JUÁREZ, Mexico — Carolina was living in Colombia as a refugee when her 15-year-old son disappeared. Almost a year after her boy went missing and she mourned his loss, she got a call from an international number.
Her son was alive 3,000 miles away in this historic Mexican city once known as “the Pass of the North,” nestled along the Texas border.
“I was so happy, but I didn’t know how to get here, without knowing anything, without money, with nothing,” she told me when I met with her recently at an immigrant shelter in Juárez. “I sold my house and came here alone.”
After a harrowing three-month journey during which she made her way across seven countries, survived two kidnappings, and endured beatings and sexual assault, she reunited with her son on Jan. 10.
They tried to get an appointment to cross the border through U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CBP One app — part of a program launched by the Biden administration to allow people to come to the U.S. legally while they waited for their asylum or other immigration case to be processed.
Carolina and her son were still trying when President Donald Trump ended the program the day of his inauguration.
They’ve been stuck in shelters ever since.
Speak to immigrants at the border, and what happened to Carolina is sadly common. Some people are luckier, some less so, but no one comes out unscathed from their journey. And while some are willing to see their dreams deferred, there are and will continue to be more people who see coming to the United States as the only way out of a desperate situation.
Visiting the border nearly 10 months after Trump took office and essentially ended the ability to seek asylum in the United States, you see what many Americans — even some begrudging critics — credit the president with doing.
Trump has been brutally effective at limiting border crossings. The quiet downtown streets and plazas, the nearly empty shelters in both El Paso, Texas, and its sister city of Juárez in Mexico, are a testament to that fact. Only a few years ago, thousands of immigrants crowded sidewalks and shelters here, straining the region’s spirit of hospitality.
Today, the immigrants left behind are the vulnerable among the vulnerable, advocates said. People who are unable to move out or move on, stuck in shelters with the hope that Trump’s “hard heart will soften,” as one woman told me.
My own heart was not hard enough to dash her dream. Perhaps it should have been.
The last thing immigrants need is for some well-meaning dope to ignore the facts for short-term comfort. They had enough of that during the Biden administration.
A large “Welcome to Mexico” sign hung over the Bridge of the Americas is visible as President Joe Biden talks with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in El Paso, Texas, in 2023.
Good intentions
Under President Joe Biden, about six million people were allowed entry to pursue asylum applications and other immigration cases, according to the Migration Policy Institute.
I believe that all things being equal, the U.S. has no trouble absorbing these immigrants. Call me cynical (I prefer pragmatic), but our economy runs on cheap labor and consumer spending — six million people give you both. It gives you adults who are willing to do the work Americans won’t, and kids who will go to school and graduate for the jobs there aren’t enough Americans for.
But the problem is the president can only do so much. The executive can allow people to remain in the country under some sort of limited parole, it can direct enforcement toward higher priority targets, such as immigrants with criminal records, but it cannot grant legal status.
Only Congress can do that, and legislators have decided there is no major issue they can’t shrug off as intractable and call it a day.
So the Biden administration opted to let people in — regardless of whether they had a good asylum case — knowing full well that just as one president could open the door for immigrants, another could slam it in their faces.
Biden himself shut that door halfway as the 2024 presidential election neared, but the political damage had already been done, because the administration at no point made the argument for why it was doing what it was doing.
As desperate people who wanted a better life clustered at the border — partly because of the pent-up demand that grew under pandemic restrictions Trump put in place — Bidencould have made a moral argument, or laid out the economic benefits of immigration. He could have done more than introduce immigration reform shortly after taking office, and then just as quickly give up on it.
Instead, it was never clear what Biden wanted other than not to be seen as the bad guy.
His administration’s humanitarian intentions, coupled with incessant fear-mongering on the right, paved the way to where we are today.
Flags from North, South, and Central America line the left side of the chapel inside the Casa del Migrante in Juárez, Mexico, in November.
All for nothing
It took Helen, her husband, and their 3-month-old baby three months to travel from Ecuador to the Casa del Migrante shelter in Juárez, which is run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Ciudad Juárez.
Like Carolina, Helen — who remains concerned about the status of her potential immigration case — would speak with me only on the condition that her last name not be used.
Helen and her husband, both in their early 20s, arrived in October of last year after leaving their home because of growing gang violence. “You couldn’t have any peace anymore,” Helen said.
The family crossed the dangerous jungle and rode through Mexico on the freight train known as “the beast.” She saw a man die, falling under the wheels of the cars.
While her husband goes out to work odd jobs, she takes care of their daughter. The routine gets to her, she said. Once a month, they’re able to go out and splurge on a meal, even as they’re afraid to walk the city’s streets.
Her daughter has now lived most of her life inside a shelter, but Helen told me they will continue to sacrifice.
“We are waiting to cross. Whatever it takes,” she said.
Across town at the Vida shelter,Carolina, 53, is torn aboutwhat to do.
Her journey to Juárez began 14 months ago. Distraught over her son’s disappearance, she went back to her native Venezuela to be with her mother.
When Mexican officials informed Carolina that her son was alive, she left Venezuela on Oct. 20, 2024, and traveled across Central America. She was kidnapped twice, Carolina said. Once when she crossed the Guatemalan border into Mexico, and again when she got to Juárez in December.
“The one here was the worst. The one here was rape, beatings. I still can’t fully touch myself here,” she said, grimacing as she moved her hand along her left breast. “They left me with nothing.”
Although she’s grateful for all the help she’s received, she said, it’s coming up on a year of living in shelters,and the uncertainty is becoming overwhelming.
Her son is going to high school, and sometimes works with a handyman. She sells donated used clothing in front of the shelter and cleans houses, but work is sporadic.
“I tell my son we should go back,” Carolina said. “He says he came here for a future.”
Her mother calls and tells her she doesn’t have food, she said. She trusts that God has a plan and things will work out accordingly — even if it means returning home to struggle there — but there must be a point to her journey.
“You go hungry, you grow tired, it’s raining, you see corpses. You spend sleepless nights, running from people who want to rob you, kill you,” she said.
“Do you know what it’s like to go through what I went through and not be able to cross?”
President Donald Trump during a July tour of “Alligator Alcatraz,” a migrant detention facility at Dade-Collier Training and Transition facility in Ochopee, Fla.
No turning back
Many immigrants who are still in shelters, and those who have decided to remain in Mexico, are in a state of flux, waiting for the opportunity to cross the border.
Trump may have succeeded in curtailing illegal immigration through a mix of enforcement, deterrence, and cruelty, but it is unsustainable. While he may be able to delay the inevitable — especially if he manages to crash the economy and there are fewer jobs for immigrants to fill — eventually, people will return.
“Listening to people’s stories, we’re really at a critical moment,” said Alejandra Corona, who heads Jesuit Refugee Services in Juárez, a nonprofit that serves the migrant community. “The world is broken, and there are no options.”
You see it in the eyes of parents who are deeply wounded because they cannot provide for their families even in the most basic ways, Corona told me, and the reasons why are far from simple.
“It’s not just, ‘Oh, I lost my job,’” she said. “It’s, ‘I had a job, but couldn’t afford to pay off the gang member or the cartel. I stopped paying for protection and had to flee. I was discriminated against, I’ve never had a passport, I’ve never been to school, I’ve never had access to my rights. I do not exist, and no one wants to see that I don’t exist.’”
The lesson to be drawn from the border today is that immigrants may not be as visible, but they haven’t gone away.
If Democrats capture the presidency in 2028, they will likely not follow the Trump administration’s amoral ruthlessness, but they cannot repeat the Biden administration’s aimless permissiveness, either.
Everyone suffers under the current seesaw approach to immigration, where an immigrant can come here “the right way” under one administration, only to see things turn out wrong under the next. Trump has tried — successfully and unsuccessfully — to kill programs for immigrants established under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Biden.
Whether or not you support immigration, the whims of an individual — even if it’s the president — are no substitute for the legislative process.
The United States is a nation of immigrants. America has thrived economically and culturally thanks to this fact. On immigration, it’s Congress, as representatives of the people, who must determine the who and how, the when and where, that makes the most sense for the country.
Until then, immigrants will be ready and waiting — and prayingfor a softer heart in the White House.
President Donald Trump will visit Northeast Pennsylvania on Tuesday to promote his economic agenda, including efforts to lower inflation, the White House confirmed to The Inquirer on Thursday.
The trip will kick off what is expected to be anationaltour of Trump touting his economic policies ahead of the 2026 midterms, when Democrats and Republicans will battle for control of Congress.
The specific location for Trump’s visit has not yet been made public, but Northeast Pennsylvania will be a major battleground in next year’s midterms.
Democrats believe that they can oust freshman Republican U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan, of Lackawanna County, threatening the GOP’s slim House majority. Democrats are also specifically targeting the districts of U.S. Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick, of Bucks County; Ryan Mackenzie, of Lehigh County; and Scott Perry, of York County.
Trump endorsed Bresnahan and most of Pennsylvania’s GOP delegation on his social media platform, Truth Social, last month. Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti, a Democrat, is mounting a campaign to unseat Bresnahan, who won by roughly a percentage point last election.
Affordability — which Trump called a “fake narrative” used by Democrats — has been a top issue for voters, including during November’s blue wave when Democrats won local contests throughout Pennsylvania, in addition to the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey.
Eric Stern drove out to Erie last January and got a slice of pizza with Christina Vogel at Donato’s, the downtown shop she has owned for nine years.
The small-business owner and political novice was interested in running for county executive against a vulnerable Republican incumbent. Stern, a longtime Democratic political operative, was part of a newly founded firm looking for candidates to help flip Republican-held seats.
“It all started with trying to find candidates who were, frankly, better messengers for the values we had and the things we cared about,” Stern said. “She was someone who understood the urgency of this moment as a small-business owner and mom but just as critically was not part of this broken system that had Democrats losing in the past.”
FIGHT is working with Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti in Northeast Pennsylvania and firefighter Bob Brooks in the Lehigh Valley. U.S. Rep Rob Bresnahan and U.S. Rep. Ryan Mackenzie, the freshman Republicans who represent those areas, each won by about a percentage point in 2024, making them two of the most vulnerable incumbents in next year’s elections.
This past year FIGHT’s six-person teamhelped Zohran Mamdani win the New York mayoral race, the buzziest contest of the cycle.The Philadelphia-based agency had a hand in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court slate’s retention, county executive wins in Lehigh and Erie, and two successful Democratic judicial campaigns in the state.
The firm was cofounded by Rebecca Katz, a Central High graduate who lives in New York; Philadelphia ad-maker Tommy McDonald; and Julian Mulvey, an architect of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
“New York isn’t Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania isn’t New York,” Katz said of lessons learned from Mamdani’s win, also noting primaries and generals are extremely different. “But there’s a universal desire for authentic candidates laser-focused on the affordability crisis.”
The strategists started the firm in January 2025 after Democrats suffered across-the-board lossesin 2024, a year she helped Sen. Ruben Gallego defy that trend and win an open seat in Arizona.
Stern, a Pittsburgh native and resident, and McDonald both quit their jobs to sign on with the agency.
Their most basic strategy is creating authentic campaigns that reflect the communities the candidates are running in, clear economic messaging, and trying different things across media platforms to win back working-class voters, Katz said.
“We try to think about what makes an ad pop, what makes people look up from their phone, or, if they’re on their phone, what makes them stay there,” Katz said. “It can’t look like everything else on TV.”
Tommy McDonald (left), and Eric Stern (right), are longtime Democratic media consultants now with FIGHT, a Philly-based agency working on two key Congressional races in Pennsylvania in 2026.
‘A new road map’
In the November election, standing out meant ads about the state Supreme Court race that featured Pennsylvanians talking directly to the camera about how they felt their rights had been protectedby the three justices on the ballot, who were all first elected as Democrats. Sixteen Pennsylvania counties that Vice President Kamala Harris lost wound up voting to retain the judges in the most expensive judicial contest in state history.
The victory provided a blueprint for Gov. Josh Shapiro and other Democrats running in Pennsylvania in 2026, said McDonald, who made the ads for the retention race.
“These are the typical working-class voters that Democrats are bleeding,” McDonald said. “It’s Beaver County. It’s where the New York Times visits diners. It showed us there’s a new road map for how to get persuadable voters in Pennsylvania. We know where they are now.”
Stern, Katz, and McDonald all worked on Fetterman’s 2022 campaign, a race that included the unprecedented challenge of navigating a candidate’s stroke days before the primary and running a general election campaign as he recovered.
They wound up winning awards for the campaign, which featured bright yellow and black branding and creative trolling of Republican nominee Mehmet Oz’s New Jersey ties. McDonald had the idea to fly a banner plane along the Jersey shoreline: “HEY DR. OZ, WELCOME HOME TO NJ! ♥ JOHN,” it read.
They called that July, which also included Jersey Shore cast member Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi making a surprise cameo, “New Jersey Summer.”
“We all learned politics here,” McDonald said of his home state. “The idea is to try to do things differently, redefine Democratic campaigns.”
This year,political headwinds certainly helped Democrats, but hyperlocal messaging did, too, the strategists argue.
Stern worked with Vogel’s campaign in Erie to create ads that looked like a pizzeria’s commercials, to stand out from the cookie-cutter format.
”In Erie County, we know good things start with the right ingredients,” the ad says as a hand scatters toppings atop a pie.
Another ad showed Republicans and self-proclaimed three-time Donald Trump voters on-camera saying they were supporting Vogel over the incumbent, Republican Brenton Davis. A Democrat cannot win in the county without some independent and Republican support.
“They were all people I met on the campaign trail,” Vogel said of the ad. “We really focused on what matters most with affordability, how stretched thin people are across the U.S., and just focused relentlessly on the same message and reminding people why voting matters.”
And in Lehigh County, a slightly bluer but still purple region, Stern worked with State Rep. Josh Siegel’s campaign for county executive. That was more of an offensive against Republican Roger MacLean, a former Allentown police chief, whom ads described as a “grifter and a disgrace,” highlighting his multiple beach houses amid an affordability crisis.
“We came up with an ad strategy that basically determined the most important thing was to beat the crap out of this guy,” Stern said.
“I think Democrats have pulled their punches for way too long,” he added. “There’s a difference between fighting dirty and fighting back, and we have to be in a position where we’re willing to say, ‘We’re here to fight.’”
Siegel, 32, soon to become the youngest county executive in Pennsylvania history, credited the agency with urging him to be specific in his pitch to voters.
“For me, the problem with the way we communicate as Democrats is part of the professional consultant class has created this art form of saying a lot and saying nothing,” he said. “I think people have a particularly adept bulls— detector and they are tired of what is just the most inoffensive, poll-tested, style-over-substance speak we’ve perfected.”
As they look to next year, Stern thinks anti-corruption will be the key issue in the race against Bresnahan in the Northeast. Bresnahan has faced criticism for stock trading while in Congress. Cognetti, his opponent, has been the mayor since 2020, when she won on an anti-corruption platform.
While affordability runs across races, Stern said campaigns cannot make the mistake of being too general in their messaging. “There’s no one right message that cuts across all these districts,” he said.
