Will This Bill Save Social Security, or Kill It?

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.

Sign up and get this newsletter for free.

Inside Washington

Will this bill save Social Security, or kill it?

A new piece of legislation aims to avert a Social Security crisis by fast-tracking a solution before cuts are imminent. But Democrats are torn: Some say, far from saving the program, the bill could give Republicans an opening to raise the retirement age or cut benefits.

The bipartisan bill, dubbed the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE, Act, calls for the nonpartisan Social Security Advisory Board, or SSAB, to come up with a legislative framework to keep Social Security solvent for at least 50 more years. The act, which senators debated in a Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, also requires the House and Senate to debate, amend, and vote on the bill on a condensed timeline, with just 100 hours of floor time allotted for it.

Critics like Senator Bernie Sanders say there’s insufficient oversight of the SSAB drafting process and that the tight voting timeline means a lame-duck Congress could be deciding the future of Social Security. “Social Security is the most important program facing the American people, and we need a serious way forward,” Sanders told The New Republic. “I don’t think a serious way forward is having folks who have either been defeated for election or who are retiring making the key decisions.”

Senator Tim Kaine, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, said he understands the desire to start this process when there isn’t a Republican governing trifecta, but that there’s a downside to further delay. “If you wait until it’s right up against the deadline, you traumatize a lot of people who think maybe [Congress] won’t come up with a solution,” he said. “So our goal is to start the discussion earlier.”

A report released by the Social Security Board of Trustees in early June found that the Social Security Trust Fund will only be able to cover 78 percent of benefits in 2032, which means that without congressional action, Americans who receive Social Security benefits will see theirs reduced by 22 percent. Based on the average benefit of $2,071 per month, that would amount to a monthly cut of $450. More than 70 million Americans receive Social Security benefits. One estimate suggests that this cut could push more than three million seniors and people with disabilities into poverty.

Some progressive senators suggested Wednesday that the impending cliff is all the more reason to have a freshly elected Congress address the issue directly, rather than relying on the SSAB to determine the path forward.

Sanders pointed to his own proposal for Social Security, as well as Senator Elizabeth Warren’s, as potentially the best paths forward. Both Sanders and Warren support lifting the cap on taxable income to generate more revenue for Social Security. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $184,500 workers earn. Someone who makes $60,000 per year, for example, will pay 6.2 percent of every dollar they earn into Social Security. Someone who makes $500,000, though, will only pay that 6.2 percent tax on the first $184,500 of their income. Warren suggests eliminating the cap altogether, and Sanders wants to subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax.

“If you’re a nurse or an electrician, you pay taxes with every paycheck. If you’re a billionaire and you’re good with your accountant and you know your lawyer, you can pay little or nothing; that’s not right,” explained Senator Ron Wyden, who started his career as the co-founder of Oregon’s Gray Panthers, an advocacy organization for the elderly.

Removing the cap while providing benefit credit for those earnings could raise an additional $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years, according to one estimate. That revenue would close nearly half of the 75-year funding gap.

Progressives like Sanders and Warren also worry that the SSAB, left to its own devices, might propose policies like raising the retirement age, privatizing the program, or reducing cost-of-living adjustments.

“We have very different approaches to resolving the upcoming Social Security cliff, and Republicans more than once have tried to put together commissions, hoping that Democrats will give them cover for their preferred solution: cutting the benefits. I won’t be a partner to that,” Warren said.

The AARP, whose executive vice president and chief advocacy and engagement officer, Nancy LeaMond, testified in the Finance Committee hearing on Wednesday, seems to agree with progressives on this. “Your legislation would require an unelected, four-member Advisory Board to put together a 50-year solvency plan in just over a month, with little time for deliberation and limited public input,” LeaMond wrote in a July letter opposing the bill. “If they are unsuccessful, any two members of Congress could force votes on their plans in just a few weeks.” She likewise criticized the prospect of “fast-tracked floor debates in the lame-duck session of Congress, just after the November elections, when departing Members are completely unaccountable to voters.”

Sanders sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to Democrats on Monday expressing the same concerns.

Kaine noted on Wednesday that the bill still provides opportunity for amendments and floor debate. “If it’s not getting 60 votes, it ain’t happening. So that means we’re all going to get to have our input,” he said. “I view the PROMISE Act as the jump ball. Somebody’s got to throw the jump ball up to start the game.”

—Emma Janssen  

Outside Washington

Does Doug Jones have a shot in Alabama?

Amid all the primaries coverage this week, you may have missed the remarkable finding that Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville—a 2020 election denier with a history of Islamophobic and racist remarks—is leading Democrat Doug Jones by only 49–41 in the Alabama governor’s race, despite 56 percent of respondents in that poll identifying as Republican. Granted, it was a weird news item: Those numbers were pulled from a poll funded by a national school-choice advocacy group called the “yes. every kid. foundation.” that was aiming to showcase the potential political payoff of supporting school choice. But when Tuberville and Jones last faced off, in the 2020 Senate race, Tuberville beat Jones by 20 points. So in that context—and given that there hasn’t been much polling on this race so far—the poll was guaranteed to make headlines. “If you’re a Democrat, I’m Lloyd Christmas telling you there’s a chance,” wrote Josh Moon at the Alabama Political Reporter on Wednesday, noting that this poll was conducted before Tuberville alienated a bunch of people with “scorched earth” comments against Social Security and in favor of data centers. “And if you’re a Republican supporting Tuberville,” Moon added, “I’m telling you that you’ve still got a two-score lead, but the other team is at the goal line and your quarterback keeps throwing interceptions.”

