Politics
Dems struggle to respond as Trump’s Iran strikes sow chaos
Democrats are scrambling to respond to President Donald Trump’s unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It’s another high-stakes move by the president that could present a major political opening — but the party has, so far, appeared fractured in its public messaging.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) quickly called for Trump to be impeached, but most House Democrats on Tuesday voted down Rep. Al Green’s (D-Texas) resolution to do so. Other Democrats have supported Trump’s strike, including Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who said the president was “right” to bomb Iran. Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin posted “no new wars” on X, while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries vented that Trump “failed to seek congressional authorization.”
It’s the kind of disjointed and, at times, contradictory message that’s become emblematic of the Democratic Party that’s been locked out of power in Washington, cut out of the loop, and left without clear party leadership during Trump’s second term. Where Democrats were once reflexively #Resistance-driven during the president’s first term, giving them clear anti-Trump positions on much of what he did, they’re now more nuanced, sometimes circumspect, on Trump’s controversial moves on trade, immigration and now, foreign policy.
Democrats often unify on arguments about process and rules, including on the Iranian strikes, when they’ve primarily attacked Trump for failing to seek congressional approval. Multiple War Powers Resolutions — which would prevent Trump from further engaging in hostilities against Iran without congressional approval — are in the works.
But that response, so far, is “a classic Democratic messaging problem,” said Morgan Jackson, a top Democratic strategist based in North Carolina, who said that Democrats “should be making two points, clearly and consistently that’s broadly adopted: Trump is dragging us into a war, which he said he’d never do, and he’s making Americans less safe.”
“When we debate the process, war powers vote, impeaching him because he didn’t ask Congress — voters don’t care about that,” Jackson added. “When we have a message about process versus a president who took action, [then] that’s a losing message.”
Or as a Democratic consultant said when granted anonymity to speak frankly about the party: “Our response is to push our glasses up our nose and complain about the illegality of it? Come on. We can’t just bitch about the process.”
Democrats’ jumbled answer to the United States’ strikes in Iran, so far, is also the product of a specific challenge, several House Democrats said: They’re operating without much information.
The Trump administration postponed a closed-door congressional briefing on the Iran strikes Tuesday afternoon, drawing the ire of Democrats who questioned whether the administration was trying to obfuscate its intelligence, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, said he first heard about the attack on social media.
“There’s no official party line” because “you need the facts,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.).
That’s left Trump and Republicans to dominate the public messaging around a rapidly changing situation.
After Trump signed off on a trio of bombings on Iran’s nuclear sites on Saturday, he claimed the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but his own military leaders walked back that assessment. Trump floated the possibility of regime change in Iran, then backtracked by Tuesday, telling reporters he wants “to see everything calm down as quickly as possible.” The president helped to broker a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, but it’s already been tested and it’s unclear how long it may hold.
That constant uncertainty is at the core of Democrats’ defense for their constitutionality argument. Himes, who has introduced one of the War Powers Resolution measures, warned that he “would be willing to bet my next paycheck that a ceasefire is not likely to remain in effect for very long,” so “I think the Constitution to which we all theoretically subscribe should be enforced.”
House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) said it was “completely unacceptable that Congress has not been briefed on this in a timely fashion,” adding that “launching an attack without congressional authorization is wrong” and “launching a potentially unsuccessful attack without congressional authorization would be an administration-defining failure.”
Potential 2028 Democratic presidential contenders, from California Gov. Gavin Newsom to former Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have largely focused their responses to the Iranian strikes on public safety and concern for military personnel. Otherwise, they’ve largely stayed quiet.
“Our challenge is, yes, we have no clear leader but, just as important, everyone is still trying to figure out what’s going on,” said a Democratic operative who is advising a potential 2028 candidate and was granted anonymity to describe private conversations. “Donald Trump sows so much chaos and confusion into the process that Democrats can sometimes get distracted and respond to all of it, rather than having a coherent overall message.”
The muddled Democratic message on the Iran strikes is particularly notable because there is a clear political opening. A majority of Americans disapprove of the president’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites, while six in 10 said the strikes will increase the Iranian threat to the United States, according to a CNN poll released Tuesday.
The DNC has urged Democrats to capitalize on that opening, even if it’s not yet the loudest message emanating from their own party. A messaging guidance memo from the DNC, and obtained by Blue Light News, described Trump’s actions as “unconstitutional, dangerous and hypocritical.”
Of the six messaging points detailed as pushback to it, only the last one focused on process, arguing that Trump “must bring his case before Congress immediately.” The other five ticked through safety, broken campaign promises and lack of public support for the strikes.
Republicans have also been divided on Trump’s actions, with some explicitly urging Trump not get involved further in the conflict. Trump ally Steve Bannon cautioned against the United States pushing for regime change in Iran, warning it could lead to more American military involvement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) had initially joined Democrats in pushing for a measure to block American involvement, but he said he wouldn’t back it if the ceasefire between Israel and Iran held.
It’s frustrated some Democrats who wish the party would take better control of the moment, but Pete Giangreco, a longtime Democratic consultant, said Democrats might end up benefiting politically regardless of their current messaging.
