announced soon. He referred to the parties that will be represented, including AfD, as “center-right.”

Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution in May 2025 classified parts of the AfD as “proven right-wing extremist” for being an alleged threat to the country’s democratic order and agitating against migrants. But the party filed a legal challenge, and a court made a temporary ruling this week suspending the designation until the case is fully decided.

“There’s a lot of people from a lot of different countries that are representing center-right politics across the world. So it’s important to hear everyone,” Bowyer said. “There’s a lot of things going wrong in Germany right now. It’s important to hear everybody out.”

A spokesperson for Johnson didn’t respond to an inquiry. A rep for Luna declined to comment. In a social media post Wednesday morning, Luna wrote, “Next week members of government from around the world will be coming together at the Alliance of Sovereign Nations! @SpeakerJohnson will be there!”

The conference’s mission statement declares “every country has a rightful obligation to defend its sovereignty and put their interests first,” according to its website. The conference is also sponsored by Republicans for National Renewal.

The AfD party has gained increasing support in Trump’s Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance have condemned efforts to label the party as extremist. Frohnmaier has recently traveled several times to Washington for meetings with Luna and other Republican representatives as well as State Department officials. State Department officials have accused the German government of suppressing freedom of opinion, an accusation the German government strongly rejects. Sarah Rogers, undersecretary of State for diplomacy, this week called a criminal investigation by German police of a critical post directed at German Chancellor Friedrich Merz “a case of lèse-majesté.”

In October, Luna posted on X that she met with Anna Rathert, a member of Germany’s federal parliament who’s part of the AfD’s parliamentary group and member of the foreign affairs committee in Bundestag. She and other members of Congress also met with Kay Gottschalk and other members of the AfD in Washington in December. She praised the party as “actually working to strengthen ties with the United States and restore a healthy relationship between our governments” and accused Germany’s chancellor of “trashing our president and censoring German citizens.”

In an interview with Welt last November, Luna said she was planning the conference as an event that “will counter Davos” and be more focused on “the sovereignty of nations.”

In Germany, AfD currently polls in second place, only a few percentage points behind the governing Christian Democrats of Merz.

Last December, Frohnmaier was awarded a prize at the New York Young Republican Club gala for AfD’s “courageous work undertaken in the particularly suppressive and hostile political environment of Germany,” as the invitation stated.

Only weeks earlier, the New York State Young Republicans chapter was disbanded after POLITICO reported on a group chat in which leaders praised Adolf Hitler and joked about the Holocaust.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.

​Politics

Data centers, once popular with elected officials in both parties, are fast becoming a midterms bogeyman.

Democratic governors are racing to rein in new warehouse projects they once offered up millions of dollars in tax incentives to secure as they face voters furious over soaring electric bills. And President Donald Trump, who has slashed red tape around the industry he’s lauded as a job engine, used his Tuesday State of the Union address to announce he’s told major tech companies to build their own power plants to shield ratepayers from further hikes.

It’s a remarkable pivot by leaders of both parties. And it reflects the rapidly shifting politics around data centers they had hailed as economic generators but are now retreating from as voters blame their proliferation for rising utility costs — part of an overall frustration with high prices that is dominating the midterms.

“The fact that everyone is talking about this all of a sudden shows how quickly this issue is moving and that politicians are reflecting the frustration that people are feeling over paying so much on their energy bills while data centers get tax breaks,” said Jared Leopold, a Democratic strategist and co-founder of climate advocacy group Evergreen Action.

These recent contortions also show both parties are still grappling with the way forward on an increasingly potent political issue.

Democrats harnessed voters’ frustrations over rising utility bills — and their fears that power-hungry data centers could push them higher — to win governor’s offices in New Jersey and Virginia and oust two Republicans on Georgia’s utility regulating commission last fall.

Voters’ worries haven’t ebbed. The POLITICO Poll found in mid-January that voters’ chief concerns about data centers involved household costs. Asked about the drawbacks to building data centers in the U.S., 29 percent of Americans said it would mean higher electricity bills, 24 percent said an increased risk of blackouts and 23 percent said the projects would cost taxpayer money.

Both parties have seized on making tech companies pay for their power as a salve.

Just six months ago, Trump declared he was accelerating federal permitting for data centers and headed to western Pennsylvania to praise companies for investing tens of billions of dollars in energy infrastructure as part of his push to be the “world’s No. 1 superpower in artificial intelligence.”

