Connect with us

News

Tester’s Senate Fate Could Make or Break a Harris Presidency

Published

on

Tester’s Senate Fate Could Make or Break a Harris Presidency

On the day Barack Obama took over the White House on Jan. 20, 2009, six of his cabinet nominees were immediately confirmed by the Senate. He signed his first piece of legislation — a major bill guaranteeing equal pay for women — into law just nine days later.

Should Vice President Kamala Harris win the presidency, she could not count on such cooperation from the chamber where she, like Mr. Obama, once served. Mr. Obama benefited from a big Democratic majority in the Senate. But Democrats are in control now by only the slimmest of margins, and their chances of keeping that majority most likely hang on the fate of Senator Jon Tester of Montana, who is currently trailing in his re-election race in his solidly red state.

If he should lose and Democrats fail to score any upsets in a handful of races they are not favored to win, Republicans would take over the Senate, putting Ms. Harris at loggerheads from the start with a newly empowered G.O.P. bent on stymying her at every turn.

“It is night and day,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said about the difference between his party hanging on and Republicans winning the Senate. “It’s loss of control, putting the agenda very much in peril.”

At the moment, most analysts lean toward Republicans capturing the Senate, given a political map that was stacked against Democrats from the start and has only gotten tougher for them. The G.O.P. is all but certain to win the West Virginia seat being vacated by Senator Joe Manchin III. And Mr. Tester is lagging in a state expected to vote overwhelmingly for former President Donald J. Trump.

Advertisement

The swing of those two seats alone would be enough to knock Democrats out of their 51-to-49 majority and fundamentally alter the governing landscape if they cannot secure an upset win elsewhere. Polls show that other Democratic incumbents in battleground states, including Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Jacky Rosen in Nevada, continue to run ahead of their Republican opponents.

The prospect of a new Democratic president and a Republican Senate is a rare scenario. The winner of the White House historically has had coattails that brought Congress into line — at least at the start. Presidents of both parties elected in recent decades have consistently been sworn in with their allies controlling both the House and the Senate. Not since Grover Cleveland in 1884 has a Democrat been elected to a first presidential term with a Republican Senate.

The potential for winning the White House and losing the Senate is a chief reason that Democrats are so determined to re-elect Mr. Tester, promising to stick with him to the finish whatever the polls say. Democrats say they have confidence that Mr. Tester can pull out a victory.

“There’s no world that you can conceive of that I’m not going to be in Montana until the end,” Senator Gary Peters, Democrat of Michigan and the chairman of the party’s Senate campaign operation, said during a recent speech at the National Press Club. “Jon Tester will have everything he needs to win.”

Yet Democrats are also beginning to allocate resources to the Republican-dominated states of Texas and Florida, where Senators Ted Cruz and Rick Scott have shown some weakness, as alternative paths to a Senate majority should Mr. Tester be unable to prevail. And in a surprise, Dan Osborn, an independent, is mounting a strong bid against Senator Deb Fischer, a Republican, in Nebraska. An upset there could deny Republicans a majority.

Advertisement

The stakes are enormous, particularly since the old notion of a honeymoon for a newly elected president is out the window. These days, many voters from the losing party expect their representatives to put up a fight, not rally around the winner.

Should they lose their Senate majority, Democrats would give up their all-important committee chairmanships. With Republicans in control, Ms. Harris would have to think about her cabinet choices in an entirely different way. The idea that presidents are entitled to their chosen nominees is a quaint one these days, and any picks would have to pass intense G.O.P. scrutiny.

Instead of making selections that could pass muster with a Democratic majority, Ms. Harris would need to choose candidates who could appeal to enough Republicans to win confirmation should they even clear committee and reach the floor for a vote. There would be no flurry of approvals on her first day in office.

“Obviously we would be in a position to negotiate nominations from everything from the Supreme Court to the Department of Homeland Security and everything in between,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas and one of the men vying to replace Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as party leader beginning in 2025. “It will be a different role.”

Mr. Cornyn also noted that a Republican Senate would be able to block Democrats from gutting the filibuster to pass new nationwide protections for abortion rights, a move that Ms. Harris has said she would support.

Advertisement

Things could get even more difficult when it comes to lifetime appointments to the federal courts. Democrats have so far placed 213 judges on the bench during the Biden administration. Republicans would want to slow that momentum and screen Ms. Harris’s choices extremely carefully after the confirmations of scores of judges they opposed.

As for the Supreme Court, it is not certain that a Democratic president could even get a nominee through a Republican-controlled Senate should a vacancy occur. At minimum, any Supreme Court nominee would need to be much more centrist than the person a Democratic president might select if her own party held the Senate majority.

“Particularly with the judiciary, because we have the power of confirmation, I think they’re going to have to think long and hard about who they submit and whether or not they think they could get them cleared through the Senate,” said Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and another candidate for party leader. “But that’s a bridge we’ll cross if and when we come to it. Certainly we’re hoping we have all the reins of power next year.”

