Rahm Emanuel believes Americans are being presented a “binary choice” between “defund the police” and President Donald Trump’s National Guard push.

So he’s offering an alternative.

As Democrats grapple with how to cut into one of Republicans’ core issues in the midterm elections next year, the former Chicago mayor plans to lay out his own approach to public safety at an event with police leaders in Washington on Wednesday. He plans to call for pairing community policing methods with tough-on-major-crime tactics and youth interventions. He said his strategy can be a model for cities and for fellow Democrats to combat the electoral narrative that they are weak on crime.

“Democrats a) should not be scared of it and b) should be proactive about what their agenda is,” Emanuel said in an interview Monday previewing his remarks.

A political operative who’s served three presidents and across levels of government, Emanuel is attempting to position himself at the forefront of his party’s conversation on how to tackle public safety as he weighs a White House bid in 2028. He told POLITICO he doesn’t have a “hard timeline” for that decision.

Emanuel will present his strategy at the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s Policing Leadership Academy event honoring graduates on Wednesday.

His approach includes combining more training in community policing with “tough action against hardened criminals and gang members,” as well as with youth programs like the mentoring initiatives he undertook as mayor. He also wants more enforcement of gun laws and efforts to intensify them.

He distilled his public-safety pitch into a slogan that harkens back to his time leading Chicago: “More cops on the beat, and getting kids, guns and gangs off the street.”

As mayor, Emanuel grappled with a surge in homicides and shootings, with the city reporting its deadliest year in two decades in 2016. Crime rates across major categories — murders, shootings, robberies and burglaries — declined over the next two years, which the city’s police department attributed to strengthened community partnerships and technological investments. And Emanuel poured millions in expanding youth mentoring and summer job programs to keep kids off the streets, initiatives that remain a point of pride.

He was also besieged by backlash to his handling of the 2014 murder of a Black teenager by a white cop — criticism that continued as he embarked on reforming Chicago’s police department and has persisted in his political career.

Emanuel drew national headlines for tangling with Trump over crime and immigration during the president’s first term. He would face stiff competition in that lane if he ran for the White House in 2028 — Democratic governors like Illinois’ JB Pritzker are fighting Trump’s National Guard incursions into their major cities.

Emanuel expressed opposition to Trump’s efforts to flood blue bastions with Guard troops and federal immigration officers, part of a two-pronged crackdown the president is pushing to boost Republicans in the midterms. Trump claims it has reduced crime. Several states and cities have sued over his Guard deployments to some success, with Illinois and Chicago currently battling the Trump administration before the Supreme Court.

Asked if there was anything effective about Trump’s strategy, Emanuel pointed to a “thread of positive” — that concentrating troops in one area of a city could give local law enforcement the ability to focus elsewhere.

But he stressed he was “not endorsing” that use of the Guard. “It’s a horrible idea to parachute in 100 to 200 people for a short duration of time who have no sense of a community or no sense of what policing is,” he said. “All the money you’re spending on the National Guard could be used to train 500 [local] officers.”

As Trump works to exploit public safety concerns in the midterms, Emanuel said Democrats have to get “comfortable” talking about crime. Democrats are broadly urging their party to go on the offense on the issue, bolstered by private polling that shows a mix of attacks on Republicans and showing steps Democrats are taking to reduce crime can swing voters in their direction.

Emanuel said Democrats should stop crouching behind falling crime statistics that don’t match voters’ perceptions. “Nobody can be complacent or comforted by a statistic,” he added.

He also repeatedly derided the “defund” slogan that criminal justice reformers and progressives popularized in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd but that Democrats have since abandoned. The rallying cry for police reform quickly became an anchor for the party as the GOP successfully argued against its absolutism. Since then, Democrats have worked to distance themselves from it, with Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed scrubbing his social media of mentions of it and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani backing away from his past embrace of it.

Republicans are nevertheless seizing on it as they work to make Mamdani their midterms foil and hammer Democrats as soft on crime. But Emanuel argued they won’t be able to make the association stick to candidates broadly after Mamdani moved away from the mantra.

Emanuel will have to contend with his own past on public safety as he contemplates a political comeback, a record that includes helping pass Clinton’s controversial 1994 crime bill and his bungled handling of Laquan McDonald’s murder in 2014.

