Latest news with #POLITICO
Politico
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Despite ranked-choice voting, Adrienne Adams declines to back rivals in NYC mayor's race
NEW YORK — Mayoral candidate Adrienne Adams declined Thursday to say who she voted for, even as her opponents — and chief supporter — have begun to capitalize on the city's ranked-choice voting system in their collective quest to block Andrew Cuomo's return to power. 'I voted for me and I voted for my community,' the City Council speaker said after leaving her polling station in the Jamaica section of Queens on the sixth day of early voting ahead of the June 24 Democratic primary. Asked who else she ranked on her ballot, Adams replied, 'Well, I still believe in the secrecy of the ballot, and I voted for me and my community.' She specifically declined to say whether she voted for democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani — the first choice for the Working Families Party, which endorsed Adams as part of a four-person slate intended to oppose Cuomo. The secrecy from Adams stands in contrast to the recent — albeit late — cross endorsements candidates and top surrogates are making to blunt Cuomo's rise. The former governor, a household name, is beating the lesser-known Adams among Black New Yorkers, even though she'd be New York City's first Black female mayor. Mamdani and Brad Lander endorsed one another last week — likely a bigger benefit to Mamdani if he outpaces Lander as is expected, though the city comptroller is having a strong close to his campaign season. Some people on Adams' team were hoping she'd back her rivals. To that end, her aides had prepared a statement asserting her support for the Working Families Party's slate, but internal disagreements blocked it from being released, someone with knowledge of the matter told POLITICO. That person was granted anonymity to freely discuss private campaign strategy. Adams' chief endorser, New York State Attorney General Letitia James, announced support for Lander, Mamdani and Myrie as her second, third and fourth picks Saturday in a rebuke to Cuomo, her political nemesis. New Yorkers can select up to five candidates, in order of preference, when they head to the polls Tuesday in the city's relatively new ranked-choice voting system. Adams entered the race late, with low name recognition and insufficient funds to take on the former governor. A low-profile politician who would be New York City's first female mayor, she was urged into the race by James, who wants to see Cuomo defeated but didn't want to run for the job. A report from James' office four years ago substantiated allegations Cuomo sexually harassed female staffers, leading to his resignation. He denies the claims. Adams is viewed by political insiders as a candidate with a lot of potential for growth, but has yet to meet that expectation in a race dominated by Cuomo and Mamdani, the democratic socialist who routinely polls second. Where Cuomo enjoys popularity in the Council speaker's Queens district of older Black homeowners, Mamdani excites a younger, wealthier and whiter crowd. On the campaign trail, Adams has criticized both candidates, delivering a searing rebuke of Cuomo's Covid policies in a speech about her deceased father and questioning Mamdani's inexperience on the debate stage. She also released a since-deleted social media post that slammed the state lawmaker's vow to abolish ICE. Cuomo has not told his supporters to rank anyone else on their ballots, including state Sen. Jessica Ramos — who broke with the Working Families Party and endorsed him. Defeating Cuomo on his political turf — which overlaps with her own — was always going to be a challenge for the Council speaker, but her broader appeal made her an attractive choice for voters seeking an experienced alternative to Cuomo. She's routinely polling a distant fourth.
Politico
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
Trump to make a decision on Iran within two weeks
President Donald Trump has set a two week deadline to decide if the United States will strike Iran. 'Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place in the near future, I will make my decision of whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday, reading a statement from the president to reporters. Leavitt said Trump would prefer a diplomatic solution, but the president — in consultation with the National Security Council — is weighing U.S. military intervention to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to a recent POLITICO report. The U.S. is the only country with the military capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear program. 'Iran has all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,' Leavitt said. 'All they need is a decision from the supreme leader to do that, and it would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would of course pose an existential threat not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the entire world.' The comments came at the end of a week of heightened tension in the decades-long conflict between Israel and Iran. As Iran and Israel lobbed rockets at each other, Trump left the Group of Seven conference early and has convened multiple meetings in the Situation Room. The conflict has divided Trump's coalition, driving a rift between an isolationist faction and hawks who have long sought to hobble Iran. Leavitt said Trump has long maintained his position that the U.S. should interfere to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and quoted his comments on the subject from more than a decade ago. 'The president has made it clear he always wants to pursue diplomacy, but believe me, the president is unafraid to use strength as necessary,' Leavitt said. 'And Iran and the entire world should know that the United States military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in the world, and we have capabilities that no other country on this planet possesses.' Leavitt declined to answer whether the president wanted regime change in Iran, which has been a goal of hawks like Sen. Lindsey Graham and a red line for MAGA isolationists.
Politico
16 hours ago
- Business
- Politico
‘Throwing us off a cliff': Megabill could derail hundreds of planned clean energy projects
House and Senate Republicans are divided over how hard a blow their megabill should strike against the clean energy tax credits at the heart of Joe Biden's climate law. Hundreds of projects — overwhelmingly in Republican districts — hang in the balance. An analysis by POLITICO identified 794 wind farms, solar plants, battery storage facilities and other clean electricity generation projects that have not yet begun construction and could be at risk of losing two crucial tax breaks if the House prevails in rolling back Democrats' 2022 climate law. A competing proposal from the Senate Finance Committee would make a less aggressive attack on the law's incentives — but even then, hundreds of those projects could still lose all or part of the tax breaks if they don't move fast enough to start construction. The ultimate shape of the Republicans' 'big beautiful bill' stands to have a major impact on the wave of clean energy projects that Democrats' Inflation Reduction Act helped launch across the country, with implications for jobs, climate change and the United States' ability to meet the power demands of technologies such as artificial intelligence. Clean energy makes up the majority of new power capacity expected to be added to the nation's electric grid during the next five years, according to a POLITICO analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Advocates for solar power, hydrogen and other forms of clean energy are blitzing Capitol Hill in hopes of further relaxing the Senate language, which could allow more projects to take advantage of the Biden-era tax incentives than what House lawmakers offered. But they are facing a fight from budget hawks worried about the tax credits' impact on the deficit — as well as hardcore supporters of President Donald Trump's campaign promise to dismantle Biden's climate legacy. The House's version of the megabill, which the chamber passed last month, aims to fulfill Trump's pledge by limiting or removing most of the IRA's clean energy tax credits. Those include two tax breaks that are especially critical for the projects examined in POLITICO's analysis, known as the clean electricity investment and production tax credits. The House bill would require projects generating clean electricity to begin construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment to benefit from the tax credits. That deadline would hit shortly after Labor Day if Republicans meet their goal of passing the bill by July 4. It would also require that projects be placed into service by the end of 2028 to claim the two tax breaks. The House language would functionally end the credits for many planned projects, clean energy advocates and companies argued. 'I have a few projects that may survive, but most of them in my pipeline need the [investment tax credit], and in 60 days, they can't get up and running,' said Kay Aikin, founder of Dynamic Grid, a Maine-based energy systems company. 'It's basically throwing us off a cliff,' she said. POLITICO used data from the EIA and the policy research firm Atlas Public Policy to identify clean electricity generation projects — such as a solar power plant in southeast Georgia and a wind power facility in Iowa — that had not started construction as of April 30. The data tracks all existing and proposed electricity projects that would produce at least 1 megawatt of maximum power output, excluding residential solar installations. POLITICO's analysis shows that the facilities that the two tax credits are intended to support would have a maximum power-generating capacity of 156,700 megawatts, as determined by the manufacturer. While day-to-day electricity generation is often less than a plant's maximum output, that capacity is enough to meet the needs of at least 27.5 million homes for one year, according to Atlas. Electricity demand is only going up as more data centers come online and as additional manufacturing plants connect to the grid. Total electricity demand among many utilities is projected to increase by 22 percent from 2023 to 2035, according to an analysis by RMI, a clean energy think tank. It's unclear how many projects could survive without the support offered by the credits. Even so, 'now is not the time to be taking new generation off the grid, and especially new cheap generation off the grid,' said Tom Taylor, senior policy analyst for Atlas, speaking of renewable energy. Roughly three-quarters of clean electricity generation facilities not yet under construction would be in Republican districts, according to POLITICO's analysis of Atlas data. Should the House language become law as written, projects would have roughly two months to begin construction — a complex and potentially expensive requirement that they could meet by either starting physical work or paying a portion of a project's total cost. Aside from the construction requirements, some of the projects could be derailed by the House bill's mandate that they also begin operating by the end of 2028. Even if all 794 projects can successfully start construction within 60 days of the law being passed, 50 of them do not now plan to begin operations until 2029 or later, according to POLITICO's analysis of data from Atlas and the EIA. 'The impact is certainly much greater than what these numbers would show,' Taylor said, noting that uncertainty surrounding the tax credits and Trump's tariffs might delay a project from announcing plans. The House bill would offer leeway to one type of clean energy technology: Nuclear facilities would not have to begin construction until the end of 2028, rather than the 60-day deadline that solar, wind and battery projects would need to meet. But few current projects would seem immediately poised to benefit from that generous timeline. As of April 30, EIA's data shows just a single nuclear project in the planning stage, and it has yet to receive regulatory approval, according to the agency. The figures highlight the wide scope and potential impact of House Republicans' plans, which went further than some earlier GOP proposals for sunsetting the credits. 'The 60-day threshold is essentially a repeal,' said Sean Gallagher, senior vice president of policy at the Solar Energy Industries Association. 'It starts 60 days after the bill is signed, and it stops projects in their tracks.' Gallagher said the House's requirement that projects be 'placed in service' by Dec. 31, 2028 — not just begin construction by then — is also 'a real problem.' 'The date that a project is actually placed in service is in many ways outside of the control of the developer, because you've got things like interconnection delays or permitting delays,' he said. Some GOP senators have acknowledged the challenge of the House-passed language. 'The start date is a big deal,' Utah Sen. John Curtis said at POLITICO's Energy Summit last week. 'If I'm a bank and there's a date here that says 'if your project isn't done by this date,' the bank is not likely going to lend on that,' Curtis said, noting that supply chain problems, natural disasters and other factors could force delays. The Senate Finance Committee's portion of the Republicans' budget reconciliation bill, released this week, would pare back some of House lawmakers' deep cuts by eliminating the 60-day construction timeline and the December 2028 deadline for projects to be placed in service. It would retain the credits for certain sources, such as nuclear, geothermal, hydropower or energy storage. But the Senate language would still single out wind and solar energy for harsher treatment. Wind and solar projects would need to begin construction by the end of this year to receive the full credit — and would have to start construction before 2028 to claim it at all. Just under 80 percent of the 794 clean energy generation plants in the queue include wind and solar projects. Of these 626 projects, at least 57 reported an expected operational date by the end of the year, meaning they would be guaranteed to receive the full value of the credits, should they pursue them. That leaves as many as 569 wind and solar initiatives facing questions about whether they would lose all or part of the tax credits under the Senate proposal. 'These changes are a minor improvement from the House bill, but are a major disappointment for the industry,' said Heather Cooper, a partner focused on tax issues for energy clients at the law firm McDermott Will and Emery. Jason Grumet, head of the American Clean Power Association, a clean power trade group, added that the abruptness of the credits being revoked under the Senate text would strand U.S. investments. 'You're basically encouraging a cliff, with people racing to get projects that are underway [or] sped up so that they don't wind up on the wrong side of that cliff,' he said, adding that it would affect companies differently depending on their business strategies and financing. House conservative hardliners who pushed for their chamber's restrictions say they are designed to limit the reach of the subsidies, while meeting Trump's promise to claw back what he calls the 'Green New Scam.' Trump administration officials and some congressional Republicans also argue that the government should not support 'intermittent' electricity such as wind and solar that they maintain hurts the grid. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), the policy chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X early Monday that the 'IRA needs to be terminated as President Trump said.' The Freedom Caucus said earlier this month that its members would 'not accept' any Senate attempts to water down or walk back the House's clean energy rollbacks. On Monday, Roy said he would not vote in favor of the Senate language as written. Other proponents of the House's approach are urging GOP senators to terminate projects after 2028 by making the tax breaks hinge on whether the power source is placed in service by then. 'Green New Deal subsidies that don't terminate by 2028 will effectively become permanent,' Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee (R-Utah) wrote Wednesday on X, calling for Congress to set an end date. Already, the prospect of either chamber's text becoming law is weighing on project developers, some of whom are reevaluating and reconfiguring their plans to try to meet the proposed language — even if they remain hopeful that GOP senators will make the provisions more workable. 'Ultimately, developers are still going to be scrambling for the next six months to do whatever they can to put as many projects in the pipeline as possible before the end of the year,' said Cooper. The scramble would include calling every equipment supplier and reaching out to investors to look into cash sources, she said. Under existing tax law, projects can meet certain tests to qualify as beginning construction, including by taking steps beyond directly putting shovels in the ground. Some of those tests benefit larger developers or are capital intensive. The most common metric is a 'safe harbor' in which a project developer spends 5 percent of the project's total costs, while another test involves conducting either on- or off-site physical work on a project. But each option comes with practical challenges that could further narrow the number of developers that can qualify for the credits, according to tax experts and clean energy advocates. For Aikin of Dynamic Grid, the House-passed language is a troubling prospect for her business. 'We will move projects forward, and then nothing will happen. It will be just a desert,' she told POLITICO. Aikin said lawmakers should provide a 'glide path' for the credits, or else the future is uncertain. 'The ITC has been around since 2005,' she said. 'Republican, Democratic. It's always been a bipartisan program, and now, all bets are off.'
Politico
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
The Ukrainian official Washington loves to hate
Amid the pitched political battles that have engulfed Washington over Ukraine, there is one rare point of bipartisan consensus: Everyone has had it with Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The second most powerful man in Ukraine, Yermak has been a particularly frustrating interlocutor for the Trump administration, according to 10 people familiar with his interactions. Yermak has made regular trips to Washington since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and has acted as an intermediary to Ukraine's president. But many in Washington have found Yermak to be uninformed about U.S. politics, abrasive and overly demanding with U.S. officials — and generally unable to navigate the inner workings of the Washington establishment on Capitol Hill. Some also worry he has not accurately conveyed U.S. positions to the leadership back in Ukraine. POLITICO spoke to 14 people for this story, including congressional aides, former U.S. and Ukrainian officials and others informed of Yermak's interactions in Washington. Most of those interviewed were granted anonymity to speak candidly about sensitive diplomatic matters. One of the people familiar with Yermak's interactions with the Trump administration described him as a 'bipartisan irritator.' Yermak's behavior, many fear, is increasingly threatening the already fraught relationship between Ukraine and the Trump administration at a critical juncture with Kyiv reliant on U.S. support to defend against Russia's ongoing attacks. President Donald Trump has largely been deferential to Russian President Vladimir Putin, as he has sought to push Ukraine into peace talks with Moscow. Yermak said in a statement provided by his spokesperson that he was doing everything possible to protect Ukraine's sovereignty and security. 'If that means being considered 'challenging' by others — so be it. I will wait many more hours outside any door if that helps my country and my president's mission,' he said. 'I have no ambition to fully grasp how American politics works — I come to speak about the country I know best: Ukraine.' Zelenskyy missed out on a planned meeting with Trump at the G7 this week, as the U.S. president abandoned the summit early, citing escalating tensions in the Middle East. It is still unclear whether Zelenskyy will get another chance to meet with Trump at the NATO summit next week. Ukraine's plight is expected to feature less prominently at the meeting of the defense alliance compared to recent years, as leaders of the alliance seek to avoid a blow up with Trump. Biden administration officials were also frustrated by Yermak, but they were largely able to compartmentalize their exasperation given the urgency of the war and Washington's pivotal role in bolstering Kyiv's defenses against a Russian onslaught, according to a former senior Biden administration official and three other people familiar with the U.S.-Ukraine relationship at the time. The Trump administration is not feeling as accommodating. On a last minute trip to Washington at the beginning of June, Yermak struggled to secure meetings with senior Trump administration officials, according to five people familiar with the visit, some of whom had direct knowledge of scheduling issues. The Zelenskyy aide came without a clear agenda, and the feedback from those who he did meet with was 'we don't know why he's here,' one of the people familiar with the visit said. A meeting between Yermak and Secretary of State Marco Rubio was canceled at the last minute, the person said. But, they said, Yermak ended up bumping into Rubio, who also serves as acting national security adviser, in the White House. The Ukrainian official posted a photo of the encounter on X, stating that the two discussed the situation on the battlefield and Ukraine's urgent need for air defense. Trump's Chief of Staff Susie Wiles kept Yermak waiting in the White House before canceling, the first person familiar with the visit said, while Vice President JD Vance's office never responded to a request for a meeting. The White House, the State Department and the vice president's office did not respond to requests for comment for this story. Oleksiy Tkachuk, a spokesperson for Yermak, pushed back against the way the trip was described to POLITICO and said that Yermak met with Rubio in his office at the White House and that a meeting with Wiles went ahead as planned but was shorter than initially expected. A White House official said that Wiles did not meet with Yermak during his June visit. Tkachuk said that the principal objective of the trip, in which Yermak was accompanied by a delegation of senior Ukrainian officials, was to conduct a high-level closed briefing for members of the U.S. Senate about the state of the war and the humanitarian situation in Ukraine and to discuss the imposition of further sanctions on Russia. People familiar with Kyiv's relationship with its most important partner characterized Yermak's interactions with both administrations as tense and difficult. They said that Yermak, a former movie producer, still struggles to navigate the corridors of power in Washington almost six years since he rose to become Zelenskyy's closest aide. 'He thought, for example, that the critical minerals agreement was so important for Trump that it would gain Ukraine the security guarantees in exchange for it,' said a second person familiar with the trip, referring to a joint investment fund that is expected to give the U.S. access to Ukraine's vast mineral deposits. The person described the notion as 'ludicrous.' Speaking to allies in private, Yermak has accused Trump administration officials of being Russian assets, according to the first person familiar with the visit, including Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, who has met with Putin four times as Trump seeks to cajole Moscow to the negotiating table. People familiar with the U.S.-Ukraine relationship and Kyiv's backers in Washington fear that the friction wrought by Yermak could quickly spread to undermine his country's standing with its most vital partner. 'There is a serious mistrust with the Zelenskyy administration at this moment. Kyiv's inability to understand U.S. political dynamics is having a caustic effect,' said Ron Wahid, chair of the strategic intelligence firm Arcanum Global. He has served as an unofficial adviser to the Ukraine peace talks. 'Zelenskyy needs to make an earnest effort to reset the relationship, and this will not happen by haphazard trips to Washington without any real agenda,' Wahid said. Yermak's visit wasn't entirely fruitless. He met with lawmakers on Capitol Hill as well as Trump's special envoy to Ukraine, General Keith Kellogg. He also met with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau. The person familiar with Yermak's interactions with the Trump administration said that they were told that Yermak was 'uncharacteristically cooperative and helpful' during the visit. Nonetheless, Yermak was 'extremely frustrated,' with the results, according to the first person informed of the visit. The visit was 'a disaster from the Ukrainian perspective,' said the second person familiar with the trip, who described Yermak as an 'existential liability' for Ukraine. People familiar with Zelenskyy's relationship with Yermak characterized it as a co-dependency. Some have said they fear that the Ukrainian leader will not be persuaded to curb Yermak's influence. The future of U.S. assistance to Ukraine has been thrown into question since the reelection of Trump, who has shown a clear preference for working with world leaders that can flatter and fête him. A person familiar with the administration's thinking described Yermak as acting as if Ukraine was at the 'center of the world,' adding 'it has already affected the relationship.' Trump 'always talks about how their words and actions aren't helpful,' the person said. David Arakhamia, a Ukrainian lawmaker and chair of Zelenskyy's Servant of the People party in the Ukrainian parliament, defended Yermak's recent trip to Washington, describing it as a success. He characterized Yermak as 'essential, not just because he works closely with the president, but because of his contacts, skills and diplomatic experience.' The Trump administration has struggled to broker an end to the war in Ukraine, now in its third year. Trump has put more pressure on Ukraine than Russia to come to the negotiating table, temporarily cutting off military aid and intelligence support in March following a dramatic showdown with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office in February. Zelenskyy also at times frustrated the Biden administration with increasing demands for military aid. On at least one occasion, former President Joe Biden is reported to have lost his temper with Zelenskyy, urging him to show a little more gratitude. The