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.
The Pentagon has told Congress the war in Iran cost $29 billion through mid-May. Outside experts think the real number could be two to three times higher — and so far, the Defense Department hasn’t explained why.
The conflict has led to the largest military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, with more than 50,000 American troops stationed in the region. Nearly four months after the war started, the U.S. has fired thousands of munitions, dramatically depleting weapons stockpiles.
Defense Department officials told lawmakers that the war cost $11.3 billion over the first six days of fighting, and later estimated that approximately $25 billion was spent by the middle of May. But experts on defense spending say that number likely undercounts the real total by tens of billions of dollars, with independent assessments ranging from $50 billion to $100 billion.
Munitions were the single biggest expense in the department’s projections. But outside experts note that the Pentagon’s public estimates left out the cost of repairing damaged assets and resupplying stockpiles to prewar levels. Asked for a more detailed accounting, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers: “When it’s relevant and required, we will share it.”
That response has drawn bipartisan criticism on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said the Pentagon is not being transparent about how the war is being funded.
A comprehensive analysis released Friday by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a national security think tank, found that munitions alone likely cost $25 billion, with long-range precision munitions and anti-missile munitions, like Tomahawks and Patriots, carrying the highest price tags. Repairing and replacing damaged military assets — along with rebuilding damaged U.S.-affiliated bases and facilities throughout the Middle East — could cost anywhere from $11 billion to $14 billion, according to the CSIS analysis. Separately, the Congressional Research Service reported that at least 42 fixed-wing or unmanned U.S. aircraft have been damaged or destroyed since the U.S. launched its strikes on Feb. 28.
The toll has been just as steep on America’s weapons reserves. The United States has now burned through one-third to one-half of its most critical munitions stockpilesraising fears that the country has entered a “window of vulnerability” that could compromise its readiness for a future conflict elsewhere.
“The problem is for a conflict in the Western Pacific against China,” said Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser at CSIS’ Defense and Security Department. “We were low on all of these munitions before the war, and of course now we’re even lower.”
The long-term price tag may be even harder to pin down, according to Linda Bilmes, a public finance expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School. She notes that the Pentagon’s estimates left out veterans’ healthcare and disability benefits entirely.
“The amount of disability benefits — just disability benefits — that we owe to veterans from the Iraq, Afghanistan, Gulf and Vietnam wars was $7.3 trillion. That doesn’t count healthcare,” Bilmes said. “So these things are really expensive. We expect that at least half of those who are serving now and who are continued to be deployed will qualify automatically for benefits.”
Bilmes also argues that no full accounting of the war’s cost can ignore its ripple effects on American consumers — particularly through rising oil prices, which could carry consequences for the broader global economy.
As of Thursday evening, Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs estimates in its Iran War Energy Cost tracker that the total consumer burden as a result of the war with Iran is more than $60 billion — about $458 per household — driven largely by the jump in fuel prices.
Bilmes argues that no full accounting of the war’s costs can ignore that hit to household budgets — or the larger risks the war poses to the economy. “It’s certainly possible that we see stagflation or other long-term economic consequences from what has happened in the past three months,” Bilmes said.
Priya Sridhar is the Pentagon correspondent for MS NOW.
As President Donald Trump and Iran move forward with a memorandum of understanding to end the war, many congressional Republicans are expressing unease about what the emerging deal means for the United States.
But several Republicans have also expressed concern with what the agreement means for another country: Israel.
Several Republicans told MS NOW they are particularly distraught with a provision calling for an “immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon” — language they fear could constrain Israel’s campaign against Hezbollah.
In recent weeks, Israel has continued strikes on southern Lebanontargeting Hezbollah there. Israel even struck Lebanon after the memorandum was announced.
When MS NOW asked Republicans on Thursday if the Iran deal was good for Israel, GOP lawmakers expressed a number of worries.
Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., took issue with the fact that Israel seemed to have been cut out of the negotiations, saying he’d like to find out what the Trump administration’s “thought process” was on that.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, similarly took issue with Israel getting cut out — going so far as to suggest that Israel should perhaps ignore the deal.
“They’ve got their own interests at stake, and you know, I would encourage them to continue to take the fight to Hezbollah,” he told MS NOW.
