Trump administration
Subterms
More stories
163 Shares199 Views
in US PoliticsTrump news at a glance: JD Vance vows vengeance after Charlie Kirk killing
JD Vance and senior Trump aide Stephen Miller doubled down on promises of vengeance in the aftermath of the killing of Charlie Kirk, vowing to destroy what they claimed is a leftwing “domestic terror movement” and calling on people to go hard against anyone deemed to be celebrating the rightwing political activist’s death.The US vice-president stepped in to host an episode of Kirk’s podcast and was joined by the White House deputy chief of staff for Monday’s episode. Miller sought to blame what he called “far left” organisations for Kirk’s death, despite the motive for the shooting remaining unclear.He told Vance: “We are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks,” Miller said, adding that they would do this “in Charlie’s name”.Vance then urged Americans to go hard against anyone perceived to be celebrating Kirk’s murder. He said: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer.”JD Vance threatens crackdown on ‘far-left’ groups after Kirk shootingJD Vance assailed what he called the “far left” and its increased tolerance for violence while guest-hosting Charlie Kirk’s podcast on Monday, saying the administration would be working to dismantle groups who celebrate Kirk’s death and political violence against their opponents.Vance, hosting the podcast from his office next to the White House, spoke to high-profile members of the Trump administration and some of Kirk’s long-time friends in the movement, including Tucker Carlson and Trump adviser Stephen Miller.Vance said the administration would “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country”.Read the full storyTrump announces deadly US strike on another alleged Venezuelan drug boatDonald Trump said on Monday that the United States had carried out a strike on a second Venezuelan boat and killed three alleged terrorists he claimed were transporting drugs, expanding his administration’s war against drug cartels and the scope of lethal military force to stop them.Read the full storyTrump to send national guard to Memphis, with Chicago ‘probably next’Donald Trump on Monday announced that he was sending in the national guard and other federal authorities into Memphis, in a “replica” of the administration’s expanding military-led response to urban crime in Democratic-run cities.Announcing the taskforce in an Oval Office meeting, Trump vowed to end the “savagery” and said Chicago was “probably next”. “We’re going to fix that just like we did Washington,” Trump said.Read the full storyProsecutor in Epstein case sues Trump’s DoJ over abrupt firingMaurene Comey, a federal prosecutor involved in cases against Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and led the recent case against Sean “Diddy” Combs, filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging her abrupt termination as politically motivated retaliation against her father, former FBI director James Comey.Read the full storyUS and China reach deal to transfer TikTok ownership, trade officials sayJamieson Greer, a US trade representative, said on Monday that Washington and Beijing have struck a framework agreement on transferring TikTok to US-controlled ownership.Speaking after emerging from negotiations with Chinese officials, Scott Bessent said the deal was coming but declined to reveal the commercial terms.Read the full storyRubio says Netanyahu has full support of US over plans to destroy HamasThe US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, has put the Trump administration’s full support behind Benjamin Netanyahu in a visit to Jerusalem, saying Washington’s priorities were the liberation of Israeli hostages and the destruction of Hamas.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:
The backlash to “inappropriate” public comments made in the days following Charlie Kirk’s death has sparked a new wave of firings and suspensions, with a number of university employees disciplined for sharing their views.
Rev William Barber, a left-leaning pastor and social activist, has condemned last week’s “brutal, ugly” murder of Charlie Kirk while calling for a broader denunciation of political violence on all sides. Barber, leader of the “Moral Monday” events staged by Repairing The Breach, a pro-social justice group, also appeared to criticize the rightwing political activist’s brand of Christianity.
Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah says she has been firedfrom the newspaper over social media posts about gun control and race in the aftermath of far right commentator Charlie Kirk’s killing.
