What happened

The Senate on Wednesday voted down a war powers resolution that would have limited President Donald Trump’s ability to continue waging his war in Iran without congressional authorization. The 47-53 vote was mostly along party lines, with bill co-sponsor Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.) the only Republican to vote yes and Sen. John Fetterman (Pa.) the only Democrat to vote no. “This essentially is the vote whether to go to war or not,” Paul told reporters.

Who said what

Democrats had “implored a handful of Republicans to break with their party” and “reassert Congress’s control over declaring war,” The Washington Post said. But Republicans “argued that ordering the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war days after it started would send the wrong message,” even if they had reservations.

This was the eighth war powers resolution that GOP leaders “have successfully, though narrowly, defeated” since Trump returned to office last year, The Associated Press said. “This one, however, was different,” forcing lawmakers to “take a stand” on a deadly and “open-ended conflict that is already ricocheting across the region.”

The resolution’s defeat “should be bone-chilling to the American people who thought that we were done with feckless, poorly run ground wars in the Middle East,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told reporters. “Six Americans have already died for an illegal war that nobody wants. The region is in chaos. American consumers are paying the price. And for what? We still don’t even know the reason for this war.”

What next?

A similar war powers resolution is “expected to get a vote in the House” Thursday, The Wall Street Journal said, and “it, too, is expected to fail, with few Republicans expected to buck the Trump administration.” In another “flashpoint for Capitol Hill,” Politico said, Trump is “expected to submit a request” for an additional “tens of billions of dollars” to “cover the costs of heavy military operations in the Middle East.” Democrats expected to lose the “symbolic” war powers votes, Axios said, but “they’re preparing for a bigger fight over the war’s funding” that “will be less predictable but more consequential.”

Donald Trump has said his administration is “reviewing everything” after an intensive-care nurse was shot dead by Ice agents in Minneapolis on Saturday.

The US president’s advisers have been discussing his “aggressive deportation policies” for weeks, said The Wall Street Journal, but the shooting of Alex Pretti has “brought new urgency to those conversations”. Some of Trump’s aides see the “increasingly volatile situation” in Minneapolis as a “political liability, even as the White House has publicly doubled down on its operations”.

What did the commentators say?

Federal agents have not only killed a US citizen “like authoritarian thugs”, said Zack Beauchamp on Vox, but “their superiors in Washington justified that killing with the kind of bald-faced lie that recalls Tehran and Moscow”.

Trump’s “sycophantic lieutenants” reacted to the shooting “with characteristic mendacity”, said Simon Marks in The i Paper. Officials described the 37-year-old nurse as a “domestic terrorist” and, despite video evidence and witness testimony to the contrary, said the federal agents acted in self-defence in the middle of an “armed struggle”. These brazen attempts to blacken Pretti’s memory, coming so soon after the shooting of Renee Good, “may serve as a turning point that sparks mass resistance towards the President and the thuggish regime that he leads”.

“Your eyes don’t lie,” Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar told NBC. The contrast between what administration officials have claimed and what millions of Americans have seen on their phones this past weekend could be “crucial” in emboldening Trump’s “Congressional critics to confront him”, said Susan Page on USA Today.

Democrats, and even some staunch Republican supporters of the president, have called for an independent investigation into the shooting. Some have indicated they would block a funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security until restrictions on Ice operations are put into place. This could lead to a stand-off in Congress or even another government shutdown – something the Trump administration is keen to avoid.

In this fight, “Democrats will prevail if they focus on a narrow set of reasonable demands”, while the president “will gain the upper hand if the left clamours for abolishing Ice” altogether, said The Washington Post editorial board.

What next?

Today, Trump sent his Border Czar, Tom Homan, to Minnesota. He had previously threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act and flood Minneapolis with even more military force but he seemed to change course late on Sunday. Such a “violent approach” is “unlikely to succeed in a country like the US”, said Beauchamp on Vox. Its domestic security forces “are not equipped for the level of extreme brutality necessary to make it work in the face of growing public outrage”.

“How Trump responds to the democratic outpouring” on Minnesota’s streets and to the “growing unease” even in his own party “will determine just how dark and brutal the next few months will be”.

What happened

Lindsey Halligan, the White House aide installed as U.S. attorney in Virginia to prosecute President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies, stepped down Tuesday night amid growing pressure from federal judges. One judge in the Eastern District of Virginia on Tuesday threatened disciplinary action against Halligan or any other federal lawyer who referred to her as U.S. attorney in court filings, while the district’s chief judge declared the position “vacant” in a posting for Halligan’s replacement.

Who said what

Halligan’s exit “ended a bizarre monthslong standoff” during which federal judges repeatedly pressed her to “explain why she continues to identify herself” as the U.S. attorney “despite a ruling in November that she had been unlawfully appointed to the job,” The New York Times said. “This charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this district in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end,” U.S. District Judge David Novak, a Trump appointee, said in an order Tuesday.

The “pair of extraordinary moves” by Novak and Chief Judge M. Hannah Lauck “signaled a breaking point for the federal bench” in Virginia over Halligan’s 120-day tenure, The Washington Post said. It also “intensified a battle playing out nationwide” over Trump’s efforts to install loyalists to back-to-back temporary positions as U.S. attorney without Senate confirmation. Halligan was the third such Trump-appointed acting U.S. attorney to step down, following Alina Habba in New Jersey and Julianne Murray in Delaware last month.

What next?

It isn’t clear who will replace Halligan. Tuesday’s moves suggest the district’s judges plan to “select a temporary replacement,” as allowed under federal law, the Times said. But “it is likely that the president would try to fire that person and put his own choice — possibly Ms. Halligan — back in the job.”

What happened

The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a Democratic proposal to resurrect expired Affordable Care Act subsidies for three years. Seventeen “renegade GOP lawmakers joined every Democrat” in the 230-196 vote, The Associated Press said, significantly more than the four Republicans who helped force the bill onto the floor by signing a discharge petition last month. “The GOP revolt was bigger than anticipated,” Politico said, “and a stunning rebuke” to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and President Donald Trump.

In a further blow to Trump, the Senate advanced a measure that would block further military action in Venezuela, with five Republicans joining all Democrats. And the chamber also agreed to install a plaque honoring the police officers who protected the Capitol from a Trump-inspired mob on Jan. 6, 2021, in a unanimous vote two days after Trump’s White House published a revisionist history blaming the attack on law enforcement and Democrats.

Who said what

The “dramatic” House GOP revolt on ACA credits was “driven by concerns about spiking health care costs in an election year dominated by affordability concerns,” Axios said. The bill “has no path to enactment” through the GOP-led Senate, The New York Times said, but the “largely symbolic vote” could “bring fresh momentum to bipartisan efforts to find a compromise on health care costs” and the ACA subsidies, which ended Jan. 1.

Taken together, Thursday’s votes showed that “Trump’s honeymoon with the Republican Congress is officially over,” Semafor said. He was “apoplectic” at the five Republicans who supported the Venezuela resolution, urging voters to defeat them in future elections. “Lawmakers voting against their party’s president is common in midterm election years,” The Washington Post said, but the “repeated rebukes” of Trump, “and the number of lawmakers defecting, are unusual.”

What next?

The Senate will have a final vote next week on Sen. Tim Kaine’s (D-Va.) Venezuela war powers resolution. The House is scheduled to vote next week on GOP legislation to codify Trump’s push for more powerful showerheads. The Shower Act was “poised to be the first bill passed by the House this year,” the Post said, but “congressional leadership bumped it to next week” due to the ACA vote.

Charlie Kirk, the political activist who was assassinated on a university campus in Utah last week, grew up in a moderate conservative household in an affluent suburb of Chicago. His father was an architect, his mother a mental health counsellor. But in his teens, he started to listen to the right-wing shock jock Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, and was captivated by his reactionary tirades, said The Telegraph.

Before leaving school, he had had an opinion piece published by the right-wing news site Breitbart, deploring the focus on left-wing views in school economics textbooks (he had himself been devouring the works of Milton Friedman), which led to appearances on Fox News and meetings with high-profile Republicans.

‘Prove me wrong’

He was only 18 when he dropped out of community college and co-founded Turning Point USA, a movement to combat the dominant liberal culture on US campuses. Touring colleges across the US, Kirk would invite all-comers to debate with him at “prove me wrong” events. A fluent speaker, who was formidably well read and blessed with a prodigious memory for facts, figures and arguments, he would often “win” these encounters. But his real influence came from his online presence: video clips of his campus events racked up millions of views on social media. Turning Point’s revenues started to rise (to $82 million in 2023), and Donald Trump Jr hired him as a media adviser for his father’s campaign in 2016.

Kirk became close to Donald Trump and kept backing him following his defeat in 2020 – promoting the conspiracy theory that the election had been “stolen”. Ahead of the 2024 election, he mobilised Turning Point’s many supporters to get out the youth vote in key states, and held huge right-wing conventions with light shows, music and pyrotechnics that drew tens of thousands of young people.

Standard bearer of Christian right

Seen as a standard bearer of religious values by many on the Christian nationalist right, he was anti-abortion and pro-gun ownership. Over time, his views on a range of issues seemed to become more extreme, said The Times. He urged students to monitor and expose lecturers who advanced “Leftist propaganda”; he promoted unscientific Covid treatments during the pandemic; he claimed that George Floyd had died of a drug overdose, not as a result of having his neck compressed by the police officer kneeling on it; and he accused liberal “Jewish communities” of “pushing hatred against whites”. Recently, he’d greeted the news of the singer Taylor Swift’s engagement by telling her: “Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.”

He is survived by his wife Erika, a former Miss Arizona, and their two young children.

President Donald Trump has traveled a lot since retaking office, but unlike the rallies that characterized his first term, Trump has largely used his time away from Washington, D.C., to hang out at sporting events. Trump’s second term has seen him attend the most recent iterations of the Super Bowl, Daytona 500, FIFA Club World Cup and the U.S. Open, as well as several UFC fights.

As with almost everywhere he goes, Trump has been met at these events with a mix of boos and cheers (ABC and ESPN were reportedly asked to mute the booing at the U.S. Open but declined to do so). Some feel that his attendance at these events has less to do with sports and more to do with politics.

What did the commentators say?

Trump’s idea behind going to the sporting events is a “strategy as old as human civilization,” said Kara Alaimo, a communications professor at Farleigh Dickinson University, to CNN. In Ancient Rome, leaders would host gladiator tournaments to “keep the people entertained and keep their focus off of what their government was doing.”

This type of strategy is “helpful for Trump because it’s keeping the spotlight off of two big things,” Alaimo said to CNN. The first is the “problems that Americans are facing,” and the second is that “so many Americans disagree with the policies that Trump has proposed or is pursuing.”

This could also be part of a ploy to gain more control over American institutions, experts say. As president, Trump has “asserted his dominance over politics, higher education and corporations,” and sports is “another venue he is trying to influence,” said The Boston Globe. While “most presidents have tried to use sports to unite a divided nation, he uses them to press a political advantage,” Tom Knecht, a political science professor at Westmont College, told the Globe.

Trump is “much more partisan in his approach to politics, and he is also much more willing to try to use the power of the White House to accomplish actual changes in the sporting world,” Knecht told the Globe. This presidential affinity for sports isn’t new, as “notable presidential involvement in American sports dates back to at least 1905."

But unlike prior presidents, Trump himself “loves being part of the professional sports world,” said The Athletic. He “seems intent on being America’s Commander in Chief of Sports, imposing his worldview on an area of society that has heretofore resisted such efforts.”

What next?

Trump will continue to attend sporting events; the president has claimed he will be in attendance for the Ryder Cup golf tournament in New York in September. This is unsurprising given that golf is the game Trump is most associated with. Bryson DeChambeau, a golfer who has previously played with Trump, was also “appointed to the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition,” said CNN, among a slew of other athletes.

Trump is also bringing sports to him: The president has teamed with UFC head Dana White to host a UFC match at the White House in 2026. The event will be a “mixed martial arts throwdown to be watched by thousands of spectators” with “fighter weigh-ins and a press conference” at the Lincoln Memorial, said The Wall Street Journal. Smaller sporting events have been hosted at the White House, but “nothing, though, approaches the scale Trump is attempting.”

The Democratic Party is in trouble. A new poll shows a record share of voters view the party unfavorably, leaving party leaders scrambling to figure out how to broaden their brand's appeal.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans have an "unfavorable view" of Democrats, said The Wall Street Journal, which commissioned the poll. That is the "highest share" of negative ratings for a political party in the paper's surveys going all the way back to 1990. Democrats hoping for a "voter backlash against the president" ahead of next year's midterm elections have a long way to go to persuade the public "they can do a better job" than the GOP. Republicans do not come off well, either — the poll shows the public dislikes President Donald Trump's "handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and foreign policy." But Democrats "don't have the credibility to be a critic of Trump" or the GOP, said Democratic pollster John Anzalone.

'Hit rock bottom'

Democrats have "hit rock bottom," said Nick Catoggio at The Dispatch. Despite all the terrible events that have happened in America since 1990, "at no point" have voters disliked a party as much as they do Democrats at this moment. It is possible that voters will "come around." But the Journal's poll shows that Republicans get higher marks than Democrats even on "issues on which Trump receives bad marks." That looks like a "catastrophic decline in confidence in the left's basic ability to govern."

Democrats "express much less warmth" toward their own leaders than Republicans, said Philip Bump on his website. It is no coincidence that the "most vibrant expressions of opposition" to Trump come from figures like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who "sit at a distance from the party." If party leadership continues to stumble, Democratic candidates should "run against or apart from the party as much as possible."

"These are some tough numbers for Democrats," said G. Elliott Morris at Strength in Numbers. There is a bright spot: The same poll also shows that Democrats have a three-point advantage in the "generic congressional ballot," which measures which party voters would want to represent them if the election were held today. That seemingly slim lead "would be large enough for the Democrats to win somewhere around 230-235 seats" in the House.

'Nobody's voting on anything'

There is a "silver lining" for Democrats, said Jim Geraghty at The Washington Post. "If you're going to be unpopular, do it when almost nobody's voting on anything." There are a "handful" of special elections for the House of Representatives this year, but there is still more than a year to go before the 2026 midterm elections. The Journal's poll may be "ominous," but at the moment, "it doesn't count for anything."

"Democrats don't need to be popular," said Ed Kilgore at New Yorkmagazine . Right now, the party's candidates are favored to win "most of the competitive off-year races in 2025, including the New Jersey and Virginia governorships." If Democrats win a few elections, "that will take care of most of their morale problems."

President Donald Trump has been at the center of ethics concerns going all the way back to his 2016 candidacy, largely as a result of his strong business ties that critics say could represent significant conflicts of interest. These conflicts, many of which have to do with his Middle East dealings, have continued to cast a shadow over his presidency amid his second term in the White House.

Middle East dealings

The Trump Organization has long had ties to Middle Eastern nations. The company made several business deals in the region during Trump's first term and Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, inked a $2 billion investment with the Saudi crown prince after leaving the White House. But in his second term as president, any "past conflict-of-interest concerns about Trump seem petty, as he strikes deals with Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds and members of the ruling families of the Arab world," said Mother Jones.

In one notable instance, Trump's son Eric "signed a deal with representatives from a Saudi real estate development firm, reputed to have links to the Saudi royal family, to build a Trump-branded resort just north of Doha, Qatar," said Mother Jones. But this is just one of a slew of connections the Trump Organization has to Middle Eastern deals. The president's sons have been "crisscrossing the Middle East, laying the groundwork for deals that will benefit the company and, in some instances, Trump himself," said The Washington Post. Trump has also "declined to duplicate his first-term pledge to not advance his personal business interests from the White House."

One of the most visible Middle East conflicts relates to Trump's plan to accept a $400 million plane from Qatar to be used as the next Air Force One. Accepting the plane could "violate the Constitution's Emoluments Clause, which bars any U.S. official from accepting 'any present' of 'any kind whatsoever, from any king, prince or foreign state,'" said USA Today. Democrats and Republicans expressed concern over the plane given Qatar's alleged ties to state-sponsored terrorism. The deal "strikes me as being rife with political espionage, ethical and constitutional problems,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told CNBC.

Cryptocurrency

Trump has frequently been accused by his opponents of using the presidency for financial gain, and this has only ramped up in his second term with the advent of Trump-branded cryptocurrency. Trump launched a pair of crypto coins named after himself and first lady Melania Trump, and experts say the "tokens provide a way for foreign buyers to curry favor, as Trump-affiliated companies owned 80% of all stock and stand to benefit when the price rises," said Reuters.

In the first two weeks following its debut, Trump's crypto coin alone brought in $100 million in fees, Reuters reported. Trump also has a 60% stake in a crypto platform called World Liberty Financial. Using these crypto channels, there is "virtually no cap on the amount of money a person or government could funnel to the president, his family and the growing list of entities they control," said CNN.

Presidents "giving access to campaign donors is nothing new," but crypto "offers a level of anonymity and scale that the White House has never seen," said CNN. Even while Trump and his administration have downplayed the conflicts with his crypto brand, many "crypto advocates on the right aren't loving the optics of a president directly enriching himself and his family through an industry" that he is "actively working to deregulate."

Real estate

The Trump Organization has continued to pursue real estate deals throughout both of Trump's terms, including the aforementioned Trump resort deal in Qatar. Several of these deals "have connections to foreign governments in the Middle East," which is "raising concerns that Mr. Trump's financial interests could influence foreign policy," said The New York Times.

This includes deals in India, Saudi Arabia, Oman, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam, among others. Many of these are branding plays in which the Trump Organization "sells its name to international developers that build residential and resort complexes and sell luxury units at a premium, they hope, based on Trump's perceived star power," said the Times. Trump's plan to take control of Gaza and turn it into the "Riviera of the Middle East" has also generated significant controversy.

Beyond his new buildings, potential conflicts have also erupted due to how Trump has used his existing properties during his presidency. The office of the president "provides Trump with an unlimited marketing platform to promote his properties," said the left-leaning watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). During interviews, Trump "finds or manufactures opportunities to shower his hotels, resorts and golf courses with praise and uses his influence to drive business to his properties." Trump often visits these locations himself, and his "near-constant presence at properties that he owns and profits from signals to those looking to influence him and his administration that they should follow suit."

Trump products

From Trump Steaks to a shuttered airline, the president has tried to sell dozens of products with his name on them over the years. But as president, these types of MAGA-aligned products "illustrate just how closely Trump's personal business interests are entwined with his politics," said CNN. This includes everything from urging his followers to "buy limited edition guitars that bear his signature and Trump-themed fragrances that 'represent winning,'" to an $899 "limited-edition" Trump inaugural watch.

The "opaque structure of the companies that produce these items could create fresh conflicts of interest for Trump — with few public details about who Trump is in business with and how much he profits," said ABC News. There is some publicly available information about his crypto business, but when it comes to his merchandise, he has undergone an "unprecedented effort to commoditize his political platform." And when it comes to any products not on his official website, the "external companies that Trump licenses to sell his other items aren't subject to oversight."

Personal financial gain

Trump has maintained that he does not have any conflicts of interest as president. But he has "drawn scrutiny in Washington" from "political opponents and even some allies, who point out that the president has not divested from the Trump Organization and continues to profit from — and personally promote — these business ventures in his second term," said NBC News.

The exact amount of money Trump has personally made in his second term is unclear. In just the first month after his return to the White House, Trump's ventures netted him about $80 million, according to The Wall Street Journal, largely due to a $40 million deal with Amazon to produce a Melania Trump documentary. And thanks to his merchandising, along with a massive boost from his crypto coins, Trump has "more than doubled his estimated fortune, from $2.3 billion to $5.1 billion," said Forbes.

While there is an Office of Government Ethics whose job it is to investigate these types of conflicts, the "Trump administration has really been putting those systems under stress or just outright ignoring them," Eric Petry, a counsel for the Brennan Center's Elections and Government Program, said to Vox. Within the "executive branch, some of the tools that we typically look to to police conflicts are not going to be effective. It's a real problem that federal conflicts of interest laws don't apply to the president and vice president."

Nestled deep within Republicans' massive budget reconciliation bill, unveiled this week, is a surprising measure advocates say is necessary to ensure American dominance in the growing field of artificial intelligence. The bill is designed to capitalize on the GOP's congressional majorities with provisions aimed at scaling back Medicaid and other conservative policy priorities. But it would also enact a full moratorium on any state-level AI regulation for the 10 years following the bill's enactment.

Supporters argue the measure aligns with the Trump administration's focus on American AI leadership. However, critics contend that the proposed legislation would allow a predatory tech industry to run roughshod over local efforts to grapple with the challenges of the still-developing field.

What did the commentators say?

The focus on state-level AI laws comes as AI regulation at the federal level "remains in limbo," The Hill said, leaving state legislatures to consider "nearly 700 AI bills" last year alone. "It's very difficult to imagine us figuring out how to comply with 50 different sets of regulation," said OpenAI CEO Sam Altman at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing last week.

That patchwork of local legislation, Altman insisted, would "slow us down at a time when I don't think it's in anyone's interest for us to slow down." A "web of inconsistent laws" will "fragment national policy, delay innovation" and "create legal and technical barriers to scaling AI systems across state lines," said Center for Data Innovation director Daniel Castro.

But by establishing the federal government as the "sole regulator for U.S. tech firms in a booming industry," critics say, the bill represents a "giveaway" to an industry that will "enable harmful and discriminatory uses of the emerging technology," said The Washington Post. The push for reduced local regulatory authority "also stands in contrast to Republicans' advocacy of states' rights in education and abortion policies."

The language of the proposed legislation is "broad enough to cover relatively new generative AI tools," said Emanuel Maiberg at 404 Media, while still applying to "technology that has existed for much longer." The result will be that it will become "impossible to enforce" laws designed to "protect people from and inform them about AI systems." Ten years of deregulation "isn't a path forward," said AI researcher Gary Marcus in an open letter signed by multiple state lawmakers. "It's an abdication of responsibility." The measure would be "deeply problematic under any circumstance," Marcus said, but it's "especially dangerous" given the way AI is already disrupting health, education, employment and other fields.

States have "quietly become the front line" in the tech regulation effort, said NYU Center on Technology policy director Scott Brennen and NYU Center for Social Media & Politics executive director Zeve Sanderson at the Post. Congress, meanwhile, has "puttered, backtracked and ultimately produced little AI regulation" and will "undermine the only concerted legislative effort aimed at balancing AI's myriad risks and benefits" without offering a solution of its own.

What next?

A state-level push for AI regulation may ultimately "force Washington to move," said the Financial Times — particularly as "some members of the MAGA crowd support a more interventionist approach." When even "anti-regulation evangelist" Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who cosponsored the bipartisan Take It Down Act to address AI-generated sexual imagery, has accepted the "necessity to act in certain cases," some form of AI regulation will likely be inevitable. This will lead to "strange alliances and unpredictable zigzags along the way."

As part of a reconciliation bill, the proposed limits on AI regulations cannot be filibustered, which could "ease their path to passage" in the broader legislation, said the Post. If the entire bill passes, the logic of including AI regulation in a bill ostensibly restricted to budgetary issues will "face scrutiny from the Senate parliamentarian."

Republicans have never been known for their eagerness to raise taxes on high-income earners. So it is notable that GOP officials, including President Donald Trump, have in recent weeks openly contemplated the possibility of taxing the rich.

Trump last week asked House Speaker Mike Johnson to "include a tax hike on rich Americans" as part of a big new fiscal bill, said The New York Times. The proposal would create a new tax bracket for households making more than $2.5 million a year, charging income above that rate at 39.6%. But the president has gone back and forth on the issue, also sounding a note of caution, said CNN. "Republicans should probably not do it," Trump wrote on Truth Social, "but I'm OK if they do!!!"

That Republicans are even considering such a possibility is a "curveball for the ages," said Slate. The usual cycle of power is that "Republicans take power and cut the top rate," while Democrats "come in and raise it back." If a GOP-controlled Congress approved higher taxes on wealthy earners, it could scramble American politics by "stifling one of Democrats' central critiques of Republican governance."

What did the commentators say?

"Raising taxes on the wealthy shouldn't be Republican heresy," said Charles Lane at The Free Press. The idea has heightened the divide between anti-tax traditionalists like Grover Norquist and MAGA populists like Steve Bannon. Trump is waffling "between what he thinks is good policy and good politics." But a tax hike for the rich would be a "significant new step toward rebranding the Republicans as the party of the working class."

Don't be fooled. GOP politicians "promise to raise taxes on the rich routinely," said Jonathan Chait at The Atlantic. Trump made the promise "many times" during the 2016 campaign but never followed through during his first term. Republicans understand that "reducing taxes for the affluent is unpopular," so they "obscure their intentions." In truth, low taxes are the "force that holds Trump's coalition together." The president might entertain the possibility in public, "but you can bet your last dollar it won't happen."

What next?

There is skepticism among Republicans who have spent their careers opposing tax increases of any kind, said Axios. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) said he is "not excited about the proposal" but added that Trump's backing may force the issue. The president's support would be a "big factor that we have to take into consideration," Crapo said.

The tax hike would affect "pass-through businesses" in which earnings are reported on the owners' individual forms and "are subject to the individual income tax," said MarketWatch. One analysis found that 90% of American businesses are organized as pass-throughs. But other experts say the effect of the proposed hike would be minimal, said Axios. Only about "about 0.1% to 0.2%" of taxpayers would be affected, though that would include "jumbo paychecks" earned by "high-paid doctors, some professional athletes and executives."

Despite President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariffs causing economic calamity and potential harm to millions of Americans, his congressional backers remain in the White House's corner. But some Republican lawmakers are beginning to cautiously speak out.

What did the commentators say?

Republican lawmakers have expressed "varying degrees of shock and alarm" at the "scale" of Trump's sweeping global tariffs, The Hill said. Many of Trump's latest tariffs have been "met with skepticism from even his strongest allies on Capitol Hill," including Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Worried about a "brutal week ahead," a "growing number" of Republican lawmakers are joining bills designed to "rebuke Trump's tariff strategy," said Politico. There is a brewing "backlash" among a "handful of Republicans in Congress, former Trump administration officials, conservative activists and other prominent supporters," said USA Today.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a "right-wing firebrand from a deep red state," has been "raking in surprising praise from his Democratic colleagues" for pushing back on Trump's apparent "overreach" into Congress' constitutionally allotted power of the purse, The Washington Post said. Nascent congressional efforts to curtail Trump's budgetary infringement are, meanwhile, a "win-win situation" for Democrats, said James Downie at MSNBC. If Republicans block those bills, Democrats can "hang those votes around GOP necks next fall." Conversely, if those votes "make GOP defections from Trump even a little regular," it threatens the narrow GOP majority's ability to govern entirely.

Already "unpopular with the American public in general," Trump's tariffs are "even more unpopular" with the 2024 voters who helped secure his electoral victory, said Vox. A "stark divide is emerging" between Trump's "core base" of MAGA voters and the "less ideological, more diverse (albeit smaller) group of Republican voters" who propelled Trump into office but don't consider themselves "MAGA-aligned." That divide has expanded to include the GOP's funding mechanism, as well: "I don't know if I would be this worried about what will happen to the economy if Bernie f---ing Sanders were president," said one "big Trump and Republican Party donor" to Rolling Stone. But, the donor said, "I am not willing to go public yet."

What next?

For many Republicans, Trump's tariffs are a "risk like no other," said The New York Times. If the "economic fallout" from these market-roiling measures is "bad enough," leading to previously safe red states looking "plausibly competitive" ahead of the midterms, GOP support for Trump "could be in jeopardy." Trump's tariffs are like a "long ball deep into the end zone," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on his "Verdict" podcast this week. If the lasting impact is a "bad recession," then the 2026 midterms "in all likelihood politically, would be a bloodbath" for Republicans.

For now, however, GOP defections from Trump's tariff agenda are relatively rare. "If Republican members start drifting away from supporting President Trump," said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) to Politico, "everybody gets weaker." House Republicans are "going to give" Trump the "space necessary to do it," said Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to reporters. "We'll see how it all develops."

Donald Trump may be president, but ever since Inauguration Day, it has been Elon Musk who's seemingly held the power of the federal government in the palm of his hand. As a leader of this administration's DOGE effort, Musk has directed the dismantling of major government agencies and initiatives. While Trump is the one granted constitutional authority, Musk has often seemed more interested in actually wielding executive power — at least until now.

"At some point," Trump told reporters on Monday, Musk is "going to be going back" to run his various companies, including the financially struggling Tesla car manufacturers in which the majority of his vast fortune is tied. "He wants to." A day later, Wisconsin voters delivered a stinging rebuke to Musk, decisively voting against the conservative Supreme Court candidate he had backed. This defeat was quickly followed by a Politico report that Trump had begun forecasting Musk's imminent departure to his inner circle, predicting it could take place "in the coming weeks."

What did the commentators say?

Musk's DOGE enterprise was "never supposed to become a permanent fixture in Washington," said The Associated Press. Musk had initially been hired as a "temporary government employee," a congressionally created position that allows both executive and legislative branches to hire workers for "specific short-term initiatives" up to 130 days, said Fox News. DOGE itself is slated to be "dissolved" on July 4, 2026, "according to Trump's executive order."

Nevertheless, Musk's work appears to be concluding "faster than anticipated," said the AP, and Musk has offered differing timelines for his potential exit. The world's richest man recently said he was "confident" he'd be able to "finish most of his stated aim of cutting $1 trillion in federal spending" before May, when his official governmental status is slated to end, Reuters said. But when asked by Fox Business' Larry Kudlow last month whether he planned "to go another year," Musk said, "Yeah, I think so."

Trump, too, has denied Politico's report, despite having offered a similar sentiment just days earlier. The "murkiness" of Musk's potential departure, including the possibility that he may simply "downgrade his public involvement" in the Trump administration, is "typical for a president who hates to be boxed in or give his critics validation," said Time.

Rumors of Musk's chronologically nebulous departure come amid a "parade of humiliation for the world's richest edgelord" due to the Wisconsin Supreme Court election and sinking Tesla sales, CNN said. "The question," said The Washington Post, is whether the GOP's Wisconsin loss could be the "beginning of a bigger loss of influence" for Musk within the White House. It's unclear whether the episode will "sour the relationship between him and Trump," said Barry Burden, the director of the University of Wisconsin's Elections Research Center, to the Post. While Trump has steadfastly supported the man many consider his de facto co-president, the recent election loss "could be the start of a slow divorce between the two of them."

What's next?

Musk's governmental role is "one factor weighing on Tesla's stock," CNBC said. Politico's report on the CEO's pending departure from the administration was enough to push the company's stock "more than 5% higher" shortly after it was published, as investors hoped the move would allow Musk to "return his focus on the struggling electric vehicle maker."

Conversely, Musk's presence in Washington has been a "colossal distraction and a magnet for controversy" among "what should be a unified Republican team," said Time. "Traditional Republicans have been counting on" Musk to follow Trump's penchant for ignominious dismissals. But even if Musk is encouraged to "play a lower-profile role" in the White House, said The Wall Street Journal, "that may not be an easy sell to a flamboyant billionaire."

Despite all the ambiguities surrounding the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency effort, there is little doubt that the Elon Musk-helmed enterprise is among the most consequential features of President Donald Trump's second term so far. Largely undeterred by various legal attempts at constraint, Musk and company have pushed ahead with DOGE's campaign promise of a slash-and-burn rampage through the federal government.

Democratic lawmakers have scrambled to form a coherent bulwark of opposition, but lately, a new line of DOGE criticism has emerged from an unlikely source: Republican lawmakers who have begun cautiously raising concerns about how the program is affecting their home districts and constituents.

What did the commentators say?

Capitol Hill conservatives are "growing unnerved" by a sense that DOGE is an "imprecise exercise," said Axios, as "job and funding cuts are now hitting GOP lawmakers' districts and states." All this is occurring amid a "larger conflict" over the White House's legal authority to "bypass Congress on these decisions." While most Republican lawmakers are opting for a "quieter approach" rather than frontal criticisms of Musk and the Trump administration, their anxieties "underscore the clash between shrinking government and parochial interests," said CBS News.

"Congress can't do anything except complain about it," said Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley during a press call this week. The comment was a "stark admission" that there is "little the GOP might be able or willing to do" despite party members' growing "discomfort" over DOGE's impact and effects, Politico said.

It's "far from a full-fledged GOP mutiny," said U.S. News & World Report. The "overwhelming majority" of Republican lawmakers have either cheered or "ducked questions" about DOGE's work. One move that has received particular pushback from Republicans is the limiting of National Institute of Health grants. Those caps are "poorly conceived," said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), and should instead be a "smart, targeted approach" so as to "not hinder life-saving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions," said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.).

Republicans are "particularly uneasy" with how DOGE's cuts have affected veterans who have been "disproportionately affected" by the group's expansive layoffs, Politico said. And this past week a "coalition" of New York Republican lawmakers offered a "rare sign of pushback" against the White House over cuts to the World Trade Center Health Program, which oversees aid for emergency workers who have been medically affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The New York Times said. Although the conservative lawmakers' reactions began as "more muted" than that of their Democratic colleagues, their outcry became more "vocal" in a sign that "blowback to the firings was widespread."

What next?

Republicans have been receiving a "deluge of calls from worried constituents," said CNN, prompting some to begin "testing the waters for what a new era of pushback in a second Trump term looks like." To that end, some GOP lawmakers are "privately sitting down with representatives" from the largest federal employee union. Others remain "in the dark on what changes or cuts are occurring" and have resorted to using "back channels" to understand the scope and scale of DOGE's efforts before making any public moves. Republicans have unleashed a "frantic flurry of calls and texts" to members of the Trump administration, resulting in some "some small, scattered successes" such as the rehiring of Department of Agriculture employees involved in tracking cases of bird flu, said Politico.

Ultimately, Republicans are "not without leverage" when it comes to guarding the legislative branch's financial authority against potential executive branch overreach, said Axios. Trump will need to keep "nearly every GOP lawmaker sated" to pass his budget bill later this year. Given the party's "razor-thin majority" in the House, the administration simply "cannot afford more than a couple of defections" when the vote comes to the floor.

For years, the United States has been at the forefront of a global effort to bolster Ukraine's ongoing defense against a Russian invasion effort that has threatened the stability of Eastern Europe. Since the reelection of President Donald Trump, however, that vector of support has been called into terminal question.

Trump has continued his global overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin while falsely labeling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a "dictator without elections." As a result, Trump's pivot away from America's historically adversarial stance toward Russia has roiled the traditionally hawkish members of his own party, who have spent decades operating under a geopolitical paradigm that seems to be rapidly losing relevance. As representatives for the Trump and Putin administrations prepare to discuss the future of Ukraine without any Ukrainian input, Republican lawmakers find themselves in an awkward political crossfire.

A 'widening gap' within the GOP

While Republicans on Capitol Hill have been "split" over Trump's broadsides against Ukraine and his increasingly cozy relationship with Russia, their public pushback has been "muted," The Washington Post said — a dynamic that underscores the party's "shifting stance on Russia's invasion." While once "strongly behind" Ukraine, support among Senate Republicans in particular has "eroded considerably" under Trump.

While some Republicans have "expressed dismay" at Trump's discrete statements and posturing, the party has yet to mount a "concerted effort to challenge him" on the merits of those actions, particularly on the part of those lawmakers who play "pivotal roles in overseeing military and foreign policy in Congress," said The New York Times. Although some have said they "do not agree" with Trump's position, "most have done so taking pains not to criticize the president" himself.

Despite a "widening gap" between the administration and the GOP's "defense wing," Republicans have not been ready to "break completely" with the president, Politico said. Even among those who have "expressed dismay" at Trump's comments, such as "regular Republican dissenter" Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the critiques "will not translate into any tangible attempt to redirect Trump's foreign policy," said the BBC.

Giving Trump 'latitude for now'

Many Republican lawmakers have tempered their critiques of Trump's pivot on American support for Ukraine. This a reflection of the "reality" that there is "little appetite for approving any more foreign aid" for Ukraine within the GOP-held legislature, said NPR. And peppered throughout those critiques is the repeated theme that Trump's comments are part of a broader operating plan.

