Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is calling on President Donald Trump to force the Senate to return from their Easter break as the Department of Homeland Security shutdown drags on.
“President Trump has the power to convene the Senate under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution ‘on extraordinary Occasions,’” the Utah Republican <a href="https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/2038407140675915995?s=20">posted</a> to X on Sunday.
“If a department with 260,000 employees (DHS) going unfunded isn’t an ‘extraordinary occasion’—especially while the Senate is out on a two-week recess during that shutdown with no plans to resolve the impasse beyond ‘we’ll deal with that in two weeks’—I don’t know what is,” Lee added.
The Senate held a pro forma session on Monday morning, but made no progress toward funding DHS. Last week, the Senate approved a DHS funding deal that excluded ICE and Border Patrol, which Trump opposes, whereas the House passed a bill late on Friday that would extend funding for 60 days for the entire department. Both chambers were permitted to go home after passing their bills.
During the White House press briefing on Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump is &#8220;encouraging Congress to come back to Washington to permanently fix this problem and to fund and reopen the Department of Homeland Security entirely.&#8221;
A Republican aide told the Daily Wire on background that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) on Monday morning &#8220;told his colleagues this weekend that he would not bring them back for a show vote but would bring them back if there were a bill that would have the support to pass the Senate.” The aide noted that there is still a preference for the House to pass the Senate-backed bill.
In another post, Lee criticized the Monday session, <a href="https://x.com/BasedMikeLee/status/2038630449720008744?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> that “no attempt was made to pass DHS funding by unanimous consent,” adding that “the Senate must convene now.”
Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND) told <a href="https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/2038634941756359075?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Fox News</a> on Monday that an effort to pass the House’s bill, known as a continuing resolution, was not attempted because Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) was in attendance in order to kill any effort to do so, as it would ultimately send the legislation to the president’s desk.
However, the North Dakota lawmaker said there could be an attempt made to do so on Thursday, and that he would like to see a three-year-long DHS funding push through reconciliation instead. A reconciliation bill is not subject to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
As for Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has said that the 60-day CR from the House would be <a href="https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/leader-schumer-statement-on-house-republicans-plan-to-try-to-fund-dhs-through-a-60-day-cr-instead-of-passing-the-senate-passed-appropriations-bill" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“dead on arrival,”</a> and House Democrats largely wanted to pass the Senate deal, with all but three of them voting against the House Republican proposal.
“There is a bipartisan bill to end the chaos at airports,” House Minority Leader <a href="https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/2038638198788612366?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Hakeem Jeffries</a> (D-NY) posted to X on Monday. “House Republicans rejected it and left town on vacation. Bring the House back. End the GOP shutdown. NOW.”
Rep. <a href="https://x.com/RepMGP/status/2037736452469952621?s=20" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Marie Gluesenkamp Perez</a> (D-WA), one of the three Democrats who voted for the CR, said that she believes reforming ICE is “necessary” but wanted to make sure federal workers at DHS get paid.
‘The president has agreed to several reforms to ICE — including mandatory body cameras, ID numbers, ending enforcement at hospitals and schools, and other reforms — but only in exchange for full 2026 funding of ICE,” she posted.
“Walking away from DHS funding will not fix anything about ICE and it screws a lot of hard-working people. Ideological purity that empowers a broken system and hurts working people is not what I was sent to Congress to be part of,” the Democrat added.
The impact of the shutdown is expected to be lessened starting this week, after Trump&#8217;s executive order last week to provide TSA officers with pay, as callouts and resignations continue to strain airport security lines.
The Daily Wire reached out to the White House for comment.

U.S. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)

Calls Grow To Force Congress Back As DHS Shutdown Hinges On One Move

Chis Coons

Congress

Hakeem Jeffries

homeland security

Immigration

Mike Lee

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said on Tuesday that he didn&#8217;t understand a reporter&#8217;s question comparing President Donald Trump&#8217;s recent military action in Iran with former President Barack Obama&#8217;s military action in Libya in 2011.
Jeffries took the question from Fox News congressional correspondent Bill Melugin, who referenced 2011 comments from then House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). At the time, Pelosi had insisted that Obama did not need prior authorization from Congress to strike Libya, nor did he need authorization to continue military action there.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
NEW: I asked House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) about Nancy Pelosi saying in 2011 that President Obama didn&#8217;t need Congressional approval to bomb Libya, but Dems now say President Trump needs approval to bomb Iran?
Jeffries said Iran is &#8220;very different&#8221; &amp; told me &#8220;I… <a href="https://t.co/SkLr1R5wr1">pic.twitter.com/SkLr1R5wr1</a>
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/2028932152126054616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;House Democrats say Trump needs that approval to bomb Iran,&#8221; Melugin said. &#8220;What&#8217;s the difference?&#8221;
&#8220;Well, obviously, Libya and the circumstances connected to that were very different than the circumstance that we face in Iran right now,&#8221; Jeffries said, adding, &#8220;I mean, I don&#8217;t even understand the genesis or basis of that question, not suggesting you&#8217;re asking it in bad faith.&#8221;
&#8220;Libya went on for seven months,&#8221; Melugin pointed out.
&#8220;But I&#8217;ve said — as I&#8217;ve indicated — first of all, I was not in Congress at the time, so we&#8217;re dealing with what we&#8217;re dealing with right now, which is a catastrophic endless war as Donald Trump has characterized it,&#8221; Jeffries claimed despite the fact that the current operation was just over 72 hours old and Trump&#8217;s initial prediction was that the mission could be accomplished in a matter of weeks.
Jeffries went on to complain that the Trump administration had acted without intelligence indicating &#8220;a preeminent attack on the United States&#8221; or American interests and claimed that if such action was necessary, it meant that the president had not been telling the truth when he said that the airstrikes last year had completely wiped out Iran&#8217;s nuclear program.
Multiple Democrats — including Jeffries — have criticized Trump for authorizing action against Iran without first consulting Congress for authorization. Secretary of State <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/rubio-unloads-on-reporter-who-asks-why-trump-didnt-notify-congress-before-striking-iran">Marco Rubio</a> explained that the Gang of Eight had been informed, and then cited the War Powers Resolution of 1973 to assert that the Trump administration had done things by the book.
The War Powers Resolution states that the president can engage in military action for up to 48 hours without informing Congress, and can continue to wage war for up to 60 days — with an additional 30 days for any necessary troop drawdowns — without going to Congress for authorization. As Rubio also noted, no presidential administration — Republican or Democrat — has ever accepted the War Powers Resolution as constitutional.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) Holds News Conference

