Congress

A rising populist tide is threatening New York’s powerful incumbents

Published

2 months ago

June 22, 2026

NEW YORK — Incumbents beware: The public is angry.

As voters across the country express frustration with the political establishment, congressional hopefuls are seeing a prime opportunity to tap into a movement with the potential to manifest a handful of upsets in New York’s primary elections.

The dynamic is playing out in intraparty electoral brawls across the state, where the outcomes will shape the political future for Democrats and Republicans alike.

In upper Manhattan and the Bronx, Democratic Rep. Adriano Espaillat is trying to fend off a stiff challenge from community organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, who’s running with the backing of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani — a democratic socialist who channeled populist fervor in his successful bid last year.

Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, Rep. Nydia Velazquez’s preferred successor, is squaring off against first-term Assemblymember Claire Valdez, another hopeful backed by Mamdani. Like the mayor, both Valdez and Avila Chevalier are members of the Democratic Socialists of America.

And in the upstate New York fight to replace GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik, Republican Assemblymember Robert Smullen — running with the backing of the state party — is locked in a caustic battle with Anthony Constantino, President Donald Trump’s endorsed candidate.

Candidates with scant political experience are channeling the public’s exasperated mood with the expectation that restive voters will reward them. Populist anger over rising prices and Washington leadership have provided an opening to outsiders promising a new path. And this combination has created one of the most perilous political environments for incumbents since Trump’s first presidential victory a decade ago stoked an anti-establishment fire that’s burning brighter than ever.

“If you’re perceived as being part of the status quo, then you’ve got a problem,” said Republican pollster John McLaughlin. “Regardless of which party, if you’re perceived as bringing about change you’ll win. If you’re inside the beltway you’re not talking to normal people.”

New York’s closed party primary battles are a window into the broader challenges facing incumbents across the country at a time of sustained grievance over affordability and hardening partisanship. At the same time, voters are increasingly willing to be unfazed by a candidate’s baggage — be it Graham Platner in Maine or Avila Chevalier’s tweets criticizing Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. It paints a picture of an electorate that’s willing to embrace flawed candidates, reject a political establishment they believe has failed to deliver on their promises and eager to send a message to their perceived enemies.

“We’re in a negative partisan environment and one of the most negative partisan environments we’ve ever witnessed,” Democratic former Rep. Steve Israel said. “People will overlook blemishes in their party in order to meet the existential goal of beating the other party. That creates openings for outsiders to come in with tattoos and old social media posts.”

The mood is reflected in the polling. A statewide Siena University survey released last month found a plurality of voters, 48 percent, believe New York is heading in the wrong direction. A sizable majority — 65 percent — said the country is on the wrong track.

Cost-of-living concerns, which enabled Trump’s White House return two years ago, continue to be a major factor in global elections. In the UK, affordability woes over housing and utility rates have put the ruling Labour Party on its backfoot and threaten to short-circuit Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s tenure.

Rising gas prices in the U.S. following Trump’s decision to launch a war against Iran have kept inflation stubbornly high, teeing up what’s expected to be a difficult GOP midterm. And while Democrats are feeling bullish about their prospects this November, they’re still dealing with their own, often vast, intraparty differences of opinion.

That’s especially apparent in New York, where both the leaders of the House and Senate could be situated if the Democrats have blowout wins this year. But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — both from Brooklyn — are not necessarily being welcomed with open arms. Some leading congressional candidates have declined to commit to supporting Jeffries as speaker if Democrats take back the House, yet another sign of hopefuls attempting to ride an anti-incumbent — and anti-establishment — sentiment.

At a debate earlier this month, the question of backing Jeffries as speaker revealed a stark contrast between Valdez and Reynoso: the former said she’s not committed to voting yes or no, while Reynoso said he would because if one doesn’t, you “become a pariah in Congress” and “won’t get any resources” into the district.

