Perhaps the second-biggest question ahead of President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address Tuesday (behind “what will he actually say?”) is what, if anything, will Democrats do to mark the president’s first SOTU of his uniquely authoritarian second term? In the recent past, State of the Union addresses have contended with disruptive outbursts, coordinated shows of respectful disapproval and a growing cottage industry of high-profile rebuttals, some officially party-sanctioned, others largely self-promotional. But with tensions running high and Washington decorum to consider, Democrats now find themselves torn between calls for calm and calls for more visible forms of resistance.

Call for 'silent defiance'

Democratic Party leaders are “encouraging their troops to protest” the president’s State of the Union speech Tuesday evening, but “how it’s done” remains a “sensitive topic,” said The Hill. After party members “churned headlines” last year with a “series of in-your-face demonstrations” at the president’s joint address to Congress, leaders are eager to “avoid a repeat of those theatrics.” Democrats should attend in “silent defiance” or skip the speech entirely, said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.). Those skipping will have an opportunity to participate in a “variety of different alternate programming.”

Debate among Democrats over whether to disrupt, skip, or sit quietly through the State of the Union reflects “broader, ongoing divisions in party strategy,” said MS NOW. With an eye toward the upcoming midterm elections, party leaders are aware that “symbolic decisions” on interrupting or avoiding the speech “could resonate with voters back home.” For many, it’s “simply a dilemma” whether to “even attend,” said Axios. And for those who do attend, “don’t expect anything on the scale of last year” when disruptions repeatedly peppered Trump’s address. There will be “no organized choreography as far as I know,” said Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) to the outlet.

“Central” to the Democrats’ intended “show of force” in standing up to the administration will be “victims of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein,” said Roll Call. The effort “starts from leadership on down” with multiple lawmakers, including party heads Jeffries and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), expected to bring Epstein survivors as their guests. Lawmakers participating in an advocacy group-sponsored “People’s State of the Union” alternative event on the National Mall will also be “sharing letters on behalf of Epstein survivors.”

Risking a diluted impact

Attendees of the “People’s State of the Union” include many lawmakers who eschewed major Trump events, like his inaugurations in the past, “underscoring a small but consistent block of Democrats” who continue to “opt out of the president’s most high-profile events,” said Politico. But after many who skipped the president’s first inauguration ultimately attended his second, the shrinking number of those avoiding his appearances signals a “faded resistance from the first Trump era.”

Barred by party leadership from interrupting Trump’s speech, Democrats are instead “planning individualized responses” to “show opposition to his agenda,” said Axios. But by trying to mobilize “every faction of their coalition before the midterms,” the party risks the fact that a “range of messages could dilute their impact.” Still, while it may complicate efforts to present a “fully unified front,” it has nevertheless become “common for factions within both parties to deliver separate rebuttals aimed at different constituencies.”

What happened

President Donald Trump told Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) last month that he would unfreeze funds earmarked for a $16 billion New York infrastructure project, but only if New York’s Penn Station and Washington Dulles International Airport were renamed for him, several news organizations reported on Thursday. Schumer declined. “There was nothing to trade,” a person close to Schumer told NBC News and Politico. Trump “can restart the funding with a snap of his fingers.”

Who said what

Trump froze funding to complete the Hudson Gateway rail tunnel connecting New York City to New Jersey in October, after threatening to punish Democrats for shutting down the government. White House budget director Russ Vought said the halt was to “ensure” the funds weren’t used “on unconstitutional DEI principles.”

Trump’s naming-rights demand “offers a fresh window” into his “ever-expanding effort to secure an outsized place in American history” by “branding nearly everything around him with his own name,” CNN said. He has already affixed his name to the Kennedy Center and U.S. Institute for Peace, as well as a class of battleship, a Trump Gold Card citizenship pathway and TrumpRx, a discount drug site launched Thursday. But attempting to “leverage the future of a massive infrastructure project to fulfill his own personal wishes” would be “perhaps his most audacious move yet.”

What next?

Trump putting “his own narcissism over the good-paying union jobs this project provides” is “ridiculous,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. “These naming rights aren’t tradable as part of any negotiations, and neither is the dignity of New Yorkers.” Without the funding, the Gateway project “is set to shut down indefinitely” on Friday, Axios said.

After a year spent largely relegated to the congressional sidelines, Democrats have begun approaching 2026 with something approximating optimism. The unpopularity of the Trump administration’s major policy initiatives, shaky economic forecasts and historical tailwinds that typically boost off-year elections for the minority party have given some Democrats a sliver of hope that the Senate might be within striking distance. Ahead of the November midterms, are some in the party plotting behind rose-tinted electoral glasses, or is there a real chance at the majority?

What did the commentators say?

While party leaders see a “path to winning the majority,” the route is “one with very little wiggle room,” said The Associated Press. While a Democratic congressional majority “looked all but impossible at the start of last year,” the party’s prospects have ”somewhat improved as 2026 begins.” Democrats have a ”clear and strong path to winning back the Senate,” said Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to Politico. “A year ago, no one thought that.” But while Democrats have been “boosted by a string of off-year victories,” Schumer’s optimism belies the party’s “own contentious and expensive primary season ahead.”

For Democrats, the path to the majority runs “primarily through four battleground states: North Carolina, Maine, Ohio and Alaska,” where the party believes it has the “best odds” of flipping seats, said The Wall Street Journal. To that end, Schumer is "celebrating a class of star Senate recruits" to run in those races. He has also used the “threat of two more Trump-appointed Supreme Court justices” to “bait top Democrats” into running this year, said Axios.

Schumer’s “key recruiting victories” for his Senate bid include former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, outgoing Maine Gov. Janet Mills, former Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, and former Alaska Rep. Mary Peltola. At the same time, Democrats must “protect” Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff and block Republicans from an open seat in Michigan, where the “primary has turned ugly,” said Axios.

Ultimately, Schumer’s public position is a “rosy one,” said Semafor — “Part of his job” includes selling colleagues on a “vision of taking the chamber.” There remain “tons of obstacles” Democrats will need to “navigate around” to have “any hope of actually flipping a chamber that’s now a 53-seat GOP majority.” Previous “bold predictions of Democratic victories” by Schumer have “not always panned out,” said The New York Times, including in 2024, when Democrats lost the Senate.

Democrats “still have a difficult path to the majority,” said Roll Call. That the party is in a position where it “may need to rely on Alaska” is “evidence” of how “tough” a road to 51 seats Schumer has before him.

What next?

Before Democrats can “test their general-election appeal,” they must first endure “some primaries that highlight lingering divisions within the party,” said the AP. “Crowded or contentious primaries” are playing out in Maine, Minnesota, Texas, and Iowa, “forcing” the party to “devote resources even in states not central to their path to a majority.” In addition to primary headaches, Democrats must also contend with President Donald Trump’s super PAC, “flush with $300 million,” a “huge and unusual sum to be amassed by a second-term president,” said the Times.

A “key question” for Democrats this year — “really, the key question” — is whether the party can “win in hostile states anymore,” said The Center for Politics. Even if Democrats successfully defend all their seats, flip North Carolina’s open seat, and oust perennial target Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the two remaining seats needed to reach 51 would need to come from states that “all currently have Republican senators and voted for Trump by double-digit margins in 2024.”

Democrats “don’t have a preference, old versus young, more progressive versus a little less progressive,” when it comes to running different types of candidates in different races, Schumer said to Politico. “It’s who can do best in their state. There’s a lot of factors that go into that.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) may not have a tight grip on his post. Some Democrats are angry that their party surrendered in the government shutdown fight, and are placing the blame on the caucus elder.

Democrats are “questioning Chuck Schumer’s future” after the shutdown, said CNN. The 75-year-old is “facing more grumbling than he ever has” from fellow Senate Democrats and even his own New York constituents. There are few expectations of a “coup or immediate change” that would move him out of power in the near term. But some analysts say he “could go down in a primary challenge if he tries” to run for another term in 2028. Schumer is in his “last term, and he may be the only one on Earth unaware of it,” said one House Democrat.

What did the commentators say?

“It’s time for the Democratic Party to head in a new direction,” said Sara Pequeño at USA Today. Schumer is “incapable” of being a leader who is “quick on their feet and ready to do things differently” in opposing President Donald Trump. The shutdown is not the only issue. Schumer also “failed” to endorse Zohran Mamdani, the victorious Democratic candidate in the recent New York City mayoral election. The party’s rank-and-file voters are noticing these shortcomings: Just 35% of Democrats approve of the minority leader’s performance. There is a reason Schumer is taking heat from Democrats. “He deserves it,” said Pequeño.

Those poll numbers make Schumer the “most unpopular Senate leader with his own party” on record, said Ross Barkan at New York magazine. The senator is seen by progressives and “restive moderates” as a leader “out of touch with the current mood.” And in his home state, polls show him losing a primary challenge to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) by a substantial margin. Schumer has been a “lock to win reelection” for decades, but he now might be “wise to retire rather than run again.”

Those looking to replace Schumer as minority leader are “missing two critical ingredients,” said Axios. They do not have a “clear path to his ouster,” nor is there a Senate Democrat “who’d want the job.” Some observers say the movement to push Schumer out of leadership is just beginning. The conversation about his future is “legitimized and the conversation is moving forward,” said Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

What next?

Schumer does have defenders, said NBC News. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) has pushed back against critics like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) who have publicly called out the Senate leader. House Democrats “should focus on their own leadership,” Kaine said. But Khanna is pressing the case. Schumer is “out of touch with the grassroots” of the Democratic Party, he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Schumer isn’t going anywhere” for now, said Time. That is because “no one who wants him gone has the power to make it happen.” That does not mean he will regain popularity. Schumer has “come to personify Democrats’ discontent.”

What happened

The Senate Sunday night cleared a key first hurdle to ending the record government shutdown, now in its 41st day. Eight Democrats voted with 52 Republicans to proceed with legislation that would fund Congress and a handful of agencies and programs for the full fiscal year and finance the rest of the government through Jan. 30. In return, the Democrats secured a promise for a mid-December vote on legislation of their choosing to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies, plus a temporary ban on federal layoffs, a reversal of the Trump administration’s shutdown firings and back pay for all federal workers.

Who said what

“After 40 long days, I’m hopeful we can bring this shutdown to an end,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said shortly before yesterday’s vote. Thune had “kept the Senate in session all weekend,” The Wall Street Journal said, “as lawmakers see urgency to end the shutdown amid growing airport snarls and delays in food aid being distributed to millions of Americans.”

The deal “prompted a quick and fierce backlash among Democrats, many of whom were livid that their colleagues had backed down from the party’s central demand,” a guaranteed extension of the ACA credits, The New York Times said. Even with the pledged Senate vote, they argued, the subsidies were “all but certain to die in the Republican-led Congress.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was among those who voted against the bill.

President Donald Trump had privately signed off on the deal, according to several GOP senators, even though it reversed many of his cuts. “It looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending,” Trump told reporters after returning from an NFL game Sunday night.

What next?

Senate passage of the legislation “could be several days away” if critics “object and delay the process,” The Associated Press said. Asked if he would slow-walk passage, Schumer told reporters to “ask Rand Paul.” Paul (R-Ky.), the lone GOP vote against the bill, predicted “it’ll take them five days to pass this” unless they remove an anti-hemp measure he opposes. The House, on break since Sept. 19, could “return by the end of this week to approve the deal,” Politico said, and Trump would have to sign it for the shutdown to end.