Catching up? Here’s what happened on 14 September 2025. More150 Shares109 Views
in US PoliticsTrump says military carried out strike on alleged Venezuelan drug cartel vessel
Donald Trump said on Monday that the United States had carried out a strike on a second Venezuelan boat and killed three alleged terrorists he claimed were transporting drugs, expanding his administration’s war against drug cartels and the scope of lethal military force to stop them.The US president gave few details about the strike, saying in a social media post that the action was on his orders and that it had happened earlier in the morning. The post was accompanied by a video clip showing the boat, which appeared to be stationary, erupting into a fireball.“The strike occurred while these confirmed narco-terroists from Venezuela were in International Waters transporting illegal narcotics (A DEADLY WEAPON POISONING AMERICANS!) headed to the US,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.Trump’s announcement of the strike appeared to be worded in a way to suggest there was a valid legal basis for the strike – an issue that became a source of heavy criticism in Washington after the operation against the first alleged Venezuelan drug boat earlier this month, which killed 11 people.According to people familiar with the matter, the administration briefed Congress last week that the first strike was legal under the president’s article 2 powers because it involved a boat connected to the Tren de Aragua gang, which Trump designated a foreign terrorist organization.The administration has provided little evidence that the first boat was carrying illegal drugs beyond asserting they had tracked the drugs being loaded on to the boat in order to be distributed in the United States, even if the boat at one point was said to have turned around.Asked on Sunday about that first strike and claims it was a fishing vessel, Trump said in response to questions from the Guardian: “You saw the bags of white. It’s nonsense. So we knew it before they even left. We knew exactly where that boat, where it came from, where the drugs came from and where it was heading.”By claiming, for the strike on the second boat, that the drugs were a threat to the United States and asserting that the boat’s crew were “terrorists”, Trump appeared to be preemptively setting the groundwork to make the same Article II legal claim to order a missile strike against the second boat.The latest strike comes as the US continues a massive buildup of forces around Venezuela. Over the weekend, five F-35 fighter jets arrived in Puerto Rico to join about half a dozen US navy destroyers already moved to the US territory recently, and support assets the administration said had been deployed to disrupt the flow of illegal drugs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump demurred on whether the US would conduct operations inside Venezuela against drug cartels there. He also deflected a question from the Guardian about its president, Nicholás Maduro, accusing Trump of acting illegally. “What’s illegal are the drugs that were on the boat,” he said.The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group – including the USS San Antonio, the USS Iwo Jima and the USS Fort Lauderdale, carrying 4,500 sailors – and the 22nd marine expeditionary unit, with 2,200 marines, were deployed to the region ahead of the first strike this month. The US also deployed several P-8 surveillance planes and submarines, officials said. More
138 Shares129 Views
in US PoliticsJD Vance threatens crackdown on ‘far-left’ groups after Charlie Kirk shooting
JD Vance assailed what he called the “far left” and its increased tolerance for violence while guest-hosting Charlie Kirk’s podcast on Monday, saying the administration would be working to dismantle groups who celebrate Kirk’s death and political violence against their opponents.Vance, hosting the podcast from his office next to the White House, spoke to high-profile members of the Trump administration and some of Kirk’s long-time friends in the movement, including Tucker Carlson and Trump adviser Stephen Miller.Vance said the administration would “work to dismantle the institutions that promote violence and terrorism in our own country”.The administration would be working to do that in the coming months and would “explore every option to bring real unity to our country and stop those who would kill their fellow Americans because they don’t like what they say”, Vance said.Miller also detailed how the administration would use the federal government to achieve this goal.“With God as my witness, we are going to use every resource we have at the Department of Justice, [Department of] Homeland Security and throughout this government to identify, disrupt, dismantle and destroy these networks,” Miller said, adding that they would do this “in Charlie’s name”.Vance added: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. Hell, call their employer. We don’t believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility, and there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.”Miller said he had been feeling “incredible sadness, but there’s incredible anger” and would be focusing his “righteous anger” on the “organized campaign that led to this assassination, to uproot and dismantle these terrorist networks”.Detailing what he believes is a “vast domestic terror movement”, Miller pointed to what he said were “organized doxing campaigns, the organized riots, the organized street violence, the organized campaigns of dehumanization, vilification, posting people’s addresses, combining that with messaging designed to trigger, incite violence, and the actual organized cells that carry out and facilitate the violence”.The political leanings of the shooter who killed Kirk are not yet clear. Bullet casings found with the shooter’s gun were