20 stories credited to Semafor (19 on semafor.com, 1 reproduced by other sites)
Latest story Sep 23, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026
A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.
Scores for Semafor
Political lean
17 stories · 95% range 46–51 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Originality
19 stories · updated Sep 24, 2026
Writing quality 83 of 100: the average rating of 16 stories, each rated on its own (separate from credibility). How it is measured
Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.
Stories ChamberLight collected, by month
Stories credited to Semafor, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.
- Stories from Semafor
- Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)
Show as a table
| Month | Stories | All outlets |
|---|---|---|
| March 2026 | 3 | 897 |
| April 2026 | 13 | 4,537 |
| May 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| June 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| July 2026 | 0 | none collected |
| August 2026 | 0 | 1 (collection gap) |
| September 2026 | 4 | 598 |
Top topics
Share of this source’s stories tagged with each topic. A story can carry several topics, so the shares do not add up to 100%.
- Budget/Spending8
40% of 20 stories · 32% across all outlets
- Ethics/Corruption7
35% of 20 stories · 60% across all outlets
- Foreign Policy7
35% of 20 stories · 29% across all outlets
- Economy6
30% of 20 stories · 25% across all outlets
- Defense/Military5
25% of 20 stories · 25% across all outlets
- Technology/Privacy5
25% of 20 stories · 9% across all outlets
- Voting Rights4
20% of 20 stories · 19% across all outlets
- Immigration3
15% of 20 stories · 13% across all outlets
The thin mark on each bar is the topic’s share across all outlets.
Who they cover
Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 35 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 45 story–official pairs, from 20 stories.
- Democrat47% · 21 pairs
- Republican44% · 20 pairs
- Independent4% · 2 pairs
- Party not recorded4% · 2 pairs
Most covered
Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 20 stories.
- 1Donald TrumpR3 stories · 15%
- 2Bernard SandersI2 stories · 10%
- 3Catherine Cortez MastoD2 stories · 10%
- 4Charles SchumerD2 stories · 10%
- 5Cory BookerD2 stories · 10%
- 6Elizabeth WarrenD2 stories · 10%
- 7Lindsey GrahamR2 stories · 10%
- 8Mark WarnerD2 stories · 10%
- 9Susan CollinsR2 stories · 10%
- 10Abdul El-Sayed–1 story · 5%
+ 25 other officials (25 story–official pairs)
Article tone
ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not Semafor’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 20 stories.
- Good Look
- 1 (5%)
- Mixed
- 19 (95%)
- Informational
- 0 (0%)
- Bad Look
- 0 (0%)
Related sources
Lean 95% range 46–52 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Similar lean · 2 shared topics
Lean 95% range 45–53 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 48–49 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 48.9–49.3 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 49–50 · updated Sep 24, 2026
Similar lean · 3 shared topics
Lean 95% range 45–52 · updated Sep 25, 2026
Similar lean · 1 shared topic
Challenges to these scores
No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.
Articles served from semafor.com
44
Progressive Democrats push superintelligence ban
“Candidates have got to start talking about it now,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Progressive Democrats push superintelligence ban
“Candidates have got to start talking about it now,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
Tim Scott to Senate Republicans: We’re still in this
The NRSC chair told colleagues at a closed-door meeting that they can still maintain Senate control in the midterms despite the worsening climate for Republicans.
Trump administration backing off NIH grant order amid pushback
The proposal, which would have given President Donald Trump greater influence over health grant decisionmaking, could still advance in a new form.
Senate Democrats press Greer to refund consumers for tariffs
The lawmakers ask whether officials are monitoring firms’ actions and weighing direct refunds.
‘Be realistic’: Republicans feud over immigration — again
The News House Republicans are fracturing over a bipartisan immigration plan, a feud that serves as a microcosm of the broader battle roiling the party ahead of the midterms. The Dignity Act faces an onslaught of criticism from the right that is leaving some of its Republican backers exasperated. Instead of backing off of their support for the proposal, its Republican supporters are digging in — a sign of how intractable the fight over immigration policy is, even among Trump-supporting Republicans. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who’s also a member of the hardline Freedom Caucus, called the Dignity Act a “good bill” and said he wanted his conservative colleagues to relent on the criticism. “I think we need to be realistic,” added Stutzman. “There’s always controversy over a bill that people don’t read and then opine on it before they read it,” said Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., another supporter. The legislation attempts to strike a balance between border security and immigration reform, attracting bipartisan support as well as backing from some business groups. The proposal would bolster border security, create a pathway for legal residency for “Dreamers” and DACA recipients, and revamp the legal immigration process, among other provisions. The GOP’s tumult over one of the few bipartisan immigration proposals in President Donald Trump’s second term is a window into broader unease over immigration during the Trump presidency. Although Republicans largely back Trump’s hardline stances on border security and deportations, they’ve already discussed the need for a rhetorical shift in response to a public backlash to the administration’s mass deportation campaign. At the same time, Republicans are nowhere near consensus on how to handle legal immigration pathways or the estimated 14 million immigrants who are living in the US without legal authorization. For the right flank of the party like some of the House Freedom Caucus, the legislation and its so-called “dignity status” for immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years is antithetical to the hardline approach to immigration ushered in by Trump’s 2024 victory. Conservatives voiced criticism of the legislation on social media and in interviews and even formed a new PAC to back primary challengers to the bill’s backers. “It’s a violation of core conservative principles. It’s a betrayal of everything that we ran on in the last election. It would be terrible for the country,” said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, of the bill. And Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., described the bloc’s objection as both cosmetic — “it’s named in Spanish,” he said — and policy-based because it “offers amnesty to people who are here.” Supporters of the proposal strenuously deny the bill includes “amnesty” provisions. What’s more, the legislation has no clear path to getting a vote on the House floor, which has left some of its backers even more baffled by the pushback. House Republicans are focused instead on enforcement-related legislation and are preparing to take up party-line legislation to bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s funding for three years as well. They still haven’t passed a Senate bill that would reopen most of the department. Some lawmakers are instead staking their hopes on building momentum behind the legislation by having the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus endorse it and eventually getting it in front of the president, whom they hope could endorse it. “It’s up to the president. The president is a very smart guy,” said the bill’s Republican lead, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla. “He comes from hospitality and from construction.” She also ruled out the prospect of a discharge petition to force the bill to the House floor, saying “I’m going to do it the hard way.” Know More The Dignity Act is already surfacing in some Republican political campaigns. Take California’s 40th congressional district, which put GOP Reps. Ken Calvert and Young Kim into a new red district together after the state redrew its congressional districts. Calvert’s campaign has gone after Kim, who used to represent a purple district, for supporting “amnesty” for immigrants, and a PAC spending in the race against Kim has accused her in a recent ad of having “opposed President Trump’s immigration policy, voting to protect convicted criminal illegal immigrants from deportation.” “Amnesty hasn’t been popular where I come from,” Calvert said. Republican political consultant Rob Stutzman said immigration could end up being a salient issue for the GOP primary electorate, and to him, “it lays bare the problem that moderates have being cast into safe seats.” But Kim showed no signs of changing her position on the legislation, saying she wouldn’t take herself off the bill: “we need to fix the broken immigration system, and also this is a way to secure the border, address the broken system.” The View From democrats Democrats were initially befuddled by the backlash to their Republican counterparts on the legislation. They’re not immune to division on their side on the issue either, and the legislation includes many concessions from Democrats, such as not including a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers.” But Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, the top Democratic cosponsor, said she wasn’t deterred by the controversy on the right. “It’s always been challenging to get Republican support precisely because this is the environment that that politics exists in, but we’ll see. Ultimately the American people want reform,” she said. And others see it as the best bill they might be able to get with Trump in the White House. “I certainly don’t feel like we can wait until we have what feels like the perfect environment for immigration in order to act, to move the Dignity Act,” said Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich. Nicholas’s view Republicans may end up kicking themselves if they don’t pass an immigration bill, because Democrats will. And will probably be more expansive than the Dignity Act. If Democrats flip the House, look to the fight over immigration to move among lawmakers on the left as many seek to pass long-stalled immigration bills. Democrats have previously pushed for immigration bills like the Dream and Promise Act to overhaul the immigration system, but that could face Trump’s veto if the bill ever made it anywhere near his desk. And as an added wrinkle, Democrats have been eyeing Salazar’s seat in the midterms this year, which could deprive them of their top Republican counterpart on the legislation if they succeed in flipping it. Notable The House bucked Trump by passing a measure to bring back temporary protections for some Haitian migrants, The Washington Post reported.
‘Be realistic’: Republicans feud over immigration — again
The News House Republicans are fracturing over a bipartisan immigration plan, a feud that serves as a microcosm of the broader battle roiling the party ahead of the midterms. The Dignity Act faces an onslaught of criticism from the right that is leaving some of its Republican backers exasperated. Instead of backing off of their support for the proposal, its Republican supporters are digging in — a sign of how intractable the fight over immigration policy is, even among Trump-supporting Republicans. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who’s also a member of the hardline Freedom Caucus, called the Dignity Act a “good bill” and said he wanted his conservative colleagues to relent on the criticism. “I think we need to be realistic,” added Stutzman. “There’s always controversy over a bill that people don’t read and then opine on it before they read it,” said Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., another supporter. The legislation attempts to strike a balance between border security and immigration reform, attracting bipartisan support as well as backing from some business groups. The proposal would bolster border security, create a pathway for legal residency for “Dreamers” and DACA recipients, and revamp the legal immigration process, among other provisions. The GOP’s tumult over one of the few bipartisan immigration proposals in President Donald Trump’s second term is a window into broader unease over immigration during the Trump presidency. Although Republicans largely back Trump’s hardline stances on border security and deportations, they’ve already discussed the need for a rhetorical shift in response to a public backlash to the administration’s mass deportation campaign. At the same time, Republicans are nowhere near consensus on how to handle legal immigration pathways or the estimated 14 million immigrants who are living in the US without legal authorization. For the right flank of the party like some of the House Freedom Caucus, the legislation and its so-called “dignity status” for immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years is antithetical to the hardline approach to immigration ushered in by Trump’s 2024 victory. Conservatives voiced criticism of the legislation on social media and in interviews and even formed a new PAC to back primary challengers to the bill’s backers. “It’s a violation of core conservative principles. It’s a betrayal of everything that we ran on in the last election. It would be terrible for the country,” said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, of the bill. And Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., described the bloc’s objection as both cosmetic — “it’s named in Spanish,” he said — and policy-based because it “offers amnesty to people who are here.” Supporters of the proposal strenuously deny the bill includes “amnesty” provisions. What’s more, the legislation has no clear path to getting a vote on the House floor, which has left some of its backers even more baffled by the pushback. House Republicans are focused instead on enforcement-related legislation and are preparing to take up party-line legislation to bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s funding for three years as well. They still haven’t passed a Senate bill that would reopen most of the department. Some lawmakers are instead staking their hopes on building momentum behind the legislation by having the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus endorse it and eventually getting it in front of the president, whom they hope could endorse it. “It’s up to the president. The president is a very smart guy,” said the bill’s Republican lead, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla. “He comes from hospitality and from construction.” She also ruled out the prospect of a discharge petition to force the bill to the House floor, saying “I’m going to do it the hard way.” Know More The Dignity Act is already surfacing in some Republican political campaigns. Take California’s 40th congressional district, which put GOP Reps. Ken Calvert and Young Kim into a new red district together after the state redrew its congressional districts. Calvert’s campaign has gone after Kim, who used to represent a purple district, for supporting “amnesty” for immigrants, and a PAC spending in the race against Kim has accused her in a recent ad of having “opposed President Trump’s immigration policy, voting to protect convicted criminal illegal immigrants from deportation.” “Amnesty hasn’t been popular where I come from,” Calvert said. Republican political consultant Rob Stutzman said immigration could end up being a salient issue for the GOP primary electorate, and to him, “it lays bare the problem that moderates have being cast into safe seats.” But Kim showed no signs of changing her position on the legislation, saying she wouldn’t take herself off the bill: “we need to fix the broken immigration system, and also this is a way to secure the border, address the broken system.” The View From democrats Democrats were initially befuddled by the backlash to their Republican counterparts on the legislation. They’re not immune to division on their side on the issue either, and the legislation includes many concessions from Democrats, such as not including a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers.” But Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, the top Democratic cosponsor, said she wasn’t deterred by the controversy on the right. “It’s always been challenging to get Republican support precisely because this is the environment that that politics exists in, but we’ll see. Ultimately the American people want reform,” she said. And others see it as the best bill they might be able to get with Trump in the White House. “I certainly don’t feel like we can wait until we have what feels like the perfect environment for immigration in order to act, to move the Dignity Act,” said Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich. Nicholas’s view Republicans may end up kicking themselves if they don’t pass an immigration bill, because Democrats will. And will probably be more expansive than the Dignity Act. If Democrats flip the House, look to the fight over immigration to move among lawmakers on the left as many seek to pass long-stalled immigration bills. Democrats have previously pushed for immigration bills like the Dream and Promise Act to overhaul the immigration system, but that could face Trump’s veto if the bill ever made it anywhere near his desk. And as an added wrinkle, Democrats have been eyeing Salazar’s seat in the midterms this year, which could deprive them of their top Republican counterpart on the legislation if they succeed in flipping it. Notable The House bucked Trump by passing a measure to bring back temporary protections for some Haitian migrants, The Washington Post reported.
‘Be realistic’: Republicans feud over immigration — again
The News House Republicans are fracturing over a bipartisan immigration plan, a feud that serves as a microcosm of the broader battle roiling the party ahead of the midterms. The Dignity Act faces an onslaught of criticism from the right that is leaving some of its Republican backers exasperated. Instead of backing off of their support for the proposal, its Republican supporters are digging in — a sign of how intractable the fight over immigration policy is, even among Trump-supporting Republicans. Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., who’s also a member of the hardline Freedom Caucus, called the Dignity Act a “good bill” and said he wanted his conservative colleagues to relent on the criticism. “I think we need to be realistic,” added Stutzman. “There’s always controversy over a bill that people don’t read and then opine on it before they read it,” said Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., another supporter. The legislation attempts to strike a balance between border security and immigration reform, attracting bipartisan support as well as backing from some business groups. The proposal would bolster border security, create a pathway for legal residency for “Dreamers” and DACA recipients, and revamp the legal immigration process, among other provisions. The GOP’s tumult over one of the few bipartisan immigration proposals in President Donald Trump’s second term is a window into broader unease over immigration during the Trump presidency. Although Republicans largely back Trump’s hardline stances on border security and deportations, they’ve already discussed the need for a rhetorical shift in response to a public backlash to the administration’s mass deportation campaign. At the same time, Republicans are nowhere near consensus on how to handle legal immigration pathways or the estimated 14 million immigrants who are living in the US without legal authorization. For the right flank of the party like some of the House Freedom Caucus, the legislation and its so-called “dignity status” for immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years is antithetical to the hardline approach to immigration ushered in by Trump’s 2024 victory. Conservatives voiced criticism of the legislation on social media and in interviews and even formed a new PAC to back primary challengers to the bill’s backers. “It’s a violation of core conservative principles. It’s a betrayal of everything that we ran on in the last election. It would be terrible for the country,” said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, of the bill. And Freedom Caucus chair Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., described the bloc’s objection as both cosmetic — “it’s named in Spanish,” he said — and policy-based because it “offers amnesty to people who are here.” Supporters of the proposal strenuously deny the bill includes “amnesty” provisions. What’s more, the legislation has no clear path to getting a vote on the House floor, which has left some of its backers even more baffled by the pushback. House Republicans are focused instead on enforcement-related legislation and are preparing to take up party-line legislation to bolster the Department of Homeland Security’s funding for three years as well. They still haven’t passed a Senate bill that would reopen most of the department. Some lawmakers are instead staking their hopes on building momentum behind the legislation by having the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus endorse it and eventually getting it in front of the president, whom they hope could endorse it. “It’s up to the president. The president is a very smart guy,” said the bill’s Republican lead, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, R-Fla. “He comes from hospitality and from construction.” She also ruled out the prospect of a discharge petition to force the bill to the House floor, saying “I’m going to do it the hard way.” Know More The Dignity Act is already surfacing in some Republican political campaigns. Take California’s 40th congressional district, which put GOP Reps. Ken Calvert and Young Kim into a new red district together after the state redrew its congressional districts. Calvert’s campaign has gone after Kim, who used to represent a purple district, for supporting “amnesty” for immigrants, and a PAC spending in the race against Kim has accused her in a recent ad of having “opposed President Trump’s immigration policy, voting to protect convicted criminal illegal immigrants from deportation.” “Amnesty hasn’t been popular where I come from,” Calvert said. Republican political consultant Rob Stutzman said immigration could end up being a salient issue for the GOP primary electorate, and to him, “it lays bare the problem that moderates have being cast into safe seats.” But Kim showed no signs of changing her position on the legislation, saying she wouldn’t take herself off the bill: “we need to fix the broken immigration system, and also this is a way to secure the border, address the broken system.” The View From democrats Democrats were initially befuddled by the backlash to their Republican counterparts on the legislation. They’re not immune to division on their side on the issue either, and the legislation includes many concessions from Democrats, such as not including a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers.” But Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, the top Democratic cosponsor, said she wasn’t deterred by the controversy on the right. “It’s always been challenging to get Republican support precisely because this is the environment that that politics exists in, but we’ll see. Ultimately the American people want reform,” she said. And others see it as the best bill they might be able to get with Trump in the White House. “I certainly don’t feel like we can wait until we have what feels like the perfect environment for immigration in order to act, to move the Dignity Act,” said Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich. Nicholas’s view Republicans may end up kicking themselves if they don’t pass an immigration bill, because Democrats will. And will probably be more expansive than the Dignity Act. If Democrats flip the House, look to the fight over immigration to move among lawmakers on the left as many seek to pass long-stalled immigration bills. Democrats have previously pushed for immigration bills like the Dream and Promise Act to overhaul the immigration system, but that could face Trump’s veto if the bill ever made it anywhere near his desk. And as an added wrinkle, Democrats have been eyeing Salazar’s seat in the midterms this year, which could deprive them of their top Republican counterpart on the legislation if they succeed in flipping it. Notable The House bucked Trump by passing a measure to bring back temporary protections for some Haitian migrants, The Washington Post reported.
El-Sayed’s rise riles Democratic moderates, delights the left
The News The rise of Bernie Sanders’ preferred Senate candidate in Michigan is frustrating moderates, delighting progressives, and testing the sway of Democratic leaders in a race that will likely determine the party’s shot at a Senate majority. Abdul El-Sayed is gaining momentum in a divisive three-way Democratic primary with an uncompromising argument for clarity on progressive priorities — Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and ending US military aid to Israel. The nomination is up for grabs among him, Rep. Haley Stevens, and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, but El-Sayed is catching on with the base and just had his best poll. Scattered general-election polling shows El-Sayed with the toughest path to beat the GOP’s consensus nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, whose lack of a serious opponent is letting him build his case for November ahead of the Democrats. But the party has to stay invested in Michigan, no matter who is the nominee, to keep its hopes for a Senate majority alive. Which has left some Democrats sweating the prospect that El-Sayed prevails in August, only to get hammered by Rogers as too far left for a swing state. “Of course,” one Democratic senator said when asked whether the party worries about El-Sayed losing in November. “Elissa Slotkin won by 19,000 votes against the same opponent. He’s pretty well-established, there’s not a divisive primary on the Republican side, and there are some really tough issues.” Strategists who support Stevens and McMorrow said that as the state party held its convention this month, the Democratic chatter shifted from an expectation that Stevens or McMorrow would prevail to fretting that El-Sayed could win. An Emerson poll showed El-Sayed jumping into a first-place tie with McMorrow; the spiking unpopularity of AIPAC has complicated its expected involvement on behalf of Stevens. Senior Democrats still see Stevens as the best bet against Rogers and see her as viable in the primary via her base of support in the Detroit area. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., is backing Stevens because of her support with labor and Black voters, but also because she “will focus on talking to everyone in a state like that. Not just your base.” “That’s my concern in a primary like that. In a swing state, it is the moderate over the progressive that wins,” Cortez Masto, a former campaign committee chair, told Semafor. Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, who met with both the “really skilled” El-Sayed and McMorrow, said she’s heard from colleagues concerned about El-Sayed’s electoral prospects. But she urged that other Democrats’ predictions “be taken with a grain of salt,” pointing to the neutrality of Michigan’s senators. Sanders endorsed El-Sayed on the first day of his campaign and will rally with him on May 3. The Vermont independent told Semafor that voters “want men and women who have the guts to stand up and take on big money and interests.” “He has a good chance to win the primary and an excellent chance to win the election,” Sanders added. McMorrow, who built a large online following after a viral 2022 speech, got the harshest social media blowback of her career after comparing left-wing commentator Hasan Piker (an El-Sayed fan) to antisemitic white nationalist Nick Fuentes. She also has the most support among sitting senators and could bridge the divide between El-Sayed and Stevens. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said all three candidates are “strong” but that “she’s the strongest. I think she gives us the best chance to win.” “I’m not here to criticize any of the Democrats. I’m for Mallory because she has built a strong grassroots campaign based on her demonstrated excellence as a fighter,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Know More El-Sayed’s been touted as progressives’ next big thing since his longshot 2018 bid for governor. He was followed by a documentary film crew and drew comparisons to Barack Obama; Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., backed him early. At age 35, he lost the nomination but grabbed 30% of the vote and stayed visible in the party. “I always thought he’d be competitive. So that’s not surprising to me at all,” said retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., of El-Sayed’s success so far. He and Slotkin both said they are staying out of the primary. Democrats backing Stevens and McMorrow believe that El-Sayed has taken the wrong lessons from successful progressives. His supporters touted video of Stevens being booed at the convention, only to watch other Democrats openly resent the disruption — likening it to activists on the left who refused to vote for Democratic nominees in 2016 and 2024. In a Monday video, El-Sayed sent his camp a message by criticizing the “unkind and unnecessary” jeering. El-Sayed’s critics believe there’s time to define him as a risky choice. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who is backing Stevens, said all three candidates are qualified, but dinged El-Sayed for campaigning with Piker and said “we are continuing to see consistent polling that suggests that Haley is the only one that can win in a general election.” El-Sayed believes he’s underestimated and ignored by Washington Democrats. He starts speeches with a concise affordability message, saying he wants “money out of politics and money in your pocket” — and his campaign believes that’s what’s helping him. “There has been an increasing gap between what DC assumes is electable and what voters are actually responding to,” said El-Sayed spokesperson Roxie Richner. “To both energize the base and win back the voters Dems have lost, we need an authentic candidate with a clear vision for the future.” Still, Republicans have trouble containing their glee about running against El-Sayed. Alyssa Brouillet, a Rogers spokesperson, said his success is “further proof that the far left is no longer the fringe of the Democrat Party; it is the Democrat Party.” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Samantha Cantrell said “El-Sayed’s radical wing of the Democrat Party is taking over in Michigan,” dismissing Stevens and McMorrow as “wannabes.” “In 2024, Donald Trump won Michigan, and those same voters are not interested, I believe, in America-hating zealots. And more and more, that’s who the Democrat Party is attracted to,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Former Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., who is supporting El-Sayed, said tying him to Piker, whom Republicans call antisemitic, “is all a distraction and an effort to undermine a campaign” that’s picking up steam. “He’s an Egyptian American. If he’s a Jewish American, everyone would be pinching his cheek and saying, ‘look at this young man,’” Levin said. Room for Disagreement Some Democrats are still smarting over the early (and subtle) preference the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had for Stevens. In an interview, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a former DSCC chair whose committee waded into several primaries, told Semafor that “it was a mistake for the DS to weigh in early on on behalf of Stevens.” A spokeswoman said the “DSCC’s strategy is guided by one goal: winning a Democratic Senate majority.” Burgess, Nicholas and David’s View It wasn’t too long ago that the most progressive candidate in a Democratic primary like this would never take off; El-Sayed’s rise is proof that, on US-Israel relations at a minimum, the party’s norm has shifted. And if El-Sayed prevails, it will show Democratic voters are done being instructed by their leaders. Both Stevens and McMorrow have more institutional support, although from different wings of the party. An El-Sayed nomination will also probably make the general election more expensive and more competitive. Before Republicans gloat too loudly, though, we’d remind them the primary is three months away — an eternity in politics.
El-Sayed’s rise riles Democratic moderates, delights the left
The News The rise of Bernie Sanders’ preferred Senate candidate in Michigan is frustrating moderates, delighting progressives, and testing the sway of Democratic leaders in a race that will likely determine the party’s shot at a Senate majority. Abdul El-Sayed is gaining momentum in a divisive three-way Democratic primary with an uncompromising argument for clarity on progressive priorities — Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and ending US military aid to Israel. The nomination is up for grabs among him, Rep. Haley Stevens, and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, but El-Sayed is catching on with the base and just had his best poll. Scattered general-election polling shows El-Sayed with the toughest path to beat the GOP’s consensus nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, whose lack of a serious opponent is letting him build his case for November ahead of the Democrats. But the party has to stay invested in Michigan, no matter who is the nominee, to keep its hopes for a Senate majority alive. Which has left some Democrats sweating the prospect that El-Sayed prevails in August, only to get hammered by Rogers as too far left for a swing state. “Of course,” one Democratic senator said when asked whether the party worries about El-Sayed losing in November. “Elissa Slotkin won by 19,000 votes against the same opponent. He’s pretty well-established, there’s not a divisive primary on the Republican side, and there are some really tough issues.” Strategists who support Stevens and McMorrow said that as the state party held its convention this month, the Democratic chatter shifted from an expectation that Stevens or McMorrow would prevail to fretting that El-Sayed could win. An Emerson poll showed El-Sayed jumping into a first-place tie with McMorrow; the spiking unpopularity of AIPAC has complicated its expected involvement on behalf of Stevens. Senior Democrats still see Stevens as the best bet against Rogers and see her as viable in the primary via her base of support in the Detroit area. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., is backing Stevens because of her support with labor and Black voters, but also because she “will focus on talking to everyone in a state like that. Not just your base.” “That’s my concern in a primary like that. In a swing state, it is the moderate over the progressive that wins,” Cortez Masto, a former campaign committee chair, told Semafor. Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, who met with both the “really skilled” El-Sayed and McMorrow, said she’s heard from colleagues concerned about El-Sayed’s electoral prospects. But she urged that other Democrats’ predictions “be taken with a grain of salt,” pointing to the neutrality of Michigan’s senators. Sanders endorsed El-Sayed on the first day of his campaign and will rally with him on May 3. The Vermont independent told Semafor that voters “want men and women who have the guts to stand up and take on big money and interests.” “He has a good chance to win the primary and an excellent chance to win the election,” Sanders added. McMorrow, who built a large online following after a viral 2022 speech, got the harshest social media blowback of her career after comparing left-wing commentator Hasan Piker (an El-Sayed fan) to antisemitic white nationalist Nick Fuentes. She also has the most support among sitting senators and could bridge the divide between El-Sayed and Stevens. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said all three candidates are “strong” but that “she’s the strongest. I think she gives us the best chance to win.” “I’m not here to criticize any of the Democrats. I’m for Mallory because she has built a strong grassroots campaign based on her demonstrated excellence as a fighter,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Know More El-Sayed’s been touted as progressives’ next big thing since his longshot 2018 bid for governor. He was followed by a documentary film crew and drew comparisons to Barack Obama; Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., backed him early. At age 35, he lost the nomination but grabbed 30% of the vote and stayed visible in the party. “I always thought he’d be competitive. So that’s not surprising to me at all,” said retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., of El-Sayed’s success so far. He and Slotkin both said they are staying out of the primary. Democrats backing Stevens and McMorrow believe that El-Sayed has taken the wrong lessons from successful progressives. His supporters touted video of Stevens being booed at the convention, only to watch other Democrats openly resent the disruption — likening it to activists on the left who refused to vote for Democratic nominees in 2016 and 2024. In a Monday video, El-Sayed sent his camp a message by criticizing the “unkind and unnecessary” jeering. El-Sayed’s critics believe there’s time to define him as a risky choice. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who is backing Stevens, said all three candidates are qualified, but dinged El-Sayed for campaigning with Piker and said “we are continuing to see consistent polling that suggests that Haley is the only one that can win in a general election.” El-Sayed believes he’s underestimated and ignored by Washington Democrats. He starts speeches with a concise affordability message, saying he wants “money out of politics and money in your pocket” — and his campaign believes that’s what’s helping him. “There has been an increasing gap between what DC assumes is electable and what voters are actually responding to,” said El-Sayed spokesperson Roxie Richner. “To both energize the base and win back the voters Dems have lost, we need an authentic candidate with a clear vision for the future.” Still, Republicans have trouble containing their glee about running against El-Sayed. Alyssa Brouillet, a Rogers spokesperson, said his success is “further proof that the far left is no longer the fringe of the Democrat Party; it is the Democrat Party.” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Samantha Cantrell said “El-Sayed’s radical wing of the Democrat Party is taking over in Michigan,” dismissing Stevens and McMorrow as “wannabes.” “In 2024, Donald Trump won Michigan, and those same voters are not interested, I believe, in America-hating zealots. And more and more, that’s who the Democrat Party is attracted to,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Former Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., who is supporting El-Sayed, said tying him to Piker, whom Republicans call antisemitic, “is all a distraction and an effort to undermine a campaign” that’s picking up steam. “He’s an Egyptian American. If he’s a Jewish American, everyone would be pinching his cheek and saying, ‘look at this young man,’” Levin said. Room for Disagreement Some Democrats are still smarting over the early (and subtle) preference the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had for Stevens. In an interview, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a former DSCC chair whose committee waded into several primaries, told Semafor that “it was a mistake for the DS to weigh in early on on behalf of Stevens.” A spokeswoman said the “DSCC’s strategy is guided by one goal: winning a Democratic Senate majority.” Burgess, Nicholas and David’s View It wasn’t too long ago that the most progressive candidate in a Democratic primary like this would never take off; El-Sayed’s rise is proof that, on US-Israel relations at a minimum, the party’s norm has shifted. And if El-Sayed prevails, it will show Democratic voters are done being instructed by their leaders. Both Stevens and McMorrow have more institutional support, although from different wings of the party. An El-Sayed nomination will also probably make the general election more expensive and more competitive. Before Republicans gloat too loudly, though, we’d remind them the primary is three months away — an eternity in politics.
El-Sayed’s rise riles Democratic moderates, delights the left
The News The rise of Bernie Sanders’ preferred Senate candidate in Michigan is frustrating moderates, delighting progressives, and testing the sway of Democratic leaders in a race that will likely determine the party’s shot at a Senate majority. Abdul El-Sayed is gaining momentum in a divisive three-way Democratic primary with an uncompromising argument for clarity on progressive priorities — Medicare for All, abolishing ICE, and ending US military aid to Israel. The nomination is up for grabs among him, Rep. Haley Stevens, and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, but El-Sayed is catching on with the base and just had his best poll. Scattered general-election polling shows El-Sayed with the toughest path to beat the GOP’s consensus nominee, former Rep. Mike Rogers, whose lack of a serious opponent is letting him build his case for November ahead of the Democrats. But the party has to stay invested in Michigan, no matter who is the nominee, to keep its hopes for a Senate majority alive. Which has left some Democrats sweating the prospect that El-Sayed prevails in August, only to get hammered by Rogers as too far left for a swing state. “Of course,” one Democratic senator said when asked whether the party worries about El-Sayed losing in November. “Elissa Slotkin won by 19,000 votes against the same opponent. He’s pretty well-established, there’s not a divisive primary on the Republican side, and there are some really tough issues.” Strategists who support Stevens and McMorrow said that as the state party held its convention this month, the Democratic chatter shifted from an expectation that Stevens or McMorrow would prevail to fretting that El-Sayed could win. An Emerson poll showed El-Sayed jumping into a first-place tie with McMorrow; the spiking unpopularity of AIPAC has complicated its expected involvement on behalf of Stevens. Senior Democrats still see Stevens as the best bet against Rogers and see her as viable in the primary via her base of support in the Detroit area. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., is backing Stevens because of her support with labor and Black voters, but also because she “will focus on talking to everyone in a state like that. Not just your base.” “That’s my concern in a primary like that. In a swing state, it is the moderate over the progressive that wins,” Cortez Masto, a former campaign committee chair, told Semafor. Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith, who met with both the “really skilled” El-Sayed and McMorrow, said she’s heard from colleagues concerned about El-Sayed’s electoral prospects. But she urged that other Democrats’ predictions “be taken with a grain of salt,” pointing to the neutrality of Michigan’s senators. Sanders endorsed El-Sayed on the first day of his campaign and will rally with him on May 3. The Vermont independent told Semafor that voters “want men and women who have the guts to stand up and take on big money and interests.” “He has a good chance to win the primary and an excellent chance to win the election,” Sanders added. McMorrow, who built a large online following after a viral 2022 speech, got the harshest social media blowback of her career after comparing left-wing commentator Hasan Piker (an El-Sayed fan) to antisemitic white nationalist Nick Fuentes. She also has the most support among sitting senators and could bridge the divide between El-Sayed and Stevens. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said all three candidates are “strong” but that “she’s the strongest. I think she gives us the best chance to win.” “I’m not here to criticize any of the Democrats. I’m for Mallory because she has built a strong grassroots campaign based on her demonstrated excellence as a fighter,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Know More El-Sayed’s been touted as progressives’ next big thing since his longshot 2018 bid for governor. He was followed by a documentary film crew and drew comparisons to Barack Obama; Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., backed him early. At age 35, he lost the nomination but grabbed 30% of the vote and stayed visible in the party. “I always thought he’d be competitive. So that’s not surprising to me at all,” said retiring Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., of El-Sayed’s success so far. He and Slotkin both said they are staying out of the primary. Democrats backing Stevens and McMorrow believe that El-Sayed has taken the wrong lessons from successful progressives. His supporters touted video of Stevens being booed at the convention, only to watch other Democrats openly resent the disruption — likening it to activists on the left who refused to vote for Democratic nominees in 2016 and 2024. In a Monday video, El-Sayed sent his camp a message by criticizing the “unkind and unnecessary” jeering. El-Sayed’s critics believe there’s time to define him as a risky choice. Rep. Hillary Scholten, D-Mich., who is backing Stevens, said all three candidates are qualified, but dinged El-Sayed for campaigning with Piker and said “we are continuing to see consistent polling that suggests that Haley is the only one that can win in a general election.” El-Sayed believes he’s underestimated and ignored by Washington Democrats. He starts speeches with a concise affordability message, saying he wants “money out of politics and money in your pocket” — and his campaign believes that’s what’s helping him. “There has been an increasing gap between what DC assumes is electable and what voters are actually responding to,” said El-Sayed spokesperson Roxie Richner. “To both energize the base and win back the voters Dems have lost, we need an authentic candidate with a clear vision for the future.” Still, Republicans have trouble containing their glee about running against El-Sayed. Alyssa Brouillet, a Rogers spokesperson, said his success is “further proof that the far left is no longer the fringe of the Democrat Party; it is the Democrat Party.” National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesperson Samantha Cantrell said “El-Sayed’s radical wing of the Democrat Party is taking over in Michigan,” dismissing Stevens and McMorrow as “wannabes.” “In 2024, Donald Trump won Michigan, and those same voters are not interested, I believe, in America-hating zealots. And more and more, that’s who the Democrat Party is attracted to,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Former Rep. Andy Levin, D-Mich., who is supporting El-Sayed, said tying him to Piker, whom Republicans call antisemitic, “is all a distraction and an effort to undermine a campaign” that’s picking up steam. “He’s an Egyptian American. If he’s a Jewish American, everyone would be pinching his cheek and saying, ‘look at this young man,’” Levin said. Room for Disagreement Some Democrats are still smarting over the early (and subtle) preference the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had for Stevens. In an interview, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a former DSCC chair whose committee waded into several primaries, told Semafor that “it was a mistake for the DS to weigh in early on on behalf of Stevens.” A spokeswoman said the “DSCC’s strategy is guided by one goal: winning a Democratic Senate majority.” Burgess, Nicholas and David’s View It wasn’t too long ago that the most progressive candidate in a Democratic primary like this would never take off; El-Sayed’s rise is proof that, on US-Israel relations at a minimum, the party’s norm has shifted. And if El-Sayed prevails, it will show Democratic voters are done being instructed by their leaders. Both Stevens and McMorrow have more institutional support, although from different wings of the party. An El-Sayed nomination will also probably make the general election more expensive and more competitive. Before Republicans gloat too loudly, though, we’d remind them the primary is three months away — an eternity in politics.
Sen. Susan Collins ‘very likely’ to vote against further Iran war authorization
The News Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday that she believes the US war in Iran will need congressional authorization once it hits a 60-day mark that past legislation established for military conflicts — and she doesn’t think she’d vote for it. “It is very likely that I would vote not to authorize further hostilities,” Collins said at Semafor World Economy in Washington, DC. Democrats are hammering Collins, who is facing a tough reelection campaign this year, for her March vote against a resolution that aimed to restrain US President Donald Trump’s authority for Iran. Collins said she “always wanted this operation to be brief but successful.” “I have said from the very beginning that if the military hostilities in Iran continue to that 60th day, then I believe the War Powers Act is implemented, and the president would need congressional authorization to continue the war in Iran,” Collins said. She also described “another red line”: deploying ground troops in Iran, “except in extraordinary circumstances” like the recent US rescue operations for two downed airmen. She said that such a move would also require congressional authorization. Other Republican senators who spoke at Semafor World Economy, including Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla, and Todd Young, R-Ind., described the 1973 war-powers legislation as a significant date for Congress. The US began striking Iran on Feb. 28 this year, meaning the 60-day threshold arrives April 29. Know More Collins, first elected to the Senate in 1996, chairs the chamber’s powerful appropriations committee. She repeatedly touted her statute on the committee on Thursday, including the ability to fund projects in Maine. The frontrunner in the Democratic primary, veteran-turned-oyster farmer Graham Platner, recently noted her influence on the committee. At a campaign event, Platner said he would also seek to be on the appropriations committee “to make sure that we can bring money into a small, rural state.” He added: “Susan Collins has done that; I don’t believe that she’s done that nearly to the extent she could.” On Thursday, Collins suggested Platner was making the case for her own reelection. “I was pleased that he acknowledged how important my seniority and power are to the state of Maine, so I was glad to hear him say that,” she said. “It’s hard for a freshman to get on the appropriations committee,” she added. “But even if a freshman can get on the appropriations committee, it takes a very long time to work your way up.”
GOP Sen. Todd Young says time to wrap up Iran war
The News Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young said Thursday it was “time to wrap it as quickly as we can” regarding the war in Iran. Speaking at Semafor World Economy, Young, who has at times bucked the Trump administration on foreign policy, said it was still important to win the war, which he defined as reopening the Strait of Hormuz and securing Iran’s supply of uranium. Looming over many lawmakers too is the approaching 60-day threshold for congressional authorization for military force outlined in the War Powers Act. Young said he’d “prefer not to wait until the very end to get clarity as to what comes next.” The 60-day mark, he said, would be an “opportunity for us to articulate any concerns with the plan and tradeoffs and related things.” He added he would be willing to work with the Trump administration if formal congressional authorization were required for the war. And when the Trump administration came to Congress to fund the war, Young said the “large round numbers” would still receive scrutiny from the legislative branch, and prior to taking a vote on a funding package, lawmakers would use their leverage over the administration. “I think there will be some of our members who will insist on prior to any vote on a supplemental, resolving this issue around future plans or maybe even a formal authorization,” he said. Know More Young, who didn’t endorse Trump during the 2024 primary, said he now had a “really positive” relationship with the president — and his skepticism of Trump earned him respect at times. “The president has a certain respect — maybe sometimes a grudging respect — but a certain respect for people who don’t bend the knee consistently, who articulate uncomfortable truths, because there aren’t many around him, and I think people underestimate how the president respects that,” he said.
Sen. Warner says job disruptions from AI are a 'hair on fire' moment
The News Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said Thursday that he is still grappling with the massive changes coming with AI disruption, including what he described as severe job dislocations and a “holy heck moment” of cybersecurity issues. Warner, speaking at Semafor World Economy in Washington, DC, described his evolution on AI as going from “interested” to “concerned” to “think it’s a big thing” to “oh my gosh” to, now, “literally, hair on fire, cannot believe what I think is going to be dislocation.” Warner, a telecommunications investor before he entered politics, said he was an “AI optimist” in the long haul. But in the short-term, “Boy, oh boy,” he said, predicting that recent college graduates would face an unemployment rate of 30% in the next two years. He said that most CEOs are publicly downplaying the scale of job losses that they are privately telling him about. He said the business leaders were worried the news would “freak people out.” Warner suggested that students — and their parents — should be paying close attention to the new economic landscape and what they’re getting out of traditional college education. “One of the things I throw out, at least to provoke a response, is: Maybe we ought to be paying all those freshmen in college to switch from being a business major to being a nurse or in health care fields,” he said. “I think we’re going to need a pretty radical transformation. And if we simply do a traditional government training program, we’re going to screw it up.” He also pointed to the cybersecurity issues stemming from Anthropic’s Mythos model, which the company has paused on releasing in order to give the world more time to shore up its cyberdefenses. “I think there’s security issues with what’s happened with Mythos, the ability for that tool to literally break into almost any of our most secure systems. That’s a ‘holy heck’ moment,” he said. Know More Last month, Warner blasted legislation backed by fellow Democratic legislators Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that would issue a moratorium on all AI data center construction until “strong national safeguards” are in place. “That would be idiocy,” Warner said at an AI summit hosted by Axios. “I probably shouldn’t use that term,” Warner said Thursday, reiterating his opposition to their proposal. “I don’t think it’s going to solve [the issue],” he continued. “The idea that we can stop this innovation — the idea that we can put the genie back in the bottle — that is not going to happen. Because these tools are already unleashed into the world.”
GOP Sen. Lankford says Trump can’t fire Jerome Powell
The News Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Lankford said Thursday he believed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell couldn’t be fired by President Donald Trump. “No, I don’t think he’s going to be fired or that he could be at that point,” said Lankford. Trump has pressured Powell to lower interest rates and has threatened to fire Powell if he didn’t depart from the job. US Attorney Jeanine Pirro has spearheaded an investigation into Fed renovations during Powell’s tenure, frustrating some GOP senators, one of whom has vowed to block Trump’s new Fed nominee Kevin Warsh until the investigation was dropped. But Lankford was confident the Pirro-led investigation would soon be wrapped up. “I think the investigation will come to a conclusion in the next couple weeks,” he said. Despite Trump’s repeated calls for senators to kill the filibuster, Lankford said, “I do not think we should kill the filibuster.” “It literally forces one place in government where both sides have to be grown ups and talk to each other,” he added. Lankford also said Senate Republicans had work to do between now and midterm elections in November to keep their majority. Running on the tax cuts passed last year might not be enough, he said, quipping that “elections are in November, taxes are in April.” “I don’t think people are thinking about taxes once they get to November. They’re thinking about it now and thinking maybe it’s better. But we’ve still got to be able to show our work for the rest of the year.” Know More Lankford believed there would be congressional authorization needed if there was “long-term continuance” and the war in Iran went past the 60-day clock for military action outlined in the War Powers Act. “I think everyone is ready for it to wrap up, but the challenge is Iran has been attacking us for 47 years,” he said.
Democrats wield power on national security votes
The News Democrats are in an unusual situation: Republicans need their votes on two key national security matters. That has Democrats weighing how to use their ample leverage on expiring surveillance powers and Iran funding. On Thursday, the House will once again try to pass the 18-month FISA extension over the opposition of conservatives to the warrantless surveillance powers, likely requiring Democratic votes. Republicans will need more assistance in the Senate. The Trump administration seems to recognize the need for bipartisan outreach on defense funding, inviting Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Chris Coons, D-Del., for a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday. While Coons seems open to that discussion, he said extending FISA is harder for him given the lack of engagement from the administration. Still, one Senate Democrat predicted there will be 60 votes for it next week given the national security importance. Know More Democrats are likely to fracture over the FISA vote in the Senate. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s unsure how the vote would play out in the upper chamber but “it would have been really productive” if the administration had better explained the reforms from 2024 and made its position clear earlier. “I barely voted for it last time on the promise of a lot of reform. I am not confident that the current FBI director and Department of Justice leadership is fully implementing those reforms,” Coons said. “I will have a hard time bringing myself to support it, if I’ve had nothing, no briefing.” Still, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., told Semafor she expects to support extending FISA into next year, while Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., noted he usually supports it. But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has long taken issue with the surveillance powers, said he’s going to “fight like hell to get protection for the innocent Americans whose information is sucked up in these searches.” When it comes to Iran war funding, Republicans have decided, for now, to leave out Pentagon spending from a party-line spending bill that will focus instead on immigration enforcement funding. Unless the party pivots on that strategy or tees up yet another party-line bill, that means they’ll need Democratic votes in the Senate — and maybe the House. “I will not vote for a $200 billion supplemental as a backdoor way of authorizing the war. If what we’re actually talking about is restocking munitions … I’m open to the conversation,” Coons said. He added he was “encouraged” by the meeting this week but warned the Trump administration not to stonewall him. Shaheen said she’s had no engagement with the administration about the forthcoming request. And top Democrats are hardening their opposition. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in line to be Democrats’ No. 2 leader next year, called himself a “hard no” on the war supplemental. “It’s hard for them to argue this is a war that doesn’t need authorization, but it is a war that needs funding,” Schatz told Semafor. “I think if they got a war authorized, they would get more funded, but it’s hard to fund a war if it’s not authorized.”
Democrats wield power on national security votes
The News Democrats are in an unusual situation: Republicans need their votes on two key national security matters. That has Democrats weighing how to use their ample leverage on expiring surveillance powers and Iran funding. On Thursday, the House will once again try to pass the 18-month FISA extension over the opposition of conservatives to the warrantless surveillance powers, likely requiring Democratic votes. Republicans will need more assistance in the Senate. The Trump administration seems to recognize the need for bipartisan outreach on defense funding, inviting Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Chris Coons, D-Del., for a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday. While Coons seems open to that discussion, he said extending FISA is harder for him given the lack of engagement from the administration. Still, one Senate Democrat predicted there will be 60 votes for it next week given the national security importance. Know More Democrats are likely to fracture over the FISA vote in the Senate. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s unsure how the vote would play out in the upper chamber but “it would have been really productive” if the administration had better explained the reforms from 2024 and made its position clear earlier. “I barely voted for it last time on the promise of a lot of reform. I am not confident that the current FBI director and Department of Justice leadership is fully implementing those reforms,” Coons said. “I will have a hard time bringing myself to support it, if I’ve had nothing, no briefing.” Still, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., told Semafor she expects to support extending FISA into next year, while Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., noted he usually supports it. But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has long taken issue with the surveillance powers, said he’s going to “fight like hell to get protection for the innocent Americans whose information is sucked up in these searches.” When it comes to Iran war funding, Republicans have decided, for now, to leave out Pentagon spending from a party-line spending bill that will focus instead on immigration enforcement funding. Unless the party pivots on that strategy or tees up yet another party-line bill, that means they’ll need Democratic votes in the Senate — and maybe the House. “I will not vote for a $200 billion supplemental as a backdoor way of authorizing the war. If what we’re actually talking about is restocking munitions … I’m open to the conversation,” Coons said. He added he was “encouraged” by the meeting this week but warned the Trump administration not to stonewall him. Shaheen said she’s had no engagement with the administration about the forthcoming request. And top Democrats are hardening their opposition. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in line to be Democrats’ No. 2 leader next year, called himself a “hard no” on the war supplemental. “It’s hard for them to argue this is a war that doesn’t need authorization, but it is a war that needs funding,” Schatz told Semafor. “I think if they got a war authorized, they would get more funded, but it’s hard to fund a war if it’s not authorized.”
Democrats wield power on national security votes
The News Democrats are in an unusual situation: Republicans need their votes on two key national security matters. That has Democrats weighing how to use their ample leverage on expiring surveillance powers and Iran funding. On Thursday, the House will once again try to pass the 18-month FISA extension over the opposition of conservatives to the warrantless surveillance powers, likely requiring Democratic votes. Republicans will need more assistance in the Senate. The Trump administration seems to recognize the need for bipartisan outreach on defense funding, inviting Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Chris Coons, D-Del., for a meeting with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday. While Coons seems open to that discussion, he said extending FISA is harder for him given the lack of engagement from the administration. Still, one Senate Democrat predicted there will be 60 votes for it next week given the national security importance. Know More Democrats are likely to fracture over the FISA vote in the Senate. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he’s unsure how the vote would play out in the upper chamber but “it would have been really productive” if the administration had better explained the reforms from 2024 and made its position clear earlier. “I barely voted for it last time on the promise of a lot of reform. I am not confident that the current FBI director and Department of Justice leadership is fully implementing those reforms,” Coons said. “I will have a hard time bringing myself to support it, if I’ve had nothing, no briefing.” Still, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., told Semafor she expects to support extending FISA into next year, while Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., noted he usually supports it. But Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has long taken issue with the surveillance powers, said he’s going to “fight like hell to get protection for the innocent Americans whose information is sucked up in these searches.” When it comes to Iran war funding, Republicans have decided, for now, to leave out Pentagon spending from a party-line spending bill that will focus instead on immigration enforcement funding. Unless the party pivots on that strategy or tees up yet another party-line bill, that means they’ll need Democratic votes in the Senate — and maybe the House. “I will not vote for a $200 billion supplemental as a backdoor way of authorizing the war. If what we’re actually talking about is restocking munitions … I’m open to the conversation,” Coons said. He added he was “encouraged” by the meeting this week but warned the Trump administration not to stonewall him. Shaheen said she’s had no engagement with the administration about the forthcoming request. And top Democrats are hardening their opposition. Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, in line to be Democrats’ No. 2 leader next year, called himself a “hard no” on the war supplemental. “It’s hard for them to argue this is a war that doesn’t need authorization, but it is a war that needs funding,” Schatz told Semafor. “I think if they got a war authorized, they would get more funded, but it’s hard to fund a war if it’s not authorized.”
Republican senator floats second housing bill amid rift with House
The News With the House and Senate at odds over housing affordability legislation, Sen. Pete Ricketts pitched a potential path forward Wednesday: pass the Senate’s bill, then enact the House’s changes in a subsequent measure. “A normal process might involve doing a conference report,” the Nebraska Republican said at Semafor World Economy in Washington, DC. That’s what lawmakers in the lower chamber have been calling for. “Another alternative could be that the House passes our bill, and then we address some of the issues the House has in a different bill,” Ricketts said. “I think that there’s some feedback we’ve gotten on some of the things like the institutional investors that we could pick up in a further iteration.” The White House has signaled it supports the bill, which includes the president’s proposed ban on institutional investors in housing. But that language also includes a controversial provision that requires institutional investors to sell any rental properties they build to individuals within seven years, which some industry groups have warned could deplete supply. Already-skeptical House Republicans plus Trump’s own Treasury Department have privately pushed back on the language. “Let’s not let the perfect become the enemy of the good here; let’s get something done,” Ricketts continued. “If we have to make adjustments to it, we can work on trying to figure out maybe another bill that would come along later this year to kind of fix those things.” Know More Also on Wednesday, Ricketts pushed back on concerns that artificial intelligence could make the US financial system more vulnerable to cyber attacks. “If you think about artificial intelligence being able to be used to do hacking, it can also be used for anti-hacking,” Ricketts said. “There’s always been people who are willing to use it for malicious purposes, but we’ve also been able to find counter-technologies for those.”
The fizzling of Piker-gate shows cancel culture may be over for campaigns
David’s view As I watched Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear tell Rev. Al Sharpton how honored he was to attend Sharpton’s recent conference, my mind turned to a topic I’d kept it safely away from: the Democrats’ fight over Hasan Piker. Finished for now, impaled on Ezra Klein’s pen, the drama over a popular left-wing Twitch streamer started with a March 19 op-ed from leaders of Third Way, the centrist Democratic think tank. In their column, Jonathan Cowan and Lily Cohen told their party that “Hasan Piker and his fellow Jew-haters belong” on the other side of a bright line. Five days later, Michigan Democratic Senate hopeful Abdul El-Sayed announced a rally with Piker to support his campaign. Within 48 hours, both of El-Sayed’s primary opponents had condemned Piker; state Sen. Mallory McMorrow said the streamer “says things that are misogynistic and antisemitic, and said that the United States deserved 9/11.” The rally went ahead; El-Sayed told Politico that he thought people were over “cancel culture.” A version of this same mini-controversy played out more than 20 years ago — with Sharpton. He ran for Senate in 1992; Democrats initially refused to give him a forum, citing his links to a fringe far-left party and questioning “whether Al Sharpton is even a Democrat.” Sharpton talked his way into the race anyway, then a 1997 campaign for mayor, and then a 2004 presidential bid, which some Democrats also said the party shouldn’t have tolerated. “A true Democratic insurgent should compare Mr. Sharpton to [Pat] Robertson and [Jerry] Falwell,” wrote Peter Beinart, the editor of The New Republic. “Before the Democrats can truly challenge the GOP, they have to challenge themselves.” Piker isn’t running for office. But like the young Sharpton, he’s trying to steer the Democratic Party’s direction by encouraging people who agree with him to get involved with it. And no matter how much a party or candidate might like to try, voters can’t be controlled when it comes to what they watch and listen to. And many voters are putting up with opinions, language, and content that used to be campaign-killers. During Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and first term, he could start a whole news cycle with a retweet of some far-right account. Democrats would pile on because they wanted to beat him and genuinely found the post to be offensive. Republicans would distance themselves. That rarely happens anymore. (One notable exception: Trump’s sharing of an image that portrayed him as the son of God, which got some genuine Republican outrage.) Our polity simply couldn’t contain two contradictory ideas — that Trump would say whatever he wanted, and that offensive speech must be strictly policed. The backlash to censorious liberalism has been a tremendous success, and the decline of traditional media has helped. Republicans would still like jokes to hurt candidates, though. The Third Way/Piker fight gave them a hook to ask if other Democrats would reject Piker. When the host said that Sen. Jon Ossoff was one of his top picks for a 2028 presidential nominee, the NRSC demanded that the Georgia Democrat “immediately condemn Piker.” Ossoff ignored that, and I see no evidence that the people of Savannah or Marietta care that their senator, who has never appeared on Piker’s show, has a fan in a left-wing commentator who’s rooting for Hamas. Ordinary people are simply not policing this stuff. Did Third Way’s challenge to Democrats over Piker backfire? Cowan told me, in a statement, that the goal was warning Democrats that if they embraced Piker, they’d be tagged with his radicalism, and that the gambit worked. “Had Third Way not focused a spotlight on Piker, exposing the depth and breadth of his bigotry, mainstream Democrats might well have campaigned with him, just like El-Sayed,” he said. “Now they’ll stay away.” Michigan primary voters, however, aren’t exactly staying away from El-Sayed, who’s running as a progressive insurgent ready to grab attention and win arguments. His campaign told me that it saw a “29% increase in volunteer sign ups, and a 221% increase in dollars raised via our website and social media” once people started talking about the Piker stop. Notable Slate’s Luke Winkie finds that Maine Democrats have forgiven (or moved on from) Platner’s controversies, and wonders why online liberals haven’t. They may be the last people “sizing up the ethical makeup of our fellow man by using the worst thing they’ve ever said as the measuring stick.”