Connect with us

Politics

What Candidates in Tight House Races Are Saying About Abortion

Published

on

What Candidates in Tight House Races Are Saying About Abortion

22 Democrats say

restore Roe v. Wade.

4 Democrats say

it’s no place for government.

9 Democrats say

it’s between a woman and her doctor.

21 Republicans say

no federal ban.

10 Republicans say

it’s best left up to the states.

Advertisement

5 Republicans say

they’re pro-life.

Josh Riley, the Democratic challenger running for Congress in New York’s 19th District, has a clear message on abortion: “I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it.”

And his Republican opponent, the incumbent Representative Marc Molinaro, is saying nearly the same thing: “I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington.”

Across the country’s most competitive House races, Republicans have spent months trying to redefine themselves on abortion, going so far as to borrow language that would not feel out of place at a rally of Vice President Kamala Harris. Many Republicans who until recently backed federal abortion restrictions are now saying the issue should be left to the states.

At least a half-dozen Republican candidates have put out direct-to-camera ads declaring their opposition to a federal abortion ban. Instead, they say, they support exceptions to existing state laws and back protections for reproductive health care, such as I.V.F.

Advertisement

Republican candidates address abortion head-on in campaign videos

Click on any video in the grid to play it.

Anthony D’Esposito

Republican, N.Y. 4

Advertisement

Mike Lawler

Republican, N.Y. 17

Advertisement

Marc Molinaro

Republican, N.Y. 19

Joe Kent

Advertisement

Republican, Wash. 3

Michelle Steel

Republican, C.A. 45

Advertisement

Juan Ciscomani

Republican, Ariz. 6

Advertisement

Democrats have raised the possibility of a nationwide abortion ban should Republicans win in November, and they are framing the campaign as another referendum on the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade. They are hoping to continue their run of electoral successes since the 2022 decision to win back control of the House.

Any new federal legislation on abortion would have to pass both the House and the Senate and be signed by the president to become law. But whichever party emerges with a majority in the House will have the ability to dictate the legislative agenda, including whether measures to restrict or expand abortion access have the chance to pass.

Republicans in California and New York in particular, who are running in swing districts in blue states that favor abortion rights, have felt the most pressure to address the issue directly. “If we don’t talk about the issue, we become whatever the Democrats say we are,” said Will Reinert, the press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Advertisement

To better understand how abortion is playing a role in these campaigns, The New York Times surveyed candidates from both parties in the most competitive House races about their support for federal limits on abortion. The Times also looked at voting records, issues listed on campaign websites, debate and media coverage, and endorsements from major abortion rights and anti-abortion groups.

The Times survey showed that while Republicans are notably focused on what they will not do on abortion at the federal level, their Democratic opponents are talking about what they will do to protect abortion rights. Nearly all the Democratic candidates said they supported restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade, which would allow access to abortion until fetal viability, or around 24 weeks, in every state.

In attack ads, Democrats are pointing to their opponents’ voting records or past statements as evidence of extremism — despite what they may be saying now.

Democratic candidates highlight Republicans’ records on abortion in campaign videos

Click on any video in the grid to play it.

Advertisement

Josh Riley campaign

Democrat, N.Y. 19

Will Rollins campaign

Advertisement

Democrat, Calif. 41

More broadly, abortion rights groups said Republicans are misleading voters by claiming they do not support an outright abortion “ban,” when they might support a federal “limit” or “standard,” such as the 15-week proposal put forward by Senator Lindsey Graham in 2022.

Advertisement

“They are playing around with the semantics; they are clearly testing out different framing and messaging in an attempt to try and deceive voters because they realize how politically unpopular their policy stances are,” said Jessica Arons, a director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Republicans in the Times survey almost universally declined to answer questions about gestational limits. Only one, Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, said he supported a specific federal limit, in the third trimester.

What Republican candidates are saying about abortion

I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.

David Valadao Republican, Calif. 22

Advertisement

At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.

Don Bacon Republican, Neb. 2

I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.

Gabe Evans Republican, Colo. 8

Advertisement

The Republican shift away from publicly supporting a federal ban follows the lead of former President Donald J. Trump, who has changed his own language on the issue after seeing the electoral backlash to the Dobbs decision.

