Category: Politics

In the wake of another fatal shooting involving immigration agents, Trump administration and Minnesota officials are locked in a heated dispute over what exactly transpired and who’s to blame for the death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti.

And they don’t just disagree in their interpretation of the events — they fundamentally differ on how the shooting transpired and what exactly triggered it.

Border Patrol agents shot and killed Pretti on Saturday during a tense encounter between observers and federal agents, a dynamic that has led to several violent interactions as the Trump administration escalates its nationwide immigration crackdown. His death comes less than a month after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good. The scenes of the shootings were roughly two miles apart, and protesters flooded the streets after both.

Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino on Sunday accused Pretti of having “injected” himself into a law enforcement investigation. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti had committed a “felony” by impeding law enforcement. And Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche blamed local state officials for what he called an “entirely avoidable” event.

But Minnesota officials see a different story in the footage. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said Pretti was lawfully armed and exercising his constitutional rights, and Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the video shows him holding a cellphone and helping a woman up, not acting aggressively toward agents.

Shortly after Saturday’s shooting, Noem offered one account of the incident: She said Pretti “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9mm semi-automatic handgun” and that he “violently resisted” when the officers attempted to disarm him.

Noem then told Fox News Sunday that agents on Saturday “clearly feared for their lives” before shooting Pretti. She and other federal officials have claimed that Pretti was approaching agents with a gun.

“We do know that he came to that scene and impeded a law enforcement operation, which is against federal law. It’s a felony. When he did that, interacting with those agents when they tried to get him to disengage, he became aggressive and resisted them throughout that process,” Noem said. “These officers used their training, followed their protocols and were in fear of their lives and the people around them.”

Despite Noem’s claim that the agents feared for their lives, O’Hara, speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday morning, said he had seen no evidence Pretti brandished a weapon during the encounter.

“You have a Second Amendment right in the United States to possess a firearm,” O’Hara said during an interview with host Margaret Brennan. “And there are some restrictions around that in Minnesota, and everything that we see that we are aware of shows that he did not violate any of those restrictions.”

But in an interview with CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Bovino said a person’s Second Amendment rights “don’t count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct and impede law enforcement officers.”

Noem seemingly suggested the fact that Pretti possessed “a gun and ammunition, rather than a sign” meant the scene was a “violent riot.”

“We have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers,” she said Saturday of the situation.

Amid conflicting accounts over whether Pretti’s hand at any point during the incident was near his gun, video verified and analyzed by several media outlets, including the New York Times, show the item Pretti appeared to be holding was a phone he was using to film the scene before he attempted to help a woman who had been pushed to the ground by Border Patrol agents. According to a Washington Post analysis of video footage, federal agents appear to have secured Pretti’s gun just moments before an agent shot him.

“What you see is someone brandishing a cellphone who is simply there with a cellphone helping someone up, a woman up, as his parents point out, when she had slipped,” Klobuchar told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And so when I hear these officials from the Trump administration describe this video in ways that simply aren’t true, I just keep thinking, ‘Your eyes don’t lie.’”

Former President Barack Obama also said the Trump administration’s explanations “appear to be directly contradicted by video evidence.” And Pretti’s family members have accused the White House of spreading “sickening lies.”

Just as in the aftermath of Good’s shooting, federal and state officials disagree about who bears responsibility — and how to manage the fallout.

Blanche on Sunday told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Pretti’s shooting was a “tragedy” but added that “this was entirely avoidable if we had a governor, if we had a mayor, if we had leadership in Washington and over in Minnesota that actually cared about their citizens.”

But Gov. Tim Walz and local officials say it’s the Trump administration that has sown chaos. Walz deployed the state’s National Guard to Minneapolis in the aftermath of Pretti’s killing, which he called “sickening.”

“I just spoke with the White House after another horrific shooting by federal agents this morning. Minnesota has had it. This is sickening,” Walz posted on X. “The President must end this operation. Pull the thousands of violent, untrained officers out of Minnesota. Now.”

“This administration and everyone involved in this operation should be reflecting. They should be reflecting right now and asking themselves, what exactly are you accomplishing?” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, said at a Saturday press conference. “If the goal was to achieve peace and safety, this is doing exactly the opposite. If the goal was to achieve calm and prosperity, this is doing exactly the opposite.”

​Politics

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. — Republicans are one step closer to finalizing plans for a midterm convention later this year.

The Republican National Committee approved a rule change during its winter meeting on Friday that would allow the party to hold a convention during a midterm election year.

“I’m incredibly excited about the possibility of hosting midterm convention to highlight what President Trump and Republicans have been able to accomplish this year,” RNC Chairman Joe Gruters said after the rule change was adopted. “If the president wants us to host a convention to highlight the great work this administration has done for the American people, we are doing the work now and will be ready to act when that time comes.”

The amendment was approved at the RNC’s winter meeting with no objections. An unusually high number of RNC members had already left the meeting to catch early flights ahead of winter storms bearing down on much of the country by the time the vote was brought up.

The rule authorizes the RNC to “conduct a special ceremonial convention between presidential conventions, such as a midterm convention,” said Bill O’Brien, the national committeeman from New Hampshire.

National party conventions have typically been held only during presidential elections in the modern era. But President Donald Trump announced in September that the party would be holding a “Midterm Convention,” leaving the party scrambling to execute.

The event would give Republicans an opportunity to message the administration’s wins and platform candidates in battleground races across the country as they fight to hold onto congressional control.

Democrats, who held a series of midterm-year national conventions in the 1970s, are also flirting with the possibility. At the Democratic National Committee’s winter meetings in Los Angeles last month, officials from Nebraska and Utah were among those jockeying to host the potential event.

Republicans have not yet announced where their convention will be held or when, though Nevada GOP leaders are pushing for Las Vegas to host.

​Politics

As he increasingly flirts with a 2028 presidential run, Mark Kelly is winning friends up and down the ballot — if not influencing his Trump administration enemies.

In an effort to help flip the House and Senate in 2026, Kelly has strategically used his star turn as President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Public Enemy No. 1 to ramp up his giving and fundraising to competitive candidates, party committees and state parties to the tune of nearly $5 million last year, according to figures shared exclusively with POLITICO.

Since Trump in late November attacked the Arizona senator and other national security Democrats with a Truth Social post accusing them of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” one of the biggest questions in political circles has been just how much Kelly would benefit from Trump fashioning him into a foil. That post has raised Kelly’s profile, boosted further by Hegseth announcing an investigation into Kelly.

While Kelly’s total fundraising numbers aren’t yet available, what he raised and gave away will likely only be a fraction. His moves thus far — and the spotlight that Trump has shone on him — have positioned him to be a key fundraiser for Democrats in 2026, and offer him a platform to build out a 2028 base.

Kelly made more than $1 million in direct contributions and transfers to Democrats across the country, bringing his total direct contributions to more than $1.4 million for 2025. That includes $100,000 each to the DCCC and the DSCC and more than $280,000 to the DNC and state parties combined. As for the Senate, the DSCC vice chair has raised or contributed more than $2.3 million for the committee since the start of last year. He also raised $1 million for other Democrats in the fourth quarter alone by signing emails, text messages and ads.

Kelly also made direct contributions to approximately 30 state parties, including in potential early nominating 2028 states like Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina and New Hampshire. He also made two trips to South Carolina and one trip to Michigan, along with travel to Nevada.

“There’s definitely a message there that resonates with Nevada voters across the board,” Nevada Democrats Chair Daniele Monroe-Moreno told POLITICO, adding that Kelly drew a diverse crowd to the event he attended and praising his contribution to the state party. “So yes, I know there’ll be a number of people that will probably throw their hat in the ring, but he has definitely sparked the interest of some Nevada voters.”

That’s not to mention off-year election trips for Democrats in North Carolina, New Jersey and Virginia. “Senator Kelly is working overtime to support Democrats running in tough races because he knows that taking back the House and Senate is critical to holding Trump accountable and delivering relief from rising costs for American families,” said Jacob Peters, a Kelly spokesperson.

Kelly’s chits make it clear that attention from Trump can be a major boon for a potential 2028 presidential candidate. But more than anything, Kelly’s rising national profile, much like that of California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s last year, shows Trump has a unique ability to elevate foils. Trump has a great deal of power to pare the Democratic field.

“I’m sure that will be something we want him to do” as the 2028 presidential race gets closer, one Republican close to the White House told Playbook, though they noted that it’s still early.

But do Republicans who want to keep the White House think he’s making smart bets by elevating the Newsoms and Kellys of the opposition?

“Newsom is a perfect foil because his record is so horrendous,” said Dave Carney, the veteran New Hampshire GOP political consultant. “He will tell you whatever he thinks you want to hear.” One minute, Carney said, “he sounds like Arnold Schwarzenegger — a moderate Republican. But then he gets beat up from the left, and he, you know, scurries back there.” As for Kelly? “Kelly’s a press thing,” Carney said. “He’s not a real thing.”

There’s at least one candidate who Carney does not want to see Trump elevate: Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“He’s the first candidate in the history of America that I’m aware of where his vice presidential search in not being picked has helped him,” Carney said, citing Shapiro’s fundraising ability. “There’s a lot of assets he has.”

The drawback for Democrats vying for the nomination: Trump’s ire and retribution could lead to a rolling and unpredictable flavor of the month for some time leading up to 2028. Or, as Carney put it: “The president has the capacity — demonstrated over time — that he can beat the shit out of more than one person at a time.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

​Politics

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump since his return to office last year. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues it’s a sign of Newsom’s weakness.

“I think Gavin Newsom may be cracking up, some of these things he’s saying. I think he may be in over his hairdo,” Bessent said in an interview Thursday with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns for “The Conversation.”

Trump’s top economic adviser said that Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential candidate and longstanding Trump foe, has a “brain the size of a walnut” and that he knows “less about economics than” former Vice President Kamala Harris, which he clarified is “a terrible place to be in.”

The attacks are the latest in a simmering feud between Trump and Newsom, which escalated over the course of the week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Newsom was scheduled to speak at USA House on Wednesday as part of the conference, but his appearance was cancelled at the last minute. Newsom blamed the Trump administration, but an organizer said they decided to focus on programming with business leaders.

At Davos, Newsom met with world leaders, as did Bessent and Trump.

Upon arriving, Newsom urged European leaders not to cave to Trump’s demands over a wide-range of foreign policy issues. In a panel at the conference, the California governor brandished a pair of kneepads bearing Trump’s signature to mock world leaders he feels have been overly accommodating of the president.

Bessent dismissed the “strange things” Newsom has said to attack Trump, including the knee pad stunt and a comment in which Newsom analogized Trump to a dinosaur.

“To say strange things like President Trump is a tyrannosaurus rex, what the hell does that mean? I can say Gavin Newsom is a brontosaurus with a brain the size of a walnut,” Bessent said. “And, if you brought the knee pads, maybe that was for his meeting with Alex Soros.”

Bessent also defended the Trump administration from criticisms that they’re out of touch with the economic concerns of Americans. During a panel in Davos, Bessent said the administration wants to protect the investments of “mom and pop” retirees who may have purchased “5, 10, 12 homes.”

In his defense, Bessent took another opportunity to swipe at Newsom, who he labeled “Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken” during a speech earlier at the conference.

“I think it was a Dem governor, Newsom, who made the comment of being out of touch. What does he know? Like, his father worked for the Getty family,” Bessent said. “I actually think he knows less about economics than Kamala Harris, which is a terrible place to be in.”

The full interview with Bessent will air on “The Conversation.”

​Politics

Scott Bessent at Davos on Greenland, affordability, and the Fed | The Conversation

lead image

​Politics

House Democrats voted overwhelmingly Thursday to block additional funding for ICE, a remarkable shift from when dozens of them voted to expand the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement authority just one year ago — and a sign of how quickly the political ground has moved since President Donald Trump returned to the White House.

Just seven Democrats voted for the Homeland Security spending bill that included billions for Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Laura Gillen and Tom Suozzi of New York, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Florida and Don Davis of North Carolina. All represent tough terrain — Trump carried all of their districts but Gillen’s, which he lost by just over one point.

Other Democrats, incensed by an ICE agent’s shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis, voted against the bill — including many who voted exactly one year ago to pass the Laken Riley Act that allows for the detention of undocumented immigrants accused of certain crimes.

One of them, Rep. Susie Lee (D-Nev.), a top GOP target in the midterms from a district Trump narrowly carried in 2024, argued this vote was different.

“What we have seen time and again is ICE has blatantly violated our Constitution and our law, whether you’re talking about the shooting of a young mother to sending a five year old thousands of miles away to entice his father to turn himself in — this type of shit is not American,” Lee said in an interview Thursday. “ICE has plenty of money … I can’t in good conscience give them any more money until we get some type of guardrails.”

Even the Democrats who voted for the funding were sharply critical of ICE.

“I hate what ICE is doing in my district and across the country. It’s atrocious. It’s appalling. We should find ways to defund those operations in a surgical way,” Gonzalez said in a brief interview, adding that he supported the bill because it also included funding for Coast Guard and FEMA operations. “But voting no, just to make a statement, could have its own repercussions.”

The House passed the DHS funding bill 220 to 207.

Democrats’ near-united stand against the bill comes amid building opposition to Trump’s mass deportation campaign. A 49 percent plurality of voters in a new POLITICO poll conducted Jan. 16 to 19 said the effort — including Trump’s widespread deployment of ICE agents across the U.S. — is too aggressive.

“The shift is dramatic. And I think the reason for the shift is: Last year the debate in the country was about getting control of the borders and out-of-control immigration. Now the entire situation is about ICE itself and its behavior,” Mark Longabaugh, a veteran Democratic strategist, said of the party’s recalibration on immigration.

Amid the growing public furor over ICE’s hardline tactics, congressional Democrats had demanded that any new Homeland Security funding come with more guardrails.

The bill most of them voted against Thursday funds ICE at $10 billion through the rest of the fiscal year that ends in September, while cutting funding for removal and enforcement operations by $115 million and Border Patrol funding by $1.8 billion. It also included some Democratic demands: decreasing the number of detention beds by 5,500, providing $20 million each for body cameras for agents and independent oversight of DHS detention facilities, and directing the department to give officers more training on diffusing conflict while interacting with the public.

It does not include other items Democrats pushed for, however, such as banning agents from wearing masks during operations, requiring judicial warrants, preventing DHS from detaining and deporting U.S. citizens and blocking the department from using other agencies’ personnel for immigration enforcement.

The Democrats who voted in favor of the funding bill argued it was preferable to the alternative — giving Trump what Cuellar described as a “blank check” to carry out his hardline immigration agenda “virtually unchecked.”

And some expressed concerns about ramifications for their districts if other agencies who receive their funding through DHS were cut off. Davis warned of the potential consequences of lapsed FEMA and Coast Guard funding in his home state of North Carolina that has been battered by storms and floods in recent years.

“Obviously we should have the honest conversations about warrants. We should have the honest conversations about taking off the masks,” Davis said Thursday. But “if we can’t consistently predict when disasters are coming our way, then we’re leaving populations of people vulnerable.”

Erin Doherty and Calen Razor contributed to this report.

​Politics

Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday he wants to institute a mandatory retirement age of 75 for the president and across branches of government, a pipe dream of a call from the potential White House hopeful that would bar him from serving a second term as president.

“You’re 75 years old: done,” the former Chicago mayor and ambassador to Japan said Wednesday at a Center for American Progress event. “And that would be in the legislative branch, it’d be in the executive branch — including the Cabinet — and it’d be also in the Supreme Court, and all the federal courts.”

Emanuel, who is 66, would be 69 when sworn into office if he runs for and wins the 2028 presidential contest. He would be 73 at the start of his second term, and would, by his own standard, be unable to serve all four years. He acknowledged this when pressed by POLITICO at a Christian Science Monitor roundtable Wednesday afternoon.

“I know where I am in my age. Of course it would apply to me,” Emanuel said. “You can’t say ‘here’s what I want to do to change Washington, one of the things I want to do’ — but I get an exemption because I bought it beforehand.’”

His standard would make Donald Trump, 79, ineligible to continue serving as president. And it would have barred Joe Biden, under whom Emanuel served as ambassador to Japan, from serving his single term. It would also impact the 17 senators and 45 members of the House who are currently 75 or older.

“You can’t serve in the armed forces, you can’t serve in private sector jobs” at 75, Emanuel said. “Go work on your golf swing, it’s not that good to begin with.”

Emanuel is reigniting a debate that raged throughout the last presidential election as Biden, then 81, and Trump, then 78, each sought a second term — and as questions about Biden’s mental and physical stamina crescendoed. And it’s simmered for years on Capitol Hill as lawmakers confront mental decline and even death within their ranks.

Age limits are popular with voters who have balked in recent years at the advancing ages of the nation’s presidential contenders, lawmakers and Supreme Court justices. Roughly two-thirds of Americans support age limits for federal elected officials and the Supreme Court, polls show.

Emanuel, a former representative, said he would push for legislation to set the limit rather than attempt a constitutional amendment. (The Constitution sets a minimum age for members of Congress but not a maximum, and establishes no limits for the Supreme Court.) It’s not clear whether that legislation itself would be constitutional — and could be a tough sell in a Congress where the median age for senators is 64.

Emanuel framed the age limit as part of a broader call for “comprehensive ethics, lobbying [and] anti-corruption reform” across the federal government that he said should include a crackdown on lawmakers and judges taking gifts and stock trading. The veteran Democratic strategist said his party should be hammering that message as part of a midterms platform that also includes raising the minimum wage and instituting a bill of rights for ratepayers.

“You have a president of the United States, in my view, that has expanded, deepened the swamp. Our job is to drain the swamp as Democrats,” Emanuel said, turning Trump’s trademark phrase against him. “There’s not a day that goes by that you don’t read a story about either his family, [Commerce Secretary Howard] Lutnick’s family or [Special Envoy Steve] Witkoff’s family making money.”

Emanuel’s choice of 75 may have been influenced by his brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, a former White House adviser and oncologist who wrote in 2014 that he did not want to live past 75. In that piece, he wrote that his view “drives my brothers crazy.”

​Politics