Depending on the final Senate margin, having Ms. Harris in the White House and the G.O.P. controlling the Senate could empower the dwindling band of more moderate Republicans like Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who might team up with Democrats on select issues and be persuaded to back some Democratic nominees. They would still have to find ways to force legislation to the floor and overcome the 60-vote filibuster.

Of course, a Democratic White House and a Republican Senate is just one possible scenario from the election, and nothing is locked in at this point. But a Trump presidency and a Democratic Senate seems a far more unlikely outcome while both parties still have a chance at securing the coveted trifecta of controlling the House, the Senate and the White House.

Advertisement

Under virtually any predicted outcome of the voting in November, the partisan margins in both the House and the Senate are going to be tight as they have been the past two years, making legislating precarious.

Democrats say they have shown they can make progress in a divided Congress by striking spending and legislative deals with Republicans while advancing executive branch and judicial nominees. They would relish a chance to do so again — but they would need to hang on in the Senate.

“Over the last four years,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader, “we have shown what can get done with a Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the Senate.”

News

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

Published

on

Brass bands in Beijing make way for sticker shock at home as Trump returns to escalating inflation

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump returned from the spectacle of a Chinese state visit to a less than welcoming U.S. economy — with the military band and garden tour in Beijing giving way to pressure over how to fix America’s escalating inflation rate.

Consumer inflation in the United States increased to 3.8% annually in April, higher than what he inherited as the Iran war and the Republican president’s own tariffs have pushed up prices. Inflation is now outpacing wage gains and effectively making workers poorer. The Cleveland Federal Reserve estimates that annual inflation could reach 4.2% in May as the war has kept oil and gasoline prices high.

Trump’s time with Chinese leader Xi Jinping appears unlikely to help the U.S. economy much, despite Trump’s claims of coming trade deals. The trip occurred as many people are voting in primaries leading into the November general election while having to absorb the rising costs of gasoline, groceries, utility bills, jewelry, women’s clothing, airplane tickets and delivery services. Democrats see the moment as a political opportunity.

“He’s returning to a dumpster fire,” said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative, a liberal think tank focused on economic issues. “The president will not have the faith and confidence of the American people — the economy is their top issue and the president is saying, ‘You’re on your own.’”

The president’s trip to Beijing and his recent comments that indicated a tone-deafness to voters’ concerns about rising prices have suggested his focus is not on the American public and have undermined Republicans who had intended to campaign on last year’s tax cuts as helping families.

Advertisement

Trump described the trip as a victory, saying on social media that Xi “congratulated me on so many tremendous successes,” as the U.S. president has praised their relationship.

Trump told reporters that Boeing would be selling 200 aircraft — and maybe even 750 “if they do a good job” — to the Chinese. He said American farmers would be “very happy” because China would be “buying billions of dollars of soybeans.”

“We had an amazing time,” Trump said as he flew home on Air Force One, and told Fox News’ Bret Baier in an interview that gasoline prices were just some “short-term pain” and would “drop like a rock” once the war ends.

Inflationary pain is not a factor in how Trump handles Iran

Trump departed from the White House for China by saying the negotiations over the Iran war depended on stopping Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. “I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing: We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said.

That remark prompted blowback because it suggested to some that Trump cared more about challenging Iran than fighting inflation at home. Trump defended his words, telling Fox News: “That’s a perfect statement. I’d make it again.”

Advertisement

The White House has since stressed that Trump is focused on inflation.

Asked later about the president’s words, Vice President JD Vance said there had been a “misrepresentation” of the remarks. White House spokesman Kush Desai said the “administration remains laser-focused on delivering growth and affordability on the homefront” while indicating actions would be taken on grocery prices.

But as Trump appeared alongside Xi, new reports back home showed inflation rising for businesses and interest rates climbing on U.S. government debt.

His comments that Boeing would sell 200 jets to China caused the company’s stock price to fall because investors had expected a larger number. There was little concrete information offered about any trade agreements reached during the summit, including Chinese purchases of U.S. exports such as liquefied natural gas and beef.

“Foreign policy wins can matter politically, but only if voters feel stability and affordability in their daily lives,” said Brittany Martinez, a former Republican congressional aide who is the executive director of Principles First, a center-right advocacy group focused on democracy issues.

Advertisement

“Midterms are almost always a referendum on cost of living and public frustration, and Republicans are not immune from the same inflation and affordability pressures that hurt Democrats in recent cycles,” she added.

Democrats see Trump as vulnerable

Democratic lawmakers are seizing on Trump’s comments before his trip as proof of his indifference to lowering costs. There is potential staying power of his remarks as Americans head into Memorial Day weekend facing rising prices for the hamburgers and hot dogs to be grilled.

“What Americans do not see is any sympathy, any support, or any plan from Trump and congressional Republicans to lower costs – in fact, they see the opposite,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday.

Vance faulted the Biden administration for the inflation problem even though the inflation rate is now higher than it was when Trump returned to the White House in January 2025 with a specific mandate to fix it.

“The inflation number last month was not great,” Vance said Wednesday, but he then stressed, “We’re not seeing anything like what we saw under the Biden administration.”

Advertisement

Inflation peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 under Biden, a Democrat. By the time Trump took the oath of office, it was a far more modest 3%.

Trump’s inflation challenge could get harder

The data tells a different story as higher inflation is spreading into the cost of servicing the national debt.

Over the past week, the interest rate charged on 10-year U.S. government debt jumped from 4.36% to 4.6%, an increase that implies higher costs for auto loans and mortgages.

“My fear is that the layers of supply shocks that are affecting the U.S. economy will only further feed into inflationary pressures,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at EY-Parthenon.

Daco noted that last year’s tariff increases were now translating into higher clothing prices. With the Supreme Court ruling against Trump’s ability to impose tariffs by declaring an economic emergency, his administration is preparing a new set of import taxes for this summer.

Advertisement

Daco stressed that there have been a series of supply shocks. First, tariffs cut into the supply of imports. In addition, Trump’s immigration crackdown cut into the supply of foreign-born workers. Now, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off the vital waterway used to ship 20% of global oil supplies.

“We’re seeing an erosion of growth,” Daco said.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Published

on

Top Drug Regulator Is Fired From the F.D.A.

Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, the Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, said she was fired from the agency Friday after she declined to resign.

She said she did not know who had ordered her firing or why, nor whether Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. knew of her fate. The Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The departure reflected the upheaval at the F.D.A., days after the resignation of Dr. Marty Makary, the agency commissioner. Dr. Makary had become a lightning rod for critics of the agency’s decisions to reject applications for rare disease drugs and to delay a report meant to supply damaging evidence about the abortion drug mifepristone. He also spent months before his departure pushing back on the White House’s requests for him to approve more flavored vapes, the reason he ultimately cited for leaving.

Dr. Hoeg’s hiring had startled public health leaders who were familiar with her track record as a vaccine skeptic, and she played a leading role in some of the agency’s most divisive efforts during her tenure. She worked on a report that purportedly linked the deaths of children and young adults to Covid vaccines, a dossier the agency has not released publicly. She was also the co-author of a document describing Mr. Kennedy’s decision to pare the recommendations for 17 childhood vaccines down to 11.

But in an interview on Friday, Dr. Hoeg said she “stuck with the science.”

Advertisement

“I am incredibly proud of the work we were doing,” Dr. Hoeg said, adding, “I’m glad that we didn’t give in to any pressures to approve drugs when it wasn’t appropriate.”

As the director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, she was a political appointee in a role that had been previously occupied by career officials. An epidemiologist who was trained in the United States and Denmark, she worked on efforts to analyze drug safety and on a panel to discuss the use of serotonin reuptake inhibitors, the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, during pregnancy. She also worked on efforts to reduce animal testing and was the agency’s liaison to an influential vaccine committee.

She made sure that her teams approved drugs only when the risk-benefit balance was favorable, she said.

The firing worsens the leadership vacuum at the F.D.A. and other agencies, with temporary leaders filling the role of commissioner, food chief and the head of the biologics center, which oversees vaccines and gene therapies. The roles of surgeon general and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are also unfilled.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

Published

on

Supreme Court is death knell for Virginia’s Democratic-friendly congressional maps

The U.S. Supreme Court

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to allow Virginia to use a new congressional map that favored Democrats in all but one of the state’s U.S. House seats. The map was a key part of Democrats’ effort to counter the Republican redistricting wave set off by President Trump.

The new map was drawn by Democrats and approved by Virginia voters in an April referendum. But on May 8, the Supreme Court of Virginia in a 4-to-3 vote declared the referendum, and by extension the new map, null and void because lawmakers failed to follow the proper procedures to get the issue on the ballot, violating the state constitution.

Virginia Democrats and the state’s attorney general then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to put into effect the map approved by the voters, which yields four more likely Democratic congressional seats. In their emergency application, they argued the Virginia Supreme Court was “deeply mistaken” in its decision on “critical issues of federal law with profound practical importance to the Nation.” Further, they asserted the decision “overrode the will of the people” by ordering Virginia to “conduct its election with the congressional districts that the people rejected.”

Advertisement

Republican legislators countered that it would be improper for the U.S. Supreme Court to wade into a purely state law controversy — especially since the Democrats had not raised any federal claims in the lower court.

Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Republicans without explanation leaving in place the state court ruling that voided the Democratic-friendly maps.

The court’s decision not to intervene was its latest in emergency requests for intervention on redistricting issues. In December, the high court OK’d Texas using a gerrymandered map that could help the GOP win five more seats in the U.S. House. In February, the court allowed California to use a voter-approved, Democratic-friendly map, adopted to offset Texas’s map. Then in March, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked the redrawing of a New York map expected to flip a Republican congressional district Democratic.

And perhaps most importantly, in April, the high court ruled that a Louisiana congressional map was a racial gerrymander and must be redrawn. That decision immediately set off a flurry of redistricting efforts, particularly in the South, where Republican legislators immediately began redrawing congressional maps to eliminate long established majority Black and Hispanic districts.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending