Connect with us

Politics

Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.

Published

on

Trump Has Been Sued 198 Times for Withholding Funding. It Hasn’t Stopped Him.

Plaintiff Council for Opportunity in Education

Defendant U.S. Department of Education

Filed in the District of Columbia on Oct. 14, 2025

Advertisement

Injunction

Plaintiff Dallas County, Tex.

Defendant Kennedy

Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 5, 2025

Advertisement

Plaintiff Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence

Defendant Kennedy Jr.

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on July 21, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff Colorado

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on April 1, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff Housing Authority of the County of San Diego

Defendant Turner

Advertisement

Filed in the Northern District of California on Oct. 15, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff National Alliance to End Homelessness

Defendant Department of Housing and Urban Development

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Dec. 1, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Plaintiff Washington

Defendant Federal Emergency Management Agency

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on July 16, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Arizona

Defendant Environmental Protection Agency

Filed in the Western District of Washington on Oct. 16, 2025

Plaintiff Open Technology Fund

Advertisement

Defendant Lake

Filed in the District of Columbia on March 20, 2025

injunction

Plaintiff National Public Radio

Defendant Trump

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Columbia on May 27, 2025

Plaintiff San Francisco Unified School District

Defendant AmeriCorps

Filed in the Northern District of California on March 10, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Plaintiff Maine

Defendant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Filed in the District of Maine on June 17, 2025

Advertisement

Plaintiff Rhode Island Latino Arts

Defendant National Endowment for the Arts

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on March 6, 2025

lost

President Trump has tried to withhold billions of dollars in federal funding to coerce states, punish opponents, remake programs and impose his views. His targets have repeatedly sued to stop him, and the courts have repeatedly rebuked him — only for the president to try again and again.

Advertisement

Take just these seven cases, all of them tied to the administration’s efforts to block funds from “sanctuary” communities, those that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Last February, a coalition of cities and counties sued over executive orders directing agencies to shut off such funds.

Advertisement

Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco

Defendant Trump

Advertisement

Filed in the Northern District of California on Feb. 7, 2025

injunction

A judge issued a preliminary injunction, halting those directives while the case proceeded.

The same day, the Department of Transportation told communities they must cooperate with immigration enforcement to get federal transportation dollars.

Advertisement

Twenty states, led by California, soon sued …

Plaintiff California

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Transportation

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025

lost

… and the administration lost in district court.

Advertisement

The Department of Homeland Security tried to withhold emergency management funds. Another lawsuit followed …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant FEMA

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on May 13, 2025

lost

… and the administration lost.

Advertisement

Then D.H.S. tried reducing counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states instead …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant Noem

Filed in the District of Rhode Island on Sept. 29, 2025

lost

… and again, the administration lost.

Advertisement

In the past year, funds for housing, transit, health and public safety have all been conditioned on cooperation with immigration.

Plaintiff King County

Advertisement

Defendant Turner

Filed in the Western District of Washington on May 2, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

Plaintiff Fresno

Defendant Turner

Filed in the Northern District of California on Aug. 20, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

Plaintiff Chicago

Defendant Department of Justice

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Nov. 12, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

Injunctions regularly followed.

These are among 198 lawsuits in the past year identified by The New York Times that challenge how Mr. Trump has leveraged federal funding to carry out his agenda without the consent of Congress. And they reflect one remarkable feature of the campaign: It has proceeded undeterred by losses in court.

Advertisement

With that persistence, the administration has been hammering away at a new kind of reality in Washington, one where the president wields far more control over spending, and where his opponents aren’t entitled to the services of their federal government.

“Anyone in the country who relies on federal dollars is depending on the president to get that money,” said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor at Emory University. “And that’s a new thing.”

The president has threatened money to states that don’t adopt his policies, universities that don’t bend to his will, hospitals that don’t alter their services, school districts that don’t abandon diversity efforts, nonprofits that don’t embrace his gender views, and researchers who study the wrong subjects.

Advertisement

These moves have tested whether Congress, granted the “power of the purse,” still holds the ultimate authority over spending. And they have challenged the courts with a flood of cases — 37 separate suits from the state of California; four from the Association of American Universities on virtually the same question; one from King County, Wash., that has grown to include as plaintiffs 75 communities and agencies.

“You would think there would be some conditioning here: You do an action, you get sued, you lose, maybe you don’t do that action anymore,” said Rob Bonta, who as California’s attorney general has brought many of those suits. “He’s continued to repeat offend. And repeat lose.”

Advertisement

The administration’s approach has amounted to “a game of three-card monte” in the courts, said Samuel Bagenstos, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Each injunction covers the parties suing and the specific programs at issue, but doesn’t necessarily stop the administration from blocking funds to other groups it disfavors. The result, Mr. Bagenstos said: “‘Oh, well, you think I can’t do this thing over there? Well I’m going to do it over here.’”

Presidents have long sought to steer funding to advance their priorities, designing programs with Congress or awarding competitive grants to communities that emphasize certain ideas. But the Trump administration has gone much further: terminating en masse funds that were already awarded; imposing new conditions on future grants that flout federal rule making; and blocking money to whole programs and agencies created by Congress.

The groups that have sued represent a fraction of everyone affected; many have lacked the means or the will to go to court. But these 198 cases, as of the beginning of March, have pried open a public view into the breadth of the administration’s tactics. And one year in, they have produced a lopsided record of rulings.

Advertisement

When plaintiffs have sought immediate relief, district court judges have temporarily blocked the administration’s actions 79 percent of the time, signaling plaintiffs’ likely success on the merits. In the 26 instances where district judges have issued partial or final rulings, the administration lost 23.

Planned Parenthood of Greater New York v. Department of Health and Human Services

Advertisement

Judge Beryl A. Howell, Obama appointee, Oct. 7, 2025

Just because a pronouncement comes from the president does not make it true, even if expressed in the form of an executive order, and even then, does not supersede the law.

lost

Advertisement

American Federation of Teachers v. U.S. Department of Education

Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, Trump appointee, Aug. 14, 2025

By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.

lost

Advertisement

Michigan v. Noem

Magistrate Judge Amy E. Potter, Dec. 23, 2025

None of this appears consistent with Congressional intent or FEMA’s mission.

Advertisement

lost

The administration declined to comment on the record. But a White House official authorized to describe the strategy said the Trump administration is restoring power to the presidency that previous presidents have shied away from, while tapping that power to prevent fraud and steward taxpayer dollars. The groups bringing all these lawsuits, that person said, are the ones using the courts in a hostile campaign to hamstring the president.

The administration has notably walked away from some defeats without appealing them. But it is counting on a better record before appeals court judges, as has been the case more broadly. Among cases it has appealed, appellate courts have reversed or paused orders against the administration in about 40 percent of their rulings, often with judges appointed by Mr. Trump in his favor.

Advertisement

But even when it is losing in court, plaintiffs’ attorneys and legal scholars said, the administration may still find it is winning on its own terms.

‘Undeserving recipients’

Alongside that first sanctuary cities directive, early executive orders outlining the president’s core agenda aimed to end all “diversity, equity and inclusion” in the government, to eradicate “gender ideology,” to reverse the “green new deal,” and to enforce “election integrity.” All of them proposed leveraging federal funds to do it.

Advertisement

These cases show the administration pulling that lever in numerous ways.

It has tried to set conditions with no clear relationship to program goals (like immigration requirements for highway funds). It has threatened funding to force states to share information (voter rolls, food aid lists). It has told grantees they must pledge to comply with orders the president hasn’t issued yet. And it has invoked criminal and financial penalties if they break those pledges.

Advertisement

It has terminated even small sums, targeting with laser precision opponents of the president (who then sued):

The American Bar Association lost $3.2 million in domestic violence training grants after the administration attacked the group.

Advertisement

Plaintiff American Bar Association

Defendant Department of Justice

Filed in the District of Columbia on April 23, 2025

injunction

Advertisement

The American Academy of Pediatrics lost nearly $12 million in grants in apparent retaliation for its advocacy of vaccines and gender-affirming care.

Plaintiff American Academy of Pediatrics

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Columbia on Dec. 24, 2025

injunction

Maine lost access to support for school meals as Gov. Janet Mills was fighting with the president over transgender athletes.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Maine

Defendant Department of Agriculture

Filed in the District of Maine on April 7, 2025

Advertisement

injunction

The government backed down with the American Bar Association and Maine after judges issued initial rulings, only to turn its focus elsewhere.

“You can see that the government’s posture is essentially: Do the thing that’s going to make the White House happy, or get the press release about sticking it to trans people,” said Kevin Love Hubbard, a former D.O.J. attorney who represented the government before leaving in August. Agencies are doing that, he said, “without thinking about then having to go into court.”

Advertisement

Today, he is suing the government in several funding cases with the Lawyers’ Committee for Rhode Island.

Most of these nearly 200 cases are about disfavored categories of recipients like sanctuary jurisdictions, Harvard researchers or organizations serving transgender people.

“We are the undeserving recipients, at least in the mind of our current administration,” said Leesa Manion, the prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which encompasses Seattle. “The goal all along was to ensure that we — the undesirables — do not get our fair share. Whether it works or doesn’t work, if that’s your overarching goal, you just keep evolving your technique.”

Advertisement

The administration is now increasingly targeting blue states as such a category, too.

That began during the government shutdown last October, when the White House budget director Russell Vought announced the administration would cancel nearly $8 billion in energy projects in 16 states — all where voters had supported Kamala Harris in 2024.

Advertisement

A small group of grantees, including the city of St. Paul, Minn., sued in response.

Plaintiff St. Paul, Minnesota

Advertisement

Defendant Wright

Filed in the District of Columbia on Nov. 10, 2025

lost

In January, the administration lost in district court, where a judge said it had violated the Constitution.

Advertisement

But officials were already preparing other cuts to blue states. H.H.S. froze $10 billion in child care and family assistance funds to five states. The states sued …

Plaintiff New York

Advertisement

Defendant Administration for Children and Families

Filed in the Southern District of New York on Jan. 8, 2026

injunction

… and a judge issued an injunction.

Advertisement

The D.O.T. suspended funding to the $16 billion Gateway Tunnel project connecting New Jersey and New York. Both states sued …

Plaintiff New Jersey

Advertisement

Defendant Department of Transportation

Filed in the Southern District of New York on Feb. 3, 2026

injunction

… and secured another injunction.

Advertisement

Even after those setbacks, in early February the administration told Congress it would cut more than $600 million in public health grants to four blue states. They sued …

Plaintiff Illinois

Advertisement

Defendant Vought

Filed in the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 11, 2026

injunction

… and the next day, a judge issued another injunction in the form of a temporary restraining order.

Advertisement

Still, last week, the administration said it would withhold about $250 million in Medicaid funds from Minnesota (prompting another lawsuit).

These moves, citing a mix of fraud and immigration policies, follow the president’s vow to block all funding to sanctuary jurisdictions — a group, under the D.O.J.’s definition, that could encompass one-third of the U.S. population.

Advertisement

“They can sue us and maybe they’ll win,” the president said in January. “But we’re not giving money to sanctuary cities anymore.”

Arbitrary and capricious

At stake in many cases are weighty constitutional principles: the separation of powers; the right to due process when the government says grantees have done something wrong; the First Amendment protections for organizations to advocate their views without government retaliation.

Advertisement

In the St. Paul suit, a district judge, Amit P. Mehta, ruled in January for the first time in one of these cases that the administration had violated the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection clause by singling out states for their partisan lean. During the litigation, the government didn’t deny doing that. Rather, it argued it was allowed to.

St. Paul, Minnesota v. Wright

Advertisement

Judge Amit P. Mehta, Obama appointee, Jan. 12, 2026

Defendants freely admit that they made grant-termination decisions primarily — if not exclusively — based on whether the awardee resided in a state whose citizens voted for President Trump in 2024. There is no rational relationship between that classification and defendants’ stated governmental interest.

lost

But that ruling covered only seven canceled grants worth about $27.5 million out of the nearly $8 billion total terminated. Now a coalition of 13 states is suing with the same constitutional argument in a new case about the same cuts.

Advertisement

The constant that is running through most of these cases, however, is the more mundane-sounding Administrative Procedure Act. That 1946 law says that the federal government must be reasoned and document its thinking according to transparent rules — in short, that it shouldn’t be slapdash and secretive.

These cases are full of examples of it doing just that. When the Department of Homeland Security tried last year to reduce counterterrorism grants to sanctuary states, the agency appeared to arrive at the lower award sums by simply lopping digits off the original values.

Advertisement

Illinois v. Noem

Judge Mary S. McElroy, Trump appointee, Dec. 22, 2025

Neither a law degree nor a degree in mathematics is required to deduce that no plausible, rational formula could produce this result.

Advertisement

lost

Officials have sent out directives with copy-and-pasted typos, termination letters without agency letterhead and bare explanations with boilerplate rationale.

“You had literally grants for millions of dollars being canceled in a single vague paragraph: ‘This no longer comports with administration priorities, thank you very much,’” said Claudia Polsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who has led a class-action lawsuit among University of California researchers that has restored, for now, at least a thousand grants worth about a billion dollars.

Advertisement

The administration has given grantees new mandates — and prohibitions — so vague that they haven’t known how to comply.

“‘Promote gender ideology’ — what does that mean?” said Maria Corona, the head of the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has challenged new conditions on grants. “When you’re talking about ‘violence against women,’ in the language itself we’re already talking about a gender issue.”

Last February, the National Institutes of Health issued a seismic policy change on a Friday night, to take effect the following Monday, slashing payments to universities for research overhead, drawing several lawsuits.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Massachusetts

Defendant National Institutes of Health

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Plaintiff Association of American Medical Colleges

Advertisement

Defendant National Institutes of Health

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Health and Human Services

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 10, 2025

lost

Advertisement

In April, the administration lost these cases, consolidated under one judge (an appeals court upheld the decision this year).

But after the district court ruling, the Department of Energy, followed by the National Science Foundation and then the Department of Defense, each rolled out an identical policy.

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Energy

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on April 14, 2025

lost

Advertisement

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant National Science Foundation

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on May 5, 2025

Advertisement

lost

Plaintiff Association of American Universities

Defendant Department of Defense

Advertisement

Filed in the District of Massachusetts on June 16, 2025

lost

As these cases accumulated, so did the judges’ irritation.

Advertisement

Association of American Universities v. Department of Defense

Judge Brian E. Murphy, Biden appointee, Oct. 10, 2025

The Court does not write upon a blank slate but instead follows three other courts in this district who have come to similar conclusions with respect to different federal agencies’ attempts to enact virtually identical policies. Notably, defendants ignored these obviously relevant — and at least reasonable — analyses before adopting this policy.

lost

Advertisement

Success for the administration has seldom involved winning on the merits. Rather, the administration has argued in most of these cases that district judges have no business hearing them at all. Cases seeking money, it says, belong instead in the Court of Federal Claims, a specialized court dedicated to financial contract disputes with the government.

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett breathed life into that argument, concurring in a preliminary ruling last summer that surprised some legal experts. Her opinion — suggesting policies should be litigated in district court, while payouts resulting from them belong in the Court of Federal Claims — has further complicated these cases. So has the Supreme Court’s ruling last year ending nationwide injunctions.

Winning while losing

Advertisement

By the time grantees have gone to court, they have already lost much. Researchers have halted studies. Nonprofits have laid off staff. The core expectation that the government is a reliable partner has already been undercut.

“The result is a corrosive uncertainty that undermines the basic functioning of government,” said Jacob Leibenluft, a former official in the Biden White House budget office.

Advertisement

That uncertainty sets in the moment money isn’t on time, or when grantees start to think it won’t be in the future. Other changes take root, too: Grantees rethink what’s in their mission statements; professors shift what they teach.

American Association of University Professors v. Trump

Advertisement
Judge Rita F. Lin, Biden appointee, Nov. 14, 2025

Numerous U.C. faculty and staff have submitted declarations describing how defendants’ actions have already chilled speech throughout the U.C. system.

injunction

The administration is advancing these changes even when it’s losing particular funding cases in court. And it has successfully blocked money to groups who haven’t sued, further entrenching the president’s expanded power over spending.

Advertisement

Whether this dynamic sticks depends as much on Congress as on the courts. If legislators were more actively guarding programs they had funded themselves, many of these lawsuits likely wouldn’t exist.

New York v. Trump

Advertisement
Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., Obama appointee, March 6, 2025

The interaction of the three co-equal branches of government is an intricate, delicate and sophisticated balance — but it is crucial to our form of constitutional governance. Here, the Executive put itself above Congress.

injunction

In rare cases, Republicans in Congress have pushed back against the administration and been able to reverse billions in cuts far more quickly than courts could, including from after-school programs and mental health and addiction treatment.

Advertisement

For most programs targeted by the administration, however, Republicans have publicly said little, and that’s unlikely to change as the president now targets blue states more explicitly. Republican and Democratic appropriators have together quietly tucked some new guardrails into spending bills this year. But it is Democrats, primarily, who have spoken up for the larger principle that lawmakers set the terms of federal spending — not the president.

“We have to guard that with our lives,” said Rosa DeLauro, the top Democratic appropriator in the House. The alternative, she said, is that funding becomes a tool to silence dissent. “‘Don’t speak out — or I’ll cancel your grant.’”

Absent bipartisan clamor in Congress, cases like King County v. Turner grind on. The case was brought last May by eight local governments challenging new conditions on housing and transportation grants. Then they added H.H.S. as a defendant. And 23 more local governments and transit and housing agencies joined as plaintiffs. Then another 29 came on board. Then 15 more. Each one has had to explain the harms it has faced. The judge has had to review each claim, alongside the details of dozens of grant programs, while crafting what are now four successive injunctions. All that is just one lawsuit.

Advertisement

“Should we have to do that 200 times, 300 times?” said Erin Overbey, the general counsel with the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. “What’s the number where we reach critical mass?”

Politics

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

Published

on

Video: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

new video loaded: President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

transcript

transcript

President Fires Noem as Homeland Security Secretary

President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

“The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake which looks like under investigation is going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.” “Our greatness calls people to us for a chance to prosper, to live how they choose, to become part of something special. Anyone who searches for freedom can always find a home here. But that freedom is a precious thing, and we defend it vigorously. You crossed the border illegally — we’ll find you. Break our laws — we’ll punish you.” “Did you bid out those service contracts?” “Yes they did. They went out to a competitive bid.” “I’m asking you — sorry to interrupt — but the president approved ahead of time you spending $220 million running TV ads across the country in which you are featured prominently?” “Yes, sir. We went through the legal processes. Did it correctly —” Did the president know you were going to do this?” “Yes.” “I’m more excited about just ready to get started. There’s a lot of work we can do to get the Department of Homeland Security working for the American people.”

Advertisement
President Trump fired Kristi Noem, his embattled homeland security secretary, on Thursday and announced his plans to replace her with Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

By Jackeline Luna

March 5, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

Published

on

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is continuing its investigation into former President Joe Biden’s use of an autopen in the final months of his administration — focusing on pardons and commutations — though a senior official said Biden is unlikely to face criminal exposure.

A senior DOJ official told Fox News the autopen investigation is ongoing and not closed, adding investigators are reviewing clemency actions taken in the final months of the Biden administration.

The official also pointed out, however, that the use of an autopen by a sitting president is “established law.”

The issue under review is whether the autopen was used in violation of the law, specifically, whether Biden personally approved each name included on pardon and commutation lists.

Advertisement

A framed portrait shows former President Joe Biden’s signature and an autopen along “The Presidential Walk of Fame” outside the Oval Office of the White House.  (Andrew Harnick/Getty Images)

“These types of cases are tough. Executive privilege issues come into play,” the official said.

What is also clear, the official indicated, is that the target of any potential prosecution would not likely be Biden.

“It’s hard to imagine how [Biden] could be criminally liable for pardon power,” the senior DOJ official said.

BIDEN’S AUTOPEN PARDONS DISTURBED DOJ BRASS, DOCS SHOW, RAISING QUESTIONS WHETHER THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING

Advertisement

The use of the autopen by former President Joe Biden remains under investigation. (AP Photo)

The official noted that one reason the former president would be unlikely to face charges stems from a 2024 Supreme Court ruling that originally involved current President Donald Trump but would also apply to Biden.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States in 2024. 

“At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”

Sources familiar with the matter told Fox News Digital that U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s team continues to review the Biden White House’s reliance on an autopen, contradicting a recent New York Times report that indicated the investigation had been paused.

Advertisement

DOJ SIGNALS IT’S STILL DIGGING INTO BIDEN AUTOPEN USE DESPITE REPORTS PROBE FIZZLED

President Donald Trump has pushed for consequences for former President Joe Biden’s alleged use of the autopen. (Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP Photo)

Trump has pushed for consequences over the autopen controversy, alleging on social media that aides acted unlawfully in its use and raising the prospect of perjury charges against Biden.

Biden has rejected those claims, saying in a statement last year he personally directed the decisions in question.

“Let me be clear: I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said. “I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations. Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false.”

Advertisement

The House Oversight Committee has homed in on Biden’s clemency actions, including five controversial pardons for family members in the final days of his presidency, citing what it described as a lack of “contemporaneous documentation” confirming that Biden directly ordered the pardons.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The committee asked the DOJ to investigate “all of former President Biden’s executive actions, particularly clemency actions, to assess whether legal action must be taken to void any action that the former president did not, in fact, take himself.”

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Oliver contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Related Article

Top Biden officials questioned and criticized how his team issued pardons, used autopen: report
Continue Reading

Politics

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Published

on

Anxiety grows among California Democrats as gubernatorial candidates rebuff calls to drop out

Despite a plea from the head of the California Democratic Party for underperforming candidates to drop out of the governor’s race, all but one of the party’s top hopefuls spurned the request.

Party leaders fear the growing possibility that the crowded field will split the Democratic electorate in the state’s June top-two primary election and result in two Republicans advancing to the November ballot, ensuring a Republican governor being elected for the first time since 2006.

His advice largely unheeded, state party Chairman Rusty Hicks on Thursday said the fate of a Democratic victory now rests squarely on the gubernatorial candidates who flouted him.

“The candidates for Governor now have a chance to showcase a viable path to win,” Hicks said in a statement Thursday.

Eight top Democratic candidates filed the official paperwork to appear on the June ballot after Hicks released a letter on Tuesday urging those “who cannot show meaningful progress towards winning” to drop out. Friday is the deadline to file to appear on the primary election ballot. On March 21, the secretary of state’s office will formally announce who will appear on the June ballot.

Advertisement

“It sounded like someone who has his head in the sand,” former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said of Hicks’ open letter. “[Most] of us filed within 24 hours of getting that letter. It created some press but not much else. It didn’t impact [most] of the candidates and it certainly didn’t impact my candidacy.”

Democratic strategist Elizabeth Ashford said it was appropriate for Hicks and other Democratic leaders to make a public plea as opposed to keeping such discussions solely behind closed doors.

But the response showed the limited power of the modern-day party bosses.

“It’s definitely not Tammany Hall,” said Ashford, referring to the storied Democratic political machine that had a grip on New York City politics for nearly a century. “The party and Rusty are influential and they are helpful and that is their role. I don’t think anyone would be comfortable with outright public strong-arming of specific candidates.”

Ashford, who worked for former Govs. Jerry Brown and Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with former Vice President Kamala Harris when she served as state attorney general, added that the minimal power of the state GOP is likely a factor in the dynamics of Democrats’ decision to stay in the race. Democratic registered voters outnumber Republicans by almost a 2-to-1 margin in the state, and Democrats control every statewide elected office and hold supermajorities in both chambers of the California Legislature.

Advertisement

“If there were a strong viable opposition that existed, if the Republican Party was actually relevant in California, I think that would sort of force greater unity amongst Democrats,” she said.

Just one of the nine major Democrats did heed the party chair’s message. Ian Calderon, a former Los Angeles-area Assemblyman who consistently polled near the bottom of the field, withdrew from the race and endorsed Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin) on Thursday.

Candidates cannot withdraw their name from the ballot once they officially file to run for office, leading to some fears that even if other candidates drop out of the race, a crowded primary ballot could still split California’s liberal votes.

“I’m disappointed most of them will be on the ballot,” said Lorena Gonzalez, the head of the California Federation of Labor Unions, which will announce whether it endorses in the governor’s race on March 16. But “I do still think you can have people drop out of the race or become viable. I think that there are candidates who know viability is a real thing they have to show in coming weeks” before ballots start being mailed to voters.

Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said she is “still worried” about the prospect of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June primary, shutting Democrats out of any chance of winning the governor’s office in November.

Advertisement

“I didn’t have any specifics of who I wanted to do what,” she said. “I’m just very, very concerned and the stakes are really high right now and seem to be getting worse by the day.”

Republican candidate Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host, said he is “confident that I’ll be in the top two” along with a Democratic candidate. “I find it very difficult to believe that the Democratic Party will just surrender California and allow two Republicans to be in the top two.”

Hilton made the comments Thursday after a gubernatorial forum in Sacramento hosted by the California Assn. of Realtors focused on housing and homeownership. Villaraigosa, former Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and former Rep. Katie Porter also attended. Swalwell, who is currently in Washington, joined the panel virtually.

During the panel, candidates were in broad agreement about the need to reduce barriers and costs in order to build more housing in California, where the median single-family home costs more than $820,000. Many also endorsed proposals to disincentivize private investment firms from buying up homes as well as a $25-billion bond proposed by former Sen. Bob Hertzberg to help first-time homebuyers afford a down payment.

“This really isn’t a debate because we’re agreeing so much with each other,” Hilton said at one point during the event.

Advertisement

That political alignment on one of the most pressing issues facing California may explain why voters are having such a difficult time deciding who to support.

A recent poll of the Public Policy Institute of California found that the five candidates topping the crowded field were within 4 percentage points of one another: Porter, Swalwell, Hilton, Democratic hedge fund founder Tom Steyer and Republican Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco. Earlier polls had Hilton and Bianco leading the field, though many voters remained undecided.

Some candidates took issue with Hicks’ push to cull the field, noting that most of the lower-polling candidates he asked to drop out are people of color.

“Our political system is rigged, corrupted by the political elites, the wealthy and well connected,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, who is Black and Latino, said in a video posted on social media in response to the open letter. “The California Democratic Party is essentially telling every person of color in the race for Governor to drop out.”

Villaraigosa argued that enough voters remain undecided that it was too early for quality candidates to call it quits.

Advertisement

“Most people don’t even know who’s in the race,” said Villaraigosa. “It’s premature to be thinking about getting out of the race. I certainly am not considering it and I feel no pressure.”

Aside from the opinion polls, other indicators on who may emerge from the pack a candidates are slowly emerging.

Though it wasn’t enough to win the party’s endorsement, Swalwell won support from 24% of delegates at the state Democratic convention last month, the most of any party candidate.

While spending is no guarantee of success, Steyer has donated $47.4 million of his own wealth to his campaign. Mahan, who recently entered the race and is supported by Silicon Valley leaders, has quickly raised millions of dollars, as have two independent expenditures committees backing his bid.

Ashford said part of candidates’ decisions to remain in the race could have been driven by their lengthy political careers, as well as Democrats’ crushing November redistricting victory.

Advertisement

“In several cases, these are people who have won statewide office,” she said. “It’s tough to feel like there may not be a sequel to that.”

Nixon reported from Sacramento and Mehta from Los Angeles.

Continue Reading

Trending