Schumer is on even shakier ground. In debates over recent weeks, when asked if they’re in favor of the 75-year-old running for reelection in 2028, many candidates in competitive races said outright that they’re not, or dodge the question. The Siena University poll released in May found Schumer’s favorable rating with New York voters statewide at only 33 percent. A majority of voters, 52 percent, hold an unfavorable view of the longtime senator — including 40 percent of Democrats.

Former city Comptroller Brad Lander, who’s waging a formidable challenge against Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman, often argues that his campaign is to enact “bold new leadership” (despite a long career in city politics). In response to a question about Schumer running for reelection, he said, “It’s time for a new leadership in the Democratic Party.” Goldman, for his part, said: “We’ll deal with that when the time comes.”

Gustavo Gordillo, co-chair of the city chapter of the DSA, said that “a key factor is seeing the failures of the Democratic Party to stop Donald Trump two elections now.” In previous cycles, he added, it felt like “a lot of people were not in the fight.”

“The national political situation has changed that for so many people, and that’s what created this hunger,” Gordillo said.

Voters’ willingness to buck incumbents has been long-simmering — and reached a boiling point in last year’s mayoral election after Mamdani, then a member of the Assembly, ran as an outsider to topple both embattled then-Mayor Eric Adams and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

“Coming off of a year when so many Democratic voters felt so cynical and disaffected by the Democratic Party, there were glimmers of hope in New York when someone like Zohran was elevated, to show, ‘Okay, we can transform this party by transforming leadership,’” said Usamah Andrabi, communications director for Justice Democrats, the progressive group that helped boost the Squad. “Our job is to take that momentum from Zohran’s victory and show voters you don’t have to stop here.”

The group is backing Valdez and recruited Avila Chevalier, who seemed like a gamble just weeks ago as the race was still flying under the radar. And while that campaign is still expected to be a tough battle, the suddenly high-profile nature of the race — sparked by Mamdani’s endorsement of Avila Chevalier and millions of dollars in spending from pro-Espaillat entities — is evidence that it was at least worth a shot for Justice Democrats, which had a brutal 2024 cycle when Reps. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri were both defeated in primaries.

The power of incumbency has for years made knocking out officeholders an uphill battle. And for retiring incumbents, that power would almost guarantee their hand-picked successor would follow them. But even that’s not enough this cycle, as evidenced in the crowded primary for outgoing Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler’s seat, which has been anything but a glide path for his heir apparent, state Assemblymember Micah Lasher. His opponents have sought to frame themselves as “outsiders” — even if many of them do have political ties — from fellow Assemblymember Alex Bores’ assertion that he’s a victim of Big Tech’s ire to Kennedy scion Jack Schlossberg’s argument that he’s not beholden to any super PACs.

Still, some contend that experience is needed in this political climate. A super PAC backing Reynoso recently put out advertisements positioning him as someone “ready to fight back” — compared to Valdez, who has “barely a year in office.” Goldman has repeatedly made the argument that his seniority in Congress is too much to give up, arguing that Lander would be a “rookie” on Blue Light News, where legislating is more difficult given the partisan divides. And in a recent debate, Espaillat charged that Avila Chevalier “doesn’t know legislation.”

”This is a critical time in America,” Espaillat said. ”We need a fighter, somebody that really knows government.”

In New York and across the country, the playing field has been leveled significantly between incumbents and political newcomers — thanks in large part to social media turbocharging fundraising and widespread voter dissatisfaction.

Further complicating matters is partisan redistricting creating fewer swing seats, but increasingly deep blue or ruby red districts where the more competitive race is often the primary.

“You just have to care about not pissing off Trump if you’re a Republican,” former GOP Rep. John Katko said. “If you’re a Democrat you have to worry about not upsetting the far left. The cards are so stacked because of gerrymandering.”

Congress

House Democrats watch closely as Hakeem Jeffries vows to rein in rogue members

Published

32 minutes ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats have spent the better part of two years looking on in glee as House Republicans have struggled to wrangle their narrow majority and enact a consensus agenda.

Now, eyeing a potentially small majority of their own, they are eager not to see the shoe quickly land on the other foot — which is why Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is under fierce internal pressure to crack down on a surprise rebellion this week.

The decision by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) and Jared Golden (D-Maine) to support a Republican procedural measure that would have otherwise failed — essentially bailing out Speaker Mike Johnson’s floor agenda — prompted Jeffries and fellow Democratic leaders to decry a “breach of trust” and promise a “serious response.”

Rank-and-file members are watching closely to see if Jeffries follows through on those threats and moves to rein in rogue members who could undermine the party agenda and his own leadership.

“If there’s no understanding that we need to stay together on procedural measures, then we’re going to be like Republicans,” said Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Rules Committee Democrat and a Jeffries ally. “I mean, they can’t get anything done because everybody’s going off in different directions.”

Many Democrats are hoping Jeffries will set an assertive tone and send a message that some protest tactics will not be tolerated in a future majority. The situation is of particular interest to members given the slate of insurgent hard-left members poised to join the caucus next term — some of whom have openly discussed adopting strategies embraced by the hard right.

“It’s an open secret — we don’t want to end up with our own Freedom Caucus,” one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly said in an interview, referring to the fractious ultraconservative group. “You see how a core group of people can stop the workings here … when it’s continual and it’s just about grandstanding. … We don’t want that.”

“I’m not saying that those folks coming in are going to operate in that way,” the member added. “We don’t know. But we’ve got to tighten up the systems.”

Already, House Democrats have competing views about how and when to punish the rogue members. Multiple members, for example, have privately suggested kicking Gluesenkamp Perez off of the Appropriations Committee — a highly coveted assignment.

Gluesenkamp Perez represents a district President Donald Trump won in 2024.

But others acknowledge that leaders have little leverage against the duo. Golden is leaving the House at the end of this term, and Gluesenkamp Perez is one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the country.

Keeping her seat in a district President Donald Trump won by 3 percentage points in 2024 could determine the outcome of the midterm elections, and she has made her clashes with party leaders a core part of her political identity.

Some members — including progressives who used procedural votes for leverage during Nancy Pelosi’s speakership — also cautioned leadership from overpolicing members.

Asked about how Jeffries should “punish” the members, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), a former chair of the Progressive Caucus, said, “We’re not kids, and he’s not our dad.”

“I’m elected by 750,000 people. I get to make my decisions about what I want,” Jayapal said before adding, “At the same time, I think there has to be a strong commitment to the team.”

“I think that there can be certain reasonable expectations — for example, to flag how one may intend to vote on something,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said. “I also think that the idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.”

Both of the rebels are shrugging off the intense reaction from Democratic leaders and some of their colleagues. Golden said he voted with Republicans to advance a bill he cosponsored benefiting lobstermen in Maine; Gluesenkamp Perez said she voted to support Golden and “people who make their livelihoods and heritage on the water.”

“I do not have a polished political strategy,” she told reporters Wednesday. “I know my community, and that’s who sent me here, and that’s who I am thinking about.”

Many of their Democratic colleagues aren’t ready to just let it go, however. Several argued in interviews that if every member broke ranks on procedural votes to advance legislation they support, the party would lose significant leverage.

Golden, left, is retiring after his term ends.

“I am generally of the view that if you believe that you are a free agent in this town, maybe you don’t get to use the team locker room anymore,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) said, adding that he could not think of a potential punishment “within the scope of what leadership can do that could be opposed by the caucus.”

Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio) said “some tough love“ might be necessary to send a message to the broader caucus: “We’re all in this together.”

Amid the agita, it’s not clear how quickly Jeffries will act. An internal committee dealing with caucus rules met Wednesday and discussed the matter but did not advance any specific proposals for sanctions or rules changes.

Jeffries himself has not committed to a timeline for imposing consequences against the two defectors. He told reporters Wednesday he wants to pursue action “sooner rather than later” as he faces internal questions about whether he can exert the same level of control over Democrats as his predecessor did.

Pelosi dealt with rebellions of her own, including moderates who repeatedly voted with Republicans to amend Democratic bills on the floor. But she pointedly commented on the disloyalty on display this week, with Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez essentially voting to advance the GOP floor agenda.