Top Dem Squirms When Obama Libya Flashback Collides With Iran Strike Outrage

Barack Obama

Donald Trump

Iran

Libya

Media

Military

Politics

As President Donald Trump prepares to deliver his State of the Union address next Tuesday, some congressional Democrats are planning to protest or skip the speech altogether.
MeidasTouch Network and MoveOn, two high-profile liberal organizations, are hosting the &#8220;People’s State of the Union” on the National Mall as counter-programming to Trump&#8217;s address. Hosted by leftist commentators Joy Reid and Katie Phang, the event will feature several Democratic lawmakers, including Sens. Ed Markey (MA), Tina Smith (MN), Chris Van Hollen (MD), Chris Murphy (CT), and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (WA), among others.
“While Trump lies, we’re lifting up the real stories shaping this country,” MoveOn posted to X.
At least 12 Democratic lawmakers have publicly said they will not attend Trump&#8217;s address, according to <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democratic-lawmakers-plan-boycott-trumps-state-union-address-rally-rcna259552" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC News</a>.
“Next week, Trump will deliver his State of the Union address. I won&#8217;t be there,” Van Hollen posted to X on Wednesday. “Trump is marching America towards fascism, and I refuse to normalize his shredding of our Constitution &amp; democracy. This cannot be business as usual.”
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said at a press conference that his “current plan is to attend.”
&#8220;We&#8217;re not going to Donald Trump&#8217;s house. He&#8217;s coming to our house,&#8221; Jeffries said. &#8220;It&#8217;s my view that you don&#8217;t let anyone ever run you off of your block.”
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/18/us/politics/democrats-trump-congress.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NFA.2sNL.WXDK8ZL5nYsa&amp;smid=url-share" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The New York Times</a> reported that Jeffries has urged lawmakers to either remain quiet during the address or not attend at all. Last year, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) was censured by Republicans and 10 Democrats after interrupting Trump’s speech.
“You have no mandate to cut Medicaid!” Green shouted before being escorted from the chamber at House Speaker Mike Johnson&#8217;s request.
Protests at State of the Union addresses are not new. Many Democratic women wore pink in protest of Trump&#8217;s speech last year. In 2020, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up a transcript of Trump&#8217;s speech.
Another liberal activist group, Amplify Pledge, is urging lawmakers to skip the address as part of its “Young People Address the Nation” campaign, <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/02/17/gen-z-activist-group-calls-for-congress-to-boycott-trumps-state-of-the-union/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Signal</a> reported on Tuesday.
The White House said the address will highlight Trump&#8217;s “agenda” and “results” as he marks his first year back in office. The speech comes as Congress and the administration remain at odds over funding the Department of Homeland Security.
“In terms of the written offer that was transmitted from the Democrats, the parties are still pretty far apart,” a White House official told The Daily Wire on background Tuesday. “The Administration remains interested in good faith conversations to end the Democrat shutdown before more Americans feel the impacts. But the Administration also remains committed to carrying out the President’s promise to enforce federal immigration law.”

US-POLITICS-TRUMP-SOTU

The Rival Event Democrats Have In The Works As They Skip Trump’s Address

Chris Van Hollen

Executive

State of the Union

Trump Administration

Polling firm Cygnal released a new survey on Wednesday showing broad support for voter identification requirements, including a majority backing among black, Hispanic, and white voters. The poll found that 72% of white voters, 69% of Hispanic voters, and 56% of black voters support requiring identification at the polls.  
“Hakeem Jeffries seems to think voter ID is voter suppression, but when you actually ask voters, 70% of American voters overall, 75% of swing voters, 69% of hispanics, 56% of black voters, and even 46% of democrats support voter ID,” said pollster and Senior Partner John Rogers. He added that Republicans view the issue as politically advantageous heading into the midterms. “It shows Republicans have another winning issue heading into the midterms if they lean into it with confidence.”
Jeffries has <a href="https://jeffries.house.gov/2026/02/08/leader-jeffries-on-cnn-we-need-to-ensure-that-there-are-legislative-changes-enacted-as-part-of-any-dhs-spending-bill/?utm_source=chatgpt.com">opposed</a> the SAVE Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to register for federal elections, arguing that the GOP is attempting to discourage voter participation. &#8220;What Republicans are trying to do is to engage in clear and blatant voter suppression,&#8221; said Jeffries. &#8220;They know that if there&#8217;s a free and fair election in November, they&#8217;re going to lose.&#8221;
The House passed a version of the bill in the fall, which is now under consideration in the Senate.
The Cygnal poll was conducted from February 3-4 among 1,500 likely 2026 midterm voters and has a margin of error of 2.51%. It found 70% support for requiring voter ID for federal elections, compared with 26% opposed. Support was strongest among Republicans at 92%, while 46% of Democrats said they favor voter ID requirements.
Cygnal’s findings align with other national surveys. A Gallup poll conducted last fall found that <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-voting-voter-verification.aspx#:~:text=requiring%20photo%20identification%20to%20vote%20(84%25)">84%</a> of Americans favor voter ID requirements, while the Pew Research Center reported almost identical findings, with <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/02/voter-id-is-overwhelmingly-popular-with-literally-everyone-except-democrat-politicians/">83%</a> support.
The SAVE Act would mandate that states obtain documentary proof of American citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections and would require the removal of noncitizens from voter rolls. 
In order for the SAVE Act to pass the Senate, a simple majority of fifty-one votes is required. However, the bill would need 60 votes to overcome a potential filibuster. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) has expressed support for voter ID requirements but acknowledged the measure might lack the votes to advance. &#8220;How we get to that vote remains to be seen,&#8221; he said.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-EARLY VOTING

Poll Undercuts Democrat ‘Voter Suppression’ Claims

Elections

John Thune

Poll

Voter ID

Two prominent Democrats — one in the House and one in the Senate — spoke out on Sunday against a move suggested by President Donald Trump even though both championed a similar move five years earlier when their party was in control.
For those who don&#8217;t spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television — and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week&#8217;s worth of network and cable news media spin — The Daily Wire has compiled a short summary of what you may have missed.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) both responded to President Trump&#8217;s wild suggestion that Republicans should &#8220;nationalize&#8221; voting, saying that laws dictating election procedures, constitutionally speaking, belonged to the individual states.
Trump sparked the debate with an apparently off-the-cuff comment during an interview with former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, when he said of the illegal aliens who&#8217;d flooded into the United States through former President Joe Biden&#8217;s open border, &#8220;If we don’t get them out, Republicans will never win another election.&#8221;
<p class="paragraph-elevate inline-placeholder vossi-paragraph_elevate" data-uri="cms.cnn.com/_components/paragraph/instances/cml7ho4w6000g3b63o4jdjpeq@published" data-editable="text" data-component-name="paragraph" data-article-gutter="true">&#8220;The Republicans should say, ‘We want to take over.’ We should take over the voting, in at least, many, 15 places,&#8221; Trump added then. &#8220;The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.&#8221;
The White House later explained that Trump had been referring to states where he believed election fraud was a real problem, and the president has not previously pushed the notion of &#8220;nationalizing&#8221; voting — but that did not stop Jeffries and Schiff from running with the idea as if he had.
The House Minority Leader joined CNN anchor Dana Bash to discuss the situation on &#8220;State of the Union,&#8221; and she began by noting that Republicans had argued that passing the SAVE Act — which would require all voters in the United States to show proof of citizenship at the polls — was the best way to prevent voter fraud in any state.
&#8220;I understand that you don&#8217;t support things like a passport, for example,&#8221; Bash began. &#8220;But requiring basic ID in order to vote is really popular. A Pew poll from a few months ago showed 83% of Americans, including 71% of your fellow Democrats, support requiring an ID to vote. Why are they wrong?&#8221;
&#8220;I haven&#8217;t said that they&#8217;re wrong,&#8221; Jeffries insisted before explaining why he was still opposed to the measure. &#8220;We know that states are the ones that are empowered to conduct elections, and every state should be allowed to decide the best way to proceed to ensure that there&#8217;s a free and fair election.&#8221;
&#8220;The question is that — what Republicans are trying to do is to engage in clear and blatant voter suppression,&#8221; he added. &#8220;They know that if there&#8217;s a free and fair election in November, they&#8217;re going to lose! In fact, Republicans have been losing every single election since Donald Trump was sworn in in January of last year, including most recently, decisively, in Texas.&#8221;
Bash pressed again, asking whether it would be worth it, since Democrats favor voter ID laws as well, to &#8220;take that off the table&#8221; as a point of contention: &#8220;Maybe not a passport or a birth certificate, but show ID.&#8221;
&#8220;Every state is empowered to be able to make the decision on their own,&#8221; Jeffries protested. &#8220;What Donald Trump wants to do is try to nationalize the election. Translation: steal it. And we&#8217;re not going to let it happen.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Trump&#8217;s call for Republicans to &#8220;take over&#8221; running elections: &#8220;What Donald Trump wants to do is try to nationalize the election. Translation: steal it. And we&#8217;re not going to let it happen.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/jGflGaguAn">pic.twitter.com/jGflGaguAn</a>
— State of the Union (@CNNSOTU) <a href="https://twitter.com/CNNSOTU/status/2020505995571548305?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Schiff took a similar tone with &#8220;This Week&#8221; host Jonathan Karl, who asked the California Senator to explain what the president meant when he&#8217;d told Bongino he wanted to &#8220;nationalize&#8221; voting in certain places.
&#8220;Senator, what does he mean? What do you think he means?&#8221; Karl asked.
&#8220;I think he fully intends to subvert the elections,&#8221; Schiff declared. &#8220;He will do everything he can to suppress the vote.&#8221;
Schiff, who still has not provided the evidence he claimed to have regarding President Trump and Russian collusion, went on to insist that Trump would take action if he did not like how the elections played out: &#8220;He&#8217;s prepared to try to take some kind of action to overturn the result, and we really shouldn&#8217;t question that.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Sen. Adam Schiff on President Trump’s call to “nationalize” state elections: “He&#8217;s prepared to try to take some kind of action to overturn the result, and we really shouldn&#8217;t question that.&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/mPgqzgikhs">https://t.co/mPgqzgikhs</a> <a href="https://t.co/qKxEiiUyuh">pic.twitter.com/qKxEiiUyuh</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2020518333938847909?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And yet both Jeffries and Schiff were all in when their own party pushed for national control over elections via 2021&#8217;s H.R. 1 — laughably nicknamed the &#8220;For the People Act.&#8221;
The bill&#8217;s purpose, according to the Democrats who wrote it, sounded reasonable enough: &#8220;To expand American&#8217;s access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy and for other purposes.&#8221;
But as former Manager of Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage Foundation Hans Von Spakovsky explained, what <a href="https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains-if-hr-1-passes">the bill would actually</a> have done was pretty much the exact opposite of what its stated &#8220;purpose&#8221; suggested.
&#8220;A better description of it is that this bill would be a federal takeover and nationalization of the running and administration of elections, basically taking it away from the states,&#8221; he said.
Spakovsky, who has since joined Advancing American Freedom as a senior legal fellow, added, “It would change election rules to make it easier to cheat and easier to manipulate election results. And on the ethics and campaign finance rule changes, it&#8217;s designed to restrict and chill speech, political speech and political activity. So it&#8217;s just &#8230; this is one of the worst bills I&#8217;ve ever seen in my years in Washington.&#8221;

