The Dictatorship
Chuck Schumer’s stumbles leave Democrats without a message
The Senate voted on Friday afternoon to move forward with a Republican short-term funding bill and avoid a federal government shutdown. Ten Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, voted in favor of cloture, limiting further debate and advancing the bill to final passage. The funding bill then passed in a 54-46 vote, with two Democrats joining all but one Republican senator in support.
It was the culmination of a wild week that brought to a head a divide among congressional Democrats over how best to counter President Donald Trump’s agenda. Moreover, it has left Schumer a far cry from his past as once one of the party’s more effective messengers. Now, the caucus he leads, thanks to his own missteps, appears too disjointed and out of sync to have a coherent message.
Now, the caucus he leads, thanks to his own missteps, appears too disjointed and out of sync to have a coherent message.
For months now, Schumer has advocated for a posture of letting Republicans trip over themselves and reaping the rewards during the midterms. “Trump will screw up,” he told Semafor in early February, urging Democrats to remain patient. Even as it became clear that negotiations over the looming government funding deadline were faltering, Senate Democrats have been more focused on the fight over the GOP’s funding bill for the next fiscal year.
History was on their side on that front, especially with the extremely narrow GOP majority in the House. The odds of Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., managing to corral his fractious caucus without support from Democrats to get a funding bill over the line seemed slim. But then the unthinkable happened: the House GOP banded together without any of its usual drama.
The continuing resolution the House approved on Tuesday slashes funding for nondefense spending over the next six months but does so stealthily enough that swing-district Republicans could support it. More significantly, the normally anti-CR House Freedom Caucus jumped on board after Trump and Vice President JD Vance promised that the White House would simply cut whatever spending the resolution authorized that they didn’t like. That alone should have been enough to make clear to congressional Democrats that the language they were demanding to curtail Trump’s illegal impoundment should be required for any support in passing the bill.
House Democrats were a bit all over the place in their reasoning for opposing the bill, citing the reduced short-term funding, the longer-term risk to Social Security and other entitlementsand calling it as a free pass to let the Department of Government Efficiency continue its illegal downsizing of the government. But despite differing motives, House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., made sure his caucus agreed on the results. All but one House Democrat voted against the bill. Given lawmakers’ — and especially Democrats’ — temptation to avoid blame for a shutdown, this was a major feat for Jeffries and his team.
But even as House Democrats stuck together, it quickly became clear how unprepared Senate Democrats were for this moment. According to NBC News, “Schumer didn’t initiate a full caucus conversation about how to handle the House measure until Democrats met for lunch on Tuesday,” after the House bill had already passed. Two days of closed-door discussions did not lead to consensus among members on how to avoid a shutdown without appearing to capitulate to Trump.
The resulting messaging from Senate Democrats was a mess. On Wednesday afternoon, Schumer announced that there weren’t Democratic votes for the GOP bill and that the caucus was unified on a 30-day funding bill to allow for more negotiations. But getting that alternative to the floor would have required offering it as an amendment, which would have required at least eight Democrats to vote for cloture anyway. It would only be then that Democrats could offer up their plan as amendment — which was guaranteed to fail, given that Republicans control 53 seats. (It and two other amendments, as predicted, failed to pass on Friday afternoon.)
The strategy seemed like an attempt to use the arcane procedures of the Senate to hoodwink Democratic voters into thinking the caucus had done everything in its power to stop the resolution. That feeling was justified the next day when Schumer turned around to say that he would vote in favor of advancing the bill rather than allowing a shutdown. “I believe allowing Donald Trump to take even much more power via a government shutdown is a far worse option,” he said in a floor speech. “I will vote to keep the government open and not shut it down.”
Moderate and progressive Democrats alike have either denounced or disregarded Schumer’s argument.
