Politics
Klobuchar delays governor campaign launch as border patrol killing upends Minnesota
Amy Klobuchar planned to officially launch her gubernatorial campaign on Monday, but has delayed it in the wake of the fatal shooting of a protester by immigration agents in Minneapolis over the weekend, according to two people familiar with the Minnesota Democrat’s plans.
The senator instead spent Monday morning speaking to White House officials, urging deescalation and pushing to get the administration to end its immigration crackdown in her state, according to a third person, who is close to the senator and, like the others, was granted anonymity to describe private conversations.
Her decision to wait on her campaign launch comes amid weeks of turmoil in Minnesota that further escalated over the weekend when Border Patrol agents on Saturday fatally shot Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care unit nurse and American citizen.
Over the last two days, Klobuchar has been meeting with city and state leaders, strategizing with Senate colleagues over Department of Homeland Security funding and calling Trump administration officials, according to the third person, who said Klobuchar’s “focus is on de-escalating the situation and getting ICE out of Minnesota. There’s not time for politics today.”
Klobuchar’s nascent gubernatorial campaign has run headlong into a national crisis, another twist for a campaign that started under unusual circumstances. Earlier this month, Democratic Gov. Tim Walz unexpectedly dropped his reelection bid for a third term, as a swirling fraud scandal threatened to engulf his campaign, and met with Klobuchar about running for the office herself. Since then, two American citizens have been killed by federal immigration agents, thrusting Klobuchar into the center of a battle on an issue for which she’s traditionally cut a moderate profile.
“Regardless of what [campaign] Klobuchar is considering, this is what I’d expect from her, she’s been the leader in this state,” said Democratic Minnesota state Sen. Grant Hauschild. “We’re facing unprecedented circumstances of federal overreach and harm to our communities, and she’s stepped up, being present on the ground and fighting in Congress.”
The two people who described her changed launch plans said they expect the senator to formally launch before next Tuesday, when the state’s party precinct caucus kicks off. Klobuchar already filed paperwork with the state’s campaign finance board last week, allowing her to begin raising funds ahead of an expected bid.
Pretti’s killing also shook up the GOP side of the Minnesota governors’ race. Chris Madel, an attorney who launched his campaign as a Republican late last year, announced on Monday he would be dropping out, calling the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics “wrong” and “an unmitigated disaster.”
“I cannot support the national Republican-stated retribution on the citizens of our state, nor can I count myself a member of a party that would do so,” he said in a video posted to social media.
Klobuchar is not expected to face a serious Democratic opponent when she enters the gubernatorial race, giving her some breathing room on both her announcement timeline and on her stance on immigration. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a well-known progressive who was considered a potential candidate, confirmed he would not be running for the job last week.
“What you hear from Klobuchar is, ‘ICE needs to get out of here,’ and I don’t think she needs to say more than that [because] without a primary challenger, I don’t think she’ll have to change her position on it,” said a Minnesota Democratic strategist, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “She’s smart, she’s careful and she’s cautious, and she knows how to win suburban and independent voters.”
Klobuchar has always cut a moderate profile. She rose up in Hennepin County as its prosecutor before running for Senate. During her presidential campaign in 2020, Klobuchar rejected calls for “abolishing ICE,” drawing fire from immigration rights advocates groups in that race, and instead called for reforms of the agency.
When asked during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday whether she supported abolishing ICE, Klobuchar said “we’re always going to have some immigration enforcement in this country, and border control.” But she called for the ICE operation to leave the state because “this agency has been functioning is completely against every tenet of law enforcement.”
Klobuchar ticked through several reforms she supports: “New leadership. Stopping these surges across the country, not just in my state. Training them like they were supposed to be trained. … Mandatory body cameras. Stopping ramming into people’s houses without a judicial warrant.”
Those specifics could become part of Senate Democrats’ demands to give enough votes to pass a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security and other parts of the government.
Other Democrats have called for more aggressive policies, including abolishing ICE altogether. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) posted on X that “voting NO on the DHS funding bill is the bare minimum,” adding that ICE is “beyond reform” and to “abolish it.”