As recently as 2021, a majority of House Republicans — including seven incumbents in this year’s tossup races — co-sponsored the Life at Conception Act, a bill that would have amounted to a nationwide abortion ban. This year, Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania’s 10th District was the only incumbent in a competitive race to stay on as a co-sponsor.

Two Republican incumbents who now say they oppose a national ban — Representatives Ken Calvert and David Valadao in California — voted in favor of a 20-week ban that passed the House in 2017. Representative Mariannette Miller-Meeks, an Iowa Republican, co-sponsored a 15-week ban on abortion in 2022. She did not respond to questions about whether she still supports it.

Other Republicans described themselves as personally “pro-life” but said they accepted the abortion laws in place in their states. Rob Bresnahan Jr., a challenger in Pennsylvania’s 8th District, said he supported the state’s current law, which allows abortion until 24 weeks.

Democrats, when they were not attacking Republicans, leaned into language about personal freedom, with many in the survey saying the government should not be involved in medical decisions.

Advertisement

Another common refrain was that the decision to have an abortion should be “between a woman and her doctor.” Two Democrats used similar language rather than explicitly calling for federal abortion protections.

What Democratic candidates are saying about abortion

Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican to make that decision for themselves.

Gabe Vasquez Democrat, N.M. 2

I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith.

Advertisement

Rudy Salas Democrat, Calif. 22

I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body and her family are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do.

Tony Vargas Democrat, Neb. 2

By appearing to moderate their stance on abortion, candidates have risked losing the backing of prominent advocacy groups. Only three Republicans in the tossup races received an endorsement from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and seven received one from National Right to Life.

Advertisement

Two major abortion rights groups, by contrast, endorsed nearly all the Democratic candidates. Planned Parenthood — whose political action fund is pouring $40 million into the campaign — endorsed all but six candidates, while Reproductive Freedom for All endorsed all but four.

Endorsements from major anti-abortion groups

Candidate District Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America National Right to Life

Anderson

Va. 7

Va. 7

Bacon*

Advertisement

Neb. 2

Neb. 2

Buckhout

N.C. 1

N.C. 1

Begich

Alaska At-Large

Advertisement
Alaska At-Large

Ciscomani*

Ariz. 6

Ariz. 6

Miller-Meeks*

Iowa 1

Iowa 1

Nunn*

Advertisement

Iowa 3

Iowa 3

Perry*

Pa. 10

Pa. 10

Schweikert*

Ariz. 1

Advertisement
Ariz. 1

Barrett

Mich. 7

Mich. 7

Bresnahan Jr.

Pa. 8

Pa. 8

Calvert*

Advertisement

Calif. 41

Calif. 41

Chavez-DeRemer*

Ore. 5

Ore. 5

Coughlin

Ohio 13

Advertisement
Ohio 13

D’Esposito*

N.Y. 4

N.Y. 4

Duarte*

Calif. 13

Calif. 13

Evans

Advertisement

Colo. 8

Colo. 8

Garcia*

Calif. 27

Calif. 27

Herrell

N.M. 2

Advertisement
N.M. 2

Junge

Mich. 8

Mich. 8

Kean Jr.*

N.J. 7

N.J. 7

Kent

Advertisement

Wash. 3

Wash. 3

Lawler*

N.Y. 17

N.Y. 17

Mackenzie

Pa. 7

Advertisement
Pa. 7

Molinaro*

N.Y. 19

N.Y. 19

Steel*

Calif. 45

Calif. 45

Theriault

Advertisement

Maine 2

Maine 2

Valadao*

Calif. 22

Calif. 22

Advertisement

Endorsements from major abortion rights groups

Candidate District Planned Parenthood Repro. Freedom for All

Altman

N.J. 7

N.J. 7

Baccam

Iowa 3

Advertisement
Iowa 3

Bohannan

Iowa 1

Iowa 1

Bynum

Ore. 5

Ore. 5

Caraveo*

Advertisement

Colo. 8

Colo. 8

Cartwright*

Pa. 8

Pa. 8

Davis*

N.C. 1

Advertisement
N.C. 1

Engel

Ariz. 6

Ariz. 6

Gillen

N.Y. 4

N.Y. 4

Gluesenkamp Perez*

Advertisement

Wash. 3

Wash. 3

Golden*

Maine 2

Maine 2

Gray

Calif. 13

Advertisement
Calif. 13

Hertel

Mich. 7

Mich. 7

Jones

N.Y. 17

N.Y. 17

McDonald Rivet

Advertisement

Mich. 8

Mich. 8

Peltola*

Alaska At-Large

Alaska At-Large

Riley

N.Y. 19

Advertisement
N.Y. 19

Rollins

Calif. 41

Calif. 41

Salas

Calif. 22

Calif. 22

Shah

Advertisement

Ariz. 1

Ariz. 1

Stelson

Pa. 10

Pa. 10

Sykes*

Ohio 13

Advertisement
Ohio 13

Tran

Calif. 45

Calif. 45

Vargas

Neb. 2

Neb. 2

Vasquez*

Advertisement

N.M. 2

N.M. 2

Vindman

Va. 7

Va. 7

Whitesides

Calif. 27

Advertisement
Calif. 27

Wild*

Pa. 7

Pa. 7

Representative Jared Golden, the Democratic incumbent in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District — an area Mr. Trump won by six points in 2020 — did not get Planned Parenthood’s endorsement this year. He said the reason was his vote for the 2024 defense policy bill, which included an amendment blocking reimbursement for abortion travel costs for service members.

Mr. Golden said he was not concerned about the lack of support from the group, pointing instead to his co-sponsorship of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill to restore the protections of Roe.

“I’m quite confident that voters in Maine know where I stand,” he said.

Advertisement

Compare statements from House candidates on abortion policy

The New York Times asked candidates and their campaigns about support for a federal minimum standard on abortion. Statements have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

District

Dem. position

Rep. position

Alaska At‑Large

Advertisement

Alaska At‑Large

Mary Peltola*

No response to survey.

“Roe v. Wade set a precedent that was the law of the land for 50 years. She believes that standard was the right one — furthermore we know the importance of having strong exceptions for rape, incest, life of mother and health of mother throughout.”

Advertisement

Nick Begich

No response to survey.

“While I strongly support efforts that defend the rights of those not yet born, the courts have made it clear, abortion is a state issue and not an issue for the federal government to decide.”

Ariz. 1

Advertisement

Ariz. 1

Amish Shah

No response to survey.

“As a doctor, I understand that these personal decisions should be made by women and their physicians. That’s why we need to codify Roe v. Wade and give women across the country the right to control their own bodies and health care.”

Advertisement

David Schweikert*

No response to survey.

“It’s pretty clear that it belongs to the states,” via Business Insider.

Ariz. 6

Advertisement

Ariz. 6

Kirsten Engel

No response to survey.

“Protecting women’s reproductive freedoms at the federal level will be one of my top priorities when elected to Congress. Women had those protections for over 50 years when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, and that is what I will advocate for us to return to.”

Advertisement

Juan Ciscomani*

No response to survey.

“I’m pro-life, I reject the extremes, and I trust women. I’m against a federal ban on abortion. I’m for timetables and exceptions, including for rape, incest and the life of the mother,” via campaign site.

Calif. 13

Advertisement

Calif. 13

Adam Gray

No response to survey.

“What I support and will vote for is restoring Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women regain the federal rights they had for generations.”

Advertisement

John Duarte*

No response to survey.

“Congressman Duarte opposes federal abortion restrictions.”

Calif. 22

Advertisement

Calif. 22

Rudy Salas

No response to survey.

“I have always believed that this decision should be left between a woman, her doctor and within her own faith. Women should have the freedom to choose what happens with their own bodies and to determine their own health care.”

Advertisement

David Valadao*

No response to survey.

“I do not support a federal abortion ban. The Dobbs decision decided this was an issue left to the states and that’s where I believe policy on the issue should be decided.”

Calif. 27

Advertisement

Calif. 27

George Whitesides

No response to survey.

“I strongly support a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, and if elected to Congress, I will vote to codify Roe v. Wade to ensure reproductive freedom for all Americans.”

Advertisement

Mike Garcia*

No response to survey.

“I oppose a national abortion ban — California’s law on abortion stays the law — and I support exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.”

Calif. 41

Advertisement

Calif. 41

Will Rollins

No response to survey.