But on Tuesday, the president said he was negotiating with the companies behind data centers to build their own power plants to secure their power supply “while at the same time lowering prices of electricity” for Americans.

Trump was light on the details about what his “ratepayer protection pledge” actually meant in practice, though the White House said tech companies are expected to head to Washington next week to sign the agreements. But the president has been signaling such a step since at least January, when he said he was working with Microsoft to “ensure that Americans don’t ‘pick up the tab’” for data centers’ power consumption. He also banded together with Democratic governors to push grid operator PJM to control energy prices and tech companies to shoulder the burden of power costs.

Brendan Steinhauser, a Texas-based GOP strategist, said the shift shows Trump and his team “don’t want to be on the wrong side of this.”

“This is smart by the administration to recognize that there are concerns about energy prices and water usage,” said Steinhauser, who serves as CEO of The Alliance for Secure AI, a group that backs more AI industry regulation. “They don’t want to be seen as allowing the companies to accelerate without any input from the community, they don’t want to be seen as on the side of allowing energy prices to go up.”

Democrats don’t, either.

At least half a dozen Democratic governors — several of whom are potential 2028 presidential contenders — used their annual state-of-the-state addresses to pitch regulations or call to retract old sweeteners for an industry they had previously championed.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is pushing to hit pause on tax incentives he’s long touted to lure data centers to his state. Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs is seeking to eliminate the tax breaks for tech companies she previously backed as a state lawmaker a decade ago, while looking to impose new water-use fees.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who was positioning her state as a “national leader in AI research and innovation,” has rolled out plans to make data center operators pay more for energy or supply their own. Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont signaled his state would look to “slow down new data centers,” unless they add more power generation.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek, who supports legislation to expand tax breaks for data centers, has also cautioned the industry’s growth rate is “not sustainable” in her state. She launched an advisory committee to recommend how to protect “affordable power” and other resources while still fostering economic development.

And Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, who streamlined permitting to help his state be “all in on AI,” is now calling on his legislature to codify a set of “responsible infrastructure development” standards for data center developers — including hiring locally and bringing their own power generation — as he looks to mitigate voters’ concerns. A survey released Wednesday from Pennsylvania pollster Quinnipiac University showed 68 percent of registered voters would oppose a data center being built in their community, including 81 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents and 53 percent of Republicans.

Shapiro insisted his new guardrails were “not a shift” when asked last week about the policy rollout. Instead, he cast them as part of his ongoing efforts to balance creating jobs with “holding down energy costs.”

“I’ve always been for the end-users having to bring their own power or generate new power and pay for it so we’re not burdening the local community,” Shapiro told POLITICO on the sidelines of the National Governors Association winter meeting in Washington last week. “We just are more open about it, so anyone thinking about doing business in Pennsylvania now knows what those standards are going to be.”

The proliferation of data centers across battleground states has similarly pushed energy costs to the forefront of key congressional campaigns. Imposing guardrails on the artificial intelligence industry has become a rallying cry for insurgent candidates in primaries and an attack line in competitive districts. Calls are growing on both sides of the aisle for a moratorium on new projects.

Politicians are “beginning to catch up with where their constituents are” in opposing unregulated data center growth, said Mitch Jones, the managing director of policy and litigation for environmental firm Food & Water Watch, which is pushing for a construction pause.

But Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who has sketched out a similar set of rules for new projects in his state, argued that a “binary” approach to data centers was misguided.

“Oftentimes, when people talk about data centers, it’s either like what they’ve done in Northern Virginia, which is kind of like, ‘let them just run wild and do whatever they want to do.’ Or it’s like trying to put a ban on them. I don’t think either is the right answer,” Moore said in a brief interview at NGA. “I understand how this critical infrastructure is necessary for economic growth. … But industry cannot determine the rules.”

​Politics

With just days until Texas’ primary, Republicans in Washington are growing more alarmed that their increasingly vicious intraparty contest could cost them a must-win Senate seat.

Sen. John Cornyn appears to be headed to an expensive and nasty 10-week runoff against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, with a strong chance that Paxton wins the nomination even after national Republicans spent months airing his dirty laundry all over the Texas airwaves in an effort to boost Cornyn. 

“Honestly, if you look at the polling in a general election setting, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility that the seat [flips], depending on who the Democrats nominate,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, when asked about the possibility that Republicans could lose the race if Cornyn, who he endorsed, is not the party’s nominee.

If Cornyn loses the primary, Senate Republicans worry they could be forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollarsthat could otherwise go toward key battleground races in expensive states like North Carolina, Georgia or Michigan, complicating their path toward holding Senate control.

