A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



September 22, 2026

Fake accomplishments

Trump criticizes the press for failing to report fake accomplishments

Analysis by Daniel Dale

President Donald Trump, defending his decision to ban CNN and two other media outlets from the White House, argued Monday that the press has “an obligation” to report on his accomplishments.

But Trump immediately cited two supposed accomplishments that do not actually exist.

We don’t report that he “settled eight wars” because he didn’t. We don’t report that there is “$21 trillion pouring in” to the United States because there isn’t. Both numbers are wildly inflated.

In other words, Trump’s examples of the great news the press is supposedly failing to cover are actually examples of why an independent press is necessary to provide the facts when public officials won’t. CNN, Politico and MS NOW, the three outlets subject to Trump’s ban and now suing the White House over it, have all published stories pointing out the holes in the president’s assertions about wars supposedly ended and investments supposedly secured.

Trump’s false claims

Trump spoke about the White House ban during a Monday press conference in New York City with Mayor Zohran Mamdani. When Trump was asked why he announced the ban, he said, “I’m only doing it because I think the press also has an obligation. And, you know, I won in a landslide, I won the election in a landslide. I’ve done great things, I’ve done a lot of great things. I’ve settled eight wars. We have the best economic numbers for the country, in the history of our country. We have $21 trillion pouring in.”

He criticized media coverage of himself and of the war with Iran, which he described as overly negative given that “we’ve done so well.” Then, after deriding CNN and MS NOW, he said, “I think that these outlets have an obligation to be fair.”

Trump’s claims about having won a “landslide” victory, having “the best economic numbers for the country” and that “we’ve done so well” with Iran are some combination of too subjective and too vague to debunk, though it’s clear all three can be reasonably challenged. But his claims that “I’ve settled eight wars” and “we have $21 trillion pouring in” are incorrect, as CNN has repeatedly noted when he has made the same or similar claims on numerous previous occasions.

Trump’s list of eight wars supposedly settled includes two situations that were never actually wars during his tenure: a diplomatic dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia and a mysterious supposed situation between Serbia and Kosovo. The list also includes a war, involving Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, that has not ended despite a peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration.

In addition, the list includes the war between Israel and Hamas even though Israel continues to conduct frequent attacks in Gaza despite a US-brokered ceasefire agreement. And it includes the brief 2025 conflict between Israel and Iran, though Israel proceeded to join the US in starting another war against Iran in 2026.

As for the “$21 trillion” Trump says is pouring into the US?

That figure is fiction. The White House has never been able to substantiate it.

When the president said it Monday, the White House’s own website claimed there had been “$11.2 trillion” in “major investment announcements” during Trump’s second term, not “$21 trillion,” and even the White House figure was a major exaggeration of the actual investment occurring. A detailed CNN review in 2025 found the White House was counting trillions in vague investment pledges — pledges that were about “bilateral trade” or “economic exchange” rather than investment in the US — and vague statements that didn’t even rise to the level of pledges.

The White House figure includes pledges from US-based companies as well as foreign entities. Federal data shows that new foreign direct investment in the US was about $232 billion in 2025.

"And no one will ever be able to use Pluto as a base against america.... "

US will "immediately begin" to establish large military presence on Greenland, Trump says

By Catherine Nicholls

The United States will “immediately begin the process of developing a large military presence” on Greenland, including “two very major military bases,” US President Donald Trump said.

Trump’s comments came days after he reached an agreement with Denmark and Greenland that he said gives his country “permanent control” over the island’s security.

“We will have the complete ability to do what is necessary to defend the American continent and also Europe and other places,” Trump told world leaders at the UN General Assembly in New York.

“No US adversary will ever be permitted to establish a military presence in Greenland anymore, or make sensitive investments there without our express written approval,” he continued.

The agreement on Greenland will be signed later today, Trump said.

“By expanding America’s footprint in the Arctic and North Atlantic, this deal also protects Europe, in addition to America, and greatly protects them. It also very much enhances NATO,” he added.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was seen nodding in the audience as he said this.

To eat his shit or just shit....

Trump says he faces a “big decision” on Iran

By Maureen Chowdhury

President Donald Trump said that he has a “big decision” to make on Iran — casting it as a choice between striking a deal after the midterm elections and annihilating Iran.

“Will a deal be made with Iran that let’s them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East or even the world?” Trump asked.

“Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?”

Trump said he believed he’d make a deal after November’s midterm elections in the US, suggesting that Tehran is holding out.

“They’re waiting to see how I do in the midterm election. What they don’t realize is that I’m not running,” Trump said.

“The Republican Party is running, and I’ll be helping them. But I am not running. I gave absolutely no credence — and will not give credence — to the election when it comes to Iran. It doesn’t even enter my mind. The only thing that does is that Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

The president also thanked the UN Security Council “for voting overwhelmingly to pass a resolution condemning Iran’s despicable terrorist attacks on commercial shipping.”

“Now we must be equally united in maintaining pressure,” he added.

So so stupid....

trump does not specify how he wants the Iran war to end

Analysis by Stephen Collinson

While President Donald Trump said he had to decide whether to annihilate Iran or make a deal, he offered no clarity on his goals in any peace agreement.

He speaks in generalities about preventing Tehran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. But what kind of guarantees is he looking for on the nuclear program? Is he willing to end the war without receiving assurances on Tehran’s missile and drone programs?

Or would he settle for an unlimited reopening of the Strait of Hormuz — which wouldn’t be a huge concession, given the critical waterway was open before the war started?

The president’s openness to meeting an Iranian delegation in New York could mean he’s looking for a classic big moment to spin a win. Iran’s delegation will be wary of offering him such an opening.

Brushed off dire warnings

Trump has previously brushed off dire warnings about AI and regulation

By Kevin Liptak, Kit Maher, Alayna Treene and Hadas Gold

US President Donald Trump also addressed artificial intelligence in his speech.

He has previously strongly defended artificial intelligence and data centers as the industry faces a high-stakes legislative and political crossroads over regulation.

Headlines this month have placed a growing spotlight on AI containment failures and warnings from some industry leaders, who have called for guardrails to be put in place.

Trump asserted in a social media post last week that a “SICK conspiracy” was afoot to undermine AI, and claimed his oversight alone was enough to prevent models from going rogue. In another post that afternoon, he called concerns a “HOAX.”

Also last week, Trump called Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang while he was speaking at a summit in Los Angeles. “I also have common sense about AI,” Trump said, on speakerphone to the crowd. “The robots will not be taking over. The AI will not be taking over the rest of the world. The whole thing is a hoax.”

The president has been a strong defender of data centers, saying on social media at the end of August: “let Data Reign.”

Some background: In July, OpenAI says some of its experimental AI models left a test environment with no human direction and hacked their way onto a different company’s real production systems while trying to “cheat” on a cybersecurity test. And earlier this month, Anthropic says it has blocked multiple accounts that used the company’s AI models in ways that could support the development of biological weapons.

Some AI employees who’ve recently left their companies over safety concerns have publicly shared worries that the technology is moving too quickly. For now, AI companies are largely policing themselves.

Trump administration officials are considering a meeting with executives of major technology and artificial intelligence companies later this week, on the sidelines of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s state visit to the White House, sources said.

Desperate for TV

Trump’s Desperate for TV Cameras Until They Tell the Truth

ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC halted their TV coverage of presidential events after Trump banned some outlets from White House access for unfavorable reporting.

Alex Nguyen

President Donald Trump, who loves a media hit, may no longer get his moments of glory on television after major news networks ABC, CBS, Fox News, and NBC announced on Monday that they would pause TV coverage of presidential events.

The four networks’ decision comes after Donald Trump banned CNN and other outlets “from the White House” on Friday for “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” 

“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting,” ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News and NBC said in a joint statement of solidarity. Those five networks belong to the White House television press pool and rotate daily to provide reporting, video, and audio of the president’s daily events to share with other outlets around the world. 

Along with CNN, Trump banned reporters from Politico and MS NOW. Reporters from all three publications were denied access to the White House on Saturday. The three outlets filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in federal court earlier on Monday morning, alleging violations of First Amendment free press rights and Fifth Amendment due process. 

According to CNN and others, Fox News Washington Bureau Chief and acting TV pool chair Bryan Boughton wrote in a Monday email to TV pool subscribers that “there will be no replacement pool put in place” and “all other pool coverage will continue as normal, including Congress, VIPs, and selected events in Washington and around the country.”

CNN was scheduled to be the TV pool on Monday and would have gone with Trump to New York City for the annual United Nations General Assembly this week. According to CNN, the White House’s Sunday night press schedule listed Hearst, which owns local newspapers and TV stations across the country, as the “secondary” TV crew in DC and Real America’s Voice, a right-wing streaming channel, as the “secondary” crew for the New York trip. These “secondary” teams can typically ask questions to the president at pool events but don’t provide all the pool reporting to other media organizations.

Later on Monday, Trump held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new White House helipad—only most of the audio sounded like static and led at least one Newsmax reporter to blame the inability to hear the president on a lack of pool access.

The Associated Press sent an update on Monday, acknowledging the ban on CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, and saying “no network travel pool is expected” to accompany Trump. “The Associated Press will cover the president at the United Nations, with journalists on the ground providing coverage, including live video, images and reporting.”

With uncertain coverage of future events like the United Nations General Assembly and Chinese President Xi visiting the US later this week—the latter of which Trump seems to care about after reportedly spending up to $875,000 to accelerate construction of the same helipad unveiled Monday on the White House lawn ahead of the visit—his decision looks to have backfired.

