Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Chuck Schumer’s stumbles leave Democrats without a message

Published

on

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

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.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

What the DOJ’s Southern Poverty Law Center indictment is really about

Published

on

ByMichael Edison Hayden

As one of the most high-profile employees of the Southern Poverty Law Center for five years — and as someone who has been outspokenly critical of the organization — I never once heard of the program that allegedly involved paying sources within the Ku Klux Klan, National Alliance and Aryan Nations until the Justice Department published its indictment this week.

What I did hear, frequently, was people in the MAGA movement saying we were some kind of criminal syndicate — part of a sustained propaganda effort to delegitimize the work we did tracking and labeling extremist groups.

Although I find the notion of paying extremists distasteful, even unethical, the indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda. And, the SPLC, for its part, has called these charges “false allegations.”

One quote from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s press conference about the charges against the SPLC stood out to me as particularly absurd:

“The SPLC is manufacturing racism to justify its existence,” he said on Tuesday afternoon.

Imagine, for a moment, believing the SPLC — or any other civil rights organization — needed to fraudulently manufacture racism to sell it in today’s America. Just two months ago, the president shared an artificial intelligence-generated video depicting his Black predecessor and his predecessor’s Black wife as primates. In early 2025, the Trump administration suspended refugee admissions from majority non-white countries while investing in a special program to fast-track white South African Afrikaners into the United States. Racism is not a rare commodity in this country to be manufactured — it’s cheap and easy to find.

A closer look at the indictment raises more red flags. For one, the KKK, National Alliance and Aryan Nations have been largely defanged for years. You rarely hear those names now unless you’re a historian focused on the white supremacist movement. That doesn’t rule out the possibility of criminal wrongdoing on its own, but it does show that this DOJ, in 2026, had to reach back as far as 2013 to find a relatively obscure SPLC program — one that, as a former spokesperson, I had never even heard of.

Another issue is the indictment’s suggestion that the SPLC played a role in planning the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, based on the claim that an informant was “part of a leadership group.” The idea that an informant could have planted the seed for a gathering of white supremacists of that magnitude is completely implausible. We don’t need to speculate about the origins of that deadly event: Unite the Right was effectively a sequel to a similar rally in Charlottesville in May 2017, driven by widespread outrage within the movement over the removal of Confederate statues. Unicorn Riot preserved reams of Discord logs attesting to it.

The indictment feels like the culmination of years of pro-Trump activists consuming and amplifying that kind of propaganda.

So, leaving open the possibility that something comes out in the trial that I don’t know about yet, these charges look like a piece of political theater to shore up a wayward MAGA base beleaguered by the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein and an increasingly unwieldy debacle in Iran. It’s a MAGA base that understands the SPLC as one of the primary villains in its propaganda stories and enjoys seeing it suffer.

But if the DOJ argues that paying informants furthers hate, and that this makes the use of paid informants fraudulent, won’t the SPLC’s lawyers simply demonstrate how those efforts contributed to these groups no longer being around? If the SPLC propped up the National Alliance to defraud donors, why is it essentially defunct? Why does the once robust Aryan Nations group no longer exist?

If you’ve read this far and assumed I have an incentive to support my former employer, I don’t. I have a different life now — with a book out, a podcast and teaching. After producing some of the SPLC’s more notable investigative stories from 2018 to 2023, I’ve repeatedly criticized them in media appearances.

As chronicled in my book, “Strange People on the Hill,” the SPLC settled with me out of court after I raised allegations of racial discrimination and union busting against them. I have also publicly accused the organization of deliberately taking a lower profile during President Donald Trump’s second term — hoping to evade the kind of targeting that is befalling it now. The SPLC has done many things over the years, good and bad. It has been invaluable in tracing how MAGA brought fringe racist ideas into the mainstream conservative movement. It has also been clumsy, reactionary and, at times, foolish. This program involving paid informants may indeed be one of those clumsy and foolish chapters.

But to understand why a weaponized DOJ might choose this particular case amid all of the white-collar crimes it isn’t pursuing in America today, you first need to understand the narrative that’s been built around the SPLC for years — and how useful it has become to the corrupt men who run this country.

Michael Edison Hayden

Michael Edison Hayden is a leading expert on far-right extremism in the United States. His debut book, “Strange People on Blue Light News”— a chronicle of a West Virginia town in the five years following a white nationalist group’s purchase of a local castle — will be published by Bold Type Books/Hachette on April 7, 2026. Hayden also co-hosts the podcast, “Posting Through It,” with new episodes released every Monday and Thursday.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

Published

on

Judge temporarily strikes down Virginia’s redistricting referendum

A Virginia judge on Wednesday blocked the certification of a redistricting referendum that allows the state to redraw its congressional and legislative maps, less than 24 hours after voters approved the measure.