Republicans have already spent nearly $100 million on TV advertising in the primary, which also includes Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas), according to data from AdImpact. And Cornyn launched new ads this week, with support from the National Republican Senatorial Committee, that hammer Paxton in ways that could hurt him in the general election too: highlighting his messy ongoing divorce and accusations of corruption and calling Paxton a “wife-cheater and fraud.”

But those attacks haven’t stopped Paxton, a MAGA hero more aligned with the party base who has been bolstered by positive polling and a wave of grassroots enthusiasm.

“All signs indicate that Paxton probably finishes first,” a Washington GOP operative close to Cornyn who was granted anonymity to candidly discuss the race told POLITICO. “We’re just hoping the gap is close enough the narrative isn’t ‘Paxton kicked the crap out of Cornyn.’”

Paxton attended the president’s State of the Union address Tuesday night as a guest of Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas), who called warnings of an expensive general election a “scare tactic.”

“What you’re doing now is you’re telling Texas you can’t elect Ken Paxton, not because you do a better job than me, but it’ll cost too much to win it,” said Nehls. “What a desperate attempt to convince voters to not vote for Ken Paxton because it could cost too much money in November. That’s ridiculous.”

Paxton is predicting a massive victory. Speaking with reporters after a campaign rally in the Houston suburbs last Friday, he suggested he may win the race outright and avoid a runoff.

Both Paxton and Cornyn allies have been running ads attacking Hunt in recent days, a sign either that they see a chance that Hunt could edge Cornyn for a spot in the runoff — or that Paxton could win outright.

If the race does extend until the end of May, Paxton said he doesn’t intend to change his strategy.

“It’ll be grassroots, just like it always has been, and we’ll be out trying to compete,” Paxton said. “Obviously, [Cornyn] has got a lot of money, D.C. money. I don’t have that money. We’ll have our money from Texas.”

A spokesperson for Hunt said the congressman told NRSC chair Sen. Tim Scott last year before he got into the race that Cornyn was going to lose, but “Washington ignored it.” They also warned that Paxton could be vulnerable in the general election.

“If Senate Republicans lose the majority, it will be because the NRSC failed to plan for the future and chose to spend a record-breaking sum meddling in a Republican primary in Texas, of all places, where the GOP nominee is almost always favored to win,” the spokesperson said. “That’s malpractice.”

Republican Party officials and Senate GOP leaders think Cornyn has a far better chance than Paxton of staving off a Democratic challenger in the general election. When asked for comment on the race, the NRSC pointed to a memo it circulated to donors earlier this month that said that “John Cornyn is the only Republican candidate who reliably wins a general election matchup,” and warned “Paxton puts this seat at risk.”

“We have to be prepared to spend there, and that’s a very different scenario if Cornyn’s the nominee,” Thune said. “He is by far, I think, the best candidate on the ballot in a general election, not only for the Senate, but also for down-ballot races in the House that could be impacted by the Senate race too.”

The polls bear that out. The NRSC released polling toplines showing Cornyn leading state Rep. James Talarico by 3 points and Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) by 7 points in general-election matchups. Paxton would trail Talarico by 3 points and lead Crockett by just 1 point. Nonpartisan public polls have found similar numbers.

A Democrat has not won a U.S. Senate election in Texas since 1988.

Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas), who hasn’t made an endorsement in the race, said she hopes the Republican primary avoids a runoff. “We’ve got to keep Texas red,” she said. “That is not a choice, and so the faster we can get someone in place, the better it is for all Texans.”

During a Fox News appearance Monday, Cornyn said he anticipates he will face Paxton in a runoff and warned that a Paxton victory would give Democrats a boost in November.

“Unfortunately, the attorney general has got so much baggage and corruption in his wake that he will jeopardize our chances of keeping this seat red in November,” Cornyn said. “I believe that I can help President Trump in [the] end of his second term by not only winning this race, but bringing along some of these congressmen who are running in these five new congressional seats. Ken Paxton jeopardizes all of that.”

Paxton has led or been in a statistical tie with Cornyn in nearly every primary poll since launching his bid in April of last year, despite campaigning minimally and spending a small fraction compared with Cornyn’s war chest. It’s a testament to Paxton’s status as an aggressive MAGA figure in Texas, a reputation he has forged while serving as Texas’ top lawyer for a decade. Paxton used the power of his office to stoke the culture wars in court, like suing to overturn the 2020 election and defending the state’s strict abortion ban.