What happened

A federal judge last week temporarily blocked the Trump administration from conducting mass layoffs of federal workers during the government shutdown, scuttling an administration plan to pressure Democrats into ending the now three-week-old standoff. Workers at the departments of Energy, Homeland Security, Treasury, and Health were among those to receive layoff notices, with White House budget director Russell Vought saying that “north of 10,000” federal jobs could be eliminated during the shutdown. The administration sent notices to 1,300 workers at the Centers for Disease Control—including analysts who monitor biological and chemical threats to the U.S.—then a day later scrambled to reverse more than half the firings, saying they were issued in error. At the Education Department, almost all employees in an office overseeing special education for 7.5 million children with disabilities received layoff notices. President Trump said more firings focused on “Democrat programs” were coming, but a day later U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ordered a halt to lay-offs, siding with labor unions who said the administration had not followed the law on reduction-in-force notices. The administration had “taken advantage” of the shutdown to “assume that all bets are off,” wrote Illston.

On Capitol Hill, there were no negotiations between Democrats, who insist any spending bill to reopen the government must include an extension of enhanced Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies, and Republicans, who say an extension can be discussed only after the government is funded. President Trump removed a possible pressure point by directing the Pentagon to use “all available funds” to pay active-duty service members. But some 600,000 furloughed federal workers could miss their first paycheck later this month if the government remains closed. With no progress afoot, said House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), “we’re barreling toward one of the longest shutdowns in American history.”

What the columnists said

Several weeks in, “the government shutdown is finally starting to bite,” said Siobhan Hughes in The Wall Street Journal. Flight delays are mounting as unpaid air traffic controllers call in sick. Cut off from further paychecks, federal workers are eyeing their savings. Smithsonian museums are shuttered, entrepreneurs can’t get small-business loans, homebuyers can’t close on mortgages without federal flood insurance, and executives are making business plans without Labor Department employment statistics and other crucial economic data.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer bet that “as inconveniences mounted,” pressure would build on Republicans, and he’d be hailed by progressives for his toughness, said Jim Geraghty in National Review. The question now is how much hardship federal workers, who are overwhelmingly Democratic, are “willing to endure so that Schumer and Senate Democrats can appear to be fighters.” The answer seems to be a lot, said Catie Edmondson in The New York Times. Democrats say government workers are fed up with Trump-induced chaos at their agencies and fear of retaliation, and are telling them “to keep up the fight” even as Trump threatens to fire them.

You’d think Republicans might want to budge on Affordable Care Act subsidies, said Rex Huppke in USA Today. A recent poll showed 78% of Americans support extending the subsidies. And the spike in ACA insurance premiums that will result without an extension—going from an average of $800 a year to nearly $2,000—will fall heavily on Republican voters. Of the 24 million enrollees in the ACA marketplace, 77% live in states that Trump won in 2024. That should light a fire under Republicans, but “their fealty to the president has made them supine.”

As Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune rattle their sabers, other Republicans “are discussing potential pathways” to extend the tax credits, said Benjamin Guggenheim in Politico. Inside sources say “a menu of options” for compromise is under consideration, including minimum out-of-pocket premiums for ACA enrollees, income caps for subsidy recipients, and ending tax credits for new enrollees while keeping them for current ones.

The road to compromise is studded with land mines, said Ed Kilgore in New York. Trust is “at an all-time low.” And leaders of both parties are “acutely aware” that their bases will rebel at any sign of weakness, with Democrats “demanding a clear victory and Republicans resurfacing years of intense hatred of Obamacare.” Each side needs “to be able to spin any deal as a victory,” and no deal is possible without the buy-in of an unpredictable president bent on “crushing domestic opposition by every means available.” Something has to give eventually, but exactly what is not yet clear.

What happened

The federal government shut down this week after Democrats and Republicans failed to strike a spending deal, leaving some 750,000 federal workers furloughed and many in fear that their jobs could be terminated by the Trump administration. The shutdown arrived after days of acrimony and little productive negotiation. Senate Republicans, who need at least seven Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster, insisted Democrats pass a House- approved bill to extend funding through Nov. 21. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said any spending bill must extend the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced subsidies, due to expire in December, and roll back $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts enacted in Trump’s tax and spending law—proposals Republicans called a nonstarter. Trump falsely claimed Democrats want to fund health insurance for undocumented migrants and posted an AI-generated video mocking Schumer and Jeffries, which superimposed a mustache and sombrero on Jeffries and had Schumer refer to Democrats as “woke pieces of s---.”

The White House paused or canceled billions of dollars in funding meant for blue states on the first day of the shutdown, including $18 billion for infrastructure projects in Schumer and Jeffries’ home state of New York. Trump warned that his administration might enact mass layoffs of federal workers and cut programs favored by Democrats if the government remained closed. “A lot of good can come from shutdowns,” said Trump. “We can get rid of a lot of things we didn’t want.” Some Democrats dismissed the threat as posturing, but others expressed worry about what might be coming. Asked if he’s concerned, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D- R.I.) said, “Who wouldn’t be? We have a madman in charge.”

What the columnists said

“The Democrats finally grew a spine,” said Alex Shephard in The New Republic. In March, they had the chance to shut down the government and buck an administration lavishing billions on “Trump’s deportation machine” while slashing health care and social spending. Schumer and nine colleagues caved then, but now they’ve gone to the mat to call attention to a “lawless” administration that wants to “transfer wealth from the poorest people in the country to the richest.” If the Affordable Care Act tax credits lapse, an estimated 4 million people will lose coverage, and 22 million more will see their annual premiums double to an average of $1,904.

Democrats’ demands are “outrageous,” said the Washington Examiner in an editorial, and Republicans are right to stand firm. Undoing Medicaid cuts and extending “failed” Obamacare subsidies would add $662 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A “ransom” of that magnitude just to keep the government running for a few weeks is a “ridiculous” demand designed solely to appease “rabid” progressives.

Both parties are betting the other will bear the brunt of public wrath for the shutdown, said Aaron Blake in CNN.com, but guessing who will prevail is “harder than it’s usually been.” The side that forces a shutdown to gain concessions “is almost always the one that gets the blame.” But the demand to extend Obamacare tax credits is “actually quite popular.” A June poll showed “overwhelming” support for the subsidies, with Americans in favor 77% to 22%. And Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio warned in July that Republicans in competitive districts risk “losing significant ground” if they can be tied to rising premiums and loss of coverage.

Democrats are making “a high-stakes gamble,” said Eric Levitz in Vox. Trump may mean business about using a shutdown “as a pretext for disemboweling the regulatory state.” It’s a longtime goal of his budget director, Russell Vought, who preemptively ordered agency heads to prepare plans for mass firings. That fear kept Schumer in line last March, but there’s reason to believe the threat of mass firings is a bluff. For one thing, it’d be no more legal during a shutdown than at any other time. But this administration “has made clear it has little reverence for constitutional constraints,” and may see the shutdown as an opportunity.

Right now “the route back out is hard to see,” said Jack Blanchard and Dasha Burns in Politico. Republicans say they’re willing to negotiate on health care, but only after Democrats first back a short-term funding extension. Under strong pressure from the base to “show some fight,” Democrats are unlikely to cave anytime soon. Both sides seem to be “digging in for the long haul,” and instead of negotiating in earnest are “chucking insults and posting memes.” Don’t “hold your breath for a speedy outcome.”

Don’t expect Democrats to vote for President Trump’s agenda, said Chris Brennan in USA Today. If the Republicans want Democratic support to pass a continuing funding bill and keep the government open, they’ll need to “offer something” in negotiations. The Democratic minority leaders in the House and Senate, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, insist that any bill that extends GOP priorities must also extend Affordable Care Act subsidies set to expire this year and reverse Trump’s cuts to Medicaid. Trump, though, refuses to concede an inch: He posted last week that he wouldn’t even meet with Jeffries and Schumer, saying falsely that they were trying to “continue free healthcare for illegal Aliens” and “essentially create Transgender operations for everybody.” Given that Republicans alone don’t have the votes to pass a short-term continuing resolution that would keep funding at current levels, we are headed for a government shutdown when the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.

“If Democrats court a shutdown, they’ll own the results,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. The idea that the GOP would repeal the Medicaid cuts passed in July’s “big, beautiful bill” is “fantasy”—and so is the Democrats’ counterproposal, which would tack on almost $1.5 trillion in new spending. The Republicans are offering what Democrats have always demanded in these situations: a clean continuing resolution that introduces nothing new. That’s more than fair. By demanding health-care concessions, Democrats lose either way, said Michael A. Cohen in MSNBC.com. If they force a shutdown, they will be blamed for federal workers’ missed paychecks. If they force a concession on Obamacare, they’ll take “a huge political problem” off the GOP’s plate in the midterms.

Worse for Democrats is that “a shutdown would give the Trump administration more power over federal spending,” said Jacob Bogage and Riley Beggin in The Washington Post. The Office of Management and Budget decides what agencies stay open and which shutter, which means it could halt programs Democratic voters depend on while continuing ICE immigration raids. Even a funding extension, like the one passed in March, enables the White House to divert money that Congress appropriated and use it for its own ends. That allowed Trump to eliminate a suicide hotline for LGBTQ youth and funds for early-childhood education. Schumer is betting voters will be angrier at Trump than at him—but with the shutdown clock ticking, that gamble gets riskier by the day.

What happened

After an all-night voting session, the Senate Tuesday narrowly passed President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful" tax bill, sending the measure back to the House for a final vote. Three Republican senators — Rand Paul (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) — joined all 47 Democrats in opposing the bill, forcing Vice President J.D. Vance to break the tie, 51-50. But the pivotal yes vote came from Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), whose support was secured after hours of negotiations that resulted in several side deals for her home state.

Who said what

Trump's tax bill will "extend and expand tax cuts and provide new funding for border security, immigration enforcement and the military," said The New York Times, and despite steep cuts to "Medicaid, food aid benefits, student aid and clean energy programs," it will "still add trillions to deficits over the next decade."

The bill, dubbed the "Big Ugly Betrayal Bill" by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), was expected to be the GOP's "marquee legislative achievement" ahead of next year's midterms, Politico said. The "starkly regressive" legislation contains some "populist flourishes," The Washington Post said, and to win Murkowski's support, it was "loaded with benefits for Alaska, including a special tax break for whaling captains" and special carveouts for Medicaid and food assistance.

After the vote, Murkowski told reporters it was "probably the most difficult and agonizing legislative 24-hour period that I have encountered" in 23 years in the Senate, "but I held my head up and made sure the people of Alaska are not forgotten in this." Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said his Alaska colleague "knows how to use her leverage," while Paul criticized his fellow Republicans for adding "more pork and subsidies for Alaska to secure that vote."

What next?

The bill now returns to the similarly divided House, where the Senate's extensive "alterations" have "irritated multiple factions of Republicans," said The Wall Street Journal. With voting expected to start as early as today, said Politico, Republicans are moving "down to the wire on their self-imposed July 4 deadline" for getting the bill to Trump.

“Chuck Schumer committed the grave sin of accepting reality,” said Brendan Buck in The New York Times. “And his party is now furious.” The Senate minority leader is facing his Democratic colleagues’ ire after he and nine establishment colleagues voted yes to pass the House Republicans’ six-month stopgap funding bill, which prevented an imminent government shutdown.

Many House and Senate Democrats, who want to try to block President Trump’s agenda at any cost, are questioning his leadership. In the House, the progressive champion Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called Schumer’s decision “a huge slap in the face” and a “betrayal,” and there is talk she’ll mount a future primary challenge to Schumer in New York.