The rulingissued by Tazewell County Circuit Court, halts state officials from finalizing the results of the ballot measure, which sought to overhaul Virginia’s redistricting process.

This latest move prevents the Virginia Department of Elections and other officials from implementing the new redistricting referendum unless it is overturned by a higher court.

Other states attempting similar redistricting moves have faced lengthy legal battlesleaving the ultimate outcome uncertain.

Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley ruled Wednesday that the redistricting referendum violated parts of Virginia’s Constitution, including how such amendments must be approved and submitted to voters.

Hurley said the proposal had not been properly authorized by the General Assembly before being submitted to voters. The judge also called the ballot language “flagrantly misleading” and did not accurately describe the measure to voters.

The attorney general’s office said in a statement that it plans to immediately appeal the decision.

“As I said last night, Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge should not have veto power over the People’s vote,” Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement. “We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.”

Redistricting has long been a contentious issue in Virginia, as in many states, with debates often centered on partisan gerrymandering and the fairness of electoral maps.

The move was considered a victory for Democrats and could offer a potential boost for the party as they head into the midterms because the proposed redraw could expand their advantage to 10-1.

For now, the judge’s order leaves Virginia’s redistricting process unchanged and raises new questions about the viability of reform efforts moving forward. Both sides are likely to press ahead with a prolonged legal fight.

The Virginia Supreme Court paused an earlier rulingby Hurley ahead of the referendum, which allowed Tuesday’s vote to move forward while it reviews the case, which remains pending.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

Published

on

Kalshi suspends 3 political candidates for betting on own elections

The prediction market Kalshi has suspended and fined three political candidates after an internal investigation found they placed bets on the outcomes of their own elections.

It marks one of the most significant steps yet by a U.S. prediction market to police insider behavior as the industry rapidly expands ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Prediction markets, which allow users to buy and sell contracts tied to real-world outcomes, have surged in popularity but remain under intense scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators. Prediction markets can be opened for any world event from election results to economic indicators to whether President Donald Trump will drink water during the State of the Union.

The candidates include Matt Kleina candidate in the Democratic primary for Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District; Ezekiel Enriquezwho competed in the Republican primary for Texas’ 21st Congressional District; and Mark Morana former Democrat running as an independent candidate in Virginia’s U.S. Senate primary.

The three cases involved what Kalshi has described as “political insider trading,” violating exchange rules approved by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates how platforms like Kalshi operate and are designed to prevent insider trading and conflicts of interest in event-based markets.

Kalshi said the candidates violated its rules by trading on markets in which they had direct influence. Under Kalshi’s policies, individuals who can affect the outcome of an event, such as candidates in their own races, are prohibited from participating in related contracts.

Five-year suspensions and financial penalties were imposed on all three individuals, according to regulatory documents. Klein and Enriquez accepted responsibility through settlements, resulting in reduced sanctions. Disciplinary action was taken against Moran, who acknowledged placing a wager on his own candidacy in what he described as an attempt to draw attention to perceived flaws in the system.

“Finally, one of the moments I’ve been waiting for. YES, I did bet ~$100 on myself on Kalshi because I wanted to get caught…,” Moran said in a lengthy poston X.

“I traded $100 on myself, knowing this would happen (also knowing that I wouldn’t be vying for the democratic nomination) and the attention it would create to highlight how this company is destroying young men and as Senator I will go after Kalshi,” he said.

Klein was fined $539.85, Enriquez received a $784.20 penalty and Moran faces the largest fine at $6,229.30.

“Just like in traditional financial markets, bad actors will try to cheat. Regulated exchanges must constantly evolve and adapt their systems to address insider threats,” Bobby DeNault, the head of enforcement and legal counsel at Kalshi, said in a press release. “These three cases are an example of how developing proactive engineering solutions can help identify illicit trading activity.”

Kalshi said the suspensions underscore its commitment to maintaining fair markets. The company had already moved in recent months to tighten restrictionsincluding plans to preemptively block politicians and athletes from trading on their own campaigns or sporting events. Those measures came amid mounting bipartisan concern in Washington that prediction markets could enable insider trading or manipulation if left unchecked.

The controversy surrounding the three candidates isn’t the first wave of enforcement actions. Earlier this year, Kalshi penalizeda California gubernatorial candidate and a social media influencer for similar violations.

Regulators are also paying closer attention. The CFTC has increased its scrutiny of insider trading cases, while states and federal lawmakers consider new restrictions on the industry. Congress is also considering legislationthat could impose new limits on prediction markets or restrict participation by certain groups, including elected officials and government employees.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending