Politics

DNC scraps midterm convention plans

Published

7 months ago

March 2, 2026

The Democratic National Committee is canceling plans to host a midterm convention, as the party faces a fundraising crunch.

The DNC also announced Monday that it would hold the 2028 presidential convention from Aug. 7 to Aug. 10, 2028. Five cities — Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver and Philadelphia — are under consideration to host it, officials said.

The committee announced its decisions to DNC members during a phone call Monday afternoon, according to two people who participated and were granted anonymity to describe a private meeting. DNC Chair Ken Martin said he’d received feedback from Democrats, urging the party committee to focus its resources on campaign work in states, one of those people said.

The DNC is facing a staggering fundraising problem, with the Republican National Committee holding a $100 million cash edge over them at the start of 2026. Last fall, the DNC took out a $15 million loan to invest in the Virginia and New Jersey elections, a move that raised concerns among Democrats about the party’s financial health.

In a statement on the decision to cancel the midterm convention, DNC’s executive director Roger Lau said they’d “baited” Republicans “into wasting time and money on a midterm convention,” while the DNC has “put resources where they’re needed most.”

Jessica Piper contributed to this report.

Politics

Bill Cassidy on vaccines, RFK Jr. and the fight for public trust

Published

9 hours ago

September 18, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Bill Cassidy on vaccines, RFK Jr. and the fight for public trust

lead image

Politics

‘We told you so’: Key New York lawmaker calls for more AI rules

Published

16 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic state Sen. Andrew Gounardes said states need to act aggressively to put guardrails around artificial intelligence.

AI BILLS BILLS BILLS: One of the architects of New York’s pioneering legislation to put guardrails around artificial intelligence says ominous warnings from industry leaders prove states need to act aggressively.

“I’m very rarely one to say, ‘I told you so’ or ‘We told you so,’ But this is exactly … the things we had warned about,” said Democratic state Sen. Andrew Gounardes, who sponsored the RAISE Act.

The law is slated to take effect in January, requires the largest AI companies to report safety incidents to the state and establishes penalties for violations. New York lawmakers passed that bill last year, despite pushback from industry lobbyists. But now leading AI executives are ramping up warnings about the risks of their technology.

“These are the exact same concerns that we were flagging: biological weapons, nuclear weapons, catastrophic harms,” Gounardes said in an interview with Playbook. “Not only were we right, but some of the very same people that were telling us that we were wrong are now the ones saying that we need to be doing these things.”

President Donald Trump has dismissed AI safety concerns as a “HOAX” and Congress appears unlikely to act on the issue anytime soon.

So lawmakers in New York and other states are weighing how they can respond. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has floated the idea of a special session devoted to the issue, but New York’s Legislature isn’t slated to return to Albany until January.

Gounardes said he’s had an increasing amount of engagement with AI safety advocates, industry experts and others in recent weeks.

He’s focused on two bills he’s sponsoring — one requiring third-party safety audits, similar to a measure enacted in Illinois, and another strengthening safety reporting requirements.

“They’re good bills, they’re important bills, they should pass as is. But I think we can go further,” Gounardes said.

There’s a clear appetite among other key policymakers to pass more measures to bolster protections for New Yorkers.

Gov. Kathy Hochul told reporters Tuesday she’ll be looking for additional action the state can take to reduce AI safety risks.

State Sen. Kristen Gonzalez, chair of the Internet and Technology committee, said she plans to push for a “rights-based” framework and focus on potentially high risk uses of AI. Her bills for next year include a data privacy measure and the New York AI Act, which seeks to address concerns about algorithmic bias in employment, courts, finance and other contexts.

That measure also includes whistleblower protections for employees of AI companies. New York Attorney General Letitia James today urged AI workers to report safety risks or violations of current state laws, offering an anonymous tip line.

Gonzalez also has a bill pending on Hochul’s desk that would regulate AI chatbots and assign liability to companies who develop them.

“There are so many bills, and together, if we were to pass all of these that track out liability, we would be able to actually start fighting these companies, not just through slowing their development … but also mitigating more in court and having a foundation to claim damages,” she said. — Marie J. French

From the Capitol

The Public Health and Health Planning Council approved a merger between NYC Health + Hospitals and private Brooklyn hospital Maimonides Health.

MERGER WATCH: The state Public Health and Health Planning Council voted today to approve a merger between NYC Health + Hospitals and Maimonides Health, a private hospital in Brooklyn.

“We all need to get behind this and make it work,” PHHPC member Ann Monroe said during today’s meeting.

The merger was set into motion last year, after Hochul awarded $2.2 billion from the state-funded Safety Net Transformation Program to facilitate the deal. Maimonides has for years relied on substantial state support to keep its doors open, and state health officials expressed optimism that the combination would stabilize the hospital’s finances.

The transaction was expected to close by April 1, but a judge ruled earlier this year that NYC Health + Hospitals and Maimonides first needed to obtain PHHPC’s approval.

Read the full story from Blue Light News Pro’s Maya Kaufman

FROM CITY HALL

A new report revealed that several of former Mayor Eric Adams' top officials are raking in inflated NYPD pensions.

PENSION PADDING: Several top officials from former Mayor Eric Adams’ administration are raking in inflated NYPD pensions that should be lowered, a report from New York City’s corruption watchdog recommended Thursday.

The Department of Investigation report revolves around the use of so-called 821 waivers under the Adams administration.

The waivers allow NYPD employees to be “on loan” to other agencies, including the mayor’s office, so they can maintain a police title that comes with pension benefits while working in another capacity.

In its report, DOI found the NYPD documented the waivers in an inconsistent way during Adams’ tenure, resulting in the city’s Police Pension Fund awarding overly large retirement benefits to former cops who served in top roles under Adams. But the watchdog agency determined the NYPD wasn’t squarely to blame for this, given that the pension fund also seemingly ignored 821 restrictions “in a manner inconsistent with the law.”

The DOI findings come after a string of corruption scandals roiled the Adams administration and the NYPD. Adams himself faced federal corruption charges in 2024 before President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice stepped in to spare the former mayor from prosecution.

The DOI’s latest findings don’t allege criminal wrongdoing, but the report lays out a number of recommendations for how the NYPD and the pension fund can prevent similar missteps. It also calls for all the allegedly inflated retirement benefits to be recalculated so the former cops in question aren’t getting taxpayer-funded benefits that are overly generous.

Among the former NYPD cops who netted padded pensions are Kaz Daughtry, who served as Adams’ deputy mayor for public safety; Louis Molina, Adams’ commissioner of correction and citywide administrative services; and Juanita Holmes, Adams’ probation commissioner.

“NYPD officials were treated inconsistently and some received a higher pension than they would otherwise have been eligible for, with taxpayers footing the bill,” Department of Investigation Commissioner Nadia Shihata said. “Those pensions should be recalculated and adjusted properly.”

Read the full story from Chris Sommerfeldt in Blue Light News.

PREDICTED PROTESTS: NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch said today she expects “multiple protests every day” next week as the city hosts the United Nations General Assembly.

No credible security threats have been identified, she noted, though the department will remain on high alert.

“The NYPD, as you know, handles thousands of protests and demonstrations each year, and there is no organization better trained to facilitate First Amendment activity,” Tisch said at a press conference with Mayor Zohran Mamdani. “Every year around the UN General Assembly time, we do see an uptick in the amount of protest activity, and this year I do not expect to be any different.”

The NYPD did not provide specific details on the number of protest permits filed or the exact number of demonstrations expected.

Some of the largest and most tumultuous protests are expected to take place ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech on Sept. 24.

Despite his strident anti-Israel rhetoric, Mamdani plans to skip next week’s protests, Chris Sommerfeldt first reported yesterday. When asked why he’s staying away, Mamdani cited a desire to focus on New Yorkers’ day-to-day transportation concerns during the assembly, which will cause significant traffic disruptions and road closures in Midtown.

Mamdani will not skip the UN proceedings altogether, though. He said he’s in the process of setting up meetings with foreign officials in town for the assembly, but did not elaborate on which ones. His press team did not immediately share any further details either. — Molly Reinmann

IN OTHER NEWS

— POINTING FINGERS: Some City Council members blamed Mamdani for a crime spike in the Bronx. (New York Post)

— SURVEILLANCE AND MURDER: Federal prosecutors accused five men of being part of a Kremlin-orchestrated network that planned to assassinate Russian dissidents and others in the United States and abroad. (The New York Times)

— DATA CENTER DIVIDE: Despite hesitating on the issue himself, Rep. Mike Lawler launched a seven-figure ad campaign attacking his Democratic challenger, Cait Conley, for her position on data centers. (New York Focus)

Missed this morning’s New York Playbook? We forgive you. Read it here.

Politics

Democratic advisers are warning their candidates not to go too hard at AI

Published

19 hours ago

September 17, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democratic consultants are privately encouraging their battleground candidates to avoid talking about AI regulations out of fear that powerful tech groups will unleash a tidal wave of spending against them ahead of November.

That guidance came from strategists in three separate top-tier House races, according to people involved in those races, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. And it follows a surge in AI panic on Capitol Hill as industry leaders warn about existential threats posed by their rapidly developing technology.

Voters are increasingly worried about AI: About two-thirds of Americans say there’s a risk advanced AI could destroy humanity in a new Blue Light News Poll. President Donald Trump has called that concern a “hoax,” leaving an opening for Democrats to seize on the issue. But they still are grappling with how hard to go after big tech.

Senior Democrats and candidates are worried that if they go too hard in criticizing AI, industry-affiliated super PACs could drop millions more dollars against them, according to interviews with more than a dozen Democratic lawmakers and strategists. They are especially worried about a slate of competitive races, including Reps. Don Davis in North Carolina, Marcy Kaptur in Ohio, Henry Cuellar in Texas and a handful of South Texas and Pennsylvania races, getting hit with even more spending on topics like AI.

The party is already struggling to keep up in the outside spending battle as Trump and his allies including Elon Musk, a major AI investor, flood the airwaves, though Musk’s spending isn’t primarily driven by AI concerns.

“We do need to be able to make sure that we’re regulating [AI] and addressing those real fears,” said one senior Democratic strategist working on Senate campaigns, who was granted anonymity to candidly discuss strategy. But “we don’t want AI money coming in.”

“Like any industry, there should be a conversation about guardrails,” said Cuellar, who is trying to hold onto a GOP-leaning South Texas seat. “But, every member needs to make their own decision based on their district and beliefs.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the former Progressive Caucus chair, said she was also worried that pro-AI groups will start targeting key Democrats.

“You know, these AI groups — they come out and they say that they’re concerned, that they want regulation. But then they spend huge amounts of money on defeating anybody who wants legislative regulation,” Jayapal said in an interview.

With AI regulation on congressional Democrats’ agenda if they take power next year, Jayapal said AI groups will be “spending for candidates that they can count on to just allow them to write the bill.”

Some top Democratic candidates and their campaigns are quietly trying to avoid crossing any red lines for tech super PACs — even as it’s unclear exactly what those lines would be, after Musk and two of the biggest AI CEOs called for more regulation on the technology last week.

Democrats are especially wary of Leading the Future, a pro-AI industry super PAC that spent over $25 million in primary races this year and is backed by investors and executives of OpenAI. The rival super PAC network, Public First Action, pushes for AI regulation and is funded by OpenAI’s chief competitor, Anthropic.

Asked by Blue Light News, Leading the Future declined to name a specific policy on AI it opposes.

“The only people that have both threatened and carried out spending and intimidation tactics against Democratic members of Congress over their positions on AI are Public First and other groups funded by Anthropic and effective altruists,” said Leading the Future spokesperson Josh Vlasto. “Our agenda is and has always been Congress passing a strong and smart national regulation which has broad and building support in Congress and across the country.”

On Wednesday, Leading the Future launched its first round of ads in the general election through its Republican PAC. The group is spending $2 million to boost GOP Senate candidates Julia Letlow in Louisiana, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith in Mississippi, Sen. Darline Graham in South Carolina and Sen. Mike Rounds in South Dakota — four Republicans in marginally competitive races that are unlikely to determine Senate control.

The two AI groups have been at odds. They spent in different primary races and went up against each other in the primary for retiring Rep. Jerry Nadler’s seat, where state Assemblymember Alex Bores’ AI-centered campaign ignited a spending war. A person familiar with Leading the Future’s strategy, who was granted anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, told Blue Light News in June that the group was unlikely to target another candidate this year with the kind of multi-million dollar negative ad deluge it dumped on Bores, and a person close to the group said that hasn’t changed. Democrats believe the groups could battle against each other again in key races.

Brad Carson, the co-founder of Public First Action, said the network will “absolutely” get involved in the general election.

Public First Action uses two “litmus tests” to weigh whether or not to jump into races, Carson said. If someone seeking office shows “strong support for export controls and strong opposition to the preemption of state laws regarding AI, absent a federal framework,” then they are a prime candidate to receive the group’s support.

And if a candidate were to hold the opposite position — opposition to export controls and support for the preemption of state laws — his group would be inclined to jump in and spend against them.

“It’s really about finding the people who want to step out and be heroes for you,” Carson said.

On Wednesday, Anthropic’s policy chief Sarah Heck said at Blue Light News’s Decoded summit that the United States “needs to stay in the lead on AI” over China, arguing “you can’t do safety from second place.” She agreed AI firms can’t be left on their own to ensure safety within their own companies, but declined to endorse bipartisan legislation for external regulation.

Some Democrats want to go hard on regulating AI in spite of the risk of antagonizing pro-industry groups.

Abdul El-Sayed, Democrats’ Senate nominee in Michigan, previously called for a regulatory crackdown on AI and is now advocating for a “full pause at the frontier of research.” He told Blue Light News in an interview on Wednesday that he’d “rather be on the truth than dodge [AI industry] money.”

Still, El-Sayed hasn’t committed to running ads on the issue. Battleground Democratic Reps. Susie Lee (Nev.) and Greg Landsman (Ohio) also told Blue Light News they weren’t planning ads on AI safeguards, even as they advocate for more regulations. It’s a sign that even as voters concerns’ rise about the technology, it’s not yet become a top issue for the November election.

Meanwhile, Republicans are hoping that the AI super PACs might come in and help boost them in other states — like Georgia, where Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has been aggressive in criticizing the industry, or Texas, where the GOP nominee, Attorney General Ken Paxton, has been slightly behind in most recent polls.“We could use the help in some races like that,” said one GOP senator, granted anonymity to candidly discuss the internal conversations.