House Minority Leader Jeffries Holds Capitol Hill Press Conference

Spin Cycle: Democrats Come Out Hard Against The Thing They Voted For In 2021

ABC News

Adam Schiff

Two top Democrats put in some extra effort to oppose voter identification initiatives — even as polling indicates that a broad majority of their own voters favor the policy.
Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) joined ABC&#8217;s Jonathan Karl and CNN&#8217;s Dana Bah, respectively, to explain why they have continued to oppose a policy that has overwhelming support from both parties and across multiple demographics.
On &#8220;This Week,&#8221; Karl referenced a recent Pew Research Center poll in which 83% of respondents said they would support voter identification requirements — and that when broken down by party, 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats would support such measures.
&#8220;Is that something that you can support? And if not, why?&#8221; Karl asked.
&#8220;It&#8217;s still going to be something, Jonathan, it&#8217;s still going to be something that disenfranchises people that don&#8217;t have the proper Real ID, driver&#8217;s license ID that don&#8217;t have the ID necessary to vote even though they are citizens,&#8221; Schiff claimed. &#8220;This is another way to simply try to suppress the vote. And the last thing I think we want to do is discourage more people, more citizens from voting.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 71% of Democrats are in favor of requiring photo ID to vote. Sen. Adam Schiff disagrees, telling ABC News&#8217; <a href="https://twitter.com/jonkarl?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JonKarl</a> that it is “another way to simply try to suppress the vote.” <a href="https://t.co/Sp8hHSWy8u">https://t.co/Sp8hHSWy8u</a> <a href="https://t.co/2sHLJlXXjL">pic.twitter.com/2sHLJlXXjL</a>
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/2020519592213332200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
On CNN&#8217;s &#8220;state of the Union,&#8221; Jeffries could easily have been reading from the same script as Schiff as he responded to a similar lines of questioning from anchor Dana Bash.
&#8220;I understand that you don&#8217;t support things like a passport, for example,&#8221; Bash began. &#8220;But requiring basic ID in order to vote is really popular. A Pew poll from a few months ago showed 83% of Americans, including 71% of your fellow Democrats, support requiring an ID to vote. Why are they wrong?&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries calls commonsense voter ID — which 83% of Americans support, including Democrats — &#8220;voter suppression.&#8221;
Why are Democrats against ensuring only Americans are voting in American elections? <a href="https://t.co/JW7gKIRAN0">pic.twitter.com/JW7gKIRAN0</a>
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) <a href="https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/2020505673663148136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I haven&#8217;t said that they&#8217;re wrong,&#8221; Jeffries insisted before explaining why he was still opposed to the measure. &#8220;We know that states are the ones that are empowered to conduct elections, and every state should be allowed to decide the best way to proceed to ensure that there&#8217;s a free and fair election.&#8221;
&#8220;The question is that — what Republicans are trying to do is to engage in clear and blatant voter suppression,&#8221; he added.
Neither one explained why it was &#8220;suppression&#8221; to require voters to have the same kind of identification already required for people who want to purchase alcohol or cigarettes, travel by air, open a bank account, pick up a prescription, or receive government benefits — among other things.