inscribed with references to video games and online culture. Still, prominent figures on the right – before a shooter was apprehended – declared war on the left, claiming it was responsible for Kirk’s death.There is no evidence of a network supporting the shooter, and Miller did not provide substantiation of his claims that there is a “vast domestic terror movement” at play.Since Kirk’s death, rightwing influencers have found examples of people they say are glorifying or celebrating the violence and have sought to get them fired. One post that Miller retweeted said people should go beyond contacting employers and should go after professional licenses for lawyers, teachers and medical professionals because they “cannot be trusted to be around clients, children, or patients”.Trump has also said the problem today is on the left, not the right. “When you look at the agitators – you look at the scum that speaks so badly of our country, the American flag burnings all over the place – that’s the left, not the right,” Trump said on Sunday.On the podcast, Vance said that after he left Kirk’s family in Arizona, he read a story in the Nation, a leftwing publication, where the author detailed Kirk’s views and, he said, took a quote about several prominent Black women out of context to imply it applied to all Black women.The magazine is not a “fringe blog” but a “well-funded, well-respected magazine whose publishing history goes back to the American civil war. George Soros’s Open Society Foundation funds this magazine, as does the Ford Foundation and many other wealthy titans of the American progressive movement”, Vance said, hinting at the organizations the administration might target.Vance later mentioned that the foundations that helped fund the magazine are tax-exempt, a sign that the government could go after that status.“Charlie was gunned down in broad daylight, and well-funded institutions of the left lied about what he said so as to justify his murder,” Vance said. “This is soulless and evil, but I was struck not just by the dishonesty of the smear, but by the glee over a young husband’s and young father’s death.”The writer of the Nation article said on Bluesky that she was not paid by the Ford Foundation or Open Society to write the article.Vance said he “desperately” wants national unity and appreciated the many condolences he has received from Democratic friends and colleagues, but he said there was no unity without confronting the truth. “The data is clear, people on the left are much likelier to defend and celebrate political violence,” he said, citing the results from a recent YouGov poll. “This is not a both-sides problem. If both sides have a problem, one side has a much bigger and malignant problem, and that is the truth.”On the show, Vance also interviewed Kirk’s friends and political allies, showing how Kirk worked to keep the warring factions of the right aligned behind Trump and tried to bring in other political movements by elevating them into roles in the administration. They shared how Kirk was omnipresent in the transition after Trump won the White House.Robert F Kennedy Jr said Kirk was a “spiritual soulmate” to him and that his endorsement of Trump, at a Turning Point rally in Arizona amid fireworks and sparklers on stage, was “Charlie’s orchestration”. Kirk helped shepherd Kennedy into his role as health secretary, Kennedy said, and also helped his daughter-in-law get a role in the administration.On breaks between guests, the live stream rolled footage of Kirk during his typical college campus visits debating about the Trump administration’s first 100 days or the left’s views on immigration.Since Kirk’s killing, Turning Point USA has seen a massive rise in inquiries to start new chapters on high school and college campuses. Andrew Kolvet, a spokesman for the organization, said on X that the group received over 32,000 inquiries over the course of two days. Turning Point currently has about 900 official college chapters and 1,200 high school chapters.“Charlie’s vision to have a Club America chapter (our high school brand) in every high school in America (around 23,000) will come true much much faster than he could have ever possibly imagined,” Kolvet wrote. More
138 Shares169 Views
in US PoliticsProsecutor in Epstein case sues Trump justice department over abrupt firing
Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor involved in cases against Jeffrey Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and led the recent case against Sean “Diddy” Combs, filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging her abrupt termination as politically motivated retaliation against her father, former FBI director James Comey.According to the court documents, the justice department fired Comey without cause or explanation on 16 July, citing only “article 2 of the United States constitution and the laws of the United States” in a brief email. When she asked for a reason, interim US attorney Jay Clayton told her: “All I can say is it came from Washington. I can’t tell you anything else.”Just three months before her termination, the 35-year-old prosecutor received a glowing review from the same attorney who would later deliver news of her firing, the lawsuit alleges.The lawsuit seeks her reinstatement, back pay, and a declaration that her termination violated the constitution.Her removal came after a sustained pressure campaign by Laura Loomer, a far-right activist and Trump administration whisperer with clear influence over personnel and policy decisions. In May, Loomer posted to her 1.7 million X followers calling for the firing of James Comey’s “liberal daughter”.“Both Maurene Comey and Lucas Issacharoff need to be FIRED from the DOJ immediately,” Loomer wrote. After the termination, Loomer celebrated: “This comes 2 months after my pressure campaign on Pam Blondi to fire Comey’s daughter.”The lawsuit alleges the firing was designed to retaliate against James Comey, whom Trump has attacked in hundreds of social media posts, repeatedly calling him the “worst” FBI director in history. Tensions escalated in May when the elder Comey posted a cryptic message featuring seashells arranged to spell “8647”, which Trump interpreted as an assassination threat.Maurene Comey’s case portfolio included high-profile wins: the conviction of Maxwell for sex trafficking, the prosecution of gynecologist Robert Hadden for sexual abuse, and most recently leading the team that convicted Combs.The Trump administration has argued that article 2 grants unlimited presidential removal authority over career prosecutors, but the federal lawsuit claims that violates constitutional separation of powers and federal service protections.In a farewell email to colleagues, Comey said: “If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decision of those who remain. Do not let that happen.” More
175 Shares199 Views
in US PoliticsTrump should be reassuring the country at this time. Instead he is sowing fear
The public response to the killing of Charlie Kirk in cold blood, has revealed how drastically our democracy – our belief in the importance of free speech and in the irreplaceable life of each and every individual – has deteriorated over the last half century.I was a senior in high school when John F Kennedy was assassinated, and a senior in college when Robert F Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed. Plenty of conspiracy theories, some of which have never been put to rest, were floated and debated. But the difference between what happened then and what we are seeing now is that, in the aftermath of those violent deaths, there was a sense of shared grief, of national mourning. Those tragedies seemed to bring us, as a country, closer together in our shock and sorrow.Obviously, tha is quite unlike what is occurring today, when the president has publicly declared that he “couldn’t care less” about healing the divisions plaguing and weakening our society. The instinctive and widespread response to Kirk’s death has been to demonize and blame a perceived enemy. Donald Trump, Stephen Miller and their minions were quick to accuse the “lunatic radical left”.Despite the emerging evidence, they seem unwilling to amend their version of what happened. I will admit that, on hearing the news, my first thought was that the Maga movement had orchestrated the killing to distract us from the Epstein files, or that this was the modern-day equivalent of the 1933 Reichstag fire, which occurred when the German parliament building was torched, and the National Socialists blamed the communists, and used the event as a pretext for suspending civil liberties and installing an authoritarian regime.The motives of the suspected killer, Tyler Robinson, are still unclear. But it appears that both the right and the left both had it wrong to some degree. Robinson was a studious young man from a solidly Republican, Mormon family, used anti-fascist slogans and apparently disliked Kirk for his hateful views.Regardless of what we thought of Kirk, it is profoundly and dangerously immoral to sanction political violence, regardless of its object. It is unseemly to celebrate the shooting of a human being with a wife and children – even a man whose rhetoric we may have despised.In another country, in another era, the death of Kirk might have served to remind us of the essential importance of free speech, of the concept that even the most polarizing figures should be able to speak publicly without fear of violent retribution. In drafting the first amendment, the founding fathers affirmed the idea that even racists, misogynists and anti-immigrant bigots have the right to express their beliefs and to engage in a free and fair debate with those who hold very different views. In fact, it’s the essence of democracy, the cornerstone on which our nation was founded and that every patriot (however that word is construed now) should affirm.Instead, Kirk’s death has been weaponized as a pretext to further undermine first amendment protections, to circle the wagons around the worst aspects of censorship and blind obedience to authority. It is being employed to foster the fear of saying anything that runs contrary to what those in power believe and allow us to express. Already, teachers, soldiers, government officials, firefighters and reporters – most prominently, MSNBC news analyst Matthew Dowd – have been censured or lost their jobs after saying in public or on social media that Kirk’s rhetoric was a form of not-so-thinly-disguised hate speech.There has been some pushback, among the public and on the floor of Congress, against the directive that prayers should be said and flags lowered to half mast in Kirk’s memory. Personally, I’m fine with the idea of prayers and lowered flags, except that I think that these gestures of mourning, honor and respect are being deployed too selectively.The flags should have been lowered for, among others, another recent victim of political violence: Melissa Hortman, the Democratic speaker of the Minnesota House of Representatives, who was murdered, along with her husband, Mark, in June. Prayers should be said for the Colorado high school students wounded in one of the latest school shootings, on the very same day as Charlie Kirk’s murder. Flags should be lowered and prayers said for every victim lost to senseless gun violence, until we are tired of all the praying and flag-lowering, until we decide, as a nation, to take action to prevent these tragic deaths.My great fear is that we are nearing the day when, if we are being honest, the flag should be lowered in memory of our fragile, flawed, precious democracy. In that case, we may have to wait a while to see it flying proudly and at full mast, once again.
Francine Prose is a former president of PEN American Center and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences More
188 Shares199 Views
in US Politics‘Americans should be alarmed’: Experts say loss of expertise at CDC will harm US health
After high-profile departures and sweeping layoffs, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faces an unprecedented loss of expertise and a simultaneous erosion of trust as top health leaders undermine vaccines and other vital health tools.“Americans should be alarmed,” said Nirav Shah, former principal deputy director at CDC and now a visiting professor at Colby College. “All of these moves leave us less safe, and it comes at a time of rising public health threats.”Project 2025, the conservative blueprint for the second Trump administration, vowed to strip the CDC of its ability to issue guidance on vaccines and to end required testing for new pathogens.The changes to US health will be felt for decades, and the cutbacks and changes will erode the public’s already wavering trust in health officials, experts say.“Losing top, experienced experts managing crucial units in the CDC is going to put all of us at risk,” said Dorit Reiss, professor of law at UC Hastings College of Law.The departure of four senior officials – Debra Houry, Demetre Daskalakis, Daniel Jernigan and Jennifer Layden – dealt “a big blow to our nation’s health preparedness”, Shah said.They joined thousands of health agency employees who have been laid off or resigned, with entire departments gutted, since Donald Trump was re-elected.“Next time there’s a problem, we will not have qualified leadership for our response,” Reiss said.The loss of “experienced, world-class” experts at the CDC is “directly related to the failed leadership of extremists” in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), said Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.The losses may continue under budget cuts, with proposed reductions of $5bn – a 42% decrease from 2024.Two of the recently ousted officials will testify before Congress on Wednesday. Susan Monarez, the most recent CDC director, who was fired after 28 days, criticized the administration’s “reckless” approach to science, including a request to “rubber-stamp” recommendations from the CDC’s independent advisers.The advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP) plans to meet on Thursday and Friday. Advisers have indicated the committee will re-examine recommendations on routine childhood vaccinations such as those against hepatitis B and HPV (human papillomavirus).The Make Our Children Healthy Again Strategy released on Tuesday “reaffirms that Kennedy is gunning for childhood vaccines”, Reiss said.Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said: “Secretary Kennedy has been clear: the CDC has been broken for a long time. Restoring it as the world’s most trusted guardian of public health will take sustained reform and more personnel changes.”When asked about Kennedy’s stance on childhood vaccines, Hilliard said that HHS is “reaffirming the importance of the doctor-patient relationship so people can make informed decisions about their health”, emphasizing the roles of “clear, honest information and personal choice”.Kennedy has also limited access to the Covid vaccines, restricting them only to people “at higher risk”, while also saying “anyone can get the booster”.“Kennedy’s claim that anyone can get them is deeply insincere,” Reiss said. He already removed, for example, the recommendation for pregnant people, making it harder for them to access the vaccine.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“While it’s legal to give vaccines off-label, not all doctors and pharmacists will, and depending what ACIP does, not all insurers will cover them”, including Medicaid, which is bound by ACIP recommendations, she said.Kennedy has repeatedly undermined the CDC and vaccines, calling the agency a “cesspool of corruption” and the Covid vaccine, for instance, the “deadliest vaccine ever made”. During the worst measles outbreak in decades, Kennedy framed vaccination as a personal choice. He has also cut millions of dollars for research on mRNA vaccines.Earlier this month, Trump defended the Covid and polio vaccines. But the president has given Kennedy sweeping control over the nation’s health and nutrition agenda.“In an era of rising threats to public health – whether it’s measles, whether it’s an Ebola outbreak, or whether it’s the continuing concern and threat from H5 [bird flu] – none of these things makes America healthy again,” Shah said.The acting director of the CDC, Jim O’Neill, has a background in biotechnology investing but he does not appear to have training in medicine or public health.“Based on what I understand, he does not have the requisite background to even be serving as acting director,” said Shah, who was acting director of the CDC while the Trump administration entered office.“Americans need to ask themselves: ‘Are we safe right now?’” Shah said. “‘Is there somebody who knows at the higher levels what should be done in the face of an emerging Ebola outbreak? Are they doing it? How do we know that?’”The news that top experts at the CDC haven’t briefed Kennedy is “alarming”, Shah said. ”If America’s top generals were planning a war and sketching out battlefield plans but had not talked to any of their lieutenants and colonels in the field, we would say that’s not leadership.”So far, many Americans have not yet felt the shock waves of Kennedy’s changes to public health, Shah said.For most people, “you don’t actually see the consequences of it until there’s an emergency”, Shah said. “And it’s way too late at that point.” More