“I support a federal minimum standard for abortion. In Congress, I will advocate for legislation that restores Roe v. Wade, which prohibits states from banning abortions before fetal viability. It’s critical that we protect a woman’s right to choose nationwide.”

Advertisement

Ken Calvert*

No response to survey.

“Congressman Calvert does not support a federal abortion ban and supports the right of Californians to determine this for themselves.”

Calif. 45

Advertisement

Calif. 45

Derek Tran

No response to survey.

“Derek Tran supports enshrining reproductive rights into law as California voters did through Proposition 1 in 2022.”

Advertisement

Michelle Steel*

No response to survey.

“Michelle’s position has always been, and remains, that this issue is best left up to the states, and she does not support a national ban on abortion.”

Colo. 8

Advertisement

Colo. 8

Yadira Caraveo*

No response to survey.

“Rep. Caraveo believes we need to codify Roe v. Wade. This was the law of the land for decades, and since the Dobbs decision, the lives of far too many women have been at risk.”

Advertisement

Gabe Evans

No response to survey.

“I am pro-life, believe abortion stops a beating heart, and oppose taxpayer-funded abortion. Since the U.S. Supreme Court has returned this issue to the states, I will not vote for a national abortion ban.”

Iowa 1

Advertisement

Iowa 1

Christina Bohannan

No response to survey.

“On Day 1 in Congress, I will work to codify Roe v. Wade and ensure women in Iowa and across the country once again have the freedom to make their own health care decisions.”

Advertisement

Mariannette Miller-Meeks*

No response to survey.

“The congresswoman has been clear that she is pro-life with the exceptions of rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

Iowa 3

Advertisement

Iowa 3

Lanon Baccam

No response to survey.

“It’s more important than ever to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that’s why I’ll support the Women’s Health Protection Act in Congress. I believe women’s health care decisions should be between her and her doctor — not politicians.”

Advertisement

Zach Nunn*

No response to survey.

“He is pro-life, but has voted for exceptions. He opposes a national abortion ban.”

Maine 2

Advertisement

Maine 2

Jared Golden*

No response to survey.

“I’m a cosponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, to restore Roe, and I would vote for it if it came to the floor again.”

Advertisement

Austin Theriault

No response to survey.

“Austin opposes and will vote against a national abortion ban.”

Mich. 7

Advertisement

Mich. 7

Curtis Hertel

No response to survey.

“When Roe was overturned and abortion rights came under attack in our state, I worked across the aisle to get rid of the 1931 abortion ban and fought to enshrine abortion rights in Michigan’s constitution. I’m running to make Roe the law of the land and protect reproductive freedom.”

Advertisement

Tom Barrett

No response to survey.

“Tom does not support a federal ban. He has consistently argued this is a decision for the states and while he disagrees with Prop. 3, Michigan voters have made that decision.”

Mich. 8

Advertisement

Mich. 8

Kristen McDonald Rivet

No response to survey.

“After Roe was overturned, I protected abortion rights in Michigan by helping to repeal our state’s 1931 ban without exceptions for rape or incest. In Congress, I’ll fight for a federal law restoring the Roe standard across America.”

Advertisement

Paul Junge

No response to survey.

“I would never and have never supported a national abortion ban.”

Neb. 2

Advertisement

Neb. 2

Tony Vargas

No response to survey.

“I believe the decisions a woman makes for her body, and her family, are deeply personal and politicians have no place telling her what she can and cannot do. In Congress, I’ll vote to codify the protections earned from the Roe v. Wade decision into federal law.”

Advertisement

Don Bacon*

No response to survey.

“I support the Nebraska law that puts a reasonable three-month restriction on abortions with exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. At the federal level, I would only support legislation to outlaw late-term abortion, with protections for the three exceptions. Otherwise, states must vote on this issue.”

N.M. 2

Advertisement

N.M. 2

Gabe Vasquez*

No response to survey.

“Abortion is health care. This is not a place for government interference. I trust every person I know and love, and any New Mexican, to make that decision for themselves.”

Advertisement

Yvette Herrell

No response to survey.

“Yvette has been clear that since the Dobbs decision returned abortion policy to the states, she does not support a federal ban.”

N.J. 7

Advertisement

N.J. 7

Sue Altman

No response to survey.