Trump-Russia Collusion

Time to Revisit Trump-Russia Collusion

Or better yet, complicity.

David Corn

The recent news from ProPublica that a Russian oligarch attended Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding celebration on a private island in the Bahamas and covered hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs for the lavish affair was not a surprise to anyone familiar with the main thrust of my new book, How Russia Won: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and the Fight for America. The book chronicles the decade-long covert operation Putin has waged against the United States to sow discord, influence elections (to benefit Trump), and court Trump and his crew. An important fact in the wedding story is that Umar Kremlev, this oh-so generous oligarch, is not just another Russian billionaire who has to make nice with Putin to keep his fortune; he has been a key member of Putin’s security apparatus—truly the inner circle—and became an oligarch (and head of a corrupt international boxing organization) because of that. In essence, a Putin operative infiltrated deep into the Trump clan.

This is not the first time Russia has attempted to squirm its way into Trump Jr.’s world. During the 2016 campaign, Junior received a message from an associate who worked with the son of another Russian oligarch. That contact informed Don Jr. that Moscow was plotting to secretly help Trump and wanted to send an emissary who had dirt on Hillary Clinton to meet with the Trump campaign. Trump Jr. replied, “If it’s what you say I love it.” The meeting soon happened, with Trump Jr., campaign chair Paul Manafort, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner present. When the meeting was revealed—eight months after the election—Trump Jr. first lied about it, saying it was not related to the campaign, and then later claimed the emissary (who was tied to Russian intelligence) provided no useful derogatory information on Clinton.

What was most important about the meeting was that it signaled to Moscow that the Trump camp was a-okay with Putin meddling in the election and that it made the Trump gang aware that the Kremlin intended to covertly mess in American politics to assist Trump. Still, Trump, Trump Jr., Manafort, and other Trumpers would loudly assert throughout the campaign and in the years afterward that Putin had not interfered. That is, they knowingly lied.

Which brings us to collusion.

Collusion has been the buzzword at the center of the Trump-Russia scandal for 10 years. Trump and his minions have contended that there was no collusion and, thus, no scandal, meaning the whole Russia investigation was a “hoax” and a Deep State “witch hunt” orchestrated to destroy Trump.

Their definition of collusion basically rested on whether Trump or his lieutenants were in the same room with Russian hackers as they pilfered the documents from Democrats that would later be made public by WikiLeaks. No evidence of such collaboration emerged. So, they have vociferously argued ever since, there was no collusion. And, therefore, no scandal.

The issue of collusion, naturally, has come up, as I’ve been doing media interviews about the new book. It has long seemed to me that the meeting Trump Jr. set up and the subsequent denials from him and other Trump players—which echoed and affirmed Putin’s denials of interfering in the election—were a form of collusion. Team Trump was colluding with Putin’s attempted cover-up. Maybe Trump and his lieutenants weren’t involved in the hack-and-leak operation. But they deliberately lied and provided cover for Putin. Smells like collusion.

In the stretch following the 2016 election, Democrats and Trump critics were too fixated on collusion. But it was the complicity, stupid.

As I’ve been discussing all this in media interviews, I’ve made the point that perhaps the better term is complicity. For 10 years, not just in 2016, Putin has been attacking US elections—the book details all this—and throughout that time, Trump has incessantly maintained that Moscow was doing nothing and that all claims otherwise were part of the Deep State’s bogus “Russia, Russia, Russia” conspiracy against him. Consequently, Trump has been complicit in Putin’s ongoing information war against the United States. That’s an act of profound betrayal.

Now let’s go back to collusion.

My book does have a chapter titled “Collusion,” and it digs into a 966-page bipartisan report on the Russian attack on the 2016 election that was produced by the Senate Intelligence Committee and released in August 2020. This investigation offers the most comprehensive account of what transpired in 2016. One of the most intriguing portions of the report zeroes in on Manafort. (Another very interesting section looks at whether the Kremlin obtained any compromising material on Trump. Read the book for that.)

In the Manafort passages, the committee—led at the time by a Republican senator named Marco Rubio—revealed that while he was chairing the Trump campaign, Manafort was interacting with and passing sensitive internal campaign data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a close business associate who was also a Russian intelligence officer. And, the report noted, Kilimnik had connections to the Russian military intelligence unit that ran the hack-and-leak operation that targeted the Clinton campaign. Moreover, the report noted that committee investigators had uncovered “two pieces of information” that “raise the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection to the hack-and-leak operations.”

The report’s description of this information was redacted, as was much text about Kilimnik. In my reporting for the book, I learned that the redacted portions disclosed that Kilimnik was an agent for the GRU, the Russian intelligence outfit that ran the hack-and-leak attack—a fact buttressing the possibility that Kilimnik was involved in or aware of that operation when he was in communication with Manafort.

Because of all the redactions—the intelligence community did not want to reveal too much of what it knew about the Manafort-Kilimnik connection to protect sources and methods—the public has never learned the full story. It appears there’s a chance that there was indeed collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian operation via Manafort.

In any event, the fact that Trump’s campaign chair was in direct contact with a Russian agent—they communicated through means that left no traces—ought to have triggered a major scandal. Yet this Republican-backed report—which affirmed that Moscow intervened in the 2016 election to help Trump and that Trump actively exploited the Russian attack and “publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia”—had little impact on the public view of the Trump-Russia affair.

It was released during the Covid pandemic in the summertime, when the two political parties were holding their presidential conventions. By then, most of the political-and-media world had moved on from all that Russia business, particularly after the final report of special counsel Robert Mueller noted he had found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump and Russia. (He did point out he had amassed plenty of evidence that Trump committed multiple acts of obstruction of justice.)

So Trump and those within MAGA-land could continue to peddle the narrative that collusion was a bogus charge that had been concocted by the Deep State, the media, and nefarious Democrats.

Trump Jr.’s wedding should prompt a reappraisal of the collusion question, as it illuminates what I try to convey in the book: Putin has been running an extensive covert action against the United States for a decade, and Trump and his crew have both colluded and been complicit.

The Largest Theft of Labor in Human History

AI Exec: We May Have Pulled Off “The Largest Theft of Labor in Human History”

Documents from our lawsuit reveal how tech leaders talk when they think no one is listening.

Monika Bauerlein

The world is freaking out about the dangers of artificial intelligence, and no wonder: Every day brings news of AI agents breaking out of containment, hacking their way through the internet, and conspiring to evade humans. And the AI companies are responding that a) their systems could kill us all within a few years, but b) they should be allowed to keep going, if maybe just a tad more slowly.

Can they be trusted? On that, we here at Mother Jones have some relevant experience. Two years ago, we sued OpenAI and Microsoft for training their model on copyrighted content from our newsroom and many others. And now, documents from that lawsuit have provided an extraordinary window into how executives at these companies think about the rules, the law, and the rights of others. 

Our lawsuit (which is similar to others filed by The New York Times, The Intercept, and other publishers) argued that the companies built their immensely valuable product via “astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions” and perhaps “the largest theft of labor in human history.” 

