A survey of likely voters seeks to offer Democrats a blueprint for how to punch back on an issue that’s vexed them in recent elections: immigration.

The poll, conducted in key 2026 battleground districts by Democratic-leaning groups Way to Win and Impact Research and shared first with POLITICO, argues that Democrats — with the right messaging — can drive down President Donald Trump’s strength on immigration by a net 10 percentage points.

The poll does not shy away from Democrats’ overall poor standing on the issue. Republicans overall have an 11-percentage-point net negative job rating on immigration (43 percent approve versus 54 percent disapprove), but Democrats have a 58-percentage-point net negative rating on the issue (19 percent approve versus 77 disapprove).

Democrats can turn the tide, the message testing found, by playing up Trump's overreach and disregard for the rule of law that they say threatens citizens and noncitizens alike as he carries out his mass deportations. But many Democrats would rather avoid the topic.

“Coming into and out of the 2024 cycle, Democrats were silent — completely — on immigration,” said Tory Gavito, president of Way to Win. “There was just no response at all. This poll is to show Democrats that when they point out how enforcement has failed, they can attack Trump on one of his most favorable policies.”

The survey, conducted in more than 70 key congressional districts, including the 26 “frontline” member list of top House Democratic-held seats the party hopes to defend next cycle, found a weakness for Trump. His initial job rating, which started with 50 percent positive versus 49 percent negative on immigration, dropped to 45 percent positive and 54 percent negative after emphasizing overreach messaging.

The survey used specific examples, like the deportation of a person in the country legally “but deported and sent to a prison in El Salvador because of their autism awareness tattoowas wrongly identified as a gang tattoo” — or a 10-year-old U.S. citizen deported because her parents were undocumented.

Researchers say Democrats have plenty ammunition on the issue. They found policies that separate families and impact children among the most salient issues among respondents. A large majority, 74 percent, of respondents who oppose revoking visa and green cards from people without proof of committing a crime. And nearly eight in 10 respondents do not support sending U.S. citizens to foreign prisons.

“Voters view Trump’s policies on immigration and his enforcement of immigration differently — there’s a gap,” said Molly Murphy, president of Impact Research. “They are more supportive of what Trump wants to do on immigration … from a policy standpoint, than how he’s actually going about it.”

Of course, getting voters engaged on the specifics of Trump's immigration policies can be a challenge. Public polling shows voters who haven't heard much about the high-profile cases are more likely to approve of the president.

The poll, conducted May 6-11 with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent, does not capture reactions to the widespread protests in Los Angeles.

The showdown between California Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Trump administration's deployment of the state’s National Guard has also centered on the president's overreach.

“Democrats shouldn’t be focused on protesters right now,” Murphy said. "We should be talking about the people he’s deporting: people here legally, people here with no criminal records, people who have proof of citizenship and not make this a fight about protesters, because that’s what he wants.”

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said the party needs to " keep those stories in the news.” and plans to hold a briefing on the survey findings for members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus early next week on Capitol Hill.

“Trump wants to highlight the chaos that he is helping stoke in LA," Cesar added. "Democrats should be making sure that more of the focus is on the immigration overreach that has everyday people … deeply upset and deeply troubled.”

When Rep. Mikie Sherrill won the New Jersey gubernatorial primary on Tuesday, the “Hellcats” group chat of aspiring female congresswomen lit up in celebration.

All four women in the "Hellcats" chat — named after the first female Marines who served in World War I — have military experience and are running for Congress in 2026. Sherrill, as a former Navy helicopter pilot, offers some much-needed inspiration for the party’s next generation of candidates.

Democrats, looking to turn around their struggling brand and retake the House in 2026, point to Sherrill and presumptive Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Abigail Spanberger, a former congresswoman and CIA officer, as reasons the party will do well.

Sherril and Spanberger are held up as the model for how the party might turn the tables — running moderate, former veterans and national security officials in tough districts who can say they “have put their country ahead of their party,” said Dan Sena, who served as the executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2018.

“Candidates with records of service showed in 2018 their ability to win in the most challenging districts and states in the country,” Sena added. “This cycle, the same dynamics are playing out with those kinds of candidates.”

Democrats say these House candidates can point to their political aspirations as an extension of their public service that began in the military or national security realm, and bristle at Republicans claiming MAGA is equivalent to patriotism.

“Right now, especially as this administration continues to create more chaos and dismantle our democracy, you're seeing veterans continuing to answer the call to serve their country,” said JoAnna Mendoza, a retired US Marine who served in combat, now running to challenge Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.).

Mendoza is a member of the “Hellcats” group chat, along with Rebecca Bennett, a former Navy officer who is taking on Rep. Tom Kean (R-N.J.), Maura Sullivan, a former Marine looking to replace Rep. Chris Pappas (D-N.H.) and Cait Conley, an Army veteran and former National Security Council official, who is up against Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.).

Democrats say these candidates bring in necessary enthusiasm that translates to fundraising. In Pennsylvania, Ryan Croswell, a Marine and federal prosecutor who resigned when President Donald Trump pressured him to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, raised more than $215,000 in the first 48 hours after announcing his campaign on Monday, one of the biggest launch hauls that the party has seen this cycle.

Spanberger posted a selfie on X just minutes after her one-time Washington roommate Sherrill won her primary race in New Jersey on Tuesday. The pair is using their profiles as a springboard to higher office, after many of them helped Democrats flip the House in 2018.

In Michigan, former CIA analyst Sen. Elissa Slotkin fought off GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, himself an Army veteran, in a state that Kamala Harris lost in 2024. New Jersey Sen. Andy Kim, a former Department of State adviser on Afghanistan, easily won his election for the seat once held by former Sen. Bob Menendez, who was convicted of federal corruption charges.

“Patriotism is a value that the Democrats shouldn't be afraid to talk about,” said Jared Leopold, a former communications director for the Democratic Governors Association. “It is a productive conversation for Democrats to lead on as an entry point to the kitchen table issues of the day.”

Democratic candidates with national security backgrounds mitigate one of the party’s biggest liabilities — a perception that Democrats are weak. Democratic-run focus groups held after the 2024 election found voters across the spectrum saw the party as overly focused on the elite and too cautious. Voters regularly cite Republicans as the party they trust with national security issues in public polling, and the GOP bench of veterans elected to office runs deep.

But serving in the military or for the administration in a national security capacity “inoculates them from attacks that they're not tough,” said Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something, a group that recruits young people to run for office.

“It helps them ward off that opposition without having to say it out loud,” Litman continued. “Former Navy helicopter pilot, prosecutor — those are inherently tough, so that means women candidates don't have to posture, they can just be, because it's baked into their resumes.”

Of course, Republicans have, at times, effectively turned it against them. Former Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, for instance, highlighted his military experience but also faced "swift boat" attacks. More recently, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's military record came under scrutiny when he was elevated to the vice presidential nomination.

Bennett, who is also a current member of the Air National Guard, believes her dual identity as a veteran and mother gives her a unique appeal to voters, and a natural way to discuss financial strains like high daycare costs.

“I truly led in some of the most challenging environments that exist in this world,” she said. “And, I'm a mom too, and I fundamentally understand the issues and challenges that families are facing.”

Democratic National Committee members removed David Hogg his vice chair position — discharging the 25-year-old activist and another vice chair from national party posts amid his threats to take on “ineffective” Democratic incumbents in primaries.

The virtual vote, which concluded on Wednesday and the results were obtained by POLITICO, vacated its two vice chair positions, stemming from a procedural complaint unrelated to Hogg’s primary activities, and put forth a plan to hold a new election. Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta must now run again for their positions next week.

The election offers a potential reset for a party that’s dealt with a series of Hogg-related controversies in recent weeks.

In April, Hogg announced the group that he co-founded, Leaders We Deserve, planned to drop $20 million on safe-seat Democratic primaries, hoping to oust “asleep-at-the-wheel” Democrats. The move triggered a wave of anger from elected officials and DNC members alike, who vented that Hogg’s role as a party leader conflicted with the decision to take on incumbents.

The internal drama exploded again over the weekend, when POLITICO reported on leaked audio from a DNC meeting in which Chair Ken Martin told Hogg and other DNC leaders that his leadership has suffered due to the clash. The vice chair, Martin said, had “essentially destroyed any chance I have” to show national leadership.

Several of the DNC leaders who participated in the call expressed support for Martin and accused Hogg or his supporters of leaking it. Hogg, for his part, denied he shared it.

Now, the DNC will hold a new elections for the two vice chair roles — the vote for the new male vice chair will take place from June 12 to June 14 and then vote for a second vice chair of any gender from June 15 to June 17.

Joe Walsh, the former Tea Party congressman, right-wing radio host and current Never Trumper, is eyeing a possible move to South Carolina. He says he’s considering a run as a Democratic Senate candidate against Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Walsh, who became a registered Democrat last week, told POLITICO that Democrats have to take a new, asymmetrical approach to their Republican opponents and have to “fucking wake up and begin to do different things.”

“I am seriously considering moving to South Carolina and challenging Lindsey Graham next year, because he's a piece of shit," said Walsh, who describes himself as a “conservative” Democrat. "He’s everything that is wrong about our politics, and he's the worst, most pathetic Trump enabler."

Walsh would not be the only Democrat in the race if he runs: Dr. Annie Andrews, a progressive, has already announced a campaign for the seat that has been held by Republicans for over half a century.

Walsh represented the northwest suburbs of Chicago from 2011 to 2013.

Graham’s last race, when he faced Jaime Harrison, was among the most expensive of its cycle, totaling nearly $200 million. Harrison lost to Graham by 10 percentage points.

Democratic governors facing potential big budget problems exacerbated by the GOP megabill being fast-tracked in Washington are considering emergency measures to try to soften the blow.

Blue state policymakers from Connecticut to California to New York are raising the specter that they will call lawmakers back for special sessions to tackle what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs as a result of President Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful bill.” And even some deep red states — like Florida — are taking steps to address the financial fallout.

The preparations signal the depths of concerns about how the Republican package might reverberate in state capitals, even as passage is far from assured, especially given the recent vitriolic attacks on the spending bill from Elon Musk. State officials are scrambling to navigate the likely fiscal challenges in what’s already the toughest budget year since before the pandemic in many states.

“The bill is destructive and risks destabilizing the entire network of supporting programs,” said New Mexico Treasurer Laura Montoya, a Democrat whose governor has all but guaranteed a special session will be necessary.

The bill, which cleared the House last month and now awaits Senate action, would cut some $300 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, largely by forcing states to pay into the program for the first time. It would also kick 7.6 million people off Medicaid and save $800 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The special session threat could be a way for Democratic governors, some of whom enjoy large legislative majorities, to respond to pressure from constituents angry about cuts to health care and food benefits — even if there's little they can do to combat Trump’s agenda.

The details of what the governors would even ask the lawmakers to do are scant given the high degree of uncertainty around the final bill. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, referencing potential cuts to education, school meals and Medicaid, warned earlier this year that “nothing prohibits us from coming back in a special session to deal with anything that comes our way from the federal government.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said last month “we will definitely be back in a special session to deal with” the reconciliation package if the House-passed version is adopted.

There could be immediate substantive reasons for a special session in response to the GOP bill, even though provisions like sharing the costs of the nation’s largest food aid program with states wouldn’t take effect until 2028. The vast majority of states start their fiscal years on July 1 — meaning that their budgets have been crafted based on current conditions even as officials leave the door open to make changes later and minimize the pain in response to the final federal legislation.

“Bottom line is states will not be able to absorb all the costs, and decisions will have to be made,” said Brian Sigritz, director of state fiscal studies at the nonpartisan National Association of State Budget Officers. “All states will be impacted.”

Some Republicans have also expressed concern at the downstream impacts of the GOP megabill. Alabama Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries Rick Pate, a Republican who recently announced a bid for lieutenant governor, previously told POLITICO that in his state “there would be very little interest in us generating the dollars it would take to fund something huge as SNAP.”

Others are using the special session chatter as a cudgel to hammer Democrats in blue states for being in a precarious fiscal situation to begin with.

“I would say that our priorities have been on the goofy side,” California Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Republican on the budget committee, said in an interview regarding his state’s poor fiscal outlook, pointing specifically to massive spending to attack homelessness that’s failed to dent the problem. “We're trying to offer too much to too many people when we can't even offer basic services.”

Still, states would be impacted across the board even if it’s only Democrats that have the political incentive to publicly oppose the reconciliation bill. That means states will need to turn to unpopular choices like cutting benefits or raising taxes to fill as much of the gap left by the federal cuts as possible, in addition to other maneuvers like drawing from their rainy day funds, said Sigritz.

Some legislators are accepting that they will likely return to their statehouses for special sessions.

Connecticut Treasurer Erick Russell, a Democrat, said in an interview that a special session will likely be necessary if the federal budget significantly shifts costs to states to ensure that lawmakers are “building in some flexibility to try to make whatever adjustments we may need to safeguard residents of our state.”

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont’s office told POLITICO that he and legislative leaders are considering declaring a fiscal emergency in order to raise the spending cap, a move that it argues would be necessary to pay for the costs shifted to states under Republicans’ megabill.

New York state Sen. Gustavo Rivera, a Democrat who chairs the chamber’s health committee, said he fully expects to return to Albany in a special session if the reconciliation bill clears Congress — and that he will push to “raise taxes on the wealthy” to cover some of the Medicaid spending the federal government plans to cut.

In California, a spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas said there is “a scenario where lawmakers come back later this year” to deal with new budget realities brought by federal cuts.

“I'll come back any day,” said California Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Silicon Valley Democrat. “This is our job. And if we have to come back in the fall, I will gladly come. In fact, if it means protecting some of these programs, then I think we should come back in the morning, noon, weekend, holidays.”

And in deep-red West Virginia, Mike Woelfel, minority leader in the state Senate and one of the 11 Democrats in the entire Legislature, said he wants his Republican governor Patrick Morrisey to call a special session if the federal cuts are adopted.

“This is the kind of thing that should trigger special sessions if we get into this hellhole that this legislation would put our most vulnerable citizens in,” Woelfel said. “But there’s political risk in (the governor) doing that.”

Eric He and Katelyn Cordero contributed to this report.

ActBlue is fighting back against a House Republican investigation into its workings, saying the probe appears to have become an unconstitutional abuse of power to help the White House.

The Democratic online fundraising platform said Monday in a letter obtained by POLITICO that it was reevaluating whether to cooperate with the ongoing congressional investigation into fraud on its platform in light of President Donald Trump’s executive action to investigate potential foreign contributions on ActBlue and House Republicans’ public statements supporting the White House.

“If the Committees are now working to gather information on behalf of Department of Justice prosecutors, rather than for legitimate legislative purposes, that would fundamentally transform the nature of your investigation — and violate ActBlue’s constitutional rights,” ActBlue’s lawyers wrote in the letter Monday to GOP Reps. Jim Jordan, James Comer and Bryan Steil.

The allegations are an escalation in the conflict between House Republicans and ActBlue, the behemoth Democratic fundraising platform that has long been in GOP crosshairs as it has helped the left build a massive fundraising advantage. ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones told POLITICO last month that ActBlue believes the platform has “nothing to hide” but needs to better communicate its role in light of the attacks.

In the letter, lawyers representing ActBlue ask the congressional committees investigating the platform to clarify the purpose of their work. They argue public statements from Jordan, Comer and Steil indicate they are seeking to help the Trump Justice Department’s separate investigation into ActBlue, rather than carry out congressional oversight.

And they note that the "selective focus" of the investigation does not appear to include WinRed, the GOP’s primary online fundraising counterpart — and thus may be intended to hurt Democrats, not provide legitimate oversight of American elections.

“The Committees’ selective focus on ActBlue also suggests that the investigation may be a partisan effort directed at harming political opponents rather than gathering facts to assist in lawmaking efforts,” the letter reads. “Such an action would raise substantial First Amendment concerns.”

Spokespeople for the GOP committees investigating ActBlue did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday afternoon. A spokesperson for ActBlue also did not immediately comment.

The letter comes as the Trump administration is also going after ActBlue. Trump signed a memorandum in April ordering Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the potential use of foreign “straw” donations in online fundraising, citing concerns about foreign influence in elections based in part on the work of the GOP-led congressional committees. ActBlue was the only platform named in the order. The memorandum calls for Bondi to report back in 90 days, which would be late July.

Under federal law, only U.S. citizens and green card holders can give to campaigns and political action committees. Republicans have long argued that ActBlue, which processed billions of dollars in donations for Democrats last year, is not strict enough in weeding out potential foreign contributions. ActBlue has countered that it has processes to catch illegal donation attempts and that similar challenges exist on other platforms, including WinRed.

The platform’s lawyers also suggested that ActBlue’s further cooperation with the congressional probes could depend on the extent of the committees’ work with the Justice Department.

“In light of your public statements, it is essential that we receive more information about your agreement to coordinate the Committees’ activities with the Executive Branch, so that ActBlue may properly evaluate its ongoing efforts to cooperate with the Committees,” the platform’s lawyers wrote.

ActBlue previously turned over thousands of pages of internal documents to the committees, some voluntarily, and then later under subpoena. The committees released an interim report in April that cited cases of fraud identified in the ActBlue documents as a means to argue that the platform had an “unserious” approach to fraud prevention.

Rahm Emanuel has had just about every job in politics under the sun: congressman, White House chief of staff, U.S. ambassador, Chicago mayor, and more. “I’m pretty pragmatic about politics and almost cold to a point in my analysis,” he tells White House bureau chief Dasha Burns. Emanuel, who is widely believed to be considering a run for president in 2028, tells Burns that Democrats should “stop talking about bathrooms and locker rooms and start talking about the classroom.” As the first Jewish mayor of Chicago, he also talks about the recent anti-Semitic attacks and whether America is ready for a Jewish president.

Plus, Burns is joined by Politico Magazine editor Elizabeth Ralph to talk about the magazine’s recent Q&A with Miles Taylor in the wake of Trump’s executive order targeting him, and the rise of jawline surgery among DC’s male population.

Listen and subscribe to The Conversation with Dasha Burns on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.

Rahm Emanuel wants to save the 'weak’ and ‘woke’ Democratic Party brand | The Conversation

lead image

https://www.politico.com/video/2025/06/07/rahm-emanuel-wants-to-save-the-weak-and-woke-democratic-party-brand-the-conversation-1641207