Trump may be "factually wrong" in calling Zelenskyy a "dictator," Sen. Kevin Kramer (R-N.D.) said. But while Kramer admitted he doesn't know Trump's "motive" behind the remarks, "as a negotiator, he's always positioning and he's in a negotiating mood these days." While Putin is "clearly responsible" for the war in Ukraine, Trump has used some "fairly successful, aggressive negotiating tactics in the past," said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). "So I'll give him latitude for now." Trump is "working to achieve" a "peaceful outcome" in and for Ukraine, said Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.). "Right now you've got to give them some space."

President Donald Trump has put the Federal Emergency Management Agency in his crosshairs. The department is responsible for coordinating relief and rescue efforts in the event of natural disasters, but Trump has often criticized FEMA as ineffective and a waste of money and questioned whether it should exist at all.

Trump has established a council to review the necessity of FEMA. The agency has "managed to leave vulnerable Americans without the resources or support they need when they need it most," claims an executive order signed by the president. It also alleges "serious concerns of political bias" within FEMA and calls for a "full-scale review." The president cannot disband a federal agency without congressional authorization, but his actions have left many worried that Trump could drastically reduce its budget or push to have it shuttered entirely.

What did the commentators say?

Trump's taking aim at FEMA is not new, as Republicans have "previously suggested reducing the amount that states are reimbursed for preventing and responding to disasters like floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and more," said Chris Megerian at The Associated Press. Project 2025, which has been closely linked with members of the Trump administration, had "suggested changing the formula that the agency uses to determine when federal disaster assistance is warranted, shifting the costs of preventing and responding to disasters to states."

If Trump took this suggestion, the "federal reimbursement rate would be set at 25% of costs for smaller disasters and capped at 75% for larger ones," said Megerian. Presidents can currently authorize the reimbursement of 100% of costs for certain disasters, as former President Joe Biden "did for some costs from Hurricane Helene and the California fires." A request for FEMA aid must come directly from a state's governor asking the president to declare an emergency.

While the "agency could always improve, eliminating it would leave states scrambling to scrounge up resources during crises where time is of the essence," said Marisa Iati and Brianna Sacks at The Washington Post. To "disaster management experts, a better solution to FEMA's inefficiencies would be streamlining processes, rather than eliminating the entire disaster management system with no replacement." States need FEMA to "coordinate federal support, like bringing in the Army Corps of Engineers to remove debris," former FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell said to the Post.

The agency's "response to crises is generally strong," said Juliette Kayyem, the chair of the Homeland Security Project at Harvard Kennedy School of Government, to the Post. Trump is correct in that "post-disaster recovery is slow." However, this is an inherent challenge in "communities figuring out what they need to rebuild." Eliminating FEMA would "probably mean more deaths from natural disasters and chaotic response systems in which state officials struggle to marshal resources."

On the other hand, disaster response is "not supposed to be a top-down structure imposed by Washington," Chris Edwards said at the Cato Institute. Congress "should phase out FEMA aid for disaster preparedness, response and relief," and the federal government "should only fill roles where it can add value not provided by the states or private sector." Certain FEMA tasks, such as providing flood insurance, should "be privatized," Edwards adds.

What next?

Democratic lawmakers have hit back against Trump's FEMA attacks. Trump's "threats to get rid of FEMA and GOP House leadership floating conditional aid will hinder relief to Americans who've lost their homes and businesses in wildfires or floods," said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) on CNN. Eliminating it would "cripple the nation's ability to respond to disasters and remove a critical lifeline for Americans recovering from wildfires, hurricanes, floods and more," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said on X.

Officials have also tried to tamp down concerns that Trump would disband the agency. FEMA is a "critical agency which performs an essential mission in support of our national security," Cam Hamilton, FEMA's acting head, said in a memo to staff obtained by Reuters.

"Oooh, that's a big one." So said US president Donald Trump, as, among his first-day flurry of executive orders, he withdrew America from the World Health Organization (WHO).

It's a move that may have flown "below the radar", given Trump's other headline-grabbing executive orders, but it's the "most momentous of all", said Lawrence O. Gostin, global-health law professor at Georgetown University – and a "cataclysmic presidential decision".

Founded in 1948, the WHO's stated mission is to "put science to work to build a healthier, safer world", championing "global efforts" to "give everyone everywhere an equal chance at a safe and healthy life". The WHO has brought countries together to confront everything from Covid-19 and Zika to HIV, malaria and tuberculosis, it supports countries in health crisis, and anticipates and tracks emerging global health threats.

'Unfairly onerous payments'

This is not the first time Trump has ordered the US to pull out of the UN's global health agency: he took formal steps to withdraw in 2020, only for his decision to be reversed when Joe Biden replaced him as president. At the time, lawyers and health experts, writing in The Lancet, said that Trump's "unlawful" and "reckless" move would have "dire consequences for US security, diplomacy, and influence".

Monday's executive order declared the US was withdrawing "due to the organisation's mishandling of the Covid-19 pandemic", as well as "its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states". Pointedly, the order also stated that the WHO "continues to demand unfairly onerous payments from the United States, far out of proportion with other countries' assessed payments".

It is true that the US is by far the biggest funder of the Geneva-based organisation, typically contributing about one-fifth of the WHO's total $6.8 billion (£5.5 billion) biennial budget. Although this is a tiny fraction of the total US federal budget, "resentment against the WHO has simmered in Republican circles since the pandemic", said The Guardian.

In 2020, Trump was highly critical of the WHO for being too "China-centric" in its tackling of Covid-19, and the organisation has since become a "target" of US conservatives over its work on a global pandemic treaty that they view as a "threat to American sovereignty", said the The New York Times.

'Political vacuum'

The fact that "this executive action" was carried out "on day one" means it's "more likely" that the US will actually leave the WHO this time, said the BBC.

Under terms adopted by Congress when WHO was founded, the US is required to give 12 months' notice of withdrawal but, were US funding eventually to be pulled, it would leave the WHO in "uncharted territory", said The Guardian. It may have to curtail its worldwide public-health works, "pressuring the organisation to attract private funding, and providing an opening for other countries" to exert an influence.

And here is the irony. "WHO is a pretty essential organization" and, with US withdrawal, there will be "a political vacuum that only one country can fill – and that is China", Dr Ashish Jha, The White House Covid-19 response coordinator during the Biden administration, told CNN.

Right on cue, China's foreign ministry announced that the WHO's role in global-health governance "should be strengthened, not weakened", and that Beijing would continue to support it in "fulfilling its responsibilities", said China Daily.

"If your true concern is that WHO is captured by China, then removing the US from the equation just seals the deal", said Jeremy Konyndyk, president of Refugees International, in Science.

The U.S. Constitution is more than two centuries old. It hasn't been amended for three decades. Is it finally time for a rewrite?

Some Republicans have been pushing for a new constitutional convention for "more than a decade," said NC Newsline. North Carolina legislators in December voted to ask Congress to convene a convention to address congressional term limits, adding to a "pile of requests" already in the hopper. A conservative group called Convention of States is pushing a broader effort to call a convention for amendments to "limit federal power and rein in reckless spending." That could put America in uncharted territory. Amendments have been passed over the years, but the convention method of changing the Constitution has "never been used," said NC Newsline.

Democrats worry about a "'runaway convention' where anything and everything is on the table," Hayes Brown said at MSBNC. There is a precedent, after all: The original Constitutional Convention in 1787 was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. The founders instead "abolished the articles" and came up with the Constitution instead.

How would a convention work?

"A simple line" in Article V of the Constitution lets Congress call a convention "if two-thirds of state legislatures have called for one," said The New York Times. It's possible the threshold has already been met. Scholars say most states have "long-forgotten requests on the books" that could trigger the provision if Congress chose to act. (Twenty-eight states have asked for a convention just to pass a balanced budget amendment, for example.) Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) has introduced a bill that would require the head of the National Archives to track already-passed applications. But it is "not clear how seriously Republicans would pursue a convention," said the Times.

An Article V convention is "one of the few provisions of the Constitution that has never been implemented," the Congressional Research Service said in a 2016 report. Because of that, there are no precedents to show how a gathering could and should work — instead, there is a "wide range of policy and procedural questions" that would have to be settled by Congress before the work begins. If a convention does occur, any amendments would have to be approved by 38 states. That "arguably acts as a deterrent" to any big changes.

What are the cases for and against a convention?

The Constitution needs "significant, even drastic, revision" to function properly in the modern era, University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson said in the Journal of Legislation & Public Policy. A convention would make it possible for Americans to "imagine what kind of system would make the most sense for 21st-century realities."

Many Democrats disagree. California State Sen. Scott Wiener (D) is sponsoring a bill to rescind his state's call for a convention. There's a danger Republicans could change the Constitution to "restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth," he said to the Los Angeles Times. The lack of clear guidelines poses a risk, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School. "There's no way to know" what choices Congress might make about how a convention would work, "since it's never happened."

What happened

The House Ethics Committee released its report on former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) Monday, saying its yearslong investigation found "substantial evidence" he "violated House rules, state and federal laws, and other standards of conduct prohibiting prostitution, statutory rape, illicit drug use, acceptance of impermissible gifts" and other violations.

Gaetz resigned from Congress last month as the committee was preparing to release its report and President-elect Donald Trump tapped him for attorney general. He withdrew from consideration when it became clear he did not have enough Senate support for confirmation.

Who said what

Gaetz "regularly paid women for engaging in sexual activity with him" from 2017 to 2020 and possessed illegal drugs, including cocaine and ecstasy, the House investigators said. Their "most egregious allegation," however, involved Gaetz having sex with a 17-year-old, Politico said. Gaetz likely "did not learn" the high schooler's age until "after their first sexual encounters," the committee said, but "statutory rape is a strict liability crime" and he "met up with her again for commercial sex" soon after she turned 18.

There was not "sufficient evidence" Gaetz took the minor across state lines, which would be a federal crime, the report said, and the Florida statute of limitations for statutory rape has expired.

Gaetz, who has denied all the allegations, said the Ethics Committee unfairly targeted him in a "Christmas Eve-Eve report and not in a courtroom" where he could "present evidence and challenge witnesses." He had sued to stop the report's release. The committee said Gaetz was "uncooperative" throughout and had "pointed to evidence that would 'exonerate' him yet failed to produce any such materials."

What next?

Gaetz is "set to join the right-wing One America News Network as an anchor in January," CNN said.

What happened

House Republicans abandoned a stopgap spending package Wednesday evening after President-elect Donald Trump told them to kill the bipartisan legislation and replace it with a more pared-down package that cut out Democratic priorities and also raised the debt ceiling. Trump's new demands, paired with threats of retribution, made a Christmastime government shutdown likely.

Who said what

The carefully negotiated spending package, introduced by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Tuesday, would have funded the government at current levels until March 14 and included $100.4 billion for natural disaster survivors. Johnson's late addition of $10 billion in aid to farmers "opened the door to a slew of unrelated demands by Democrats to ensure the bill could pass the House and Democratic-led Senate," The Washington Post said.

Trump's "opposition to what was considered must-pass legislation," and especially his "almost unrealistic" debt-ceiling demand, "reinjected a sense of chaos and political brinkmanship that was reminiscent of his first term in office," The Associated Press said. Trump weighed in after Elon Musk "used his social network X to stir Republicans into a frenzy," posting "100-plus tweets" attacking the legislation, often using "misleading or outright false claims," Politico said.

Democrats, whose votes are needed to pass any spending bill, "signaled they weren't in any mood to bail Republicans out," Politico said. "You break the bipartisan agreement, you own the consequences that follow," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said.

What next?

Johnson "has not outlined a backup plan," and his "next step remains unclear," the Post said. Without a spending bill, "most federal operations would shut down" on Saturday. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reportedly told Democrats last night that "we have a deal with Republicans and we're sticking with it."

Even by the freewheeling standards set during President-elect Donald Trump's first administration, former Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz stood out as a particularly surprising pick for a Cabinet position, to say nothing of being tapped to lead the Department of Justice as Trump's nominee for Attorney General. Not only had Gaetz, one of Trump's fiercest congressional allies, barely practiced law since earning his JD in 2007, but he was now being asked to head the department which had recently investigated him for alleged 2017 sexual assault of a minor. In a slate of controversial Cabinet nominations, his was arguably the most shocking to Democrats and Republicans alike.

No less shocking, although perhaps not entirely surprising, was Gaetz's decision to pull himself out of contention in the face of growing opposition from the Senators tasked with confirming him for the role. All told, this nomination saga lasted just eight days, with Trump turning to fellow Floridian Pam Bondi as his new AG-in-waiting mere hours after Gaetz's withdrawal. But in the wake of those turbulent days, keen-eyed observers and political commentators have been given a glimpse into both the inner workings of the President-elect's transition process, and his vision for his incoming administration.

As the dust from Gaetz-gate finishes settling, a new schema of power for Trump's closest circles has emerged.

Who came out on top?

No one can claim to have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in this instance more than Pam Bondi, who now stands on the precipice of one of the most consequential legal positions in the country, if not the world. As a "longtime Trump ally" whose previous efforts to join the Trump administration "never panned out," the former Florida Attorney General now "appears more likely to have an easier path to confirmation" than Gaetz, Politico said.

The Gaetz debacle "may strengthen Susie Wiles," Trump's incoming Chief-of-Staff, as well, said congressional scholar Norman Ornstein. Gaetz's nomination had been "announced before she had any input," and now that it's fallen apart, "Trump has to know that maybe he should take a little advice from her." Wiles is "even-tempered, can foresee risks, and is one of the figures most likely to talk Trump out of a bad idea," said Jim Geraghty at National Review.

By voicing their (ultimately nomination-killing) concerns over Gaetz, Senate Republicans, too, may have strengthened their standing. They demonstrated that while they want to "help Trump enact as much of his agenda as possible, they are not going to reflexively respond 'how high?' when Trump says 'jump,'" Geraghty said. The Senate GOP might "actually be a soft check on the leader of their party when they feel like he is going too far," said Politico — particularly incoming Majority Leader Sen. John Thune (R-SD), with whom Trump "might have a completely different relationship" than the adversarial one he experienced with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky). This episode may even count as a "win for America — and even for Trump, who has just been saved from the consequences of a bad early decision," said Nicole Russell at USA Today.

Who's on the outs?

In the immediate short term, the most obvious loser from Gaetz-gate could very well be Gaetz himself, who is no longer in contention to become the next Attorney General and has retired from Congress with no plans to return in the coming term. Although he has yet to articulate his next steps, which could include a future run for office, or even a non-Senate confirmable position in the Trump administration, Gaetz's "future is not as bright as it once was," said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida, to the Orlando Sentinel.

Gaetz's departure also refocuses the national spotlight on other controversial Trump Cabinet nominees, including Fox News host Pete Hegseth, who is now "by far the biggest headache" for the incoming administration, said The Independent. Hegseth's nomination "so far had been overshadowed by Gaetz," Politico said, but with Gaetz gone "scrutiny could quickly shift to Hegseth" and his record of extremist views and alleged sexual misconduct.

Trump may have escaped an embarrassing defeat had Gaetz not bowed out ahead of his confirmation process, but the president-elect nevertheless suffered a "stinging rebuke" by his nominee's resignation, Bloomberg said. The episode "illustrates the roadblocks" Trump's incoming administration faces in transforming his "campaign of 'retribution' into a governing coalition," said MSNBC.

Donald Trump is celebrating his presidential win, but it is going to be a "howling nightmare" for the UK government, said Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer.

While Keir Starmer has congratulated the president-elect on his election victory, the "truth universally acknowledged by officials in private" is that "a second Trump presidency will be a clear and present danger to the UK's most vital national interests".

No 'overnight love affair'

Let's not forget that David Lammy, now foreign secretary, once called Trump a "neo-Nazi sociopath", said Tom Harris in The Telegraph. And when polling suggested Kamala Harris "was about to sweep all before her" 100 current and former Labour Party staff headed to the US to campaign for the Democrats. Nobody cared that "The Orange One" was outraged as he seemed like a "dead-cert loser" at the time. "Well, 'oops', as they say."

Nigel Farage has offered to lend Starmer a hand in mending relations. "It won't be an overnight love affair," the Reform UK leader and Trump ally told the i news site. "It will take time, and perhaps it'll take a degree of humility from the British government."

Making the 'cogs turn more easily'

The new Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told the Commons yesterday that an apology was in order for Lammy's "derogatory and scatological references", to which Starmer pointed out that he and the foreign secretary had met Trump in New York for dinner in September, describing it as a "constructive exercise". A No. 10 spokesman later said the PM would "of course welcome a visit" from Trump to the UK in the future.

While the US and UK leaders might not share the same "worldview", said Victoria Honeyman, professor of British politics at the University of Leeds, on The Conversation, a friendly rapport certainly "makes the cogs turn considerably more easily". Trump and Starmer's relationship "does not have to be stormy". In the end, the UK government will have "no option" but to work with Trump "as best they can".

The allegations were salacious. The fallout, immediate.

It's been just days since CNN published a deeply reported story detailing the wildly offensive comments allegedly left on an adult website's message board by North Carolina Republican gubernatorial nominee Mark Robinson. In that short time, the state's already-contentious 2024 governor's race has been upended, as strategists from both parties scramble to recalibrate with less than two months until election day. Robinson, currently serving as North Carolina's Lieutenant Governor, has denied the allegations that he called himself a "black Nazi" who endorsed slavery, describing CNN's report as "tabloid trash" while vowing to remain in the race against Democrat Attorney General Josh Stein.

As damning as CNN's report may be — and as politically damaging as it may become for Robinson — the controversy swirling around his increasingly radioactive candidacy is not, in and of itself, wholly new. For years, Robinson has worked to move past his documented history of making nakedly racist and bigoted remarks towards Jewish people, women and members of the LGBTQ+ community. There have also been claims of a significant pornography addiction prior to his time in politics. Nevertheless, North Carolina Republicans nominated Robinson to run for governor by a margin of more than three to one, raising a larger, if more nebulous question.

How does someone like Robinson become a high level GOP candidate, and is he really as much of an aberration in conservative politics as many Republicans are now claiming?

What did the commentators say?

That Robinson, who first garnered political attention for an impassioned speech in favor of gun rights at a Greensboro, NC city council meeting, has been within striking distance of high elected office is "representative of an interesting pattern within the modern Republican Party," The American Prospect said. It's a pattern wherein one can "earn fame within the party for incendiary comments but are soon forced to backtrack once they’re in the national spotlight." Robinson is similarly indicative of the fact that the "Republican insistence on nominating crazy people elsewhere affects us all," said Charles Pierce at Esquire. While previous GOP candidates with their own list of controversies may have seemed at the time to be "one step beyond," Robinson is proof that "there is no Beyond," and "should stay on the ballot" as "the perfect GOP candidate for 2024."

"Republicans knew Robinson was a problematic candidate," said Noah Rothman at the National Review. "They just didn't care." In spite of being an "unnecessary risk" electorally, North Carolina voters "were persuaded to haul the baggage Robinson brought with him onto their own backs because Donald Trump insisted on it." Republicans "routinely looked past Robinson's breathtaking hypocrisy," and — prior to last week's report — "held him up as a champion" and an "example of America at its finest," Billy Ball said at MSNBC. The question ultimately becomes one of whether the GOP is "suffering primarily from a candidate quality problem or a base voter problem" said The Bulwark.

Others, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), have attempted to balance distancing themselves and the party from Robinson, while retaining the capacity to support him should his political fortunes change. "Should every Republican in the country be held responsible for this guy?," said Graham during a recent interview with NBC's Kristen Welker. "I would say no." At the same time, Robinson has an "obligation" to defend himself against CNN's recent reporting.

What next?

Robinson's extremism is a "bit much even for the modern-day GOP," and his "campaign appears to be in freefall" after CNN's investigation, said New York magazine. The real question is whether that free fall will affect Robinson alone, or drag other Republicans down with him. National GOP groups are already "pulling financial support" for Robinson's campaign, CNN said. Even Donald Trump's campaign is "alarmed" at the idea that Robinson's "political baggage and incendiary rhetoric will be a drag" on the presidential ticket, Axios said.

Republicans seem "uninterested in trying to change the dynamic" that led to Robinson's ascension through the GOP ranks, The Bulwark said. That disinterest means "more often situations like this will cause headaches for party bosses around the country." Robinson's scandal might close the "pipeline from viral comments at city council meetings to running for the highest office in a swing state," The American Prospect said. But "given the dynamics in the Republican Party, maybe not."

On the day of the Sept. 10 presidential debate, a conservative activist and journalist named Laura Loomer was photographed disembarking from former President Donald Trump's airplane in Philadelphia. Her presence in Trump's entourage sparked controversy, because Loomer is a combative media personality whose statements and actions have drawn widespread condemnation.

While both Trump and Loomer put out statements that she has no official role in the campaign, other Republicans have leaned on Trump to distance himself from her. Who is Laura Loomer and how did she come to play a role in Trump's campaign?

Loomer's background

Laura Loomer, who is Jewish, was raised in Arizona by conservative parents. She frequently watched Fox News with her father at night, she once told The Spectator World in an article that called her "America's most notorious political paparazzi." After one semester at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, where she claims she was discriminated against because of her politics, Loomer transferred to Barry University in Miami. She first rose to prominence there when she secretly recorded a video of herself asking university officials if she could start a pro-ISIS student group. She worked for highly controversial entities including Infowars, Project Veritas and Rebel Media. Loomer has staged a series of high-profile stunts, including donning a burqa and trying to vote under the name of Hillary Clinton's adviser Huma Abedin in 2016.

Perhaps her most controversial behavior has involved boosting various conspiracy theories and associating with white nationalist figures. In 2023, she tweeted a video that called the 9/11 terrorist attacks "an inside job." She has argued that school shootings are staged and that the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas was perpetrated by a member of ISIS. She has appeared at the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), founded by far-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes, an open anti-Semite who has also dined with former President Trump, as well as a 2022 conference organized by the white nationalist publication American Renaissance.

The latest

A self-described "proud Islamophobe," Loomer has run for Congress as a Republican twice, first in 2020 when she won the GOP primary in Florida's 21st District but lost the general election to Democrat Lois Frankel, and then in 2022, when she narrowly lost the Republican primary to incumbent Rep. Daniel Webster in Florida's 11th District. Today she operates a news and opinion website called Loomered, where she broadcasts video segments under the moniker Loomer Unleashed. She is single, and has said she thinks it's because she currently puts all of her energy toward getting Trump elected. Trump tried to hire her to work on his campaign last year, said The New York Times, until he was talked out of it.

The reaction

That long history of controversy-courting behavior helps explain why many Republicans are uncomfortable with the role that Loomer is playing in Trump's campaign. And she continues to say things that land her in hot water. The White House would "smell like curry & White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center" if Harris (who is Indian American) were to win the election in November, Loomer said on X on Sept. 8. That post drew muted criticism from Trump's running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), whose wife Usha is also Indian American. "I don't like those comments," Vance told NBC News.

Other Republicans have been more pointed in their calls for Trump to end his affiliation with Loomer. "Laura Loomer is a crazy conspiracy theorist who regularly utters disgusting garbage intended to divide Republicans," said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) on X. "This is appalling and extremely racist," said Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Ga.), a close Trump ally, in an X post referencing Loomer's "curry" comments. While he distanced himself from her comments, Trump also voiced his support for Loomer. Loomer is "tired of watching the Radical Left Marxists and Fascists violently attack and smear me," Trump said in a post on his social media site Truth Social.

Loomer addressed the media in a video posted to her website on September 16. "You can't control me. That's why you hate me," she said.

What happened

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, the Republican nominee for governor, posted racist and sexist comments on a pornography site forum, including identifying himself as a "Black Nazi," CNN said on Thursday. An email address CNN used to confirm Robinson's porn account was also registered on Ashley Madison, a website for married people seeking affairs, Politico said. Robinson rejected calls to drop out of the race against Democratic Attorney General Josh Stein. 

Who said what

CNN said it was disclosing "only a small portion" of Robinson's comments from 2008 to 2012 on the site "Nude Africa," due to their "graphic nature." But it did record him saying "slavery is not bad" and "I wish they would bring it back"; admitting he liked to watch "tranny on girl porn"; and claiming he would "take Hitler over any of the shit that's in Washington" during Barack Obama's presidency. 

Robinson told CNN "these are not our words" or "anything that is characteristic of me." Presented with the "litany of evidence connecting him" with the account, CNN said, Robinson said he wouldn't "get into the minutia of how somebody manufactured this, these salacious tabloid lies." The problem for Robinson is the comments "sound extremely similar to what he's said elsewhere," David Graham said at The Atlantic, and his frequenting of a porn site doesn't "stretch incredulity" after a report this month found he frequented porn shops in the 1990s and 2000s. 

Donald Trump, who enthusiastically endorsed Robinson in March, has "foisted damaging candidates on the GOP" for years, Aaron Blake said at The Washington Post, but for once it could cause a "real problem for Trump personally," turning off voters in a crucial state he barely won in 2020 and is up for grabs this year.

What next?

Yesterday was the final day to withdraw from the race before ballots are printed, The Raleigh News & Observer said. So "Republicans now appear to be stuck with Robinson," The Atlantic's Graham said. "They can't say they weren't warned."

Ford has become the latest major US company to scale back its diversity and inclusion policies, amid a "changing legal and political environment and online pressure from the right", said CNN.

Corporate investment in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives rose sharply in 2020 following the wave of protests sparked by the murder of George Floyd. Management consultancy firm McKinsey estimates that US companies spent an estimated $7.5 billion (£5.7 billion) on DEI-related schemes in that year alone.

Initiatives included pledges to add more minority employees to the workforce, anti-bias training, and the hiring of a record number of chief diversity officers, with some large companies linking executive bonuses to efforts in meeting diversity goals.

Legal minefield

In 2023 the US Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling that ended affirmative action programmes at colleges, finding that factoring racial make-up into admissions amounted to discrimination. 

While the ruling "didn't directly implicate companies" said Bloomberg, it "invigorated" legal activists, who have ramped up the amount of lawsuits targeting corporate hiring practices which they said unfairly favour non-white employees. The Washington Post reported that the decision has "so transformed the legal landscape that some companies are abandoning diversity programmes as a defensive measure even before any litigation is filed".

The debate around diversity has also infiltrated politics, where Republicans have repeatedly labelled Kamala Harris a "DEI" hire, implying she achieved her position as vice president and Democratic presidential nominee solely because of her race and gender.

Enter Robby Starbuck

Leading the charge against DEI programmes is former Hollywood music video director turned conservative activist Robby Starbuck. The 35-year-old's X account boasts more than half a million followers, and his online campaigns have been amplified by prominent right-wing influencers and the likes of Elon Musk.

Starbuck has "channelled energy on the right" to target specific brands "popular with politically conservative customers", such as Harley-Davidson, said CNN. The parent company of Jack Daniel's whiskey, Brown-Forman, also dropped its DEI programmes shortly before Starbuck said he was planning to start a campaign against the brand.

Last month, Starbuck approached US home improvement giant Lowe's, telling the company he planned to spotlight policies such as their employee resource groups and donations to Pride events. The Washington Post reported that the company responded with "preemptive changes", for which Starbuck claimed credit on X.

Then last week, Ford CEO Jim Farley sent an email to employees saying that the company had also changed some of its DEI policies, including ending participation in external culture surveys by the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group.

While Farley said Ford remained committed to creating an "inclusive workspace and building a team that leverages diverse perspectives, backgrounds and thinking styles", he acknowledged the "external and legal environment related to political and social issues continues to evolve".

While Starbuck is undoubtedly an important force in the anti-DEI pressure movement, his success is exposing the "fragility" of corporate backing for inclusion schemes, said Shaun Harper, professor of education and business at the University of Southern California and founder and executive director of its Race and Equity Center, speaking to CNN.

"If one person can take to Twitter and ultimately inflame a campaign to dismantle DEI in large companies, it means those things were not strong to begin with," he said. "Most companies and the people who lead them were not committed to this in the first place."

Two parties are too few for some Americans. Yes, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris are the two major contenders for the presidency in November 2024. But many voters would like to see additional choices.

A recent poll of progressive activists found that “one in four activists knew someone who was considering a third party protest vote,” Dave Weigel said at Semafor. That’s a sign that Harris is having trouble with working class voters who have “drifted right” in recent years. And it's the latest manifestation of a longstanding American desire to shake up politics — albeit one that's always fallen short.

In just this election cycle, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. mounted his own independent bid for the presidency, as did celebrity scholar Cornel West. Both men fought battles to get on state ballots for the election, with mixed degrees of success — Arizona rejected West's efforts, while New York rebuffed several attempts by Kennedy. It proved to be hard work: Kennedy finally dropped out of the race in late August and endorsed Donald Trump.

Those are just the latest attempts to disrupt the two-party system since Democrats and Republicans emerged as the main rivalry in the mid-19th century. None of these third parties have lasted over the long term — or won a presidential election — but a few notable efforts have left their imprint on American politics and history.

American Independent Party

The notorious segregationist George Wallace formed the American Independent Party in 1968 in order to run for president. (He had failed in his effort to win the Democratic Party nomination from President Lyndon Johnson four years earlier.) Curtis LeMay, the former Air Force general who urged President Kennedy to bomb Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis, was his running mate.

Wallace didn't think he could win the presidency outright — but he did think he could game the system and play kingmaker. PBS' American Experience described the strategy in its history of the 1968 campaign: Although Wallace campaigned "as though he believed he were a viable candidate for president," the real goal was to sap enough votes from Richard Nixon and Hubert Humphrey, the Republican and Democratic nominees, to deny both men an electoral college victory, and thus throw the election to the House of Representatives. "There, Wallace could demand that the other candidates support him on his issues before he would deliver the presidency," said PBS.

Here's the crazy thing: it nearly worked. Wallace carried five states — Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia — and came close to Nixon in North Carolina and Tennessee. Nixon barely beat Humphrey in the national popular vote, eking out a 1% win, but claimed 301 electoral votes, which were more than needed to spoil Wallace's dream of spoiling his election. Wallace's consolation: He was the last third-party candidate to win electoral votes. He tried again in 1972 but was shot and paralyzed on the campaign trail.

Reform Party

Like the American Independent Party, the Reform Party started out as a vehicle for one man's outsized presidential ambitions. Ross Perot, the billionaire Texas businessman, had made a splashy, on-again, off-again run for president as an independent candidate in 1992 — and performed respectably, capturing nearly 19% of the popular vote. (Bill Clinton won that election, and many Republicans have long blamed Perot for spoiling George H.W. Bush's re-election in that campaign.) In 1995, he decided to make it formal, announcing the launch of the Reform Party, and predicting it would eventually replace either the Democratic Party or GOP. "One of those two parties is going to disappear," Perot said to an interviewer, "one of those special interest parties is going to melt down."

Unsurprisingly, Perot was the Reform Party's first nominee for president in 1996. But he didn't do as well as his first run — he earned just 8.4% of the popular vote. (For what it's worth, that was just about the margin of Clinton's victory over GOP nominee Bob Dole.) That was good enough that, under federal law, the Federal Election Commission in 2000 provided $12.6 million in matching funds to the party's 2000 nominee, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan. But the Reform Party has never again made quite the impact it did during Perot's first runs for the presidency.

Instead, its legacy might be best remembered for two things. In 1998, former professional wrestler Jesse "The Body" Ventura won the Minnesota governorship under the Reform Party banner — albeit with 37% of the vote. And in 2000, another celebrity businessman in the tradition of Ross Perot made a brief, aborted run for the party's presidential nomination. You might have heard of him: His name was Donald Trump.

Green Party

No discussion of modern third parties is complete, of course, without the Green Party. It originally formed in the 1980s with an emphasis on environmental justice, but it really came to prominence in 2000 when consumer crusader Ralph Nader won the party's nomination and made a bid for lefty voters who had become disenchanted with the Democratic Party's "third way" neoliberalism under Bill Clinton. Nader won just 2.74% of the vote.

That might not be worth mentioning — except, of course, that was the year George W. Bush lost the popular vote and won the electoral vote, barely. The race between Bush and Al Gore came down to Florida, which ended up infamously mired in a weeks-long haze of hanging chads amidst a recount of the votes to see who would win the state's electoral votes, and thus the presidency. Officially, Bush won the state by 537 votes, after a controversial Supreme Court ruling that stopped the recount. Nader received more than 97,000 votes in the state. And Democrats have blamed him ever since for costing the party the White House.

"Lots of factors can be blamed for such a paper-thin defeat," Bill Scher said at Real Clear Politics. But if Nader had "chosen not to embark on an obviously quixotic campaign, Al Gore would have been elected president." Nader has always denied culpability for Gore's loss. "The two-party tyranny is spoiled to the core," Nader wrote in 2016 at the Los Angeles Times. "The least-worst choices are getting worse every four years."

Forward and No Labels

The 2024 election brought several new groups into the fray. In 2022, former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman and one-time presidential candidate Andrew Yang — who came to prominence as a Republican and Democrat, respectively — announced the formation of Forward, a centrist party designed to appeal to Americans frustrated with the country's two dominant political factions. "Some call third parties 'spoilers,'" the pair said in a Washington Post op-ed, "but the system is already spoiled."

The party didn't end up nominating a presidential candidate in 2024, but it is working on several state-level races.

It is No Labels, though — a coalition of Republicans, Democrats and independents that was formed to fight partisanship — that drew the most attention and criticism. The group was seen by critics as a means of attracting centrist votes that might otherwise go to the Democratic ticket, and thus assisting Donald Trump's election efforts. In April, though, No Labels announced it would not nominate a presidential candidate.

The idea will probably remain popular, at least in the abstract. Gallup said that 58% of Americans say a third party is needed because Republicans and Democrats "do such a poor job" of representative voter preferences. "It is unclear," Gallup said, "whether they are genuinely expressing a desire for a third option or are simply frustrated with the two existing parties."

The elevation of Kamala Harris has transformed the presidential race, said Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine. As well as re-energising the Democrats, the move has had a secondary effect: sending Donald Trump around the bend. Having survived an assassination attempt and enjoyed a rapturous reception at the Republican National Convention, he was confident of beating Joe Biden – and this kept his more self-destructive traits in check. But Biden's withdrawal from the race, and the surge of momentum behind Harris, have led Trump to "indulge his most deranged instincts". In rambling press conferences and rallies, he has raged against Harris, even claiming that the crowds at her events have been concocted through using artificial intelligence. 

Denied a rematch

Trump has not responded well to being denied his rematch with Biden, said Jeet Heer in The Nation. He has repeatedly referred to Biden in "surprisingly wistful terms", suggesting, without any basis, that the president might yet force his way back onto the Democratic ticket. Trump just can't get over losing to Biden in 2020, agreed Chuck Todd on NBC News.

"He also doesn't seem to respect Harris as an opponent." That's a dangerous attitude for a candidate. Voters pick up on such "disdain", and don't react positively to it – as Trump should know all too well. One of the reasons he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016, after all, is because she looked down on him, and referred to his supporters as a "basket of deplorables".

'Trump must do it himself'

"Ugly, personal attacks" on Harris will get Trump nowhere, said Jason L. Riley in The Wall Street Journal. He needs to concentrate on issues, and to draw a contrast between his record and that of the current administration. Harris has taken many unpopular stances in the past. She supported a ban on fracking; said she would "eliminate" private health insurance and impose a state-run system; endorsed slavery reparations; and backed efforts to defund the police. Her campaign is now busily trying to walk back some of these positions. Trump can't count on the mainstream media to take Harris to task over her record – Washington's shamelessly biased journalists are giving her an easy ride. "Trump must do it himself."

To better get his message across, he should consider dispensing with rallies, said Daniel Henninger in the same paper. He loves them, and so do his fans – I met a man recently who said he'd attended more than 70. But the events don't win new converts. Trump should instead hold town hall meetings with uncommitted voters. He's "much better than Ms. Harris in these more intimate settings". 

'Insane claims and random stories'

Trump's handlers are trying to do something like that by holding pared-down speaking events at which, in theory, he restricts himself to one topic, said Edith Olmsted in The New Republic. Last week he held a press conference about inflation, next to a table of groceries. He began reading from notes, but soon veered "off script into an array of insane claims and random stories".