Dave Carney, an adviser to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, predicted that Cornyn and Paxton will face off in a runoff, where he suggested Paxton would have the edge. The most conservative candidate tends to win because they often have the most driven supporters in low-turnout primary runoff elections.

“They have to run real campaigns, both of them, they got to model their voters and turn them out,” said Carney.

To date, Trump has resisted making an endorsement in the primary. “I’m friendly with all of them,” he said earlier this month. “I like all of them, all three.”

Thune and other Senate Republicans for months privately lobbied to get Trump to endorse Cornyn, believing he would be the most formidable candidate in the general election. Thune has been careful not to predict what Trump will do in the future. Some top Trump political aides are working on Cornyn’s campaign — but the president has a longstanding relationship with Paxton. There is lingering skepticism in and outside of the Capitol that Trump would endorse Cornyn if the senator comes in second heading into the runoff.

Trump is scheduled to make an appearance in Corpus Christi on Friday to deliver a speech on the economy. A White House aide, granted anonymity to speak freely, said the president will not endorse at the event. The White House hasn’t announced if any of the GOP Senate candidates will join Trump on the trip.

Top GOP donors, too, worry that the party is burning money — and that Paxton still has the upper hand in spite of the huge spending against him, with some concerned about an outright Paxton win.

“Nobody truly knows what is going to happen based on the polling,” said one GOP donor. “There is a scenario [where] Cornyn doesn’t make it into a runoff. But even if he does, a runoff with Paxton will be very tough because of [the] low number of voters who turn out — most of whom are very conservative and viewed as Paxton voters.”

The person added that there is “frustration from everyone that Trump lets this happen by not endorsing.”

Another GOP donor said there’s “not a lot of cautious optimism” among donors that Cornyn will even make it to a runoff. “It’s going down to the wire,” the donor lamented.

Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report. 

​Politics

Republicans are betting President Donald Trump just handed them the lifeline they need to win on immigration again.

It came as just one quick moment during the president’s record-breaking State of the Union address Tuesday night, when he asked lawmakers to rise if they agreed with a “fundamental principle.”

“If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support: The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens,” Trump said, prompting Republicans to take to their feet while Democrats remained roundly seated and expressionless.

That visual — a literal juxtaposition of the two sides of the aisle — is one Republicans are eager to spread across the airwaves and highlight on the campaign trail after weathering months of backlash to Trump’s unpopular mass deportation campaigns. The National Republican Congressional Committee held a meeting Wednesday morning on how best to deploy that specific moment in attack ads against vulnerable Democratic House members, according to one person familiar with the conversation, granted anonymity to discuss private planning.

At least one group is already making its move: The conservative nonprofit American Sovereignty will begin airing a 30 second ad Thursday that plays the moment in full, overlaid with text claiming Democrats are “for illegal alien criminals.” The ad, first shared with POLITICO, is part of the group’s ongoing seven-figure television blitz in critical battleground states like North Carolina, Michigan and Georgia.

“For most of the history of our country, Democrats and Republicans have disagreed in good faith on how to best protect the citizens of this country,” said David Shafer, a GOP strategist who previously served as chair of the Georgia Republican Party. “The Democrats made clear that protecting American citizens is no longer their primary objective.”

Several GOP candidates in high-profile races and lawmakers quickly amplified the clip on social media and released statements slamming Democrats for staying in their seats.

This moment is potentially critical for Republicans, who have found themselves underwater on both the economy and immigration — two issues they used to own. Recent polling from POLITICO and Public First shows nearly half of all Americans found Trump’s immigration tactics to be too aggressive and 46 percent of them think the Trump administration is responsible for high costs.

Although Trump’s Tuesday speech left some Republicans feeling skeptical that he did enough to sell a forward-looking economic agenda that would assuage Americans’ concerns, others are thrilled with his effort to reframe the GOP’s immigration platform.

Rather than focusing on his controversial mass deportation efforts, Trump honed the immigration portion of his address on two aspects that enjoy broader support: border security and removing violent criminals. That, coupled with the made-for-TV moment contrasting Republicans and Democrats, has helped give GOP campaign strategists more room to maneuver ahead of the midterms.

“That was incredibly helpful, it paints a different picture,” said Preya Samsundar, a Republican communications strategist involved in several races, including New Mexico’s gubernatorial election and the House special in Georgia’s 14th district. “It sets the tone for why the majority of Americans — regardless of the Republican, Democrat or Independent — were supportive of the President’s immigration policies in the first place.”