Klobuchar’s approach is once again drawing criticism from some immigrant-rights advocates. “I do not believe that’s far enough,” said George Escobar, executive director of CASA, an immigration advocacy organization. “Unless we deal with the cancer that is causing this, which is ICE itself, and unless we have a comprehensive reform of that agency, which to us, means abolishing it, then honestly, this cycle is just going to repeat over and over again.”One Democratic consultant who has worked on Minnesota races warned that Klobuchar’s deliberative approach could hurt her. “She’s incredibly cautious, and this is not a cautious moment,” they said. “So far, she has not put her foot in it by being too moderate, but she’s also not been under a huge spotlight — and that will change with the gubernatorial run.”
Nonetheless, Klobuchar’s messaging earned her praise from even some progressives. “I think she’s spot on,” said Mark Longabaugh, a former adviser to Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “If you’re going to step up and say that this organization needs to be restructured, or shut down and restructured, you also have to tie that to, ‘Listen, there is a legitimate law enforcement need here, both for customs and for border control.’”
Most Minnesota Democrats don’t think Klobuchar will suddenly center anti-ICE messaging in her gubernatorial campaign. Interviews with a half dozen operatives and elected officials found they still expected the campaign to largely revolve around the economy. “Affordability is still going to be central to her work, along with protecting her state,” said the person close to Klobuchar. “She will always stand up for Minnesota on both.”
“Who knows if, in 10 months, it will specifically be a part of the narrative or messaging,” said a Minnesota Democratic donor adviser. “But this isn’t going to go away any time soon … because we’re traumatized here.”
Politics
Farm-state Republicans are having a cow over Trump’s beef imports as Election Day approaches
Farm-state Republicans don’t support President Donald Trump’s move to import cheap beef — but they’re still getting grilled for it.
Trump’s plan to combat sky-high beef prices by introducing discounted, tariff-free foreign beef has been widely condemned by ag-state Republicans who are concerned it will undercut the domestic beef industry and hurt ranchers, a normally reliable constituency.
And their opponents see an opening to paint Republicans as unconcerned about voters’ pocketbook concerns.
“Our ranchers and our farmers keep getting kicked in the teeth, and we have politicians that keep telling us that everything’s great, that we’re the hottest country,” Dan Osborn, an independent running for Senate in Nebraska, said in an interview. “And to be quite frank, I’m pretty pissed off about it.”
Osborn’s state is one of the top four top cattle-producing states — along with Texas, Kansas and Iowa — all of which have more-competitive-than-expected Senate races this cycle. And Trump’s controversial plan to remove tariffs from 300,000 metric tons of imported beef, sold at 25 percent below current market prices, is doing Republicans no favors.
Osborn’s campaign went on air with a pun-filled ad this week in which he says the import plan is “selling out American farmers and ranchers,” and blasts Congress for being “too chicken to stand up to the corporations who bought them off.” The campaign says it plans to spend at least six figures airing the spot. It’s the first major spending from a campaign focused on the beef import plan. But it plays into a larger economic argument Democrats are pushing to break through with farmers and ranchers: Trump and Republicans have turned their backs on rural America, as a worsening farm crisis and spiking fuel and fertilizer prices pinch agricultural communities.
“It’s part of a wider frustration,” said an adviser to one of the farm-state GOP senators, granted anonymity to speak openly. “I don’t think it sways anyone’s vote, but it isn’t a great look. … It isn’t fun for me to read the headline. It’s frustrating.”
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Osborn’s opponent, said in a statement he has a record of standing for his state’s agriculture community, “no matter who is president — from fighting Biden’s 30×30 plan to opposing this beef import plan.”
“Ranchers know the difference between a senator who delivers and a candidate reading a script his socialist ad agency wrote,” Ricketts said.
Farm-state Democrats and independents believe beef imports provide a window to speak to rural voters who have skewed red for decades but suddenly look more competitive amid Trump’s plunging political standing. A strategist working on Osborn’s campaign, granted anonymity to discuss strategy, said Osborn’s ad “codes as non-partisan in a way that running ads about taxes or healthcare doesn’t.”
Trump’s overall unpopularity is hurting Republicans across the map, but this policy could be especially problematic in a quartet of once-sleeper Senate races that could hand Democrats control of the upper chamber.
Spokespeople for the GOP nominees in Iowa and Kansas declined to discuss the issue, pointing to their candidates’ statements in August, when Trump’s plan was announced: Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) called Trump’s plan a “bad idea,” while Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) said the priority should be growing the U.S. cattle herd, “not flooding the market with imports.”
