Democratic stalwart exits Congress—and says it’s time to pass the torch

Posted on by Alex Samuels

Rep. Jerry Nadler, the longest-serving member of New York’s congressional delegation and a fixture of Democratic politics for more than three decades, is stepping down—and he says that it’s time for a new generation to lead.

The 78-year-old told The New York Times on Monday that he will not seek reelection in 2026, citing growing calls within the party for new leadership.

A younger person “can maybe do better, can maybe help us more,” he told the Times.

“This decision has not been easy. But I know in my heart it is the right one and that it is the right time to pass the torch to a new generation,” he added in a statement Tuesday.

Rep. Jerry Nadler sits beside New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

The decision lands at a moment of transition for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to balance respect for veteran lawmakers who’ve defined its modern era with pressure from activists and younger voters to elevate a new slate of leaders. 

In his interview with the Times, Nadler pointed directly to President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race as evidence that the “necessity for generational change in the party” could no longer be ignored. 

“I’m not saying we should change over the entire party, but I think a certain amount of change is very helpful, especially when we face the challenge of Trump and his incipient fascism,” he said.

Tributes from Democratic leaders quickly followed. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called him “a champion, a fighter, and a trusted voice for New Yorkers,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described him as “a relentless fighter for justice, civil rights, and liberties and the fundamental promise of equality for all.”

New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani also commended Nadler, one of his earliest endorsers.

“Jerry stood alongside gay and trans Americans when it was politically unpopular, voted with courage—not calculus—against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, stood steadfast alongside the first responders and families sickened after 9/11, and led efforts to hold a lawless Trump administration accountable,” he said in a statement.

Nadler’s retirement reshapes the political landscape in New York’s 12th Congressional District, a deep-blue Manhattan seat that spans the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and Midtown. 

Though safely Democratic, the district now faces one of the most competitive primaries in the country. Nadler had already drawn a challenge from Liam Elkind, a 26-year-old activist who asked him earlier this year to “respectfully” step aside. 

New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani

On Monday, Elkind welcomed the news of Nadler’s retirement with praise.

“He has led this district and this country with humanity, kindness, and intelligence. We are better for his leadership,” he wrote on X.

Other potential contenders are already being floated. Assemblymember Micah Lasher, a longtime Nadler aide now serving in Albany, is expected to weigh a bid, while progressive groups are eyeing the open seat as an opportunity to push a new generation of leadership. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will almost certainly head to Congress: Nadler won reelection in 2022 with more than 80% of the vote.

Nadler’s congressional career began in 1992, when he won his seat in a special election after serving in the New York State Assembly. Over the years, he became one of the House’s most recognizable progressives and a staunch defender of abortion rights and judicial oversight. As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, he presided over President Donald Trump’s first impeachment in 2019. 

More recently, he championed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in 2022, which prohibits employment practices that discriminate against employees seeking accommodations due to pregnancy, childbirth, or other medical reasons.

Nadler is also the longest-serving Jewish member of Congress and a central figure in Manhattan politics. But like many of his longtime colleagues, Nadler faced mounting questions about how long the party could lean on its older leadership. 

Last year, he was ousted as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and replaced with a younger colleague. His exit now adds to a growing list of Democratic lawmakers stepping down, including Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis of Illinois and Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania, as well as Sens. Gary Peters of Michigan, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Tina Smith of Minnesota.

Nadler’s departure doesn't just set the stage for a high-stakes New York primary, but it also raises an important question: Is the Democratic Party ready to let a new generation lead?

Whoops! Tulsi Gabbard blows a CIA agent’s cover

Posted on by Alex Samuels

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard blindsided the Central Intelligence Agency last week by naming an undercover officer on a list of 37 officials stripped of security clearances.

She posted the memo on Aug. 19 at the direction of President Donald Trump, sharing it on X with her more than 762,000 followers. The list targeted people who supported Trump’s first impeachment or worked on issues like Russian interference and foreign election meddling.

President Donald Trump stands with Tulsi Gabbard and her husband after she was sworn in as Director of National Intelligence on Feb. 12.

Among those listed was a senior CIA officer still working undercover—a detail Gabbard either didn’t know or didn’t care to confirm. According to The Wall Street Journal, Gabbard didn’t “meaningfully consult” the agency before going public, giving the CIA little warning and no chance to weigh in

Instead, her office sent the list to the agency the night before the release, practically making damage inevitable. According to people familiar with the matter, the CIA had no advance notice that Gabbard would post the names online, including that of a covert officer.

The blunder threatens to deepen tensions between the two top intelligence shops. Larry Pfeiffer, a former CIA chief of staff, told the Journal that any “smart” DNI would have cleared the move with the agency first. 

“It could potentially put CIA cover procedures at risk. It could put relations with foreign governments at risk,” he said.

Others were even less diplomatic. Brian Fiarchil, a retired CIA operations officer, blasted Gabbard on X as a “Trump lapdog” who knows nothing about intelligence and “will do anything to stay” in the president’s good graces.

Notably, this dust-up was not the first between Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe. In July, Gabbard declassified a report on Russia’s interference in the 2016 election that the CIA wanted more heavily redacted, arguing that it exposed sensitive sources and methods. But Gabbard ignored those concerns and did it anyway.

And now with a covert officer’s cover blown, the CIA is scrambling to contain the fallout while avoiding open war with Trump’s handpicked DNI. 

National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard sits next to CIA Director John Ratcliffe.

“Director Ratcliffe and the President’s entire elite national security team are committed to eradicating the politicization of intelligence and are focused on executing President Trump’s national security priorities, and keeping the American people safe,” CIA spokesperson Liz Lyons said.

Gabbard has come a long way from her days as a Democratic representative from Hawaii, but her recent actions continue to land her in trouble. It’s part of a broader pattern for Gabbard: She’ll do whatever it takes to stay in Trump’s good graces—even if she hurts herself. 

Trump was openly annoyed with her when they clashed over Iran’s nuclear program. Then, seemingly to win back his favor, she accused President Barack Obama of treason during the 2016 election, a move critics saw as an attempt to distract from the fallout over the administration’s refusal to release the Epstein files. The clearance memo seemed like more of the same—an exaggerated show of loyalty that instantly backfired.

In her Aug. 19 post, Gabbard claimed to be following Trump’s orders to revoke the clearances, framing it as a crackdown on officials who had politicized or leaked intelligence. Her spokesperson repeated that line to the Journal but, once again, offered no evidence that the affected officials had mishandled classified material.

“Gabbard directed the revocations to ensure individuals who have violated the trust placed in them by weaponizing, politicizing, manipulating, or leaking classified intelligence are no longer allowed to do so,” the spokesperson said.

Related | Tulsi Gabbard creates new task force to pursue Trump’s favorite vendettas

The problem is that one of those officials was a seasoned CIA officer with more than 20 years of experience in intelligence, including a stint on the National Intelligence Council as an expert on Russia and Eurasia.

And there’s another wrinkle in Gabbard’s move: Revealing the identity of a covert officer is a felony. Though whether that law applies to a government official is somewhat murky.

Attorney Mark Zaid, who represents intelligence officers and lost his own clearance under Trump, suggested that Gabbard might have broken the law.

“Can you say ‘Privacy Act violation’? I certainly can. Further proof of weaponization and politicization,” he wrote on X. “The vast majority of these individuals are not household names & are dedicated public servants who have worked across multiple presidential administrations.” 

Gabbard’s memo was meant to show loyalty to Trump. But instead, all she did was expose a covert officer and make herself look even more reckless.

Trump goes to war against intelligence

Posted on by Alex Samuels

President Donald Trump has yanked the security clearances of 37 current and former national security officials, an unprecedented move that has gutted parts of the intelligence community.

Since returning to the White House, Trump has wielded clearances as a political weapon, pulling them from perceived enemies, such as former President Joe Biden, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and other top Democrats. Now the purge has widened to career intelligence and some of the government’s most experienced analysts.

Several of those targeted had been involved in Russian interference or foreign election threats. And many had signed a 2019 letter warning that Trump’s dealings with Ukraine were serious enough to warrant impeachment proceedings. That letter resurfaced several weeks ago, when far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer posted it on X and demanded that “dozens of anti-Trump officials from the CIA and [National Security Council]” who signed it lose their clearances.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard speaks with reporters at the White House, on July 23.

Trump and his intelligence head, Tulsi Gabbard, delivered. Among those affected were Shelby Pierson, the official who warned Congress about Russia’s influence in 2020, as well as an undercover CIA analyst and Vinh X. Nguyen, a data scientist at the National Security Agency whose expertise in artificial intelligence had made him invaluable to the agency. Nguyen’s ouster stunned former colleagues, who warned his removal could set U.S. technology development back years.

The revocations are part of a broader campaign from Trump and Gabbard, echoing the president’s unfounded claims that intelligence agencies manipulated assessments about Russian interference in 2016. On Tuesday, Gabbard framed her actions as rooting out “politicization or weaponization of intelligence” but offered no evidence that the officials in question had mishandled classified material.

“Being entrusted with a security clearance is a privilege, not a right,” she wrote in a post on X, saying her actions followed Trump’s direction.

Critics say the opposite is true: The clearances themselves are being politicized. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Democratic vice chair, blasted the effort as a smokescreen.

“Hey it’s a day ending in ‘Y’ so Tulsi Gabbard has launched yet another weird gambit to distract from the administration’s failure to release the Epstein files,” he wrote on social media. Warner also told The New York Times that he’s introducing legislation to establish clear standards for granting and revoking clearances.

But Trump and Gabbard aren't acting alone. Attorney General Pam Bondi has convened a task force to reexamine the 2016 intelligence review, while CIA Director John Ratcliffe has declassified internal reports and even referred former CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI for further investigation. Together, the moves amount to a wholesale attempt to rewrite the history of Russian election interference.

The practical effects are mixed. Some of the 37 may not have held active clearances or government contracts. For current officials, losing clearance means immediate dismissal. For former officials, it strips them of the ability to consult or advise—roles many still play.

However, the symbolism is clear. Trump has weaponized the clearance system to punish critics, a strategy that will chill dissent inside agencies already wary of contradicting the White House.

Even those caught up in the dragnet mocked the move. When Trump pulled James’ clearance earlier this year, she shot back: “What security clearance?”

For lawyers like Mark Zaid, who represents intelligence officials and lost his own clearance under Trump, the hypocrisy is glaring. 

“These are unlawful and unconstitutional decisions that deviate from well-settled, decades-old laws and policies that sought to protect against just this type of action,” Zaid said in a statement to The Associated Press and others, calling the current intelligence leadership “a grave danger to national security.”

How is the White House erasing history this week?

Posted on by Alex Samuels

The White House is reportedly launching a sweeping review of Smithsonian museums to make sure they align with President Donald Trump’s sanitized version of U.S. history.

The news comes via a bombshell Wall Street Journal report, which details the White House’s push ahead of America’s 250th anniversary, which will be celebrated on July 4, 2026. In a letter to Smithsonian secretary Lonnie Bunch, three senior White House officials demanded that the museums embody “unity, progress, and enduring values that define the American story” in line with Trump’s March executive order on “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

Trump’s crusade to rewrite history will leave no stone unturned. The Journal reports that everything—from exhibition text and digital content to curatorial decisions, collection management, and artist funding—will be scrutinized.

The letter was signed by White House senior associate Lindsey Halligan, Domestic Policy Council Director Vince Haley, and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought. And it calls for replacing “divisive or ideologically driven” language with “unifying, historically accurate” materials.

“This is about preserving trust in one of our most cherished institutions,” Halligan told The Journal. “The Smithsonian museums and exhibits should be accurate, patriotic, and enlightening—ensuring they remain places of learning, wonder, and national pride for generations to come.” 

People wait in line to enter the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, in Washington, in 2017.

But this is a hard sell given Trump’s track record. His administration has aggressively purged diversity, equity, and inclusion content from federal websites, erasing mentions of Navajo Code Talkers from the Defense Department’s websites, and deleting tributes to Black, Hispanic, and female service members from the Arlington Cemetery website.

The White House’s latest Smithsonian effort takes place amid other recent controversies at the storied museum. In July, the museum removed a temporary installation referencing Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit that also displayed artifacts related to the impeachments (or resignations) of former Presidents Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon. After facing public condemnation, the placards were restored, though with softened text and a less prominent placement.

And this is all part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to reshape history. Last week, the National Park Service announced it would reinstall a statue of Confederate General Albert Pike in Washington, D.C.—a man who advocated expelling free Black people from Arkansas—after protesters toppled it in 2020. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissed monument removals as the work of “woke lemmings.”

The Journal reports the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents has agreed to a full review of its museums and zoo to root out supposed political bias. But Trump’s executive order accuses the institution of pushing a “divisive, race-centered ideology” that paints American and Western values as harmful. Vice President JD Vance, a board member, has been tasked with helping block funding for exhibitions that clash with Trump’s racist agenda.