Rep. Buddy Carter of Georgia, who is running in the competitive GOP primary to unseat incumbent Democrat Sen. Jon Ossoff, was among the first candidates to take aim over immigration after the State of the Union.

“Tonight, Democrats — including Jon Ossoff — refused to stand for the American people,” he said in a statement Tuesday following Trump’s speech. “We saw a clear-cut division tonight between the Republicans, under the leadership of President Trump, who are standing up for our country, and the Democrats who stay seated and refused to acknowledge the truth: The State of our Union is strong.”

Still, Democratic operatives, like pollster Brian Stryker, argue that immigration is no longer the “lead weight” that it was for their party in 2024. Democrats’ recent special election wins, including in Texas where Hispanic voters ran en masse back to Democrats, nod to their momentum on the issue.

“A Democrat with a moderate immigration policy can be heard right now, while two years ago, they assumed every Democrat was for open borders,” he said.

If Republicans were to gain the front foot on immigration again, that could help them redirect some of the focus from their perceived weak spots on the economy — at least temporarily. They’re betting that the images of Democrats staying in their seats on immigration will have staying power.

“I saw Stephen Miller’s tweet afterwards saying it was the biggest moment in the history of the Congress. Doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about,” said Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) of the White House deputy chief of staff’s late-night posts on social media. “The whole thing is disgraceful to me. It was a stunt, and it was pathetic.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rushed to defend Democrats after Trump’s speech, saying they “agree” on protecting Americans and the president is the one risking their safety with his immigration operations — a nod to the killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti.

But the damage may have been done.

“It’s theatrics, but at the end of the day it’s kind of a shake your head move for Democrats not to stand up,” Ben Voelkel, a Wisconsin-based Republican strategist, said.

Brakkton Booker, Elena Schneider and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

​Politics

Democratic leadership’s choice to have Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger deliver the State of the Union rebuttal was a strategic move to keep the party’s focus on affordability. But she was just one Democrat jockeying to pave the way forward for the party.

Various Democratic factions hosting numerous competing events Tuesday night diverged on the best way to challenge President Donald Trump. Throughout the speeches, universal calls to bring down costs and crack down on Immigration and Customs Enforcement mixed in with more forceful and sometimes vulgar rebukes of his administration — laying bare the ideological and stylistic divides that are driving the party’s identity crisis.

Spanberger — a one-time battleground House Democrat who joined Congress during the party’s last wave election — was the headliner, calling from Williamsburg, Virgina, for Trump to focus on the needs of American families while also condemning the president for doing “what he always does: He lied, he scapegoated, and he distracted.”

But she was far from alone, with a group of Democratic-aligned organizations holding their own State of the Union events in an effort to harness rising furor against Trump.

Dozens of lawmakers spoke across several counterprogramming events, including a rally hosted by MoveOn and the left-leaning media outlet MeidasTouch on the National Mall, or at another in downtown Washington hosted by the anti-Trump activist networks Defiance and the Portland Frog Brigade along with the Courier Newsroom.

On the Mall, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) called to impeach Attorney General Pam Bondi over the Epstein files, and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) accused Trump of “rigging” the midterms by pushing voting restrictions to “save his authoritarian control and turn the presidency into a kingship.” Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) called herself a “bareknuckled brawler with a heart” and declared “that’s what we need right now.”

The dueling rallies, both timed to overlap with Trump’s speech, were accompanied by a Working Families Party rebuttal also delivered by Lee.

Some party strategists said the events — which also hosted high-profile Democrats like Robert De Niro, Joy Reid and New York congressional candidate George Conway — splintered the party’s response in a high-profile moment.

“A uniform response is much better than a cacophony of responses,” said Matt Bennett, an executive with the center-left think tank Third Way. “One narrative is better than many, and Spanberger is very talented at articulating a message that resonates broadly.”

Dueling State of the Union responses are not a new phenomenon. While the party out of power typically green-lights an English- and Spanish-language rebuttal — Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) gave Democrats’ response in Spanish this year, vowing his party would lower costs, make voting more accessible and rein in ICE — different wings have long looked to get in on the action, from Tea Party Republicans during Barack Obama’s presidency to the progressive groups on Tuesday night.

But the lack of a unified response Tuesday comes as the Democratic Party still searches — and fights over — the best way to beat Trump, even as party members agree overall that centering the Trump administration’s struggles to boost the economy gives them the best chance in November.

Democrats were already divided in their approach to Trump’s address to Congress. Dozens of members across both chambers skipped the speech to protest the president while others said they were attending out of constitutional duty — a schism that stretched all the way up through party leadership.

Despite calls from Democratic leadership to refrain from protests inside the House chamber, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) was escorted out of the room minutes into Trump’s speech after brandishing a sign reading “Black people aren’t apes,” a likely reference to a racist video Trump reposted earlier in the month.

Progressive Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) also heckled Trump at multiple points during Trump’s speech, including in response to Trump touting his aggressive immigration enforcement.

At multiple moments during his speech, Trump appeared to relish opportunities to draw Democrats in attendance into heated exchanges.

“You people are crazy,” he said at one point, prompting some Democrats in the room to heckle him in return.

Spanberger’s aides were cognizant of the volume of competing Democratic rebuttals and built a “war room” team to boost the governor’s response on social media. And while her team insisted that she isn’t competing with other counter-programming events, her aides believed heading into Tuesday evening that Spanberger’s successful affordability-focused campaign last year gave her credibility on how to best respond to Trump.

Spanberger, whose campaign last year is viewed by some party strategists as a blueprint for Democrats to score victories in November, focused on her proposals to lower costs for Virginians, while also criticizing the president for aggressive immigration policies and blaming rising costs on Trump’s tariffs.

“Americans deserve to know that their leaders are focused on addressing the problems that keep them up at night, problems that dictate where you live, whether you can afford to start a business, or whether you have to skip a prescription in order to buy groceries,” she said in her live rebuttal. “Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? We all know the answer is no.”

Several of the lawmakers who spoke at competing events echoed that affordability template, including some Democrats with possible presidential ambitions, like Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.).

Gallego, who warned in his speech that Trump was making Americans “sicker and poorer,” told POLITICO beforehand that “it’s fine that we have different people talking, provided the message is all the same: [that Democrats] are here to fight for everyday Americans.”

Some of those behind Democrats’ various response events Tuesday said they aimed to better capture the degree of frustration voters feel towards Trump.

“These are not the times for an institutionalist to say, ‘Well, let’s just give him his moment, and if you want to protest, protest by sitting there silently.’ That’s bullshit,” said Miles Taylor, a co-founder of Defiance and former Trump administration official-turned-Trump critic. “And I think that Hakeem Jeffries knows that his caucus feels like that doesn’t meet the moment, which is why so many of them are literally just not showing up.”

Taylor added that the plethora of Democratic responses also reflected the current political media environment, where both voters and candidates can easily find forums that align with their preferences.

Lee, who railed against Trump’s “authoritarianism” and cast his speech as an “obituary for the country working people built” in her Working Families Party rebuttal, said Democrats are at a “crossroads” and won’t win control of Congress “by electing more of the same” — which she cast as those who “speak boldly but deliver cautiously or sometimes even vote with MAGA.”

In an interview on Monday, Lee said it was critical for Democrats to promote a bigger tent after progressives scored major wins of their own in recent elections, from Zohran Mamdani being elected mayor of New York City to Analilia Mejia’s victory this month in the Democratic primary to replace moderate now-Gov. Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey.

Progressives “are always accepting of moderate places being represented well,” Lee said. But “it feels like there’s a wing of this party fighting back more against us trying to represent our own communities just as hard as somebody who is trying to represent their community in a swing district.”

​Politics

The fight over this year’s House map is barreling through the nation’s courtrooms.

High-stakes legal cases that could determine the majority loom in nearly a dozen states, with just months to go until the November election. The wave of court cases follows a 2025 that was marked by fiercely political showdowns, with high-profile walkouts, rare Republican defections from President Donald Trump and a hugely expensive ballot initiative in California.

And in addition to the state-by-state fights, one case before the Supreme Court — Louisiana v. Callais — has the ability to blow up the entire map.

“There was a lot of political action in ’25, and that’s turning to the courthouse now, this year,” said Justin Levitt, a former adviser to President Joe Biden on democracy and voting rights and a law professor at Loyola Marymount University. “It’s not just the Supreme Court. These are fights about individual state practices all over the place.”

In Missouri, for example, there are multiple lawsuits — and a ballot measure effort — to try and halt the GOP-led redraw there. In Florida, Democrats are already trying to get ahead of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ planned April redraw with a lawsuit that argues he lacks the authority to call for it. Cases in Utah, New York and Wisconsin that could shift seats are still playing out even as voters gear up for primaries.

In Maryland, the National Republican Congressional Committee has retained a lawyer to handle any potential redistricting challenges there, according to two people familiar with the hiring granted anonymity to discuss it. In Virginia, the state Supreme Court is expected to decide whether the Democratic remapping effort — which still needs to go before voters — is legal, with state Democratic officials vowing to challenge decisions from lower state courts that freeze the gerrymandering push.

Waiting for the court process to play out means organizations dedicated to redistricting are navigating both political and legal challenges simultaneously — and that voters and election officials have no real idea what district lines they may be asked to use, in some cases, in a manner of weeks.

“That’s something we’re used to at this point,” said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. “Running full steam on the political side or campaign side while waiting for court rulings or engaging court processes has been an ever-present reality for us.”

That isn’t to say there weren’t any major court decisions in 2025, nor that there will be no political fighting this year. Already, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries have been ramping up pressure on state Senate Leader Bill Ferguson, a fellow Democrat who opposes the effort. Florida lawmakers have squabbled over what timing is best to take up the issue, and Virginia may see an expensive ballot measure fight play out over its map.

By far the biggest legal fight is Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court case which centers around Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That case could upend the House map by eliminating a legal interpretation of Section 2 — which broadly outlaws discrimination based on race in elections — that has resulted in states drawing districts where minority voters make up at least half the population.

The end of Section 2 would give red states, especially in the South, the ability to draw out more than a dozen Democratic-held seats, an analysis from liberal groups last year found.

While many legal scholars, including Levitt, expect the decision to come at the end of the term in June — which could prevent any redraws from taking place before the midterms — the Supreme Court could hand down its ruling whenever it wants, and some states are prepared to quickly redraw.

A June decision would likely “radically reshape, not just congressional, but local and state maps for ’27 and ’28,” Levitt said.

“A really really big decision upends every map across the country,” he said, cautioning that he doesn’t expect a ruling to go there. “I think it’s entirely possible that the court here says, ‘you know what, never mind,’ it looks over the edge of the cliff and says, ‘oh, that’s really scary.’”

The court’s next scheduled opinion days are Tuesday and Wednesday of this week.

There are several other major decisions pending in other courts. In Virginia, Republicans have won victories in two cases in front of the same Tazewell County judge, although many in the state expect the state Supreme Court to have the final word on if the voter referendum on April 21 will go ahead.

In Utah, a federal panel ruled on Monday that it would not block the new court-ordered map, which gave one blue-leaning seat to Democrats last year. Republicans may appeal, but the decision — and a recent state Supreme Court ruling rejecting another GOP appeal — could lock the lines in place for 2026. And in New York, two state courts have sided with Democrats hoping to draw one more blue-leaning seat in a surprise win, but Republicans have vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s not uncommon for redistricting to end up before judges, but the unusual mid-cycle battle has added fuel to a fire that was already burning.

“Redistricting cycles have phases. Map drawing, then litigation, then sometimes more mapdrawing. This mid-decade cycle is no different,” said Adam Kincaid, the president of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, who redrew the Texas map last year that was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court. “There will be several legal fights in the months ahead.”

But with the map still uncertain just months away from November — and as primary season begins — the lengthy legal process complicates how election workers can prepare ballots, and can lead to confusion for voters.

“These things take a real toll on election officials and voters,” David Becker, founder of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, said of mid-decade redistricting. “These things make it very difficult for election officials to manage the workload with less resources than they’ve ever had.”

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

​Politics

The Supreme Court’s tariff decision left the door wide open for Democrats to hammer President Donald Trump for violating the law. This time, they’re not taking the bait.

Instead, Democratic campaigns are leaning into an argument they have been making for months: Trump’s tariffs are coming out of voters’ pockets. Some Democrats can’t help but hit the tariffs as “unlawful,” but they’re pivoting quickly back to affordability.

“The decision is a significant development, but prices are still high for folks across the country, and the administration is determined to keep them high,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.,) chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “We are laser focused on affordability and holding Republicans accountable for raising prices on families across the country.”

She said Democrats’ message would have been the same, regardless of how the Supreme Court ruled.

It’s a striking shift from the party’s strategy in 2024, when candidates took every opportunity to warn voters that a second Trump term would create lawlessness and threaten America’s democracy. Even after the nation’s highest court struck down a key plank in the president’s policy agenda, Democrats are eschewing talk of legal intricacies or executive overreach for a focus on the cost of living.

In Washington and in battlegrounds around the country, Democratic lawmakers, governors and candidates are folding the Court’s check of Trump’s executive authority into their continued argument that tariffs are raising the price of groceries and household expenses. Congress is newly considering legislation on refunding tariff revenue to American small businesses, though Speaker Mike Johnson threw cold water on its chances of advancing.

Even Democrats who are pushing a more aggressive message — that Trump “stole” from voters’ pockets — are tying it to affordability for American households, not abuse of power from the White House.

“Donald Trump stole your money with his illegal tariffs — and you paid higher prices on everything from housing to groceries,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media.

Voters remain overwhelmingly pessimistic about the economy, even as job growth and inflation numbers improve. Democrats targeting vulnerable incumbent Republicans from Colorado to Minnesota think they’ve found a winning message: Tariffs are making your life unaffordable, whether they’re legal or not.

“People aren’t going to care whether that’s under an IEEPA regulation or Section 122,” said Gabe Horwitz, senior vice president at center-left group Third Way. “The fact is, the Trump administration continues to push tariffs that hurt consumers.”

Democratic operatives point to a series of off-cycle victories late last year in New Jersey, Virginia and elsewhere, where candidates made cost-of-living central to their pitch. And a torrent of polling suggests Trump’s tariffs are unpopular with the electorate. In a November POLITICO Poll, a 45 percent plurality of Americans said higher tariffs are damaging the U.S. economy — in both the short and long term.

“Prices are increasing, and any time Trump gives us an opportunity to say something happened in the news today — and that is another point of proof that he’s making things more expensive — is a good day for Democrats,” said Andrew Mamo, a Democratic strategist involved in 2026 congressional races, including the Texas Democratic Senate primary. “Every time there is an event that we can bring back to affordability is good.”

There’s also a growing push to send tariff revenue back to consumers, which Democrats believe plays perfectly into their affordability message.

Reps. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) and Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.), who both represent battleground districts, introduced legislation Friday that would require Customs and Border Patrol to refund tariffs collected over the past year to small and independent businesses. A group of Democratic senators — led by Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon, Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire — introduced a similar bill Monday with the backing of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The legislation is likely a nonstarter in the GOP-controlled Congress, but gives Democrats a way to put pressure on Republicans.

“When someone takes money that wasn’t authorized and does it in a way that harms you, they’ve stolen from you, and that is what the Trump administration has done for the last year,” Horsford said in an interview.

It follows calls from several Democratic governors — and 2028 contenders — who quickly seized on the debate about refunds in their responses to last week’s court decision.

Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois demanded the federal government refund families $1,700 per household. California Gov. Gavin Newsom told reporters that Trump has an “obligation” to return the money to consumers who paid more for goods as a result of the tariffs.

“He took hundreds of billions of dollars from working folks — from the ag community, from small businesses — for this vanity play, this illegal action,” Newsom said Friday.

At least one Democrat in a key Senate race is also embracing the demand for a tariff refund. Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is trying to unseat Jon Husted, said on Xthat he wanted a refund for every Ohio household and that Husted supported the tariffs “at every turn.”

Providing direct relief to consumers is resonating beyond highly engaged Democratic online circles more so than pointing out the illegality of Trump’s tariffs, said Parker Butler, a Democratic digital strategist and managing partner at Luminary Strategies.

“Pointing out the fact that, ‘See, look, Trump did something illegal’ — obviously that’s worth doing, because he did do something illegal,” said Butler, who ran KamalaHQ in 2024 and now leads digital for James Talarico’s Senate campaign in Texas. “But unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to permeate outside these sort of online political bubbles. If you want to actually break through beyond that bubble, which is what Democrats need to be doing, you can say, ‘Trump owes you money. He’s been illegally taxing you for nearly a year.’”

Trump has only doubled down on his tariff plans in the wake of the court decision, saying Friday that he would use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 15 percent global tariff. But that would expire after 150 days unless Congress extends it — a vote that could squeeze vulnerable members just months before the November midterm.

Vulnerable Republicans and GOP strategists who quietly cheered the Friday court decision are worried that they’re heading into a heated, economy-focused election on their back foot.

Meanwhile, Democrats see the president’s insistence on keeping his tariff program alive as fuel for their affordability message.

“We can’t communicate episodically. We need to be communicating constantly,” said Will Robinson, a Democratic consultant and ad-maker. “I think the theoretical thing about the Supreme Court and tariffs is less impactful than what’s actually going on in the grocery basket.”

Brakkton Booker and Jordain Carney contributed reporting.

​Politics