former senior Biden administration official described the relationship with Zelenskyy's lieutenant as 'difficult,' adding that Yermak didn't understand the finer points of diplomacy. Yermak is known to tightly control access to the Ukrainian president, multiple people familiar with the relationship said. During the Biden administration, officials worried about Yermak filtering Zelenskyy's messages to them, and vice versa. But the more sympathetic Biden White House was prepared to go out of its way to work more with Yermak and even to help him to define what he should be asking of Washington and what arguments to make, according to a former Ukrainian cabinet minister. Nonetheless, there were frustrations with Yermak, and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken — as well as the former U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, Bridget Brink — asked more than once for Yermak to not always be physically present when they sat down with the Ukrainian president. A spokesperson for Brink denied that she had ever requested Yermak be excluded from meetings. The spokesperson noted that U.S. officials do not determine who, from a foreign government, gets to attend a meeting. A spokesperson for Blinken did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Their requests were vehemently rejected by Zelenskyy, the former minister added, and confirmed to POLITICO by a former Ukrainian security official. Yermak's behavior may only embolden voices in the Republican party and Trump allies who are keen to see an end to U.S. support for Ukraine, the second person familiar with the visit argued. 'All the people here who want to withdraw and abandon Ukraine are thrilled to have Yermak around,' the person said.
Politico
a day ago
- Politics
- Politico
‘Weak,' ‘whiny' and ‘invisible': Critics of DNC Chair Ken Martin savage his tenure
Four-and-a-half months after the Democratic National Committee chair pledged to focus on fighting Donald Trump, Ken Martin's short tenure leading the organization has been engulfed by bitter infighting. Even longtime party insiders are getting impatient. Interviews with a dozen DNC members revealed deep frustration with Martin and concern about his ability to unify and lead a party trying to recover from massive electoral losses in 2024. One DNC member — who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to speak candidly — described him as looking 'weak and whiny,' and another said he has been 'invisible' and his 'early tenure has been disappointing.' Rahm Emanuel, former President Barack Obama's first White House chief of staff, said the committee is floundering. 'We're in the most serious existential crisis with Donald Trump both at home and abroad — and with the biggest political opportunity in a decade,' Emanuel said. 'And the DNC has spent six months on a firing squad in the circle, and can't even fire a shot out. And Trump's world is a target-rich environment.' Many DNC members and outside Democrats, including Martin's supporters, said they wished the party would just move on from recent internal turmoil and focus instead on mounting an effective fight against Trump. Two influential labor union heads quit their posts at the DNC after disagreements over the party's direction. Gun control activist David Hogg was ousted from the DNC's vice chairman position after he pledged to fund primary challenges against 'ineffective' has infuriated some Democrats by purging a number of party officials from a powerful panel that has enormous sway over the presidential nominating contest. And Martincomplained in a private meeting that intraparty warfare had 'destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to.' Martin and his supporters argue he's focused on the things that matter and will ultimately win elections. They said he has traveled to dozens of states and boosted funding to state parties at the same time that Democrats have overperformed in special elections this year. They maintain the overwhelming majority of DNC members are solidly behind Martin, and that his detractors are a vocal minority. 'I ran and won the race for DNC chair to get the DNC out of DC — because too many people in DC want to point fingers, and play the blame game,' said Martin in a statement to POLITICO. 'They want to win irrelevant arguments, with no strategy involved, but the one strategic thing that makes us relevant is winning elections. I was elected chair to help our party win again, and we are.' But some Democrats worry the DNC is struggling to hold its own coalition together, let alone expand its appeal. They expressed frustration over the DNC's break-up with American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and AFSCME President Lee Saunders — who between them represent millions of members — as the latest sign of a widening gap between party leadership and the labor movement, a once-core part of the Democratic coalition. 