Emanuel said he bears “responsibility” for how he handled McDonald’s case. He has forged a “very strong relationship” with McDonald’s great uncle, Chicago pastor Marvin Hunter, who supported Emanuel as ambassador to Japan during the Biden administration. The two keep in regular contact.

He also pointed to his 2021 Senate confirmation hearing, when he acknowledged he had underestimated the “distrust” of law enforcement among Black Chicagoans and failed to do enough to address it.

“The problems were deeper, farther and more ingrained than I fully appreciated. That’s on me,” Emanuel said Monday. “But I was determined to make the changes.”

Protesters and UN security clash at climate summit in Brazil

lead image

Maine Democrat Jordan Wood is dropping out of the Senate race to instead run for the newly vacant 2nd congressional district, he said in an interview this week, teeing up a fight to maintain Democratic control of the battleground seat.

Wood had pressed ahead in Maine’s Senate race, even as the primary rapidly evolved into a two-person race between Graham Platner and Gov. Janet Mills. But after Rep. Jared Golden’s (D-Maine) unexpected retirement from Congress, Wood said the high stakes race in northern Maine poses a more dire contest for Democrats to prove they can maintain their power.

“‘What do we do in this moment of crisis for our country and our state in democracy?’ That is what called me into the Senate race,” Wood said in an interview. “With Jared not running, it leaves open one of the most competitive House races in the entire country, and so I’m stepping up to take that on, because I believe we must.”

Republicans have clamored to regain control of the increasingly red district — which President Donald Trump won by 10 points in 2024 — and celebrated Golden’s withdrawal as a slam dunk for the GOP.

But Wood says he thinks Democrats are poised to maintain their control, pointing to the party’s wins in last week’s elections where voters rejected a proposed voter identification law and green lighted a red flag gun law.

“What I hear from voters across the state is an anger and a frustration at a broken politics, and less directed at a single person but a political establishment,” he said. “Voters are really looking for candidates that are putting forward a vision of the future that they can believe in and that is addressing the biggest issues that they face in life.”

Wood declined to endorse in the Senate race following his withdrawal but said he’d “support whoever the Democratic nominee is.”

Wood — who said he currently lives about 20 miles outside of the district but grew up in the area — said he and his husband are in the process of moving within the district’s boundaries. He noted that he held town halls in all 11 counties of the 2nd District during his Senate run and heard directly from many would-be constituents.

He argued his campaign reached voters not by focusing on Trump but instead speaking to the “failure” of representatives across the aisle in addressing affordability and the cost of living — issues he says are “not all just Donald Trump’s fault.”

Wood will bring fundraising heft to the race. He’s raked in more than $3 million since launching his Senate campaign in late April — roughly half of which came in the last quarter — though that includes a $250,000 loan, according to his filings with the Federal Election Commission. He started the final three months of the year with $920,000 in his campaign coffers, which he can now roll over to his House campaign.

On the Republican side, two-term former Gov. Paul LePage had raised roughly $916,000 through the end of September and started the final three months of the year with $716,000 in cash on hand.

Wood joins former Golden primary challenger Matt Dunlap, the state auditor, who pledged to stay in the race after Golden’s exit.

Woods' entrance is unlikely to end the DCCC’s ongoing search for a candidate, according to two people granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

Wood said that he had “been in communication” with the DCCC and “let them know our plans” but declined to provide details on the conversations.

Another potential entrant into the race is current gubernatorial candidate and former state Senate President Troy Jackson, who last week left the door open to a run.

“I'm really flattered by everyone reaching out and I get why,” Jackson said in a statement. “I've won multiple times in a district that voted for Trump by talking directly to rural working class voters from across the political spectrum about how to make Maine more affordable for them.”

One other name to watch: Penobscot Nation Chief Kirk Francis, who was once mulling a Senate bid. A Francis ally told the Bangor Daily News last week that he was considering a run in ME-02.

A version of this article first appeared in POLITICO Pro’s Morning Score. Want to receive the newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro.You’ll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day’s biggest stories.

Latino voters, who swung toward President Donald Trump in 2024, boomeranged back to Democrats last week, signaling the fraying of his coalition less than one year into his second term.