Like many other Republicans, Cornyn also took issue with the memorandum’s provision calling for up to $300 billion in reconstruction money for Iran.
“Unfortunately, now Iran is going to have hundreds of millions of dollars to support its terrorist proxies, including Hezbollah,” Cornyn said.
And Cornyn’s Texas colleague, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, was similarly concerned about forking money over to Iran.
“History demonstrates that sending billions of dollars to a theocratic lunatic who wants to murder us is a really bad idea,” he said.
Other Republicans were just as blunt with their criticism.
When MS NOW asked Rep. Don Bacon if the preliminary agreement was positive for Israel, the retiring Nebraska Republican was succinct: “No it is not.”
“Protecting … Hezbollah is not in Israel’s interests. The administration appeared desperate to get Iran to sign,” he said. “The MOU favors Iran significantly. They got their way with Trump.”
Bacon added that the U.S. had “significant military successes” against Iran.
“But Trump wanted an immediate deal too desperately and frittered away success,” he said.
Beyond the Lebanon provision, some of Israel’s top GOP allies are citing a tenet of the memorandum that says the U.S. “further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final Deal,” which experts say could allow Iran to say it drove the U.S. from the area.
Asked if he was concerned the deal may not be positive for Israel, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, responded in a text message: “Super!”
He said the clause about the U.S. retreating from Iran was “the most astounding.”
“Wow,” he wrote. “I am sure that Iran interprets this clause as the removal of U.S. forces from bases and facilities in the [Gulf Cooperation Council] states. Has there been a greater strategic defeat? As they say ‘The Devil is in the details.’”
And while Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., expressed concerns about what the deal means for Israel, he also took issue with the potential political fallout for Republicans domestically.
“I want to protect Israel for its own sake,” Tillis said. “But there’s also a compelling political reason not to send the message that we’re no better than the Democrats, who have, by and large, let their left wing turn their backs on Israel.”
The concerns are surfacing as the administration finally sends members of Congress the MOU, giving lawmakers their first official chance to review the 14 points.
Israel itself has received the memorandum with a great deal of skepticism, with Axios reporting that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu believes the deal is a mistake.
But the White House is carefully warning Israeli leaders to choose their words carefully.
On Thursday, when Vice President JD Vance was asked about some of the pushback on the deal from Israel, he warned that “Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this point in time.”
“If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world,” Vance said.
The spat is putting Republicans — who have long sided with Israel — in a potentially uncomfortable spot.
One of Israel’s most outspoken defenders in Congress, Republican Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, notably gave the White House some breathing room when asked whether this was a good deal for Israel.
“Israel isn’t a party to the MOU, and I believe they will act in their best interest,” he texted MS NOW. “My focus is on whether it is a good deal for the United States.”
“A final deal could be bad for Israel; it could be great for Israel. Same is true for America,” he said.
Rather than outwardly cross Trump and the White House, many Republicans seem intent on deferring to Israel’s leaders.
“Israel is going to make their own judgment on that,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.V. “I don’t have a comment on that.”
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. — who touts himself as a “vocal supporter” of Israel — said he wouldn’t want to “assess another country’s security interests.”
“So I just defer to them on that,” he said.
Other Republicans are preaching patience.
When MS NOW asked Sen. Lindsey Graham if this was a good deal for Israel, the South Carolina Republican pointed to the forthcoming 60 days of negotiations before a final agreement.
“It depends on how it all ends,” he said. “If it ends with a deal to contain Iran, it’d be a good deal for the region. If it ends where Saudi can go back to the peace table with Israel, it’d be a good deal. We just don’t know yet.”
“The MOU is not going to change history one way or the other,” Graham said.
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., was similarly willing to let the process play out.
“I would like to see the Israelis give the agreement 60 days to try to work,” he said. “And if it doesn’t work, we can go back to bombing.”
Jack Fitzpatrick contributed to this report.
Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.
Mychael Schnell is a reporter for MS NOW.
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.
- The Pentagon says the Iran war cost $29 billion. Experts say it’s far more.
- Republicans raise concerns that Trump’s Iran deal could come at Israel’s expense
- The clock is ticking on an Iran talks. Here’s what still has to get done.
- 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
-
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