150 Shares159 Views
in US PoliticsDemocrats are facing a gerrymandering armageddon. It was avoidable | David Daley
There are many reasons why Democrats find themselves on the wrong end of a gerrymandering armageddon.There’s John Roberts and the US supreme court, who pretended partisan gerrymandering is just politics as usual, left voters naked to extreme power grabs, and failed the nation when voters most needed the courts’ protection.That 5-4 decision in 2019 would have been different if not for Mitch McConnell, who prevented Democrats from filling an open seat on the court in 2016, and preserved it for the Republican party and Neil Gorsuch.But perhaps the most important reason is the brilliant 2010 Republican strategy called Redmap – short for the Redistricting Majority Project – which left Republicans in charge of drawing lines for four times as many congressional seats as Democrats, and close to 70% of state legislatures nationwide.Just a few years earlier, jubilant Democrats had celebrated Barack Obama’s 2008 victory and dreamed that America’s changing demographics would lead to a decade of triumphs and a new permanent majority. It did not work out that way – because they fell asleep on redistricting.The following election, Republicans captured the approximately 110 state legislative districts they needed to dominate congressional redistricting. They held the House in 2012 despite winning 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats, and haven’t looked back since. Democrats are still trying to catch up – and now, even as the party insists it’s going to fight back against Republican gerrymandering, remain hamstrung by snoozing more than a dozen years ago.How could a party with such a genuine demographic edge get out-organized, out-strategized and out-energized in election after election? How could no one have seen the looming redistricting nightmare? How did they do nothing about this when they controlled a trifecta in Washington with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?Turns out some people did issue warnings. When I wrote my book Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count, the definitive history of how Republicans gerrymandered the nation, I went in search of the wise men and would-be Paul Reveres, the people who knew all about the importance of redistricting, but whose shouts vanished into a black hole of complacency, overconfidence and unimaginative thinking.Had Democratic leadership listened to Steve Israel, John Tanner and Martin Frost then, all of this could have been avoided.After the Republican rout of 2010, Israel, a New York congressman then in his sixth term representing suburban Long Island, took over as chairman of the Democratic congressional campaign committee. If Washington is a city filled with unpleasant jobs, Israel stepped into one of the most hopeless. The DCCC chair serves a two-year sentence as a party road warrior, raising money, barnstorming chicken dinners and county barbecues, and most importantly, trying to recruit congressional candidates who might actually be able to flip a district. A successful term pole-vaults a politician into leadership. But swing districts are few – and few ambitious mayors or state senators want to sacrifice careers and endure those barbecues themselves only to lose an unwinnable race. So the chairman bounces from one Hampton Inn to the next, marshalling every drop of persuasion.Israel spent four years doing this. His second marriage collapsed. The late nights, the loneliness, the flight delays all seemed so unbearable that the only relief came from writing a novel on his iPhone that was a vicious satire of Washington ridiculousness.You can imagine why all that travel might have seemed worth it. The 2010 spanking meant that basic competence would look good by comparison. Also, 2012 brought a presidential cycle, and Democrats actually turn out to vote in presidential years. Sometimes that enthusiasm even trickles down-ballot and helps elect Democrats to Congress. But that was before it became clear how the Republicans had used gerrymandering to push their 2010 advantage into a durable and lasting majority. As he studied the new districts and criss-crossed the country, Israel may have been the first national Democrat to realize how ratfucked his party was – and how long it would last.“What shocked me when I first came into the DCCC was when I learned that the expansive battlefield that I thought I would have at my discretion was actually a pretty small map,” Israel told me. “There are a couple dozen competitive districts, maybe … You can have the best recruit, the best candidate, the best fundraising. But if you have an uncompetitive district, there’s no path.