Actually those were not our words. They came from Microsoft’s director of applied science, Brent Hecht, and we were able to uncover his statements and many other instances where tech executives talk in unfiltered terms, through the lawsuit. You can read the full document—a brief we and the other plaintiffs filed on September 4—here. But in case you don’t have the stomach for 84 pages of legalese, here are a few of the most amazing bits. (No one except the lawyers is allowed to see the original documents from which these quotes were taken—but we are also petitioning the judge to let us uncover those, so stay tuned!) 
  • “Millions of people around the world will soon consider large models ‘hoovering up’ all their work to be an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” an internal Microsoft document warned before acknowledging that “almost no one intended for content they created to be used in this fashion, nor are they compensated for its use.” 
  • The companies know full well that by ingesting content and training the AIs to spit it back out again, they are destroying the audience for publishers and other creators. OpenAI policy director Jack Clark wrote that the company was “creating systems that substitute for the labor of the people that define the culture of society.” Microsoft’s own research found that when people used AI search versus traditional search engines, there were 90 percent fewer clicks to news articles. Microsoft’s lawyer said that chatbots are “designed to answer your question” rather than “giving you a series of links to things you can go look for yourself.” Another expert found that referral traffic to publishers from Google Search and Google Discover has dropped by at least 30 percent since Google introduced AI overviews. 
  • They also knew that, ultimately, destroying the economic foundation for humans making content while also making it easy to generate slop by the bucketful, would wreck the internet—and, thus, their own content supply chain. Hecht warned that AI had started a “doom loop” that would “threaten the economic foundations of its essential suppliers” and eventually make the internet infinitely worse (a process for which the media critic Cory Doctorow has created the term “enshittification,” and that you may recognize from searching for… pretty much anything on the internet).
  • Greg Brockman, who started OpenAI with Sam Altman and serves as its president (he is also one of Silicon Valley’s most generous donors to Donald Trump and his PACs, giving $50 million in the last two years) excitedly told his colleagues about how good the company’s products were at spitting out publishers’ content. “[It] seems to be particularly good at predicting text of news articles like whenever i have it complete in the middle of a sentence in a NYT article, it seems to complete the sentence on point.” When a fellow executive told Brockman about “a hack to get around nytimes paywall” to help the company scrape the Times’s site, Brockman responded “ah nice.” (OpenAI also hosted custom tools its users had made using ChatGPT to get around the Times’ paywall.)
  • The AI companies didn’t just randomly grab text from the internet. In one version of their training data, they specifically zeroed in on quality content—and news articles ended up being the most prevalent type of content in that dataset. OpenAI also said its goal was to “crush freshness…in the domain of real-world news.” They also downloaded existing datasets, such as one intended for linguistic research that contained countless articles from paywalled news sites, even though its terms of use expressly prohibited using it for commercial purposes. 
  • Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified that AI companies should not “access data in violation of a term of service.” Glen Weyl, who founded a key Microsoft research unit, noted that compensating creators is “in the best interests of my employer, of my country, and of many other groups I belong to.” And yet, when the companies created their datasets, they systematically stripped out data that would indicate who actually owned the content—copyright notices, author information, terms of use, and so on. As another Microsoft document noted, “most LLMs (including those from OpenAl) are built on millions of scraped webpages and other large text datasets, and almost none of this content has been obtained with its owners’ knowledge or consent.” 
  • Right after the lawsuits were filed, OpenAI built a special filter to stop its models from spitting out the content of the news organizations suing it. As the legal brief notes, “OpenAI did not suppress the output of content from any entity that had not sued it…The purpose […], in other words, was not to prevent OpenAI’s models from infringing copyrights, but to stop Plaintiffs from gathering evidence of OpenAI’s copying for use in litigation.” This probably explains why, when a Columbia Journalism Review writer ran an experiment last year to get all her news from ChatGPT, it refused to cite content from the Times, Mother Jones, The Intercept, or any other publication that had sued it. Hecht, the Microsoft executive, warned that this filter could result in an “accidental cover up” because it would result in “people who have a right over the content having less visibility into what was used for training.” 
  • This one was surprising to me, even after being involved in this lawsuit for two years: OpenAI took 20 million ChatGPT responses and had one of its experts search for chunks of text—specifically “25-grams,” aka chunks of 25 words in a row, that were identical between ChatGPT’s responses and a news article. They found more than 400,000 of these 25-word overlaps between ChatGPT and Mother Jones articles—just about the same number as for the New York Times. (Not every one of those overlaps might constitute a “regurgitation” of our content—if one of our articles quoted something, and the AI quoted the same thing, that would show up as an overlap.)
In the legal filings, we and the other news organizations argue that the AI companies created their product by disregarding the rights of humans to their creativity and content—and that the companies themselves are now trapped in their own cycle of accelerating enshittification. AI is creating vast amounts of garbage content on the internet, while at the same time making it hard for news organizations like Mother Jones to stay afloat. “Yet AI companies remain powerless to break out of this ‘doom loop’,” the brief argues, “because, while the industry as a whole would benefit if every company paid… each individual company is better off taking content for free while others pay.” 

Seem familiar? This is the same prisoner’s dilemma we’re watching play out as the AI agents go rogue: It would be better for everyone, including the AI companies, if everyone slowed down and figured out the technology. But for each individual company, the incentives are to plow ahead while waiting for others to slow down. 

Bottom line: We cannot leave these decisions to the AI executives. Not when it comes to stealing content, and not when it comes to the fate of humanity. Left to their own devices, they will make the wrong choices—even when they know those choices are bad for them, too.

Bernie Sanders Lets Loose

Bernie Sanders Lets Loose on the Democratic Party, the Midterms and 2028

The 84-year-old progressive champion built a movement. Could it survive without him?

By Will Steakin

David Sirota has a way of thinking about Bernie Sanders’ career that he’s been kicking around for years.

Sirota worked for Sanders in the House in the late 1990s and again on his 2020 presidential campaign, serving as a senior adviser and speechwriter for the progressive champion. And more than a decade after Sanders launched his first presidential run, improbably transforming from Vermont’s independent gadfly senator into an insurgent political rock star, Sirota has settled on a surprising historical analog for his old boss.

“Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party could be Barry Goldwater to the Republican Party,” Sirota told me earlier this year. “That’s how I’ve thought about him for a very long time.”

Goldwater was a firebrand with a crystal-clear ideology, hard right in his case, who seized his party’s presidential nomination in 1964 and lost the election — only to see one of his star campaign surrogates and ideological torch carriers, Ronald Reagan, go on to win the White House 16 years later and preside over a conservative realignment. “If 2016 is Bernie’s 1964,” Sirota said, “we’re 10 years into that trajectory.”

It is a literary, almost biblical, framing of Sanders’ career: the prophet who toils for years but never gets to the promised land himself.

Just don’t ask Sanders about it.

“It’s interesting,” Sanders told me when I asked about Sirota’s analogy, in a way that meant he didn’t find it interesting at all. “But you know what? It’s not something I stay up nights thinking about.”

What Sanders has been up thinking about is ensuring the movement he jumpstarted, and most importantly its policy agenda, has been winning primaries across the country — and right now, that fight is going better than it ever has. As the 2026 midterm primary season wraps up, it has already produced a wave of astonishing progressive victories: insurgents ousting incumbents, first-time candidates toppling the party’s stalwarts and democratic socialists winning in states the establishment swore they couldn’t.

Much of the credit for this string of political success belongs to Sanders, who turns 85 in the coming days and has spent the last year campaigning like he’s 35. Since the start of last year’s “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Sanders has spoken at 63 rallies and events to more than 300,000 people around the country. He has endorsed more than 90 candidates up and down the ballot this cycle, from the U.S. Senate to state legislatures, and has worked to build up the farm team — scouting candidates, meeting with them privately, coaching them, then barnstorming the country to drag them across the finish line.

For progressives, there is still, 10 years later, no other figure on the American left who commands the same excitement, and no endorsement more sought after. And he is still planning to campaign through Election Day, and will likely be back on the campaign trail in October, a person familiar with the plans said. The dynamic in some ways mirrors President Donald Trump’s endorsement power on the right, but while Republicans fret over the conspicuous absence of their own movement’s leader from this primary season, Sanders has employed the opposite strategy: omnipresence.

But the triumph arrives at an inconvenient moment in other ways. Sanders, midway through perhaps his final Senate term, has ruled out another presidential campaign, leaving the movement he built to confront a question he has little interest in entertaining: What comes after Bernie Sanders?

For a decade, Sanders promised a political revolution. Now the revolution may finally be arriving, at precisely the moment its architect is confronting how long he can lead its next phase. The irony is obvious to some around Sanders, but he wants little to do with it. He has no interest in anointing an heir or talking about an heir and rejects the very premise that the movement he built should belong to any one person after him.

And yet the Democratic Party’s future, at least in the near-term, will be determined by the battle for the 2028 presidential nomination and whether a potential Sanders acolyte is victorious. Many on the center-left are wary that Bernie-ism will win out, either because of opposition to his policies or merely fear that Democrats will go down to utter defeat in the general election. But with a wide open field and momentum building in the midterm campaign, progressives have their best shot in years to take control of the party and try to carry out Sanders’ vision.

While Sanders scoffs, deflects, even throws an insult or two when asked about his legacy or the future of the movement he ignited, nearly everything he has done this cycle — the down-ballot endorsements, the candidate training, the organizers embedded deep in Republican districts — amounts to a succession plan.

The seeds of what would bloom into the 2026 primary romp were planted more than a year ago, in early 2025 — before most of the candidates Sanders would go on to endorse had even decided to run. Sanders had a hunch about where the fight would be, and placed full-time organizers in Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, with part-time staff scattered across other swing seats around the country. His staff in those states held weekly meetings, organized town halls, passed out signs and built lists, and reported back to the senator and his team what they were seeing on the ground, which ultimately shaped the operation’s primary strategy and its endorsements.

“We were laying the groundwork before the candidates even jumped in the race,” said Jeremy Slevin, Sanders’ communication director and senior adviser.

One of the candidates who emerged from that early investment was Rebecca Cooke, running in GOP Rep. Derrick Van Orden’s western Wisconsin district, where Sanders’ operation had an organizer on the ground starting that spring. Sanders was holding a town hall alongside Cooke in Viroqua, Wisconsin, more than a year before her primary win.

Sanders’ team realized they could harness the energy bubbling up around the country following Trump’s return to power and launched the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, a series of arena-scale rallies that drew crowds as large as 35,000. Internal numbers from the Sanders team showed 40 to 50 percent of attendees weren’t Democrats at all — roughly 30 percent were independents and 10 percent were Republicans.

That tour also doubled as a talent pipeline. Sanders’ team worked each stop to feature working-class speakers, people they would like to see represent the future of the movement — and several of them went on to become candidates themselves.

In April 2025, at a Fighting Oligarchy rally in Missoula, Montana, the campaign invited local union leaders to address the crowd. One of them was Sam Forstag, a National Forest firefighter and smokejumper, who told the 9,000 people gathered there how Trump and Elon Musk’s DOGE had just fired thousands of federal employees, including many in Montana. The crowd’s response was electric — enough that Forstag, who had never run for public office in his life, decided to run for Congress. On June 2, with Sanders’ backing, Forstag won the Democratic primary in Montana’s 1st District.

As the primary season went on, Sanders’ endorsees saw major wins across the map: El-Sayed in Michigan after being outspent 10-to-1, Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota’s Senate primary, Melat Kiros in a Colorado House race. And dozens of down-ballot endorsees in statehouse and local races across the country. Sanders talks to every federal candidate personally before endorsing and keeps in touch afterward; he speaks with El-Sayed regularly.

“I don’t know how to phrase it, whether it’s a Tea Party moment or not,” Sanders told me. “I think that progressive candidates are speaking to the needs of working families.”