Of course he did, said Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times. Expecting Trump to stick to the script is "like betting Godot will be punctual or Lucy won't yank the football from Charlie Brown". It won't happen, and it wouldn't make much difference anyway. Thanks to the "reality show politics" that Trump helped create, substantive issues no longer count for much in US elections. It's all about personality and "vibes" now – and the reality is that Harris has the edge here because she has a novelty factor. "Trump and his enablers created the vibe petard, and now they're being hoisted on it."

For years, Democrats (and a small number of Republicans) have been working on how best to frame Donald Trump and his MAGA movement to persuadable voters. At various points over the past decade, Trump has been portrayed as a "threat to democracy," a "fraud," and a "con man," all in an attempt to impart a sense of looming and existential endangerment over his political ascendency. 

This year, however, as a reenergized Democratic party rallies around Vice President Kamala Harris as its new standard-bearer following President Joe Biden's decision to end his reelection campaign, a growing number of lawmakers have rolled out a new line of attack on Trump and his vice presidential pick, Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance: They're just weird. Although perhaps not the most sophisticated line of attack, it's a message that has nevertheless gained traction, first among campaign surrogates and potential vice presidential nominees like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, and then Harris' own team and the Democratic party at large. 

It remains to be seen whether the Democrats can ride this "weird" wave all the way to an electoral victory, but it seems clear that the party sees this tonal shift as impactful — at least for now. 

'Weird people' was an online hit

While the trend arguably began with Minnesota's Walz, whose "description last week of 'weird people on the other side' was an online hit with Democrats," The New York Times said, the Harris campaign's embrace of that same framing should come as little surprise. Preparing for a one-on-one debate with Trump in 2018, Harris went so far as to tell aides that if he attempted to stalk behind her onstage as he did Hillary Clinton in 2016, she would turn and ask him "why are you being so weird?" CNN said. Recently, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg similarly described Trump as getting "older and stranger," and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Vance is "weird" and "erratic." Harris added her campaign's official seal of approval, writing in a memo of takeaways from a recent Trump interview that "Trump is old and quite weird?" 

The Democratic National Committee itself followed suit shortly thereafter.

Previous attempts by Democrats to use "high-minded defenses of our principles or elegant rhetorical phrases aren't doing the job," said The Bulwark. "Neither is existential dread." Labeling Trump and Vance as weird is "less lofty and more grounded in daily reality." The tactic "conspicuously stands apart from the Democrats' usual 'when they go low, we go high' modus operandi," ABC News said. Notably, the "weird" attacks make up a "unified Democratic firing line" that stands in "sharp contrast to the Republicans, who have yet to emerge with their own effective message to counter Harris' 'honeymoon' period," The Independent said. 

Biden couldn't "authentically call his opposition 'weird,'" said Amanda Litman, co-founder of the progressive group Run for Something, to Politico. Harris' embrace of the term is in part "about being free from the obligation to speak in Biden's voice." The previous era of 'strained decorum is — or at least should be — over,' said Rolling Stone. 

'Cut the crap please'

To a lesser extent, Republicans have "also gotten in on the action," including releasing a campaign memo for Senate candidates highlighting Harris' "weird" behavior, such as loving Venn diagrams, Semafor said. 

The GOP's attempt to flip the "weird" attack back at Harris might be "one way to undermine Harris' personal appeal without getting into more sensitive territory" like race and gender, Semafor said. Not all Republicans seem to agree, however. Former GOP presidential candidate and fervent Trump backer Vivek Ramaswamy decried the Democrats as acting "dumb & juvenile" and urged them to "win on policy if you can, but cut the crap please" in a post on X. 

Vance, for his part, has denied being affected by the "weird" attacks. "It doesn't hurt my feelings," said Vance in a brief Fox News interview this week. Vance also called the "weird" label the "price of admission" for running for high office, and "ultimately an honor."

"Get ready for the Great Democratic Freakout," said Karen Tumulty in The Washington Post. 

"Even the most creative of spinners" in Joe Biden's camp will struggle to "manufacture a victory narrative out of his dreadful performance" against Donald Trump in last night's televised debate. The president's voice was hoarse, his answers  sometimes muddled and he appeared to struggle his way through the 90 minutes. And though Trump spouted a "litany of lies", he was "better prepared and more disciplined than most anyone might have expected". 

The "once unspeakable" is now an active discussion among Democrats, said Politico: is it time to replace Biden on the ticket?  

'The world needs America at its best'

It was so bad, I wept, said Thomas L. Friedman in The New York Times. The debate revealed that Biden, "a good man and a good president, has no business" running for a second term. "I cannot remember a more heartbreaking moment in American presidential campaign politics in my lifetime."  

Trump was "preposterous", but "he emerged the undisputed winner", said Harold Meyerson at The American Prospect. Biden was "too old and infirm" to dispute even the "most blatant fabrications" levelled at him by the former president – "or to persuasively defend his demonstrably superior record and positions". 

Come election day in November, I don't see any "plausible way" Biden can beat Trump, Meyerson said. The Democrats "should heed the lessons imparted by leading Republicans in 1974", when they convinced then-president Nixon to stand down following the Watergate scandal. They succeeded then – and "now, it's up to the Democrats". 

"If there was ever a time that the world needs an America at its best, led by its best, it is now," said Friedman. A younger Biden "could have been that leader, but time has finally caught up with him". He is no longer "up to the job", and that became "painfully and inescapably obvious" yesterday. The president can "keep the dignity he deserves" if he stands aside – and "if he does, everyday Americans will hail Joe Biden" for putting the country's needs ahead of his own ambitions.  

'Slim' chance of changing course

"There have been bad, even disastrous, debate performances in the past," said Jonathan Tobin on Newsweek. But never before did "the spinners wave the white flag and concede that their candidate was beaten". Few Democrats "bothered to conceal the panic they felt" watching a debate which "confirmed the country's worst fears" about the sitting president's capacity. 

It was a "catastrophe" for Biden, but the "really bad news" is for the Democrats, because the odds of replacing him with another candidate "are slim no matter how many of them are now screaming for it", he continued. 

To pick a new nominee now would throw the party into "turmoil", said the Post's Tumulty. Besides, said Tobin, there is no "realistic mechanism for toppling an incumbent president who already has the nomination sewed up". The national party has "no power" to stop a candidate "sweeping to the nomination on the basis of primary victories in which ordinary voters have the final word". 

Biden's "arrogance, contempt for critics and loathing of his opponents", he continued, "makes me think that he will never give up the chance for another term under virtually any circumstances".

Even Democrats who have "privately complained about Biden's performance acknowledged" the unlikeliness of "a brokered convention or Biden stepping aside", said Politico. The "only bright spot" in the debate, an unnamed senior adviser to Democratic officials told the news site, "is that this happened in June and not October".

Hunter Biden is hardly the first presidential relation to have their personal struggles and legal challenges turned into national news and fodder for their family's political opposition. Nevertheless, the younger Biden's three felony convictions this week are a particularly notable entry in the long history of first family challenges. It comes after years of conservatives pointing to both Hunter's history of addiction and various business dealings as evidence of his father's alleged — and to date unsubstantiated — criminality. That Hunter now potentially faces hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of fines and an extended prison sentence for having lied on federal firearm purchasing forms would presumably be occasion for celebration from the same Republicans who have long sought to prosecute the first family.

Hunter's conviction is a "step toward accountability" House Oversight and Accountability Chairman Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) said in a statement. Still, until the Justice Department pursues "everyone involved in the Bidens' corrupt influence peddling schemes," Comer said, "it will be clear department officials continue to cover for the Big Guy, Joe Biden."

Comer's heavily qualified approval offers a glimpse into how conservatives have responded to Hunter Biden's conviction — and highlights why this particular guilty verdict is not the political slam dunk many had hoped for. 

'Deep State's sacrificial lamb'

For many of the GOP's most vocal Biden critics, Hunter's conviction is merely a distraction — or worse, a deliberately engineered diversion — from his family's allegedly more serious crimes. "Don't be gaslit," former top Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller said on X. The younger Biden's gun-related charges are merely a "giant misdirection," and an "easy op for DOJ to sell to a pliant media that is all too willing to be duped." In being convicted, Hunter "became the Deep State’s sacrificial lamb to show that Justice is 'balanced' while the other Biden crimes remain ignored," agreed Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

Republican arguments that the DOJ "treated President Joe Biden's son with kid gloves while zealously prosecuting Trump" have been "hurt by the Biden-led Justice Department prosecuting the president's son," U.S. News and World Report said. In making the argument that the Biden DOJ is targeting political opponents, those same Republicans "may be trying to deflect from Trump's own stated intentions to wield the criminal justice system against opponents if he returns to the White House." Given that "truth rarely matters" in the Trump-era, and "inconvenient facts never [penetrate] the echo chamber that dominates Republican politics and conservative media," the former president's allies have used Biden's conviction to "conjure a new round of falsehoods and conspiracy theories," CNN's Stephen Collinson said. 

'Backfire in the court of public opinion'

Republicans "can't agree on how" to prevent Hunter Biden's convictions from "undermining their argument that the judicial system is being weaponized against Donald Trump," Politico said. In part, that's a byproduct of the nature of Biden's crimes themselves and the role his well-publicized drug use played in his criminal actions. Addiction is a topic "both sensitive and salient for millions of American families," ABC News said. Attacks on that front "could backfire in the court of public opinion" where Americans are "looking for leaders who sympathize and have solutions."

Moreover, the political realities of Biden's conviction for illegally purchasing and owning a firearm presented a unique dilemma for Republicans who, as a whole, "favor far more relaxed laws than Democrats," The Guardian said. However bad the verdict is for Hunter Biden himself, it's similarly "bad news for the Second Amendment," said Fox News' Greg Gutfeld. 

That the "prevailing reaction among Republicans" after Biden's convictions was "not so much hailing the verdict as claiming that this case was a smokescreen" suggests that the GOP understands that most voters "aren't particularly concerned about this case," The Washington Post said. Fervent MAGA Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) offered a similar, if blunter, assessment: 

At the same time, the Post said, there is still a risk that some may see Biden as "having gotten off somewhat easy." While his three counts carry up to 25 years of prison time, Biden, as a first-time offender, likely wouldn't get "anywhere near the maximum sentence," The Associated Press said. 

"That's a wrap, folks – the match is set," said Jeffrey Blehar in National Review. The departure of Nikki Haley from the Republican nomination contest, in the wake of her "entirely predictable walloping" in last week's Super Tuesday primaries, means that the presidential race has finally come down to a straight battle between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The US must choose between a "senile" president "run by his handlers", or a "stupid" president "incapable of listening to his advisers". That's all that's on offer. 

Polling shows that a majority of US voters are deeply depressed by the prospect of a Trump-Biden rematch, said Jim Geraghty in The Washington Post, but they can't really complain. Haley did everything she could to prevent this situation. "America, if you wanted different nominees than Trump and Biden, you had to come out and vote for them."

Going Trump's way

Trump is on a roll, said David A. Graham in The Atlantic. The day after the Super Tuesday "romp", the US supreme court dismissed a claim by three states that Trump was ineligible for the ballot in November owing to his role in instigating the 6 January 2021 attack on the Capitol. The dates of some of Trump's trials have also been pushed back, reducing the chances that he'll receive a criminal conviction before the election. Trump's political success has often appeared to come in the face of "difficulty and disaster", but today everything seems to be going his way. It helps that, for once, the former president is showing a touch of "actual political discipline", said Ross Douthat in The New York Times. He has some serious people running his campaign, has "kept his more bizarre rants confined to the weird microworld of Truth Social", and – partly as a result of all his legal commitments – is doing fewer rallies. The rule of the Trump era is "the lower his profile, the higher his polls".

Biden's advantage

Biden hopes that that will work in his favour, said Elena Schneider on Politico. His campaign has a $41m cash advantage over Trump, who is weighed down with legal bills. His team is preparing "an onslaught of ads to turn voters' attention away from Biden's age and remind them of Trump's chaotic first term". Biden may be "the most unpopular president in the history of polling", said Marc A. Thiessen in The Washington Post, but he could easily win. The GOP is deeply divided between the dominant Maga wing, which encompasses about two-thirds of its voters, and the non-Maga wing. Trump needs the support of the latter group. According to Fox News analysis, 53% of non-Maga Republicans in Iowa, 57% in South Carolina and 65% in New Hampshire say they won't vote for Trump in November. "If even a fraction follows through on that promise", it could cost him the White House.

The GOP's gamble

The GOP is taking a big gamble with Trump, said The Wall Street Journal. In every vote since his win in 2016, "Republicans have lost or underperformed". It's a bad bet, agreed Eric Levitz on Vox. Polls suggest that Haley's nomination would have all but guaranteed a GOP triumph. In the key swing state of Wisconsin, for instance, where Trump is level-pegging with Biden, Haley polled 15 points ahead of the president. She could have led a proper Republican landslide. With Trump, by contrast – "a candidate that a majority of voters disdain" – the GOP faces the prospect of either a defeat or a narrow win that will tightly constrain its future room for manoeuvre. The conservative movement is missing a "golden opportunity". "Republicans won't get to run against an 81-year-old man with a 56% disapproval rating every election cycle."

Donald Trump has claimed another victory in his battle for the White House by adding former Republican primary rival Ron DeSantis to his ever-growing flock of supporters. 

DeSantis, the governor of Florida, spent tens of millions of dollars pitching himself as a younger, less chaotic version of the former president. But there was a "fatal flaw in the plan," said The Telegraph's deputy US editor Rozina Sabur. DeSentis "reckoned on a Republican Party that had tired of the 77-year-old, criminally indicted Trump", yet "it took just one state to vote in the party's nomination contest to shatter that illusion".

DeSantis quit the GOP nomination race on Sunday, after Trump won last week's Iowa caucus with more than 50% of the vote.

What the papers said

The biggest lesson for DeSantis is that "personality matters more than policy in presidential races", said The Telegraph's Sabur. And the more time voters had to get to know DeSantis, "the less they seemed to like him".

Things might have been different, suggested Vox, had not the Republican's "anti-Trump wing" invested "so many resources into Florida's exceptionally uncharismatic governor". But that miscalculation doesn't explain the "scale of Trump's polling advantage", nor the "tolerance" of the GOP's primary electorate for the former president's "authoritarian criminality". 

Rather, the site argued, "the Republicans' inability to oust Trump is a symptom of deep, structural pathologies in American political life – specifically, the decades-long decay of our nation's political parties and the radicalisation of the GOP base".

Polls suggest that Trump is now in a "stronger position to win the presidency in November than he was at this time in 2016".

The former leader "may have grown in power", said The Spectator's deputy editor Freddy Gray, "but he's essentially the same ego-crazed maniac that he was eight years ago". What has changed is the "soul of conservative America". 

"The religious right, which dominated conservatism from the 1960s to the end of the George W. Bush era, has become less pious and more political," Gray continued. "It has been Trumpified."

That Trump won more than three-quarters of the white evangelical vote in 2016 and 2020 is of little surprise. What is strange is that "white people, rather than voting for Trump because they are Christian, have started to declare themselves Christian because they support Trump".

"Politics has become the master identity," Ryan Burge, a Baptist professor of political science, told The New York Times. "Everything else lines up behind partisanship."

Another surprise – and one that will greatly concern Democrats – is that Trump is also winning the backing of the young. A pollby The New York Times and Siena College published in December showed Trump leading Joe Biden, by 49% to 43%,  among voters aged 18 to 29.

The latest Harvard Youth Poll found that Americans under 30 trusted Trump more on the economy, national security, the Israel-Hamas war, crime, immigration and strengthening the working class, while Biden won on issues including climate change, abortion, gun violence and protecting democracy.

The Harvard findings appear to be borne out by reports from the ground, said The Economist. Joe Mitchell, a former Iowa state representative who runs a group called Run GenZ that recruits young conservative candidates, told the site that what he hears most is that "we had more money in our pockets when Donald Trump was president".

Two supporters in the midwestern state of Iowa summed up Trump's basic appeal. "The economy was great when he was in power, I love that," a rodeo attendee told Newshub. "I think everybody could use a mean tweet and some cheap gas," another added.

What next?

DeSantis's exit leaves former UN ambassador Nikki Haley as the only viable candidate standing in the way of a Trump coronation. 

The next GOP primary, on Tuesday, is in New Hampshire, where Haley has slowly been building support. A shock victory by her there would give Trump and his supporters pause for thought, but with the former president holding a commanding lead in national polling, the chances of Haley ultimately winning the Republican nomination are slim.

At times, said Newshub, it seems like Trump is "the bronco that keeps on bucking – refusing to go down". But with Trump facing four criminal trials that will play out in the run-up to November's presidential election, "his biggest challenge is still ahead of him".

His legal woes represent the "biggest imponderable" of 2024, agreed The Spectator's Gray. "It's so complicated that even the most ardent Trump lovers and loathers struggle to keep up." 

The reality is that nobody really knows how voters will react to a conviction. For now, however, Trump "appears to be invincible, at least as far as the Republican race goes, and everything that doesn't kill him makes him stronger".

In the aftermath of the 2022 midterms, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) seemed like an inevitable political juggernaut, having engineered the sole bright spot for Republicans in an otherwise underwhelming electoral cycle. With his "Make America Florida" agenda of culture war posturing and combative social conservatism, DeSantis had positioned himself in the somewhat paradoxical role of both heir apparent to former President Donald Trump's MAGA movement, as well as a savior of sorts for the "never Trump" wing of the GOP which had grown sick of the former president's stranglehold on their party. That Trump himself soon began sniping at "Ron DeSanctimonious" amid polling that showed the Florida governor trouncing the former president in a hypothetical primary was proof enough that DeSantis' star was firmly on the rise. 

With the 2024 presidential primary race now officially underway, DeSantis' once-bright star is decidedly duller than it once was. After his campaign focused almost exclusively on this week's Iowa caucuses, DeSantis' far distant second-place finish behind Trump coupled with former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley's particularly strong third-place showing signaled to many that the governor's road to the White House was nearing a dead end. DeSantis, however, has not only vowed to stay in the race, but is already looking past the upcoming New Hampshire primary to the "important state" of South Carolina, and Nevada after that, predicting to reporters this week that Haley is "just not going to win any delegates" there. But is DeSantis' political optimism warranted, or is he simply simply delaying the inevitable? 

What the commentators said

Second place in Iowa was "good enough to punch [DeSantis'] ticket" to participate in future primaries, according to Time. Ultimately, however, it may be a "ticket to nowhere." While his second-place finish meant he'd "hit one mark that he had to," DeSantis is polling poorly in both New Hampshire and Haley's home state of South Carolina, making his path to the nomination "unclear" — no matter his commitment to "sticking around to forge it." 

While his defeat of Haley in Iowa was "thinner" than DeSantis' team wanted, it was "far better than the death knell of the third-place finish they had feared," NBC News reported. To that end, the campaign is in "full-on survival mode" at best, and living in a "fantasy land" at worst. Internally, however, the campaign is "rallying around the idea" that it can still persevere in a one-on-one race against Trump. 

DeSantis firmly believes Trump will not make it through the 2024 election, Ron Filipkowski of Midas Touch explained on MSNBC, noting that if you listen to DeSantis on the campaign trail, he is "betting on criminal cases and cholesterol" in hopes of still being in the race by the upcoming party convention.  

Much of the challenge for DeSantis stems from having "emphasized many of the same culturally conservative stances and issues" as Trump, while failing to eat into the former president's base of support, according to NPR. At the same time, he has "alienated some moderate elements" of the GOP worried about how he would fare in the general election.

Noting that DeSantis has tried to run to Trump's right — where "there isn’t much room" — the conservative editorial board of The Wall Street Journal urged the governor to drop out of the race now, and "give Ms. Haley a chance to take on Mr. Trump one on one."

What next? 

Running far behind Haley in New Hampshire, DeSantis seems focused instead on taking the fight to Haley's home turf, visiting Greenville, South Carolina, immediately after the Iowa caucuses ended. He told reporters that if Haley can't win there, "I don't see how she could say she's gonna win Super Tuesday or any of those other states."

Going to Greenville "signals to Nikki Haley that this race is not over," GOP strategist Dave Wilson told CBS. It's a recognition that "he has got to energize a group of people behind him and knock Nikki Haley off her game." 

DeSantis has vowed to up his presence in South Carolina in the coming weeks, telling reporters that although he hasn't "spent a lot of money here yet, we're gonna start to let us be known a little bit more."

It's time the King distanced himself from Prince Andrew

Alexander Larman in The Spectator 

With more "embarrassing" revelations about Prince Andrew from the Epstein files, King Charles's "continued loyalty to his disgraced younger brother" is an area in which he "deserves criticism", says Alexander Larman in The Spectator. If he hopes to protect his reputation in the "extended honeymoon" of public opinion he is enjoying, the King must cut ties with the Duke of York "both publicly and privately".

Read more

Paula Vennells has become a scapegoat

Simon Kelner on the i news site  

Paula Vennells's decision to return her CBE for services to the Post Office amid ongoing scandal is "nothing but a sideshow", writes Simon Kelner on the i news site. While she "has to shoulder much of the blame for this institutional disgrace", Vennells is only the "symbolic face of corporate heartlessness".

Read more

A regional war in the Middle East is already happening

The National editorial board 

People are "rightly concerned" about the concept of escalating violence in the nations that surround Israel, says The National's editorial board, but "regional conflict is already under way" with Israel responsible for the "lion's share of cross-border attacks". But other forces should not be let "off the hook" as Hamas and Hezbollah are clearly "unconcerned" about the impact of their actions on civilians. 

Read more

Republicans aren't talking to Gen Z voters. If they were, they’d be tackling these issues

Sara Pequeño for USA Today 

Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump are fighting "for the attention of the nation" in TV appearances this evening, says Sara Pequeño for USA Today. But if any of them hope to secure the White House, the party must "get more moderate". 

Read more

Against a backdrop of corrugated metal and rings of razor wire, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) kicked off the 2024 legislative season with a show of political force at the country's southern border with Mexico, declaring the recent surge in migrant crossings a "catastrophe" and a "disaster of the president's own design." Enveloped by more than 60 Republican lawmakers at his press conference in Eagle Pass, TX on Wednesday, Johnson — less than three months into his tenure as speaker — framed immigration as a matter of national security, claiming the Biden administration had "laid out a welcome mat to illegal immigrants, smugglers and cartels" while predicting that the GOP would succeed in flipping the White House, regain control of the Senate, and expand its House majority "in large measure because of this issue."

Wednesday's event comes as House Republicans ramp up their longstanding effort to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, with a Homeland Security Committee meeting entitled "Havoc in the Heartland: How Secretary Mayorkas' Failed Leadership Has Impacted the States" scheduled for next week, per a committee press release issued on Wednesday. At the same time, Johnson's Senate colleagues remain locked in intense negotiations over a bipartisan border security bill to be coupled with aid for both Israel and Ukraine, as Arizona Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema insisted to reporters this week that both sides were "closing in" on a final agreement. 

If this all sounds vaguely familiar, that's because the dynamics on display this week are broadly the same as those that have animated much of the past legislative season: a push for hardline border laws with the open question of whether House Republicans will accept a bipartisan deal from the upper chamber — with crucial foreign aid funds in the balance. Will Johnson's latest effort change that basic equation? 

'The House stands at a crossroads'

While the House GOP's messaging has largely remained consistent from last year to now, this week's event in Texas signifies both a show of strength for Johnson, as well as a potential conflict. Because "the House stands at a crossroads," there is an opportunity for Republicans to "extract significant policy changes" from the White House, according to Semafor's Kadia Goba. By appearing with such a large delegation — including "Republicans in competitive districts" who have backed impeaching Mayorkas — Wednesday's event was a "show of unity heading into the next phase" of negotiations in which Republicans will likely reject any bipartisan compromise that doesn't hew closely to a hardline immigration bill they passed last year. 

"I’m not willing to do too damn much right now to help a Democrat and to help Joe Biden’s approval rating," Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) told CNN. And while this isn't necessarily an "unusual sentiment," MSNBC's Steve Benen explained, it's nevertheless striking to hear a lawmaker say out loud that it's "preferable to reject a policy agreement — even one that includes Republican priorities" so long as it denies the White House a "win."

'Shifting their attention to regular spending bills'

While the currently looming impasse hinges on the linkage between a border bill and supplemental aid for Ukraine and Israel, the Eagle Pass event foreshadowed a potential expansion of the GOP's negotiating arena; Republicans in both the House and Senate have begun "shifting their attention to regular spending bills" which are their "greatest leverage" in wringing hardline border concessions from the White House, according to The Hill. That expansion, in turn, heightens the risk of a partial — or even full — government shutdown in the coming months, with Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) telling the outlet that he will work to ensure there is no funding bill passed until the border is secured to his liking, adding that "everybody I've talked to in the House, that's where they are" as well. 

Affirming Scott's point, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) threatened that "if this border is not shut down, then we must shut down the government," on X.

"None of us want to shut down the government," Rep. Beth Van Duyne (R-Tx) lamented on Wednesday, nevertheless leaving open that possibility. 

In a statement to Politico, White House Spokesperson Andrew Bates rejected the GOP's threats and highlighted Republican legislative opposition to existing border security measures, saying "actions speak louder than words."

In truth, political in-fighting has been a feature of politics since the moment politics began. For as long as people have rallied around a cause or ideology, those rallies have been beset by disagreement and factionalism. In that sense, the intra-GOP rancor that defined much of the Republican Party's past year is not a fundamentally new phenomenon. Parties have wings, and wings vie for power and influence. What made this past year's Republican in-fighting so noteworthy is how disruptively widespread, and personally rancorous it was. 

From their historic struggle to select congressional leadership to the ongoing — and thus far wholly unsuccessful — effort to unseat Donald Trump from his dominant perch atop the presidential primary field, Republicans in 2023 have seemingly spent as much time fighting amongst themselves as they have passing bills. To the extent that there has been actual legislating that's taken place this year (and there has!) it's been overshadowed in no small part by the GOP's tone, tenor, and energy spent arguing among themselves. For as much as "Dems in disarray" has become political shorthand for left-leaning dysfunction, the past 12 months of Republican intransigence has proven that no party has a monopoly on self-sabotaging maladjustment. 

Whether electing a House speaker, deposing that speaker, electing another speaker of the House, breaking strangleholds on military promotions, or simply trying to stand out on a crowded debate stage, 2023 has been the year of — and for — Republican infighting. 

Who speaks for the speaker? 

Perhaps the biggest indicator of the coming year's frustrations and in-fighting came last January, just after Republicans narrowly regained control of a sharply divided House of Representatives in a midterm cycle that fell far short of expectations for a "red wave" that fall. Narrow majority in hand, California Rep. Kevin McCarthy — a longtime member of GOP House leadership — had initially "been seen as a shoo-in" to become the next Speaker of the House. Stung by their underwhelming showing in November, his fellow Republicans, however, disagreed, and forced McCarthy to endure a grueling and historic 15 rounds of voting before finally granting him the speaker's gavel — thanks to a slate of major concessions he'd made along the way including lowering the threshold for prompting his own ouster to just a single representative.

The raw opprobrium on display during the 15 rounds of speaker votes, coupled with his self-sabotaging agreement to accept a hair-trigger threat of ousting essentially set the tone for McCarthy's tenure as speaker, and the House GOP caucus at large. As The New York Times' Jonathan Swan and Annie Karni wrote just four months into McCarthy's speakership "[the] suspicions and divisions exposed during that process remain and are spilling out into the open."

If they were "spilling" in April, by the late summer those divisions had grown to a flood, as right-wing anger over McCarthy's willingness to negotiate away hardline conservative demands in order to avert a looming government shutdown exploded into full public view. Then, in early October, a small band of MAGA Republicans led by Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz pulled the trigger on the process to remove McCarthy from the speaker's chair in "a move without precedent that left the chamber without a leader and plunged it into chaos," according to The New York Times. Once McCarthy was successfully deposed, the intra-party acrimony only intensified, as Republicans spent weeks struggling to elect a successor who could unify the hardline MAGA wing with the main bulk of the caucus. It's telling that after Republicans finally selected "social conservative's social conservative" Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) to lead the chamber, both McCarthy and interim speaker Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) announced plans to leave the House of Representatives for good.

At the same time, while not rising nearly to the level of open hostility as their colleagues in the House, Republicans in the ordinarily (and by design) more congenial Senate experienced their own share of intra-party frustrations aimed largely at Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), whose nearly yearlong blockade of military promotions earned a round of rare public rebukes from his fellow conservatives. "I do not respect men who do not honor their word," Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst lamented on the Senate floor, while Alaska's Dan Sullivan, a Marine Corps Reserve colonel, asked, "how dumb can we be?" 

Donald, duck

Potshots and sideswipes against their fellow Republicans weren't limited to congressional lawmakers, either. Perhaps the most pointed — if slightly less immediately consequential — examples of Republican infighting over the past year have come from those striving to lead the party as standard-bearer and presidential nominee in 2024. Some candidates, like former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, have tiptoed around overt broadsides, eschewing personal attacks for calls to induct a "new generation" of conservative leadership — an indirect condemnation of septuagenarian party frontrunner and undeniable center of gravity Donald Trump. Other candidates, like onetime Trump sycophant and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, have been more frontal in their attempts to derail Trump's seemingly iron grip on the GOP. More than any of the other high-profile candidates, Christie has been fully willing to attack Trump as a "cheap grifter" and a coward for his refusal to join the Republican debates, even resorting to an attempt at decidedly Trumpian name-calling. 

Trump, meanwhile, has gone out of his way to attack Christie's health, and physique. 

At the same time Haley, long-promised "never Trump" savior Ron DeSantis, and "anti-woke" crusader Vivek Ramaswamy have been locked in a particularly vicious three-way race for second place far behind Trump. It's a collision that's led to perhaps some of the most overtly, unsubtle moments of debate stage hostility to date, with Haley calling Ramaswamy "scum" at one point, only for the political neophyte to attack Haley as "corrupt" a few weeks later. 

While a measure of mud-slinging is to be expected in a hotly contested primary race, the level of callousness and mean-spiritedness on display among this crop of GOP candidates is a testament to just how commonplace this level of political infighting has become — particularly thanks to, and in the wake of, Donald Trump's commanding dominance over the party. 

2024 will be the year that Republicans will, once again, line up behind a party nominee who will, ideally, unify the GOP's various wings and present a compelling, holistic vision of American conservatism moving forward. Perhaps that will actually happen, but if this past year has been any indication, Republicans will need to do a lot of work mending fences and rebuilding burnt bridges before they can move ahead, together. 

As 2023 winds inexorably down, Republican lawmakers are wasting little time telegraphing plans to intensify their ongoing investigations into both President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in 2024 for alleged — and to date largely unsubstantiated — allegations of corruption, raising the prospect of an election-year impeachment proceeding against the incumbent president during his bid for a second term in office. 

On Thursday, North Dakota Rep. Kelly Armstrong introduced a 14-page resolution to codify the impeachment effort announced this past summer by then-Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy by bringing it forward for a full House vote in the coming days. In essence, the resolution is a parliamentary affirmation of what has already been happening across several congressional bodies, by directing the House Oversight, Ways and Means, and Judiciary committees to "continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry" into whether there are grounds for impeachment. 

Stressing during a press conference this week that the resolution and forthcoming vote is not, in and of itself, an impeachment of the president, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) argued that the move is necessary so that when any efforts to compel testimony or provide documents are "challenged in court, it will be at the apex of our constitutional authority."

Currently, House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Hunter Biden are engaged in a contentious negotiation over whether the president's son will testify publicly, as Biden has offered, or behind closed doors according to Comer's demands. To date, House Republicans have held just one public impeachment hearing, which one GOP aide described as an "unmitigated disaster" for Comer and his fellow Republicans. 

'Sad, pathetic, and a waste of everyone's time'

The Biden administration brushed off the pending resolution vote, calling it a "baseless stunt" that's "not rooted in facts or reality" in a statement from spokesperson Ian Sams on Wednesday. The White House had previously argued against the inquiry's constitutionality thus far "because it had not been formalized with a vote of the whole House," The Hill reported. Sams later shared a link on X, formerly Twitter, to an article in the conservative Daily Caller highlighting Fox News host Brian Kilmeade's characterization of the impeachment inquiry as a "waste of time." In his statement, Sams agreed, describing the push as "sad, pathetic, and a waste of everyone's time." 

Earlier this week, Kilmeade's fellow Fox News reporter Chad Pergram similarly asserted that the renewed push for formalizing the impeachment inquiry was fueled in part by the Republicans' "need to put a GOP win on the table for the base."

The effort to formalize the impeachment inquiry also comes as moderate Republicans start "warming to the idea" where once they were skeptical, according to The New Republic. While McCarthy's unilateral declaration of an impeachment investigation may not have swayed them this summer, they can now "cite the Biden administration's recalcitrance as their reason to vote to open an inquiry next week."

'This is not a political decision'

Predicting that the impeachment inquiry resolution will get "every vote that we have" from Republicans, Johnson has also "toiled in recent weeks to ingratiate himself" with his party's rightmost flank, particularly after he worked with Democrats to avoid a government shutdown in mid-November, The New York Times reported. But despite Johnson's assurances, as well as the apparent softening of some moderate Republicans, the inquiry vote will ultimately be a "major test of party unity, given the GOP's narrow 221-213 majority," according to PBS News Hour. That narrow majority is set to grow even smaller in the coming year, thanks to several high-profile early GOP retirements, including former speaker McCarthy.

Johnson himself worked to diffuse the situation this week, explaining that at this stage of the process "whether someone is for or against impeachment is of no import right now," and that "moderates in our conference understand this is not a political decision." Still, moderate Republicans currently "ready to vote for an impeachment inquiry now may be more hesitant to back actually impeaching Biden" if and when that becomes a reality, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The leadership body for the Republican Party of Texas this week voted down a measure to block members from associating with people and organizations "known to espouse or tolerate antisemitism, pro-Nazi sympathies or Holocaust denial." This came just weeks after neo-Nazi extremist Nick Fuentes was photographed meeting with a high-profile conservative political operative whose "Defend Texas Liberty" PAC has helped elect Republicans statewide.

The clause, part of a broader resolution in support of Israel, was voted down 32-29 by the Texas GOP's Executive Committee on Saturday, according to The Texas Tribune. Moreover, "roughly half of the board also tried to prevent a record of their vote from being kept," in a move that "stunned some members," the paper reported. Speaking during Saturday's vote, Texas GOP chair Matt Rinaldi claimed that he didn't see "any antisemitic, pro-Nazi or Holocaust denial movement on the right that has any significant traction whatsoever." Rinaldi was also reportedly present in the offices for conservative consulting firm White Horse Strategies, owned by Defend Texas Liberty leader Jonathan Stickland, at the same time as Fuentes last October. He has claimed he was not part of Fuentes' meeting there, and was unaware of Fuentes' presence.

On X, formerly Twitter, several high-profile Texas Republicans spoke out against this weekend's vote, with state House Speaker Dade Phelan calling the failure to adopt the resolution "despicable." Far-right Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said that not including the language in the final resolution was "totally unacceptable to me" while predicting that the executive committee "will correct this at their next meeting."

In a statement, Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa called for Rinaldi to resign, and urged Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel to "open a full investigation" into any ties between the Texas GOP and  "anti-semites, Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers."

When Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) finally convinced his fellow Republicans to elect him speaker of the house nearly one year ago, he did so only by agreeing to a Faustian bargain of sorts: empowering any one member of his barely-there majority with the ability to remove him from the role. This, of course, inevitably led to his own ignominious ousting last month. So far, his successor, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), has been granted a measure of leeway and patience from his raucous GOP conference and now grapples with the consequences of his own promise made to secure the speaker's gavel: a vow to make public thousands of hours of footage from the Jan. 6 insurrection on the United States Capitol.

"When I ran for Speaker, I promised to make accessible to the American people the 44,000 hours of video from Capitol Hill security taken on January 6, 2021," Johnson wrote on X, formerly Twitter, insisting that now "millions of Americans, criminal defendants, public interest organizations, and the media" will have access to footage themselves, instead of relying on "the interpretation of a small group of government officials."

While Johnson's promise is not the procedural threat to his speakership that McCarthy's motion-to-vacate agreement was, it nevertheless represents a potential risk for the arch-ultraconservative's relatively untested leadership. Like McCarthy before him, Johnson's decision to revisit the events of, and antecedents to, the attack on the Capitol forces his own party to address both the violence of the day itself, as well as the broader effort by former President Donald Trump to subvert the 2020 elections — an area which many Republicans see as a "terrible political strategy" no matter how often they violate their own instincts on the subject, Politico reported this past spring. 

What the commentators said

Already, allies of the former president are using the first tranche of newly public footage to "further a debunked narrative" that the insurrection was engineered and orchestrated by federal law enforcement "in order to distract from election fraud," Forbes reported. In particular, "far-right social media users" as well as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) have zeroed in on footage of a man they claim is an undercover police officer flashing a badge during the riot. 

"That's a law enforcement badge in his hand while disguised as a Trump supporter in a MAGA hat," Rep. Greene wrote in a since-edited post on X, which no longer includes that line but continues to assert that "MAGA did not do this."

Releasing the footage is "part of a larger effort by Republicans to redefine the narrative around the deadly insurrection" after a bipartisan House Select Committee report blamed Trump for instigating the attack, according to The Associated Press. Mindful of his party's extreme right flank, Johnson is working to "curry favor with the group after using a stop-gap bill to keep the government open," CNN reported — a similar move to that which prompted McCarthy's ousting this fall. 

By releasing these tapes, Johnson has not only exacerbated a "serious security concern" regarding how rioters were able to enter the U.S. Capitol Complex but has confirmed "his allegiance, like Kevin McCarthy’s before him, is to Donald Trump and the ultra-right-wing faction of the House," former January 6 committee spokesperson Hannah Muldavin told Roll Call. As former Republican Rep. Vin Weber explained to The Hill during last month's speaker turmoil, "Republicans in marginal districts are worried about Democrat opponents running ads that say Congress person-X voted to make Jim Jordan Speaker, and he was involved in the Jan. 6 insurrection." While Jordan did not succeed at grabbing the gavel, vulnerable Republicans remain keenly concerned over their party's associations with the insurrection itself. 

Evidence suggests that the insurrection "alienates and could mobilize independent voters in particular," The Washington Post's Aaron Blake concurred this past spring. 

What next? 

While Rep. Greene has used the latest released footage to call for a new congressional committee to investigate Jan. 6, her demand is a "political stunt to delay resolution and to muddy public opinion on the matter," Northeastern University Professor of Political Science Costas Panagopoulos told Newsweek, which noted that much of the social media response to Greene's call suggested that a "new committee would backfire on Republicans."

Suella Braverman was the pantomime villain, but don't expect the story to change now she's gone

Owen Jones in The Guardian

Suella Braverman's persona as a "pantomime villain", says Owen Jones in The Guardian, makes her ousting as home secretary "all the more satisfying". But her downfall is not a "symbol of [Rishi] Sunak's newfound moderation", Jones adds. Although Braverman has "exited the stage", she "is but a crude distillation of the poison that courses through the Tory party's veins". 

Read more

At this rate, wearing a Remembrance poppy will soon be a thing of the past

Michael Deacon in The Telegraph

With a new Ipsos poll showing two-thirds of under-40s don't know Armistice Day is  11 November, the "only possible explanation", argues Michael Deacon in The Telegraph, is that "they don't care". To the young, wearing a poppy is "another quaint, dated habit", and while "we will remember them" is an enduring vow, "for how much longer, I wouldn't like to guess". 

Read more

The world must start preparing for peacemaking in the Middle East

George Abed in the Financial Times

"Abysmal conditions" prevail as a result of the war between Israel and Hamas, says the former governor of the Palestine Monetary Authority, George Abed, in the Financial Times. But the world must "turn to preparing for peace once the guns fall silent". Before this happens, there is "an enormous amount of work to do''. Above all, both sides must accept "a two-state solution" and a "transformation of the current governance structure" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Read more

Checks and Balances Are for Losers

Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times 

If Donald Trump wins a second term, says Jamelle Bouie in The New York Times, he will seek the "unchecked authority of a strongman". Trump has vowed to seek a third term, which would "violate the Constitution", and plans to prosecute his "critics and rivals". But while some may "dismiss the former president's rhetoric" as the "ravings of a lunatic", his words are a "reliable guide to his actions, desires and preoccupations".

Read more

Israel is winning the battle for Gaza – but losing the war

Michael Day on i news 

 Israel claims to be "winning the war against Hamas", says Michael Day on the i news site, but "in reality, the fight is on a knife-edge". By "destroying the Gaza Strip" – killing thousands of civilians in the process and "alienating" Arab states, the Global South and even some of Israel's allies – Benjamin Netanyahu "is doing Hamas’s bidding". If he "is not able to defeat Hamas before it too becomes a global pariah, then the terror group will have succeeded in one of its key aims".

Read more

It would be a mistake for the Tory Right to go with Suella Braverman

Janet Daley in The Daily Telegraph

There is talk of sacked Suella Braverman "becoming the heroine of the Tory Right" and using her exit from government "as a basis for a leadership bid", writes Janet Daley for The Telegraph. "If this happens it will be profoundly misjudged." For the party's Right to adopt her brand of leadership "will not just put it out of touch with a huge swathe of the British electorate: much more important, it will discredit the political and economic policies which should be its true mission".

Read more

What Republicans don't understand about how Biden really wins elections

Jason Chaffertz for Fox News

With Joe Biden's approval rating "underwater on nearly every critical issue", writes Jason Chaffetz for Fox News, Republicans "should have the wind at their backs on the economy and inflation, on energy, on foreign policy, on border issues, on crime and many more". Yet GOP candidates repeatedly underperform expectations, proving it "isn’t enough to be right on the issues". Election-winning campaigns "need appealing candidates and a plan to get out the vote", and "this is the challenge for Republicans".

Read more

China, Russia, Iran and the prospect of American retreat

Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times

Joe Biden "is not just an old guy", says Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times. The US leader is also a "representative of an old idea" dating back to the 1940s – that his nation and the wider world are safer if the US plays the role of world policeman. But the prospect of a second Trump presidency "raises a huge question mark over the future of America’s global leadership", with China, Russia and Iran all ready to "take advantage of the resulting power vacuum".

Read more

There was no white smoke issuing from a Capitol chimney, and no choreographed pageantry of a royal coronation, but after three weeks of internal strife and public disarray, lawmakers in Washington elected little-known Louisiana Republican Rep. Mike Johnson as 56th speaker of the House of Representatives, finally filling the void left by ousted California Republican Kevin McCarthy. With barely any national name recognition just one day earlier, Johnson is now third in line to the presidency, and one of the most politically powerful people on Earth. He is also, as Politico's Calder McHugh put it, a "social conservative’s social conservative" who has argued that "homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural" while serving, per New York Magazine's Jonathan Chait, as the congressional "mastermind" of former President Donald Trump's 2020 election subversion effort. 

With long ties to the Southern Poverty Law Center-designated hate group the Alliance Defending Freedom, Johnson is "the most culturally conservative lawmaker to ascend to the speakership in decades, if not longer," according to McHugh, and a "speaker for the MAGA movement," Axios reported. Although he was unanimously backed by his Republican colleagues this week, Johnson's path forward as speaker is by no means an easy one; his barely-there congressional majority is complicated by the ongoing intra-party struggle between MAGA hardliners and their comparatively moderate GOP counterparts, while Democrats have shown lockstep unity during the past few weeks of speaker drama. So where do Johnson, the Republicans, and Congress as a whole go from here? 

What the commentators said

Johnson's speakership win "immediately raised new questions about whether Johnson would help or hinder Republicans’ efforts to hold onto their fragile majority next year," The Washington Post reported, citing a lack of national fundraising skills and relationships as fueling "fears that he won’t be able to raise as much money to help the party hold the House" as his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, had. Republicans also worry that Johnson won't be able to "unite the conference or even staff his own speaker’s office fast enough," according to separate analysis from the Post. Ultimately Johnson "inherits many of the same political problems that have tormented past GOP leaders," according to The Associated Press. For as much as he earned his party's unanimous support in the speaker vote, that "goodwill toward Johnson blurs the political fault lines challenging the Louisianan’s ability to lead" the GOP for the remainder of the term. 

Democrats, meanwhile, are eager to pounce on the "blank slate" afforded by Johnson's low national profile, and are working to define him by his extremities ahead of the 2024 election, Axios reported. Johnson is a "rare and volatile combination of unvetted [and] conservative talk show host," one Democratic strategist told the website, pointing to "years of material, freestyle right-wing rhetoric, that nobody has looked under the hood on." By that same measure, however, some of the hardline Republicans who helped oust McCarthy see Johnson's speakership as a decisive victory for their gambit; "I promised the country that we would end up with a speaker who was more honest and more conservative," Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), whose motion to vacate set off the recent speaker battle, boasted to the Post. "We have."

What next?

For as much as the faultlines and future minefields still exist for Johnson, the "goodwill" referenced by AP does, at least in the short term, seem to bode well for a GOP weary of embarrassing public feuds. As hardline House Freedom Caucus chair Scott Perry (R-Penn.) explained to CNN's Manu Raju when asked about a short-term spending bill — the same issue that prompted Gaetz's deposition of McCarthy to begin with — "there was a trust factor with leadership last time." With Johnson holding the speaker's gavel, "you’re going to see a different viewpoint now."

Whether that goodwill lasts, Johnson himself has committed himself to an "ambitious schedule" in a letter to House Republicans, proposing 12 individual spending bills between now and the budget deadline of November 17. Acknowledging the challenges of his new office, Johnson stressed the need to "unify our membership and build consensus" across the GOP. If successful, he added, "we can achieve our necessary objectives."

Insanity, it's famously said, is the act of doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results each time. Glib as it may be, that quote has rung particularly true over the course of the past few weeks, as Republican lawmakers scramble once again to fill the speaker's seat it took 15 ballots for now-ousted Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to secure in the first place. With legislation at a standstill, Democrats have stood resolute behind Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) as their pick for speaker. Republicans, meanwhile, have been unable to coalesce behind several of their highest-profile lawmakers who have each embarked on a series of increasingly haphazard bids for the speaker's gavel. 

Now, after several weeks of a disorderly, but fairly linear process in which a single GOP lawmaker at a time tries — to date, unsuccessfully — to secure the support of 217 of their colleagues, the field has burst wide open. Currently, at least nine Republican representatives have declared their intent to run for speaker, starting with a GOP candidate forum on Monday evening where the roster of hopefuls — a mix of fresh faces and longtime climbers within the party — will make their respective cases to their colleagues.

But with the field now split nine ways ahead of an expected floor vote on Tuesday, is this newly expanded class of aspirants a sign of strength for the GOP, or another mark of dysfunction within a party that's struggled to unify all term?

What the commentators said

In spite of his hopes that "everyone would come together, put the country before the politics, and actually solve this," the fact that the House has reached this point of infighting and ineffectiveness is "embarrassing for the Republican Party" and "embarrassing for the nation" former Speaker McCarthy told NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday.

The fact that there are so many candidates jostling for the position at once presents "a new set of challenges" for the GOP, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing "fractures, coupled with a very narrow 221-212 majority" that contributes to "groups of holdouts who may decline to back their nominee on the House floor." It's a challenge akin to "drinking from a fire hose," Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) told the paper, as candidates begin "reaching out and jostling for support."

The dynamics of a nine-person race means that a "candidate who could become a weak speaker with no national name recognition" has a legitimate, if narrow path to victory, simply by virtue of attracting "the least rancor from across the divided conference," according to CNN's Stephen Collinson. Perhaps a lesser-known name from within this group might "change the calculations of the extremists who opposed McCarthy and Scalise and the more moderate battleground district members who doomed the bulldozing Jordan." As The New York Times noted, none of the current batch of candidates has "the kind of commanding national profile normally required of the speaker" — including being "a key fund-raiser for their party’s efforts to protect and expand its majority." Punchbowl News was more blunt in its assertion that "we have nine candidates — some of them backbenchers."

What next? 

In an effort to avoid the sort of public dysfunction that has characterized the intra-GOP speakers battle so far, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) has pushed for Republicans to sign a "unity pledge" to support whomever the party chooses as its final nominee "regardless of who that candidate is — when their election proceeds to the House Floor." Many in the Republican caucus are "getting to the point now where the rank and file, the ones that are always on the team, are sick of it," Flood told The Washington Times. "We’re sick of being tossed around like pinballs in this whole situation," Flood continued. "Then watch us vote ‘present.’" At least six of the nine candidates have signed Flood's pledge, NPR reported. 

Democrats, meanwhile, seem in no rush to help their colleagues across the aisle, since "this type of dysfunction and chaos among Republicans will benefit Democrats" party strategist Brad Woodhouse told Roll Call. Ultimately, "House Republicans are at their last gasp this week," Punchbowl concluded. If no speaker comes out of this round of votes, some members will "seek Democratic backing to break the stalemate."

It's been two weeks since Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz and a cadre of far rightwing lawmakers forced Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to vacate his position as Speaker of the House, ending what had already been a tumultuous era for congressional Republicans and plunging the party into weird and uncharted political waters. Already two Republican heavyweights, Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have tried and failed to reach the requisite support for their respective bids to become speaker, leaving the fate of several upcoming major legislative necessities — including preventing a government shutdown — in uneasy limbo. At the same time, Scalise and Jordan's successive failures to earn the speaker's gavel have raised an even more unsettling possibility: that this current Republican majority may simply be unable to sufficiently unite behind anyone to serve as the next speaker of the House. 

As GOP efforts to land on a suitable speaker nominee continue to falter, a growing cohort of lawmakers have begun circling around an unexpected solution. Rather than looking outside the box for a new consensus figure that Republicans can rally around, what if the best, most viable option to restart business as (somewhat) usual in the House is to simply turn to the man who has for the past two weeks worked in McCarthy's stead as his appointed steward: Speaker Pro Tempore Rep. Patrick McHenry? 

'A sensible alternative'

At the moment, McHenry's nebulous authority as Speaker Pro-Tem "limits how the House can govern as we search for a permanent Speaker," Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.) explained on X, formerly Twitter. To that end, Kelly has begun circulating a resolution to expand McHenry's powers "until November 17, 2023 or until a new Speaker is elected," so that "the House will be able to hold votes necessary to fund the government" beyond that date.

Empowering McHenry is "a sensible alternative" to the chaos of more quixotic speaker bids from Rep. Jordan, who has vowed to force more votes on his nomination, The Washington Post's Editorial Board agreed. Expanding his authority — even temporarily — gives Republicans "time to regroup and find a more suitable long-term leader, without ignoring the nation’s business."

Calling an empowered McHenry "a lot better solution than gridlock and chaos," former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed expanding the pro tem speakership on his personal website, writing that "the machinery of constitutional government must move forward." Moreover, Gingrich mused, doing so would take the wind out of the sails of "loudmouthed chaos agents" who  "will immediately become less important." On X, fellow former GOP speaker John Boehner endorsed Gingrich's essay, writing simply "I agree." 

McHenry is "probably among the savviest inside players" in the House, according to Punchbowl News, but any effort to expand his powers "will almost certainly need Democratic votes to pass." That poses a paradox for backers of the plan, as some Republicans have "warned that Democratic support could imperil any intraparty desire to push McHenry as a more permanent option," Politico reported. 

'A time for courage and creativity'

Despite McHenry's onetime reputation, per Roll Call, as a GOP "attack-dog," the prospect of expanding his powers as speaker pro tem has earned a number of Democratic backers, including the centrist Blue Dog Coalition which endorsed a proposal to grant McHenry additional powers "at 15 calendar day increments" and solely in regards to proposed bills covering "specific areas" such as government funding, and international aid to Ukraine and Israel.

Calling the ongoing congressional chaos "a time for courage and creativity by members of both parties," the coalition encouraged "civic-minded Americans to put aside their cynicism and pessimism about what is possible in the People’s House" in supporting McHenry. Even House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has "signaled openness about electing McHenry," according to CNBC, highlighting the latter's role as "a top GOP negotiator during a partisan clash in May over the nation’s debt limit."

Not all Republicans are on board, however. Jordan and his allies have been "whipping supporters to vote against the resolution empowering interim speaker Patrick McHenry" CNN's Melanie Zanona reported Wednesday. 

Speaking with Politico, Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) rejected current calls for McHenry's promotion, explaining "you’ve got to run out of options first."

After days spent trying to whip Republican votes to support his uphill bid to become the next speaker of the House of Representatives, Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan this weekend made his case to the American public, claiming on X, formerly Twitter, that the nation "cannot afford us attacking each other." Chaos within the GOP caucus notwithstanding, Jordan insisted "the differences between Republicans and Democrats in the House far outweigh our differences in the Republican Conference."

Jordan's appeal to a sense of party unity is an understandable move for a man hoping to rein in — and reign over — a fractious GOP that's brought Washington to a virtual standstill. While exact Republican numbers are for now unclear, there are "upwards of 10 lawmakers firmly in the 'Never Jordan' camp" according to Punchbowl News.  That's enough for Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) to predict to Roll Call that, with Jordan's math looking "not good," the party will ultimately have to find someone "who can truly unify us" — if such a figure within the GOP even exists. 

For now, Jordan and his allies are intent on moving forward with a full floor vote for his speaker's bid to force wavering Republicans to go on the record one way or another. And herein lies a dilemma for the GOP: With each unsuccessful at-bat for an aspiring speaker, the party further affirms a sense of internal disorder and discord which undercuts their election-year pitch to voters that they should be trusted with governing. At the same time, if Jordan's gambit is successful and he does manage to flip enough naysayers to secure the speakership, some critics contend it could place the GOP in equally dire straits. 

What the commentators said

Citing his support for former President Donald Trump's efforts to subvert the 2020 election, former Republican Rep. Liz Cheney — long one of Trump's most pointed
critics from the right — argued that selecting Jordan as their speaker nominee would mean Republicans are "abandoning the Constitution." Moreover, Cheney wrote on X, Republicans would ultimately "lose the House majority and they’ll deserve to."

Even Jordan supporters worry his camp's aggressive posturing to earn support within the caucus could end up damaging the party in the long term. The public pressure campaign to flip votes in his favor is "the dumbest way to support Jordan" Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) told CNN's Jake Tapper this weekend. Highlighting his personal support for Jordan's bid, Crenshaw explained that the "dumbest thing you can do is to continue pissing off [potential supporters[ and entrench them" against Jordan. Sharing a message from an unidentified Fox News producer to pressure House Republicans to support Jordan, Axios' Juliegrace Brufke quoted one lawmaker who called the effort "counterproductive."

With Jordan's camp warning members of Congress that Trump will "exact revenge on those who don’t vote yes," Punchbowl pointed out that Jordan is explicitly tying the fate of his party's House caucus "with a presidential candidate as never before" in what is ultimately "a huge gamble." 

Still, that gamble may ultimately pay off for Jordan, who has begun earning endorsements from some of "his most vocal opponents," Roll Call reported. The prospect that a "deal will have to be done," as voiced by Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) on Face The Nation this weekend, was enough to send Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) into Jordan's camp, just one week after she'd denounced his "disgraceful, ungracious" speech upon losing the caucus' initial vote of support to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). Now, Wagner wrote on X, "too much is at stake to hand control of the House over to radical liberal Democrats."

What next? 

All eyes are on Tuesday's expected floor vote, in which Jordan's "stick-and-carrot approach" will be put to the test, according to The Dispatch. Noting that the disruptions in the House have largely been the product of "hardliners, not the pragmatists, who have taken advantage of the personal power to individual members afforded by the GOP’s razor-thin majority," the outlet mused that it's not hard to imagine moderates using it to break Jordan's hard right conservative coalition this time around. 

Meanwhile, absent a permanent speaker, some Democratic lawmakers have pushed forward an effort to "expand the Speaker Pro Tempore's authorities" for now, Axios reported.

It's typically a sign of unity and cohesion when a political party with a congressional majority rallies to elect its nominee to become the next speaker of the House of Representatives. For the fractious and discordant Republican caucus of 2023, however, this week's election to nominate a replacement for the recently ousted Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) was yet another opportunity to highlight the deep divisions that have defined the party's narrow majority for the past congressional session. 

When House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) emerged from his party's closed-door meeting on Tuesday as the GOP's pick to wield the speaker's gavel, he acknowledged that Republicans "still have work to do" while lauding his party's "resolve" to return to the House floor and restart the legislative process that's been stalled since McCarthy's ouster. 

"We need to make sure we're sending a message to people, all throughout the world, that the House is open and doing the people's business," Scalise continued in what may end up less a declaration of purpose than a plea to his Republican colleagues, 99 of whom had voted against his becoming speaker just minutes earlier.

With a party struggling to flex its razor-thin majority, and the prospect of another government shutdown battle looming on the horizon, is Steve Scalise ready to assume one of the most powerful positions in the United States government, or is his plan to become speaker already showing signs of coming apart at the seams? 

What the commentators said

Scalise's speakership "woes are similar to McCarthy's — but worse," Punchbowl's Jake Sherman wrote on X, formerly Twitter. Flipping 107 votes to reach the magic number 217 is a "Sisyphean task" he continued in his newsletter, cautioning that the "stakes this time are higher, the time frame is shorter, the opposition is larger and the House Republican Conference is angrier." Scalise's hope that winning the party's nomination would induce Republican holdouts to come around is "simply not happening." Scalise was "telling people he could get 150 votes," former speaker McCarthy told Punchbowl's Mica Soellner, adding "he wasn’t there."

While some of those holdouts who voted for Donald Trump-endorsed Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) have since agreed to vote for Scalise when the full house meets to select a speaker, "the number who oppose him exceeds the number he can lose," CBS reported, citing at least 10 Republicans who have publicly declined to back Scalise. South Carolina Rep. Nancy Mace was perhaps the most vocal in her opposition, raising Scalise's past associations with various racist movements in an interview with CNN, explaining that she could not "in good conscience vote for someone who attended a white supremacist conference and compared himself to David Duke." Mace also predicted that it would be "impossible for Steve Scalise to get to 217." 

Other Scalise opponents have raised concerns about his "leadership capabilities, his legislative strategy and even his health status as he battles blood cancer," according to The New York Times. More broadly, Scalise's struggles to secure the speakership may be a byproduct of the current mood within the Republican party where he, as current majority leader, is "seen as a member of the House GOP establishment in a party that lionizes outsiders and insurgents," CNN's Stephen Collinson reported. 

What next? 

While Scalise continues to whip support for the eventual House floor vote, "the only way [he] will win is by making concessions to the extremists and holdouts," Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) wrote on X, reminding people of McCarthy's "turbulent" speakership "the last time this happened." CNN's Collinson agreed, writing that Scalise risked "neutering his potential House speakership before it starts with concessions to extremists needed to win the gavel," just as McCarthy had before him. Initial hopes for a quick floor vote were stymied on Wednesday when interim speaker Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) put the House into recess shortly after the GOP caucus meeting concluded. 

Complicating matters further for Republicans is the prospect of a subordinate leadership battle in Scalise's wake; Republican Study Committee chair Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) and current party whip Tom Emmer (R-Mn.) have "begun vying for the job" of majority leader, now that Scalise seems precariously poised to vacate the role, Roll Call reported. 

In the end, there can be only one. And while there are still months to go before Iowa caucus attendees cast the first ballots of the 2024 presidential primaries, a steady trickle of GOP candidates have already come to the inexorable conclusion that they won't be the one to lead their party into next year's general election. 

This week, former Republican Rep. Will Hurd became the latest candidate to bow out of the GOP presidential race. "[I]t has become clear to me and my team that the time has come to suspend our campaign," he said in a Monday statement posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Urging his supporters and donors to "unite around an alternative candidate" to Donald Trump, Hurd threw his support behind one-time South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, lauding among other things her "willingness to articulate a different vision for the country" than the former president. 

While perhaps the highest profile Republican to drop out of the presidential primary, Hurd isn't the first candidate to end their campaign — nor will he be the last. With a third GOP debate less than a month away and the Federal Election Commission's third-quarter fundraising deadline looming, more and more candidates will be forced to grapple with the question of whether they have the money, energy and electoral lane to continue to challenge Trump for a nomination increasingly within his grasp. As time passes and the opportunities to break away from the pack begin to dwindle, will this fall be the season for a major culling of Republican candidates? 

What the commentators said

Candidates will likely have to "make hard choices before the third debate" on Nov. 8, GOP strategist Alex Conant told Politico. That debate, with its higher barrier to entry, coupled with the FEC's third-quarter filing deadline, could be "devastating for some candidates" who "haven’t shown real growth" in terms of fundraising. This filing matters because it offers the "last financial indicator we see until very close to [the] Iowa caucuses and [the] New Hampshire primary for these campaigns," GOP consultant Jim Merrill explained to Fox News. 

At this point, the decision to stay in or drop out of the race may not be a matter of money, either. Instead, it could be a question of "discipline," New Hampshire Republican Gov. Chris Sununu told Fox News last month — particularly when it comes down to whether defeating Trump for the nomination outweighs the personal benefits of being the nominee. "When you think about it that way, the voters’ job is to find the alternate to Trump, but the candidates’ job [is] to get out of that race," he added, predicting that if you "make it a one-on-one race, Trump loses."

That calculation seemed to play a major role in longtime conservative commentator George Will's recent call for South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott to do as Hurd did and drop out of the race to endorse Haley. The longer candidates stay in the race, the more they are "unintentionally enacting a political version of the tragedy of the commons," Will said in The Washington Post, explaining that "when everyone has a right to graze cattle on the commons, no one has an incentive for restraint; soon, the commons are barren and all who pursued their self-interest are equally injured." (As The Post noted, Will's wife is an adviser for Scott's presidential campaign and "disagrees" with her husband's column.) 

What next? 

Expect the pressure on "lower-polling" candidates to drop out to be more intense this year than in years past, especially after the large field of Republican candidates in 2016 effectively handed the nomination to Trump, Politico reported. The "2024 proceedings" will also "start more than two weeks earlier this time around," as well. 

As for who might drop out next, "all eyes are on two other long-shot contenders who, like Hurd, were unsuccessful in making the first two debates — Larry Elder and Perry Johnson," Fox reported. Asked by the network whether he would also consider quitting if he didn't make the third debate, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson responded, "Sure."

For as much as "Dems in disarray" has become political shorthand for the mainstream media's tendency to cast liberals as haplessly ineffectual ("if two Democratic members of Congress go to lunch and one orders a hamburger while the other gets a chicken sandwich, the reporter at the next table will start writing his 'Dems In Disarray!' story," The Washington Post joked nearly a decade ago), it's House Republicans who have brought the nation's capital so close to chaos in recent days. While Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) managed to outflank his party's most extreme members to narrowly avert a government shutdown this weekend, his success may have come at the cost of his speaker's gavel, thanks to elevated threats by Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz. 

Speaking with ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Gaetz — who helped lead the GOP insurgents in their unsuccessful shutdown push — announced he would file a motion to oust McCarthy from the speakership, predicting that "if at this time next week Kevin McCarthy is still speaker of the house, it is because the Democrats bailed him out."

While Gaetz has long been McCarthy's most enthusiastic rightward antagonist, his hostility toward the speaker has noticeably increased in the build-up to this weekend's shutdown vote, with "one lawmaker telling Gaetz to 'fuck off' for leveling unproven accusations against the speaker," according to Politico.  But beyond the bellicose chest thumping and TV news posturing, what is Matt Gaetz doing exactly? And, more importantly: Why? 

What the commentators said

Speaking with CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday, Gaetz insisted his attacks on McCarthy weren't "personal," while Tapper claimed Gaetz was speaking "the language of somebody who is looking for clicks and likes and Fox hits" rather than serious governance. Citing "some in the GOP," Politico suggested Gaetz could be pushing for "a future foothold as a conservative TV pundit" or even working toward a 2026 gubernatorial run. Gaetz is "one of the GOP’s most prodigious fundraisers," The Wall Street Journal agreed, noting that while the congressman has raised millions for himself this past cycle, "he raised zero for the NRCC" and is "likely hoarding cash for a 2026 gubernatorial run." The Journal also highlighted some Republicans who believe Gaetz's hostility "stem[s] from his belief that the speaker has played a role in an Ethics Committee investigation into Gaetz’s conduct." 

Given the complicated triangulation of combined Republican and Democrat votes to save McCarthy's speakership if Gaetz follows through on his threat, this latest round of saber-rattling "isn’t driven by shrewd political calculation," according to Outside the Beltway's James Joyner. But, Joyner allowed, it's "plausibly a good strategy in the current Republican milieu." 

This isn't to say that Democrats are willing to play along with Gaetz's gambit, however. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), for instance, warned her colleagues that they'd be "wasting your time on that guy because he has no sway" in the House. Instead, his skills are to "get on TV and to raise money on the internet," she continued, per Roll Call. 

What next?

Addressing the House floor on Monday, Gaetz again threatened that an ouster "may happen later this week," but stopped short of beginning that process immediately, explaining that some Republicans may "vote differently" if McCarthy were to explain what Gaetz described as a "secret side deal" with President Biden over aide to Ukraine. 

Gaming out potential scenarios for McCarthy's ouster, Politico claimed the "biggest pocket of votes for Gaetz right off the bat" were members of the Democratic Congressional Progressive Caucus, for whom defending McCarthy would "be suicide." To that end, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, perhaps the CPC's most prominent member, told CNN this weekend she would "absolutely, absolutely" support a push to remove the "very weak" McCarthy as speaker, though her bloc is unlikely to "give up votes for free" and would probably seek Republican concessions in exchange.

Other Democrats are not so enthusiastic, with Steve Cohen of Tennessee telling Axios that he wouldn't "follow Matt Gaetz to Peter Luger's Steakhouse." 

For his part, McCarthy is not backing down. "Bring it on," he told CBS's "Face The Nation" this weekend. "Let's get over with it and let's start governing."

It's been nearly five years since hundreds of thousands of federal employees were furloughed for more than a month in what eventually became the longest government shutdown in United States history. That extended closure — the second of then-President Donald Trump's time in office — was ostensibly predicated on an extended fight over funding the administration's long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico, and only ended after Trump relented from his hardline stance and allowed congressional budget negotiations to resume, bringing to a close what Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mt.) dubbed "the most stupid shutdown I’ve ever seen in my life."

Now, as the country hurtles headlong into another looming shutdown, that description will be put to the test, thanks to the ongoing internecine squabbles between congressional Republicans which have propelled the government once more toward the edge of a fiscal cliff. If a stopgap appropriations bill isn't passed by the House before Sept. 30, everything from student loans to food and housing assistance could be affected, and tens of thousands of federal workers will once again be furloughed, or asked to work without assurances of when their next paycheck will arrive. As with all government shutdowns, the stakes are high both politically, and for ordinary Americans who rely on various federal services in their day-to-day lives. 

So what, exactly, is behind this latest impasse and why are so many lawmakers particularly frustrated with the threat of a looming government closure? 

What the commentators said

This could be the "first-ever shutdown about nothing," right-wing American Enterprise Institute economic policy studies director Michael Strain told The Washington Post. Dubbing this "the ‘Seinfeld’ shutdown," Strain added that House Republicans don't seem to "have any demands" that can be negotiated, as in the past. "What is it that they’re going to shut the government down for? We simply don’t know.”

Pushing the government toward a shutdown is more about "creating drama, publicity and campaign fundraising for certain lawmakers than it is about seriously reducing the deficit," agreed University of Virginia public policy professor Raymond Scheppach for The Conversation. 

Earlier this month GOP hardliners rejected a budget proposal from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (D-Calif.) that "called for cutting domestic agencies’ budgets by 8% and imposing a flurry of immigration restrictions, including reviving construction of former President Donald Trump’s border wall," Bloomberg reported. Despite the fact that such extreme measures would be dead on arrival in the Democrat-held Senate and White House, it was "deemed insufficient" by the rightmost wing of the GOP. "With a narrow majority, McCarthy can afford only four defections. By Sept. 19, there appeared to be at least 15."

House hardliners said they "will not" take up a Senate bill to fund the government through Nov. 17, according to Reuters, which pointed out that the Senate bill has "broad bipartisan support, including that of top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell." Rather, the GOP holdouts are fighting over a "relatively small slice of the $6.4 trillion U.S. budget for this fiscal year," the news agency continued, highlighting their demands for "another $120 billion in cuts plus tougher legislation that would stop the flow of immigrants at the U.S. border with Mexico."

But with Republicans busy fighting amongst themselves over which cuts to prioritize and how, Senate Democrats — and Republicans to a degree as well — have "declined to offer concessions, because they don’t know which ones would suffice," the Post concluded. 

What next?

With just hours to go before the funding deadline, "it’s becoming harder by the minute" to see lawmakers making it to "any of the potential off-ramps" that might avert the looming shutdown, Politico reported, concluding "THE BOTTOM LINE: A shutdown is coming."

If and when that happens, it's the "wrong time for Republicans to take a stand on reducing the deficit," Prof. Scheppach said, noting both that the cuts being haggled over are too small to have a long term impact, and that "the public blamed Republicans for [past] shutdowns, polls show." Some conservative lawmakers are already bracing for that seeming inevitability, with Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) complaining earlier this month to Politico that "we always get the blame. Name one time that we’ve shut the government down and we haven’t got the blame.”

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has never had a very firm hold on his job. He won the post in January only after 15 rounds of balloting, and only by agreeing to rules that let any member of his Republican caucus force a vote to kick him out. Now — on the eve of a likely government shutdown — one of McCarthy’s fiercest GOP critics, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, is threatening to call that vote if McCarthy compromises on the right’s budget demands. “This place has been poorly led,” Gaetz said Tuesday. Can anybody save McCarthy’s faltering speakership? 

How about House Democrats?

Maybe. CNN reported that some House Democrats might be willing to “cut a deal to help McCarthy stave off a right-wing revolt.” With his slim majority, a few Democrats could help McCarthy counterbalance GOP defectors to keep his job. But they’d have a few demands of their own for the speaker in exchange for their support. “It’s not just going to have to be out of the kindness of our hearts,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) 

Why would Democrats try to save McCarthy? Call it a “lesser-evil” situation. "No love for Kevin,” an anonymous House member told Axios. “But [there is] concern about more chaos, and who might take his place if he is booted." But Democrats privately say McCarthy would have to compromise on federal spending levels to get their support — and compromising with Democrats would all but ensure that Gaetz and his allies come for the speaker’s job. 

What the commentators said

One problem with this scenario: “Democrats really don’t like McCarthy” Steve Benen observed at MSNBC. He is viewed as a “weak and mindless partisan” who rolls over too easily for extremists in his party. But it’s true that if he’s kicked out, “McCarthy’s successor might very well be worse.” So it’s likely that Democratic members will approach both McCarthy and Gaetz behind the scenes to see who is willing to offer them the better deal. “At this point, it’s an open question as to when or whether this showdown will happen”

“The Democrats have power,” Joan McCarter wrote at Daily Kos. They should use it to extract some concessions from McCarthy. Among them: “An end to the Biden impeachment farce.” They should also get him to fully fund support for Ukraine, and to pass a bill eliminating the possibility of another shutdown next year. That would let the government function normally, for a bit at least. “It’s not too much to ask in a rational world.”

One way or another, The Washington Post editorialized, McCarthy is going to need Democrats soon. Passing a bill to keep the government open — or to reopen it after a shutdown — “involves bipartisan agreement.” And moderate lawmakers in both parties “represent a much broader swath of the country than the ultra-partisans.” McCarthy doesn’t want to empower those moderates, though, because “resisters would move to oust him.” There may be no other choice. At least getting a deal done with Democratic votes would allow the speaker to “win over the public by putting the nation first.”

What's next?

Not all Democrats are on board. “I’m not prepared to save him,” Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC. And it’s not clear that the speaker would be willing to do what’s needed to get Democratic support. He recently dismissed a question from CNN about whether he will need that help. “I am not worried about that,” he said.

Maybe he should be. NBC News pointed out that McCarthy has two choices at this point: Alienate his party’s right-wing fringe and keep government open “by striking a deal that Democrats can support,” or save his job by letting the government shut down. “He has a career-altering decision to make,” one House Republican told the network. There may be no good way out for McCarthy, one House aide suggested: “Democrats, by voting to protect McCarthy, could make his position within the GOP untenable either way.”