Elsewhere:

• CalMatters reporter Rachel Becker explains, for laypeople, why the ongoing policy negotiations over Colorado River water usage are so very complicated—and why neither the “rough parameters” released by Trump’s Interior Department last week nor the cuts that will be announced “any day” now are going to meet the urgent need for a long-term, comprehensive plan. “Building anything to store, move, or make more water typically takes decades and billions of dollars. Without longer-term certainty about how states will share the river’s water supply among 40 million people, millions of acres of agriculture, and two states in Mexico—cities and irrigation providers are struggling to plan how to close the gaps,” writes Becker.
• Big news for avocado fans and both hobbyist and professional plant breeders: Scientists have finally identified the gene that determines when during the day the trees open their female flowers versus their male ones—a daily sex-change ritual each avocado plant performs that’s been puzzling scientists for over a century.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

The Roosevelt Institute drops a new policy brief on “The Economics of the Last and Next Social Security Reform,” arguing that the typical thesis about Social Security’s insolvency—”people live longer and have fewer kids, ergo, Social Security is running out of money”—is flawed. “Social Security is a reflection of, and is supported by, the strength of the economy,” economist Kathryn Anne Edwards argues in the brief. “Who is working, how much they earn, how healthy they are, and how much they save matter more than the head count. People could live longer, have fewer kids, and have a solvent Social Security if workers earned enough money.”

The Open Markets Institute has filed an amicus brief in the Justice Department’s antitrust case against Google, arguing against a court ruling that allows Google to continue “pay[ing] companies such as Apple and browser developers to make Google Search the default search engine.” Brief author and OMI policy counsel Tara Pincock said in the organization’s press release, “If the court allows those payments to continue, the remedy will leave the monopoly largely intact.”

It’s becoming increasingly clear that voters’ views on Trump’s economic policies—particularly the inflationary effects of the war on Iran, as well as the never-ending array of arbitrary tariffs—are going to be a major factor in the November midterms. Pew Research’s recent findings on this were pretty stark: In the first six months of the year, the number of respondents saying they expected the economy to improve in the next year sank from 31 percent to 23 percent. Democrats have thought the economy and Trump’s handling of it was terrible throughout, so the big takeaway was how much of this is being “driven by a shift among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.” The share of that demographic rating the economy highly has fallen from 49 percent to 41 percent, and the percentage of them saying that Trump’s policies are to blame has risen from 18 percent to 28 percent.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Here’s Why That’s B.S.

Did Jeanine Pirro have any other choice?

Trump is furious with U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for dropping the nonsensical Reflecting Pool “vandalism” case. But this wasn’t a principled stand. Watch TNR’s Edie Olmsted explain the story, here.

Political Trivia Question of the Day

As the anniversary of Richard Nixon’s resignation approaches (it’s next Sunday), we’ll toss out a couple Watergate-related questions. Today, the easier one: What was the name of Nixon’s secretary who acknowledged that she “accidentally” erased up to 18.5 minutes of a taped Oval Office conversation between Nixon and aide H.R. Haldeman? (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.

Sign up and get this newsletter for free. 

Inside Washington

How popular is Hakeem Jeffries among Democrats?

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is struggling among some Democratic voters, a new poll from the progressive A Fight Worth Having, or AFWH, PAC suggests. The poll comes as Democrats are poised to take back the House this November, which would vault Jeffries to the position of speaker of the House.

The poll surveyed likely voters in three blue districts: New York’s 15th congressional district, a heavily Hispanic and Black district represented by Representative Ritchie Torres; Arizona’s 4th congressional district, represented by Representative Greg Stanton; and Missouri’s 1st district, a plurality-Black district represented by Representative Wesley Bell. New York’s 15th and Missouri’s 1st are both heavily Democratic districts, and Arizona’s 4th is rated D+4 by the Cook Political Report. Both Stanton and Torres easily defeated progressive challengers in their primaries this year. Bell handily won reelection against progressive Cori Bush on Tuesday.

“What we’ve been trying to do with our polling is go into Democratic strongholds where you would think that Hakeem Jeffries would be the strongest,” said Corbin Trent, who runs AFWH. Trent was the national campaign coordinator for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign and was Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director.

The poll found that a plurality of voters in Arizona’s 4th district (45 percent) and Missouri’s 1st district (43 percent) say Democrats in Congress should replace Jeffries as leader if they win back the House in November—with only 34 percent and 37 percent, respectively, thinking he should remain in his position. The rest were “not sure.” Jeffries had more support in New York’s 15th district, where 61 percent of respondents support Jeffries staying on as the leader of the caucus and 31 percent want someone else. After being given a set of strongly worded progressive messaging points against Jeffries, respondents’ support for Jeffries dropped in all three districts.

Of course, voters don’t decide who is speaker of the House. Representatives of the majority party vote for their speaker when the new Congress convenes. Still, the findings reflect a broader frustration with how Democratic voters perceive their leaders as having fought back against President Donald Trump. A number of progressive candidates who won their primaries this year have declined to say whether they will support Jeffries as speaker, including Darializa Avila Chevalier, Adam Hamawy, and Claire Valdez. Melat Kiros, who won her primary in Colorado’s 1st congressional district, has pledged not to support any Democrat who takes corporate PAC money for leadership (Jeffries receives such money).

AFWH ran the poll through Redbox Research, its polling unit managed by Peter Feld. The poll was fielded by Braun Research of Princeton, New Jersey.

“One should never put much weight on any one poll,” Jeffery Jenkins, provost professor of public policy, political science, and law at the University of Southern California, cautioned in an email. “I think Jeffries maintains a lot of support within the caucus.” While leftist candidates may have criticized Jeffries, he added, “it remains to be seen how they will vote on a speakership contest if the Democrats win a majority.… Comments at this point are cheap talk. Actual votes cast are costly signals.”

Jeffries’s team did not comment directly on the poll, but referred The New Republic to a recent speech Jeffries gave outlining Democratic strategy to win the midterms and advance their agenda if they take back the House. In that July 26 speech, Jeffries made the pitch that he and House Democrats were ready to lead if elected to the majority this November. Speaking at the United Steelworkers Union Hall in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, he promised to hold the Trump administration accountable for corruption, “clean up the mess at the United States Supreme Court,” ban the president, vice president, and members of Congress from trading stocks, and make health care affordable for “every single citizen.”

Jeffries’s support among Black voters remains strong, particularly in New York’s 15th congressional district, close to his home district, New York’s 8th. Seventy-four percent of Black voters in the 15th district support his leadership, while 20 percent want him to be replaced. In Missouri’s 1st district, a smaller number of Black voters, but still a plurality of 43 percent, support his leadership.

Overall, Jeffries maintains good favorability ratings, including among the voters surveyed by A Fight Worth Having’s poll. In New York’s 15th district, he comes away with a 66 percent favorability rating. In Arizona’s 4th district, 53 percent of respondents approve of him, and 50 percent do in Missouri’s 1st district. In a January poll of base Democratic voters conducted by Embold Research for The New Republic, Jeffries received a 60 percent favorability rating. But in both these polls, national progressives like Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani tended to outperform Jeffries’s favorability ratings. In Missouri’s 1st district, the AFWH poll found Mamdani outperforming both Jeffries and Bell, with a 66 percent favorability rating. 

Trent didn’t offer a specific name, nor a plan to replace Jeffries as leader of the caucus. “The list of people that could do the job is quite long,” he said. “But there’s also a pretty long list of people that aren’t ready for that job.”

Jeffries is all but certain to hold onto his leadership role, even if the midterms usher in a few more progressives skeptical of his leadership. But the AFWH poll, along with recent election results and anti-incumbent attitudes, does point to a challenge for him. Ultimately, the question probably isn’t whether Jeffries will remain at the helm, but rather how he will manage an increasingly progressive caucus and prioritize legislation if he does hold the gavel come January.

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

GOP attacks on Francesca Hong are getting ugly

Wisconsin’s primaries will take place next week. But Tom Tiffany, favored to win the Republican gubernatorial primary, has already begun attacking Francesca Hong, a democratic socialist who’s favored to win the Democratic primary, over her old tweets. In 2022, Hong posted to the site then known as Twitter about witnessing “the worst of humanity” emerge on Valentine’s Day when she was working in restaurants. In 2019, she described feeling uncomfortable in the fast food chain Culver’s around “old white people who didn’t think we spoke english.” A third tweet said, “Cancel Thanksgiving. Should have done that in 1621.” Tiffany has reposted the tweets with statements of support for the holidays in question. “Just so everyone knows where I stand, I won’t cancel Thanksgiving as governor,” read one. 

Hong told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Molly Beck that the tweets were “jokes,” but took a more nuanced position in an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. “Thanksgiving is also a time that’s incredibly painful for many people in our communities,” Hong said when asked whether she favored canceling the holiday, adding, “I wanted to make sure that people understood that there are multiple views, but views can evolve.”  

In recent days, Mother Jones’s Julia Métraux recently reported, right-wing media have also attacked Hong over her medical history. Hong has spoken in the past about having been hospitalized during a mental health crisis as a teenager and having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Asked about conservatives’ focus on the issue, Hong told Mother Jones in a statement that her own struggles have increased her “empathy and compassion” and made her a “stronger leader,” adding that “it’s important to talk openly so that others aren’t isolated and can take that first step to get help.”

Recent polling showed Tiffany narrowly leading Hong 43 to 40 in a hypothetical matchup. He also heads into the general election with $5 million in his war chest—“10 times as much cash as any Democratic candidate,” Beck reported Tuesday.

Elsewhere:

• Veteran wildfire fighters worry that “aggressive fire suppression tactics ordered by the Trump administration … could put firefighters in danger,” Stateline’s Alex Brown reports.
• New Jersey’s “assault weapon” ban will remain in effect, a federal appellate judge ordered on Tuesday, until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

The Groundwork Collaborative and Ipsos release a new poll that goes beyond the typical finding that workers are worried about AI in the workplace. Turns out some workers are less worried than others. “Nearly half of workers with college degrees believe that AI will improve their own job compared to just 19% of workers with a high school education,” the press release explains. “Sentiment about AI in the workplace diverges along racial lines as well, with Black workers far more likely than their white peers to say that AI will replace them in the workplace outright (12% vs 4%).”

On Thursday, the Brookings Institution hosts “Teachers at the Frontlines of Climate Change,” an online event about the challenges facing teachers in eastern and southern Africa as they teach students about the climate change they’re already seeing on a daily basis—without adequate support.

The Economic Policy Institute’s Ismael Cid-Martinez writes on the organization’s Working Economics blog that, “while the overall financial well-being of most adults held steady in 2025, the financial well-being of Black adults declined. These individuals were also more likely to experience layoffs, leaving a higher share of Black adults and their families with increased fear of finding or keeping a job in 2025.”

—Heather Souvaine Horn  

In Closing

Book of the Week: The Rulers: Corporate Power in the Age of AI and the Cloud by Cecilia Rikap

THE GIST: Based on over 100 interviews with figures at the world’s leading tech and artificial intelligence firms, Rikap argues Microsoft, Amazon, and Google—and relative newcomers like OpenAI and Anthropic—have grown so powerful that they more closely resemble states than traditional corporations, which poses a significant problem for the contemporary anti-monopoly movement. Even other behemoth corporations, she writes, cannot avoid relying on these tech companies.

PRAISE: Mariana Mazzucato, author of The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy, says The Rulers is “an essential read for anyone seeking to understand why governing AI and digital infrastructure in the public interest is one of the defining political challenges of our time.”

CRUISING THE INDEX: One of Rikap’s many provocative ideas is that data centers should be public goods, used as counterbalances to the growing power of massive tech corporations.

TNR’S QUICK CRITICAL ASSESSMENT: Especially interesting for those well versed in the growing literature around corporate consolidation, The Rulers is troubling and persuasive about the limits of anti-monopoly tactics given the massive size of the current giants. Its argument that these corporations have grown state-like is particularly compelling.

—Alex Shephard  

Political Trivia Question of the Day  

One of Michigan’s greatest senators was a liberal crusader who was a major force behind 1965’s Voting Rights Act (remember the Voting Rights Act? It used to be a thing). Who was he? Possibly too-big hint: One of the Senate office buildings is named for him. (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.

Sign up and get this newsletter for free. 

Inside Washington

Could Black voters change their minds about Abdul El-Sayed?

In the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in Michigan, progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed has consistently polled ahead of his opponent, the establishment-backed Representative Haley Stevens. But there’s one demographic that El-Sayed hasn’t yet won over—a crucial one not just in Tuesday’s election, but for the general election in November: Black voters, who make up roughly a quarter of the state’s Democratic electorate. 

The big question is why that is. 

Some political analysts have suggested that Black voters support Stevens because of her association with the Democratic establishment, and they are wary of progressives like El-Sayed, whose rhetoric can come across as “burn it all down.” But it’s not that simple, said Vincent Hutchings, diversity and social transformation professor at the University of Michigan. “I think the notion that this is somehow indicative of an ideological split is probably overstated,” he said.

Instead, Hutchings said, Black voters are likely following cues from trusted members of the party establishment, like Representative Jim Clyburn, a senior member of the Congressional Black Caucus who endorsed Stevens. “I know what it takes to energize Democratic voters. I know she has what it takes to energize Democratic voters, and we need that,” Clyburn said alongside Stevens at a Teamsters hall in Detroit on July 24.

Some Black voters may favor Stevens because of her association with President Barack Obama; though Obama hasn’t endorsed a candidate in the primary, Stevens’s supporters have spent $5 million to air an advertisement nearly 4,000 times where Obama praises her work on the U.S. Auto Rescue Task Force. The ad is funded by United Democracy Project, an AIPAC-affiliated super PAC, which has so far spent $30 million to support Stevens’s campaign.

There’s a “disconnect,” Hutchings said, between the fact that Black voters often embrace the “most leftist racial and economic policies in the party,” yet also often vote for the more moderate, establishment candidate. But his answer to that contradiction is simple: Black voters, like all voters, “are frequently not familiar with the actual platforms of the candidates.” Instead, they pay attention to crucial endorsements.

“That’s why it’s a mistake to think, ‘Oh, well, looks like there’s a divide in the Democratic Party between the quote-unquote ‘progressive forces’ and the quote-unquote ‘establishment forces,’ and it looks like Black voters are on the side of the quote-unquote ‘establishment,’” he said. “That’s an easy story to tell. I get why people tell it. It seems to map onto reality, but only until you scratch a little beneath the surface.”

Some Black voters could also be put off by progressive candidates who speak too adamantly against the Democratic establishment, explained Christopher Towler, a political science professor at California State University, Sacramento, and the director of the Black Voter Project. “A lot of progressive candidates who follow the [Senator Bernie] Sanders mold and are trying to break away from the party have to be very careful about alienating Black voters,” he said. “Many Black voters, especially the ones who vote in primaries, associate the Democratic Party with civil rights gains.” Criticizing the party and its establishment too adamantly could backfire, he explained.

Both Towler and Hutchings mentioned Sanders’s 2020 presidential primary run as an example of these same issues playing out. In Michigan, then-candidate Joe Biden walloped Sanders, winning every county in the state. Biden picked up 73 delegates to Sanders’s 52. It was a marked regression from Sanders’s performance in 2016, when he won the majority of Michigan’s counties and beat Hillary Clinton in the state. Biden’s victory in the state is partially attributed to Black voters showing up for him. A similar story played out in the South; in South Carolina, Sanders finished with a measly 17 percent of the Black vote, dealing a death blow to his campaign. In Michigan, Sanders has been a major supporter of El-Sayed’s campaign.

“Black voters are very strategic and practical with their votes, even in primaries,” said Towler. “If there’s not a candidate that they’re not completely in love with … they’re going to vote for who they think will win the election.” It’s a shrewd cost-benefit analysis focused on avoiding a Republican victory at all costs.