Senators Kaine And Schiff Discuss Venezuela And The War Powers Resolution

Top Dems Scramble To Explain Why They’re On The Wrong Side Of Voter ID

Top Dems Scramble To Explain Why They're On The Wrong Side Of Voter ID

Democrats

The House voted to extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act for another three years, and the proposal now heads to the Senate.
The legislation made it to the floor after four Republicans joined Democrats in signing a discharge petition, and 17 Republicans ultimately ended up voting with the Democrats on the extension.
Those Republicans were Reps. Rob Bresnahan, Mike Carey, Monica De La Cruz, Brian Fitzpatrick, Andrew Garbarino, Jeff Hurd, David Joyce, Tom Kean, Nick LaLota, Mike Lawler, Ryan Mackenzie, Max Miller, Zach Nunn, Maria Elvira-Salazar, David Valadao, Derrick Van Orden, and Rob Wittman, according to Punchbowl News.
The successful discharge petition and subsequent passage is seen as a major victory for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY).
“The House just decisively passed legislation that restores the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Over the objection of Donald Trump and Speaker Mike Johnson. If you don’t know, now you know,” Jeffries posted to X after the vote.
Lawler (R-NY) said in a statement that his vote suggests a “commitment to a bipartisan solution.&#8221;
“Healthcare affordability is not a political issue; it is a governing responsibility. My signature on the discharge for this bill, and my affirmative vote today, is not an endorsement of a clean 3-year extension, but rather a commitment to a bipartisan solution,” Lawler wrote. “I look forward to working with and voting on a Senate-amended bipartisan compromise in the weeks ahead. My focus is always ensuring Hudson Valley families aren’t caught in the gridlock, and that doesn’t change today.”
On the Senate side, <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/01/07/senate-negotiations-health-care-aca-moreno" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Axios</a> reported that there could be a bipartisan deal in the works that would continue the pandemic-era subsidies for another two years.
The lengthy government shutdown in the fall had to do largely with Democrats seeking an extension of the subsidies as a precondition to keeping the government open. Now, the government is set to shutter again if a budget is not passed, but the House also passed some spending bills on Thursday to avoid another shutdown. There are still other bills needing to be worked out in Congress to completely avoid another shutdown, The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/08/us/politics/house-spending-package.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Times</a> reported.

Federal Government Shuts Down After Congress Fails To Pass Funding Bill

House Votes To Extend Obamacare Subsidies For Another Three Years

Government Shutdown

Health Care

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives used the fifth anniversary of the January 6 protests at the U.S. Capitol to display transparently what their real political agenda is: use the events of that day to tar and feather the Republican Party forever.
House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries pompously declared the hearing a “very solemn, important occasion.”
“Five years ago today, a violent mob incited by Donald Trump attacked the Capitol as part of a concerted effort to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election,” he claimed. He followed by calling the protesters a “bloodthirsty, treacherous mob” that “brutally assaulted police officers and seriously injured more than 140 brave men and women of law enforcement.” He attacked President Trump and “far-right extremists,” accusing them of attempting to “rewrite history.”
In an astonishing aside, considering the Democratic Party’s years-long agenda of opening the floodgates to illegal immigrants, he continued, “The criminals and thugs that Donald Trump pardoned have flooded communities across the country, unleashing violence and mayhem,” calling them an “ongoing threat to public safety.”
Then he segued to the current era, speaking of Republicans while pontificating, “They refuse to serve as a check and balance on an increasingly out-of-control executive branch, preferring to be nothing more than a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump’s extreme agenda.”
The true agenda of the Democrats could not have been more clearly revealed than by what Jeffries said in his conclusion: “It was shameful then; it is shameful now, and it will be shameful always and forever.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin, the Democratic ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, thanked Jeffries and Rep. Bennie Thompson — who had served as Chair of the January 6 Select Committee — for “Not surrendering to the Orwellian project of forgetting, but rather insisting that we remember.”
Raskin wanted to show off his considerable literary chops, as he spanned the literary gamut, quoting author William Faulkner but also comic books, as he intoned, “With election deniers and J6 conspiracists Pam Bondi and Kash Patel at the top of the DOJ, it’s like the Joker, the Riddler, and the Penguin have taken over Gotham City.”
He, too, alluded to the idea that the events of January 6 should be used as a cudgel against the GOP in perpetuity, saying, “It is still January 6 in America, and it will be until the forces of strong, non-violent democracy prevail. We are still in the fight of our lives.”
Of course, back in late June 2020, in the midst of the Black Lives Matter protests, Raskin <a href="https://raskin.house.gov/2020/6/chairman-raskin-s-opening-statement-briefing-first-amendment-violations-black?utm_source=chatgpt.com">declared,</a> “There have been disgraceful episodes of violence against protesters … The unprovoked brutality of some of these offenses against citizen protesters are only known because so many Americans refuse to stop exercising the very freedoms under attack.  &#8230; The people in the streets who moved us to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act are not the “enemies of the people.”  They are the people. In American democracy, the Constitution, the streets, and the future all belong to the people, not to the government. Let’s protect the precious First Amendment rights of the people.”

MixCollage-06-Jan-2026-11-51-AM-3757

January 6: Democrats’ Annual GOP Blame-A-Thon Returns For Its Fifth Season

Jamie Raskin

January 6

The White House did not publish an official &#8220;Naughty List&#8221; for 2025 — though whether they made one is anyone&#8217;s guess — a handful of lawmakers would have been shoe-ins for inclusion.
These people worked against President Donald Trump and his administration over the past year by holding up votes on Trump&#8217;s nominees and agenda, attacking the president on social media and in the press, and badmouthing him and his team in front of any microphone they could find.
They come from both parties and across the country, unified only in their opposition to the Big Man. Let&#8217;s take a look at which Grinches made the list.
<h4>LaMonica McIver</h4>
Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) was one of three New Jersey lawmakers who physically pushed their way into an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holding facility in her state. She and the others claimed that ICE agents had gotten &#8220;rough&#8221; with them, but body cam footage belied her account.
McIver was indicted for her trouble, on three counts of &#8220;forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers.&#8221;
<h4>Marjorie Taylor Greene</h4>
President Trump&#8217;s former ally is the most recent lawmaker to incur Trump&#8217;s wrath.
After a series of criticisms from Greene — focused primarily on the Trump administration&#8217;s handling of files related to the late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein — Trump attacked the Georgia congresswoman in several Truth Social posts. Calling her &#8220;Marjorie Traitor Greene&#8221; in one instance, he cheered her eventual resignation from Congress as &#8220;good for the country.&#8221;
In the days since, Greene has given a handful of interviews — and they&#8217;ve been progressively less flattering to Trump.
<h4>Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</h4>
The New York firebrand has been a more-or-less constant thorn in the side of Republicans since she was elected, and 2025 has proved to be no different. With the policies championed in her proposed Green New Deal languishing under the weight of Trump&#8217;s regulatory reform, she has turned to jabbing at members of the administration and those who support it via social media.
One such barb was aimed at former collegiate swimmer — and staunch advocate for women and girls — Riley Gaines, who pointed out the dangers of embracing socialism as AOC has.
&#8220;Maybe if you channeled all this anger into swimming faster you wouldn’t have come in fifth,” Ocasio-Cortez said, referencing the 2022 NCAA championships where Gaines had tied for 5th place with trans-identifying male swimmer Lia Thomas.
Gaines was unperturbed, replying, &#8220;It’s always hilarious when they think they’ve landed a ‘gotcha’ by pointing out I was the 5th-fastest woman *in the nation* yet they conveniently forget the mediocre man who ranked 462nd in the men’s division lol. Misogynistic dunce.&#8221;
Ocasio-Cortez also took to social media to crow about a poll that showed her besting Vice President JD Vance in a potential 2028 match-up. What she didn&#8217;t mention was that the poll was taken in Canada, where socialism has already taken hold — and where no one can vote for her, anyway.
<h4>Mark Kelly</h4>
Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) joined five other members of Congress — all of them veterans of either the Armed Services or the Central Intelligence Agency — to make a video encouraging members of the military to question their orders in real time. Nicknaming them the &#8220;Seditious Six,&#8221; Trump said his administration was prepared to investigate Kelly in particular because, as the only member of the group who retired from the military, he is still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and can be recalled to be court-martialed for his actions.
<h4>Chuck Schumer</h4>
Senate Minority Leader <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrats-roast-chuck-schumer-over-shutdown-deal-we-need-new-leadership">Chuck Schumer</a> kept members of his party in line through the longest government shutdown in American history — and despite the fact that he and his party got nothing for their trouble, they still managed to inflict a significant amount of pain on people who either worked for the federal government and were furloughed or were dependent on government assistance.
When the shutdown finally ended, Democrats got none of the things they&#8217;d demanded, and members of Schumer&#8217;s party began to turn on him.
&#8220;Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?&#8221; Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) said at the time.
<h4>Hakeem Jeffries</h4>
House Minority Leader <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-catches-hakeem-jeffries-in-straight-up-lie-about-government-shutdown?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=CNN+Catches+Hakeem+Jeffries+In+Straight-Up+Lie+About+Government+Shutdown">Hakeem Jeffries</a> (D-NY) has almost constantly been at odds with the Trump administration — and his attacks have often been disingenuous at best. After claiming that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) had refused to talk to him about bringing the shutdown to an end, Jeffries was forced to admit to CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins that they had, in fact, spoken — and that Johnson had initiated the call.
On another occasion, Jeffries aimed his ire at Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services Administrator <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hakeem-jeffries-trashes-dr-oz-gets-hit-with-brutal-fact-check?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Hakeem+Jeffries+Trashes+Dr.+Oz%2C+Gets+Hit+With+Brutal+Fact-Check">Mehmet Oz.</a> He mocked the acclaimed cardiothoracic surgeon and claimed that no one should take him &#8220;seriously.&#8221;
Fox News anchor John Roberts laid out the fact check: &#8220;Just a quick fact check for the minority leader: Mehmet Oz: Undergraduate degree — Harvard; MD — UPenn; MBA — Wharton School; He was a renowned cardiothoracic surgeon at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital before taking the leap into TV.&#8221;
Jeffries did praise Trump for issuing a pardon to Rep. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hakeem-jeffries-sides-with-trump-over-pardon-for-texas-democrat">Henry Cuellar</a> (D-Texas), whose indictment was viewed by a number on both sides of the political aisle as politically motivated — but on balance, he more than earned the sombrero memes in which he was featured.
<h4>Chris Van Hollen</h4>
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) was at first of many congressional Democrats who sided with dangerous criminal aliens over American citizens, attacking ICE agents for faithfully enforcing federal immigration laws. But when his party and their media cohorts effectively adopted MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia as their cause du jour, it was Van Hollen who took his activism to absurd new heights.
When the criminal illegal alien was deported and sent to El Salvador — an admitted mistake made by the Trump administration, which could legally have deported him to any country other than El Salvador — it was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-border-czar-tears-into-dem-senator-van-hollen-for-el-salvador-trip">Van Hollen</a> who took it upon himself to fly to El Salvador and demand to meet with Abrego Garcia.
<h4>Adam Schiff</h4>
Perhaps the naughtiest of them all, Schiff made the leap from the House to the Senate in January, and although he still hasn&#8217;t delivered the &#8220;evidence&#8221; he swore he had of Trump colluding with Russia, he has poured a fair amount of time and effort into being a bee in the Trump administration&#8217;s bonnet.
Just two days after Trump&#8217;s inauguration, Schiff <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/adam-schiff-complains-bondi-isnt-doing-the-job-his-party-is-blocking-her-from-getting?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Adam+Schiff+Complains+Bondi+Isn’t+Doing+The+Job+His+Party+Is+Blocking+Her+From+Getting">complained</a> in an X post that Pam Bondi — then Trump&#8217;s nominee for attorney general — had not given a thorough review to all of the January 6th pardons. He omitted the fact that his party had stalled Bondi&#8217;s confirmation process — and therefore it was ridiculous to expect her to already be doing the job they were preventing her from getting.
In the months since, Schiff&#8217;s statements have been an exercise in lacking self-awareness.
&#8220;That attitude that you can make a president or a party unsuccessful, no matter what damage it might do to the country, because it’s good politics — we have to get past that ruinous idea,” he said on a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/adam-schiff-claims-lawmakers-shouldnt-use-politics-to-destroy-presidents?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Adam+Schiff+Claims+Lawmakers+Shouldn’t+Use+Politics+To+Destroy+Presidents">recent podcast</a>, omitting his own history of doing exactly that to Trump.
When War Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered strikes on narco-terrorists in the Caribbean, Schiff referred to men who survived the initial strike as &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/adam-schiff-defends-narcoterrorists-claims-they-were-shipwrecked-survivors?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Adam+Schiff+Defends+Narcoterrorists%2C+Claims+They+Were+‘Shipwrecked+Survivors’">shipwreck survivors</a>&#8221; and declared the strikes illegal. He later complained that Trump had only survived multiple prosecutions because then Attorney General Merrick Garland had not been &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/adam-schiff-complains-that-merrick-garland-wasnt-partisan-enough?author=Virginia+Kruta&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Adam+Schiff+Complains+That+Merrick+Garland+Wasn’t+Partisan+Enough">partisan enough</a>.&#8221;
Here&#8217;s hoping these naughty folks enjoy their coal — and learn to be nicer next year!