But the results, according to Sanders, suggest the long-running argument over where Democratic voters want the party to go is settled. “I think so,” he told me.

Not everyone in the Democratic party agrees with Sanders and some feel the movement he is pushing, and the wins it produced this primary season, spell trouble for Democrats heading into November and beyond.

“What Bernie’s people do very, very effectively is turn blue places bluer,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way. “They have won nothing, nothing in places where we’re trying to turn red to blue. So when they start helping build majorities, I will be a little more impressed.”

Bennett, whose group launched a $15 million effort to target the Democratic Socialists of America ahead of 2028, calling DSA a “mortal danger,” said that he’s already seeing moderate candidates being impacted by progressive wins during the primary. “These DSA candidates are being used against Democrats in swing districts. It was inevitable that this would happen.”

“I just think that Bernie declaring victories without having flipped a single seat is laughable,” Bennett said.

Still, despite the left’s wins and all of Sanders’ campaigning, it hasn’t been enough for some progressives, who view Sanders’ decision to stay out of certain races as playing it too safe when the wind is at their backs. That criticism was on full display when Sanders declined to endorse Francesca Hong in the Wisconsin governor’s race. Hong, after a damaging news cycle over past comments — including about Thanksgiving — lost by less than half a percentage point, a margin some progressives argue she could have overcome had Sanders’ operation gotten behind her.

Sanders has said, in response to the backlash, that he can’t be everywhere. But when I pressed him on whether there was also a political calculation involved — whether he worries about spending capital on a race that he might lose, knowing any major defeat will be spun as a verdict on where the party is headed — he rejected the notion.

“I beg to differ with you,” he said. “We are putting political capital. For example, we just announced our support for Angie Nixon, who’s running for the U.S. Senate in Florida. Does anybody think she is — to say the least, a real underdog?”

“If I wanted to be 100 percent in my selections, I could do that,” Sanders said. “But that’s not what we do.”

One of the other sharper criticisms of this year’s Sanders-backed primary winners: that some of the democratic socialists breaking through, particularly in New York, come from privileged, Ivy League backgrounds — that the movement is not yet as working class as it claims to be, or needs to be. Sanders said it’s something they’re working on.

“I want to see more of that,” Sanders said. “I want to see people from the trade union movement, young people, working-class people get involved in the progressive movement. Absolutely.”

But ask Sanders about the future of this movement — who inherits it, where it goes when he’s gone — and the conversation changes entirely. It becomes an exercise in watching a man swat away question after question.

When I asked who he sees taking up the mantle in the next generation, he accused me of “sounding like an inside-the-Beltway media pundit.”

“That is precisely the wrong question,” he said. The right question, he insisted, is how many good people the movement has already produced, before naming a few he views as standouts of the movement: Rep. Greg Casar, now chairing the Progressive Caucus; Rep. Pramila Jayapal; Rep. Rashida Tlaib; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; progressive mayors in New York, Seattle and Washington.

“The media is focused on personality,” he grumbled. “‘Oh my God, what will Alexandria do? Is she going to run for president? Run for the Senate? Stay in the House? Let’s talk about that for 14 years.’ How often do we talk about the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people?”

Ocasio-Cortez, of course, has told POLITICO’s Adam Wren that she hasn’t ruled out a 2028 run. It’s an enormous decision, one Sanders happens to have made twice himself. And he has apparently reconciled himself to the fact that there will not be a third.

“Well, I am 40 years of age now,” Sanders deadpanned, “and I think having reached the golden age of 40, it’s hard, you know. So yeah, I think it’s unlikely that I will become president of the United States.”

As for whether he and Ocasio-Cortez have discussed her decision: “Do I talk to Alexandria? Yes, I do. Am I going to tell you what we talk about? Of course I won’t.” Does he want her to run? “No comment. That’s her decision.”

It was as close as Sanders gets to acknowledging what he won’t discuss: that the movement’s future will eventually belong to someone else who will carry it into 2028 and beyond. Yet he lights up when talking about the generation of political talent he has inspired.

“One of the things that gives me, I think, more satisfaction than almost anything else, is I go out around the country and somebody who’s in the state legislature somewhere says, ‘You know what? I got inspired by your race in 2016 or in 2020,’” he said.

Sanders’ operation has reached out to hundreds of would-be candidates and put them through a kind of political boot camp. “How do I run for office? How do I run for state legislature? What is a press release? How do I raise money? Kind of basics, politics 101,” Sanders said. “A lot of those folks are now getting their feet wet. Many of them are winning. And in a few years, you’re going to be hearing from them as they run for Congress or Senate or whatever.”

So, I ask him, it’s a bench, built to ensure the movement continues beyond his own career?

“Well, that’s exactly it,” Sanders said.

Hasan Piker, the leftist streamer who emerged this cycle as arguably the movement’s most influential independent voice, told me Sanders’ campaign influenced him and gave him a proof of concept.

“I realized that there was an opportunity to convince Americans on the argument of socialism because of his electoral success against an establishment figurehead like Hillary Clinton,” Piker said. “That there was appetite for this kind of thing.”

A decade later, Piker has become a version of what Sanders proved possible — a socialist with a mass American audience who put his platform to work this primary season by helping to get progressive candidates elected across the country. And he still looks up to Sanders. “I hope I can make him proud with the things that I am trying to do,” Piker said. (Piker’s own influence has grown so much, in fact, that he has become a lightning rod in the Democratic Party, for his staunch criticism of Israel and past controversial comments.)

When asked who was in line to take over Sanders’ movement after he leaves the stage, Piker bristled at the question. “It’s not his movement, nor my movement, nor Zohran [Mamdani]’s movement,” he said. “It’s all of our movement.”

It’s a similar view, not surprisingly, in the close-knit Sanders world. Ari Rabin-Havt, Sanders’ former deputy campaign manager, said the entire framework of succession, of a torch being passed to a chosen one, misunderstands the man.

“Bernie just doesn’t believe in dynasties,” Rabin-Havt said. “He doesn’t believe you get to inherit your power. If you want Bernie’s movement, go out and earn Bernie’s movement.” The image of Sanders anointing an heir, he said, would be “so antithetical to who he is as a person.”

There is a similar aversion to any discussion of Sanders’ legacy, even in private. Aides have learned not to discuss it as he will quickly dismiss the topic. “He’s not looking back and reminiscing about his own accomplishments,” one Sanders aide, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, said.

When I suggested that Sanders seemed to be running through the tape, the aide quickly pushed back: “I don’t think he thinks the tape is there yet.”

The Goldwater comparison lands the same way. “It’s for the historians and the pundits to interpret,” the aide said. “He’s like, ‘I’m Bernie Sanders. I’m in the battle. Other people can interpret.’”

And yet there is a wistfulness among Sanders’ team, a feeling that he is at the peak of his game — stronger at messaging and campaigning and organizing than he ever has been and would be well positioned to finally seize the presidency if he were just 10 or 15 years younger.

Yet he’s not. So sometimes even those close to Sanders can’t help but speculate: If Sanders does indeed turn out to be the Democrats’ Goldwater, then who will be their Reagan?

“That’s the big question,” Sirota told me. He pointed to the candidates already jockeying in what he calls the populist lane, familiar names like Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Ro Khanna chief among them, while cautioning that the eventual standard-bearer may be someone “we’re not thinking of yet.” He also sketched how even some ambitious Democrats with more establishment résumés — name-checking Pete Buttigieg, Chris Murphy and Chris Van Hollen — might try to reposition themselves as populists after sensing where the wind is blowing this primary season. Whether voters would buy it is another matter.

Rabin-Havt similarly said the mantle is up for grabs. Ocasio-Cortez, if she runs, “obviously has a lot of love, respect, admiration and support among Bernie world — but I think it would be underselling her to suggest that is the limits of her support.” Khanna, he added, “has done a lot of work building himself as a progressive leader” and taken courageous stands on pushing a wealth tax and advocating for strict conditions or cuts on U.S. military aid to Israel.

Piker said “AOC seems to be the one with the highest likelihood of taking that mantle, but there could be a dark horse. You never know.” What matters between now and then, in his telling, is proving “to the broader electorate that we’re here to stay.”

The evidence is easy to find, Rabin-Havt argued. Before 2016, he said, the last genuine left candidate to seriously contest a Democratic presidential primary was Jesse Jackson — a nearly 30-year gap in which the party’s “left” flank was played by the likes of center-left types like Howard Dean and Bill Bradley. Medicare for All, he noted, has gone from a bill Sanders sponsored essentially alone to legislation co-sponsored by roughly a third of the Senate Democratic caucus and more than half of House Democrats. Sanders’ first Senate resolution restricting arms sales to Israel drew 11 votes; the most recent drew 40. Taxing the wealthy, once a leftist tell, “is now pretty middle of the road in the Democratic Party,” Rabin-Havt said.

“The window has moved.” The movement, as Rabin-Havt put it, “is entering its teenage years.”

At the end of our conversation, Sanders acknowledged the party’s ongoing shift, in the nearest thing to a victory lap he permits himself.

“I think over the years, for a variety of reasons,” he said, “more and more people are saying, ‘You know, Bernie was right.’”

Answers to Trump’s media ban

Top House Oversight Dem demands answers to Trump’s media ban

“The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not freedom from criticism,” Robert Garcia writes.

By Jalen Beckford

The ranking Democrat on the House Oversight committee is demanding the White House answer questions related to President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House, calling it the president’s “most blatant, assault on press freedom.”

In a letter sent Monday to White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) requested that Cheung provide by Oct. 5 a detailed account of when and how he was informed of the ban, how he responded, who was consulted before the decision, the legal justification for it, the facts the White House relied on and whether the outlets had any opportunity to respond.

“The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, not freedom from criticism,” wrote Garcia. “The American people need to understand what consideration—if any—the White House gave to this serious and unprecedented decision to protect the President’s ego.”

Garcia also asked for all White House staff documents and communications about the ban and for any other relevant materials to be preserved.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Trump on Friday announced that he was seeking to block journalists from POLITICO, MS NOW and CNN from the White House, complaining about “constant ‘reporting’” of what he called “FICTION and LIES.” The Trump administration first denied the media outlets entry into the White House grounds on Saturday morning.

The three news organizations are now jointly suing Trump, Cheung and two other top advisers in a bid to immediately restore access for their reporters, calling the ban a “direct assault on the First Amendment.”

The maggots are trying hard to not be a maggot for the election...

Hinson calls for end to Iran war amid soaring diesel costs

It is the second time Rep. Ashley Hinson has voiced frustrations over the war.

Cheyanne M. Daniels

Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) on Monday expressed frustration over the ongoing war in Iran and its impact on Iowans’ pocketbooks, publicly distancing herself from President Donald Trump ahead of November’s rapidly approaching midterm elections.

“Iowans are being squeezed and shouldn’t have to foot the bill at the pump or the checkout line for the war in Iran,” Hinson said in a post to social media on Monday. “We need to use every option at our disposal to provide some relief from high prices.”

It’s the second time Hinson, the GOP candidate in Iowa’s critical Senate race and a loyal ally of Trump’s, has expressed concerns over the war. But in June, POLITICO obtained audio of Hinson warning the war could become a “political liability” if it continued much longer. Hinson did not mention Trump by name in her Monday statement.

Hinson called for suspending the gas tax, pausing diesel exports and creating a diesel relief program to help farmers and truckers “being crushed by the high costs,” among several other possible solutions.

“These actions to lower costs are needed ASAP, and the war needs to be brought to a successful and immediate end,” she added.

Gas and diesel prices have soared over the duration of the war with Iran, which began in February. Regular gas was just over $4.45 per gallon on Monday, according to AAA, and diesel prices hit a record high of $6.50 per gallon.

Trump and members of his administration have dismissed concerns over the costs.

“You have a little higher. It’s a very inexpensive price to pay for what we’ve done,” Trump said during a campaign stop in North Carolina last week. “Remember that. It’s a little more. Frankly, even if it was a lot more.”

Hinson on Monday said she will “work with anyone who is ready to tackle this challenge immediately.”

Not everyone is buying it. Her Democratic opponent, Rep. Josh Turek, pointed out on Monday that Hinson has voted voted against multiple House resolutions directing Trump to end the war with Iran — including as recently as last week. Turek added that Hinson’s proposals for addressing high costs echoed those of his campaign.

“Glad you’re finally following my lead after waffling on the proposals I put forward last week to address the rising costs of the war in Iran,” Turek said in a social media post responding to Hinson’s.

‘Politicize’ grants

Collins slams Trump plan to ‘politicize’ grants as defying Congress

The president is reportedly mulling an executive order to have political appointees decide who gets National Institutes of Health dollars.

Jennifer Scholtes

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins warned Monday that President Donald Trump would be defying Congress if he moves forward with empowering top political appointees to decide who gets grant funding for health research.

“Any attempt to politicize grantmaking … is contrary to congressional intent,” the Maine Republican said in a statement.

Trump wants to issue an executive order to seat White House budget director Russ Vought and National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya on a board that would decide which grants the NIH should fund, according to two administration officials granted anonymity to describe a private meeting in the Oval Office last Friday.

Following reports of that meeting, Collins noted Monday that the stopgap funding patch Congress cleared this summer bars the White House from finalizing a separate proposed rule to put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants, or “any substantially similar” plan.

The Office of Management and Budget “should not be involved in agency decisions on the awards of grants,” Collins said, adding that “imposing a political review … undermines the long-standing principle that the government funds awards based on scientific need and merit, rather than political ideology.”

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the House’s top Democratic appropriator, called the White House’s latest idea an attempt to “take control over federal funding, so they can use it to punish their perceived enemies and reward their friends.”

Washington Sen. Patty Murray, the Senate’s top Democratic appropriator, warned that the move would mean “a single political appointee could kill a cancer study or an Alzheimer’s trial with no scientific reason at all.”

A spokesperson for House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole did not return a request for comment regarding the Oklahoma Republican’s position.

Needs to ‘end quickly’

Mike Rogers says Iran war needs to ‘end quickly’ amid rising prices

The GOP Senate candidate was the second Republican to break with the White House on the issue Monday.

Elleiana Green

Michigan Republican Senate nominee Mike Rogers said Monday that the war with Iran “needs to end” to bring prices down, making him the second Republican to break with the White House on the issue that day.

“The war with Iran needs to end, and end quickly,” Rogers said in a video published Monday to social media.

“Michigan families can’t afford to wait,” he added. “Here’s what we can do now: place a temporary embargo on Diesel exports. American energy should provide relief to American families first.”

The Michigan Democratic Party forcefully dismissed Rogers’ statement on the war, which the former chair of the House Intelligence Committee supported early on.

“Every time a Michigander fills up their gas tank, they’re paying the price for the Rogers-Trump war in Iran,” Joey Hannum, a spokesperson, said. “Price Hike Mike promised he would give Trump the authority to keep his cost-raising war going, and Michiganders won’t forget it.”

Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee who will face Rogers in November, put it more bluntly: “Mike Rogers is lying straight to our faces.”

Rogers did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

Earlier Monday, Rep. Ashley Hinson, a Republican Senate candidate in Iowa, expressed frustrations similar to Rogers’ about the war’s impact on Iowans’ pocketbooks. Both Rogers and Hinson called for a suspension of the state and federal gas tax in their statements.

Ahead of the midterms, GOP candidates have expressed concern about the war in the Middle East, saying it has made it difficult for them to run on affordability. The war with Iran, which began in February, has led to marked increases in gas and diesel prices. On Monday, regular gas was just over $4.45 per gallon, according to AAA; diesel prices hit a record of $6.50 per gallon.

The Fuck You arch......

Senior GOP appropriator pours cold water on funding Trump’s arch

“If it was my choice, I wouldn’t put any of that money into the arch,” Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson said.

Mia McCarthy

Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson, a senior Appropriations Committee Republican, questioned whether federal funds should be spent on construction of President Donald Trump’s triumphal arch, which the president claimed over the weekend could be used for military purposes.

“There’s a lot of things that we need the military funding for — in fact, we’re short on military funding right now,” Simpson told reporters at the Capitol on Monday.

“If it was my choice, I wouldn’t put any of that money into the arch,” Simpson added, when pressed on whether Pentagon funding should be used at all.

Simpson spoke a day after Trump claimed in a Truth Social post that the arch — which he wants to build less than a mile from the Pentagon, just across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial — would be used to store and deploy drones and snipers.

Given that rationale, Simpson said the arch is “something that needs to be debated” and that other Defense Department needs should take priority.

“I hope if they decide to do it, that they would come to Congress and ask for an appropriation for it if they’re going to use appropriated dollars to do it,” Simpson said.

Simpson also questioned Trump’s ban of three news outlets over the weekend, including POLITICO, as well a recent comments from House Rules Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) suggesting members of the media should be barred from the the Speaker’s Lobby, a space just off the House floor. He called any such media ban “wrong.”

“Just because you don’t like what the press is reporting — or the fact that they wouldn’t call it the Gulf of America or something else like that — that’s not the reason to ban the press,” he said. “You should never ban the press. The press is what keeps us honest. So I don’t like what they’re doing.”

Halt on Texas data center

Abbott slaps halt on Texas data center permits

The Republican governor directed state environmental regulators to stop issuing permits to data centers while an electricity audit is ongoing.

By Mike Lee

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott expanded his de facto moratorium on new data centers Monday, ordering environmental regulators to stop approving permits for the tech projects until an electricity audit is finished.

The Republican has now cut off major state-level approvals for data centers, blocking them from getting environmental permits or connecting to Texas’ main power grid.

“Simply put, Texans must come first,” Abbott said Monday. “Data centers must pay their own way, protect our grid and water, and complete the ERCOT and [water board] audits.”

The tightening marks Abbott’s latest effort to tamp down anger over data center development ahead of a tight election in November. He has pivoted in recent months after previously calling for Texas to be the “epicenter” of artificial intelligence development.

Abbott said state environmental regulators would halt approvals until they receive the results of an audit of data centers’ electricity use from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, the state’s main power grid operator.

“Until they do, TCEQ will issue no permits sought by data center projects,” he said, referring to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which oversees air and water permits. He also proposed working with state lawmakers next year to eliminate financial incentives for data centers.

ERCOT — the grid operator — has said the electric audit pausing connection approvals could last until December. Earlier this month, Abbott also told the Texas Water Development Board to crack down on data centers, saying the state agency should inform local law enforcement of any developers who refuse to provide information on their water use.

Rural voters and lawmakers from both parties have become alarmed by the growth of data centers, particularly after the industry started locating them far from the state’s cities in unincorporated areas. Critics have said the warehouse-sized centers are using up scarce water and driving up the cost of electricity.

President Donald Trump has even noticed Abbott’s shift on data centers — and called it a mistake.

Governors across the country are struggling to balance data centers with local concerns about quality of life. Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) on Friday unveiled what she called the “highest standards in America” for data center power plants.

In Nevada, Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo signed an order Friday requiring data centers to pay the power costs associated with their projects, protect existing customers from higher bills and meet new standards on water use and grid reliability.

In Texas, Abbott may be on track to hold onto the governor’s mansion despite a range of headwinds against Republicans.

A recent poll conducted for a Dallas television station shows Abbott with a lead among registered voters — 48% to 41% for his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Gina Hinojosa. About 8% of respondents were shown as undecided.

Hinojosa has sought to blame him for encouraging the boom in data centers in the first place.

“Everywhere I go, rural voters tell me Greg Abbott stopped listening to them years ago,” she told POLITICO in August. “As governor, I’ll fight to put the people of Texas first, not the billionaire class.”

Hinojosa’s campaign didn’t immediately respond Monday to a request for comment.

Polls also have shown that many voters would oppose having a data center in their community.

The Data Center Coalition, an industry group, said in an email Monday that its members are complying with Abbott’s audit and other requests for information.

The group said it would work with the state “to resolve any outstanding questions and complete this review in a thorough and efficient manner so that our industry’s growth in Texas remains responsible, transparent, and responsive to the communities where our members operate.”

Abbott told environmental regulators to provide an update on their compliance with his latest directive by Oct. 19.

Newsom as stronger 2028 contender

California Democrats see Newsom as stronger 2028 contender than Harris

But enthusiasm for a presidential bid by either California Democrat has fallen among voters overall since March.

By Melanie Mason

California voters are souring on the idea of Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris running for president in 2028. But among the state’s Democrats, the California governor has the clear advantage over the former vice president, according to a new poll by POLITICO and its partners.

Both Harris and Newsom have lost some altitude since earlier this year with California voters overall, according to the UC Berkeley Citrin Center for Public Opinion Research-POLITICO poll. The share of California registered voters excited about a Newsom presidential run fell 11 points, from 48% in March to 37% in September. For Harris, excitement fell 13 points, from 41% to 28%.

But a strong majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered voters — 61% — said they would be excited for a Newsom presidential bid, according to the survey, while 39% would not be. Democrats were less keen on Harris, with a 55% majority saying they would not be excited for her to run.

The findings are a significant measure of the two politicians’ standing with Democrats in a state whose voters are more familiar with them than anywhere else. And the gulf between the two is more even pronounced when respondents were asked which politician would be more likely to succeed in a 2028 campaign. Just 10% of Democrats said they believed Harris would have a higher chance of winning the Democratic nomination for president, while 49% said Newsom had better odds. Democrats also believed Newsom would have better prospects in a general election, with 59% saying he would be more likely to win, compared to 9% for Harris.

“There’s no question that Democrats see Newsom as the stronger general election prospect, even if neither he nor Harris is generating much excitement, and that shines through,” said Jon Cohen, founder and CEO of TrueDot, whose firm fielded the poll.

The findings come as the fates of the two friends and, at times, rivals are more intertwined than ever. Both have acknowledged they are considering running in 2028, but Newsom recently told CNN he would not run if Harris decides to take another shot at the presidency.

Speaking to Jake Tapper, Newsom framed his stance in tactical terms, stating that two California candidates would cannibalize each other’s support, ultimately to the benefit of non-Californians in the race.

Among California independents and Republicans, Newsom and Harris generate similarly low enthusiasm in the poll, with roughly 85% of voters with no party affiliation and around 93% of GOP voters saying they would not be excited for either politician to run.

Harris also did not inspire much zeal in a concurrent survey of POLITICO’s audience of key political and policy influencers in the state, including political staffers, lobbyists, policy advisers and others deeply versed in California’s political landscape. Just 15% of these influencers said they would be excited if she ran, compared to 41% for Newsom.

The low marks for Harris fits a longstanding pattern since her loss in the 2024 presidential race, said Jack Citrin, a UC Berkeley political scientist and co-director of the poll.

“This has been stable through all of the polling that we’ve done from the very, very beginning. There’s no, really, enthusiasm for Harris running at all,” Citrin said. “She lags well behind Newsom in terms of both interest in them running and in expectations of how well they would do.”

The perception that Newsom would have a better chance at winning would likely influence voters, said Robert Van Houweling, a political science professor at UC Berkeley.

“They would certainly weigh electability to some degree,” he said. “There is enthusiasm in some sense or excitedness for both of them, but I would think concerns about electability would certainly tilt the choice even further towards Newsom, given the data we have here.”

Newsom’s job approval ratings have slightly declined, with 42% of registered voters giving him favorable reviews and 55% disapproving, compared to 46%-51% in the previous poll. Most of the drop-off came from worsening views from independents and Republicans, while approval among Democrats remained relatively steady, with roughly three-quarters giving him viewing him favorably.

“People are pretty dour on the state,” Cohen said. “That’s not reflected in taking out Democrats at the ballot, at least not at the top of the ticket. But I think his approval rating is reflective of other assessments about the direction of the state.”

These data come from parallel surveys of California voters and policy influencers, fielded by TrueDot, the AI-accelerated research platform, in collaboration with the Citrin Center at UC Berkeley and POLITICO. Interviews for the voter survey were conducted online in English and Spanish from Sept. 8-14, among a sample of 2,418 registered voters, including 1,983 likely voters, selected at random through Political Data Inc. and Verasight, with supplemental online panel recruitment. Voter results were weighted to California registered-voter benchmarks for age, educational attainment, race and ethnicity, gender, and geography, with additional calibration to 2024 presidential vote by region.

From Sept. 11-16, a parallel study was conducted in partnership with POLITICO among its audience of key political and policy influencers in California. The audience was defined based on job title and organizational affiliation and included state and local government employees, political staffers, lobbyists, policy advisers, consultants, business decision-makers and subject matter experts.

The margin of error is plus or minus 2.7% for the registered voter survey, plus or minus 3% for likely voters and plus or minus 4.5% for the influencers.

Creating an artificial intelligence task force??????

Congress in the dark on Trump’s AI Force announcement

The tech industry was similarly surprised by the president’s announcement.

By Katherine Long, Gabby Miller and Owen Dahlkamp

Lawmakers were largely blindsided by President Donald Trump’s weekend announcement that he’s creating an artificial intelligence task force and appointing a new czar, exposing a growing rift between the White House and Capitol Hill on their visions for AI regulation.

Several key Republicans were not read in on the details prior to Trump’s announcement on Truth Social on Saturday, according to two GOP aides granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations. The rebuff marks another instance in which the president has sidelined lawmakers in his own party as he seeks to address fears the technology could disrupt the economy and workforce.

The lack of coordination with Capitol Hill has echoes of Trump’s recent announcement of $5,000 “dividend” checks for Americans, which he announced at the GOP’s recent midterm convention without briefing congressional leaders first. Many Republican lawmakers have given the trillion-dollar idea frosty reviews.

The lack of outreach also mirrored dynamics with the tech industry, which was not broadly read in ahead of time.

“What I know about it is what you all have reported on,” Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, told reporters Monday. He said he believes many recent concerns about AI have been “overdramatized” but recognizes it’s a big concern for Americans that Washington must address if it wants to win the race for global tech supremacy.

The president’s top-down approach to the GOP’s tech agenda could thwart congressional Republicans’ own plans, as Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Commerce Chair Ted Cruz (R-Texas) ready major AI legislation intended to mitigate catastrophic risks posed by AI. With limited insight into the plans, many are waiting for more information from the White House.

But Democratic lawmakers, who are hoping to regain power in both chambers this November, are skeptical of the president’s motives.

“If this is the president waking up, realizing that AI risks aren’t a hoax, and is taking concrete action to protect America, then great,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) told POLITICO. “If this is just a PR diversion and an attempt to protect his family’s investments, then I have a massive problem.”

“As is often the case, we haven’t been briefed,” he added — a familiar dynamic for Democrats, who have repeatedly expressed frustration over the White House’s partisan approach to AI policy.

A Democratic Hill staffer pointed to the Trump administration’s previous attempts to bring federal oversight of the technology — including doling out sweeping directives that have landed on the Hill with a thud or stalled entirely — as a reason to remain skeptical of any meaningful AI policy flowing out of the White House’s new “task force.”

Rep. Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), the co-sponsor of a bipartisan AI safety framework, is open to creating a separate federal body to oversee AI, though with Congress’ approval, she said Sunday on CNN. “The president just talking about an AI force without any sort of durable strategy on how to do that through congressional authorization feels more like a delay tactic.”

Trump’s post signaled a desire to monitor AI systems, a move that appears to be a concession to those calling for regulation of the sector. But he envisions any form of oversight being run by existing regulatory bodies.

The president is also doubling down on his claims that the AI panic is overblown, in the same post calling fears around AI one of many “hoaxes” perpetuated by “Radical Left Dumocrats, for purposes of destroying our Country.”

A spokesperson for the White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The president reiterated those claims in another Truth Social post Monday and said that AI innovation remains the top priority for the administration.

“We are leading now over China, and everyone else, and I’m going to keep it that way! I’m not going to stifle Growth, of something that will be bigger than the Industrial Revolution, or the Internet, itself,” Trump wrote. The post made no mention of the proposed government AI task force or the appointment of a new AI czar.

They don't ever work for the money they are paid....