The progressive wing is “spoiling for a fight to solve its morale problem,” said Nick Catoggio in The Dispatch, but as Schumer recognized, a government shutdown would have been “a gift to Trump.” The spectacle would have diverted the public’s attention from the severe damage his tariff war is doing to the economy. And a shutdown would have given “Elon Musk and his flying monkeys” a pretext “to DOGE-ify the entire federal bureaucracy,” laying off hundreds of thousands of workers who’d never get their jobs back.

“Schumer had only bad political options,” said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. But that’s the Democrats’ fault. With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, Democrats have little leverage other than a Senate filibuster. “That’s the price of voter backlash against four years of progressive governance.”

The party’s frustrated left-wing activists are demanding “theater, not strategy,” said Noah Rothman in National Review. Indeed, polling shows 80 percent of Democrats want their leaders to be more combative toward Trump. But “the current cast of Democrats cannot give their base what it wants.”

“An already demoralized Democratic base” is now wondering where to go from here, said Hayes Brown in MSNBC. The party’s favorability rating has cratered to just 29 percent—its lowest in more than 30 years—as voters lose faith that Democratic leaders can present a viable alternative to Trump, or stand up to an aspiring autocrat as he tramples the Constitution. “In refusing to use every tool in his power to stop Trump,” Schumer has left Democrats wondering if their leaders’ “warnings about the threat Trump poses to the country will be reflected in their actions.”

What happened

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday night that faced with two "terrible" options, he will vote for a House Republican stopgap spending bill, and he reportedly said he had enough Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster by his party. Only one other Democrat, Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.), has publicly said he will back the legislation. Senate passage before midnight Friday would keep the government funded through September.

Who said what

Schumer's announcement "stunned many of his colleagues" and infuriated House Democrats, The New York Times said. Senate Democrats have "agonized" for days over what "many of them described an impossible choice between two evils." Those opposed to the bill, The Washington Post said, argued it lacks the typical directives that "dictate how money can be spent," enabling President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to "lay off government workers and seek to eliminate programs without congressional input."

Schumer said Thursday that while the GOP bill is "deeply partisan" and "nihilistic," he believed allowing Trump to "take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option." Trump would have "full authority to deem whole agencies" nonessential, "furloughing staff with no promise that they would ever be rehired," he said, while congressional Republicans could revive only "their favorite departments and agencies," leaving the rest to "languish" indefinitely.

What next?

The bill, now likely to pass Friday afternoon, funds the government at current levels until Sept. 30, "with some key exceptions," The Wall Street Journal said. It cuts $13 billion for nondefense programs, boosts military spending by $6 billion, claws back another $20.2 billion of IRS funds to increase tax compliance by wealthy people and leaves Washington, D.C., with a $1.1 billion shortfall.

What happened

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), America's top Jewish elected official, sharply criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his handling of the Gaza war, and called for new elections in Israel. 

Who said what

"Netanyahu has lost his way by allowing his political survival to take precedence over the best interests of Israel," Schumer said Thursday. His willingness to "tolerate the civilian toll in Gaza" is "pushing support for Israel worldwide to historic lows. Israel cannot survive if it becomes a pariah." The ruling Likud Party said in a statement, "Israel is not a banana republic but an independent and proud democracy" that elected Netanyahu. 

The commentary

Schumer's speech "landed like an earthquake" in Jerusalem because he is one of Israel's "most avid" supporters, with "one of the longest and closest relationships" with Netanyahu of any U.S. politician, Barak Ravid said at Axios. It is "grotesque and hypocritical for Americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our own democracy to call for the removal of a democratically elected leader of Israel," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. Netanyahu has certainly not been "shy about trying to interfere in American politics," said Sen Mark Warner (D-Va.).

What next?

It is "unclear how Schumer's declaration will affect politics in Israel, where Netanyahu is very unpopular" but "polls show a majority of the public also supports many of his positions" that Washington dislikes, The Washington Post said. The next election in Israel is not scheduled until October 2026.

It's been nearly a year since first-term Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville launched what has become perhaps the defining feature of his short time in office so far: a blanket hold on hundreds of military nominations and promotions which require Senate approval in order to advance. In spite of his campaign promise to "support a strong and robust military" with the "tools and resources" it requires, Tuberville's use of the Senate's hold process has effectively kept major swaths of the country's armed forces in limbo, angering constituents and colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

With the Senate's "reputation for collegiality [...] on the ropes" according to ABC News's Tal Axelrod, Tuberville's nearly year-long obstructionism — ostensibly in protest over the Pentagon's policy of covering costs associated with military personnel forced to travel out of state to obtain an abortion — may finally be coming to an end. In a "dear colleagues" letter to Senate Democrats sent Sunday evening, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced plans to "swiftly confirm the hundreds of highly qualified and dedicated military leaders being held up by Senator Tuberville before the end of the year." The move, made possible by a party-line vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate Rule Committee earlier this month, would circumvent Tuberville's "extreme and unprecedented obstruction" which has "eroded centuries of Senate norms and injected extreme partisanship into what has long been a bipartisan process," Schumer wrote. 

Schumer's optimistic pledge to act before the new year notwithstanding, is Tuberville's stranglehold on military promotions truly nearing its end? 

What the commentators said

While Senate Republicans may be frustrated with Tuberville, they "certainly didn’t want it to come to this," Politico reported, pointing out that the resolution which passed the Rules Committee this month will require at least nine GOP defections to to meet the 60-vote threshold to confirm the pending promotions. Not only are Republicans anxious not to "circumvent the power of an individual senator" but they "don't want to side against anti-abortion advocates" who have applauded Tuberville's stand. 

Schumer's end-of-year deadline comes as Senate Republicans work behind the scenes to convince their colleague to relent on his hold, even as they publicly denounce this month's Rules Committee decision. Predicting to conservative broadcaster Hugh Hewitt last week that "this issue will get resolved," Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) stressed that "I don’t think the right resolution is a rules change." Instead, Cruz claimed, Republicans "in relatively short order" would find a middle path that "allows the military promotions that need to happen to go forward, but that also allows Tommy to continue to fight, and fight valiantly for the unborn."

One such proposal by Tuberville is to use the annual National Defense Authorization Act which funds the military to negate the current reproductive health policy, prompting Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee to tell Politico "screw him. He lost, and he’s trying to tear down this country because he disagrees with the policy." Any proposal to avoid a Senate showdown and prompt him to lift his hold "would require others to bend, not a concession on his part," The Wall Street Journal reported. Moreover, the paper noted, a number of conservative groups have "aired ads and erected billboards praising him back home." And perhaps most important in this era of Republican politics, "both [former President Donald] Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence have lauded him" for his stance. 

What next? 

While Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) has called the push for a 60-vote threshold to overcome Tuberville's hold a "heavy lift among Republicans," fellow conservative Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) is reportedly "ready to consider" the resolution — a testament to the efforts of rule co-sponsor Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the Arizona Democrat-turned-Independent who has lead the effort to "defuse" the situation, according to Politico. Sinema herself told the publication that she's not looking to impose "a timeline" on the bill that would "create partisan fights." But with the clock ticking toward Schumer's self-imposed New Year deadline, time is running out for behind-the-scenes negotiations aimed at staving off a potentially contentious floor vote. 

Lawmakers should "expect long days and nights, and potentially weekends in December," Schumer predicted in his letter to colleagues, promising further scheduling details this week. 

The Senate voted 83 to 11 on Wednesday to confirm Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, putting him in line to be the highest-ranking U.S. military officer when Gen. Mark Milley's four-year term ends Sept. 30. Brown, 60, became the first Black officer to lead a military service when he was confirmed as Air Force chief of staff in 2020, and he will be only the second Black Joint Chiefs chairman, after Army Gen. Colin Powell. 

Brown's confirmation, and the expected votes Thursday to promote Gen. Randy George as head of the Army and Gen. Eric Smith to lead the Marines, sidestepped a monthslong blockade of military promotions by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.). Tuberville said he will continue his blockade until the Pentagon ends a policy of supporting female service members who have to go out of state to get an abortion. The Pentagon, Democrats and some Republicans have slammed Tuberville's blanket hold for undermining military readiness. 

Tuberville was one of the 11 Republican senators who voted against Brown's promotion, but he still portrayed it as a win because it showcased that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) can bring up individual officers for promotion.

For decades, the Senate confirmed noncontroversial senior military promotions in large blocks. Holding individual votes on the more than 300 high-level nominations blocked by Tuberville would take months, even if the Senate did little else. The number of officers ensnared in Tuberville's hold will rise to about 650 by the end of the year, the Pentagon said.

White House national security spokesperson Jack Kirby said that confirming Brown, George and Smith was good for the three generals, the military and the country, but "it doesn't fix the problem or provide a path forward for the 316 other general and flag officers that are held up by this ridiculous hold." Not confirming senior officers also blocks junior officers from advancing and affects pay, retirement and future assignments, driving future leaders out of the military.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) recently turned over more than 40,000 hours of Capitol building security footage taken during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack to Fox News' Tucker Carlson. The host justified his newfound access by telling Axios that "if there was ever a question that's in the public's interest to know, it's what actually happened on January 6. By definition, this video will reveal it."

This invocation of "public interest" was echoed by McCarthy, who told The New York Times he believes the tapes "do belong to the American public. I think sunshine lets everybody make their own judgment."

Congressional Democrats, however, have balked at McCarthy's decision to hand over so much unredacted footage — some of which was already made public over the course of the Jan. 6 Select Committee hearings — to an overtly partisan figure like Carlson. Legitimate public interest in the events of Jan. 6 notwithstanding, multiple high-profile Democrats have begun expressing concern in recent days over the safety and security implications of Carlson's newfound ability to selectively edit and broadcast potentially sensitive information without context, or oversight. So what exactly are Democrats so worried about, and what — if anything — can they do about it?

What are Democrats saying?

In a "Dear Colleagues" letter to fellow Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) warned that the footage given to Carlson contains a "treasure trove of closely held information about how the Capitol complex is protected," such as the location of various security cameras, and a look at police emergency response plans. Accordingly, Schumer contended, "its public release would compromise the safety of the Legislative Branch." Moreover, by tapping Carlson specifically as the recipient of footage, "McCarthy laid bare that this shame is simply about pandering to MAGA election deniers, not the truth."

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) offered similar concerns in his own letter to congressional Democrats this week, writing that McCarthy's arrangement with Carlson "represents an egregious security breach that endangers the hardworking women and men of the United States Capitol Police." Airing the footage is, Jeffries claimed, "yet another example of the grave threat to security" posed by the House's "extreme MAGA Republican majority."

In a separate statement, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) noted that during his time chairing the Jan. 6 committee, "access [to the footage] was limited to members and a small handful of investigators and senior staff, and the public use of any footage was coordinated in advance with Capitol Police." Thompson, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, also called on McCarthy to explain "what steps he has taken to address the significant security concerns at stake" in giving Carlson the video.

Is there a real risk here?

Ultimately, there seem to be two concerns among Democrats and their allies here. First, that releasing the footage could reveal materially sensitive information on specific methods and measures used to secure the Capitol complex, putting occupants at risk for future incursions. Second, that in Carlson's hands, the complete tranche of footage could be selectively edited in such a way as to feed into pro-insurrection sentiment, skepticism, and sympathies, and in doing so contribute to future violence or election denial.

That first point seems to be the more immediate worry for Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) who served on the Jan. 6 committee. "It's really a road map to people who might want to attack the Capitol again," she warned. "It would be of huge assistance to them." As Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) pointed out, the unredacted footage shows "floor design, it lays out evacuation routes, it lays out where the vice president went, it lays out where the senior members of Congress were evacuated, and so on." Another person associated with the Jan. 6 committee who spoke anonymously with The Hill confirmed that evacuation routes in particular were a major factor in deciding which footage could be shared in public during televised hearings. "We worked with Capitol Police ahead of time to make sure that we weren't showing the VP's exit route, the exit route for the Speaker, for the members," the source explained.

Worries over the selective use of the footage to deliberately enflame public sentiment seem similarly grounded in precedent, with many critics pointing to Carlson's "Patriot Purge" miniseries as evidence of the broadcaster's penchant for baseless allegations about the events of Jan. 6.

"It is not lost on anyone that the one person that the speaker decides to give hours and hours of sensitive secret surveillance footage is the person who peddled a bogus documentary trying to debunk responsibility for the January 6 riot from Donald Trump onto others," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), who previously served as chief counsel for Democrats during the first impeachment of former President Donald Trump, told The Guardian. In an interview on MSNBC, Raskin offered a similar critique of Carlson, calling his use of the footage "in search of a conspiracy theory."

"We know that from his three-part miniseries that he put together, Patriot Purge, which asserted [the insurrection] was a false flag operation run by antifa and the FBI," Raskin continued. "We found no evidence of that."

Former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, and Fox News personality Geraldo Rivera have each criticized Carlson's documentary as well, with Cheney saying it "spread the same type of lies that provoked violence on January 6."

What do conservatives think?

Congressional Republicans have largely backed McCarthy's decision, at least publicly, on similar grounds that releasing the footage to Carlson amounted to wholesale transparency and "not a one-sided narrative and unfair two-tiered justice system," as McCarthy ally Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (D-Ga.) tweeted.

"The public deserves to see everything that was hidden," added Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.).

Former Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis, considered one of the more moderate members of his party until he was ousted by a Trump-backed primary challenger in 2022, agreed, telling The New York Times none of the footage was particularly surprising, or would change the overarching narrative of that day.

Indeed, according to at least one GOP source, McCarthy's decision to release the footage (albeit not to Carlson specifically) wasn't solely McCarthy's decision in the first place; it was one of the demands made by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz in order to earn his support for McCarthy to become speaker.

Joining the lawmakers were some conservative media outlets, including far-right wing website Breitbart, which described members of the Jan. 6 committee as having "howled in protest" over McCarthy's release of the footage. Others, however, have taken issue with Fox News' exclusive access to the videos. Vocal Trump supporter Mike Lindell has threatened legal action against McCarthy for not sharing the footage with his eponymous "Lindell TV" during an interview with former White House advisor Steve Bannon, while Newsmax reporter Cara Castronuova made a similar argument for more widespread access, tweeting a list of other right-wing media figures who have "BEEN POURING BLOOD 2GET J6 TRUTH OUT."

Is there anything the Democrats can do?

While McCarthy may be within his rights to have accessed and released the footage, Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent says Democratic lawmakers should "at least debate giving news organizations access as well. Presumably they would be at least as sensitive as Carlson — if not more so — to the risks of airing or reporting on specific footage without the Capitol Police signing off first." At the very least, Sargent added, "Democrats could access the footage now by themselves, if only to prepare for the worst."

Legally, it seems Democrats can do just that, no matter that they're in the House minority at the moment. Asked about McCarthy's handling of the footage, Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger told the Post that "when congressional leadership or oversight committees ask for things like this, we have no choice but to give it to them." Crucially, however, a Capitol Police spokesperson noted that "It doesn't matter if it's the majority or the minority, we cannot control what congressional leaders or the oversight committees do with the materials we provide."

The question Democrats must ask themselves, then, is whether their immediate worries about releasing potentially sensitive footage outweigh the long-term risks of what might happen if that footage is shared exclusively through a conservative media lens.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) remains optimistic that the Democrats will be able to defy the recent wave of enthusiasm for Republicans and maintain their Senate majority, The Associated Press reports.

Schumer believes Democratic candidates will be able to defeat their opponents in the highly contested battleground states and even sees the potential of flipping some seats.

"It's tight," Schumer said in the interview with AP. "I believe Democrats will hold the Senate and maybe even pick up seats."

Schumer's confident forecast comes as support and enthusiasm for Democrats fall behind a boost in the polls for the GOP. Republicans are benefiting from voters' high interest in economic concerns and their dissatisfaction with President Biden's performance. Maintaining control of the Senate has been a steep battle for Democrats from the beginning, and historically the dominant party tends to lose congressional seats in the midterm elections.

Regardless, Schumer is counting on high voter turnout on Tuesday to secure the win for his party and told interviewers that Democrats have advantages in each of the critical battleground states. He emphasized that Democratic candidates are "defying the political environment," shattering the narrative that Republicans would quickly take control of the Senate.

He believes his party's endurance against the odds suggests that voters "are seeing how extreme these Republican candidates are, and they don't like it. And second, they're seeing the Democrats are talking to them on issues they care about, and that we've accomplished a great deal on things."

A hot microphone caught Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) assessing the state of the midterm races and Democrats' odds of maintaining control of Congress. The Senate majority leader commented while in a conversation with President Biden as he arrived at Hancock International Airport in Syracuse, The New York Times reports.

Most of his commentary was optimistic regarding his party's shot at winning critical races in the upcoming election. During the brief exchange, Schumer remarked on the Pennsylvania Senate race between Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) and celebrity physician Dr. Mehmet Oz (R).

"It looks like the debate didn't hurt us too much in Pennsylvania as of today," Schumer observed, "So that's good."

Fetterman's performance at the only debate between the two rivals has been heavily scrutinized. After having a stroke in May, Fetterman's opponent has repeatedly questioned his capacity to serve in office due to lingering health concerns. Fetterman has said he is still dealing with auditory processing issues but believes his health concerns won't impede his ability to do the job.

Schumer's candid midterm forecast also referenced other highly competitive Senate races. Democrats are defending their control of the Senate this fall, and their odds look better than their chances at keeping the House, despite several tight races in Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Schumer can be overheard telling Biden, "I think we're picking up steam in Nevada. The state where we're going downhill is Georgia. It's hard to believe that they will go for Herschel Walker."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Sunday that he plans to hold another vote this week on a military health care bill Republicans blocked on Wednesday.

The bill would provide $250 billion to care for veterans who became sick after being exposed to burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Veteran organizations have been fighting for recognition for their maladies — which include everything from irreversible respiratory conditions to cancer — for some 15 years," explained Kelly Vlahos, a senior advisor at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.) led the effort to block the bill, claiming that Democrats had inserted a "gimmick" approving $400 billion in unrelated spending. "​People take a sympathetic group of Americans ... craft a bill to address their problems, and then sneak in something completely unrelated that they know could never pass on its own," Toomey said on CNN's State of the Union, calling the tactic "the oldest trick in Washington." Schumer agreed to allow a vote on an amendment proposed by Toomey, who said he will support the bill if his amendment passes.

Comedian Jon Stewart, a vocal champion of the bill, responded by denouncing the Republicans who blocked the bill as "motherf--kers" and accusing them of "hypocrisy," "cowardice," and "cruelty."

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) announced on Wednesday that he and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) had reached an agreement on a reconciliation bill that represents a pared-down version of President Biden's Build Back Better agenda.

Punchbowl News founder Jake Sherman reported that the reconciliation bill — which requires only 51 votes to pass — "deals with climate, energy, tax[es], and healthcare." According to The Washington Post, the legislation, known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, includes "roughly $433 billion in new investments, much of which is focused on climate change and energy production."

Manchin pulled out of a similar deal earlier this month, citing concerns that new climate spending could exacerbate the ongoing inflation crisis. That agreement represented a renewed attempt to pass key parts of BBB after Manchin said in December that he wouldn't vote for the whole package. According to The New York Times, this second failure infuriated Democrats, who had spent more than a year working to "scale back, water down, trim and tailor" the $1.75 trillion BBB agenda to "Manchin's exact specifications."

On Monday, six Democratic staffers were arrested for protesting outside Schumer's office, urging him to bring Manchin back to the table.

In a statement released Wednesday, Manchin declared BBB "dead" once and for all. He also insisted that the Inflation Reduction Act would not "make the United States more dependent on foreign energy" or move "the country closer to the unstable and vulnerable European model of energy."

Six House staffers employed by progressive Democrats were arrested on Monday after protesting outside the office of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), demanding that he work harder to pass climate legislation.

Earlier this month, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) pulled out of a climate deal that had been crafted to his exact specifications, leaving Democrats without the 50 votes needed to get the legislation through the Senate. Former Obama adviser accused Manchin of having "single-handedly doomed humanity."

Saul Levin, who works for Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) told NBC News that he and his fellow protesters wanted Schumer to "reopen negotiations on a final reconciliation package" and "actually pass climate legislation."

The other five protesters who were reportedly handcuffed and led out by Capitol Police after refusing to leave were Aria Kovalovich and Emma Preston, who work for Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.); Philip Bennett, who works for Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.); Courtney Koelbel, who works for Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.); and Rajiv Sicora, who works for Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.).

New Yorker writer Andrew Marantz, who shared pictures of the arrests as they happened, tweeted that around 17 staffers attended the protest and that, as far as he knew "no internal protest like this has ever happened before within Congress." Marantz claimed that "[e]veryone" involved was arrested, while other outlets reported only 6 arrests.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Thursday that the Senate will vote next week on advancing legislation that codifies the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision into law.

Schumer called the vote "one of the most important" senators will take, per CBS News. But the measure is almost guaranteed to fail, considering lawmakers will need at least 60 votes to move forward. It will also mark the upper chamber's second attempt at enshrining abortion protections via legislation, after a similar effort in February was defeated.

The majority leader has been teasing his plan ever since Politico published a bombshell report Monday evening revealing the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe.

"Come next week, Senate Republicans will have to answer for everything they've done over the years to embolden the hard right's hostility against a woman's choice," Schumer said on the Senate floor. "The vote will tell, next week. America will be watching."

Meanwhile, the Biden administration "spent much of Tuesday panicked as they realized how few tools they had at their disposal" to fight the court's expected decision, The Washington Post reports.

"Every single thing they do is going to get legally challenged, and every [government] lawyer agrees," one outside adviser told the Post. "A bunch of attorneys general will mobilize, and [the administration] will lose." Read more at The Washington Post and CBS News.

Prominent senators from both parties released a joint statement Tuesday expressing support for Ukraine and threatening Russia with severe consequences in the event of an invasion, CNN reported.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) both joined in the statement, as did Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.), and Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Pat Toomey (R-Penn.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

"In this dark hour, we are sending a bipartisan message of solidarity and resolve to the people of Ukraine, and an equally clear warning to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin," the statement read.

It went on to urge the U.S. and NATO to "move quickly to ensure that the government of Ukraine receives sustained emergency assistance to defend against an illegal Russian invasion," which the statement described as the gravest threat the post-World War II international order has faced since the Cold War.

Despite this bipartisan show of support, the GOP remains divided on Ukraine. Establishment Republicans push for a hard line against Russia, while libertarians like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and populists like Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) insist America has no dog in the fight.

President Biden said Tuesday that, despite Russia's announcement that it was pulling some troops off the Ukrainian border, an invasion "is still very much a possibility," USA Today reported.

Right after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) joined all 50 Republicans to block a filibuster change that would have allowed Democrats expand voting access and curb gerrymandering nationwide, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was notably tepid on a brewing bipartisan proposal to reform the Electoral Count Act, the 1887 law that former President Donald Trump tried to exploit after the 2020 election.

Compared with the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, tinkering with the Electoral Count Act is "unacceptably insufficient and even offensive," Schumer said in early January. "If you're going to rig the game and then say, 'Oh, we'll count the rigged game accurately,' what good is that?"

Now, however, "Schumer is quietly stoking bipartisan talks about updating the Electoral Count Act," Politico reports. He hasn't committed to either the version being worked on by Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) or a bipartisan overhaul under construction by a core group of nine Senate Republicans led by Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and seven Democrats, including Manchin and Sinema. "But Schumer's disinterest in quashing the 16-member bipartisan crew is itself notable," Politico says.

Collins says she wants her group's bill to narrowly focus on raising the bar for members of Congress to object to a candidate's electors and clarifying that a vice president can't unilaterally flip states, plus maybe protecting election workers. Some of the Democrats would prefer adding other measures. Schumer is "waiting to see what deal, if anything, the group comes up with before gaming out whether legislation could win 60 votes on the Senate floor," Politico says.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has led the opposition to changing the filibuster and the Democrats' voting rights push, has said he's "happy to take a look at what they come up with," because the 1887 law "clearly is flawed."

Most Democrats agree with McConnell that the Electoral Count Act is flawed, even if "some have chafed at the idea of working on this issue as a replacement for the failed efforts on voting rights legislation," The New Republic reports. "But experts warn that the risk of future election subversion is dire enough to necessitate reform, even if other voting rights measures are unable to pass in Congress."

CORRECTION: A previous version of this post misstated Sen. King's state. It has been corrected. We regret the error.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has come under fire from Hill Democrats for his leadership style, Politico reported Tuesday.

His failure to reach a compromise with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to pass the Build Back Better bill and his decision to force a vote on President Biden's already doomed voting rights agenda, several Democratic staffers told Politico, highlighted divisions in the party at a time when Democrats are in danger of losing their already razor-thin majority.

"Leadership 101 is even if you don't get someone today, you're going to need them tomorrow," one senior House Democratic aide told Politico. "The level of malpractice is stunning. BBB is a once-in-a-10-year opportunity, and we f--ked it up."

Schumer turned Sens. Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) into scapegoats, staffers argued, subjecting his fellow Democrats the ire that ought to have been directed toward Republicans.

On Jan. 18, Schumer refused to rule out supporting primary challengers to Manchin and Sinema, Business Insider reported.

Manchin represents a deeply conservative state and is far likelier to be replaced by a hard-right Republican than by a progressive Democrat. Sinema, who was censured by Arizona Democratic Party leadership over the weekend, became the first Democratic Senator from Arizona since 1995 by running as a moderate.

Politico points out that Schumer's willingness to consider turning on members of his own caucus stands in sharp contrast to the leadership styles of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

According to Politico, Pelosi has "argued numerous times that the party should lay off Manchin and Sinema, defending the pair in a press conference last week just after Schumer refused to disavow primary challenges to the two."

Likewise, McConnell "has not only tried to avoid allowing votes that would divide his conference, but also defended Republican moderates" like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Mitt Romney (R-Utah) "from attacks from the right."

The Senate on Wednesday night voted against changing the chamber's filibuster rule, which Democrats say is necessary in order to push through voting rights legislation that is being blocked by Republicans.

The vote was 52-48, with two Democratic senators — Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona — joining the Republicans in opposition.

Democrats had hoped to change the filibuster rule so they would only need a simple majority to pass voting rights legislation, rather than the 60 votes necessary to beat a filibuster. Earlier in the night, Senate Republicans blocked a voting rights bill for the fifth time in six months.

The voting rights legislation aims to restore parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that have been chipped away by the Supreme Court, making it easier for people to vote in person and by mail. This is in direct response to Republican-led state legislatures passing restrictive voting laws that Democrats say make it harder for most people, especially minorities, to vote.

The floor debate on the matter lasted about 10 hours. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), whose state imposed strict voting laws in the wake of the 2020 presidential election, declared that this is "a moral moment," while Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) took umbrage to links being made between the GOP and Jim Crow laws. "I am not a racist," he said. "Nor are the people who I know in the state of South Dakota."

President Biden, former President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) all spoke at the memorial service for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Las Vegas Saturday.

Common themes in the speeches were Reid's rise from inauspicious circumstances, his humility, his persistence, and his penchant for ending phone conversations without saying goodbye.

Reid won election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1983 and went on to serve for 30 years as a U.S. senator, holding the position of majority leader from 2007 to 2015. He died Dec. 28 at the age of 82.

Schumer referred jokingly to himself and Reid — a "brash Jewish kid out of Brooklyn" and a "soft-spoken Mormon" from a town "miles away from nowhere" — as a "match made in heaven." He recalled an encounter with Reid at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, where Reid slipped Schumer $400 to save him from being "the worst-dressed member of the Senate."

Schumer described Reid as "tough as nails, a fighter to his core, but also one of the most compassionate individuals you could ever imagine." He read from 2 Nephi in honor of Reid's devout Mormon faith and ended his speech with the traditional Jewish words of condolence: "May his memory be a blessing."

"I never heard Harry say an unkind word about any of his Senate colleagues, Democratic or Republican," Pelosi said. Obama later disagreed, saying "I don't know about that, Nancy — but he would work with them." Pelosi also spoke fondly of Reid's "dry sense of humor" and self-effacing nature.

Obama began his eulogy by remembering that Reid was always "uncomfortable when people said too many nice things about him" but that "as he looks down on us today, Harry is going to have to suck it up." He recalled an awkward first conversation with Reid immediately after he was sworn into the U.S. Senate. But later, Obama said, he came to understand that Reid was an "outsider" in Washington, a kindred spirit whose "path to the Senate" was "at least as unlikely if not more unlikely than mine."

The 44th president also drew attention to Reid's willingness to change his mind and adopt more liberal positions on issues like gun control, immigration, and abortion as his career progressed. He credited Reid with being one of the first people to encourage him to run for president and looked back favorably on his time as president, working with Reid, Pelosi, and then-Vice President Biden to pass the Affordable Care Act and the Dodd-Frank Act.

"Pragmatism, adaptability, a premium on getting things done, lack of pretension, abiding loyalty: that's what Harry Reid represented. A man of old-school virtues. They are qualities that are in short supply these days. Yet it seems to me that they are precisely the qualities our democracy requires," Obama said.

Biden, who served in the Senate with Reid for 22 years, was the last speaker of the day. "Harry was like the guys I grew up with in Scranton," Biden said. "Harry would always have your back … Harry had mine, and he knew I had his … If he gave you his word, he kept it."

Reid's granddaughter, Savannah, delivered the closing prayer. The service also featured remarks from several of Reid's children and musical performances by Carole King and Killers frontman Brandon Flowers.

Reid's body will lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda next week before being interred in his hometown of Searchlight, Nevada.

Former President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and other lawmakers are remembering Harry Reid as "a great leader in the Senate" and "tough-as-nails strong, but caring and compassionate."

Reid, a Nevada Democrat who served as Senate majority leader from 2007 through 2014, died on Tuesday at 82. Reid was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2018, and Obama tweeted that when Reid "was nearing the end," his wife, Landra, asked people to write letters she could read to her husband, as it was difficult for him to speak on the phone. In lieu of a statement, Obama, whose landmark health care legislation was passed thanks to Reid, shared his letter.

"Here's what I want you to know: You were a great leader in the Senate, and early on you were more generous to me than I had any right to expect," Obama wrote to Reid. "I wouldn't have been president had it not been for your encouragement and support, and I wouldn't have got most of what I got done without your skill and determination." He also thanked Reid for being "a good friend," adding, "As different as we are, I think we both saw something of ourselves in each other — a couple of outsiders who defied the odds and knew how to take a punch and cared about the little guy. And you know what, we made a pretty good team."

Schumer said in a statement that Reid was "one of the most amazing individuals I've ever met" and "tough-as-nails strong, but caring and compassionate, and always went out of his way quietly to help people who needed help." Reid was a boxer in college, and Schumer said he "used those boxing instincts to fearlessly fight those who were hurting the poor and the middle class."

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) praised Reid's commitment to his home state, tweeting, "To say Harry Reid was a giant doesn't fully encapsulate all that he accomplished on behalf of the state of Nevada and for Nevada families; there will never be another leader quite like Sen. Reid. To me, he was a mentor, a father figure, and someone I trusted to always give it to me straight."

Republican lawmakers are also sharing their memories of Reid, with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tweeting that "early in our career, we worked together to get a taxpayers bill of rights passed. Even though I am ideologically opposite I must say he did a good job representing the interests of Nevada in the U.S. Senate. As majority leader he ran a tight ship."

In its final acts before the Christmas break, the Senate confirmed dozens of President Biden's nominees, starting Friday night and ending around 2 a.m. Saturday morning, The Washington Post reports.

Former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was confirmed as ambassador to Japan, despite "no" votes from three Democratic senators who questioned his record on race relations.

The Senate also confirmed ambassadors to Ireland, Spain, the European Union, Vietnam, Somalia, Bahrain, Cameroon, and several other countries and international bodies, as well as nine federal judges.

More than 50 ambassadorships have remained vacant since the beginning of the Biden administration because Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) refused to allow quick confirmation votes. Cruz's blockade was meant as a protest against Biden's permissive stance on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Cruz argues that the pipeline, which would carry natural gas from Russia to Germany, would strengthen Russia's influence over Germany and other European nations.

In return for Cruz allowing the confirmation votes to go ahead, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed to allow Cruz's Russian sanctions bill to be debated and voted on by mid-January.

After a deal was reached in the Senate, the House on Tuesday night passed a measure that is the first step in preventing a federal default on more than $29 trillion in debt.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) have agreed to a one-time deal allowing the Senate to increase the federal borrowing limit with a simple majority. McConnell says he is "confident" at least 10 Republicans will vote in favor of the process. The vote could take place on Thursday, Politico reports. If it passes, the House and Senate would then need to hold separate votes in order to actually increase the debt limit.

Earlier this month, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told Congress that the federal government could run out of money to pay its bills by Dec. 15. McConnell told reporters on Tuesday that he believes the plan "is in the best interest of the country by avoiding default. I also think it's in the best interest of Republicans." The measure also includes billions of dollars to cover looming Medicare cuts to hospitals and medical providers.

Senate Republicans on Wednesday once again blocked debate on the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which Democrats want to pass in order to curb strict voting restrictions being put in place by GOP-controlled state legislatures.

The bill would restore provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that the Supreme Court struck down in 2013, giving the Justice Department the chance to review some state election laws before they are implemented. Just one Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), voted with Democrats to advance the bill, which the House passed in August.

It was clear ahead of time that the bill would fall short of the 60 votes necessary to overcome procedural hurdles, but the vote was held in part to show Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) that the filibuster he supports is keeping the Senate from passing voting rights legislation, The Guardian reports.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Wednesday was "a low, low point in the history of this body," and Democrats will "continue our fight for voting rights and find an alternative path forward, even if it means going at it alone, to defend the most fundamental liberty we have as citizens."

One group calling on the Senate to get rid of the filibuster is the organization Fix Our Senate, and its spokesman Eli Zupnik told The Guardian that Republicans have now blocked federal voting rights legislation four times in 2021. "It is "crystal clear that [Republican Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans will weaponize the filibuster to block progress," he said. "Our question now to President Biden and Senate Democrats is this: What are you going to do about it?"

Did you hear that? That may have been the sound of Capitol Hill breathing a huge sigh of relief.

According to multiple Senate Democrats — including Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — a deal on President Biden's Build Back Better agenda could be reached "by week's end," The Hill reports, according to sources familiar with sentiments expressed at a caucus lunch. Reuters has also shared news of an impending deal.

"Universally there was a desire to get this done by the end of this week," said one Democratic senator who attended the Tuesday meeting. Another source added that there was support from "left to right" that an agreement be reached ASAP.

Manchin told his colleagues he will work with Sanders, chair of the Senate budget committee, and Schumer directly. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), however, was reportedly not present at the meeting, so it's somewhat "unclear if there's urgency from all 50 to clinch something this week," writes Politico's Burgess Everett.

And that last mile likely won't be easy either. Said Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.): "It'll be a heavy lift."

Still, there's a "consensus that we need to resolve our differences by the end of the week," added Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), per HuffPost's Igor Bobic. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) shared similar sentiments to Blumenthal, although she seems to think agreement is slightly further away.

"We had a very spirited discussion at our lunch," Schumer later said. "Passionate, strong and there was universal, universal agreement in that room that we have to come to an agreement and we got to get it done and want to get it done this week."

He added, "The desire to get it done is strong." Read more at The Hill.

By the time 11 Republican senators finally agreed to thwart Sen. Ted Cruz's (R-Texas) filibuster of a two-month debt limit increase on Thursday night, allowing 50 Democrats to pass the legislation, feelings were pretty raw in the Senate chamber.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who reached an agreement with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) earlier in the day to allow the short-term break from the threat of fiscal calamity, had spent hours cajoling at least nine more Republicans to seal the deal. And when the 61-38 vote to end the filibuster was official, Schumer lit into his GOP colleagues.

"I thank my Democratic colleagues for showing unity in solving this Republican-manufactured crisis," he said. "Republicans played a dangerous and risky partisan game, and I am glad that their brinkmanship did not work."

"Republicans reacted volcanically to Schumer's speech," Politico reports. Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) was one of the senators who approached Schumer to voice that displeasure. "His speech was totally out of line," he said. "I mean, he crossed lines and it was inappropriate and tone deaf and I told him that." Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), the 11th GOP yes vote, told CNN it was a "classless speech."

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted to filibuster the bill, called Schumer's speech self-defeating."There's a time to be graceful and there's a time to be combative," he said. "That was a time for grace and common ground."

Republicans appear to be frustrated McConnell caved after months of insisting Democrats raise the debt ceiling through the cumbersome budget reconciliation process, but Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was sitting behind Schumer as he spoke, didn't seem thrilled with Schumer's GOP rebuke, either.

"I'm sure that Chuck's frustration was built up, but that's not the way to take it out," Manchin said afterward. "We just disagree. I'd have done it differently."

Nobody seemed thrilled with Thursday's exercise in catastrophe avoidance. "This whole process is stupidity on steroids," said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.). Nevertheless, the Senate will almost certainly do it again in seven weeks.

We did learn something from the vote, though. Before Wednesday, the assumption was that McConnell was insisting Democrats use budget reconciliation as part of some plan to derail their agenda or at least rake up material for 2022 attack ads. But political scientist Sarah Binder said there now seems to be a simpler explanation.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a key moderate sticking point in Democratic negotiations over the party's $3.5 trillion spending package, proposed a $1.5 trillion deal to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) this summer, according to Politico. Manchin has before hinted at $1.5 trillion as a guiding number.

Recently, the senator's been distributing the document to his colleagues on the hill in an attempt at showing he has "outlined his red lines on [President Biden's] jobs and families plan," writes Politico. The party's progressive faction has been complaining that Manchin and his moderate counterpart Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) haven't done enough to delineate their concerns over the package's topline number, which has prevented the legislation from advancing. Some of that blame seems to have begun shifting toward Sinema, however; on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said there is "no sense" what Sinema wants, while Manchin's negotiation efforts feel more clear.

The document, dated July 28th, is signed by both Manchin and Schumer, though the majority leader had reportedly written a note that he "will try to change Joe on some of these." Schumer's signature did not amount to agreement, and was merely an acknowledgement, said a spokesperson for the senator.

Also on the document, in bold text: "Senator Manchin does not guarantee that he will vote for the final reconciliation legislation if it exceeds the conditions outlined in this agreement."

It's unlikely that Democrats will agree to what Manchin has outlined, writes Politico, but the document is evidence that Manchin "has provided Schumer with more information than most rank-and-file Democrats."

Inside, the senator proposes raising the corporate and capital gains tax rates to 25 and 28 percent, respectively; calls for means testing on new programs; and makes certain climate demands, among other things. Read more at Politico.

One of the biggest problems for congressional Democrats these days is that they haven't really set any priorities. They're trying to do everything at once.

Consider a partial list of what the party is trying — or has tried — to fit into the ever-evolving budget reconciliation proposal: Tax increases on corporations and the wealthy. Climate policy. Immigration reform. Paid family and medical leave. Improvements to Medicare, Medicaid, and ObamaCare. Universal pre-K and child care for working families. Making the Child Tax Credit payments permanent. Free community college tuition. Affordable housing.

That's a lot of stuff.

Each of the provisions is perfectly defensible, even laudable. But by cramming all of them together, Democrats have created a branding problem for themselves. The reconciliation package is defined more by its $3.5 trillion price tag than for any particular good it might accomplish in the lives of American voters. That has made it a nice fat target both for Republicans, and for Democratic moderates like Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Krysten Sinema (D-Ariz.) who are looking to score points by trimming their own party's sails. Over the last week or so, some progressives — and the White House — have started to make the case that the overall proposal isn't actually all that expensive. They're fighting an uphill battle, and it's clear that the entire Democratic agenda is in danger of collapsing due to party infighting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a formidable history as a legislator, but the process of bringing her party together on reconciliation might be one of the most difficult things she's ever done.

"Let's not talk about numbers and dollars," Pelosi said Sunday. "Let's talk about values."

That's a good pitch, but her challenge is obvious. When you try to accomplish everything at once, it's possible to fail at everything at once.

It's easy to imagine a more effective process, one that breaks the current giant proposal into smaller, more palatable parts and tries to legislate them one by one. Pass a paid leave bill. And then a tuition bill. And then a child tax credit bill, and so on. That might be more cumbersome for Congress, requiring members to negotiate over dozens of bills instead of just one. But an incremental process would have the benefit of resiliency: Even if one proposal failed, another could still pass. Currently, it's all or nothing. The modest approach might also reduce the heartburn for self-proclaimed fiscal watchdogs like Manchin; programs that individually cost billions of dollars over 10 years would probably be easier to swallow than one giant package with "trillion" in the label. It would also solve the branding problem. Voters can more easily understand what you've accomplished for them when you pass, say, a Medicare dental bill than if that bill is just one small benefit in a much larger grab bag of goodies. In politics, simplicity often has its virtues.

So why don't Democrats do a bunch of smaller, easier things rather than one big, difficult thing? There are a couple of reasons. Timing is one of them: The party's majorities are narrow in both the House and Senate, and the president's party usually loses seats during the midterm elections. Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) know this might be their party's last bite at the apple for the next few years. There is an urgency to get stuff done now.

As always, though, the filibuster is the biggest factor. The Senate has a de facto 60-vote requirement to pass most legislation — a tough hurdle when Democrats have just 50 votes, plus the vice president's tie-breaker. Budget items can be passed on a straight majority through the reconciliation process, but there are only a couple of opportunities for reconciliation in any given year. Democrats don't have much choice but to tackle everything on their agenda all at once, though sometimes that means stretching a bit — immigration reform isn't really a fiscal matter, but that didn't stop Dems from trying (and failing) to include it in reconciliation.

What would the Democratic agenda look like if the filibuster were broken and leaders had more leeway to choose which priorities to advance, and when? I'd personally start with reforming the Electoral Count Act, and follow up with a climate bill. Others might choose to prioritize police reform or child-care spending.

Some battles would be won. Some battles would be lost. Those smaller losses would be easier to absorb, however. Under the current rules, there's a real chance the party will fall apart on the reconciliation bill — and perhaps take the bipartisan infrastructure bill with it. Going big, even if it's the only real choice, makes it more likely Democrats could lose everything.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday passionately called on President Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to halt the deportations of thousands of Haitian migrants who are gathered in Del Rio, Texas.

The administration's decision to launch multiple flights per day to take the migrants back to Haiti, which is experiencing multiple crises, defies not only "common sense, but also ... common decency and what America is all about," argued Schumer. He also referred to images and footage that appear to show Border Patrol agents acting aggressively toward the migrants, which he called "unnaccpetable" behavior "that must be addressed."

More broadly, Schumer said he wants the White House to altogether end Title 42, a pandemic-related immigration policy initiated by the Trump administration last year that allows the U.S. to turn away migrants because of public health risks. "We cannot continue these hateful and xenophobic Trump policies that disregard our refugees," Schumer said.

BuzzFeed News' Hamed Aleaziz, who covers immigration, writes that Schumer's comments are notable because Title 42 hasn't sparked much public outrage at or criticism of either the Trump or Biden administrations.

Following a briefing with the U.S. Capitol Police on Monday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told reporters that law enforcement is "much better prepared" for the planned right-wing rally in Washington, D.C. on Sept. 18 than it was before Jan. 6, CNN's Manu Raju reports.

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger also told reporters that fencing around the Capitol will go back up "a day or two before" the Sept. 18 event. If "everything goes well," it will come down "soon" after, he said.

The "Justice for J6" rally is intended to demand justice for those charged in the Capitol riot, but some don't expect it to be nearly as wild as Jan. 6. Jared Holt, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, told MSNBC that most of the coverage around Sept. 18 appears "hyperbolic based on the analysis that we're seeing." That said, its significance could lie less in violence and chaos and more in that it might set the precedent for these types of demonstrations in D.C. and other state capitals going forward.

"The guy who's putting together this rally, Matt Braynard, he simply doesn't have the clout required" to draw a big crowd, Holt added. "And a lot of the same extremist groups that participated in Jan. 6 have been very clear with their members that they should not go to this."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Wednesday effectively rejected Sen. Joe Manchin's (D-W.Va.) call for a "strategic pause" in Democrats' reconciliation process when he told reporters the Senate is "moving full speed ahead" on the bill with the goal of finishing this month.

"We're moving forward on this bill," he added.

Manchin and his budget hawk counterpart Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) have long signaled their concerns surrounding a reconciliation package as large as $3.5 trillion, but Democrats will need their votes to pass the legislation.

Schumer on Wednesday acknowledged such spending disagreements within the party, but noted that "we are going to work very hard to get unity" and build a "joint proposal" that satisfies the House, the Senate, and the White House.

But rest assured, as he's clarified before, "every part of the Biden plan" will be accomplished in a "big and robust way." "In reconciliation, we're all going to come together to get something big done," he said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) agreed while also acknowledging the challeges ahead: "What we're trying to do is unprecedented ... this is tough stuff."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) believes Democrats will "come together" to finalize and ultimately pass their sweeping $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill, despite concerns from key moderate Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.).

Schumer on Wednesday confidently told reporters that senators "are going to all come together to get something done" and that the final legislation will include "every part of the Biden plan in a big, bold, robust way," per Axios. He did not seem to rule out coming in below $3.5 trillion, and quickly dismissed inflation concerns by promising the package will be paid for.

Earlier that day, Manchin issued a statement saying that although he voted in favor of furthering the reconciliation process, he has "serious concerns" regarding both inflation and the size of the package as it stands.

"I firmly believe that continuing to spend at irresponsible levels puts at risk our nation's ability to respond to the unforeseen crises our country could face," wrote Manchin.

Sinema has previously expressed opposition to a $3.5 trillion price tag.

Senate Democrats can pass the final legislation without Republican support, but for that to happen, all 50 caucus members — including Manchin and Sinema — must vote in favor. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has maintained that she will not take up the newly Senate-passed infrastructure bill until work on the accompanying budget resolution has finished, even as House moderates — who also have concerns over the size of the package — urge her to stand down, adds Axios.

Senate committee chairs will now write up the proposals that the Wednesday-passed resolution outlines, which Schumer has said he would like to happen by Sept. 15, reports NPR.

President Biden is set to issue a limited extension on the federal eviction moratorium — and progressive lawmakers couldn't be more pleased.

Reps. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) celebrated the news on Tuesday, applauding the Biden administration's decision to extend a moratorium that expired Saturday, renewing it in places with high transmission of COVID-19, reports The Hill. But they also applauded their own role in the update. Both lawmakers were vocal advocates for the moratorium, pushing the administration to act even though some White House officials argued they didn't have authority to do so without Congress.

Bush also thanked other lawmakers who showed up to support her as she rallied for a moratorium, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). Schumer credited the progressive representatives for the victory.

Ocasio-Cortez, Bush, and Reps. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) and Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) were part of a core group of progressives arguing the moratorium should not expire amid the pandemic. Ocasio-Cortez argued the Biden administration should push the issue all the way to the Supreme Court, saying it would be worth a legal showdown because it would buy Congress time to act. While discussing the limited extension, Biden foreshadowed exactly that kind of game plan, saying he doesn't know if a new moratorium will "pass constitutional muster," but expects it will buy more time for rent relief to get out while it's litigated, reports Marketplace.

But on Tuesday, the focus was largely on Bush, not the potentially forthcoming legal battle. Bush, for her part, says she's "grateful."

Contrary to popular belief, even senators have a sense of humor.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) playfully cut off Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) at the last second, as they approached the lectern for their weekly press conferences at the same time. Schumer framed the lighthearted slight as just "the prerogatives of the majority," while McConnell, alongside plenty of other reporters in the room, laughed harder than NBC News' Leigh Ann Caldwell said she had ever seen.

Afterward, when it was McConnell's turn to speak, the minority leader offered those who witnessed the entertaining moment some sage advice: "You never want to get between Chuck and the camera."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday appeared to distance herself Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats who are calling on President Biden to cancel student debt via executive action.

"People think that the president of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness," Pelosi said while addressing orders. "He does not. He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That ... has to be an act of Congress."

Schumer has previously said Biden needs only to "flick his pen" to sign forgiveness into action. Of course, making it a law, however unlikely, would theoretically prevent a future president from simply undoing an executive order, so Pelosi's argument does favor a more long-term solution for Democrats.

That said, it's not entirely clear where the speaker falls on the issue. On Wednesday, she advocated for making college more affordable and attainable for Americans, but also seemed to signal that she wasn't fully on board with debt cancellation since it could face backlash from people whose children don't plan on pursuing tertiary education.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) finalized plans Monday night to hold a test vote Wednesday on the bipartisan infrastructure deal still being hammered out, nearly a month after a group of senators and President Biden agreed on the framework. Wednesday's vote "is not a deadline to determine every final detail of the bill," Schumer said Monday. "All a yes vote on the motion to proceed simply means that the Senate is ready to begin debating and amending a bipartisan infrastructure bill. No more, no less."

Schumer's test vote is meant to put pressure on the 10 Senate negotiators to finalize their deal and to test the sincerity of the GOP negotiators, especially after Republicans vetoed increased funding for IRS tax-fraud enforcement, a key means of paying for the package. Chief GOP negotiator Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said progress is being made and, like many GOP colleagues, threatened to vote no Wednesday if the legislation isn't on paper.

Schumer's "not going to get 60, let's put it that way," Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said Monday. "The legislation is not drafted, the pay-fors are a long ways away." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters "we need to see the bill before we decide whether or not to vote for it."

Despite the GOP protests, holding a vote on unfinished legislation is "a tried-and-true strategy for both parties," Politico notes. When McConnell was majority leader, "Republicans kicked off their drive to repeal ObamaCare with a vote on proceeding to an unwritten bill; just this Congress, senators in both parties advanced hate crimes and competitiveness legislation before it was finished."

"It will probably become clear within days whether the back-and-forth is the usual last-minute haggling before a complex deal comes together in Congress or something more ominous," The Washington Post adds.

"If there's no finalized deal and the procedural vote fails, senators said they would still continue to work on the infrastructure legislation," Politico says. And "if the bipartisan talks end up fully imploding, Democrats can roll the group's work into their unilateral spending bill that's still being written, with a top line price tag of $3.5 trillion." Schumer said his timeline, including Wednesday's vote, is backed by all five Democrats negotiating the bipartisan package.

"I still believe Chuck's got the right schedule," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.). And if Wednesday's vote fails, "what the hell? Keep us here in August."

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) appears to have a subtle (or not-so-subtle) message for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer...and it starts with "re" and ends with "tire."

In a "Dear Colleague" letter circulated Friday morning, Schumer outlines congressional business as usual — including infrastructure, the American Rescue Plan, and voting rights legislation — until about the tenth paragraph, which he concludes by off-handedly writing, "As always, Senate Democrats stand ready to expeditiously fill any potential vacancies on the Supreme Court should they arise."

As some have been quick to point out, Schumer's suspicious close is almost certainly a hidden-in-plain-sight call for Breyer to step down.

Breyer has faced increasing calls to vacate his position on the Supreme Court so Democrats can fill the spot before potentially losing their Senate majority in the 2022 midterms. Now, even Schumer may have climbed aboard the bandwagon.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Republican senators will block a debate on Democrats' election reform to prevent a "partisan power grab," but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) thinks his GOP colleagues are just scared.

The GOP, Schumer said Tuesday, doesn't "even want to debate it because they're afraid. They want to deny the right to vote, make it harder to vote for so many Americans, and they don't even want to talk about it. They want to sweep it under the rug and hope Americans don't hear about it."

Schumer was likely glad to hear that his words didn't apply to a member of his own party, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.). Manchin opposes the Senate's bill as it stands, but he does support several voting reform measures and announced Tuesday that he'll stick with his fellow Democrats for now by voting to move the process forward, even though he can't change the outcome.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday announced that the upper chamber will vote Tuesday on whether to launch a debate on federal voting rights legislation.

Schumer was careful to make sure lawmakers understood that the vote was not on "any particular policy," and is merely aimed at beginning discussions on one of the more contentious issues in Congress at the moment, as Democrats try to move a sweeping reform bill toward President Biden's desk amid Republican opposition. "I want to say that again," Schumer said, for emphasis, after a pause.

The Washington Post's Igor Bobic suggested that Schumer's caveat about the vote was primarily directed at a member of his own party — Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has said he won't vote for the reform bill, but supports a narrower set of measures to expand voting rights.

Even if Manchin is on board with Tuesday's vote, it seems likely to fail since there probably won't be enough, if any, GOP senators who will back debate on a bill they don't support, writes Politico's Burgess Everett.

Senate Democrats are drawing a line at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) demand that a power-sharing agreement in the 50-50 Senate include a pledge to retain the legislative filibuster. "If we gave him that, then the filibuster would be on everything, every day," Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) told NBC's Chuck Todd on Sunday's Meet the Press. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) offered McConnell "word for word" the same power-sharing agreement used in the first half of 2001, and McConnell's insistence on adding the filibuster pledge is "a non-starter."

But until Schumer and McConnell reach agreement on the Senate's operating rules, Republicans still retain much of the majority they lost last Wednesday.

"Without an organizing accord, Republicans remain in the majority of most Senate committees," and "veteran Democrats eager to seize the gavels and advance their long dormant agendas can only wait and wonder," The Washington Post explains. "Newly sworn-in Democratic senators cannot get committee assignments until an organizational deal is struck," leaving the old GOP-majority structures in place, and "Democrats can't unilaterally impose an organizing agreement because they would need Republican support to block a filibuster."

The filibuster has evolved into a sclerotic de facto requirement for a 60-senator supermajority on all legislation. Frustration with obstruction by the minority led Senate Democrats to end the filibuster for some presidential appointees and lower-court judges in 2013, and McConnell continued eroding the filibuster as majority leader, killing it for Supreme Court nominees and further easing the confirmation of presidential appointees.

A handful of Democratic centrists would prefer to keep the filibuster — for now. But there is mounting pressure from inside and outside the chamber. "There is absolutely no reason to give Sen. McConnell months and months to prove what we absolutely know — that he is going to continue his gridlock and dysfunction from the minority," said Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for the anti-filibuster liberal coalition Fix Our Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has suggested it's pretty much impossible for the Senate to reconvene from recess in time to hold an impeachment trial for President Trump before President-elect Joe Biden is sworn in on Jan. 20. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) may present him with a viable option, The Washington Post reports.

A senior Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Post that Schumer is exploring an obscure rule from 2004 that gives the Senate's minority and majority leaders the authority to call back the upper chamber in times of emergency. The catch is that Schumer and McConnell would have to agree to do so together, and the pair is not often in cahoots. But, the Post notes, the rule would theoretically put more pressure on McConnell, who has so far made the case that the upper chamber has to remain on break, barring unanimous consent.

There's no telling if McConnell would relent in this situation, but he reportedly hasn't spoken to President Trump since the middle of December, and by most accounts has had enough with the commander-in-chief, so it's possible he wouldn't want to be seen as protecting him from impeachment.

The coronavirus pandemic is dissolving the American economy. Goldman Sachs analysts predict that this week well over 2 million people will file for unemployment benefits — something like 3-4 times as many as during the nadir of the Great Recession in 2008-9.

Congress is debating various economic rescue packages. Senate Republicans have come up with an insufficient and ethically monstrous plan that would deliberately leave out the poorest Americans. Senate Democrats have a better plan, but it's still not good enough, and so far Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has not even come out in support of that.

Unless the Democratic Party gets its act in gear and unites around a better proposal, the Republican approach stands a good chance of being enacted — and could help Trump win reelection.

There are several huge problems with the Republican plan. The first is that it deliberately leaves many people out. They would cut a base check of $1,200 to individuals, or $2,400 to married couples who file their taxes jointly. But this amount would both phase in and out depending on prior income — you need at least $50,000 in previous earnings to qualify for the full amount, and it would phase out at incomes above $75,000 (or $150,000 for couples). People with little tax liability would get only $600, and the roughly 30-40 million people who are part of households that don't file taxes at all — largely the poorest people who need help the most — would get nothing.

The second is that these complicated eligibility schedules would be calculated based on 2018 income — that is, before the crisis hit. Millions of upper-middle class people who have lost their jobs and have no work income will not get the help they need. Third, all these eligibility requirements are going to be a huge pain in the neck that delays implementation for weeks at least. Income support should both be much bigger and universal, so as to get money into people's hands as quickly as possible. As Bernie Sanders suggests, payments of $2,000 per person per month for as long as the crisis lasts is a good start — and the IRS can be instructed to add a tax on top earners later if we are concerned about fairness.

Finally, cutting direct checks to individuals is arguably not the most important thing to be done. State unemployment insurance systems are funded in part by the federal government, and in part through state employer taxes and trust funds. The coronavirus recession is already slamming these programs by drastically increasing benefit payouts and reducing revenue — and many states, including California, have only a small trust fund buffer. The federal government should immediately take full responsibility for funding these systems, and upgrade the benefits to cover 100 percent of previous wages, perhaps up to a cap of $75,000 per year, again as Sanders suggests. The Senate Republicans' proposal does nothing to address this looming catastrophe.

Meanwhile, we very badly need a business rescue as well. Businesses, especially small ones like independent restaurants, coffee shops, mechanics, and so on will be ruined by the millions in a matter of weeks if they aren't saved. The various Republican proposals are not even close to what is needed here, especially for small businesses. Trump's own stimulus plan has only $150 billion for business, and gives far too much focus to relatively small sectors like airlines and hotels (it surely is not a coincidence that Trump owns many of these).

The state should act as a "payer of last resort" to keep businesses solvent, and require them to maintain their current employment while not paying bailout monies to shareholders or executives (and also in return for shares in publicly-traded firms) — as, once again, Sanders suggests. That would limit unemployment and allow America "to start our economy up again without the risk of losing the stores and restaurants integral to our communities," he writes.

Senate Democrats seem to be slowly coalescing around a plan that is somewhat closer to Sanders' vision, but is still not as generous, and still means-tested on the top end. But Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who unlike Senate Democrats has veto power over any coronavirus response, has all but vanished. She recently released a joint statement with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) vaguely setting forth some decent principles, but was non-committal on whether she supports the Senate plan or anything else.

Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, is nowhere to be seen. His last public appearance was a livestreamed speech in which he vacantly stared into the camera at the end, and seemingly had to be reminded of what was happening by his wife. Biden's Twitter account is proposing such ludicrously weak stuff as asking corporations politely to stop share buybacks in the coming year. While buybacks are indeed terrible (and should be banned for any companies that get rescued), they are basically a non-issue at the moment. Virtually no company in a gigantic recession is going to be buying back its shares, and even if they were, they aren't going to listen to mere suggestions.

It is criminally irresponsible for the top Democratic leadership, above all Pelosi, to be AWOL at a time like this. Trump's approval rating on the coronavirus response appears to be increasing in some polls, driven in part by increasing Democratic voter approval (though others have him slightly underwater). He's the only national figure giving daily press conferences where he at least seems like he is doing something.

While it's still early in the crisis, a lack of consistent Democratic messaging from the top on how Trump botched the crisis, and why Republican plans are grossly insufficient, runs the risk of his being able to portray the crisis as an unavoidable calamity as George W. Bush did with 9/11. Trump then might be able to sell his party's lousy plans as the best that could be done, winning reelection on a rally-around-the-flag effect, while causing millions of Americans avoidable suffering during the crisis, and potentially inflicting severe long-term damage on the economy. If Democrats want to avoid this, they are going to have to figure out some better plans and get in front of some cameras.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

The Senate has voted to limit President Trump from pursuing military action against Iran without approval from Congress, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is holding out some hope he won't veto it.

The Senate in a 55 to 45 vote Thursday passed Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-Va.) resolution, with eight Republicans joining the effort to ensure Trump receive authorization from Congress before taking military action against Iran, The New York Times reports. The resolution was not passed with enough support to override a veto from Trump.

"Miracles happen," Schumer said in a press conference after the vote, BuzzFeed News reports. "Maybe President Trump will come to his senses and not veto this."

That certainly would be a miracle. A recent White House statement of administration policy makes clear that Trump's "advisors would recommend that he veto the joint resolution,"and Trump ahead of the vote this week tweeted that passing the resolution "sends a very bad signal," also writing that "if my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day."

Some things never get old. That is certainly true of juicy details about the infamous Fyre Festival, which has been an object of fascination and schadenfreude since the luxury music event collapsed in spectacular fashion in April 2017. Thanks to two new documentaries from Hulu and Netflix out this week, you can now get the entire horrifying scoop from the safety of your own home.

Here are 17 of the craziest things we learned from Hulu's Fyre Fraud and Netflix's Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened.

17. Billy McFarland lied about owning an entire island.

Fyre Festival founder Billy McFarland lied repeatedly about owning Norman's Cay in the Bahamas. Reader — he did not own the island. And not only did he not own the island, but when the island's real owner found out McFarland was promoting the cay's ties to legendary drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, he promptly took it back, leaving Fyre Media without a venue for their festival just months before guests were due to arrive. [Netflix]

16. Chuck Schumer's press secretary is somehow involved.

In a blink-and-you-miss-it moment in Fyre, Sen. Chuck Schumer's (D-N.Y.) press secretary, Angelo Roefaro, turns up in Billy McFarland's penthouse after the Fyre Festival disaster has gone down. It isn't clear what Roefaro's role is in McFarland's life — it is suggested he might be helping with PR — but the whole thing is a strange and unexpected twist in the whole fiasco. [Netflix]

15. The organizers used the fact that nobody got murdered as proof the festival wasn't a total disaster.

During a triage meeting with Fyre staff after the festival, Fyre's chief management officer, Grant Margolin, tried to calm people down by pointing out that "nobody got murdered" at the festival. Hey, always look on the bright side! [Netflix]

14. "For three days, you can become Pablo Escobar."

Part of the appeal of attending Fyre Festival was that guests were promised a chance to party on Pablo Escobar's private island. Not everyone was so sure about that marketing angle — as one person observed in Fyre Fraud, "Pablo Escobar is actually, like, a criminal who's murdered people brutally." Fair point. [Netflix & Hulu]

13. McFarland spelled "Magnisis" wrong.

Before there was Fyre, there was Magnisis, an exclusive credit card company for Millennials. Magnisis was part of what put McFarland on the map as an entrepreneur, but as he admits in Fyre Fraud, the word's first two syllables should have been spelled "M-a-g-n-e-s," not "M-a-g-n-i-s." Whoops. [Hulu]

12. Grant Margolin sent out a 1,000-word email about how the Fyre ad should be scored.

In an illustration of just how out-of-touch Fyre's leadership was, Fyre Fraud describes a nearly 1,000-word email that Margolin wrote in order to lay out his vision for the musical score for the Fyre Festival commercial. The email contains phrases like "odd meters" and "compound time signatures" and "Tiko drums (especially during more exploratory elements)." Suuure. [Hulu]

11. Fyre Festival organizers accuse locals of putting hits out on them.

One of the actual tragedies of the Fyre Festival were the workers who didn't get paid for trying to complete McFarland's delusional vision. But in Fyre, some of the festival organizers accuse Bahamans of trying to take matters into their own hands: "After the locals realized they weren't going to get paid, some of them started putting hits out on people," consultant Marc Weinstein said, "either to take them hostage and then get ransom, or just to hurt and injure." Event producer Andy King said he had to hide behind a urinal and then duck into a car in order to get away from the festival property. [Netflix]

10. Blink-182 pulled out and no one cared.

One of the funniest — if unremarked-upon — moments in both documentaries is how no guests especially seemed to care about the bands booked to play Fyre Festival. Most tellingly, everyone interviewed shrugged off the fact that headliner Blink-182 pulled out of the festival right on the eve of their performance. "[The band's] reasoning wasn't anything like, 'don't go, it's a disaster,'" one attendee told Fyre. "It was just like, 'We don't think we can put on the show that our fans would deserve.' And I've never been to a Blink-182 concert, so I don't even know what that means. So we were like, you know, it'll be fine." [Netflix & Hulu]

9. "No one is eating so therefore no one's pooping ..."

Both documentaries emphasize that plumbing was a major issue for Fyre Festival; there were just going to be too many people for the island's infrastructure to handle. One internal email meant to calm concerns suggested that the plumbing issue wouldn't be a big deal because "no one is eating, so therefore no one's pooping." Okay! [Hulu]

8. McFarland's first scam was in second grade.

In Fyre Fraud, McFarland brags that his first experience with marketing and technology was in second grade, when he ran a crayon-fixing operation. McFarland allegedly told his classmates that he would "fix" their broken crayons for a dollar a pop. [Hulu]

7. One festival attendee admitted to destroying all the tents around his own so that he wouldn't have any neighbors.

One of the Fyre Festival attendees interviewed by Fyre explained the utter chaos that broke out when guests were sent to pick out their tents. "Our strategy [to avoid having neighbors] was to sort of ransack all the tents around us," the guest said. "I just started poking holes and flipping mattresses, and my buddy pissed on a few of the beds." They sound like swell guys. [Netflix]

6. Fyre Festival's social media team began censoring the word "festival" in the comments on its accounts.

As guests started to express concerns about the Fyre Festival's organization, the event's social media team began deleting "negative" words and phrases. At a certain point, it got so bad the social media staff were apparently even blocking the word "festival." [Hulu]

5. McFarland lost a box of keys to $2 million worth of houses.

In the midst of the Fyre Festival going up in flames, McFarland admitted to losing a box of keys to more than $2 million worth of houses that elite guests were supposed to stay in. You know, as one does. [Hulu]

4. A Bahaman woman used $50,000 of her own savings to pay her workers when Fyre wouldn't.

One of the most heartbreaking scenes in Fyre is when MaryAnn Rolle, the owner of a bar-restaurant used by the Fyre Festival in the Bahamas, says she was forced to drain her own savings account to pay her workers after the Fyre team abandoned them. Rolle tearfully describes how "hurt" she is by Fyre, which owed her team some $50,000 when the organizers fled the island. [Netflix]

3. McFarland launched a new scam ... while on bail.

Truly one of the most baffling parts of the Fyre Festival story is that Billy McFarland launched a new scam while on bail for fraud related to Fyre. Running the operation through a proxy, McFarland started NYC VIP Access, which promised impossibly exclusive tickets to people on the former Fyre Festival mailing list. The worst part? Court filings indicate that 15 people gave him over $100,000 for such nonexistent tickets. [Netflix]

2. The random pilot who taught himself how to fly using Microsoft flight simulator.

Keith van der Linde was brought on by the festival to help with organization and was eventually fired for making too much sense. But one of the stranger parts of Fyre is when he admits to teaching himself how to fly his airplane using a video game. "As we're about to take off he's like, 'yeah, I bought this plane six months ago, I just got my license,'" recalled Brett Kincaid, who directed the Fyre Festival ad. "Once we were in the air I was like, 'What is he going to do?' He was like, pulling off the runway and just going straight up into the thing and killing the engine." No one ever said the Fyre Festival was boring! [Netflix]

1. The water retrieval story.

If you have seen Fyre, you know exactly what I'm talking about. The most cringe-inducing story to come out of either Fyre Festival documentary happened just before the festival was set to begin. Four 18-wheeler trucks full of water for Fyre guests had been seized by Bahaman customs over an unpaid $175,000 import fee. But Billy McFarland and his team were already drowning in debt. "Billy called," event producer Andy King recalled, "and said 'Andy, we need you to take one big thing for the team ... you're our wonderful gay leader ... will you suck d--k to fix this water problem?" King said he was shocked by the request, but got in his car to drive down to perform oral sex on the Bahaman head of customs in order to get the water back. "I got to [the custom chief's] office, fully prepared to suck his d--k, but he couldn't have been nicer," King said. The customs chief told King he would release the water on the condition that he be one of the first people Fyre eventually paid back. [Netflix]