For months, House Democratic leaders have mulled over creating their own “Contract with America” to pitch to voters before this fall’s midterms.
Like the set of Republican ideas often credited with helping win the 1994 elections, the document would outline the party’s goals if it took back the lower chamber — an ambitious set of aims for candidates to rally around.
In conversations I’ve had this week with members of Congress, leadership staffers and outside strategists, it seems clear that the party leadership is leaning toward doing so. The remaining questions largely revolve around when to release it and how detailed they need to get.
Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who would likely be elected speaker if the plan works, has been publicly previewing a three-pronged plan that is thought to be the best blueprint: addressing the high cost of living, dealing with health care and cleaning up corruption — another name for heavily investigating the Trump administration.
But so far, it’s not a partywide plan, much less a PDF that Democratic candidates can put on their websites.
There is still plenty of time. The original Contract with America, put forward by future Speaker Newt Gingrich, didn’t come out until six weeks before the elections, which ended up in a landslide for the GOP.
It would show voters that they are coming in with a plan on Day 1.
Democrats in favor of writing their own version this year see it as pretty simple. It would show voters that they are coming in with a plan on Day 1 at a time when they have the wind at their back electorally but the party still has a very low approval rating. And it would go a long way with the party’s activist base, which is still upset that the Democratic National Committee decided not to release an autopsy of the 2024 losses.
This kind of conversation comes up every midterm election. The difference is the party’s standing with voters is at a historic low, despite the fact that it overperformed in race after race in the off-year elections of 2025. Supporters argue that a plan could go a long way toward gaining back some trust in the party.
Members such as California Rep. Eric Swalwell — who is also running for governor — have pitched a message that President Donald Trump and Republicans “cost too much” and that Democrats are going to pass bills to fix that, weaving together concerns about high prices with Trump’s executive overreach.
“Literally, in what we’re paying for groceries, goods, homes, etc.,” he told me. “And then figuratively: What it means for our rights — for, like, immigrants in our community, for women and their rights.”
But the real key for Swalwell, a member of the Judiciary Committee and one of the most outspoken critics of Trump, is outlining to the American people what type of accountability they can expect if Democrats get the gavel.
“You have to make it clear that there are going to be consequences for bad actors. Their asses are coming to the committee, they’re testifying under oath, it’s all coming out,” Swalwell said. “Also, you may deter people right now who are thinking about doing a dirty Trump deal that he’s done with law firms or university presidents or entertainment companies.”
But then there are the downsides. The biggest? If you make a promise, you’re going to have to figure out how to actually do it. Overpromising in 2026 is the fastest way for Democrats to get a beatdown come 2028. The fix for that is to keep it exciting enough to bring out voters but also to make it something you can actually do.
Amanda Litman, president of Run for Something, said that the plan needs to be “ambitious but realistic,” because promising voters that, say, you’ll make housing affordable when there are large structural reasons that won’t happen will just lead voters to “blame you.”
Releasing a blueprint could allow Republicans to take the midterms from a referendum on Trump.
Other downsides are pretty obvious. Releasing a blueprint could allow Republicans to take the midterms from a referendum on Trump to a tussle between Republican and Democratic policies.
Getting to consensus may also be difficult for a party that’s grown into a big tent that includes everyone from disaffected former Republicans to progressive activists. Those conversations won’t stay private for long, which would only create a classic “Democrats in disarray” moment.
As one former senior official from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, who spoke off-the-record in order to be candid, put it to me: “The caucus is diverse in viewpoint and in every way. And so, like, it [forces] us to squabble. But that’s going to happen. And that’s fine. [But] Democrats are more obsessed with being [in] lockstep than Republicans are, frankly, in a weird way.”
While the original Contract with America was signed by all but two of the nonincumbent Republican House candidates, a Democratic version might not get as much buy-in.
Most Democratic strategists agree that candidates running in red or even purple districts should do whatever they need to do to win. But, they add, making some promises to voters while Republicans can’t come to an agreement on a day-to-day basis could go a long way.
Eugene Daniels is an MS NOW senior Washington correspondent and co-host of “The Weekend.”
WASHINGTON (AP) — Tensions flared as questions mounted at the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday over the Trump administration’s shifting rationale for war with Iran as lawmakers demand answers over the strategy, exit plan and costs to Americans in lives and dollars for what is quickly becoming a widening Middle East conflict.
Trump officials made their case at the Capitol during a second day of closed-door briefings, this time with all members of the House and Senate ahead of a looming war powers resolution vote intended to restrict Trump’s ability to continue the joint U.S.-Israel campaign against Iran.
“The president determined we were not going to get hit first. It’s that simple,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a testy exchange with reporters at the Capitol.
Rubio pushed back on his own suggestion a day earlier that Trump decided to strike Iran because Israel was ready to act first. Instead, he said Trump made the decision to attack this past weekend because it presented a unique opportunity with maximum chance for success.
“There is no way in the world that this terroristic regime was going to get nuclear weapons, not under Donald Trump’s watch,” he said.
The situation has intensified the push in Congress for the war powers resolution — among the most consequential votes a lawmaker can take, with the war well underway — as administration officials are telling lawmakers they will likely need supplemental funds to pay for the conflict. It comes at the start of a highly competitive midterm election season that will test Trump’s slim GOP control of Congress.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer left the closed hearing, saying he was concerned about “mission creep” in a long war.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrives for a briefing for lawmakers on Iran at a secure room in the basement of the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth arrives for a briefing for lawmakers on Iran at a secure room in the basement of the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Senators demand answers, and some cheer Trump on
Senators spent the morning grilling Trump officials during an Armed Services Committee hearing over Rubio’s claim Monday that the president, believing that Israel was ready to act, decided it was better for the U.S. to launch a preemptive strike to prevent Iran’s potential retaliation on American military bases and interests abroad.
Sen. Angus King, the independent from Maine, said it’s “very disturbing” that Trump took the U.S. to war because Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to bomb Iran. Past U.S. presidents, he said, “have consistently said, ‘No.’”
Defense official Elbridge Colby told senators the president directed the military campaign to destroy Iranian missiles and deny the country nuclear weapons.
Trump himself disputed the idea that Israel had forced his hand. In his own Oval Office remarks, he said, “I might might have forced their hand.”
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, a Trump ally from Oklahoma, said the president “did the world a favor.”
“How about we say, ‘Thank you, Mr. President, for finally getting rid of this nuisance,’” he said.
But Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., demanded to know how this fits into Trump’s “America First” campaign promise not to commit U.S. troops to protracted military campaigns abroad.
Trump has suggested the war could drag on, and has not ruled out sending American troops into Iran.
“’America First’ and ‘peace through strength’ are served by rolling back — as the military campaign is designed to do — the threats posed,” Colby responded. “This is certainly not nation-building. This is not going to be endless.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., arrives for a briefing for Senators on Iran at a secure room in the basement of the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., arrives for a briefing for Senators on Iran at a secure room in the basement of the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, March 3, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., speaks to reporters following a House and Senate Intelligence Committees briefing about the war in Iran at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, March 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
Senate Intelligence Committee Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., speaks to reporters following a House and Senate Intelligence Committees briefing about the war in Iran at the Capitol in Washington, Monday, March 2, 2026. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
What’s next for the Iranian regime and its people
Questions are growing over who will lead Iran after the death of Khamenei, who has ruled the country for decades, and worries of a leadership vacuum that creates unrest.
Democrats warned against sending U.S. military troops into Iran after more than two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“I am more fearful than ever we may be putting boots on the ground,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., after the closed briefing.
And while House Republicans applauded in support of the Trump administration’s operations, warning signs flared.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, said he supports the operation, for now. “My flag starts going up, the longer this goes, my flag starts going up, the more there’s boots on the ground,” he said.
Many lawmakers expressed concern over the number of Americans calling their offices seeking help evacuating from the region as the war spreads. “It’s getting worse, not better,” said Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., a former Army Ranger.
Trump, in calling for Iranians to seize this opportunity to take back their country, has acknowledged the uncertainty.
“Most of the people we had in mind are dead,” Trump said Tuesday. He also panned the idea of elevating Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran’s last shah, to take over in Iran.
Republicans insist it’s not for the Americans to decide the future of Iran.
“That’s going to be largely up to the Iranian people,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said flatly, “We have no ability to get into the nation-building business.”
President Donald Trump departs after a Medal of Honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Monday, March 2, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
President Donald Trump departs after a Medal of Honor ceremony in the East Room of the White House, Monday, March 2, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
War powers resolutions become a consequential vote
Both the House and Senate are preparing to vote on war powers resolutions that would restrain Trump’s ability to continue waging war on Iran without approval from Congress.
Under the U.S. Constitution, it’s up to Congress, not the president, to decide when the country goes to war. But lawmakers often shirk that duty, enabling the executive branch to amass more power to send the military into combat without congressional approval.
“Why are we spending billions of dollars to bomb Iran?” said House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who said there would be strong support from Democrats for the resolution.
But Johnson has said it would be “frightening” and “dangerous” to tie the president’s hands at this time, when the U.S. is already engaged in combat.
Other lawmakers have suggested that if Congress does not vote to restrain Trump, it should next consider an Authorization of the Use of Military Force, which would require lawmakers to go on record with affirmative support for the Iran operation.
“The reason why there’s so much consternation on our side is because President Trump has not given us a clear reason why he is in Iran,” said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. “If he wants to declare war on Iran, that is the job and responsibility of Congress under the Constitution.”
Former President George W. Bush sought, and received, authorization from Congress to launch the post-9/11 wars.
___
Associated Press writers Stephen Groves and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
“We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain,” Trump told reporters during an Oval Office meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. “We don’t want anything to do with Spain.”
The U.S. president’s comments came a day after Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares said his country would not allow the U.S. to use jointly operated bases in southern Spain in any strikes not covered by the United Nations’ charter. Albares noted that the military bases in Spain were not used in the weekend attack on Iran.
Trump said despite Spain’s refusal “we could use their base if we want. We could just fly in and use it. Nobody’s going to tell us not to use it, but we don’t have to.”
It is unclear how Trump would cut off trade with Spain, given that Spain is under the umbrella of the European Union. The EU negotiates trade deals on behalf of all 27 member countries.
“If the U.S. administration wishes to review the trade agreement, it must do so respecting the autonomy of private companies, international law, and bilateral agreements between the European Union and the United States,” a spokesperson from Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s office said Tuesday.
The EU said it expects the Trump administration to honor a trade deal struck with the 27-nation bloc in Scotland last year after months of economic uncertainty over Trump’s tariff blitzkrieg.
“The Commission will always ensure that the interests of the European Union are fully protected,” said European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill.
It was just the latest instance of the president wielding the threat of tariffs or trade embargoes as a punishment and came on the heels of a Supreme Court decision that struck down Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs. While the court said that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs, Trump now maintains that the court allows him to instead impose full-scale embargoes on other nations of his choosing.
Trump also complained anew Tuesday about Spain’s decision last year to back out of NATO’s 5% defense spending target. At the time, Spain said it could reach its military capabilities by spending 2.1% of its GDP, a move that Trump roundly criticized and responded to with tariff threats as well.
Spain, Trump said, is “the only country that in NATO would not agree to go up to 5%” in NATO spending. “I don’t think they agreed to go up to anything. They wanted to keep it at 2% and they don’t pay the 2%.”
Merz noted that Trump was correct and said, “We are trying to convince them that this is a part of our common security, that we all have to comply with this.”
Spain defended its position Tuesday, saying it is “a key member of NATO, fulfilling its commitments and making a significant contribution to the defense of European territory,” the spokesperson in Sánchez’s office said.
During the Oval Office meeting, Trump turned to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for his opinion on the president’s embargo authority.
Bessent said, “I agree that the Supreme Court reaffirmed your ability to implement an embargo.” Bessent added that the U.S. Trade Representative and Commerce Department would “begin investigations and we’ll move forward with those.”
A representative from the U.S. Treasury Department did not respond to a request from The Associated Press for additional comment.
Sánchez has been critical of the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, calling it an “unjustifiable” and “dangerous” military intervention. His government has demanded an immediate de-escalation and dialogue and also condemned Iran’s strikes across the region.
Trump said, “Spain has absolutely nothing that we need other than great people. They have great people, but they don’t have great leadership.”
Spain’s position on the use of U.S. bases in its territory marks the latest flare-up in its relationship with the Trump administration. Under Sánchez, Europe’s last major progressive leader, Spain was also an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza.
___
Naishadham reported from Madrid. AP journalist Sam McNeil in Brussels contributed.