“Too many folks are running the same ads or calling the same plays they would have a decade ago. We are in a different world. Things have totally changed in a million different ways.”
Gov. Josh Shapiro lashed out over former Vice President Kamala Harris’ portrayal of his interview to become her 2024 running mate, calling Harris’ retellings “complete and utter bulls—” intended to sell books and “cover her a—,” according to the Atlantic.
Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s first-term Democratic governor now seen as a likely presidential contender in 2028, departed from his usual composed demeanor and rehearsed comments in a lengthy Atlantic profile, published Wednesday, when journalist Tim Alberta asked the governor about Harris’ depiction of him in her new book.
In her book, titled 107 Days, Harris described Shapiro as “poised, polished, and personable” when he traveled to Washington to interview with Harris for a shot at becoming the Democraticvice presidential candidate during her historic campaign against Donald Trump.
However, Harris said, she suspected Shapiro would be unhappy as second-in-command. He “peppered” her with questions, she wrote, and said he asked questions about the vice president’s residence, “from the number of bedrooms to how he might arrange to get Pennsylvania artists’ work on loan from the Smithsonian.” The account aligns with reporting from The Inquirer when Harris ultimately picked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz over Shapiro, in part, because Shapiro was too ambitious to serve in a supporting role if chosen as her running mate.
But Shapiro, the Atlantic reported, was taken aback by the portrayal.
“She wrote that in her book? That’s complete and utter bull—,” Shapiro reportedly told the Atlantic when asked about Harris’ account that he had been imagining the potential art for the vice presidential residence. He added: “I can tell you that her accounts are just blatant lies.”
The governor’s sharp-tongued frustration depicted in the Atlantic marked a rare departure for the image-conscious Shapiro, whose oratory skills have been compared to those of former President Barack Obama, and who has been known to give smiling, folksy interviews laced with oft-repeated and carefully told anecdotes.
The wide-ranging, nearly 8,000-word profile in the Atlantic also detailed Shapiro’s loss of “some respect” for Harris during the 2024 election, including for her failure to take action regarding former President Joe Biden’s visible decline.
Governor Josh Shapiro speaks with press along with Vice President Kamala Harris during their short visit to Little Thai Market at Reading Terminal Market after she spoke at the APIA Vote Presidential Town Hall at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia, Pa., on Saturday, July 13, 2024.
When Shapiro was asked by the Atlantic whether he felt betrayed by Harris’ comments in her book about him, given that the two have known each other for 20 years, he said: “I mean, she’s trying to sell books and cover her a—.”
He quickly reframed his response: “I shouldn’t say ‘cover her a—,’ I think that’s not appropriate,” he added. “She’s trying to sell books, period.”
The Atlantic piece also outlined common criticisms of Shapiro throughout his two decades in Pennsylvania politics, including those from within the Democratic Party: He is too ambitious with his sights set on the presidency, and his pragmatic approach often leaves him frustrating all sides, as evidenced in his 2023 deal-then-veto with state Senate Republicans over school vouchers. It highlighted some of the top issues Shapiro will face if he chooses to run for president in 2028, including a need to take clearer stances on policy issues — a complaint often cited by Republicans and his critics. If he rises to the presidential field, Shapiro will also have to face his past handling of a sexual harassment complaint against a former top aide that Shapiro claimed he knew very little about despite the aide’s long-held reputation.
Gov. Josh Shapiro takes the stage ahead of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and Gov. Tim Walz at a rally in Philadelphia’s Liacouras Center on August 6, 2024.
“The worst-kept secret in Pennsylvania politics is that the governor is disliked — in certain cases, loathed — by some of his fellow Democrats,” the Atlantic reported. Further, Alberta noted that when an unnamed Pennsylvania lawmaker received a call from a member of Harris’ vetting operation, the member said they had never seen “so many Democrats turning on one of their own.”
Shapiro has been featured in several other prominent national media outlets in recent weeks, including in the New Yorker, which ran a profile about his experience with political violence. He has become vocal on that issue in the months since a Harrisburg man who told police he wanted to kill Shapiro broke into the governor’s residence in April and set several fires while Shapiro and his family slept upstairs. As one of the most prominent Jewish elected officials in the nation, Shapiro has frequently said that leaders must “bring down the temperature” in their rhetoric, and has tried to refocus his own messaging on the good that state governments can do to make people’s lives easier, such as permitting reforms and infrastructure improvements.
“The fact that people view institutions as incapable or unwilling to solve their problems is leading to hyper-frustration, which then creates anger,” Shapiro told the Atlantic. “And that anger forces people oftentimes into dark corners of the internet, where they find others who want to take advantage of their anger and try and convert that anger into acts of violence.”
A special election in a safely Republican district in Tennessee became must-watch TV for political observers Tuesday night, the latest sign of anti-Trump sentiment ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The Associated Press called the race in Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District for Republican Matt Van Epps, who was leading Democrat Aftyn Behn by about 9 percentage points with about 99% of the vote in. That was a steep decline from the 22-point win President Donald Trump recorded in the same district just last year, and from his 39-point victory in 2016.
It was the latest sign of a Democratic blue wave forming, following Election Day sweeps in Virginia, New Jersey, and Virginia last month. It also was the third straight special election in a deeply Republican district where voters swung toward the Democratic candidate by double-digit margins.
“Sometimes in politics, what is happening is clear and in front of you,” David Chalian, CNN’s Washington bureau chief and political director, said Tuesday night. “Democrats are significantly, significantly over-performing what Kamala Harris did last year vs. Donald Trump in all of these places.”
While Trump celebrated Van Epps’ victory on social media, Democratic National Committee chairman Ken Martin called the results “a flashing warning sign for Republicans heading into the midterms.”
“What happened tonight in Tennessee makes it clear: Democrats are on offense and Republicans are on the ropes,” Martin said in a statement.
What is the Republican majority in the House?
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R., La.) is dealing with a shrinking majority.
Van Epps’ victory means Republicans will hold 220 seats, while Democrats have 214 seats; 218 are needed to control the majority.
Two seats remain vacant, and both are expected to go to Democrats, further reducing the already slim majority of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.).
The first is in Texas, where a runoff will be held Jan. 31 to fill the seat vacated by the death of Democratic Rep. Sylvester Turner. The race is down to two Democrats — Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards.
The second open seat is in New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, which will hold a special election April 16 to fill the spot vacated by New Jersey Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill. While the district was represented by a Republican as recently as 2018, it has been safely blue since maps were redrawn following the 2020 Census and is expected to remain in Democratic control.
Not surprisingly, there are a lot of Democrats vying to replace Sherrill. At least 13 have entered the race or are about to do so, a lengthy list that includes former Rep. Tom Malinowski, progressive activist Analilia Mejia, Obama White House alum Cammie Croft, Essex County Commissioner Brendan Gill, and current Lt. Gov. Tahesha Way.
Just one Republican has announced a bid to replace Sherrill — Randolph Mayor Joe Hathaway.
Then there is the Georgia seat of GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, which is set to become vacant following her resignation on Jan. 5. It is unclear when Georgia will hold a special election to replace Greene, but Gov. Brian Kemp is required to set a date within 10 days of her departure.
The seat is considered safely Republican, but that is hardly definitive after what happened in Tennessee on Tuesday night.
Why was there a special election in Tennessee?
Former Rep. Mark Green (R., Tenn.) left Congress suddenly to launch his own business.
Tuesday’s special election was held to replace the seat vacated by Republican Mark Green, who resigned in July to launch a new business called Prosimos.
Green’s decision to leave Congress, and his role as the chair of the Homeland Security Committee, came in the middle of his fourth term.
So what is Prosimos? According to Green, it’s a development and strategy firm designed to help U.S. businesses better compete against the influence of China. The company’s website says it provides “tailored strategies and expert guidance to navigate the complexities of global business development.”
What does this mean for Republicans in Pennsylvania and New Jersey?
Rep. Ryan Mackenzie (R., Pa.) is one of four Pa. Republicans facing a tough reelection battle.
If there has been a trend since Trump’s inauguration, it’s that voters are keen on punishing Republicans at the ballot box.
In four previous special elections for House seats held in 2025, Democrats significantly outperformed Harris’ margins in 2024. That was also true of Election Day victories in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, and Georgia, where two Republicans were booted off the state’s Public Service Commission.
Closer to home, there are five House seats — four in Pennsylvania, one in New Jersey — that Democrats hope to flip during the 2026 midterms, potentially deciding the balance of power during the final two years of Trump’s presidency.
PA-01: In Bucks County, Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick is used to close races, but next year could be particularly challenging for the five-term moderate. In addition to nationwide trends, Democrats won each countywide office by around 10 percentage points last month, and Bucks County District Attorney Joe Khan is the first member of their party ever elected to the office.
PA-07: In the Lehigh Valley, Republican Rep. Ryan Mackenzie is the biggest target for Democrats after ousting Susan Wild by just 1 percentage point in 2024. Cook Political Report lists the district as a true “toss up” and five Democrats have already entered the race.
PA-08: Farther north, in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan is also looking to win reelection to a seat he flipped by just 1 percentage point in 2024. The district leans Republican — Trump won it by nearly 9 percentage points — and so far Bresnahan’s only challenger is Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti.
PA-10: Another of Cook’s “toss up” districts. Republican Rep. Scott Perry, an outspoken Trump supporter who supported the president’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election, is seeking his eighth term. Perry narrowly won reelection in 2024, defeating former news anchor Janelle Stelson by less than 1 percentage point. She is running against Perry again in 2026 and has already received an endorsement from Gov. Josh Shapiro.
NJ-07: The northwestern New Jersey district is currently represented by Republican Tom Kean Jr., a moderate who won reelection by about 5 percentage points in 2024. Cook lists Kean’s district as a “toss up,” and he faces a crowded field of Democrats in what would otherwise be a safely Republican seat.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth previously emphasized the samemilitary law that the Trump administration has been calling Pennsylvania lawmakers seditious for citing.
Hegseth notedthe military rule not to obey unlawful orders during a forum in 2016,when he was a Fox News contributor, in recorded remarks CNN unearthed on Tuesday.
Hegseth spoke at length about his views on the military — and criticism of former President Barack Obama — in a talk titled “The US Military: Winning Wars, Not Social Engineering.” The talk was shared online by the Liberty Forum of Silicon Valley and was marked as taking place on April 12, 2016. Hegseth, an Army veteran, had a book coming out that he promoted at the event.
The moderator asked him a question from an attendee: “Can you comment on soldiers who are being held at Leavenworth Prison for being soldiers?”
Hegseth argued that some prisoners at the facility did not deserve to be there but that others were facing the consequences for their unlawful actions.
“There are some guys at Leavenworth who made really bad choices on the battlefield, and I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes,” he said. “If you’re doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that.”
“That’s why the military said it won’t follow unlawful orders from their commander in chief,” he added. “There’s a standard, there’s an ethos, there’s a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do.”
It is the same policy that a group of six Democratic members of Congress cited in a video that enraged President Donald Trump.
On his social media website, Truth Social, Trump said they were committing sedition “punishable by DEATH” and shared other posts attacking the lawmakers, including one calling for them to be hanged. Hegseth called them the “seditious six.”
“Encouraging our warriors to ignore the orders of their Commanders undermines every aspect of ‘good order and discipline,’” Hegseth said in a social media post. “Their foolish screed sows doubt and confusion — which only puts our warriors in danger.”
When asked for comment by CNN, spokespersons for the Pentagon and the White House further criticized the Democratic lawmakers who made the video.
Pentagon spokesperson Kingsley Wilson also told CNN that the military “has clear procedures for handling unlawful orders” and defended Trump’s orders as legal.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told CNN that Hegseth’s position has remained consistent and that his remarks were “uncontroversial.”
Sean Timmons, a Houston-based attorney specializing in military law who served as an active-duty U.S. Army captain in the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) program, told The Inquirer that service members can get in trouble for refusing orders and that it is largely up to commanders to determinewhether orders are lawful or not. While the military rules specify not to follow obviously illegal orders, such as war crimes, they also say to presume orders are lawful.
Houlahan expressed disappointment in her Republican colleagues for largely not defending the Democratic lawmakers, though U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a Bucks County Republican, said he stood by his Democratic colleagues when asked by The Inquirer.
The fallout from the video has gone beyond rhetoric on X and Truth Social.
Hegseth also said in his 2016 talk that he believed U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), Trump’s top rival for the GOP nomination that year, would be the best president at fighting wars, but that he believed Cruz and Trump would both “unleash war fighters and get the lawyers out of the way, which is really a big impediment to how we fight wars.”
The Democratic lawmakers did not cite specific orders in their video announcement, but Trump’s involvement of the National Guard in U.S. cities and the Pentagon’s strikes in the Caribbean have drawn legal debate.
WASHINGTON — Ahead of a morning Budget Committee meeting, U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle gathered his senior advisers in a brightly lit conference room just off the Capitol to settle on a simple strategy.
“Let’s keep the main thing the main thing,” he said. “Fifteen million Americans are gonna lose their healthcare because Republicans care more about tax breaks for billionaires. It’s accurate. You can describe it in a sentence.”
Boyle, a six-term lawmaker, is the most veteran of Pennsylvania’s eight Democrats in Washington. He has been the ranking member of the House Budget Committee since 2023, meaning he is the top Democrat playing defense as the Republican-controlled Congress ushers through GOP spending priorities. It can be a futile exercise in shouting into a void — until the yelling starts to echo outside.
“He’s one of our best messengers who appropriately comes across as both strong and authentic at the same period of time,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D., N.Y.) said in an interview late last month.
Jeffries credited Boyle with homing inon a key statistic: Taken together, Trump’s reconciliation bill andthe expiration ofAffordable Care Act tax credits represent the largest cut to Medicaid in American history.
“That one observation became core to our arguments in pushing back against that toxic piece of legislation, and it’s also one of the reasons I believe that the law is so deeply unpopular amongst the American people,” Jeffries said.
Democrats have been recently on a roller coaster — securing big wins in the November election and then splitting over how long to withstand the government shutdown, with eight senators ultimately crossing the aisle to end the impasse. But Boyle’s messaging war is ongoing, and he thinks it is his party’s best bet for winning key midterm races in his home state, where Democrats are targeting four Republican-held seats in swing areas.
If Democrats reclaim Congress in next year’s election, Boyle would shift from ranking member to chair of the powerful Budget Committee — becoming the first Pennsylvanian to lead it since Philadelphian Bill Gray, a Democratwho chaired it from 1985 to 1989. It would be another resumé builder for the 48-year-old lawmaker whose role in Washington keeps growing and who has not ruled out a potential Senate run in 2028, when Democratic Sen. John Fetterman’s seat would be up.
“I get asked a lot: How do you keep this message going for the next year?” Boyle said in an interview in his Washington office. “Well, we started this five months ago, and actually more people know about it today than over the summer. Every single day, continuing to talk about healthcare, continuing a broader conversation about affordability, is absolutely what we have to do.”
U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle (center) meets in his Capitol Hill office with Phillip Swagel (right), director of the Congressional Budget Office, following Swagel’s testimony before House Committee on the Budget last month. As Budget’s ranking member, Boyle has been central in shaping Democratic messaging around Republican policies.
‘Scrappy Irish Catholic boys from Olney’
Boyle, who lives in Somerton with his wife and 11-year-old daughter, is an affable, earnest lawmaker in a role that is unapologetically wonky — and high-profile, especially lately.
From Oct. 1 through the end of November — a period including the shutdown — Boyle popped up on TV news more than two dozen times, by his office’s count.
His political beginnings were far less polished. In 2014, Boyle shocked Philadelphia’s political establishment by winning the Democratic primary over a field that included former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Margolies, scion of a powerful political family. Then a 37-year-old state representative, Boyle ran as a blue-collar, antiestablishment pragmatist from Northeast Philly. His ads cast his opponents as out of touch, and he leaned hard on his family’s story: his father, an Irish immigrant, worked at an Acme warehouse and later as a SEPTA janitor; his mother was a school crossing guard. Boyle still keeps his dad’s SEPTA cap on a bookshelf in his Washington office.
That same year, his brother Kevin won a seat in the state House, prompting Philadelphia Magazine to profile the “scrappy Irish Catholic boys from Olney” who were reshaping the party.
A decade later, Democrats are still striving to win back blue-collar voters. Boyle, meanwhile, has traded some of his insurgent edge for the stature of a Hill veteran.As Philadelphia elects a replacement for retiring U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans next year, Boyle will be a key ally for the new lawmaker, and a coveted endorsement during the election, though he has said he does not plan to weigh in. He has been in the thick of some of the year’s biggest fights — leading Democrats through a 12-hour reconciliation markup, testifying at a 1 a.m. Rules Committee hearing, and grinding through an overnight Ways and Means marathon.
His younger brother has had a far more tumultuous path. Kevin lost his state House seatlast year amid long-running mental health struggles.
Boyle declined to discuss the situation beyond saying: “The last five years — almost exactly five years — have been very challenging. And I’ll just leave it at that.”
U.S. Reps. Brendan Boyle (left) (D., Philadelphia) and Jodey Arrington (right) (R., Texas) question Phillip Swagel (back to camera), director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025. Arrington chairs the House Budget Committee, while Boyle is the panel’s top Democrat.
In line for the gavel
Before that late November hearing, Boyle had already reached out to fellow Democrats on the committee: Talk about healthcare, he urged them. Talk about affordability. Talk about it ad nauseam.
He sat at the dais across from a portrait of Gray in an ornate hearing room, surrounded by paintings of former budget chairs, and delivered his opening remarks.
“The president has stopped calling it the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill.’ He’s stopped talking about the bill altogether,” Boyle said. “… Because it’s not just that healthcare’s become unaffordable in America. It is beef, it is coffee, it’s electricity, almost every staple in the average consumer basket.”
The director of theCongressional Budget Office, Phillip Swagel, was called before the committee that day and fielded questions from both sides. Democrats wanted to know Swagel’s projections on how Trump’s policies would affect everything from the national debt to the price of Thanksgiving dinners, eager for sound bites to send to constituents back home and to pressure Republicans on the healthcare debate.
Republicans were pushing Swagel for an audit, seekingmore transparency on how the nonpartisan agency comes to its projections.
“We need to be able to cut through the politics and the partisanship and figure out where you and your team can do a better job,” said U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington,the Texas Republican who chairs the committee.
Boyle, whose office uses CBO projections to compile and distribute national and district-level data to Democrats, said he is open to an audit, if performed responsibly and not as a means to “discredit” the agency over numbers Republicans don’t like.
U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat from Ohio, brings visual aids to a hearing of the House Committee on the Budget on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025.
Throughout the three-hour hearing, Boyle would sidebar with Arrington, who is retiring next year. The Philly Democrat and the West Texas conservative make an unlikely pair, but the two have bonded across many late-night sessions over having younger children and their college football fanaticism — Boyle for his alma mater, Notre Dame, Arrington for Texas Tech.
“He’s a very good communicator because he’s a really smart and thoughtful guy,” Arrington said. “I always can appreciate, whether I agree or not, with a good communicator. He’s authentic in what he believes and he’ll even say, ‘I grant you it’s not perfect,’ or ‘You make a good point.’”
The midterms will dictate not just the party that controls Congress but also which ideological track the Budget Committee takes. If Democrats win, and Boyle takes the gavel, he plans to put more scrutiny on the administration and aim to regain some of Congress’ control over purse strings that Republicans have ceded to Trump.
Another Pennsylvanian, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Smucker, a Republican who represents Lancaster, has announced he is running to be the top Republican on the committee following Arrington’s retirement. That means regardless of party control, two Pennsylvanians will likely be at the helm of one of the most powerful committees in Congress. Smucker, a fiscal conservative running with Arrington’s backing, said in an interview he would focus on rising national debt and getting a budget resolution adopted. He was a key negotiator for Republicans during reconciliation, helping to get conservative House Freedom Caucus members on board.
Smucker called Boyle someone who is “serious about the budget process, and wants to make sure that it functions.”
“He genuinely cares about strengthening Congress as an institution,” Smucker added.
U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle is interviewed by Charles Hilu (left), a reporter with the Dispatch, as he moves between office buildings on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025.
The road ahead
The longer Boyle stays in the House, in a safe Democratic seat, the harder it is to think about walking away.
In September, Jeffries appointed him the lead Democrat for the congressional delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. For Boyle, a history lover who has biographies of George Washington on his office coffee table, it’s an exciting opportunity to represent the country internationally as Trump continues to criticize the historic alliance. Boyle would become the leader of the parliamentary assembly delegation if Democrats take control of the House, just as he would take the gavel in the Budget Committee. Past committee chairs include former House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich.
“Some really high-quality, high-caliber people have done that over the last 40 years. So that’s what I’m looking forward to in the near term,” Boyle said. “After that, come 2028, and beyond, we’ll deal with that then. But it is interesting, like the longer you’re here, and if you move up the ranks, then actually it does make it more difficult to leave.”
A painting of former U.S. Rep. William H. Gray III hangs in the hearing room of the House Committee on the Budget on Capitol Hill. It’s been 40 years since a Philadelphia lawmaker led a House committee. A photo of U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle with former President Barack Obama on Air Force One hangs in his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
But Boyle has not been shy about airing frustrations with Fetterman, whose term is up in 2028, sparking speculation Boyle could have an interest in a run against him.
Boyle said he avoided criticizing Fetterman until this spring, when the senator’s positions started to directly conflict with the party messaging he was pushing out.
“As I was doing TV opportunity after TV opportunity, what I increasingly found was that the clip they would show before I would be asked the question wouldn’t be a clip of what Donald Trump had said; it would be a clip of what my state’s Democratic senator had said,” Boyle said. “And I obviously would have to combat it.”
Fetterman has embraced an independent streak as a purple-state senator, often willing to work with the GOP. While pleasing to voters eager to see compromise and bipartisanship in a tenuous moment in Washington, it has also alienated some progressives.
Boyle said when it comes to the Senate, “I don’t rule anything in and I don’t rule anything out.”
If he were to run, a challenge could be building his statewide profile. He is still relatively unknown outside Philadelphia, though he has proven to be a prolific fundraiser. Today’s politics also tend to elevate showmen and outsiders, while Boyle has the more traditional cadence of an establishment politician — disciplined, polished, and most compelling when he speaks off-script.
Some local Philadelphia Democrats have criticized Boyle’s voting record on immigration, arguing it has not reflected the interests of the Latino community he represents in his majority-minority district. Boyle voted for the bipartisan Laken Riley Act, which requires the Department of Homeland Security to detain noncitizens who are arrested or charged with certain crimes, often forgoing due process. He was one of 46Democrats in the House along with 12 in the Senate, including Fetterman, to support the GOP-led bill.
“I have the same criticism as I do of Josh Shapiro: I wish he would take a stronger stance on immigration,” said State Rep. Danilo Burgos, who represents North Philadelphia. At the same time, Burgos credited Boyle as being a “good partner in our community” who always returns phone calls and texts.
For now, Boyle keeps an extremely busy schedule. The day of the budget hearing, his schedule stretched over 15 hours. He hustled from a meeting with Social Security and Medicaid experts to a floor vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Back in his office, where Eagles throw blankets, Phillies pennants, and a painting of Donegal, Ireland, his father’s home county, decorate the space, he sat down for his final meeting of the day.
Gwen Mills, the international president of UNITE HERE,a labor union that represents hospitality workers, wanted advice on how to translate Democrats’ work in Washington to members frustrated with both parties.
“Talk about affordability and how Republicans are making it worse — with the so-called beautiful bill,” Boyle suggested, running through some numbers and data before offering up a simpler sound bite:
“It boils down to life in America is just too damn expensive right now.”
U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle checks his phone before leaving his office on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2025.
Many Americans are deeply unhappy with their financial situation, and with good reason. They are grappling with a serious affordability squeeze.
Prices for many things, from groceries to car insurance, are high and continue to climb. Meanwhile, pay increases are slowing as job growth has stalled and unemployment is on the rise.
Americans’ unease with their finances is apparent in the long-running University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment. This survey of consumers’ financial well-being has been conducted monthly since the early 1950s, and in the past few weeks, the responses have been about as weak as ever.
The survey likely overstates consumers’ collective gloominess, as political biases are increasingly shaping people’s feelings about almost everything, including their finances. Democrats have been more glum than Republicans since President Donald Trump’s election, whereas the opposite was true under President Joe Biden. Even so, the survey results send a loud and clear message.
The angst over affordability was also front and center in the recent election results. The cost of living was far and away the top concern of voters in New York City’s mayoral race, and in the governors’ races in New Jersey and Virginia. The high and rising cost of electricity, healthcare, and housing were especially prominent in voters’ decisions.
The affordability squeeze has been a long time in the making.
Prices jumped during the COVID-19 pandemic, as global supply chains and labor markets were upended. Then, the Russian invasion of Ukraine drove up food prices, and at the height of the economic fallout from that war, the cost of a gallon of gasoline reached a record $5 in some U.S. locations.
Adding to Americans’ financial pain, the Fed aggressively raised interest rates in an effort to slow the economy down and rein in the high inflation. This exacerbated the affordability squeeze, particularly with the cost of homeownership.
Prior to the pandemic, the typical monthly mortgage payment was no more $1,000. Once the Fed had finished increasing rates, the monthly payment was well over $2,000. Homeownership, a key part of Americans’ definition of financial success, is completely out of reach for most.
Despite all of this, it did appear, coming into this year, that the worst of the affordability squeeze had passed. Inflation was quickly receding and headed back toward the Fed’s inflation target. Fed officials were so confident in this forecast that they began cutting interest rates.
But, alas, the forecast was wrong. The Trump administration’s higher tariffs, highly restrictive immigration policy, and broader de-globalization efforts have upended that outlook.
De-globalization scrambles global supply chains, which raises costs, reduces competition, weakens productivity growth, and leads to labor shortages. Inflation now appears set to remain uncomfortably high for the foreseeable future. The affordability squeeze is intensifying again, leading to renewed anguish among consumers and voters.
De-globalization is also weighing heavily on the job market and incomes, adding to the country’s affordability woes. Job growth has come to a virtual standstill, as businesses, unsure of how the tariffs and other policies will play out, enact hiring freezes. They aren’t all laying off workers — that would be a recession — but they’ve done everything but.
Unemployment remains low, but it is steadily increasing, particularly for younger workers seeking new employment opportunities. Wage growth is thus throttling back.
The upcoming cuts to federal government benefits for lower-income households, included as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will worsen the affordability problem. Tax subsidies to help pay for the cost of health insurance under the Affordable Care Act have been scaled back, and cuts to the Medicaid program and SNAP, the food assistance program, are looming. As these programs are cut back, the cost of living for families reliant on them will increase.
Congress appears to have taken the election results to heart and seems to be focused on ways to ease the affordability squeeze. Lawmakers are holding hearings on how to reduce the financial burden on Americans from electricity, food, healthcare, and housing costs. But this won’t be easy, as there are no slam-dunk legislative solutions.
Trump has proposed providing a $2,000 stimulus check to families with an annual income of less than $100,000 — similar to the checks sent during the pandemic. Of course, like then, this might merely provide temporary financial relief, as it boosts consumer spending, pumps up inflation, and ultimately worsens the affordability squeeze.
The quickest way to address the affordability squeeze is to relax tariffs and immigration policies. The president has taken this approach on a case-by-case basis, reducing tariffs on bananas, beef, and coffee, and halting some ICE raids on agricultural workplaces that heavily rely on immigrant workers.
However, it remains to be seen if he will further backtrack on his signature economic policies. If not, the affordability squeeze and the tough financial times facing many Americans are sure to persist.
In his second term, Donald Trump has turned a campaign pledge to punish political opponents into a guiding principle of governance.
What began as a provocative rallying cry in March 2023 — “I am your retribution” — has hardened into a sweeping campaign of retaliation against perceived enemies, reshaping federal policy, staffing and law enforcement.
A tally by Reuters reveals the scale: At least 470 people, organizations and institutions have been targeted for retribution since Trump took office — an average of more than one a day. Some were singled out for punishment; others swept up in broader purges of perceived enemies. The count excludes foreign individuals, institutions and governments, as well as federal employees dismissed as part of force reductions.
The Trump vengeance campaign fuses personal vendettas with a drive for cultural and political dominance, Reuters found. His administration has wielded executive power to punish perceived foes — firing prosecutors who investigated his bid to overturn the 2020 election, ordering punishments of media organizations seen as hostile, penalizing law firms tied to opponents, and sidelining civil servants who question his policies. Many of those actions face legal challenges.
At the same time, Trump and his appointees have used the government to enforce ideology: ousting military leaders deemed “woke,” slashing funds for cultural institutions held to be divisive, and freezing research grants to universities that embraced diversity initiatives.
Reuters reached out to every person and institution that Trump or his subordinates singled out publicly for retribution, and reviewed hundreds of official orders, directives and public records. The result: the most comprehensive accounting yet of his campaign of payback.
The analysis revealed two broad groups of people and organizations targeted for retaliation.
Members of the first group – at least 247 individuals and entities – were singled out by name, either publicly by Trump and his appointees or later in government memos, legal filings or other records. To qualify, acts had to be aimed at specific individuals or entities, with evidence of intent to punish. Reuters reporters interviewed or corresponded with more than 150 of them.
Another 224 people were caught up in broader retribution efforts – not named individually but ensnared in crackdowns on groups of perceived opponents. Nearly 100 of them were prosecutors and FBI agents fired or forced to retire for working on cases tied to Trump or his allies, or because they were deemed “woke.” This includes 16 FBI agents who kneeled at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020. The rest were civil servants, most of them suspended for publicly opposing administration policies or resisting directives on health, environmental and science issues.
Most common were punitive acts, such as firings, suspensions, investigations and the revocation of security clearances.
Reuters found at least 462 such cases, including the dismissal of at least 128 federal workers and officials who had probed, challenged or otherwise bucked Trump or his administration.
The second form was threats. Trump and his administration targeted at least 46 individuals, businesses and other entities with threats of investigations or penalties, including freezing federal funds for Democratic-led cities such as New York and Chicago.
Trump openly discussed firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for resisting interest rate cuts, for instance. Last week, he threatened to have six Democratic members of Congress tried for sedition – a crime he said is “punishable by DEATH” – after the lawmakers reminded military personnel they can refuse “illegal orders.” This week, the Defense Department threatened to court-martial one of them, U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, a former Naval officer.
The third form was coercion. In at least a dozen cases, organizations such as law firms and universities signed agreements with the government to roll back diversity initiatives or other policies after facing administration threats of punishment, such as security clearance revocations and loss of federal funding and contracts.
It’s a campaign led from the top: Trump’s White House has issued at least 36 orders, decrees and directives, targeting at least 100 individuals and entities with punitive actions, according to the Reuters analysis.
Trump openly campaigned on a platform of revenge in his latest run for the presidency, promising to punish enemies of his Make America Great Again movement. “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution,” he said in a March 2023 speech. Weeks later, while campaigning in Texas, he repeated the theme. “I am your justice,” he said.
Today, the White House disputes the idea that the administration is out for revenge. It describes recent investigations and indictments of political adversaries as valid course corrections on policy, necessary probes of wrongdoing and legitimate policy initiatives.
“This entire article is based on the flawed premise that enforcing an electoral mandate is somehow ‘retribution.’ It’s not,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said. There is no place in government for civil servants or public officials “who actively seek to undermine the agenda that the American people elected the president to enact,” she added. Trump is abiding by campaign promises to restore a justice system that was “weaponized” by the Biden administration, Jackson said, and “ensure taxpayer funding is not going to partisan causes.”
Trump’s actions have been cheered by his staunchest backers. Right-wing commentator and former Trump advisor Steve Bannon told Reuters the use of government power to punish Trump’s enemies is “not revenge at all” but an attempt to “hold people accountable” for what he said were unfair investigations targeting Trump. More is on the way, he said.
“The people that tried to take away President Trump’s first term, that accused him of being a Russian asset and damaged this republic, and then stole the 2020 election – they’re going to be held accountable and they’re going to be adjudicated in courts of law,” he said in an interview. “That’s coming. There’s no doubt.” There’s no evidence the 2020 election was stolen.
Trump’s allies point to actions former President Joe Biden took upon taking office. After Trump’s supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, in a failed bid to overturn his election loss, Biden revoked Trump’s access to classified information, a first for any former president. Biden also won a court battle to dismiss Senate-confirmed directors of independent agencies serving fixed terms, such as the Federal Housing Finance Authority, and removed scores of Trump-era appointees from unpaid advisory boards.
Yet the scale and systematic nature of Trump’s effort to punish perceived enemies marks a sharp break from long-standing norms in U.S. governance, according to 13 political scientists and legal scholars interviewed by Reuters. Some historians say the closest modern parallel, though inexact, is the late President Richard Nixon’s quest for vengeance against political enemies. Since May, for instance, dozens
of officials from multiple federal agencies have been meeting as part of a task force formed to advance Trump’s retribution drive against perceived enemies, Reuters previously reported.
“The main aim is concentration of power and destruction of all checks against power,” said Daron Acemoglu, Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which faces an ongoing federal investigation for embracing diversity and equity programs. “Retribution is just one of the tools.”
Dozens of Trump’s targets have challenged their punishments as illegal. Fired and suspended civil servants have filed administrative appeals or legal challenges claiming wrongful termination. Some law firms have gone to court claiming the administration exceeded its legal authority by restricting their ability to work on classified contracts or interact with federal agencies. Most of those challenges remain unresolved.
Investigating foes of Trump
The administration has moved aggressively against officials in the government’s legal and national security agencies, institutions central to investigations of Trump’s alleged misconduct during and after his first term.
At least 69 current and former officials were targeted for investigating or sounding alarms about Russian interference in U.S. elections. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded soon after the 2016 election that Moscow sought to tilt the race toward Trump, a finding later affirmed by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report in August 2020. Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the September 25 indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, a break from Justice Department norms meant to shield prosecutions from political influence.
Comey, who led the FBI’s investigation into Trump’s 2016 campaign, was charged after Trump demanded his prosecution. The Justice Department has cast the case as a corruption crackdown. Comey and his lawyers said in court documents that the case was “vindictive” and motivated by “personal animus.” Comey, who pleaded not guilty, declined to comment. A federal judge dismissed the case on Monday, ruling that Trump’s handpicked prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed.
Acts of retribution tied to the Russia probe include the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey. His lawyers say he is the target of a “vindictive” prosecution.
At least 58 acts of retribution have targeted people Trump viewed as saboteurs of his election campaigns, including Chris Krebs, the top cybersecurity official during his first term. Trump fired him in 2020 for disputing claims that the election was rigged. In April, Trump stripped Krebs’ security clearance and ordered a federal investigation into his tenure. Krebs, still asserting that Trump’s defeat was valid, has vowed to fight the probe. He did not respond for this story.
Reuters documented 112 security clearances revoked from current and former U.S. officials, law firms and state leaders – credentials needed for work that involves classified information. In August, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard announced she was revoking 37 clearances.
In a response to Reuters posted on X, an agency spokesperson said Gabbard and Trump are working “to ensure the government is never again wielded against the American people it is meant to serve.” She added: “President Trump said it best, ‘Our ultimate retribution is success.’”
Leon Panetta, CIA director and defense secretary under former President Barack Obama, had his security clearance revoked in January along with others who signed an October 2020 letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop. At the time, Joe Biden — Hunter’s father — was Trump’s Democratic rival in the 2020 election. An executive order Trump signed in January claimed: “The signatories willfully weaponized the gravitas of the Intelligence Community to manipulate the political process and undermine our democratic institutions.” Panetta has said he stands by signing the letter.
Panetta told Reuters he had already surrendered his clearance after leaving government nearly a decade ago. Trump’s retribution campaign is hurting CIA morale and wrecking the bipartisan trust that allows Washington to function, Panetta said. “What I worry about is that our adversaries will look at what’s happening and sense weakness,” he said. “This kind of political retribution leads to a loss of trust, which ultimately leads to a failure of governing.” The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.
Former CIA director Leon Panetta had his security clearance revoked along with others who signed a letter suggesting Russia may have been behind reports about emails on Hunter Biden’s laptop.
The revenge effort also reaches deep into the civil service, punishing employees who speak out against Trump’s policies and turning forms of dissent that were tolerated by past administrations into grounds for discipline.
This summer, hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency staffers wrote an open letter protesting deep cuts to pollution control and cleanup programs. The fallout was swift. More than 100 signers who attached their names were placed on paid leave. At least 15 senior officials and probationary employees were told they would be fired. The rest were informed they were under investigation for misconduct, leading to at least 69 suspensions without pay. Many remained out of work for weeks.
“They followed all the rules” of conduct for civil servants, said Nicole Cantello, one of the signers and an officer with the American Federation of Government Employees, a union that represents many affected workers. She called the punishments an attempt to “quell dissent,” stifle free speech and “scare the employees.” In a statement, the EPA said it has “a zero-tolerance policy for career officials using their agency position and title to unlawfully undermine, sabotage, and undercut” administration policy.
At the Federal Emergency Management Agency, about 20 staffers were put on leave and now face misconduct investigations after signing a letter criticizing the agency’s decision to scrap bipartisan reforms adopted years ago to speed disaster relief.
Cameron Hamilton, a Republican who served briefly as acting head of FEMA, was fired in May, a day after telling Congress he didn’t believe the agency should be shut down, contradicting the administration.
Hamilton told Reuters he still supports Trump. But he said too many senior officials are firing people in the name of retribution, trying to impress the White House. “They want to find ways to really launch themselves to prominence and be movers and shakers, to kick ass and take names,” said Hamilton. “They’re trying to show the president ‘look at what I am doing for you.’”
In a statement to Reuters, the Department of Homeland Security, which includes FEMA, said it is building a “new FEMA” to fix “inefficiency and outdated processes.” Employees “resisting change” are “not a good fit,” the statement said.
Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, former head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, sees her firing in October — three weeks after filing a whistleblower complaint alleging politicization of research and vaccine policy — as a warning shot. She told Reuters the administration’s purge of dissenting health officials is breeding “anticipatory obedience” — a reflex to comply before being asked. “People know if they push back … this is what happens,” she said. The effect, she says, is an ecosystem of fear: those who stay in government self-censor; those who speak out are branded “radioactive, too hot to handle.”
The Department of Health and Human Services, the agency that oversees NIAID, did not respond to a request for comment.
Federal agency leaders have dismissed a wide array of officials they deemed out of step with Trump’s MAGA agenda, including employees involved in diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and those working on transgender issues.
David Maltinsky, a Federal Bureau of Investigation employee, says he was fired by Director Kash Patel for displaying a Pride flag at work — one of at least 50 bureau personnel dismissed on Patel’s watch. Maltinsky sued the FBI and Justice Department, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and seeking reinstatement. The Justice Department has yet to file a formal response.
In his 2023 book, “Government Gangsters,” Patel named 60 people that he said were members of an “Executive Branch deep state” that opposed Trump, including former Democratic government officials and Republicans who served in Trump’s first administration but eventually broke with him. He called for firings and said that anybody who abused their authority should face prosecution. In his 2025 confirmation hearing before Congress, Patel denied that it was an “enemies list.”
Under FBI Director Kash Patel’s watch, at least 50 FBI personnel have been dismissed. In this photo, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff speaks in front of an image of Patel at a Senate hearing on FBI oversight.
Reuters found that at least 17 of the 60 people on Patel’s list have faced some sort of retribution, including firings and stripping of security clearances. The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.
Against perceived foes in the private sector, the administration has wielded financial penalties as leverage. At least two dozen law firms faced inquiries, investigations or restrictions on federal contracting, often for employing or representing people tied to past cases against Trump. Eight struck deals to avoid further action.
Nine media organizations have faced federal investigations, lawsuits, threats to revoke their broadcast licenses and limits on access to White House events. Trump has also suggested revoking broadcast licenses for networks whose coverage he dislikes.
The targets include universities, long cast by the president and his allies as bastions of left-wing radicals.
Officials froze more than $4 billion in federal grants and research funding to at least nine schools, demanding policy changes such as ending diversity, equity and inclusion programs, banning transgender athletes from women’s sports and cracking down on alleged antisemitism amid pro-Palestinian protests. Five universities have signed agreements to restore funding. Harvard University successfully sued to block a freeze on $2.2 billion in federal aid for the school, which Trump accused of “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired” dogma. Harvard declined to comment.
The administration has described the funding freezes and other efforts to force policy changes at colleges and universities as a necessary push to reverse years of leftward drift in U.S. education. “If Reuters considers restoring merit in admissions, reclaiming women’s titles misappropriated by male athletes, enforcing civil rights laws, and preventing taxpayer dollars from funding radical DEI programs ‘retribution,’ then we’re on very different planes of reality,” said Julie Hartman, a spokesperson for the U.S. Education Department.
A historical parallel: Nixon’s enemies
It’s impossible to predict, of course, how far the Trump revenge campaign will go, or whether it will be affected by a recent slide in popular support. Trump has been hurt by public frustration with the high cost of living and the investigation into late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Nixon resigned in 1974 over the Watergate scandal, in which aides to his re-election campaign broke into Democratic Party headquarters and the president himself later directed a cover-up. While in office, he kept a list of more than 500 enemies. But while Trump has conducted his retribution campaign in the open, historians note, Nixon’s enemies list was conceived as a covert tool.
John Dean, chief counsel in the Nixon White House, wrote a confidential memo in 1971 addressing “how we can use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” The planned methods included tax audits, phone-tapping, the cancellation of contracts and criminal prosecution. Yet the execution faltered: IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander refused to conduct mass audits, and most targets escaped serious punishment.
Other recent presidents, to be sure, have been accused of seeking to punish opponents, though on a smaller scale. The Obama administration pursued “aggressive prosecution of leakers of classified information,” the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a 2013 report. Two IRS employees alleged they were retaliated against during the Biden administration for raising concerns about the handling of the tax-compliance investigation of Hunter Biden.
Nixon’s plotting remained a secret until the Watergate hearings exposed it, turning his enemies list into a symbol of presidential abuse. The secrecy reflected a political culture in which retaliation was whispered, not broadcast, and where institutional checks blunted many of Nixon’s ambitions.
Trump’s approach reverses that pattern, historians say. He has openly named his perceived enemies, urged prosecutions in public and framed vengeance as a campaign vow. Some say today’s “enemies list” politics are in that sense farther-reaching than Nixon’s, possibly signaling a shift toward a normalization of retribution in American political life.
Corey Brettschneider, a political science professor at Brown University who has written a book on power grabs by American presidents, said Nixon was ultimately checked and forced to resign by Congress, including members of his own Republican Party. “That’s just not happening now,” he said.
The FBI is seeking interviews with the six Democratic members of Congress, including two from Pennsylvania, who released a video calling on members of the military and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.”
A U.S. Justice Department official said the FBI has requested interviews with the six Democratic lawmakers, who are all veterans or members of the intelligence community.
The move came a day after the Pentagon threatened to recall Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.), a Navy veteran and one of the six lawmakers, to active duty potentially to face military charges. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Monday described the video as“seditious” and “despicable, reckless, and false” after President Donald Trump went on a social media rant against the lawmakers last week.
U.S. Reps. Chrissy Houlahan of Chester County, an Air Force veteran, and Chris Deluzio of Allegheny County, a Navy vet, both took part in the video.
Houlahan said in a statement Tuesday that Trump “is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress.”
She said the FBI contacted the House and Senate sergeants at arms on Monday to request the interviews.
“No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our Constitution,” Houlahan said.
The lawmaker said that members of Congress took an oath to the Constitution that “lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it.”
“We will not be bullied. We will never give up the ship,” she added.
The six members of Congress urged service members not to “give up the ship” in their video released last week, which drew fierce attacks from Trump. They did not refer to specific orders as illegal in the video, but some have cited military strikes against boats in the Caribbean that experts have questioned as well as Trump’s efforts to deploy the National Guard in U.S. cities.
In a string of posts last week on his social media platform, Truth Social, Trump called the Democrats “traitors” who committed sedition “punishable by DEATH.” He reshared similarly aggressive posts from supporters, including one calling for the lawmakers to be hanged.
The Department of Defense announced Monday that it “has received serious allegations of misconduct” against Kelly, a retired Navy captain, and that “a thorough review of these allegations has been initiated.”
Kelly is subject to military rules while the other veterans who partook in the video are not because he retired from the military. That means he earns a pension and can be recalled to active duty.
His colleagues in the video did not serve long enough to qualify for retirement, so they are not subject to military laws, as he is.