Eight Lawmakers (Probably) On The White House’s Naughty List

Eight Lawmakers [Probably] On The White House's Naughty List

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Chuck Schumer

Marjorie Taylor Greene

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries agreed with President Donald Trump’s decision to pardon Rep. Henry Cuellar on bribery, money laundering, and “foreign influence” charges from the Biden-era Justice Department in 2024.
“Listen, the reality is this indictment was very thin to begin with, in my view. The charges were eventually going to be dismissed, if not at the trial court level by the Supreme Court, as they&#8217;ve repeatedly done in instances just like this,” the Democrat leader said on CNN’s “The Situation Room” on Wednesday, adding that Cuellar is a “beloved” member of the chamber.
He further added, “I don&#8217;t know why the President decided to do this. I think the outcome was exactly the right outcome.”
When CNN asked Jeffries if Cuellar had planned to switch parties, as he represents a south Texas district that the president won last year, he anticipates that the lawmaker will remain a Democrat.
“I think Congressman Cuellar is a highly-valued Member of the House Democratic Caucus, and I expect that he&#8217;ll continue to remain a highly-valued Member of the House Democratic Caucus,” he added.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The Texas Democrat filed to run in the Democratic primary earlier on Wednesday. Punchbowl News reported that Cuellar said “nothing has changed” when asked on Capitol Hill after the pardon whether he planned to become a Republican.
The 2024 indictment alleged that Cuellar and his wife, Imelda Cuellar, “accepted approximately $600,000 in bribes from two foreign entities: an oil and gas company wholly owned and controlled by the Government of Azerbaijan, and a bank headquartered in Mexico City.”
Trump has been a critic of the indictment since it was announced in May 2024, saying it was politically motivated due to the congressman’s opposition to the Biden administration&#8217;s lax border policies. The Biden administration caught flak from Republicans and a handful of Democrats for the border crisis that persisted throughout the term, which led to major humanitarian issues in communities throughout the southwest that were ill-equipped to handle the resulting massive influx of individuals crossing illegally.
“I want to thank President Trump for his tremendous leadership and for taking the time to look at the facts. I thank God for standing with my family and I during this difficult time. This decision clears the air and lets us move forward for South Texas,” the Democrat said in an X post on Wednesday. “This pardon gives us a clean slate. The noise is gone. The work remains. And I intend to meet it head on.”
Trump wrote in a Truth Social post that Cuellar had ultimately been targeted for “speaking the TRUTH.”
“Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!” the president added.
Cuellar is expected to have a competitive race in 2026, with the Cook Political Report rating his district as a “toss-up.”

Hakeem Jeffries Sides With Trump Over Pardon For Texas Democrat

Henry Cuellar

House of Representatives

pardons

Texas

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) earned an annoyed eye roll from CNBC anchor Becky Quick as they squared off over health care during a Friday morning appearance on &#8220;Squawk Box.&#8221;
Quick and Jeffries were discussing the apparent impasse between Republicans and Democrats over the Affordable Care Act — and how long an extension they might approve for the COVID-era subsidies — and Quick tried several times to point out that some Republicans were willing to work out a deal, but Democrats were still trying to make demands.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Incredible exchange here as Hakeem Jeffries gets IRATE with CNBC’s Becky Quick for daring to press him on his robotic ACA talking points:
Quick: *Cuts Jeffries off to try to make him actually answer a question*
Jeffries: “You can ask the question, I’ll provide the answer!&#8221;… <a href="https://t.co/gegocDMQja">pic.twitter.com/gegocDMQja</a>
— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) <a href="https://twitter.com/WesternLensman/status/1991880057250251121?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Quick began by pointing out that there was already at least one bipartisan measure — supported by Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY) and Don Bacon (R-NE) — that had been proposed, offering a two-year extension to the subsidies in question. That would double the extension that Democrats had pitched weeks earlier — one year — as a potential shutdown-ending deal.
&#8220;If you want to get done, you are going to need at least some Republicans to come over, why not start with a one-year extension or potentially even a two-year extension?” Quick asked, noting that a three-year extension was likely to be “dead in the water.&#8221;
Jeffries balked, noting that Democrats had already tried promising to end the shutdown in exchange for a one-year extension, but that Republicans had turned that down.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.
&#8220;That’s different. I’m talking about what you have now. Let’s not go back to what’s done in the past and what has not been extended. If you want to get something that it has actually done, you need to do something that will have bipartisan effect,&#8221; Quick pushed back.
&#8220;You can ask me the question. I’ll provide the answer,&#8221; Jeffries said.
&#8220;Answer the question instead of going back,&#8221; Quick pressed.
&#8220;I’m providing an answer in order to provide context,&#8221; Jeffries argued, prompting an annoyed eye roll from Quick. &#8220;Republicans have repeatedly refused to take yes for an answer. It was a very reasonable multi-year extension that was offered. It was one year straight extension, plus a multi-year process through a bipartisan commission to more permanently resolve the Affordable Care Act issue. So having that context is absolutely important, regardless of what you may think.&#8221;
&#8220;It’s important context to make me realize that I don’t think you want to get a deal done,&#8221; Quick replied. &#8220;I think this is something where you’d like to see the rates go higher and allow the Republicans to hang themselves with that. Is that the answer? Is this politics?&#8221;
Jeffries bristled: &#8220;That’s absolutely a ridiculous assertion, and really shame on you for saying that.&#8221;
&#8220;Three years is not going to get passed, so what do you do?&#8221; Quick asked again.
Jeffries repeatedly claimed that the issue was &#8220;patriotic&#8221; rather than &#8220;partisan,&#8221; but failed to acknowledge the fact that both the one-year extension offered by Senate Democrats and the three-year extension he appeared to be set on would guarantee that Republicans would have to address the same subsidy fight in an election year. The two year extension — to which he seemed adamantly opposed — was the only offer on the table that would put the next subsidy battle in an off year.

Hakeem Jeffries Earns Annoyed Eye Roll From CNBC Anchor

CNBC

Obamacare

<div>House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is likely to face a primary challenge in his Brooklyn-based district from New York City Councilman Chi Ossé, who describes himself as a socialist.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The primary challenge is one of the first political ripple effects of Democrat Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York mayoral race, but it’s also shining a light on discontent from the far-Left over how best to tackle the Trump administration and the Republican-majority Congress.</div>
<div></div>
<div>“Socialism offers not just a structural strength to resist fascism but also a positive vision worth fighting for,” the councilman wrote in a recent piece for <a href="https://jacobin.com/2025/11/chi-osse-dsa-mamdani-socialism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jacobin</a>. “That’s why Zohran won this November. During a bleak winter for national politics, his campaign became a source of hope, and I became a vigorous, early supporter. I was the first city council member to publicly endorse Zohran.”</div>
<div></div>
<div>Although Ossé’s campaign has not officially launched, Federal Election Commission paperwork shows that he filed to run on Monday. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/10/nyregion/chi-osse-hakeem-jeffries.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Times</a> reported that Mamdani’s team is trying to discourage Ossé from running for the seat, and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “I certainly don’t think a primary challenge to the leader is a good idea right now,” according to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/11/18/aoc-jeffries-chi-osse-new-york-democrats" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Axios</a>.</div>
<div></div>
<div><a class="c-link" href="https://store.dailywire.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://store.dailywire.com/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Up to 50% off razors &amp; DW Shop, up to 50% off Candle Club, up to 25% off Mayflower—bundles, gifts, &amp; last-chance holiday shipping</a></div>
<div></div>
<div>Ossé, 27, joined the New York City Council in 2021 at age 23, according to the Council’s website. He has been a prominent advocate for housing policy reform and an outspoken critic of federal immigration enforcement operations in the city.</div>
<div></div>
<div>“ICE GTFO of NYC,” he posted on October 21.</div>
<div></div>
<div>According to a 2021 campaign guide from <a href="https://marathonstrategies.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/City-Council-Guide-July-21-2021.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Marathon Strategies</a>, Ossé has also proposed “abolishing cash bail.” In addition, he pitched a “wealth tax” in a 2020 interview with <a href="https://www.papermag.com/chi-osse-new-york-city-council-blm-interview#rebelltitem39" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paper Magazine</a>.</div>
<div></div>
<div>“We welcome this primary challenge and look forward to a rigorous debate about the type of serious leadership required to deliver for the people,” a Jeffries spokesperson said, according to <a href="https://thegrio.com/2025/11/17/hakeem-jeffries-challenged-to-2026-primary-by-27-year-old-new-york-councilman/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Grio</a>.</div>
<div></div>
<div>The seat is in a deeply blue district, where Jeffries won more than 75% of the vote in the 2024 general election.</div>

Hakeem Jeffries Could Face Gen Z Socialist Challenger, And His Allies Aren’t Thrilled

New York City

Zohran Mamdani

Menu