“Sue will work to protect access to contraception, reproductive choice, and women’s health,” via campaign site.

Advertisement

Thomas Kean Jr.*

No response to survey.

“Tom is opposed to a national abortion ban. He has voted to protect access to mifepristone and believes any legislation should be left to the voters of each state to advocate for their positions to their legislatures.”

N.Y. 17

Advertisement

N.Y. 17

Mondaire Jones

No response to survey.

“We must enshrine protections for abortion into federal law.”

Advertisement

Mike Lawler*

No response to survey.

“He does not and never will support a national abortion ban.”

N.Y. 19

Advertisement

N.Y. 19

Josh Riley

No response to survey.

“I believe that women’s health care decisions are women’s health care decisions and that politicians should stay the hell out of it. In Congress, I will codify the right to abortion as it existed under Roe v. Wade into law.”

Advertisement

Marc Molinaro*

No response to survey.

“I believe health care decisions should be between a woman and her doctor, not Washington. I kept my promise to reject a national abortion ban — keeping New York’s laws in place.”

N.Y. 4

Advertisement

N.Y. 4

Laura Gillen

No response to survey.

“The standard should be the same as it was the day before the disastrous Dobbs decision. It worked for a half a century, and we should return to it.”

Advertisement

Anthony D’Esposito*

No response to survey.

“Congressman D’Esposito does not support a nationwide abortion ban and believes legislating on abortion should fall under the purview of state governments.”

N.C. 1

Advertisement

N.C. 1

Don Davis*

No response to survey.

“Congress must take action and codify Roe v. Wade. He firmly believes that a woman’s health decisions should remain private between her and her doctor,” via campaign site.

Advertisement

Laurie Buckhout

No response to survey.

“As the only candidate to be endorsed by the pro-life SBA (Susan B. Anthony) List, I believe every life is precious and would vote to preserve life, including the mother’s,” via The Perquimans Weekly.

Ohio 13

Advertisement

Ohio 13

Emilia Sykes*

No response to survey.

“Congresswoman Sykes has a strong record of supporting the protections provided under Roe that give women across the country the right to make decisions about what is best for their bodies.”

Advertisement

Kevin Coughlin

No response to survey.

“Issues related to abortion are best left to the states, and there should be no federal ban.”

Ore. 5

Advertisement

Ore. 5

Janelle Bynum

No response to survey.

“Rep. Bynum supports codifying Roe v. Wade into federal law so that women across the country can have those rights back. This is a decision that should be kept between a woman and her doctors.”

Advertisement

Lori Chavez-DeRemer*

No response to survey.

“The congresswoman doesn’t support any federal standard limiting Oregonians’ access to abortion.”

Pa. 7

Advertisement

Pa. 7

Susan Wild*

No response to survey.

“I have always believed that private medical decisions, including whether or not to receive abortion care, should be made by a woman, her doctor, her partner and her faith if she so chooses.”

Advertisement

Ryan Mackenzie

No response to survey.

“He’s opposed to a national abortion ban; he supports exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.”

Pa. 8

Advertisement

Pa. 8

Matt Cartwright*

No response to survey.

“I strongly support the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would restore Roe’s protections into federal law. We should trust women with their health care decisions, not politicians.”

Advertisement

Rob Bresnahan Jr.

No response to survey.

“Rob Bresnahan does not support a national abortion ban and does support the current Pennsylvania protections of 24 weeks and exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. ”

Pa. 10

Advertisement

Pa. 10

Janelle Stelson

No response to survey.

“I think these most intimate health care decisions should be made by women and their doctors … If elected, I will put those decisions back in the hands of women, where they belong.”

Advertisement

Scott Perry*

No response to survey.

“Scott Perry believes firmly in the sanctity of Life — period. He makes exceptions for circumstances that involve rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother,” via campaign site.

Va. 7

Advertisement

Va. 7

Eugene Vindman

No response to survey.

“In Congress, I will fight to make sure that the rights of women and girls in Virginia are never dependent on politicians in Richmond or Washington by voting to restore the protections of Roe nationwide.”

Advertisement

Derrick Anderson

No response to survey.

“Derrick opposes and would vote against a national abortion ban.”

Wash. 3

Advertisement

Wash. 3

Marie Gluesenkamp Perez*

No response to survey.