“We’re a party without a head. We don’t have a Speaker, we don’t have a nominee for president yet, so we have this cacophony of voices in these moments. … But that matters less here because we just need to get out of the way because the story here is MAGA is at war with MAGA,” Giangreco said. “Donald Trump did something that only 17 percent of Americans agree with, so the Democratic response, even if it is messy, doesn’t matter this time.”
Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee has a month to turn around primary challenger Helena Foulkes’ 20-point lead or become the first sitting U.S. governor to lose a primary in eight years.
The race represents another crest in the world’s post-pandemic anti-incumbent wave, which has transcended ideological lines as voters express broad frustration with high costs of living and governments they don’t feel are working for them. It’s a throughline from insurgent progressive victories to Kamala Harris’ 2024 loss to President Donald Trump’s growing unpopularity.
And it’s all down to a bridge.Signs outside Rhode Island’s partially closed Washington Bridge tell drivers: “Thank you for your patience.”
But voters who’ve lived through the resulting traffic crisis since emergency safety concerns emerged in 2023 keep telling Foulkes the messages make them feel the opposite. Despite some improvement, they’re fed up with commuting and economic troubles stemming from the bridge’s slowdown. One older woman told Foulkes she wanted to take out her BB gun and shoot the signs.
The contest is a rematch of the 2022 primary, when McKee (who’d been elevated to governor when Gina Raimondo became Commerce secretary) narrowly edged out Foulkes in a multi-candidate race. The primary doesn’t fall neatly along the ideological lines that have riven Democrats elsewhere. Foulkes and McKee, both baby boomers, have positioned themselves as relatively mainstream, center-left Dems.
“I’m running against people’s belief that the status quo is maybe just as good as we’re ever going to be,” Foulkes told Playbook. She’s proposed funding 20,000 new housing units with a millionaires tax. “It’s so important that people feel a sense of momentum and energy … because I think oftentimes government doesn’t feel urgent to people, and their lives are really hurting.”
Rhode Island is small enough — an hour’s drive from one corner to the other — that a single bridge symbolizes the trend. (The Washington Bridge is a key conduit between Providence and East Providence.) Almost everybody says the bridge is the No. 1 issue in the race and voters’ perception of McKee’s tenure. He and Foulkes have squabbled over the pace of rebuilding, the bidding process and the state Department of Transportation leadership. Residents are also struggling with some of the country’s highest electric rates and worst housing affordability metrics.
But McKee is mounting a vigorous defense of his time in office, saying he’s delivered for Rhode Islanders — despite Trump’s obstacles — on jobs, SNAP, wind energy, education, hospitals, housing and energy. The governor argues he’s prioritized safety on the bridge after previous leaders kicked the can down the road. One recent poll by McKee allies found a closer race, with Foulkes ahead by just 6 points.
“My record is going to really be the important factor,” McKee said in an interview. “My opponent’s record’s been in the corporate boardroom, really putting profits over people.”
That’s the heart of McKee’s message, which banks on another crucial Democratic 2026 narrative carrying the day: a working people’s populism taking on the elite business class. McKee has long had a base of union support. In Foulkes, he has an opponent who’s no democratic socialist. She was a longtime CVS executive and comes from a storied political lineage (her grandfather and uncle, Thomas and Chris Dodd, were both senators).
“It’s kind of a running bit here that her campaign is, in a very real way, being run from the deck of the Dunes Club in Narragansett,” said McKee campaign manager Drew Shannon, referring to the exclusive, members-only beach club.
And McKee has gone negative on the airwaves, accusing Foulkes of cutting people’s health care and turning a blind eye to opioid addiction during her time at CVS. “She’s a denier: someone who denies the progress we’re making,” McKee told Playbook. “Just like she denies the role she played in fueling an opioid crisis.” Both candidates got fiery in a radio debate this week. As of July 31, Foulkes had five times McKee’s cash on hand.
McKee has been rolling out a string of notable endorsements, many from labor, including teachers, firefighters, building trades and Planned Parenthood Votes! Rhode Island PAC. If he can pull off a comeback, it’ll likely be on the strength of union support.
But his positioning as a labor champion from the working-class Blackstone Valley — the birthplace of the U.S.’ Industrial Revolution — has been partially undercut by high-profile defections in his base. The Rhode Island SEIU State Council backed Foulkes. The state Democratic Party and the state AFL-CIO voted not to endorse in the race, both of which were seen as big blows to McKee.
“The labor movement is going to be in both camps,” AFL-CIO President Patrick Crowley said.
And a number of Democratic city committees have sprung for Foulkes. Cumberland Mayor Jeff Cutter, who serves in the role McKee once held, is among those now supporting her. “There’s been some stances taken that I don’t think represent the same person who was a mentor of mine,” Cutter said of McKee, calling his endorsement a difficult personal choice.
“It’s one of those times,” Cutter added, “where the advantage of incumbency might not be an advantage at this point because there’s just so much kind of frustration.”
Like this content? Consider signing up for Blue Light News’s Playbook newsletter.
Michigan Democrats’ scramble to unify after a brutal primary continued Friday with a preplanned rally that brought together the statewide ticket.
It also brought out Pete Buttigieg, a former and potentially future presidential candidate, whose presence helped underscore the stakes not just in November, but for 2028.
Holding the Michigan Senate seat is key to Democrats’ hopes of winning back the upper chamber. It is also a major battleground state that has now voted for President Donald Trump in two of the last three presidential elections, even as it sends Democrats like Elissa Slotkin to the Senate. Michigan is now poised to become an early presidential nominating state, giving it outsized influence on the 2028 contest.
Buttigieg laid out, in explicit terms, the broader stakes of a fractured Democratic coalition heading into the general election: “The stakes are high, and people from around the country, people from around the world, are watching the state of Michigan right now to see if we have the capability to put together that coalition to win.”
“We’re going to win because we know what it means to focus on what’s at stake, to lock arms as allies after a spirited primary, to pull together in common cause,” said Buttigieg, who stayed neutral in the state’s Senate primary, at the Michigan Democratic Party’s general election kickoff rally.
Abdul El-Sayed on Tuesday defeated Rep. Haley Stevens after a bruising primary that exposed ideological and demographic divisions within the party. He now faces Republican Rep. Mike Rogers in the general election, and he has to figure out how to pull moderate and establishment Democrats back into the fold to hold the seat.
Republicans, seeing an opening with Black and Jewish voters who broke more for Stevens, are already trying to peel away parts of the Democratic coalition. They view Michigan as one of their best pickup opportunities this cycle.
Buttigieg, who represents the party’s more moderate flank, used his remarks Friday to explicitly appeal to Democrats across the spectrum — and even some Republicans.
“Wherever you sit, in this big tent of ours, and it is a big tent, but whatever corner of that tent you think of as home, there is a set of things, and I mean big, big things, where we agree with each other, we agree with most Michiganders, and Washington and Lansing Republicans disagree with us,” he said. “That’s what’s at stake right now, and it’s not all about left, right, and center, Democrat and Republican.”
Buttigieg’s remarks — and the early unification around El-Sayed in one of the nation’s most important battlegrounds — underscores the delicate balancing act party leaders have to contend with. After a string of progressive victories through the spring, establishment Democrats in particular are trying to rally behind their new nominees without necessarily embracing every part of the politics that carried them across the finish line.
That dance showed up subtly throughout the speeches on Friday night.
Buttigieg at one point framed El-Sayed’s position as wanting “to expand affordable health care and keep more money in your pocket,” whereas Rogers “voted against the Affordable Care Act.” Buttigieg notably did not use the phrase “Medicare for All” to address one of El-Sayed’s signature progressive positions.
El-Sayed, for his part, also made an explicit effort to turn the page.
“In the spirit of unity, in the spirit of the work, in the spirit of coming together, I want to thank both of my colleagues who ran, Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, for an incredible race,” he said. “Their incredible public service in the state of Michigan, and I cannot wait to see what both of them will do next.”
But he signaled that the progressive policy positions that powered his campaign would remain central to his general election stump. He reiterated his support for Medicare for All and railed against “the system of super PACs” and the millions of outside money flooding into politics.
And he sharply criticized Rogers, who, along with his fellow Republicans, have dramatically increased their attacks against El-Sayed since he won the primary, offering an early glimpse of what is likely to be a combative and divisive general election.
“They don’t know who we fight for,” El-Sayed said. “We fight for the families barely able to put their groceries in the cart and check out, we fight for the mom who’s worried about the child care she needs to be able to work a job that barely pays enough, we fight for the folks who are afraid about what happens if they get sick. We fight for each other, and we don’t back down.”
Tennessee GOP Rep. Andy Ogles was ousted by a Republican challenger on Thursday, a blow to President Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson who tried to boost his campaign in the final days.
Former Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Charlie Hatcher won the GOP primary for the 5th District after outraising Ogles, receiving a late endorsement from GOP Gov. Bill Lee and seeing a flood of outside money on his behalf from a renewable energy super PAC.
Ultimately, that spending, coupled with a newly redrawn district that forced Ogles to reach new voters, helped end his reelection bid. Ogles has also faced a number of controversies since he was first elected in 2022.
He deleted a homophobic social media post that was denounced by members of his own party in June, and he drew severe backlash for another post in which he said “Muslims don’t belong in American society.” In 2024, the FBI searched Ogles’ phone during an investigation into campaign finance records, which came after a watchdog group filed an ethics complaint into his use of campaign funds. And in 2023, he faced scrutiny for false claims about his resume.
Ogles’ loss makes him the second Trump-endorsed candidate to lose a primary this week, after a Michigan House candidate who had the president’s backing fell to a challenger who had already dropped out.
Hatcher will face the Democratic mayor of Columbia, Tennessee, Chaz Molder, in November. Molder has posted strong fundraising hauls, while Hatcher will basically be starting from scratch.
But Republicans redrew the seat to favor Trump by 23 points after the Supreme Court severely limited the Voting Rights Act earlier this year, leaving Hatcher as the front-runner.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship11 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words