'The DNC is weaker than I have ever seen it. … They have shown zero ability to chart a post-24 vision for Democrats,' said a Democratic strategist with close ties to labor unions, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly. The longtime leaders of the teachers and state and local employee unions couldn't 'in good faith continue to rubber-stamp what was going on with the DNC,' the strategist said. Both Weingarten and Saunders expressed concern about Democrats not enlarging their tent in their respective letter and statement about their departures. Weingarten told POLITICO, 'I have said my piece. I want the Democratic Party to work for working families. That's what FDR did, that's what Joe Biden did, and that's what we should expect from the party.' Some Democratic lawmakers have gone public with their complaints that the DNC's infighting has distracted from the party's larger goals. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) grumbled on the social media platform X that he would 'love to have a day go by' without the DNC doing 'something embarrassing & off message.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said on X he wanted 'a party with a big tent and inclusion, not subtraction and pushing people out.' Other Democrats cited what they described as Martin's ham-handed approach to the DNC's influential rules and bylaws committee, which is charged with setting the 2028 presidential primary calendar. Martin purged members of the panel, including Weingarten and Saunders, who had supported Martin's top opponent in the February election for DNC chair. Of the 15 Democrats he took off the panel, 13 of them hadn't voted for Martin, according to an internal record obtained by POLITICO. Martin only reappointed four individuals for the panel who didn't back him in the chair election, according to the documents. Martin's supporters said he deserves to install his own team — as other chairs traditionally have done. And they argued he has actually diluted his own power to give the rest of the party a say by opening up some coveted committee slots to election by DNC members. He has also pledged that 15 at-large DNC positions will be elected by DNC caucuses and councils. Martin's allies said his changes have empowered state and local leaders — and, at times, taken clout away from more Washington-oriented Democrats who are now upset over their loss of power. Pointing to Democrats' overperformance in special elections this year, they said his strategy is showing returns. 'Many people get comfortable with the status quo,' said James Skoufis, a member of the 'People's Cabinet' at the DNC. 'I would argue that the status quo is far riskier than transforming the DNC and, in the process, perhaps ruffling the feathers of some individuals who prefer the status quo.' Jaime Harrison, a former DNC chair, said that the internal strife that Martin is encountering is similar to what past leaders of the party experienced following their elections. 'My perspective is some of this is the normal thing that happens,' he said. 'You have a contentious DNC race and sometimes feelings get a little raw. But then people really start to focus on what's at hand.' Still, Harrison acknowledged, the fissures have at times overshadowed Martin's efforts. 'He's just putting in the work, and the sad part is that most people don't know because we've been focused lately on Democratic primaries and stuff that in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter,' he said. At the top of the list of recent party obsessions: Hogg and his vow to fund primary challenges to sitting Democrats. Martin's allies said Hogg, not the DNC chairman, is to blame for distracting the party. But even some of Martin's supporters have second-guessed his role in the drama, saying he should have forced Hogg out earlier, pointing to the fact that the young activist fundraised off of his fight with party leadership with digital ads that included the tagline, 'The old guard is pissed at me. Fight back,' according to screenshots shared with POLITICO. Other members, meanwhile, felt Martin should have kept Hogg in the fold, arguing it was a 'missed opportunity' for the party 'to capitalize on an asset that could've been so helpful for the party,' a third DNC member said, citing Hogg's enormous social media megaphone:'Does anyone else at the DNC have a million followers on X?' the person added. By his own admission, Martin, a little-known figure nationally who previously served as chair of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party, has struggled to become more widely recognized. In the audio of the DNC meeting obtained by POLITICO, Martin said, 'No one knows who the hell I am, right? I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath of me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to to put ourselves in a position to win.' Some Democrats said that Martin was in his early days as chair and deserves the benefit of the doubt. 'Mr. Martin is just starting out,' said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who added the two have a relationship. 'You give people a bit more time before you start making evaluations.' But other Democratic lawmakers have yet to sit down with him. 'To tell you the truth, I don't know him. I haven't met him yet,' Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said when asked how Martin has done in his first months as chair. 'I am sure he's doing everything he can, but we can all improve our communication of what is going on with this regime.'
