Congress
The left seethes at the ‘Schumer surrender’
The Democratic base wants a fight. Chuck Schumer won’t give it to them.
The Senate minority leader on Thursday backed away from the shutdown confrontation that many liberal voters and activist leaders had been pushing for — arguing that closing the government would only empower President Donald Trump and billionaire ally Elon Musk in their bureaucracy-slashing campaign.
That decision sent shockwaves through the left and had many in their ranks seething at a top party leader who had sought to win them over in recent years.
Ezra Levin, the co-executive director of the liberal grassroots organization Indivisible, quickly dubbed it the “Schumer surrender.”
“I guess we’ll find out to what extent Schumer is leading the party into irrelevance,” he said in an interview, adding that his decision “tells me maybe he’s lost a step.”
The news that the top Senate Democrat would be backing down dejected scores of House members who were gathered at a resort about 25 miles outside of Washington for the Democratic Caucus’ annual policy retreat.
They had stuck together behind House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who had wrangled all but one of his members to oppose Republicans’ seven-month funding patch earlier in the week.
“Extremely disappointed,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said after he heard the news. “It gives them the ability, Elon Musk the ability, to go through and continue to do the shit he’s doing.”
And further outside Washington, longtime party activists and high-dollar donors fumed about Schumer: “He sucks,” one state party chair who was granted anonymity to respond candidly, adding that the cave constituted “political malpractice.”
In anticipation of the criticism he was certain to receive, Schumer delivered a 10-minute speech on the Senate floor defending his decision, later holding a question-and-answer session with Capitol Hill reporters and publishing a New York Times op-ed.
His points were two-fold: First, a shutdown would play into Trump and Musk’s hands, he argued, allowing them to continue with their slash-and-burn campaign overdrive. His second argument was more political — and in keeping with his long history as a leading strategist counseling his party to pay heed to the concerns of America’s middle class above all else.
“For Donald Trump, a shutdown would be a gift,” Schumer said. “It would be the best distraction he could ask for from his awful agenda.
“Right now, Donald Trump owns the chaos in the government. He owns the chaos in the stock market,” he added. “In a shutdown, we would be busy fighting with Republicans over which agencies to reopen, which to keep closed, instead of debating the damage Donald Trump’s agenda is causing the American people.”
Some Democrats offered some sympathy, given the dilemma he and other senators faced. The GOP-written stopgap cuts some $12 billion in domestic funding while adding money for migrant deportations and some other programs Democrats oppose. It also contains no language that would stop the Trump administration from continuing to hold back congressionally approved spending.
But Schumer argued there was no telling what Trump and Musk would do in a shutdown, where the White House would “have full authority to deem whole agencies, programs and personnel non-essential, furloughing staff with no promise they would ever be rehired,” he said.
“I don’t think he had a choice,” Democratic National Committee member Joseph Paulino Jr. said, adding that Democrats “don’t have any cohesive plan. They don’t have a strategy. They don’t have any clear direction where they want their … opposition to go.”
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called it a “challenging” choice for Schumer even as she called a temporary shutdown “a better option than passing a bad bill.” She predicted blowback from grassroots activists but demurred on how lasting it might be.
“There will be strong reactions,” she said. “But the exact consequences, I think it’s too soon to know.”
Prior to Schumer’s remarks, progressive groups were encouraged by the succession of Senate Democrats who had publicly announced opposition to the GOP funding measure. More than a dozen did so Thursday, many of them echoing the language used by activists.
“I don’t want a shutdown but I can’t vote for this overreach of power, giving Trump and Musk unchecked power to line their pockets,” said Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey in an online post.
Joel Payne, the chief communications director at MoveOn, called the moment “pretty disappointing,” adding that it crystallized for many in Democratic activists that Schumer and other Democratic leaders may not be equipped for fighting a more brazen, second-term Trump.
“I think it does say a little something about whether or not these folks truly understand the fight that we’re in right now,” Payne said. “And I think that’s a question that a lot of folks are asking.”
The irony is that Schumer had spent much of the past five years patching up his relationship with the Democratic Party’s left flank. Once known as a friend of Wall Street interests and an ally of moderates, he faced similar criticism as minority leader during the first Trump term, then retooled his reputation after becoming Senate majority leader in 2021 — embracing the expansive pandemic-era spending plans of President Joe Biden and winning converts among liberals.
Now Schumer is facing sharp backlash from some of Biden’s top advisers. His former top domestic policy adviser, Susan Rice, told Schumer to “please grow a spine. And quickly.” Neera Tanden, who held the same top policy job, expressed exasperation after Schumer told reporters Trump would be more unpopular — and Democrats would be better positioned to fight — in the fall.
“HE’S UNPOPULAR NOW,” she responded on X. “LORD!”
Schumer did not take any incoming fire from his fellow Democratic leader and Brooklyn native, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Speaking to his members at the retreat, Jeffries told them that their votes were “something they can be proud of now and tomorrow and years from now” but did not criticize Schumer directly, according to three people granted anonymity to describe the private remarks.
“We stood up against Donald Trump. We stood up against Elon Musk. We stood up against the extreme MAGA Republicans,” Jeffries said in a statement. “We can defend that vote because we stood on the side of the American people.”
A leader of the Democratic left in the House was not as oblique. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York — often mentioned as a potential primary rival for Schumer — said on BLN Thursday that Schumer had made a “tremendous mistake.”
“To me, it is almost unthinkable why Senate Democrats would vote to hand [one of] the few pieces of leverage that we have away for free,” she said.
Asked Thursday to respond in advance to possible calls for new Democratic leadership in the Senate, Schumer said he made a “tough choice … based on what I thought were the merits.” (None of his Senate colleagues, notably, joined in the firestorm of criticism.)
“You have to make these decisions based on what is best for not only your party but your country, and I firmly believe and always have that I’ve made the right decision,” he continued. “I believe that my members understand that … conclusion and respect it.”
Mia McCarthy and Nicholas Wu contributed to this report.
NEW YORK — With just five days to go until the primary election in New York, Mayor Zohran Mamdani issued a stark warning to members of Congress who believe “incumbency is a substitute for action”: Watch out.
“People often ask me what I think of the state of the Democratic Party,” Mamdani said to the crowd at the Kings Theatre in Brooklyn as he boosted his endorsed congressional candidates. “This slate here today is our answer. The Democratic Party must change.”
The democratic socialist framed Tuesday’s election as much more than what that means for New York, though. In recounting how people also ask him about the 2028 presidential election, he put it bluntly: “It starts now. It starts on Tuesday.”
“For far too long, our party has seen its job as managing decline instead of delivering material change for working people,” Mamdani said. “That old way of thinking will lose on Tuesday. And frankly, it will lose in South Carolina and New Hampshire. It will fall short of 270 electoral votes, because the party of the past will not be what leads us into the future.”
Mamdani, joined by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, urged his supporters to show up for his endorsed candidates “the way you showed up for me.” They include former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who’s challenging two-term Rep. Dan Goldman; state Assemblymember Claire Valdez, who’s vying for retiring Rep. Nydia Velázquez’s seat; and community organizer Darializa Avila Chevalier, who’s trying to unseat five-term Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Mamdani’s endorsed slate of legislative candidates were at the rally, too.
The rally featured standard stump speeches from the candidates, highlighting the need to support working class New Yorkers and immigrants. Speakers called out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel group that has loomed over many of these primaries — despite no evident spending from its independent expenditure arm. Sanders also emphasized his call to ban super PACs, which have reshaped primaries across the city.
Taking place just hours after the massive ticker-tape parade celebrating the Knicks’ historic championship, there were also Knicks references galore.
“I hate to break it to you, but OG Anunoby is not here to save the day,” said Mamdani, who was wearing a Knicks jersey under his suit. “The only hands we can count on are ours.”
Sanders, who is wildly popular in New York, previously endorsed Valdez and Lander. Both Valdez and Avila Chevalier are members of the Democratic Socialists of America and are backed by the city chapter in their bids. Sanders had not officially endorsed Avila Chevalier prior to the rally.
“Why are progressives and socialist candidates winning elections all across this country?” Sanders asked. “The answer in my view is not complicated. The working class of America understands that our current economic system is rigged, that it is designed to benefit the wealthy and the powerful.”
Polling has shown Lander with a lead over Goldman, and a tight race for Velázquez’s seat. Public polling is scarce in the Espaillat race, but recent internal surveys suggest Avila Chevalier is posing a real challenge to the incumbent. Mamdani endorsed her just weeks ago, much later than Lander and Valdez, but his engagement in the race has significantly elevated its profile.
“Six months ago, they told us this race was over before it started,” Avila Chevalier said at the rally. “They told us Adriano was untouchable, that he was an institution, that you don’t run against someone like him and win. That this district was his, and that we should wait our turn. And they said it with such confidence, like the outcome had already been written. Look around. Look at what we’ve built.”
Mamdani’s decision to get involved in congressional races is stress-testing how the new mayor navigates relations with powerful, well-respected party figures — many of whom he’s on the opposite side of.
Mamdani’s endorsement is expected to be a significant asset for his picks; he had dominant performances across these districts in last year’s mayoral primary. And that shine doesn’t seem to have dulled. Recent polling has shown that Mamdani has high approval ratings.
Goldman did not support Mamdani during last year’s mayoral primary or the general election, as Lander has often pointed out. Espaillat backed former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the primary, but supported Mamdani in the general election. Valdez’s opponents, Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso and city Council Member Julie Won, both supported Mamdani in the primary.
The mayor has been active on the trail for his congressional candidates of choice in the closing stretch of the campaign. And he touted them all in an advertisement that ran during the first game of the Knicks’ finals run.
Still, Lander has tried to keep some distance. When asked at a recent press conference why he would appear in that ad with Avila Chevalier, who attended a pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack in 2023 — the same rally Lander said he left the DSA over — he said it was an “opportunity to show New Yorkers that politics can be a team sport.” He also clarified that he has not endorsed candidates in any other congressional primaries.
Avila Chevalier told reporters that she went to that rally to “stand against” Israel engaging in “a response that is often disproportionate and creates a greater loss of life.” She added that she has “condemned Hamas” and does “not believe that celebrating the loss of anybody’s life is OK.”
Kings Theatre isn’t located in any of the districts these congressional hopefuls are trying to represent — though it neighbors the seats that Lander and Valdez have their eyes on.
It’s especially far from Espaillat’s district, which includes parts of upper Manhattan and the Bronx.
While handing out campaign literature to people walking out of the subway in Hamilton Heights, Blue Light News asked Espaillat if he had thoughts about Avila Chevalier appearing at the rally.
“I’m rallying right here in my district with my constituents — not in Brooklyn,” he replied.
Jason Beeferman contributed to this report.
Retirement groups are calling on Congress to investigate Meta over a wave of social media scams targeting older Americans.
In a letter sent Thursday to House Homeland Security Committee Chair Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) and ranking member Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the groups alleged Meta has been slow to take down fraudulent ads, leaving seniors vulnerable to financial loss. The letter, shared exclusively with POLITICO, was signed by the Alliance for Retired Americans, the American Postal Workers Union Retirees and the American Federation of Teachers, among others.
“Fraudulent Medicare ads have proliferated on Meta platforms and too many seniors are getting scammed while Meta profits,” said Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “We are calling on Congress to investigate how these scams are allowed to spread, what Meta knew about them, and why stronger protections are not in place. Seniors should not be left vulnerable while scammers and tech companies cash in.”
The letter’s demands follow a report published last month by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a nonprofit advocacy group, which alleged that Meta has profited by leaving up fraudulent ads, many of which target Medicare recipients.
“Scammers are determined criminals who use increasingly sophisticated tactics to defraud people and evade detection,” Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a statement. “We aggressively fight scams on and off our platforms because they’re not good for us or the people and businesses that rely on our services and for years we’ve been one of law enforcement’s strongest partners in the fight against this type of online crime — identifying criminals, disrupting their crimes and helping bring them to justice.”
Stone pointed to several examples of Meta’s efforts to combat scams on its platform, including a recent collaboration with U.S. and Thai law enforcement to disrupt online scams.
It’s not the first time Meta has faced scrutiny over the scams: Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) urged the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission to open an investigation into the company in November after Reuters reported that Meta in internal documents projected 10 percent of its 2024 revenue would come from fraudulent ads. And in February, a group of bipartisan lawmakers pressed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg over its plans to prevent and combat fraud on its platforms.
Reps. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) and Lou Correa (D-Calif.) also introduced bipartisan legislation earlier this year to combat predatory scam ads.
Congress is expected to send a landmark, bipartisan housing affordability bill to President Donald Trump’s desk by the end of next week as the Senate and House schedule action on the legislation in the coming days.
The Senate has teed up the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act for final passage on Monday, after completing all its necessary procedural votes this week.
The legislation will then move on to the House where GOP leadership plans to open debate on Wednesday, with a vote expected as early as the same day, according to six people familiar with the vote granted anonymity to discuss plans.
House leadership plans to suspend the rules, requiring a two-thirds majority vote, to speed up the bill’s path to Trump’s desk. Final passage could be pushed to Thursday depending on timing, the people said.
The housing bill aims to tackle housing affordability and boost homeownership and supply ahead of a midterm election dominated by cost-of-living concerns.
The four lawmakers leading the negotiations over the legislation — Senate Banking Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.), ranking member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) and ranking member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) — came to an agreement Tuesday afternoon after months of back and forth on the bill’s contents.
The housing affordability legislation, which the White House supports, contains a provision limiting the role of large institutional investors in the single-family housing market, which was a key condition for Trump to sign the bill.
-
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