Senate GOP eyes exit plan as trail calls

The chamber, initially scheduled to be in session until the beginning of October, is instead eyeing departure by the end of the week.

Calen Razor

Senators dreaming of the smell of jet fumes might get their wish.

The chamber, initially scheduled to be in session until the beginning of October, is instead eyeing departure by the end of the week. To get there, though, Republicans will need to strike a time agreement with Democrats to fast-track the remainder of their work.

And while GOP members are antsy to spend more time in their states campaigning ahead of the midterms, some in their ranks are also uncomfortable that their final agenda items aren’t doing more to address issues voters increasingly care about — like the cost of living, data centers or AI safety.

For now, senators’ agenda includes: a sweeping college athletics bill, an Iran war powers resolution, a handful of nominees — including for labor secretary — and potential votes to roll back California’s stricter standards for vehicle emissions.

So far Democrats haven’t tipped their hand on whether they will agree to speed up consideration of the college sports legislation. Without a deal, the bill will drag into at least Friday evening, but Democrats first want details about the entire pre-recess agenda, according to two people granted anonymity to disclose private deliberations.

Whether the Senate will get around to doing something — anything — to address public alarm about the growing capabilities of artificial intelligence or pass permitting reform legislation remains to be seen.

Discussions are ongoing about whether the chamber will take a vote on Sen. Jon Husted’s so-called Ratepayer Protection Act, which aims to curb the energy costs associated with data centers.

Negotiators dragged past what was viewed as an unofficial deadline (over the weekend) to reach a deal to streamline energy permitting before the midterms.

Also to potentially get the boot if senators leave this week: a planned Senate Judiciary hearing next week with former special counsel Jack Smith.

Chair Chuck Grassley, asked last week, said “we gotta go ahead with that” hearing but added that he hasn’t grappled with an early dismissal: “Gosh, I haven’t thought about that.”

An aide of his chimed in saying the committee is “working on options” but that “it’s hard with the uncertainty” of the schedule.

Russian-funded wedding

GOP senator wants to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. over Russian-funded wedding

Sen. John Curtis is calling on the Senate Judiciary Committee to compel testimony from the president’s son.

Chris Marquette

A Senate Republican from Utah is asking the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. following reports that the president’s son had parts of his wedding paid for by a Russian oligarch with ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Sen. John Curtis’ request, which comes following a news story by ProPublica, marks a significant break with President Donald Trump from a member of his own party.

“Questions have arisen about the relationships of President Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., with foreign business figures and the acceptance of significant gifts. These include a lavish wedding afterparty, on a private island, provided by Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev, who reportedly traveled to China as part of a delegation accompanying Vladimir Putin shortly before giving the gift,” Curtis wrote in a letter dated Sept. 21 to Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and the panel’s top Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois.

“These concerns are compounded by Donald Trump Jr.’s active promotion of family-backed cryptocurrency ventures, his continued pursuit of international real estate deals involving direct meetings with foreign heads of state, and his reported investments in defense contracting,” Curtis added.

Curtis, also noting the profits the Trump family has made through cryptocurrency deals, indicated this incident is part of a broader pattern where the relatives of U.S. presidents can improperly leverage their proximity to power.

In addition to probing Trump Jr., Curtis asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena former President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who over the years found himself enveloped in numerous self-dealing scandals. Both men, he said, should testify “regarding their past business dealings, relationships with foreign individuals and entities, gifts, or other benefits they have received, and any instances in which their relationship to the President was invoked or understood to provide value.”

“The country should not have to accept one standard for the family of a Republican president and another for the family of a Democratic president. Nor should congressional oversight begin and end when control of the White House changes hands,” Curtis said.

The White House did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday, but it’s unlikely that Trump, who demands loyalty from the GOP, will consider the bipartisan nature of Curtis’ request to be anything other than a personal affront.

Trump said in a statement he has “no idea who Umar is” and that he has “never heard of him, and he didn’t pay for Don and Bettina’s wedding, which took place at a totally different location, and on a different day from the wedding.”

Kremlev is president of the International Boxing Association and received an Order of Friendship medal from Putin for his “contribution to international sport and his commitment to the global boxing family.” He’s also been sanctioned by the Ukrainian government for his ties to Putin.

A spokesperson for Judiciary Committee Republicans confirmed Grassley was in receipt of the letter but could not commit to investigating the matter. The spokesperson noted that hearing dates are extremely limited through the end of 2026 and investigative hearings usually take months of background work before they can be scheduled.

It’s sure to be an issue Democrats pursue if they win the majority in either chamber next year. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, wrote to the White House and Donald Trump Jr. last week demanding information about the president’s son’s ties to Kremlev.

Embezzled millions.... Are. You. Even. Slightly. Surprised?

Firm behind Trump social accounts sues ex-partner alleging he embezzled millions

X Strategies, the firm co-founded by Alex Bruesewitz, filed the lawsuit on Monday against Bruesewitz's longtime business partner Derek Utley, according to public documents.

By Will Steakin

The political consulting firm that runs several of President Donald Trump’s top social media accounts is suing one of its co-founders, accusing him of embezzling and gambling away millions of dollars, including spending company funds on luxury sports cars, designer clothing and first-class travel.

X Strategies, the firm co-founded and led by Alex Bruesewitz, the Gen Z wunderkind behind much of Trump’s social media strategy, filed the lawsuit on Monday against Derek Utley, Bruesewitz’s longtime business partner and the company’s former chair and chief financial officer, according to public documents. The company maintains the Trump War Room and Team Trump accounts on X and helps manage Trump’s TikTok presence — some of the social media accounts with the most significant followings on the right.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in South Florida, accuses Utley of embezzling at least $5 million from X Strategies in a yearslong scheme that the company alleges helped fund an increasingly lavish lifestyle and gambling addiction. The complaint brings claims including civil racketeering, civil theft, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Reached for comment, Utley told POLITICO: “I dispute these allegations in the complaint and will address them through the legal process. I have no further comment at this time.” Bruesewitz declined to comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bruesewitz and Utley founded X Strategies in 2017, when Bruesewitz was 19 and Utley was 32, according to the lawsuit, which notes that Utley oversaw the company’s finances and had “exclusive access” to its bank accounts and financial records. The lawsuit alleges that beginning in 2021, Utley siphoned off millions of dollars and “purchased luxury sports cars, designer clothing, jewelry, traveled to exclusive locations first-class (with an entourage), and wagered higher amounts at casinos on a more regular basis,” the complaint alleges.

In 2025 alone, the lawsuit alleges, Utley spent 200 days gambling at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in South Florida and used $29 million in company money to win more than $26 million playing slot machines, a net loss of $3 million.

“X Strategies took all the risk—Utley got all the reward,” the complaint says, alleging that Utley kept his winnings while the company absorbed his losses.

The lawsuit also claims he used X Strategies money to make personal investments and, with his then-girlfriend, purchase a Miami fitness studio through a company they controlled.

The alleged scheme began to unravel this year after X Strategies hired a new president, who the lawsuit says noticed the company had millions of dollars less cash on hand than its reported revenues suggested it should. According to the lawsuit, a third party alerted X Strategies that Utley had called from a Las Vegas casino while “highly intoxicated” and pleaded for an urgent wire transfer, claiming the company needed the money to make payroll the next morning.

When confronted, the lawsuit says, Utley initially denied wrongdoing before eventually admitting he had stolen millions of dollars. Utley blamed the theft, according to the complaint, on “his low self-esteem, his desire to have more influence and impress others, and his gambling and alcohol addictions.”

Utley resigned as chair and CFO in April but initially remained at X Strategies as an employee. That arrangement soon unraveled as well.

After later being confronted over poor attendance and job performance, Utley claimed he had been seriously injured six months earlier when an Uber he was riding in was struck by a vehicle traveling more than 60 miles per hour, according to the lawsuit. He sought six months of paid medical leave but said there was no police report because he had called another Uber and left before police arrived.

Utley later submitted purported medical records supporting the leave request. But when X Strategies contacted the medical provider, it was told the documents were fabricated, according to the complaint.

“In reality, Utley had created fake medical records, forged the signature of a practicing medical doctor, and submitted them to X Strategies in an attempt to fraudulently get six (6) months paid medical leave,” the lawsuit alleges. X Strategies later fired him.

The company alleges Utley continued targeting X Strategies after his termination, including by telling clients the firm was having banking problems and directing them to send outstanding payments to him and accuses him of stealing company mail and soliciting clients for a competing business.

Bruesewitz has become one of the more influential outside advisers in Trump’s orbit, helping shape the president’s digital strategy and podcast outreach during the 2024 campaign and continuing to advise figures in Trump world. White House communications director Steven Cheung told POLITICO earlier this year that Bruesewitz’s advice “carries significant weight.”

September 21, 2026

The insane.... Can't make this shit up...

Bill Cassidy urges FDA nominee to reject Trump’s vaccine claim

The senator and physician said Heidi Overton must acknowledge during her confirmation hearing that Trump’s claim that the measles vaccine is lethal is “absurd.”

By Jalen Beckford

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy said Sunday that President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration must acknowledge that Trump’s claim that the measles vaccine is lethal is “absurd” when she appears before his committee later this week.

“I need to hear that she understands that calling the measles vaccine lethal is absurd, and we need radical honesty,” Cassidy (R-La.) said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” when asked what he needs to be persuaded during Dr. Heidi Overton’s confirmation hearing later this week.

Overton stood alongside Trump in the Oval Office last month as he falsely described the MMR vaccine as “quite lethal,” as well as linked it to autism and signed an executive order changing the schedule of childhood vaccinations. Cassidy previously railed against the order, calling it “nonsensical,” and said Overton’s involvement was “almost disqualifying.”

Cassidy doubled down Sunday and urged Overton to explain whether she would challenge vaccine misinformation from Trump if confirmed.

“We should have a common voice of radical honesty of trying to help the American people understand what is safe,” Cassidy said. “And if the president calls it lethal, then where are you getting your information, Mr. President?”

Cassidy pointed to surgeon general nominee Dr. Nicole Saphier, who told senators during her confirmation hearing last week that vaccines are safe. She earned Cassidy’s support.

“When somebody is willing to be honest to the American people and say that vaccines are safe, you should be taking it, and the consequence of not can even include death — well, what else can you ask for when it comes to vaccines?” he said.

Cassidy has increasingly criticized the administration’s vaccine policies since losing Louisiana’s Republican Senate primary in May. The Louisiana doctor finished behind Trump-endorsed Rep. Julia Letlow and state Treasurer John Fleming, ending his bid for reelection. The defeat followed years of tension with Trump, including Cassidy’s impeachment vote against Trump.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which Cassidy chairs, is set to consider Overton’s nomination to lead the FDA on Thursday.

From a dead horse, Maggots are crawling away from the rotting bloated turd name trump........

‘He is kryptonite’: Republicans start breaking with Trump

Candidates in tight races are publicly distancing themselves from a president whose low approval rating is dragging the party down.

By Aaron Pellish, Meredith Lee Hill and Kimberly Leonard

In late January, when President Donald Trump endorsed his close ally Rep. Tom Tiffany in Wisconsin’s gubernatorial race, Tiffany said he was “especially honored” and promised to “make Wisconsin great again.”

But in recent weeks, he’s taken a different tone.

Tiffany responded to Trump renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” by declaring “the Great Lakes are the Great Lakes,” brushing aside the edict. He broke with Trump’s pro-data centers position, criticized the easing of tariffs on beef imports, and deflected questions on the president’s proposed mail-in ballot reforms that the Supreme Court blocked earlier this week. And after years of questioning whether the 2020 election was rigged against the president, including supporting an FBI probe into Wisconsin’s votes in May, he’s now taken to sidestepping the issue.

“Joe Biden won,” Tiffany said in a statement to local fact-checking outlet Wisconsin Watch earlier this month.

The rhetorical shift from such a staunch Trump ally is among a series of breaks from the president that Tiffany and other battleground Republicans have made in recent weeks. They’re an implicit acknowledgment that, even in states and districts where Republicans have had success, candidates are suffering from a deteriorating national political environment for the GOP.

Florida Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar released a TV ad on Thursday directly criticizing the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement as having “gone too far.” She warned Trump in the ad that “the same Hispanics who helped you get to the White House in 2024 feel betrayed today.”

Republicans close to Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson, granted anonymity to speak candidly, told POLITICO she would need to start distancing herself from Trump in subtle ways to win her critical Senate race. They’re worried that the president’s tariff agenda and the ongoing Iran war are undercutting her chances.

Hinson herself was caught admitting the Iran war would become a “political liability” if it extended much longer back in June. She criticized Trump’s plan to import discounted beef last month.

And two other Iowa Republicans, Reps. Zach Nunn and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, voted to limit Trump’s use of war powers and end the war in Iran on Tuesday despite having repeatedly voted to green-light the war since March. Nunn said in a statement following the vote “Iowa has already paid a devastating price” for the Iran war, referring in part to two U.S. servicemembers from Iowa who were killed at the beginning of the conflict. Miller-Meeks said she “will not vote to keep our soldiers in an open-ended war, with Iowans paying too much at the pump.” None of them attended a campaign rally Vice President JD Vance held in western Iowa on Friday; Vance urged voters to back Hinson, who he called “an amazing public servant,” from the stage.

All five of them, along with several other Republicans in competitive races, skipped the GOP midterm convention in Dallas earlier this month.

“We’re in a bad political environment,” said Michigan GOP strategist Jason Roe, who is advising the campaign battleground of Rep. Tom Barrett, one of the Republicans who skipped the Dallas convention. “These elections are a referendum on our government. [Trump] is the head of the government.”

The pressure is only increasing with the midterms less than two months away. Trump’s approval rating is stuck under 40%. while several POLITICO polls have found that half of Americans think his deportation agenda is too aggressive and that even Trump’s loyal MAGA base is losing patience with the Iran war, given the economic costs.

“These candidates know how to read a poll,” said a GOP strategist working for Republicans in races around the country who was granted anonymity to speak candidly. Referring to Trump, they added: “They know he is kryptonite.”

Some other battleground Republicans who received Trump’s endorsement have since deleted or minimized references to the president on their campaign websites. Almost none of them are mentioning Trump in their ads — just two battleground GOP candidates have aired a TV ad mentioning the president since Aug. 1, according to the ad-tracking firm AdImpact — out of hundreds of new ads from Republicans in competitive Senate, House or governor races.

One was Hinson, who pledged to work with both Trump and Democrats on health care issues.

One Republican who was involved in a recent fundraiser for Hinson and was granted anonymity to discuss private conversations acknowledged growing fears that the race is too close for such a red state. They said Hinson risked losing the seat if she didn’t put more space between herself and Trump on several key issues that were roiling voters in Iowa.

“He’s putting Iowa in play,” one House Republican who’d spoken to Hinson said of Trump.

Hinson’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment, nor did the campaigns of Tiffany, Salazar, Nunn and Miller-Meeks.

When asked for comment on Tiffany’s behalf, Republican Governors Association Kollin Crompton pointed to Tiffany’s plane crashing in a Wisconsin lake a week ago. He sustained minor injuries.

“In the same week that Tom Tiffany survived a life threatening plane crash, Politico wants to talk about this. Tells you everything you need to know,” Crompton said in a statement.

Wisconsin Republicans privately admit that Tiffany, like others in their party, is walking a tightrope.

“Every campaign in the country right now has to balance being your own person versus how you appropriately align yourself with the president,” said a Wisconsin GOP strategist granted anonymity to speak candidly without jeopardizing their work for other campaigns. “Sometimes it’s lockstep with the president, and sometimes it’s not. And the art of this whole thing is figuring out where to break.”

In response to a request for comment, RNC spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said: “No matter the topic, we encourage candidates to run the races they need to run to best represent the voters. The president understands when candidates need to add nuance to policy stances in order to win elections and prevent Democrats from taking control.”

That’s slightly different from what she told POLITICO a month ago, when asked about some Republicans who didn’t want the president on the trail with them.

"[Trump] is the biggest turnout machine for mid- to low-propensity voters and we need those voters to get to the polls,” Baldassarre said at the time. “If members are choosing to keep an arm’s length from the president, they risk alienating their base [and] they risk 15 to 20 percent of their key Republican voters not turning out because they don’t feel like they’re a good supporter of the president’s policies.”

White House spokesperson Olivia Wales said in a statement that “President Trump is the unequivocal leader, best messenger, and unmatched motivator for the Republican Party” and encouraged voters to back Republicans in November.

Trump hasn’t always been willing to tolerate Republicans breaking with him in the past. When asked about Salazar’s ad, he said he still supported her campaign but criticized her comments. “I’m very strong on the borders, and she isn’t. And she’s a nice person. I got her elected. Without me, she wouldn’t have gotten elected… So she got a little bit soft on the border. I understand that. But I just don’t happen to be there,” he said Friday afternoon. He also reiterated his endorsement of Hinson in a Friday social media post.

Tiffany’s splits from the president, most recently on data centers and beef imports, are particularly striking given his past: He had signed on to the lawsuit backed by Trump allies requesting the Supreme Court throw out the presidential election. He proposed a bill in 2025 that would allow state and local authorities to veto refugee resettlement in their communities, and co-sponsored a resolution expressing support for Trump deporting migrants to a Salvadoran megaprison earlier this year.

Some Wisconsin Republicans worry that sharp pivots away from the president could be read as cynical and alienate Tiffany from Trump’s base.

“You’ve got to be careful doing the Etch A Sketch politics,” said Wisconsin GOP strategist Ben Voelkel, who is not involved in the race. “You’re not gonna convince Democrats to not call you a Trump lackey or whatever other pejorative they want to use.”

For Salazar, her striking break from Trump on a splashy issue — the deportation agenda — underscored just how much backlash there has been in her Miami-area district. She has long pushed for immigration reform, but the ad escalated her clash with the president.

“I am doing what I think is correct,” Salazar said in her first interview since the ad ran, on the “The Manny Munoz Show” on Friday. “Right now, we’re seeing that in South Florida things are getting more out of hand when it comes to ICE.”

Salazar dodged repeated questions from Munoz about whether she’d given the White House a head’s up about the ad, saying only that she and Trump had a “very good relationship” and that the TV spot was no different than what she has been telling the White House in private. “I’m not criticizing him. I’m forewarning him” about turning away Hispanic voters, she said.

A GOP volunteer who’s been canvassing in her district in Miami-Dade County said voters raised deportations and arrests repeatedly. The person, granted anonymity to speak candidly, called anger over mass deportations a “big problem” and added that “people are mad as hell at us.”

The person said Salazar’s ad showed that when it comes to Hispanics abandoning the GOP, she understood she’s the “canary in the coal mine.”