“I mean, the math proves it,” he says, and you hear the anguish of every night at a chair hotel bar with a burger and a bad Syrah. “Look, we won 1.4 million more votes than they did in 2012 and we only picked up eight seats. That tells you that this whole thing was jury-rigged in order to stop Democrats from playing in competitive districts. It worked brilliantly for them. I’m just sorry we didn’t figure that out in 2008.”As Israel sees it, that’s the year when Democrats really screwed up. He thinks the party should have been thinking ahead then to redistricting and down-ballot races. Instead, they planned for nothing. Redistricting, he says, never seemed to cross the mind of Democratic leadership. It was, he says, “a catastrophic strategic mistake”. In 2006 and 2008, Democrats “won districts that we had no business winning. But then we started losing state legislatures and governors across America – and that’s what destroyed us in 2010 and 2012. Had we devoted resources to protecting Democrats in state houses across America, the Republicans still would have won the majority in 2010. But we would have had a seat at the table in redistricting and we might have been able to take it away from them in 2012.“The DNC,” he says, shaking his head, “they just whistled past the graveyard. I don’t understand why.”Republicans, he says, “have always been better than Democrats at playing the long game. And they played the long game in two fundamental ways. Number one, on the judicial side. They realized they had to stock courts across the country with partisan Republican judges and they did it. The second long game was on redistricting. The center of gravity wasn’t an immediate majority in the House. It was rebuilding the infrastructure in courts and state houses across the country so when they got the majority back they could stay in it for a long, long time.”Israel walks me to his office door. “I’ll tell you one thing,” he says. “This wouldn’t have happened if Martin Frost was still here.”Frost, a Texas Democrat who served from 1979 until 2005, and Tanner, a Tennessee Democrat who held office from 1989 until 2011, were the two Democrats in previous Congresses who really understood the long-term ramifications of redistricting and agitated, usually alone, for action. Both are long gone from the Capitol, but when I hunted them down for my book I found them where I half expected: steps from K Street, along the Washington DC legal and lobbying corridor where former pols cash in on years of connections and experience.Tanner, then the vice-chair of Prime Policy Group, had a cushy corner office with a putting green, a cushy landing for an 11-term Democrat from Tennessee. Exhausted by partisanship, and well aware that even his reputation for bipartisanship would not save him when Tennessee Republicans redrew congressional lines after 2010, Tanner chose not to seek re-election. And so Republican gerrymandering claimed one Democrat who had repeatedly tilted at a then lonely windmill: redistricting.As his fellow moderate Blue Dog Democrats disappeared, white southern Democrats went extinct, and congressional partisanship began to harden, Tanner was moved to take action. In three successive Congresses, under both Democratic and Republican control, he tried to put a stop to partisan gerrymandering. He proposed national standards that removed the power to draw distinct lines from state legislatures and handed it to commissions. His plan also prohibited redrawing lines more than once in a decade, which would have prevented the gerrymandering armageddon now under way. This was not an issue that made the otherwise garrulous Tanner a lot of friends. Neither Democrats nor Republicans wanted anything to do with it.“Here?” Tanner says of Washington. He pushes at a cup of coffee. “Ha! They’re drawing their own districts. I had many members come up to me and say, ‘What are you doing?’ They have deals. ‘Don’t come around here fucking with the maps. I won’t fool with your map if you don’t fool with mine.’”Tanner first introduced his plan in 2005, when Republicans ran the House. Tanner knew it would be an uphill battle, and indeed, his bill never earned as much as a committee hearing. When Democrats took back the chamber after the 2006 election, he thought he might convince his leadership to listen. He flagged down the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who ignored him and wriggled free.“I told them, if you don’t do this, all the population growth is under Republican control. The only stronghold left for Democrats is cities … They didn’t want anything to do with it.”Tanner remembers Pelosi saying: “We’ll take a look at it.” But he couldn’t get a hearing on his bill in 2007 or 2009 either. Partisan warriors, he suggested, never really want to reform the process. They might fight to take away the other side’s advantage, but never, ever do they want to risk their own.Might Democratic elders regret ignoring him now, as leaders of a permanent minority? Tanner snorts again. “It’s just not something anyone wants to take up. I went through (redistricting) three times. There’s a lot of power connected to that system.”Tanner says that far more than 300 seats are responsive only to the most partisan elements.“We can’t even do the small problems now, let alone the big ones,” he says. “These guys are trapped in this system where the only threat is from their base in a primary … No one will do what they all know has to be done to keep the country from going adrift. Is that because of redistricting? Hell, yes.”Tanner speaks with appealingly frank disgust for a man whose living was long based on his relationships with these same pols. “Democracy? The people’s will? It doesn’t matter,” he says. “That’s redistricting, too. The average citizen is a pawn. Without the protection of a fairly drawn district, the citizen is a pawn of billionaires who use the map of the country as a checkerboard to play politics on.”Hidden behind owlish glasses, Frost doesn’t look the part of an aggressive warrior, but he is the last hardened Democratic street fighter to serve in the House. When we spoke, he escorted me into a conference room with a well-appointed cookie tray and explained how he had learned the importance of redistricting after Texas gained three seats in Congress after the 1990 census.In the 1990s and 2000s, Frost watched as Republicans sought maps that packed as many voters of color as possible into one district – knowing that doing so would create whiter and more Republican seats in the surrounding areas. Sometimes they even worked together with Black Democrats. Frost represented the Dallas-Fort Worth area and it became clear that one of these new seats would be a majority Black district, which had the potential to cut into his base. Frost wanted to stay in Congress, and wanted white and Black Democrats to work together to create districts that would benefit both. As he wrote in his book The Partisan Divide: “The survival of white Southern Democrats would be determined by how many Black voters were left over for their districts after the new majority Black seats were created.“So I started asking the question, ‘Who is doing redistricting for the Democratic party? I wanted to talk to that person. I was stunned by the answer. No one.”Texas by the 1980s was trending red, but Democrats still controlled the legislature and the governor’s office, and therefore redistricting. They came up with a plan that added three new districts whose voters were largely people of color without dismantling the bases of the white incumbents. Frost calls it “a classic example of what could be done when all members of a state Democratic delegation work together for the common good.” Texas Democrats extended their advantage in the US House from 19-8 to 21-9. The Frost gerrymander held until Republicans took the state house in 2002, and the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, pushed the legislature into a mid-decade redistricting plan, much as is happening now.The problem for Democrats is that despite these repeated lessons in the importance of line-drawing, no one continued Frost’s work after the DeLay map knocked him out of Congress. “For a while, we fought them to a standstill because we had good legal talent and technical help. Then we just got overcome on the political side.”How is this possible? I ask. “I’m not the right one to ask that question to,” he demurs, but says he thinks about it all the time. He has concluded that the party’s coastal and white leadership simply doesn’t understand what it’s like to run for office as a Democrat outside of Pelosi’s San Francisco. “Leaders in the Democratic party come from safe, white districts. So they don’t worry about these things, because nothing can be done to them. You can’t do anything to Nancy Pelosi’s district.“White northern leaders don’t think of this the same way that white southern politicians think about it. We instinctively understand the problem, but white liberals didn’t really focus on this very much. They said, ‘Well, everything’s fine. We’ll just continue what we’re doing’ and didn’t make this a priority. I argued for 20 or 30 years about the importance of paying attention to state legislatures, but I couldn’t get enough people in the party to really embrace that. The Republicans understood that and had a strategy. We didn’t.”Frost even became chairman of the DCCC after the 1994 Newt Gingrich rout, but, like Israel later, could never convince anyone else in power to take redistricting seriously. I tell him what Israel said, that this wouldn’t have happened had anyone listened to Frost, and he gives a quick nod that suggests he agrees.“No one else in the party cared about this or understood how important it was, for whatever reason.” The Republicans not only got it, but knocked out the one Democrat who did too. “Maybe I wouldn’t have been able to change history, but we sure as hell would have gone down fighting.“It didn’t have to be. If the Democrats had put the same type of emphasis on redistricting that the Republicans did, there might have been a different outcome. Could have been. Should have been. We’ll never know.”
David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right’s 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count More