Last week, during a debate at the Kansas State Fair, Democratic nominee Adam Hamilton slammed the import plan as “a slap in the face of all of our cattle ranchers,” earning a raucous response from fair-goers, and hit Marshall for “tepidly respond[ing] to it as opposed to shouting like hell that this is not okay.”
In Iowa’s agriculture-heavy first district, Democrats have been on the air since June with an ad hammering Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks for record-high beef prices” and other cost-of-living increases under the Trump administration. The Republicans who were already getting hammered for high prices before now are now hobbled by a proposed remedy — one that has infuriated their own base.
When asked how Republicans should message the beef plan back home, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, acknowledged there’s “certainly a lot of concern amongst our cattle producers.”
“I think they understand what’s going on. They’re just not pleased with it,” Boozman said. “We’re in contact with the administration, a lot of members are in contact, helping them understand the unintended consequences of it. We’d like to lower prices, but again, we don’t want the unintended consequence of lowering cattle futures significantly.”
That leaves ranchers worried that the import plan will undercut their struggling industry.
“President Trump wants to lower the price of beef, I think that’s where it’s coming from,” said Ben Menges, a cattle rancher in Arizona’s battleground 6th District. “The best way that President Trump can do that is by lowering the cost of fuel, not by importing a bunch of beef.”
Some Republicans have looked to turn the conversation into a culture war issue — hitting their opponents for past stances on meat consumption or veganism.
Vice President JD Vance, during a visit to Iowa Friday — which Hinson did not attend — slammed Hamilton, the pastor-turned-Democratic nominee for Senate in Kansas, for having a “kind of a ‘gee whiz, I’m a nice pastor’ vibe” who tells his congregation to “repent for their white privilege while eating beef.”
It’s an attack Marshall made at last week’s debate, hitting Hamilton for a sermon he delivered on climate change and the impact of meat consumption.
“I think the senator needs to repent for not standing up for the beef industry,” responded Hamilton.
Gubernatorial candidates across the country are racing to stake out positions on AI as the battle over regulating the technology intensifies.
They’re watching as sitting governors of both parties turn the rapidly evolving technology into a political priority, from Gavin Newsom in California to Ron DeSantis in Florida and Kathy Hochul in New York.
Now they’re starting to join the chorus, calling for more state-based action to put guardrails on AI — even if they don’t know what that would look like yet.
Blue Light News reached out to more than 18 Republican and Democratic gubernatorial candidates on their plans and received responses from eight. Nearly all said they want states to take the lead on AI, signaling a frustration with Washington’s inaction and acknowledgement that — if they eventually secure the governor’s mansion — they can’t dismiss the growing warnings.
Candidates said they were motivated by different concerns including fraud, job displacement and children’s safety. Their lack of detail on just how to address AI also reveals a tricky pivot these gubernatorial candidates are facing: To date, much of their campaign messaging on AI or the technology race with China has focused on data centers’ impact on energy prices.
Now, with less than six weeks until Election Day, they’re attempting to talk about AI in a more existential — and more far-reaching — manner.
“The federal government has failed to lead on this issue, and we cannot trust the billionaires profiting off of AI to self-regulate,” said Gina Hinojosa, Texas’ Democratic nominee for governor, in a statement. “State government has the most direct impact on our day-to-day lives, and at a time when Texans are more uncertain and concerned about AI than ever, it’s critical that we put the needs of Texans before corporate profits.” (GOP Gov. Greg Abbott, Hinojosa’s opponent, did not respond to a list of questions.)
Former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, a Democrat who’s heavily favored to succeed Newsom in California, is in conversations with tech industry leaders and economists on the path forward. He will “work to set firm guardrails to prevent the threat of real harms to workers, to children, to our privacy rights, to public safety,” spokesperson Jonathan Underland said in a statement. “California is the birthplace of modern AI, and California will lead the way in making it safe.”
Becerra’s longshot Republican opponent, Steve Hilton, told Blue Light News that there’s a place for narrow regulation on AI — even though he thinks some of the warnings are overblown and “preposterous.”
“California should lead on this because we are leading on the technology, and therefore we should lead on the regulation,” Hilton said. “I would prefer to see both the Congress and politicians in other states back off and stop talking about something they don’t understand.”
Recent warnings from top AI leaders about the technology’s potential apocalyptic trajectory roiled Democrats and Republicans both in Washington and on the campaign trail. According to a new POLITICO Poll, a majority of voters now think that AI poses an existential threat to humanity and a plurality want to see a pause in development of advanced models.