“Marie is an original co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and supports codifying the abortion protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law, as well as ensuring women have continued access to contraception and I.V.F.”

Advertisement

Joe Kent

No response to survey.

“Following the Supreme Court decision that made abortion a state issue, Joe Kent opposes any new federal legislation on the issue.”

Methodology

Advertisement

The New York Times survey asked candidates or their campaigns two questions: 1) Do you support any federal minimum standard on abortion? 2) If so, until how many weeks in pregnancy (i.e. 6 weeks, 15 weeks, viability, etc.)?

Those surveyed were major-party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives whose races were rated “tossups” by the Cook Political Report at any point in October 2024. Alaska’s at-large congressional district includes four candidates and will be decided by ranked-choice voting; the two candidates who received the most votes in the primary were included in the survey. All but six candidates responded to emailed requests for comment. In these cases, position summaries were taken from campaign websites or from other public statements.

Note: Counts of candidate statements in the top graphic were taken from survey responses only.

Additional work by June Kim.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Politics

Power, politics and a $2.8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

Published

on

Power, politics and a .8-billion exit: How Paramount topped Netflix to win Warner Bros.

The morning after Netflix clinched its deal to buy Warner Bros., Paramount Skydance Chairman David Ellison assembled a war room of trusted advisors, including his billionaire father, Larry Ellison.

Furious at Warner Bros. Discovery Chief David Zaslav for ending the auction, the Ellisons and their team began plotting their comeback on that crisp December day.

To rattle Warner Bros. Discovery and its investors, they launched a three-front campaign: a lawsuit, a hostile takeover bid and direct lobbying of the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress.

“There was a master battle plan — and it was extremely disciplined,” said one auction insider who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Netflix stunned the industry late Thursday by pulling out of the bidding, clearing the way for Paramount to claim the company that owns HBO, HBO Max, CNN, TBS, Food Network and the Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank. The deal was valued at more than $111 billion.

Advertisement

The streaming giant’s reversal came just hours after co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos met with Atty Gen. Pam Bondi and a deputy at the White House. It was a cordial session, but the Trump officials told Sarandos that his deal was facing significant hurdles in Washington, according to a person close to the administration who was not authorized to comment publicly.

Even before that meeting, the tide had turned for Paramount in a swell of power, politics and brinkmanship.

“Netflix played their cards well; however, Paramount played their cards perfectly,” said Jonathan Miller, chief executive of Integrated Media Co. “They did exactly what they had to do and when they had to do it — which was at the very last moment.”

Key to victory was Larry Ellison, his $200-billion fortune and his connections to President Trump and congressional Republicans.

Paramount also hired Trump’s former antitrust chief, attorney Makan Delrahim, to quarterback the firm’s legal and regulatory action.

Advertisement

Republicans during a Senate hearing this month piled onto Sarandos with complaints about potential monopolistic practices and “woke” programming.

David Ellison skipped that hearing. This week, however, he attended Trump’s State of the Union address in the Capitol chambers, a guest of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). The two men posed, grinning and giving a thumbs-up, for a photo that was posted to Graham’s X account.

David Ellison, the chairman and chief executive of Paramount Skydance Corp., walks through Statuary Hall to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026.

(Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images)

Advertisement

On Friday, Netflix said it had received a $2.8-billion payment — a termination fee Paramount agreed to pay to send Netflix on its way.

Long before David Ellison and his family acquired Paramount and CBS last summer, the 43-year-old tech scion and aircraft pilot already had his sights set on Warner Bros. Discovery.

Paramount’s assets, including MTV, Nickelodeon and the Melrose Avenue movie studio, have been fading. Ellison recognized he needed the more robust company — Warner Bros. Discovery — to achieve his ambitions.

“From the very beginning, our pursuit of Warner Bros. Discovery has been guided by a clear purpose: to honor the legacy of two iconic companies while accelerating our vision of building a next-generation media and entertainment company,” David Ellison said in a Friday statement. “We couldn’t be more excited for what’s ahead.”

Warner’s chief, Zaslav, who had initially opposed the Paramount bid, added: “We look forward to working with Paramount to complete this historic transaction.”

Advertisement

Netflix, in a separate statement, said it was unwilling to go beyond its $82.7-billion proposal that Warner board members accepted Dec. 4.

