Politics
RFK Jr. could be a spoiler in November. But will it help Biden or Trump?
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign was once viewed as a quixotic quest by a scion of a storied political family — an environmental warrior who sullied his family’s name most recently by aligning himself with a political party founded by a segregationist to get on the November ballot in California.
But a combination of voter apathy about President Biden and former President Trump, the two main parties’ presumptive nominees, and the Kennedy campaign’s successful targeting of ballot qualification rules across the nation has prompted growing alarm among Democrats and Republicans alike.
“When you have nail-bitingly close elections, nearly any candidate can be a spoiler,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “Now, the interesting thing, unlike a Jill Stein [a perennial Green Party candidate], it’s not 100% clear which major party candidate he hurts most. That uncertainty is going to lead to a lot of churning on what the parties do … to keep him off the ballot.”
Kennedy, the son of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy (D-N.Y.) and nephew of President John F. Kennedy, has no real chance of being elected to the White House in November. However, the Californian could be a spoiler in the race, tilting the vote. Two names are frequently raised: H. Ross Perot in the 1992 race and Ralph Nader in 2000, though there is debate about how much their candidacies resulted in Bill Clinton and George W. Bush winning their respective elections.
Kennedy has qualified to appear on the ballots of three states, most recently California, and his campaign claims to have collected enough signatures to appear on the ballots of seven others, including Nevada.
In California, the American Independent Party submitted paperwork to have Kennedy appear on the ballot as its standard-bearer, the candidate announced this week.
George Wallace, a segregationist Alabama governor who opposed federal civil rights laws, helped found the party and ran on its ticket in the 1968 presidential campaign. Kennedy’s father, a staunch supporter of such rights, was assassinated in Los Angeles during that campaign.
Leaders of the party, which currently exists only in California, say it has disavowed its segregationist roots and is focused on conservatism and the Constitution. In a video Kennedy released Tuesday, he called Wallace a “bigot” who “was antithetical to everything my father believed in.”
Mainstream Democrats are incredulous about Kennedy’s association with the party. When Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama, trying to block two Black students from registering, President Kennedy called in the Alabama National Guard at a time when his brother, Robert, was the nation’s attorney general.
Paul Mitchell, a veteran Democratic strategist, said he previously believed Kennedy had a shot of winning California based purely on his last name. That is no longer the case, based on how he has run his campaign and whom he has chosen to associate with, Mitchell said.
“If he was a Kennedy and acting like a Kennedy and professional, I wouldn’t put [a California victory] out of the bounds,” said Mitchell, who noted that Kennedy associated with the fringe party after gathering a paltry number of signatures for a political party he was trying to form. “Now he’s a loony anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist and running a campaign like a loon. It’s so embarrassing.”
Biden supporters have been concerned about Kennedy for some time. The Democratic National Committee earlier this year established a team to oppose third-party candidates, chiefly Kennedy. Their first act was filing a Federal Election Commission complaint arguing that Kennedy’s campaign coordinated inappropriately with a Super PAC to qualify Kennedy for some states’ ballots.
“We know this is going to be a close election and we’re not going to take anything for granted,” said Matt Corridoni, a DNC spokesman working on the anti-third party effort, noting that the biggest donor to a pro-Kennedy PAC is a Trump mega-donor and that a New York-based campaign official pitched his candidacy by arguing that Kennedy would help Trump defeat Biden.
In April, several members of the Kennedy family endorsed Biden, including Kerry Kennedy, sister of the presidential candidate.
“We want to make crystal clear our feelings that the best way forward for America is to reelect Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for four more years,” she said at a campaign event in Philadelphia.
On Wednesday, Kennedy challenged Biden to agree that whichever of them did worse in a head-to-head poll in the fall would drop out of the race to prevent Trump being elected to a second term.
But Republicans including Trump have recently signaled growing concern about Kennedy eating into the former president’s support.
“RFK Jr. is a Democrat ‘Plant,’ a Radical Left Liberal who’s been put in place in order to help Crooked Joe Biden, the Worst President in the History of the United States, get Re-Elected,” Trump posted on Truth Social on April 26, arguing that the candidate opposes gun rights and the military and supports raising taxes, open borders and radical environmental policy. “A Vote for Junior would essentially be a WASTED PROTEST VOTE, that could swing either way, but would only swing against the Democrats if Republicans knew the true story about him.”
Trump posted that before a Monmouth University poll released Monday found that after voters were told about Kennedy’s skepticism of vaccines, their views changed — prior polling showed that Kennedy pulled support evenly from Biden and Trump.
In the new poll, the percentage of Republicans who said they would support Kennedy nearly doubled to almost one out of five after being told about his views about vaccines, while Democrats’ support dropped sharply to roughly 10%.
Kennedy has also been receiving attention on conservative media, such as Wednesday evening on “Jesse Watters Primetime” on Fox News Channel, where he argued that his campaign’s polling shows him winning in a head-to-head matchup against either Biden or Trump.
But “if I’m in the race, in a three-way race, I lose because people are voting out of fear, because they think the other guy — a vote for me is going to put somebody they hate in office,” he said. “But if I go head to head with either of them, I win.”
Trump’s advisors are piqued by Kennedy receiving attention from such outlets.
“For the life of me, I can’t understand why anyone on a conservative platform would feature the likes of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who believes the NRA is a terrorist organization, whose positions on the environment are more radical than [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and who believes in a 70% tax bracket,” said Chris LaCivita, a lead strategist for Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee’s chief of staff.
“From our standpoint, only one person is more liberal than Joe Biden and that’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” LaCivita said, adding that Kennedy “is a blank canvas and we are going to fill it with paint.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed off on a 100% state tax on money any Californians receive from Trump’s $1.8-billion “anti-weaponization” fund for his political allies.
Newsom unveiled his proposal in May, after Trump’s Justice Department said it would create a fund to compensate Trump’s allies who claim they have “suffered weaponization and lawfare” under Biden’s Justice Department.
The settlement fund was criticized by politicians on both sides of the aisle, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who described it as a “slush fund to pay people who assault cops.”
The fund remains in legal limbo. Earlier this month, a federal judge in Virginia extended a court-ordered block on the plan, which critics warned could be used to pay pardoned Jan. 6 rioters.
Fast-tracked into law as part of Senate Bill 122, Newsom’s plan imposes “a tax on any settlement fund payment from the federal Anti-Weaponization Fund, or any subsequent fund, settlement, or agreement, as provided, at a rate of 100%,” according to the bill text. The tax applies to all tax years between 2026 and 2030.
Newsom signed the bill Tuesday. In a statement, his office said the tax is meant to ensure that, should Trump’s fund proceed, California recipients won’t “receive favorable state treatment on those payments.”
“We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims—not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms,” Newsom said in the statement.
University of Southern California law professor Ariel Jurow Kleiman, an expert on tax law and policy, said that while Newsom’s tax is a “novel legal strategy,” she believes there is “no categorical legal restriction” preventing California from implementing it.
States have a “wide degree of discretion” to design their tax systems — including how they define income — so long as they do not violate their constitutions, Jurow Kleiman said.
If a California resident wanted to challenge the tax in court, they would need to show they were harmed by it to have standing to sue, according to Jurow Kleiman. That would mean receiving a payment from Trump’s settlement fund and then paying the 100% California tax. Unless the settlement fund is established and distributes payments, that scenario is unlikely.
While there have been proposals to levy a 100% tax on income above certain thresholds — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 2023 said he supports a 100% tax on income exceeding $1 billion — Jurow Kleiman said she is not aware of any governments that have adopted such a policy.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The House has officially shipped a colossal bipartisan housing package to President Donald Trump, and lawmakers are hoping that, at the very least, he doesn’t veto it.
Trump was supposed to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act last week, but his last-minute decision to ghost the signing ceremony with House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., put into question whether the bill was dead.
His refusal to sign the bill, which passed with overwhelmingly bipartisan support in both chambers, was to leverage the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) America Act, which doesn’t currently have the votes to succeed in the Senate.
WARREN TELLS TRUMP TO ‘SIGN THE DAMN BILL’ AS BIPARTISAN HOUSING PACKAGE REMAINS STALLED IN WASHINGTON
Trump has refused to sign the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. (Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Trump appears to be in no hurry to sign the bill, despite Republicans who are hungry for a win in the affordability fight ahead of the midterm elections.
“It’s so unimportant … compared to the SAVE America Act,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Monday. “I think the SAVE America Act is exactly what it says. It’s saving America from crooked elections.”
“Here’s what I would like to sign, much more than a bill that — big deal, it’s a yawn,” he continued. “Some people say it’s wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”
GOP INFIGHTING OVER TRUMP’S VOTER ID BILL ERUPTS AS TOP SENATOR CALLS STRATEGY ‘FANTASY’
It’s legislation that is loaded with nearly 60 provisions from both sides of the aisle in both chambers that’s designed to make it easier for homes to be built and for younger Americans to buy their first home. It also includes a ban on hedge funds buying up housing stock that Trump pushed Congress to include during the State of the Union earlier this year.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., one of the architects behind the bill in the upper chamber alongside Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., charged that Congress handed the bill to Trump “on a silver platter.”
“When you ask me what happens next, if he cared about the American people, he’d have already signed the damned thing, and we’d be underway,” Warren said on WCVB’s “On the Record” on Sunday.
But Trump doesn’t have to put his signature on the bill for it to become law.
IRATE REPUBLICANS ACCUSE TRUMP OF HANDING DEMOCRATS A WIN AFTER BLOWING UP HOUSING PACKAGE
The Senate advanced a massive, Trump-backed housing package geared toward lowering the costs of homes and supercharging the housing supply. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., pitched it as legislation to prevent America from becoming a “nation of renters.” (Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Borrowers; Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The Constitution grants presidents the ability to veto a bill within 10 days of it being transferred over to the White House. In that scenario, Congress could override a veto of the housing package.
It’s happened before under the Trump administration. In early 2021, Congress overrode Trump’s veto of the annual National Defense Authorization Act — a massive Pentagon funding authorization package that some House Republicans are trying to use as a vehicle to pass the SAVE America Act.
But during that 10-day period, if Trump doesn’t sign the bill, it would automatically become law. That’s unless Congress completely adjourns, in which case a “pocket veto” could happen. The Senate is currently in recess and the House is scheduled to leave town by week’s end, but neither count as a full adjournment.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Johnson, who spent the last few days meeting with Trump at the White House about the housing bill and the SAVE America Act, said: “I hope he does sign it.”
“If he doesn’t, it’s still law,” Johnson said. “We’ll still celebrate it, but he’s trying to make a point, and I think he’s making it very effectively. And the fact that you all ask me every three steps down the hallway illustrates that he has achieved the desired objective, and that is to make SAVE America the number one thing, because if we don’t get that right, everybody’s concerned about what happens next.”
Britain’s culture minister may challenge Paramount Skydance’s takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery — presenting a potential speed-bump to David Ellison’s plan to wrap up his $111-billion deal by September.
Earlier this month, Paramount secured the U.S. Justice Department’s blessing to buy the Warner assets, which include CNN, HBO, Cartoon Network, Animal Planet and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios in Burbank.
Paramount also must win the approval of British and European regulators, who are known for drilling deeply into media matters because of their influence on society.
Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority took a preliminary step this month by opening an investigation into Ellison’s proposed merger.
On Tuesday, Lisa Nandy, Britain’s Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, notified Parliament that she was inclined to intervene in the blockbuster deal.
In a written statement, Nandy cited her ability to weigh in on “public interest grounds,” due to concerns about maintaining a competitive media market in Britain.
“The UK’s move to intervene in the Paramount–WBD deal confirms what we’ve been saying for months. The real regulatory risk was never in the US — it’s in Europe,” Forrester VP Research Director Mike Proulx said Tuesday in a statement.
While Nandy cautioned she has not made “a final decision on intervention at this stage,” she has invited Paramount and Warner Bros. to respond to her concerns by July 6.
June 2026 photo of Culture, Media and Sport Secretary Lisa Nandy arriving at Downing Street for the weekly Government cabinet meeting in London.
(Alishia Abodunde/Getty Images)
Paramount did not offer immediate comment.
The company owns CBS News, children’s channel Nickelodeon and Channel 5, one of the largest over-the-air television broadcasters in the United Kingdom.
Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, Cartoon Network and TNT Sports, which broadcasts the Olympics, Champions League and Premier League soccer matches.
“I am conscious that the proposed acquisition is global in nature,” Nandy wrote in her statement. “In reaching this decision, my focus has been, and will remain, on the UK public interest and the range of services available to UK audiences, including Channel 5, TNT Sports, Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, and CNN International, as well as Paramount+ and HBO Max.”
If Nandy decides to intervene, the Office of Communications, known as Ofcom, would launch an assessment of the deal. Britain’s Competition and Markets Authority also would determine how the merger might reshape the competitive landscape.
Teams from the two companies have been huddling for months to plan for the melding of the two operations as soon as Paramount receives all of its regulatory approvals.
Australia, New Zealand, China, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Serbia, France and Italy have already given their approvals to the deal.
Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund is planning to contribute $10 billion to help the billionaire Ellison family pull off the merger, which would make the Saudi royal family a significant, although passive, equity owner. In addition, the royal families of Qatar and Abu Dhabi have agreed to each contribute $7 billion in equity financing.
The Federal Communications Commission must evaluate the foreign ownership stakes due to Paramount’s holding of CBS broadcast licenses. U.S. antitrust regulators already have concluded the combination would not violate federal anticompetition laws.
Approval had been expected because President Trump — who has friendly ties with Ellison and his father, tech billionaire Larry Ellison — favors the deal.
Trump has been eager for changes at CNN.
The U.S. government stopped short of asking Paramount to make concessions or divestitures. Many expect that Paramount may have to reconfigure its children’s television holdings abroad due to the proposed combination of two large players — Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network.
Nandy suggested that Britain also should scrutinize the impact of combining two major streaming services HBO Max, a Warner property, with Paramount+.
HBO programming, including “Game of Thrones,” “Boardwalk Empire,” and “Succession,” has long been popular in Britain.
A coalition of state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, also is expected to challenge the deal, in part, due to concerns about news media consolidation. Bonta’s office has said the matter remains under review.
Opposition to the deal has been building in the U.S. for months. A group of Hollywood activists — led by actors Jane Fonda and Mark Ruffalo — have spearheaded a “block the merger” campaign that now has support from more than 5,000 entertainment workers.
The group’s open letter calls on Bonta to take action to thwart the Ellison expansion effort. Paramount’s Chief Legal Officer Makan Delrahim has blasted the campaign, calling it “fear-mongering” and a partisan distortion of antitrust law.
Forrester’s Proulx noted differences in attitudes toward the deal among the various constituencies.
“For US consumers, this merger has become a proxy fight about political influence and control of media,” Proulx said. “In the UK, it’s being treated as a structural competition issue where regulators, not consumers, will decide how this deal plays out and how long it takes.”
-
Business7 seconds agoDisneyland to offer $59 evening tickets next month
-
Entertainment3 minutes agoAfter Amazon drops OpenAI movie ‘Artificial,’ film finds new home at Neon
-
Lifestyle8 minutes agoICICLE: Capturing Interest in Chinese Brands
-
Politics15 minutes ago
Newsom signs off on 100% California tax for money from Trump’s $1.8-billion ‘slush fund’
-
Science18 minutes agoAfter bold pledge, EPA shelves microplastics testing in U.S. drinking water
-
Sports23 minutes agoWalter Alston, Dave Roberts and everyone in between: The 10 managers in L.A. Dodgers history
-
World33 minutes agoWorld’s oceans experience hottest June ever, scientists say more heat ahead
-
News1 hour agoWhat the Supreme Court did on the final day of its term