“There is a lot of education that’s needed here, and people are navigating an issue that they weren’t even really thinking about six months ago beyond the beyond ‘Should we have data centers’?” said Alyssa Cass, a Democratic strategist who has worked with Alex Bores, a New York state lawmaker who gained national attention in his failed campaign for Congress for opposition to unchecked AI.
“They’re talking about it,” she added. “That’s a meaningful difference.”
The National Governors Association, which convened a working group on AI’s impact on the workforce earlier this year, plans to release a policy roadmap for governors in November on how states can take action.
“We have 39 gubernatorial elections happening in November, and at least 21 new governors will be sworn in in January,” said Sophia Yager, the NGA’s policy director for workforce development and economic policy. “So we wanted to have a resource available not only for incumbent governors who are thinking and working on this issue, but for all of the new governors coming in, wanting to have something available for them from the jump in November.”
So far, Democrats have taken the sharpest aim at the Republican-controlled federal government for its inaction on establishing safeguards against AI.
“While regulation is strongest and most effective at the federal level, President [Donald] Trump dismisses the need for even the most basic guardrails, and we know it can take time for Congress to act,” said Federico Araujo, a spokesperson for Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek, who’s locked in a tightening battle for reelection. “States, in the meantime, must act with more urgency and do everything possible to manage how AI impacts our economies, energy prices and natural resources.”
David Crowley, the Democratic nominee in Wisconsin, told Blue Light News in a statement that AI safety is “an issue Wisconsin can address” but “we need strong leadership and partners in Washington who are looking out for us at home.” Still, he didn’t offer specifics, and much of his battle with GOP nominee Tom Tiffany — and even the Democratic primary — has been focused on data centers’ proliferation in Wisconsin.
Tiffany did not respond to a request for comment.
The calls for action on state-based regulation have not been limited to Democrats alone. Republicans — including some Trump allies — signaled a willingness to create safe buffers for the technology at the state level, following the lead of governors like DeSantis and Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, who have long advocated for states’ abilities to install guardrails amid federal inaction.
“States should have a say in how AI is regulated,” said Dan Capodilupo, spokesperson for Iowa GOP gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn. “Zach is committed to protecting states rights.” State Auditor Rob Sand, his Democratic opponent, did not respond to a request for comment.
In Georgia, Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for GOP nominee Rick Jackson, stopped short of calling for local regulations but said that the health care executive “supports efforts to ensure that new models are tested for risks and that safety standards are established. He added that Jackson is “committed” to working with the state legislature on protecting consumers from AI-driven scams.
Georgia’s Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms did not respond to a request for comment.
Trump has labeled concerns about AI’s existential threat a “HOAX” and derided efforts to regulate the technology, and his White House has pushed preemption of state-level regulation. In February, the White House urged Utah legislators to abandon an AI transparency bill; the administration has similarly gone after state-level legislation in Colorado and in California.
A POLITICO review of state-level legislation found 18 laws in 13 states, led by both Republicans and Democrats, that contradict the White House’s preemption framework.
These candidates’ calls for state-based action mirror some early actions that both red and blue state executives are taking from their statehouse perches, explicitly defying Trump’s hands-off approach to regulating the nascent but powerful industry.
This week, Cox urged Washington to “establish a consistent national framework for the development of frontier AI,” and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in a speech at an AI-focused conference in Pittsburgh, called for the “federal government to step up and regulate the AI industry just like they do for nearly every other industry that significantly impacts our lives.”
Shapiro — who’s up for reelection in the battleground state this year and is considered a 2028 presidential contender — outlined what he sees as the stakes of slow-walking protective measures.
“By the time Congress comes back into session after the election, we could be dealing with a whole new generation of generative AI, and more scary examples of AI agents going rogue,” he said.
Lisa Kashinsky contributed to this report.
- Trump asked budget chief to draft order bringing health research funding under his control
- Farm-state Republicans are having a cow over Trump’s beef imports as Election Day approaches
- The Blue Light News Poll Electability Experiment
- ‘States should have a say’: Candidates for governor race to take on AI regulation
- Citing Trump, GOP regulators reject gas plant for Amazon data center
- Gottheimer unveils 2 bipartisan AI safety bills
- Let’s beat California on AI, key Democrat says
- Spanberger slaps new guardrails on data centers
- Hill investigates after F-35 parts diverted to Hong Kong
- As data center backlash grows, another GOP governor draws a line
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words