“We believe we would have been strong stewards of Warner Bros.’ iconic brands, and that our deal would have strengthened the entertainment industry and preserved and created more production jobs,” Sarandos and co-Chief Executive Greg Peters said in a statement.

“But this transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” the Netflix chiefs said.

Netflix may have miscalculated the Ellison family’s determination when it agreed Feb. 16 to allow Paramount back into the bidding.

The Los Gatos, Calif.-based company already had prevailed in the auction, and had an agreement in hand. Its next step was a shareholder vote.

Advertisement

“They didn’t need to let Paramount back in, but there was a lot of pressure on them to make sure the process wouldn’t be challenged,” Miller said.

In addition, Netflix’s stock had also been pummeled — the company had lost a quarter of its value — since investors learned the company was making a Warner run.

Upon news that Netflix had withdrawn, its shares soared Friday nearly 14% to $96.24.

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House

Netflix Chief Executive Ted Sarandos arrives at the White House on Feb. 26, 2026.

(Andrew Leyden / Getty Images)

Advertisement

Invited back into the auction room, Paramount unveiled a much stronger proposal than the one it submitted in December.

The elder Ellison had pledged to personally guarantee the deal, including $45.7 billion in equity required to close the transaction. And if bankers became worried that Paramount was too leveraged, the tech mogul agreed to put in more money in order to secure the bank financing.

That promise assuaged Warner Bros. Discovery board members who had fretted for weeks that they weren’t sure Ellison would sign on the dotted line, according to two people close to the auction who were not authorized to comment.

Paramount’s pressure campaign had been relentless, first winning over theater owners, who expressed alarm over Netflix’s business model that encourages consumers to watch movies in their homes.

During the last two weeks, Sarandos got dragged into two ugly controversies.

Advertisement

First, famed filmmaker James Cameron endorsed Paramount, saying a Netflix takeover would lead to massive job losses in the entertainment industry, which is already reeling from a production slowdown in Southern California that has disrupted the lives of thousands of film industry workers.

Then, a week ago, Trump took aim at Netflix board member Susan Rice, a former high-level Obama and Biden administration official. In a social media post, Trump called Rice a “no talent … political hack,” and said that Netflix must fire her or “pay the consequences.”

The threat underscored the dicey environment for Netflix.

Additionally, Paramount had sowed doubts about Netflix among lawmakers, regulators, Warner investors and ultimately the Warner board.

Paramount assured Warner board members that it had a clear path to win regulatory approval so the deal would quickly be finalized. In a show of confidence, Delrahim filed to win the Justice Department’s blessing in December — even though Paramount didn’t have a deal.

Advertisement

This month, a deadline for the Justice Department to raise issues with Paramount’s proposed Warner takeover passed without comment from the Trump regulators.

“Analysts believe the deal is likely to close,” TD Cowen analysts said in a Friday report. “While Paramount-WBD does present material antitrust risks (higher pay TV prices, lower pay for TV/movie workers), analysts also see a key pro-competitive effect: improved competition in streaming, with Paramount+ and HBO Max representing a materially stronger counterweight to #1 Netflix.”

Throughout the battle, David Ellison relied on support from his father, attorney Delrahim, and three key board members: Oracle Executive Vice Chair Safra A. Catz; RedBird Capital Partners founder Gerry Cardinale; and Justin Hamill, managing director of tech investment firm Silver Lake.

In the final days, David Ellison led an effort to flip Warner board members who had firmly supported Netflix. With Paramount’s improved offer, several began leaning toward the Paramount deal.

On Tuesday, Warner announced that Paramount’s deal was promising.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Warner’s board determined Paramount’s deal had topped Netflix. That’s when Netflix surrendered.

“Paramount had a fulsome, 360-degree approach,” Miller said. “They approached it financially. … They understood the regulatory environment here and abroad in the EU. And they had a game plan for every aspect.”

On Friday, Paramount shares rose 21% to $13.51.

It was a reversal of fortunes for David Ellison, who appeared on CNBC just three days after that war room meeting in December.

“We put the company in play,” David Ellison told the CNBC anchor that day. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Advertisement

Times staff writer Ana Cabellos and Business Editor Richard Verrier contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending