Category: Politics

House Democrats’ biggest outside allies have set a new fundraising record for the organizations that will help boost the party ahead of the 2026 midterms.

House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ main super PAC, and its associated nonprofit raised a combined $121 million in 2025, more than they have in any previous non-election year dating back to HMP’s 2011 founding.

The pair of groups raised a combined $81 million in the final six months of 2025, doubling its haul during the first six months of the year — a sign of donors’ growing optimism for the party tied to its overperformance in a slate of off-year elections. The numbers were first shared with POLITICO.

“As Democrats continue to expand the map and build momentum for the 2026 midterms, we could not be more excited to announce our record-breaking fundraising in 2025,” said House Majority PAC President Mike Smith. “We look forward to taking back the House in 2026.”

For comparison, House Majority PAC raised $72 million for the entire 2018 election cycle. The group didn’t launch its affiliated nonprofit until 2019. In 2023, the groups raised a combined $76 million.

House Majority PAC, closely aligned with House Democratic leadership, is often the biggest outside spender on the left in House races. Raising cash can help fuel candidates across the congressional map, but it’s not the only decisive factor in a cycle reshaped by aggressive redistricting across the country. Nonetheless, Democrats are increasingly bullish about their chances, pointing to their recent double-digit victories in last fall’s off-year elections.

It’s also not clear if Democrats will hold a cash advantage in outside spending. Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC affiliated with Republican House leadership, has not yet released its fundraising totals. CLF and its affiliated nonprofit, American Action Network, outraised its Democratic counterparts over the first six months of 2025, $60 million to $40 million.

House Majority PAC did not release its cash on hand totals, so it’s not clear how much they have in the bank to spend on campaigns in 2026. The super PAC will file its next disclosure on Jan. 31, but its nonprofit will not file until late 2026.

​Politics

The U.S. military operation in Venezuela and capture of President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, 2026, topped off months of military buildup and targeted strikes in the Caribbean Sea. It fulfills President Donald Trump’s claim to assert authoritative control over the Western Hemisphere, articulated in his administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy.

Some national security experts say U.S. military action in Venezuela – taken without U.S. congressional approval or U.N. Security Council authorization – is unlawful. It may violate domestic and international law.

The Venezuela attack represents the clearest example during Trump’s second presidency of the shift from traditional American values of democratic freedom and the rules-based international order to an America exerting unilateral power based purely on perceived economic interests and military might. Autocratic leaders are unconstrained by law and balance of power, using force to impose their will on others.

So, what does this transition from a liberal America in the world to an autocratic U.S. look like? After decades of working internationally on democracy and peace-building, I see three interrelated areas of long-standing U.S. foreign policy engagement being unraveled.

1. Peace and conflict prevention

The Trump administration’s actions in Venezuela reflect its “peace through strength” approach to international relations, which emphasizes military power. The actions also follow the emphasis the administration places on economic pressure and wins as a deterrent to war and a cudgel for peace.

This approach contrasts with decades of diplomatic efforts to build peace processes that last.

Foreign policy experts point out that the Trump administration’s emphasis on business deal-making in its conduct of foreign relations, focused on bargaining between positions, misses the point of peacemaking, which is to address underlying interests shared by parties and build the trust required to tackle the drivers of conflict.

Trump’s focus on deal-making also counters the world’s traditional reliance on the U.S. as an honest broker and a reliable economic partner that supports free trade. Trump made it clear that U.S. interest in oil is a key rationale for the Venezuela attack.

Before Venezuela, the limits of the Trump administration’s approach were already showing in the global conflicts Trump claims to have halted. That’s evident in ongoing violence between Thailand and Cambodia and in ceasefire violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Moreover, U.S. expertise and resources for sustainable peacemaking and preventing conflict are gone.

The entire Bureau of Conflict Stabilization Operations in the U.S. Department of State was dismantled in May 2025, while funding for conflict prevention and key peace programs like Women, Peace and Security was cut.

Trump’s unilateral military action against Venezuela belie an authentic commitment to sustainable peace.

While it’s too soon to predict Venezuela’s future under U.S. control, the Trump administration’s approach is likely to drive more global conflict and violence in 2026, as major powers begin to understand the different rules and learn to play the new game.

2. Democracy and human rights

Since the 1980s, U.S. national security strategies have incorporated aspects of democracy promotion and human rights as U.S. values.

Trump has not highlighted human rights and democracy as rationales for capturing Maduro. And, so far, the administration has rejected claims to the Venezuelan leadership by opposition leader María Corina Machado and Edmundo González, widely considered the legitimate winner of the 2024 presidential election.

Much of the U.S. foreign policy to build democracy globally and promote human rights was delivered through foreign assistance, worth over US$3 billion in 2024. The Trump administration cut that by nearly 75% in 2025.

These funds sought to promote fair elections, supporting civil societies and free media globally. They were also meant to help enable independent and corruption-free judiciaries in many countries, including Venezuela.

Since 1998, for example, the U.S. has funded 85% of the annual $10 million budget of the U.N Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture. The fund, now imperiled, helps survivors recover from torture in the U.S. and around the world.

The congressionally mandated annual Human Rights Report issued by the State Department in August signaled the Trump administration’s intent to undermine key human rights obligations of foreign governments.

However, the White House has used tariffs, sanctions and military strikes to punish countries on purported human rights-related grounds, such as in Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa. Equally concerning to democracy defenders is its rhetoric chastising European democracies and apparent willingness to elevate political parties in Europe that reject human rights.

3. International cooperation

A major aim of U.S. foreign policy has traditionally been to counter threats to America’s security that require cooperation with other governments.

But the Trump administration is ignoring or denying many transnational threats. They include terrorism, nuclear proliferation, pandemics, new technologies and climate change.

Moreover, the tools that America helped build to tackle shared global threats, like international law and multilateral organizations such as the United Nations, have been disparaged and undermined.

Even before the U.S. attack on Venezuela, scholars were warning of the collapse of the international norm, embedded in the U.N. Charter, that prohibits the use of force by one sovereign country against another, except in specific cases of self-defense.

Early in 2025, Trump signaled an end to much of U.S. multilateral engagement, pulling the country out of many international bodies, agendas and treaties.

The administration proposed eliminating its contributions to U.N. agencies like the fund for children. It is also allocating only $300 million this year to the U.N., which is about one-fifth of the membership dues it owes the organization by law. A looming budgetary crisis has now consumed this sole worldwide deliberation body.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration says migration and drug trafficking, including from Venezuela, pose the greatest security threats. Its solutions – continuing U.S. economic and military might in the Americas – ignore shared challenges like corruption and human trafficking that drive these threats and also undermine U.S. economic security.

There is also evidence that the Trump administration is not only disregarding international law and retreating from America’s long-standing respect for international cooperation, but it’s also seeking to reshape policy in its own image and punish those it disagrees with.

For example, its call to reframe global refugee protections – to undermine the principle that prohibits a return of people to a country where they could be persecuted – would alter decades-old international and U.S. domestic law. The Trump administration has already dismantled much of the U.S. refugee program, lowering the cap for 2025 to historic levels.

Even for those who work in international institutions, there could also be a price to pay for an illiberal America. For instance, the Trump administration has economically sanctioned many judges and prosecutors of the International Criminal Court for their work.

And the administration has threatened more sanctions unless the court promises not to prosecute Trump – a more salient challenge now with the apparent U.S. aggression against Venezuela, which is a party to the International Criminal Court.

Some democracy experts worry that the U.S. military action in Venezuela not only undermines international law, but it may also serve to reinforce Trump’s project to undo the rule of law and democracy at home.

Until July 1, 2025, Shelley Inglis served in the Bureau for Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance at the United States Agency for International Development (U.S.A.I.D).

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Colorado is the sixth-least affordable state for child care in the nation. Costs for center-based care average 14% of a two-parent household’s median income and 45% of a single parent’s median income. The federal affordability benchmark is just 7%.

Colorado also faces significant shortages in access to slots in licensed child care programs. In 2023, more than 40,000 Colorado parents reported quitting a job, turning down a job or significantly changing a job because of problems with child care.

Recently, several Colorado counties passed measures to subsidize child care through local taxes. Despite these advancements, Colorado’s child care system is facing a fiscal crisis that is likely to affect families and children for years to come.

Child care disruptions for families with infants and toddlers are estimated to cost the state more than US$2.7 billion in lost economic productivity and revenue. Ensuring access to affordable child care supports workforce participation and enhances the well-being of children and families.

I study early care and education policies and programs that promote children’s cognitive, behavioral and social-emotional learning. My research lab at Colorado State University has been investigating the consequences of a lack of access to high-quality, affordable child care on child and family outcomes.

Colorado’s Child Care Assistance Program

Since the late 1990s, the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program has subsidized the cost of child care for parents and caregivers with lower incomes who are working, searching for work or pursuing education. My research shows these subsidies are a critical lifeline that help lower-income families access child care.

Subsidies allow families to prioritize factors other than cost, such as location, in their search for child care. From 2023 to 2024, the Colorado subsidy program served more than 30,000 children in the state. That’s about 10% of those who qualified, which is typical for most states.

A federal March 2024 rule from the Administration for Children and Families caps family co-payments at no more than 7% of household income. It also requires reimbursement rates to reflect the full cost of care, whereas previously subsidy payments were based on what families could afford to pay.

Although intended to improve affordability for families and adequately compensate child care programs, the rule included no additional federal funding. In Colorado, meeting these new requirements is projected to cost the subsidy system approximately $43 million more per year.

These changes, combined with the expiration of COVID-19 relief funding that provided Colorado an additional $465 million to stabilize and expand child care assistance, has created growing financial instability for the subsidy system.

Approximately one-third of Colorado counties are experiencing an enrollment freeze for their child care subsidies. This means new applicants cannot access subsidized care until the freeze is lifted. There is no set timeline for when that will occur.

Without additional funding that would allow the freeze to be lifted, enrollment in Colorado’s Child Care Assistance Program is estimated to decline by 64%, falling from about 30,000 to just 10,000 enrollees. As children age out or families no longer qualify, spots that would normally open up for new enrollees will remain unfilled during the freeze.

Zooming in on Larimer County

I have been studying the impacts of the enrollment freeze in my hometown of Larimer County, Colorado. It’s a geographically diverse region that includes urban centers such as Fort Collins and Loveland, mountain destinations such as Estes Park, and rural agricultural communities. Like elsewhere in the state, child care costs pose a significant financial strain on local families.

A household in Larimer County with a median income of $64,919 and two children under the age of 5 spends approximately 37% of its income on child care. Due to budget constraints, Larimer County has had an enrollment freeze in the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program since February of 2024. The county has effectively paused the intake of new applicants for subsidies.

Recently, we administered surveys to 88 families in Larimer County. Approximately half of those surveyed were currently receiving a subsidy and half had applied but were unable to access it because of the freeze. We compared families using advanced statistical modeling that controlled for any differences between groups, allowing us to isolate the effects of the subsidy freeze on family outcomes.

In unpublished research that is being prepared for peer review, we found families affected by the freeze used fewer paid child care hours, faced higher costs, expressed greater concerns about costs, and reported more difficulty paying for care. They also had less reliable and stable arrangements, were less satisfied with their care, experienced higher child care-related stress and displayed greater risk of depression.

But that’s not all. Families without a subsidy reported missing twice as many workdays. When extrapolated across the 425 families in Larimer County affected by the freeze, this translated to over $2.2 million in lost annual earnings.

Local initiatives driving solutions

Recognizing the gaps in affordable child care, counties across Colorado introduced ballot measures to fund local solutions through tax revenue.

These measures come after the state established a universal preschool program in 2022. The following year, the program provided up to 15 hours per week of tuition-free, high-quality preschool for more than 85,000 children.

Measures in Larimer, San Miguel, Garfield, Pitkin and southwest Eagle counties will directly fund child care through sales or property taxes. Measures in Gilpin, Hinsdale, Ouray and Eagle counties will generate funds through lodging taxes.

In Larimer, voters passed a measure that established an additional countywide sales tax of 0.25%, or 25 cents per 100 dollars. The measure is expected to generate $28 million annually for child care assistance and workforce compensation.

In San Miguel, voters passed an existing property tax of 75 cents for every 1,000 dollars of assessed property value, allowing the county to collect and use all the revenue it generates instead of being limited by a new state cap. This will allow the county to retain nearly $1 million annually to support local child care affordability.

In Eagle County, voters passed a measure approving a lodging tax increase from 2% to 4% on hotel stays and short-term rentals that will raise approximately $4.5 million annually to lower child care costs.

Revenue from these initiatives will provide child care tuition to families, expand child care slots, support quality improvement and raise wages for child care workers.

These local investments cannot by themselves resolve Colorado’s statewide child care funding deficit, but they have the potential to transform access and quality within communities where they are implemented.

Colorado is not alone in these issues. Many other states are facing subsidy enrollment freezes and are exploring regional solutions to stabilize funding.

For example, ballot measures in Cincinnati, Ohio, and Seattle, Washington, also recently passed, providing reliable funding for child care assistance, preschool quality and workforce compensation.

With the uncertainty of the state and federal funding landscape, municipalities across the country may look to Colorado as a model for locally driven strategies that address community needs.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Jenn Finders has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, and North Central Regional Center for Rural Development.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

House Democrats’ biggest outside allies have set a new fundraising record for the organizations that will help boost the party ahead of the 2026 midterms.

House Majority PAC, House Democrats’ main super PAC, and its associated nonprofit raised a combined $121 million in 2025, more than they have in any previous non-election year dating back to HMP’s 2011 founding.

The pair of groups raised a combined $81 million in the final six months of 2025, doubling its haul during the first six months of the year — a sign of donors’ growing optimism for the party tied to its overperformance in a slate of off-year elections. The numbers were first shared with POLITICO.

“As Democrats continue to expand the map and build momentum for the 2026 midterms, we could not be more excited to announce our record-breaking fundraising in 2025,” said House Majority PAC President Mike Smith. “We look forward to taking back the House in 2026.”

For comparison, House Majority PAC raised $72 million for the entire 2018 election cycle. The group didn’t launch its affiliated nonprofit until 2019. In 2023, the groups raised a combined $76 million.

House Majority PAC, closely aligned with House Democratic leadership, is often the biggest outside spender on the left in House races. Raising cash can help fuel candidates across the congressional map, but it’s not the only decisive factor in a cycle reshaped by aggressive redistricting across the country. Nonetheless, Democrats are increasingly bullish about their chances, pointing to their recent double-digit victories in last fall’s off-year elections.

It’s also not clear if Democrats will hold a cash advantage in outside spending. Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC affiliated with Republican House leadership, has not yet released its fundraising totals. CLF and its affiliated nonprofit, American Action Network, outraised its Democratic counterparts over the first six months of 2025, $60 million to $40 million.

House Majority PAC did not release its cash on hand totals, so it’s not clear how much they have in the bank to spend on campaigns in 2026. The super PAC will file its next disclosure on Jan. 31, but its nonprofit will not file until late 2026.

​Politics

George Conway wants to impeach President Donald Trump. He may soon get a vote to do so.

The attorney, pundit and staunch anti-Trump critic formally launched his bid for a Manhattan House seat today and is framing his run around an all-encompassing effort to oppose the president.

The rollout includes a 2-minute video that features images of Jan. 6, a woman being led away by immigration enforcement officers and photos of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and Vladimir Putin. In the video, Conway calls Trump “mendacious,” “corrupt” and “criminal.”

He pledges to “not be an ordinary member of Congress” given the extraordinary political moment.

In an interview with POLITICO, he went even further, saying that Trump’s actions in Venezuela — including the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro to face criminal charges in the U.S. — are among the impeachable crimes he’s committed.

“He completely disregarded the War Powers Act,” Conway said. “He’s abusing his power as commander-in-chief. Don’t get me wrong, Maduro is a bad guy and he’s probably guilty of all the crimes he’s been charged with in the Southern District of New York. But President Trump is doing this without consultation to Congress.”

The White House did not return a message seeking comment.

Conway is a first-time candidate who only recently registered as a Democrat ahead of filing to run in the deep blue district being vacated by Rep. Jerrold Nadler. A former Republican, Conway left the GOP in protest during Trump’s first term.

He’ll face a large field of Democratic contenders, including state Assemblymember Alex Borres, New York City Council Member Erik Bottcher, former Nadler aide and state Assemblymember Micah Lasher and Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg.

The seat is unlikely to be competitive in the November election, making the winner of the Democratic primary Nadler’s likely successor

Conway’s positioned himself as a forceful Trump antagonist — the kind of aggressive posture that’s popular with Democrats eager for a sharp-edged approach to take on the president. Conway and his wife Kellyanne, a former Trump adviser, announced in 2023 they would divorce.

His House campaign will test the limits of how much Democratic voters want to express their disdain for the president. Many candidates this year are placing a focus on affordability — a buzzy political issue that Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani rode to success in their campaigns.

Yet Conway believes voters’ concerns all flow from one source: Trump.

“The politics of this aren’t divided in my view between talking about Trump and holding Trump accountable and then all the kitchen table issues,” he said. “They’re not separate.”

Conway will still have to persuade Democratic primary voters, though. His recent conversion to the Democratic Party will likely come under scrutiny. But he insisted his ties to the district are strong — adding that his kids were born in the city and that he now lives there.

“I made my life here,” he said. “This district has been the center of my life since I got out of law school.”

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO’s New York Playbook. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to New York Playbook.

​Politics

George Conway wants to impeach President Donald Trump. He may soon get a vote to do so.

The attorney, pundit and staunch anti-Trump critic formally launched his bid for a Manhattan House seat today and is framing his run around an all-encompassing effort to oppose the president.

The rollout includes a 2-minute video that features images of Jan. 6, a woman being led away by immigration enforcement officers and photos of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and Vladimir Putin. In the video, Conway calls Trump “mendacious,” “corrupt” and “criminal.”

He pledges to “not be an ordinary member of Congress” given the extraordinary political moment.

In an interview with POLITICO, he went even further, saying that Trump’s actions in Venezuela — including the seizure of President Nicolás Maduro to face criminal charges in the U.S. — are among the impeachable crimes he’s committed.

“He completely disregarded the War Powers Act,” Conway said. “He’s abusing his power as commander-in-chief. Don’t get me wrong, Maduro is a bad guy and he’s probably guilty of all the crimes he’s been charged with in the Southern District of New York. But President Trump is doing this without consultation to Congress.”

The White House did not return a message seeking comment.

Conway is a first-time candidate who only recently registered as a Democrat ahead of filing to run in the deep blue district being vacated by Rep. Jerrold Nadler. A former Republican, Conway left the GOP in protest during Trump’s first term.

He’ll face a large field of Democratic contenders, including state Assemblymember Alex Borres, New York City Council Member Erik Bottcher, former Nadler aide and state Assemblymember Micah Lasher and Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg.

The seat is unlikely to be competitive in the November election, making the winner of the Democratic primary Nadler’s likely successor

Conway’s positioned himself as a forceful Trump antagonist — the kind of aggressive posture that’s popular with Democrats eager for a sharp-edged approach to take on the president. Conway and his wife Kellyanne, a former Trump adviser, announced in 2023 they would divorce.

His House campaign will test the limits of how much Democratic voters want to express their disdain for the president. Many candidates this year are placing a focus on affordability — a buzzy political issue that Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani rode to success in their campaigns.

Yet Conway believes voters’ concerns all flow from one source: Trump.

“The politics of this aren’t divided in my view between talking about Trump and holding Trump accountable and then all the kitchen table issues,” he said. “They’re not separate.”

Conway will still have to persuade Democratic primary voters, though. His recent conversion to the Democratic Party will likely come under scrutiny. But he insisted his ties to the district are strong — adding that his kids were born in the city and that he now lives there.

“I made my life here,” he said. “This district has been the center of my life since I got out of law school.”

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO’s New York Playbook. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to New York Playbook.

​Politics

Democrats hoping to win higher office this year are seizing on President Donald Trump’s intervention in Venezuela to push a twist on one of his campaign promises: America first.

Across the country, candidates and lawmakers are slamming Trump’s decision to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and are using the moment to hammer their domestic affordability message.

“Ohioans are facing higher costs across the board and are desperate for leadership that will help deliver relief,” former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is running to reclaim his seat, said on X. “We should be more focused on improving the lives of Ohioans – not Caracas.”

The frame from Democrats shows how potent the party views affordability as an issue in the midterms, one that Trump and his team have grown increasingly preoccupied by after across-the-board losses in 2025.

“The problem Trump was already having was that he looked like he was focused on everything other than what matters in people’s daily life,” said longtime Democratic strategist Jesse Ferguson, a former spokesperson for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “And now he’s just supercharged that.”

Trump won in 2024 largely by running on affordability, and his less interventionist “America First” approach helped him win over more isolationist voters who had been alienated by the neoconservative approach of the Republican Party in the Iraq War era. But continuing economic uncertainty and persistent inflation, combined with his second-term shift towards a more aggressive foreign policy approach, threaten to hurt the president and his party at the ballot box.

Polling shows that cost of living will remain top of voters’ minds before November, something that Ferguson said “transcends every subgroup.”

In some of the party’s most competitive 2026 midterm primaries, Democrats are coalescing around messaging on Venezuela.

In Michigan, where the war in Gaza drew clear fissures between Democratic opponents, all three candidates sang the same domestically-focused tune.

“Americans have made themselves crystal clear: they don’t want to risk sliding into another costly war abroad. Families are struggling to buy groceries. People are skipping doctor’s visits because they can’t pay for healthcare,” state Sen. Mallory McMorrow said in a statement.

“Make no mistake, this is about enriching his oil executive donors who want access to Venezuela’s oil — not about democracy or Maduro or narcotics. Meanwhile, they tell us we can’t afford healthcare at home,” Abdul El Sayed, the former head of the Wayne County Department of Health, wrote on X.

“Taking over another country while Americans can’t afford their rent and groceries is unacceptable,” said Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.).

The issue isn’t just being used by midterm hopefuls. Potential Democratic 2028 candidates are bringing affordability to the forefront of their Venezuela messaging.

“As of this week, millions of Americans are now paying thousands more for health insurance,” former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Monday. “If the President and Congressional GOP think Washington has the capacity to ‘run’ Venezuela right now, why won’t they fix the insurance cost crisis they’ve created here at home?”

Longtime Miami-based Democratic strategist Christian Ulvert thinks his party is right to remind voters of what they see as failures in Trump’s domestic agenda as he sets his sights abroad, including on cost of living issues — as long as that messaging doesn’t overshadow a cogent perspective on how they would approach relations with Venezuela. South Florida is home to one of the biggest Venezuelan communities in the country, which has been shaken by Trump’s recent revocation of Temporary Protected Status for those fleeing Maduro’s regime.

“Democrats need to also appreciate that many things can be true. It’s not a single issue, especially in this moment, and we have to talk about it in a way where you can join Venezuelans in speaking up that Maduro being gone is a victory for Venezuelans,” Ulvert said.

Some Democrats who served in foreign wars have also chosen to center a critique of American interventionism in addition to joining in on the party’s pivot back to cost of living.

Graham Platner, a veteran of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan who is now running to unseat Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, has seized on Trump’s vague suggestions that the U.S. will run Venezuela following Maduro’s forced ouster.

“Bullshit. This has never worked,” Platner posted in response to a clip of the president’s Saturday morning remarks. “I watched my friends die in Iraq in the wake of speeches like this one.”

Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego — an Iraq War veteran — has been outspoken on the American military action in Venezuela, flooding social media and cable news with broadsides aimed at Trump. He expressed a similar frustration: “I fought in some of the hardest battles of the Iraq War. Saw my brothers die, saw civilians being caught in the crossfire all for an unjustified war. No matter the outcome we are in the wrong for starting this war in Venezuela.”

Republicans, however, are backing Trump and praising the action he took against Maduro.

“Nicolas Maduro is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans after years of trafficking illegal drugs and violent cartel members into our country — crimes for which he’s been properly indicted in U.S. courts and an arrest warrant duly issued — and today he learned what accountability looks like,” House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X the day the operation became public.

​Politics

Donald Trump joked in 2016 that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” and not lose support. In 2024, after two impeachments and 34 felony convictions, he has more or less proved the point. He not only returned to the White House, he turned his mug shot into décor, hanging it outside the Oval Office like a trophy.

He’s not alone. Many politicians are ensnared in scandal, but they seldom pay the same kind of cost their forebears might have 20 or 30 years ago. My research, which draws on 50 years of verified political scandals at the state and national levels, national surveys and an expert poll, reaches a clear and somewhat unsettling conclusion.

In today’s polarized America, scandals hurt less, fade faster and rarely end political careers.

New York’s Andrew Cuomo and New Jersey’s Jim McGreevey both resigned as governors due to sex scandals, only to run again this year for mayoral posts. Both lost. Cuomo sought to replace New York Mayor Eric Adams, who never stepped down despite being indicted – with charges later dropped – in a corruption case that engulfed much of his administration.

The adulterous state attorney general from Texas, Ken Paxton, survived an impeachment vote in 2023 over bribery and abuse of office and is now running for the U.S. Senate. The list goes on – proof that scandal rarely ends a political career.

When scandals still mattered

For most of the previous half-century, scandals had real bite.

Watergate, which involved an administration spying on its political enemies, knocked out President Richard M. Nixon. The Keating Five banking scandal of the 1980s reshaped the Senate, damaging the careers of most of the prominent senators who intervened with regulators to help a campaign contributor later convicted of fraud.

Members of Congress referred to the House ethics committee were far less likely to keep their seats. Governors, speakers and cabinet officials ensnared in scandal routinely resigned. The nation understood scandal as a serious breach of public trust, not a potential fundraising opportunity.

But beginning in the late 1990s and accelerating throughout the Trump era, something changed.

According to my dataset of more than 800 scandals involving presidents, governors and members of Congress, politicians in recent decades have survived scandals for longer periods of time and ultimately faced fewer consequences.

Even at the presidential level – where personal legacy should, in theory, be most sensitive – scandals barely leave a dent. Trump and his supporters have worn his legal attacks as a badge of honor, taking them as proof that an insidious swamp has conspired against him.

This isn’t just a quirk of modern politics. As a political scientist, I believe it’s a threat to democratic accountability. Accountability holds politicians, and the political system, to legal, moral and ethical standards. Without these checks, the people lose their power.

To salvage the basic idea that wrongdoing still matters, the nation will need to figure out how to Make Scandals Great Again – not in the partisan sense but in the civic one.

As a start, both parties could commit to basic red lines – bribery, abuse of office, exploitation – where resignation is expected, not optional. This would send a signal to voters about when to take charges seriously. That matters because, while voters can forgive mistakes, they shouldn’t excuse corruption.

A tribal cue, not an ethical event

Why the new imperviousness?

Partisanship is the main culprit. Today’s voters don’t evaluate scandal as citizens; they evaluate it as fans. Democrats and Republicans seek to punish misdeeds by the other side but rationalize them for their own.

This selective morality is the engine of “affective polarization,” a political science term describing the intense dislike of the opposing party that now defines American politics. A scandal becomes less an ethical event than a tribal cue. If it hurts my enemy, I’m outraged. If it hurts my ally, it’s probably exaggerated, unfair or just fake.

The nation’s siloed and shrinking media environment accelerates this trend. News consumers drift toward outlets that favor their politics, giving them a partial view of possible wrongdoing. Local journalism, formerly the institution most responsible for uncovering wrongdoing, has been gutted. A typical House scandal once generated 70 or more stories in a district’s largest newspaper. Today, it averages around 23.

Evaluating surveys of presidency scholars, I found that economic growth, time in office, war leadership and perceived intellectual ability all meaningfully shape presidential greatness. Scandals, by comparison, barely move the needle.

Warren G. Harding still gets dinged for Teapot Dome, a major corruption scandal a century ago, and Nixon remains defined by Watergate. But for most modern presidents, scandal is just one more piece of noise in an already overwhelming media environment.

At the same time, partisan media ecosystems reinforce voters’ instincts. For many voters, negative coverage of a fellow partisan is not a warning sign. As with Trump, it can be a badge of honor, proof that the so-called establishment fears their champion.

The incentive structure flips. Instead of shrinking from scandal and behavior that could once have ended careers, politicians learn to exploit it. As Texas governor a decade ago, Rick Perry printed his felony mug shot on a T-shirt for supporters. Trump’s best fundraising days corresponded directly to his criminal court appearances.

Making scandals resonate

Even when the evidence is clear-cut, the public’s memory isn’t.

Voters forget scandals that should matter but vividly remember ones that fit their partisan worldview, sometimes even when memory contradicts fact. Years after Trump left office, more Republicans believed his false claims – about the 2020 election, cures for COVID-19 and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot – than during his presidency. The longer the scandal drags on, the foggier the details become, making it easier for partisans to reshape the narrative.

The problem isn’t that America has too many scandals. It’s that the consequences no longer match the misdeeds.

But the story isn’t hopeless. Scandals still matter under certain conditions – particularly when they involve clear abuses of power or financial corruption and, crucially, when voters actually learn credible details. And political scientists have long known that scandals can produce real benefit. They expose wrongdoing, prompt reforms, sharpen voter attention and remind citizens that institutions need scrutiny.

So, what would it take to Make Scandals Great Again, not as spectacle but as accountability?

One step would be to rebuild the watchdogs. Local journalism could use investment, including through nonprofit models and philanthropy.

Second, it’s important that ethics enforcement maintains independence from the political actors it polices. Letting lawmakers investigate themselves guarantees selective outrage. At the same time, however, political parties could play a role in restoring trust by calling out their own, increasing their own accountability by lamenting real offenses among their own members.

Political scandals will never disappear from American life. But for them to serve as silver linings – and, ultimately, to protect public trust – the conditions that give them meaning require restoration. That could foster a political culture where wrongdoing still carries a price and where truth can pierce through the noise long enough for the public to hear it.

Brandon Rottinghaus 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

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz dropped out of the Minnesota governor’s race on Monday, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is considering jumping in to replace him.

Walz’s decision to not seek a historic third term upends the race and shocked the Minnesota political world. The two-term governor, who served as the Democrats’ 2024 vice presidential nominee, was facing a potentially tough reelection fight as Republicans sought to tie him to a federal probe into a massive welfare fraud scandal in the state.

Walz acknowledged that the scandal played a role in his choice.

“Every minute I spend defending my own political interests would be a minute I can’t spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who prey on our differences,” he said in a Monday statement.

Dozens of people have been charged with felonies for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Covid-era government programs intended to help feed children. Republicans were eager to tie Walz to the scheme, though he is not accused of any wrongdoing.

It’s a remarkable turn of events for the governor, who was elevated to national status by Kamala Harris in her 2024 sprint of a campaign and who until recently had left the door open to a 2028 presidential run of his own. 

“Many Democrats don’t want him to run, including me,” said one senior Minnesota Democratic lawmaker, granted anonymity to speak candidly. “He is certainly not corrupt, but he has not handled the fraud problem well and we worry about his electability.”

Walz met with Klobuchar on Sunday to discuss the campaign, according to two people familiar with the meeting. A person close to Klobuchar, granted anonymity to describe the senator’s private thinking, said the Minnesota senator is receiving encouragement to run and she’s seriously considering it but has not decided on her plans. That development might be a boon to Democrats in the competitive state, as she has run well ahead of others in her party — including Walz — in past statewide campaigns.

Republicans face a crowded primary for governor, including MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth, state Rep. Kristin Robbins and Minneapolis attorney Chris Madel.

The Republican Governors’ Association crowed over Walz’s exit, adding in a statement on Monday: “After presiding over one of the biggest fraud scandals in history it’s no wonder that Tim Walz is being forced to drop his re-election bid. Walz’s failed leadership is emblematic of Minnesota Democrats’ agenda and whoever Democrats choose to replace Walz with at the top of the ticket will need to defend years of mismanagement and misplaced priorities.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting. 

​Politics