It’s not that Schumer’s reasoning was entirely misguided. As one senator reportedly yelled at their colleagues this weekthe Trump administration might use a shutdown to declare a national emergency. It could also be used to justify Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency firing “nonessential” personnel. And shutdowns are generally bad politically for the party that’s seen as at fault. But for a party that has struggled to figure out where to draw the line against Trump, it came across as a prime example of giving up without a fight.
To say that House Democrats were angry at Schumer’s capitulation is an understatement. Their fury was compounded because, according to NBC NewsJeffries’ team had let Schumer know about their plan to unify against the bill and force the GOP back to the table — a plan that could only work if Senate Democrats held strong as well. “I think there is a deep sense of outrage and betrayal, and this is not just progressive Democrats — this is across the board, the entire party,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., told reporters on Thursday night.
This sort of dispute is exceedingly rare for congressional Democrats. What makes this divide even more unusual is that it isn’t based on ideology. Moderate and progressive Democrats alike have either denounced or disregarded Schumer’s argument. Nor can the split be primarily viewed as a battle between the old guard and upstarts, as The New York Times framed the anger at Schumer. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who was Schumer’s partner in countering the first Trump administration, lent her voice to the chorus denouncing his decision. And when asked about the Senate leadership’s performance this week, Jeffries responded with a distinct lack of support for Schumer: “Next question.”
There’s a distinct irony here given how much of Schumer’s rise was fueled by his reputation as being a media whiz. After his predecessor, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, announced his retirement in 2015, Schumer was immediately tapped to take the reins. As Politico wrote at the time: “After two cycles running the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and after he’s taken the reins as the messaging guru, Schumer is viewed by many of his colleagues as being one of his party’s savviest political tacticians.” Now that reputation seems ill-deserved given the heartache and lack of clarity along the way from him.
In this case, Schumer got what he wanted and managed to bring enough of his members with him to avoid a shutdown. But in the process, he’s alienated the House and accelerated the growing conversation about the need for sitting senators to face primary challengers. Whether he leads the Senate Democratic caucus after the midterms is now in doubt. And in refusing to use every tool in his power to stop Trump’s violation of the Constitution, Schumer has left an already demoralized Democratic base wondering when, if ever, the party’s leaders are going to act like their campaign trail warnings about the threat Trump poses to the country will be reflected in their actions.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for BLN Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.
A Republican congressional candidate Jackson Lahmeyer has dropped out of a runoff for a U.S. House in Oklahoma following reports that he had sent intimate text messages to a woman who was not his wife.
“After prayerful consideration with my wife, Kendra, and my team over the last twenty four hours, I’ve made the difficult decision to suspend my campaign for Congress,” Lahmeyer, a candidate for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, said in a statement Wednesday.
“I do not want to be a distraction to my family, my church, and the great people of Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, who deserve a strong conservative voice representing them in Washington,” he added.
President Donald Trump initially endorsed Lahmeyer, whom he called a “MAGA Warrior,” in May but withdrew his support following the controversy. Soon after, Trump endorsed Lahmeyer’s opponentMark Tedford, who now becomes the Republican nominee by default.
“I greatly appreciate Jackson Lahmeyer’s hard work under difficult circumstances — He has always been with me, and I will always be with him,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday. “But, when it comes to the current Congressional race for Oklahoma’s 1st Congressional District, I will be supporting America First Patriot, Mark Tedford. Mark is Pro Trump and MAGA all the way!”
Lahmeyer, a pastor Sheridan Church in Tulsa, centered his congressional campaign around his Christian faith.
Lahmeyer dropped out of the race after the Daily Mail reported Sunday that he had exchanged numerous romantic text messages with Caitlin Simmons Key, who worked as a fundraiser for his campaign. In one text message obtained by the Daily Mail, Lahmeyer allegedly invited Key into his hotel room. Key also alleged that Lahmeyer once professed his love to her.
“There’s a real problem with the fact that he’s married and a pastor,” Key told the outlet. “There is a responsibility when you are leading people in the name of Christ to hold yourself to a higher standard.”
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
President Donald Trump has digitally signed the memorandum of understanding with Iran while at dinner in Versailles with French President Emmanuel Macron, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Wednesday.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also digitally signed the memo, according to Sharif.
The agreement between the United States and Iran establishes a framework for negotiations aimed at permanently ending the conflict, which began when Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directed a joint attack on Iran on Feb. 28.
Sharif said in a statement the agreement now goes into “immediate effect.” He noted that the first steps are for Tehran to “instantly reopen” the Strait of Hormuz and for the U.S. to “immediately lift” its naval blockade against Iran in the strait.
“The signing of this agreement at the highest level of the respective governments demonstrates the commitment of both sides to a diplomatic resolution of the conflict,” Sharif said in a statement.
Officials will hold a formal signing ceremony in Switzerland on Friday, Sharif said. A U.S. official did not respond to MS NOW’s questions on if an official document of the agreement will be released to the public.
According to the memothe U.S. and Iran have agreed to finalize a deal within 60 days, “extendable with mutual consent.” The agreement also calls for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
Despite the memo’s explicit inclusion of Lebanon, Israeli leaders and U.S. officials continue to offer conflicting views on how that will be implemented. U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said Israel’s war against the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah is not part of the agreement, while Netanyahu vowed to remain in “security zones” in southern Lebanon.
Iran has also reaffirmed that it would not “procure or develop nuclear weapons,” which was a central issue Trump cited when defending the conflict in Iran. Both the U.S. and Iran also agreed to discuss how Tehran will dispose of its highly enriched uranium stockpile, with supervision from the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The agreement also includes an end to the U.S.’ naval blockade against Iran in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes, with a goal of restoring pre-war maritime traffic to the region.
“May this Memorandum of Understanding serve as an enduring foundation for greater understanding, mutual respect and shared prosperity for the complete region,” Shebaz said.
Emily Hung is an associate White House producer for MS NOW.
Erum Salam is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW, with a focus on how global events and foreign policy shape U.S. politics. She previously was a breaking news reporter for The Guardian.
The Dictatorship
The more Senate Republicans learn about Trump’s Iran deal, the more they don’t like it
Republicans started the week on Capitol Hill already uneasy about President Donald Trump’s still unreleased plan to end the U.S.-Iran war.
But by Wednesday, as details of the memorandum of understanding finally began to emerge, the unease turned into outright opposition.
“This is the worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., posted online.
Cassidy, who recently lost his re-election bid to a Trump-backed primary challenger, said that under the memorandum, “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will undoubtedly leverage it in the future.”
“Now, Iran gets to build brand-new infrastructure under this deal,” he added.
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who is not seeking re-election, argued the memorandum falls short given the costs of the conflict.
“We’ve lost two F-18s, several other air frames, 13 people have died, several of our Middle East partners have been attacked, 365 people have been injured,” Tillis told MS NOW, adding that the the U.S. had spent “$100 billion has been spent since the first kinetic strike.”
“I need more than 14 [bullet] points,” he said.
He later added that anyone who “is gushing over it being a great plan, I think, have insufficient information. Anybody complaining that it’s a bad plan, have insufficient information.”
According to a senior U.S. official, the memorandum — signed by President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf — outlines a list of commitments as the two sides kick off 60 days of negotiations on a final deal.
In addition to the U.S. ending its naval blockade and the Iranians reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the memorandum calls for the U.S. to take steps to “terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
It calls for the U.S. to work with other Middle East partners to “develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” And the MOU says that “Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions and will not deploy additional forces in the region.”
In particular, the $300 billion proposal is the source of GOP angst — even from some of the president’s fiercest defenders.
“History teaches that giving billions of dollars to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told reporters. “I think the president is receiving some very poor advice on this deal.”
His Texas colleague, Republican Sen. John Cornyn, told MS NOW, “I don’t like that part of the deal.”
He noted, “The president has the authority to negotiate,” but he added that Congress should have an “oversight role.”
While some Republicans were outright critical, many others tried a more tactful approach. Many said they were still waiting for more information.
Sen. Todd Young, R-Ind., told MS NOW he needed to “see the details” before really commenting on the emerging deal. But when pressed on some of the leaked details, he said the U.S. needed to “tighten the thumb screws if we want to get the sort of concessions required to secure or remove the nuclear material.”
Asked about the $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran, which is supposed to be paid for by private investments from other countries, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she was waiting to hear about a “corresponding win” for the U.S.
She said she wanted the Trump administration to present the deal to lawmakers “with an opportunity for us to actually ask those questions.”
And Senate Majority John Thune, R-S.D., who told reporters Wednesday that he still had not seen the final text, said, “There’s a bunch of things in here that I think we’re going to have questions about.”
“I need to hear more about it, and what the ideas are for implementation, and what the enforcement compliance mechanisms are,” he said.
To be sure, only a handful of Republicans directly praised the memorandum. Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio, told MS NOW he was “very happy” with the deal.
“I think it’s historic,” he said.
And Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., told MS NOW he “would think” the memorandum is better than the Iran nuclear deal crafted during the Obama presidency.
But most Republicans approached by MS NOW insisted they had not yet seen the memorandum and therefore wanted to refrain from comment — even when MS NOW pressed about the topline aspects of the plan, like sanctions relief and the potential for $300 billion in assistance.
“Haven’t had a chance to read it yet. I’m sorry,” said Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo.
“I’m not going to comment if I haven’t read it,” said Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah.
“I don’t know what’s in it yet, and that’s critical,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, told MS NOW. “I haven’t had a classified briefing yet, and that’s critical.”
But as Republicans learn more details about the agreement, reactions generally haven’t been positive. After spending years blasting the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal — particularly for the agreement sending “pallets of cash” to the Iranian regime — Republicans may have trouble swallowing some of the concessions in this agreement, even if it’s just a temporary deal paving the way to a larger pact in 60 days.
As Democrats have been pointing out, it will be practically more difficult for Trump to walk away from negotiations in August, with the pressure of midterms increasing and the prospect of higher gas prices more daunting.
In general, Democrats have cast the memorandum as an “abject failure,” though they’ve couched that disappointment with an insistence that they’re happy about a potential end to hostilities.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who in recent months has spearheaded a Democratic effort to curtail the president’s war powers in Iran, said it sounded like “we’re giving a lot more to get a lot less than we got in the JCPOA” — a reference to the Obama-era deal, which was formally named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., told MS NOW that “by virtually every goal that President Trump announced when this war began” — from regime change to cutting off Iran’s support for its proxies in the region to collecting the country’s nuclear material — “he’s failed.”
In particular, Coons took issue with the proposed sanction relief and the $300 billion for reconstruction, likening it to “rivers of cash to help the mullahs not just rebuild Iran but to build a stronger Iran.”
“I hope — but do not expect — to hear from my many colleagues who denounced the JCPOA as funneling ‘pallets of cash’ to Iran to similarly denounce this deal,” Coons said.
Trump has left himself some latitude on the deal — at least on the potential blame for a bad agreement.
On Wednesday, as he faced questions in France over the pending MOU, he explained why he continued to present Vance as a key negotiator of the deal.
“This way, if it works out, I’m going to take the credit,” Trump said. “If it doesn’t work out, I’m blaming JD.”
Julia Jester, Lillie Boudreaux, and Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Mamdani boosts congressional slate ahead of primary election
- Meta faces calls for Congress to probe scam ads targeting seniors
- Congress lays out path for final passage of housing bill
- AIPAC looms large ahead of New York primaries
- Steil pushes bill to ban lawmakers from political prediction markets
- Medication abortion restored in Missouri following court ruling
- White House confirms Vance trip to Switzerland delayed
- Special election for Swalwell’s open House seat heads to runoff
- Trump awards 3 Medals of Honor to war heroes
-
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
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship9 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words