Both Stevens and El-Sayed have worked to court Black voters, spending countless Sunday mornings at Black churches across the state and highlighting their respective endorsements from Black leaders. El-Sayed picked up an endorsement from the Council of Baptist Pastors of Detroit and Vicinity in early July, and has the support of some younger or more progressive members of the Congressional Black Caucus, like Representatives Summer Lee, Maxwell Frost, and Bonnie Watson Coleman (among others). Some observers think El-Sayed has a good chance with these younger Black voters, who might care less about an endorsement from Clyburn or a sound bite featuring Obama. 

Meanwhile, Stevens surrogates have pushed narratives that El-Sayed is at odds with prominent Black political figures like Michelle Obama and Kamala Harris. Another United Democracy Project–funded mailer features a photo of Michelle Obama and quotes El-Sayed calling her work on childhood obesity as “uninspired” and “ineffectual.” Though the ad aimed to paint El-Sayed as a misogynist, Towler said that it could hurt him among Black voters, as well. 

El-Sayed has also needed to emphasize his support of Harris’s 2024 presidential campaign. In February 2024, El-Sayed pledged to vote “uncommitted” in the Democratic presidential primary to protest then-President Biden’s actions in Gaza. When Harris took over the nomination, El-Sayed endorsed her, but Stevens’s campaign continues to emphasize that original “uncommitted” vote.

Whoever wins Tuesday’s primary will need Black voters to propel them to a victory against Republican Mike Rogers in November. “You need to really focus on protecting the Black community from Trump and MAGA Republicans and the GOP’s agenda, which has become more and more anti-Black and focused on rolling back the racial progress that this country has made since the civil rights era,” said Towler, offering advice for whoever wins the primary. Black voters tend to be skeptical of big policy promises, Towler added. He says candidates should focus on stopping the GOP, “and then we can start to talk about what type of policy we can provide.” That contrasts with El-Sayed’s campaign slogan: “Money out of politics, money in your pocket, Medicare for All.”

If, as polls suggest, El-Sayed is headed to a primary victory, Towler isn’t concerned about how Black voters will respond, and pointed to other examples of progressives who might not have won the Black vote in their primary but still won over the demographic during their general elections. “This again goes back to the practicality of Black voters when choosing candidates. They’re not going to vote for the Republican,” he said. Whether you’re talking about Zohran Mamdani in New York, James Talarico in Texas, or Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan—all of whom have failed to convince Black voters in the primary—the same principle applies, Towler said: When it comes to the general election, “Black voters are going to come home.” 

—Emma Janssen

Outside Washington

Other (i.e., non-Michigan) stories to watch in Tuesday’s primaries

While the Democratic Senate primary in Michigan has gotten most of the attention, there’s plenty to watch in the four other states with primaries on Tuesday: Kansas, Missouri, Virginia, and Washington. In Washington—a top-two primary system—Kshama Sawant and Melissa Chaudhry are challenging incumbent Representative Adam Smith from his left. In Missouri, the headline race is the heated rematch between sitting Representative Wesley Bell and former Representative Cori Bush, the erstwhile Squad member whom Bell, with significant funding from AIPAC, defeated in 2024 by a little under six points. Will the 2026 climate, in which progressives have notched more wins than in past cycles, help Bush prevail this time? There isn’t much polling on this one.

In Virginia, four different Dems—Adam Dunigan, Mo Seifeldein, Michael Duffin, and Lorena Bruner—are challenging incumbent Representative Don Beyer, in another race without much polling. Meanwhile, Democrat Eugene Vindman will find out who his Republican opponent will be in the competitive November race for the 7th congressional district, once represented by Abigail Spanberger. 

In Kansas, Democratic voters will choose between gubernatorial contenders Cindy Holscher and Ethan Corson. There have been some weird side stories in this one involving the fight for term-limited Democratic Governor Laura Kelly’s either endorsement or nonintervention, but substantively, data centers are proving to be a big issue. (Holscher backs a temporary pause on construction, while Corson favors more modest policies around energy and water use.) Polling’s pretty limited on this race as well, although Holscher was well ahead in two polls conducted before the campaign really heated up. All that and much more, to be decided Tuesday. 

Elsewhere:

• David Dayen at The American Prospect looks at the private equity firms and life insurance companies whose fortunes are increasingly tied to the AI bubble—with potentially expensive consequences for taxpayers in the event of a bailout. 
• For other reading that will definitely not help your anxiety: Try The Washington Post’s data-filled feature on law enforcement officials using Flock cameras to stalk women. 

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

A coalition of climate advocates, watchdog organizations, and other groups on Monday denounced the Securities and Exchange Commission’s plan to “rescind its 2024 climate disclosure rule”—a move that would “undermine transparency in capital markets” and help risk-exposed companies avoid important disclosures. 

The Center for American Progress submits a comment letter to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative arguing that the Trump administration’s “Board of Trade” plan—a bilateral body established “to ensure that trade with China is more balanced and beneficial for Americans,” according to Ambassador Jamieson Greer—does nothing to “address the clear and present danger presented by the growing tide of Chinese industrial overcapacity.” The letter urges the administration to “prioritize working with like-minded partners and allies” rather than slapping tariffs on them.

On Wednesday at 1 p.m., the Roosevelt Institute hosts a Zoom panel on “What Social Security’s Shortfall Is Really Telling Us About the Economy.” Panelists include Kathryn Anne Edwards, Kate Bahn, Bradley Hardy, and Betsey Stevenson.

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Four Questions For: Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute

Interview by Indigo Olivier  

Q: What are you working on right now?

A: My primary focus right now is on ending the disastrous Iran war and on preparing the U.S. for a multipolar world, and the world for a non-unipolar America.

Q: You’ve spent years arguing for diplomacy with Iran. What’s the hardest part of doing that in Washington?

A: After decades of animosity and mistrust, it isn’t simply a policy shift that is needed to resolve the tensions, but a paradigm shift. A fundamental rethinking of the U.S.’s own interest, its image of the other side, and its fundamental assumptions about what the other side wants and is willing to give up. At the same time, the enmity essentially runs on autopilot with a path dependency that renders any serious rethinking very difficult.

Q: Looking back over the last year or two, what accomplishment are you most proud of?

A: It is difficult to be happy or proud of anything in this current situation. We should not be in this war. People have died needlessly, immense amounts of money have been wasted on another war, and the pathways to a diplomatic breakthrough have become increasingly narrow. Until this war has been ended, it’s premature to talk about accomplishments.

Q: What has it been like to find yourself at the center of a controversy over your work and your immigration status?

A: Given how tense and politically charged this issue is in Washington, it unfortunately comes with the territory that any push for peace will be punished by those who prefer conflict. And on this issue, the gloves have always been off, sadly. Until a resolution to the U.S.-Iran conflict has been found, I don’t expect the political charge of this issue to recede, which means that many of us in this space will pay a personal price for challenging the forces of war. 

Political Trivia Question of the Day  

On the subject of Michigan: Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg coined the term “Reagan Democrat” in 1985 by interviewing and studying the voters of what paradigmatically swingy suburban Detroit county? (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.) 

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.

Sign up and get this newsletter for free. 

Inside Washington

Can Dems exploit the tension between Trump and Republican senators? 

Cracks are starting to show in the Republican trifecta: Senate Majority Leader John Thune and President Donald Trump are growing frustrated with one another, as Trump demands the Senate pass the unpassable SAVE Act. Two Republican senators—Thom Tillis and John Cornyn—may have just blocked Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Todd Blanche. In the chaos, Democrats see an opportunity for both midterm success and legislative victories. 

Asked whether Democrats are taking advantage of their increasingly fractured opponents, Senator Tim Kaine said, “We are trying to on things like war powers. Some of the Republicans who’ve been most at odds with Trump have signaled an openness to working with us on those issues.”

On Thursday, the Senate voted on a resolution to curb Trump’s war on Iran—Democrats’ thirteenth attempt at a war powers resolution, including one that passed in late June. At 49–50, this vote failed, but Democrats picked up three Republican votes from Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rand Paul. Senator John Fetterman was the only Democrat who opposed the vote. 

“It’s actually pretty typical to see members of a president’s party distancing themselves from him as midterm elections approach, especially when that president is unpopular,” said Seth Masket, a professor of political science at the University of Denver. He compared it to how Democrats acted in 1994, refusing to give President Bill Clinton what he wanted. Trump is a somewhat unique case because he endorses so heavily in Republican primaries, striking fear into members of the conference. “He’s proven that he can end careers, so they’re pretty fearful of him,” Masket said. “But now that we’re past the primaries, that loses some of its power.”

Some Democrats say that Republicans splitting over the Iran war and fighting over the SAVE Act—Trump’s controversial voter ID bill—reflects well on Democrats. “That’s going to be the contrast that will be on people’s minds when they go into the voting booth,” Senator Andy Kim said.

But, he emphasized, Republican disorganization only helps blue candidates at the polls if Dems can stick together and project unity. He pointed to Senate Democrats’ front against the National Defense Authorization Act, which they blocked in mid-July due to concerns over Iran. “Because of the Republicans fracturing, I think it’s more important than ever to show our unity,” he said. “Otherwise they might be able to push forward on things like the supplemental [funding request] or a [budget] reconciliation 3.0.”

Masket emphasized that there’s almost no partisan legislation Democrats can actively advance while in the minority. So it becomes a waiting game. “Democrats are happy to watch their opponents destroy themselves and don’t really feel like lending a hand one way or the other,” he said.

Senator Richard Blumenthal is hoping Dems can ride the conflict in the GOP to a midterm win. “We need to continue to drive home the message about not just Republican disarray, but profound disrespect for the law, which is outraging the American public, and should advance energy and turnout in the upcoming election,” he said, before reiterating: “It’s all about the elections.”

—Emma Janssen  

Outside Washington

Data center backlash is bipartisan. But is it starting to get bluer?

As Michigan’s much-anticipated primaries on August 4 draw near, most people are watching the Senate matchup between progressive front-runner Abdul El-Sayed and establishment favorite Haley Stevens. Many are also keeping an eye on the 7th district House race, which has become a last-minute vehicle for moderate angst, going by a recent Axios report. But the state legislature is worth watching, too, and a particularly hot topic right now is data centers, which Michigan granted a tax exemption to in bipartisan legislation passed in 2024. One characteristic of data center backlash so far is the way it has united people across the political spectrum. Many have wondered whether this can possibly last in today’s hyperpolarized political environment. 

The Detroit Free Press asks state legislative candidates where they stand on the issue, and while this is hardly a rigorous statistical analysis, the responses do indeed hint at an emerging partisan gradient. A quick rundown: The paper talks to one Republican and one Democrat (Douglas Wozniak of the 24th Senate district and Jason Hoskins of the 7th Senate district, respectively) who think data centers are a fact of life now and the state risks falling behind if it doesn’t host them. The paper identifies 10 Democrats and two Republicans who want more guardrails. (Some, like Democrat Natalie Price, want to see data centers pay property taxes and meet certain environmental standards. Republican Roman Gaskey wants a “closed-loop system that recycles water.”) The paper then finds two Democrats—Rick Silva of the 9th House district and Sean Carlson of the 13th Senate district—who want a full one-year moratorium until government can catch up and figure out how to regulate, and one (Crystal Bailey of the 5th House District) who just wants no new data centers, period. 

Last month, Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who has supported data center construction, was caught on microphone saying, “We’re used to people saying ‘f—k no,’ and then doing it anyway.” (Whitmer is not seeking reelection, but there is speculation about her making a run for the White House in 2028.) 

Elsewhere:

• A map of Africa presented by the U.S. State Department at a conference in Brazil this week mislabeled every country it featured. After images made it to the internet via AIDS expert Emily Bass’s LinkedIn and Substack posts, Reuters started asking questions. Reuters reported Thursday that a watermark on the map “⁠signals it was made with OpenAI tools.” The State Department blamed the affair on a “team member who ​hastily changed the slide deck before the event.” 
• In case you missed it: The Guardian profiles Wisconsin gubernatorial hopeful Francesca Hong, the democratic socialist currently leading the Democratic pack for the primary on August 11. One of her opponents, Mandela Barnes, suddenly dropped out of the race on Thursday. The piece explores how free childcare, one of Hong’s signature policy proposals, “started winning U.S. elections.”
  
  

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

The Roosevelt Institute publishes a report titled “Building Up in 2029: How to Make Green Statecraft Durable.” The report takes a more optimistic view than some, with the institute’s Todd N. Tucker emphasizing in the introduction that while the climate crisis is already “harming Americans” and policies “are moving in the wrong direction … somewhat ironically, the Trump administration has shown what an [Inflation Reduction Act] 2.0 might look like, by both exposing the IRA’s vulnerabilities and breaking glass on new tools of economic statecraft that could be beneficial for green priorities.” The report outlines possibilities for a “Project 2029,” in contrast to the Heritage Foundation’s far-right “Project 2025.”

The Groundwork Collaborative releases a statement on Thursday’s Bureau of Economic Analysis report, which found slowed (1.5 percent) growth and 3.7 percent year-over-year inflation. “Today’s report,” said Alex Jacquez, Groundworks’ senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research, “is a snapshot of an economy under a ceasefire that no longer exists.” The press release also argues that “the economy isn’t as strong as even the modest headline suggests,” since “AI investment continued to prop up the economy” and “consumer spending continued to lose momentum.”

On Monday, August 3, New America holds a virtual event 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. titled “The Next Generation of Voters,” focusing on “the systems that reinforce America’s gerontocracy, the structural reforms that could change them, and what young voters actually want out of US politics.” Speakers include The Age Divide authors Oscar Pocasangre and Dustin Wahl. 

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Good week: Francesca Hong

Hard to deny it was a pretty good week for Hong, the democratic socialist candidate for governor of Wisconsin who vaulted to the head of the polls this week. A prominent opponent also dropped out. The primary is August 11.

Bad week: Todd Blanche

Among many contenders, we give the nod to Blanche, who may become the first A.G. nominee voted down by the Senate since 1925; Donald Trump revealed (in?)advertently that he cares more about his slush fund than he does Blanche.

—Michael Tomasky

Political Trivia Question of the Day

The A.G. position was not always intended as being independent of the White House. Who was the A.G. in fairly recent American history who established that precedent and made it the standard to which all A.G.s should aspire? Hint: He followed a world-class sleazeball. (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.

Sign up and get this newsletter for free. 

Inside Washington

Epstein survivors ask senators to vote “no” on Blanche 

Republican holdouts on Todd Blanche’s confirmation to the position of attorney general are mostly focused on stopping Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for alleged victims of government overreach. But survivors of sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein are fighting against Blanche for an entirely different reason.

“My message would be that if you have a daughter, or you have a son, or you have grandchildren, put them first because Todd Blanche isn’t gonna put them first. He puts himself and the president first. That’s it,” Sharlene Rochard, a survivor of Epstein’s sex trafficking, said about senators who will vote for Blanche’s nomination. 

Survivors have heavily criticized Blanche’s handling of the Justice Department’s Epstein investigation—in particular, releasing files that included the names of Epstein’s victims, not investigating and prosecuting perpetrators, and giving preferential treatment to Epstein’s collaborator, Ghislaine Maxwell, they say. On Wednesday, survivors and advocates railed against Blanche’s nomination at the launch event for the “Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey Epstein Memorial Bookmobile,” a mobile exhibit of the Epstein files created by Defiance.org and the Institute for Primary Facts. The bookmobile is intended to bring the Epstein files to voters, particularly those in red states, as it travels across the country. After the morning event, the group decamped to Capitol Hill and went office to office to hand out copies of the Epstein files to senators.

The Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Blanche Thursday morning, but Republican committee Chair Chuck Grassley announced at the end of the day Wednesday that it would be postponed. Blanche has a razor-thin margin; just one “no” vote would sink his nomination. GOP Senators Thom Tillis and John Cornyn, the main holdouts on Blanche, have said they’re more concerned about his position on President Trump’s $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund” than on his attitude toward the Epstein files.

“I’m focused on other issues,” Cornyn said Wednesday when I asked if he had a message for the Epstein survivors. “It’s a terrible tragedy, but that’s between them and the attorney general.” 

Cornyn and Tillis have asked to see Blanche confirm, in writing, that the slush fund is dead in the water. Without that written confirmation, Cornyn said Wednesday, he is “not prepared to vote ‘yes.’”

Some Democrats are optimistic that their Republican colleagues’ opposition could end Blanche’s chance to be attorney general. “But I’ve seen this movie before,” Senator Richard Blumenthal told me. “I have no great optimism that they will act to do the right thing.” Senator Ron Wyden, at least publicly, was more hopeful. “We think we’ve got a real shot at winning,” he said after the bookmobile launch, at which he spoke. “I think [Republicans] are really rattled. They ought to be!”

When asked about the Epstein survivors’ opposition to Blanche, Tillis tried to paint a positive picture: “I just talked to some of the Epstein survivors,” he said. Alongside Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, Tillis had pushed for Blanche to meet with survivors, which Blanche then did on July 16. “Keep in mind: Blanche is the first person, official, senior official from the DOJ since 2007 that’s met with them. That’s something to build on.” 

Jena-Lisa Jones, who grew up in Palm Beach County, Florida, and was abused by Epstein when she was 14 years old, wasn’t impressed by the meeting. “He asked to speak to the survivors, and it was a very last-minute thing, which I think was to cover his own—pardon my French—ass,” she said. “I think it was a waste of our time and, unfortunately, a joke.”

Rochard, for her part, had no interest in attending the meeting with Blanche. “The reason I chose not to go is because it felt forced,” she said, as though Blanche just wanted “to check a box.” She also pointed out that the meeting was just one hour long, while last year, as deputy attorney general, Blanche spent nine hours over two days with Maxwell, Epstein’s accomplice and convicted sex offender. Shortly after that meeting, Maxwell was transferred to a minimum security prison.

As for Cornyn and Tillis, Jones told me: “We hope that they stand with us and vote ‘no,’ but the way things have played out and how our government runs, anything can happen.”

—Emma Janssen  

Outside Washington

About those gas stoves … 

Remember the gas stove war of 2023? Studies had been steadily emerging for years showing that gas stoves were leaking harmful substances into homes, and in January of that year, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s Richard Trumka Jr. told Bloomberg that the government could potentially regulate the devices. Conservatives immediately lost it, falsely claimed the Biden administration was going to “ban all gas ovens,” and started tweeting out “Don’t Tread on Me” and gun rights memes with stove images subbed in.

Now, an update on all that: The Washington Post on Wednesday reported the striking results from a pioneering study led by a Case Western professor: Replacing the gas stoves of people suffering from asthma quickly reduced the number of asthma attacks. The finding comes after the Trump administration canceled the study’s $18 million grant, torpedoing the intended sample size: Researchers could only replace 85 stoves instead of the intended 1,200. Nevertheless, the Post’s Jake Spring reports, “removing the gas stoves relieved the participants’ asthma so much that the results were clear even with only 85 of them, according to two scientists who reviewed the methodology but were not involved in the study.”

The gas stove culture wars are far from over. Last month, a conservative group succeeded in getting a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a “right to natural gas” on the ballot in Colorado—voters will decide on that in November. (Also notable: Back in 2023, 29 House Democrats joined Republicans in a bit of political theater, passing a bill to block a federal gas stove ban that was not in fact being proposed.)

Elsewhere:

• The incident revealed last week, in which OpenAI’s large language model “agent” broke out of its “sandbox” to hack a random company, was worse than initially reported: The agent actually targeted four other companies, too.
• Across the country, budget shortages, driver shortages, and declining public school enrollment are threatening the iconic yellow school bus, The Guardian’s Eric Berger reports. Related, in case you missed it: The Washington Post’s report last week on the rising number of public school closures in recent years. 

—Heather Souvaine Horn

The Ideas Factory

KFF finds Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) enrollment numbers down after “several years of rapid enrollment growth.” The likely culprit: expiring subsidies, which dramatically raised people’s premiums. The GOP decided in late 2025 to let the subsidies expire rather than renew them.

The Center for American Progress releases a report by Gréta Bedekovics and Devon Ombres on the status of state laws resembling the currently stalled federal SAVE Act. These laws require “Americans to provide proof of their citizenship, chiefly a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote or stay registered.” Fourteen states already have laws like this, and more are considering bills or ballot measures. 

Data for Progress crunches the numbers and finds that, perhaps contrary to prevailing wisdom, “compared with a Democratic candidate who rejects outside PAC money, Democratic candidates who take money from AIPAC, AI companies, cryptocurrency companies, and pharmaceutical companies perform significantly worse against a Republican candidate averaged across all funding sources.”

In case you missed it: The Groundwork Collaborative and the Century Foundation find that back-to-school supplies and “lunchbox essentials” are set to cost families “close to $400 more per kid” this year, due to rising prices. “Nearly half of all parents report cutting back on other expenses to make room in the budget for back-to-school expenses, or worse, taking on debt.”

—Heather Souvaine Horn

In Closing

Here’s Why That’s B.S.  

What’s the deal with Mitch McConnell’s health?

Political Trivia Question of the Day

The Senate continues to weigh Todd Blanche’s fate. It’s rare indeed that the Senate has voted down a president’s attorney general nominee. It last happened nearly a century ago. Who was it? (If you know the answer to that, we’ll be impressed!) 

 Meanwhile, an easier question: A fairly recent president nominated two people in a row who were forced to withdraw their nominations. Who were they, and why did they withdraw? The reason was the same in both instances. (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)