The White House’s Smithsonian review will focus on eight museums in D.C., including the National Museum of African American History and Culture, the National Museum of the American Indian, and the National Portrait Gallery. In other words, expect more women and people of color to be targeted.

The process is slated to wrap up in early 2026, just in time for Trump to claim victory over “wokeness” during the anniversary celebrations.

It’s a stark example of how far Trump and his allies will go to purge anything remotely inclusive from America’s cultural memory. But this isn’t about “restoring truth”—he wants to rewrite it altogether.

This Texas Republican stalked Trump to get his endorsement—and flopped

Posted on by Alex Samuels

To win President Donald Trump’s endorsement amid a rough GOP Senate primary, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton did what most of us would be too embarrassed to do: He stalked Trump.

CNN reports that Paxton made an unannounced visit to Trump’s golf resort in Turnberry, Scotland, last month, where he just happened to bump into the president. It’s unclear if Trump was expecting the pop-in, though they reportedly spoke about the primary, where Paxton is challenging incumbent John Cornyn from the right.

It’s not the only time Paxton has gone out of his way to win Trump over. Earlier this summer, a pro-Paxton political action committee aired its first TV ad in Palm Beach, Florida—right where Trump could see it from Mar-a-Lago—and far from Texas.

It’s the kind of pandering and political theater Trump has come to expect. In today’s GOP, making another man the centerpiece of your brand is seen as a strategic move, not an embarrassing one. Paxton flew 4,500 miles just to kiss the ring.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, shown in January.

But Paxton’s gotta do what he’s gotta do to win this messy primary. And with Rep. Wesley Hunt eyeing a run, it could get even more volatile. But despite his cross-continental pilgrimage, Paxton has nothing to show for it. Trump hasn’t endorsed anyone, and sources close to the president say he’s holding back for now. He’s got time too: The primary isn’t until March.

Cornyn and Paxton, longtime rivals, are now in what’s becoming one of the marquee Republican showdowns of the 2026 midterm cycle. The two have never been allies. Cornyn has long viewed Paxton as a scandal magnet and legal risk, while Paxton paints Cornyn as a swampy moderate out of step with the MAGA base. The animosity runs deep, fueling an increasingly sycophantic race to win Trump’s favor.

Paxton might have the upper hand with the GOP grassroots—at least for now. Numerous public and private polls show him leading Cornyn in the primary. But he also carries baggage. He’s in the middle of a high-profile divorce after his wife accused him of adultery, a saga that could turn voters off as it becomes more public. He was also impeached by the Texas House in 2023 on charges of abusing his office to benefit a political donor—though he was later acquitted by the Senate.

Then there’s Paxton’s role in enforcing Texas’s near-total abortion ban. In March, his office filed the state’s first criminal charges under the law, arresting a Houston-area midwife and one of her employees. While that may appeal to hard-line conservatives, it could alienate suburban voters who have trended away from the GOP in recent years.

Trump’s team is watching the race closely, according to CNN, since the outcome could influence control of the Senate in 2026. With Republicans bracing for a possible loss of their House majority—despite aggressive gerrymandering—their Senate majority takes on increased importance. A flawed nominee like Paxton could give Democrats a shot in flipping the seat next November. 

“Winning is all that matters to the president,” an anonymous Republican strategist close to the White House told CNN. They also emphasized that loyalty isn’t the key to unlock Trump’s endorsement—it’s supposedly electability.

Republican Rep. Wesley Hunt of Texas, shown in 2023.

That’s why Cornyn may still have a chance. He’s a seasoned fundraiser, aligned with Senate leadership, and has never lost a statewide race. While Trump’s style may seem more compatible with Paxton, a messy general election in a state slowly turning purple might make Cornyn the safer choice.

There’s also the wildcard of Hunt, who could split the pro-Trump vote. A Black Iraq War veteran with ties to both MAGA activists and the GOP establishment, Hunt could force Trump to pick sides sooner than planned—or decide not to endorse at all. Hunt’s entry would only escalate the scramble for Trump's backing.

Still, Paxton leads most polls of the primary, and if he wins, it’ll likely boost Democrats’ chances of flipping the seat. Former Rep. Colin Allred has announced his campaign, and there are whispers that state Rep. James Talarico might join him in the primary. Texas has long been a white whale for Democrats—tantalizingly close in some cycles but always just out of reach. They believe a damaged GOP nominee like Paxton could tip the scales.

That’s exactly what national Republicans want to avoid. Senate Majority Leader John Thune and others have endorsed Cornyn, worried that nominating Paxton could jeopardize the seat—and the Senate majority.

Meanwhile, Trump is in no rush. As Texas Republicans trip over themselves to prove who's more loyal, he’s sitting back and soaking it in—relishing the spectacle of grown men groveling for his approval.

Bigoted congresswoman wants to spread hate across her home state

Posted on by Alex Samuels

Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, one of the most hateful Republicans in Congress, just announced her campaign for governor of South Carolina in 2026.

In a video posted to social media Monday, Mace strongly aligned herself with President Donald Trump, despite once being one of his most vocal critics. The clip includes footage of Trump calling her a “fighter.”

She has reportedly been in contact with the White House about her plans, though it’s uncertain if she will receive Trump’s “complete and total” endorsement.

Not long ago, that might have seemed impossible. After Trump supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, Mace criticized Trump, saying, “I hold him accountable for the events that transpired.” One day after barricading her office, she told The State newspaper, “I can’t condone the rhetoric from yesterday, where people died and all the violence.”

Her former staffers say her behind-the-scenes reaction was even more theatrical. According to The Washington Post, Mace considered filming herself confronting the insurrectionists so that she could get punched and go viral as one of the fiercest anti-Trump Republicans. Her team talked her out of it. When asked about the story later, she deflected: “What you write doesn’t pass for real journalism.”

Despite her supposed outrage, Mace never voted to impeach Trump and soon stopped trying to distance herself from him. Trump repaid her wobbliness by endorsing a primary challenger in 2022—Katie Arrington—but Mace survived. By the next year, she’d morphed into one of his staunchest defenders.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, left, greets President Donald Trump as he arrives to address a joint session of Congress at the Capitol on March 4.

If that sounds like a political transformation, it wasn’t. Mace hasn’t changed; she’s just adjusted her approach. Her brand is whatever keeps her relevant. In 2023, she called herself “pro-transgender rights.” A year later, she introduced a resolution to ban trans women from using women’s restrooms at the Capitol—targeting incoming Democratic Rep. Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress. She also promoted broader legislation affecting all federal buildings and schools.

She has kept up this momentum into 2025. During a House Oversight Committee meeting in January, Mace tried to corner former Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland with a question about defining a “woman.” It failed. The next month, she used an anti-trans slur during another hearing, and when the late Rep. Gerry Connolly called her out, she declared, “I don’t really care.” In November, according to Newsweek, she tweeted about bathrooms 326 times over 72 hours, a few days after McBride’s election victory.

But Mace isn’t just running on culture-war issues. In February, she stunned the House by accusing her ex-fiancé of rape, assault, and sex trafficking—naming him and other alleged abusers during a speech. She also directly criticized South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, accusing him of slow-walking the investigation. Wilson, now a GOP primary rival, announced his bid for governor in June.

The Republican field also includes Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette and Rep. Ralph Norman, one of the most right-wing members of the House. Gov. Henry McMaster is term-limited and will not run again.

At 47, Mace has been preparing for this moment for years. She first gained attention in 1999 as the first female cadet to graduate from Charleston’s Citadel military academy. In 2014, she ran a long-shot Senate campaign against Lindsey Graham, earning just 6%. She didn’t win, but she made herself known.

Trump later hired her to boost his 2016 South Carolina primary effort—at a time when few Republicans wanted to be seen with him. After a brief stint in the state legislature, she flipped a Democratic-held congressional seat in 2020.

Since then, Mace has cynically reinvented herself several times. She’s aligned with Trump, broken away from him, then rejoined when it suited her. She’s called herself a centrist on some topics, then embraced the far right. Throughout, she has prioritized her own interests.

Recent polls suggest she might enter the primary with a slight advantage, but there is no clear front-runner yet. With 2026 likely to be a challenging cycle for Republicans, this race could offer an early glimpse of what the post-Trump GOP will look like in the South—if that exists at all.

Is another Texas Republican about to shake up the state’s Senate race?

Posted on by Alex Samuels

Rep. Wesley Hunt may be about to make an already chaotic Texas GOP Senate primary even messier.

The Houston-area congressman has reserved ad time on Fox News in the Washington, D.C., market, with the spot scheduled to air on Saturday, according to ad-tracking firm AdImpact. Axios reports Hunt is also spending six figures on ads in the Dallas and Houston media markets—an unmistakable sign he’s eyeing a statewide run.

And this isn’t his first appearance outside his district. In April, a political action committee ran biographical ads about Hunt in cities far from Houston—including Washington, D.C., and West Palm Beach, Florida, home to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago—according to the Associated Press. Medium Buying, another ad-tracking firm, says Hunt’s congressional campaign also aired spots on Newsmax in Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio from July 12-18.

Rumors of Hunt running for Senate have been swirling for months. But this latest media blitz marks his clearest signal yet. Axios reports the newest ad features Hunt alongside his wife and three young children, with a voiceover declaring: “Family, faith, freedom. These are the values that define Texas, and they’re the values that define Wesley Hunt.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton

The message seems aimed at creating a stark contrast with Attorney General Ken Paxton, the scandal-plagued front-runner who’s now going through a high-profile divorce. State Sen. Angela Paxton filed last week on “biblical grounds,” accusing her husband of adultery and saying the couple has lived apart for over a year.

Paxton didn’t exactly deny the allegations. Instead, he released a statement saying, “I could not be any more proud or grateful for the incredible family that God has blessed us with, and I remain committed to supporting our amazing children and grandchildren.”

That kind of baggage may give Hunt the opening he needs. He’s been emphasizing his military background—a time-tested selling point for Texas Republicans—and his ads have reached beyond major metros, airing in Amarillo, San Antonio, and Waco.

With Paxton mired in scandal and Sen. John Cornyn trailing badly in primary polling, Hunt could emerge as a viable alternative for Republican voters fed up with both. Cornyn, who has held his seat since 2002, still has party leadership support, but that might not be enough to carry him through a tough primary.

Sen. John Cornyn

Even Trump is holding back. According to Senate GOP sources, White House officials recently told Minority Whip John Thune that the president plans to stay neutral, at least for now. He’s waiting to see if Cornyn can close the gap before weighing in.

Meanwhile, more potential candidates are eyeing the race. Rep. Ronny Jackson—Trump’s former White House physician—is also said to be considering a bid.

And Democrats are preparing for their own fight. Former Rep. Colin Allred, who challenged Ted Cruz in 2024, has already entered the race. But other high-profile Democrats—Rep. Joaquin Castro, state Rep. James Talarico, and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke—are also considering runs, setting the stage for a possible intraparty showdown.

For now, the Republican field is fractured, the front-runner is under scrutiny, and the establishment pick is struggling. If Hunt enters, it almost guarantees a fierce primary fight. So, yes—grab your popcorn. Texas Republicans are gearing up to tear each other apart—again.

This Democrat is launching a comeback bid in Texas’ Senate race

Posted on by Alex Samuels

Former Rep. Colin Allred—a civil rights attorney, ex-lineback for the National Football League, and one of Texas Democrats’ brightest prospects—is making a comeback. About eight months after losing to Sen. Ted Cruz, Allred is jumping back into the ring, this time setting his sights on Sen. John Cornyn in 2026.

“Texans are working harder than ever, not getting as much time with their kids, missing those special moments, all to be able to afford less,” Allred said in his launch video. “And the people we elected to help—politicians like John Cornyn and Ken Paxton—are too corrupt to care about us and too weak to fight for us.”

His message is clear: He’s not finished fighting. The video emphasizes his background and the grit it took to make it to the NFL.

“At heart, I’m still that undrafted kid, fighting for what’s right. I’m still that guy showering after work, instead of before,” Allred said—a subtle reference to his second Senate bid.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, shown in March 2024.

Texas Democrats see an opening. Cornyn is caught in a messy fight with state Attorney General Ken Paxton, the scandal-ridden MAGA hard-liner beloved by President Donald Trump’s base. A recent Texas Southern University poll showed Paxton with a 9-percentage-point lead over Cornyn in a two-way Republican primary, but only a 2-point edge over Allred in a general election matchup. That’s why Allred’s video targets both men.

Internal GOP polling reportedly confirms that Paxton is a riskier nominee in a general election. But so far, Trump has withheld his endorsement. While Paxton has been one of Trump’s most loyal defenders, Cornyn is generally seen as more electable statewide.

Still, Allred shouldn’t take the primary for granted. The Democratic field could grow quickly. Texas Rep. Joaquin Castro, state Rep. James Talarico, and former Rep. Beto O’Rourke have all reportedly considered running. Former astronaut Terry Virts and flight attendant Mike Swanson are already in the race, though neither has gained traction.

That’s part of why top Democrats are pushing for a unified statewide slate. With more than a dozen major offices on the ballot in 2026—including governor, lieutenant governor, and Paxton’s soon-to-be-open attorney general seat—party leaders hope to avoid a contentious Senate primary and instead focus on retaking a statewide office for the first time since 1994.

Beto O'Rourke, right, hugs a supporter at a gathering during his run for governor, in Fort Worth, Texas, in March 2022.

Allred arrives with some big advantages: name recognition, national fundraising networks, and potential bipartisan appeal. During his 2024 race, he secured endorsements from prominent anti-Trump Republicans, like former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. A Texas Public Opinion Research poll shows 37% of registered voters in the state view Allred favorably—more than Paxton (35%) or Cornyn (21%). He was also the only political figure in the poll to have a net-positive favorability, meaning more voters had a favorable view of him than had a negative view.

However, Allred has something to prove. His previous campaign was criticized for being too cautious, especially compared with the energy O’Rourke brought in 2018. Despite outraising Cruz, Allred lost by 8.5 points—though he outperformed Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, who lost Texas to Trump by nearly 14 points.

This time, Allred promises a different approach. Now, free from congressional duties, Allred said in a recent interview that he plans to “run differently” in 2026—more aggressively, less cautiously.

Allred first ran for office in 2018, flipping a Dallas-area district by defeating GOP incumbent Pete Sessions. Before that, he worked at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration.

Now he’s betting that 2026 will finally be the year Texas flips—and that he’ll be the one to do it.

Campaign Action

Justice Department sues this state’s federal bench in wild new escalation

Posted on by Alex Samuels

In an unprecedented and dangerous move, the Department of Justice has sued all 15 federal judges in Maryland—a sweeping retaliation against a court order that temporarily halts deportations. 

At the center of the legal firestorm is a May 21 order from Chief Judge George L. Russell III, which bans federal officials from deporting immigrants who file habeas corpus petitions in Maryland until at least 4 PM on the second business day after filing. 

The goal, Russell wrote, is to prevent rushed removals that deny immigrants a fair hearing, especially after business hours or on weekends, when proper review becomes logistically impossible.

“The recent influx of habeas petitions concerning alien detainees … filed after normal court hours and on weekends and holidays has created scheduling difficulties and resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings,” the order reads.

Russell cited the All Writs Act and a 1966 Supreme Court precedent that gives courts limited power to preserve jurisdiction while they review urgent matters.

But the Trump administration isn’t backing down. In a broad legal challenge, the DOJ argues that Russell’s standing order illegally grants blanket relief to all immigrants without considering individual cases and unlawfully restricts the president’s authority to enforce immigration laws. 

A cartoon by Clay Bennett.

“A sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law. Nor does their status within the judicial branch,” DOJ attorneys wrote.

The DOJ is asking the 4th Circuit Court to assign a judge from outside the Maryland district to hear the case, claiming that all 15 judges have an inherent conflict of interest since they are all named as defendants.

Legal analysts say this move is without recent precedent.

“It’s extraordinary. And it’s escalating DOJ’s effort to challenge federal judges,” Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola, told The Associated Press.

Speaking to The Washington Post, J. Michael Luttig, a retired federal judge, was more blunt. 

“It is reckless and irresponsible and yet another direct frontal assault on the federal courts of this country,” he said.

The legal action appears to be the latest and most extreme salvo in the Trump administration’s ongoing war with the judiciary over immigration. And it didn’t take long for Democrats to sound the alarm. 

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore called the suit an “unprecedented effort to intimidate judges and usurp the power of the courts” and accused the Trump administration of “turning our Constitution on its head.”

Luttig says the administration helped create the chaos initially by rushing to deport immigrants en masse without proper notice or hearings. The Supreme Court recently ruled that one such group had a right to challenge their removal before being deported.

But that hasn’t stopped Trump officials, who have continued to lash out at judges who rule against them and openly question the courts’ authority to intervene.

Attorney General Pam Bondi clarified the Trump administration’s position in a statement on Wednesday.

“President Trump’s executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda. This pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand,” she wrote.

President Donald Trump has criticized adverse rulings before—at one point calling for the impeachment of a federal judge who ordered for deported immigrants to be returned to the United States. While impeachment is unlikely and would require Senate conviction, it was enough to prompt a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he warned.

The Maryland bench, especially, has been a thorn in Trump’s side. Judges like Paula Xinis have forced the administration to reverse wrongful deportations. Others, like James K. Bredar, are overseeing lawsuits filed by Democratic state attorneys general who are challenging mass firings of federal employees. 

And in a year marked by sweeping executive actions, Maryland judges have blocked key Trump policies related to immigration, transgender health care, and civil service rights. Of the 15 judges in the district, 13 were appointed by Democratic Presidents Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. 

But legal scholars warn that the lawsuit could break long-standing norms between the executive and judicial branches. 

“The president and his attorney general will continue their ruthless attack on the federal Judiciary and the Rule of Law until the Supreme Court of the United States at least attempts to stop them,” Luttig warned. “Until now, the Supreme Court has acquiesced in the president’s war, while the devastating toll on the Federal Courts and the Rule of Law has mounted by the day.”

Campaign Action

What would it take for this GOP senator to caucus with Democrats?

Posted on by Alex Samuels

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska is somewhat open to caucusing with Democrats—under the right conditions.

In a newly released clip of a forthcoming interview with the podcast GD Politics, Murkowski said there’s a “possibility” she could become an independent and align with Democrats if they flip the Senate in 2026.

“There may be that possibility,” she said. “There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo.”

Still, she made clear it wouldn’t be a wholesale shift. Murkowski said she’d make the move only if it served Alaskans and didn’t require her to fully embrace the Democratic platform. 

“As challenged as I think we may be on the Republican side, I don’t see the Democrats being much better,” she added. “I have to figure out how I can be most effective for the people that I serve.”

The comments arrive shortly before Tuesday’s release of her memoir, “Far from Home”—a fitting title for someone who splits her time between Washington, D.C., and Alaska, and often feels out of step with today’s GOP.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska gestures as she leaves the Senate chamber after the vote on witnesses during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol in January 2020.

According to CBS News, the book focuses on her life as a centrist in an increasingly polarized Congress. In 2002, Murkowski’s father, who was then Alaska’s new governor, appointed her to fill his vacant Senate seat—something she’s called “accurate” nepotism. But she went on to win a full term, and in 2010, she pulled off one of the most improbable comebacks in Senate history: winning reelection as a write-in candidate after losing her GOP primary to a more right-wing challenger.

“It’s a daily reminder of how I was returned to the United States Senate. It was not through the help or the assistance of the Republican Party; it was through the hope and the assistance and the persistence of Alaskans all across the board,” she told CBS.

In a new interview with Semafor, Murkowski admitted she’s thought about jumping ship from the Republican Party—if only because people keep asking her to.

“I would be not being honest with you if I said I’ve never been asked … ‘Why don’t you switch?’” she said. “Have I considered it? Yes, because I’ve been asked the question.”

It’s no mystery why. Murkowski has built a reputation as one of the few Republicans willing to break ranks. She voted against Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, supported some of former President Joe Biden’s court nominees, and has openly criticized her colleagues’ deference to President Donald Trump. She’s also been candid about her party’s fear of challenging tech billionaire Elon Musk during his time in the Trump administration, citing concerns that he might fund primary challenges. 

As recently as December, Murkowski said she’s more comfortable without any party label at all.

“I’d rather be that person that is just known for trying to do right by the state and the people that I serve, regardless of party, and I’m totally good and comfortable with that,” she said.

But don’t expect a sudden switch. In that same December interview, Murkowski emphasized that she’s “still a Republican” and has “never shed my party label.” 

Plus, according to her interview with GD Politics, cooperation with Democrats would largely depend on them getting to 50 seats in the Senate—something that’s far from certain. Currently, Democrats have 47 seats, and 50 would mean that Republicans still have control of the chamber since a tie gets broken by the vice president, Republican JD Vance. If Murkowski caucused with Democrats in such a scenario, though, it would flip the chamber’s control to that party.

And despite her turbulent history with Trump—he backed a challenge against her in 2022—Murkowski told Semafor the two recently had a “very pleasant” call. She’s also weighing her vote on the GOP’s new tax bill, further proof that, for now, her Republican credentials remain intact.

If Democrats want to bring Murkowski into the fold, they’ll need more than wishful thinking. It’ll take Senate gains—and a party flexible enough to accommodate a center-right maverick.

Campaign Action