“We didn’t even consider that anybody would do that,” she said Tuesday. “We never had that problem, so I’m disappointed that they did that.”

Another lawmaker who was happy to comment Wednesday was Johnson, who has routinely contended with GOP mutinies during his time in office — including one that Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden bailed him out of Tuesday.

Jeffries “has a serious problem in his caucus,” he told reporters, citing the “warring factions in his party.”

“I don’t see a way out of that thicket,” he said. “But I’m not going to tell him how to govern his conference, and he doesn’t, or shouldn’t, be telling me how to.”

Congress

Tillis renews calls for Hegseth’s ouster

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Sen. Thom Tillis renewed his call for President Donald Trump to fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Wednesday, following the resignation earlier this week of Army Secretary Dan Driscoll.

“I have never witnessed more inept management of the brave men and women who serve our country,” the outgoing two-term North Carolina Republican wrote on X. “He is intimidated by competence and retreats to ginning up culture wars instead of soberly attending to the vital work of our national defense and the health and well-being of our fighting force.”

Driscoll, whose long-rumored resignation became official this week, had clashed with Hegseth over the Defense secretary’s reluctance to modernize the Army and his firings of dozens of senior officers. Hegseth has focused more on cultural issues — including grooming and fitness standards — within the department.

“If we had a @SecWar who maintained the same priorities and forward-thinking, he would be fighting to retain talented leaders like Dan and the many flag officers he has forced into retirement,” Tillis charged. “Instead, he is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

The White House and Pentagon did not respond to requests for comment on Tillis’ post.

Tillis, who is not running for reelection in November, has openly clashed with Hegseth since Trump tapped the former Fox News host to lead the Pentagon in 2024.

In May, Tillis told POLITICO he believed Hegseth had misinformed Trump on the dynamics of a war in Iran. Firing Hegseth, he said, was on “a Christmas wish list.” In a book set to be released next month, Tillis branded Hegseth — along with a handful of other White House officials — as “MAGATS” and accused them of “not looking around corners and taking care of this president.”

It hasn’t earned him friends in the administration.

“The media said how brave he was to take me on, but he wasn’t brave, he was just the opposite – HE WAS A QUITTER!” Trump wrote on Truth Social in May. “Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO friends, screwing the Republican Party. In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!”

Congress

No immediate plans to punish rogue House Democrats for bailing out GOP

Published

6 hours ago

September 2, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Despite a stern message from party leaders, a panel of House Democrats did not settle on any particular consequences for the pair of lawmakers who crossed party lines Tuesday to advance an otherwise troubled slate of Republican-led bills.

Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and fellow leaders said the matter would be reviewed by the Democratic Committee on Caucus Rules, which convened Wednesday morning for a prescheduled listening session.

Attendees discussed possible changes to the rules that govern House Democrats’ conduct for next term. Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.), the panel’s chair, suggested to reporters that discussion included what should happen if members vote with Republicans on procedural measures like the one Reps. Jared Golden (D-Maine) and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Wash.) supported Tuesday.

“There’s been a variety of suggestions to change our rules, not just regarding the last couple days, but several suggestions that have been percolating for some time,” Levin said, while adding that any changes would happen only “in the next couple of months.”

The lack of urgency stands in contrast to the stern statement Jeffries and fellow leaders made Tuesday about the rogue members’ “breach of trust” — not to mention the rage some rank-and-file House Democrats are expressing. Some have floated removing the pair from their committees — particularly Gluesenkamp Perez’ seat on the exclusive Appropriations panel.

“Somebody else who is willing to think about other people needs to be on that seat, that exclusive committee,” said one House Democrat granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Jeffries, who was not present at the meeting, also seemed to have a speedier timeline for responding to Gluesenkamp Perez and Golden. He told reporters after the meeting wrapped that he was waiting on feedback from Levin and that the caucus would have conversations “amongst the family about the best way to move forward.”

Asked about his timeline for action against the pair, Jeffries said, “Sooner rather than later.”