Few places across the country epitomize that swing like New Jersey’s Passaic County, a densely populated, geographically diverse region where Latinos comprise a plurality. Voters there supported Trump by a narrow margin in 2024, only to back Democratic Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill by double-digits last week. Union City, which is the most Latino city in the state, swung 47 points toward Democrats. And Sherrill seized the Trump-supporting 9th Congressional District, home to a large Latino population, by around 19 points.

In Virginia, the other state with a gubernatorial contest last week, the two most heavily Latino cities swung toward Democratic Gov.-elect Abigail Spanberger by more than 15 points each.

And in California, support for a Democratic-backed ballot measure exceeded Kamala Harris’ share by roughly 12 points in Imperial County, where Latino residents make up 77 percent of the population. That marks the biggest swing of any county in the state.

Just one year after Trump soared to victory with 48 percent of the Latino vote nationally, these results demonstrate that Republicans have yet to cement them into their coalition. Democrats, feeling emboldened after an epic shellacking last year, have been predicting Latinos would turn on the GOP out of dissatisfaction with Trump’s handling of the economy.

Not unlike Trump in 2024, Democrats were able to capitalize on those cost-of-living concerns to lure voters this year, proving correct a series of polls that portended this trend. It is giving the beleaguered party new optimism about their chances of taking back the House in next year's midterms, as many of the districts up for grabs have substantial Latino populations.

“There was a lot of conversation heading out of the last election about a monolithic realignment, and I think it missed the fact that Trump is a unique beast who was able to persuade Latinos that he has their interests at heart,” said Tory Gavito, president of progressive donor network Way to Win. “In the last 11 months, he's done everything but think about Latinos’ interests.”

Democrats’ success with Latinos during this off-cycle election may not necessarily translate to races across the country in 2026, when the minority party will fight to retake control of Congress. And Latino voters in Florida and South Texas are likely to vote differently from those in New Jersey or California.

Further muddling the midterm picture is the Trump question. The president successfully turned out low-propensity Latino voters, some of whom may be more likely to participate in a midterm race than an odd-year election, especially if Trump decides to play a role in next year’s showdown.

So Republicans, who have made a big bet on majority-Latino districts in order to keep their majority next year, have some cause for hope amid an otherwise brutal Election Day for them. While GOP candidates underperformed Trump with Latinos last week, they still put up better numbers than the Republicans of a decade ago (in New Jersey in 2017 for example, Republicans won just 17 percent of the Latino vote, compared to roughly a third this time). And Tuesday’s elections also gave the GOP a new foil in New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, whom they think can further tarnish Democrats’ standing with Latino voters across the country who oppose socialism. (Mamdani won 58 percent of the vote in election districts where Latinos made up the largest share of the population, according to data compiled by The City.)

The day after the election, the National Republican Congressional Committee launched Spanish-language ads in 11 swingy congressional districts decrying the “socialist” soon-to-be New York City mayor as “the future that Democrats want” and warning voters their city could be next.

“Democrats have ignored Hispanic communities over the past nine years while millions of working families rejected their radical, socialist agenda,” Christian Martinez, the NRCC’s national Hispanic press secretary, said in a statement. “Republicans will continue to earn the support of Hispanic voters because we are working to deliver opportunity, security, and a better life.”

Democrats largely credited their messaging on affordability and blaming Trump for not following through on his economic campaign promises for their rebound with Latino voters.

“Latinos are rejecting Republicans’ broken promises of lower costs and a strong economy,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Bridget Gonzalez said in a statement last week. “Groceries, utilities, and health care are unaffordable and that’s why Latinos will help Democrats take back control of the House next November.”

In California, the Prop 50 campaign to bolster Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting push leaned heavily on immigration in its messaging, using imagery of ICE and Border Patrol raids to argue Trump’s power must be checked. The campaign’s Spanish-language ads focused predominantly on the immigration crackdown, with cursory mention of Trump’s tariffs.

“The Latino revolt was economic and personal — Trump hit their wallets with tariffs and our communities with raids,” said Juan Rodriguez, a senior strategist for Newsom. “From California to races across the country, the message for 2026 couldn’t be clearer.”

A lot could change with the state of the economy that could either bolster or weaken their message. And some are cautioning Democrats not to get too comfortable with last week's results — and not to rely strictly on affordability messaging.

“This doesn't mean that Democrats have it in the bag,” said Vanessa Cárdenas, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigration reform group, who added that she hopes to see Democrats message more on immigration in addition to the economy during the midterms. “We’ve seen it before — there's a lot of distrust of Democrats on immigration issues because of promises that have been made.”

“They have a lot to vote against,” she continued. “The challenge for Democrats is giving them something to vote for.”

In New Jersey, Sherrill’s victory looms large over the state’s 9th congressional district, a plurality-Latino seat that encompasses parts of Bergen and Passaic counties. Sherrill won both by double digits, a major swing after Trump flipped Passaic and lost Bergen by just 3 points in 2024. Republicans are targeting the district’s first-term representative, Democrat Nellie Pou, largely because Trump won the seat in 2024.

But ticket-splitting in the district’s further down-ballot races may demonstrate that Democrats’ work isn’t done there. In Hawthorne, a borough where Latinos make up around one-quarter of the population, preliminary results show Sherrill won but incumbent Republicans prevailed in mayoral and council races.

Carlos Cruz, a Republican strategist who worked on a super PAC backing Sherrill’s opponent, Jack Ciattarelli, said that last year’s election was a “referendum” on leadership in Washington and the economy, and people cast a ballot this year for the same reasons.

“There were people who voted for the president who wanted to see more,” Cruz said. “For Democrats to overreact and say ‘Nellie is safe now’ is fundamentally misreading this year's elections.”

Morghan Cyr, Pou’s campaign manager, said that the results “solidified one thing for Democrats above all: Latino communities are key to success across the board.”

“Early, intentional investment in and engagement with these communities is essential to Democrats taking back the House in 2026,” Cyr said in a statement last week. “The progress that was made this week is good, but we have to keep building on it.”

A Utah judge on Monday rejected a Republican-passed redistricting plan that created two more-competitive districts in the state — a win for Democrats who thought the map did not go far enough.

In denying the new map, the judge put in place one of two options offered by plaintiffs that creates a solidly-Democratic district that covers Salt Lake City, giving the party its second win in the redistricting wars that have swept the nation ahead of the midterms.

In her ruling, issued minutes before a midnight deadline, Judge Dianna Gibson said the Republican map “fails to abide by and conform with the requirements” of a 2018 voter-approved ballot measure that created nonpartisan redistricting standards for the state Legislature.

In October, Republican state legislators passed the map the judge ultimately denied, which created two competitive districts that still favored Republicans.

The Utah case centers around a voter-approved measure against partisan gerrymandering in the state passed in 2018, one that Republicans are collecting signatures to undo.

Utah is just one piece in the broader redistricting puzzle. Already, Republicans have drawn nine favorable districts in four states, with others on the horizon. Democrats got their first win in the battle last week, when California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that could net the party five more seats.

Several Utah Democrats are inching toward entering the race. Former Rep. Ben McAdams, the only Democrat to represent Utah in federal office this century, is expected to announce his candidacy soon, according to three people with direct knowledge of his thinking. He has already garnered support from Welcome PAC, a national group which backs more moderate candidates over progressives.

A Democrat has not represented Utah in Congress since 2021, when McAdams left office.

Democratic Reps. Steny Hoyer and Jamie Raskin are inserting themselves into the state’s redistricting fight, escalating pressure on state lawmakers and the senate president to take up the mid-decade redrawing of congressional lines ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The two prominent Maryland Democrats sent a four-page letter to the entire Maryland General Assembly Monday, where they framed their endorsement of redrawing the state’s maps as a way to rebuff the president’s "authoritarian attack on democratic elections and voting rights” while casting the fight as an “ethical moral and political imperative" to act.

That nationwide effort has been stymied in Maryland, where the state’s Senate president, Bill Ferguson, has rejected the push to change maps in the state.

“We write today to applaud the governor’s redistricting initiative and urge you to move forward to explore what we can do as a state to help prevent the imminent disaster of President Trump determining the results of the 2026 congressional elections through aggressive mid-decade gerrymandering and therefore clinching control of the U.S. House of Representatives before a single vote is even cast,” the lawmakers write.

The letter comes a week after Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) announced the creation of a redistricting advisory commission that is expected to solicit feedback from Marylanders on whether the state should move forward with redrawing maps. Democrats dominate the state’s congressional delegation and if the party is successful in redrawing the maps it could only pick up a single seat — currently occupied by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, who chairs the House Freedom Caucus.

While the state’s top Democrats, including Moore and Maryland House Speaker Adrienne Jones, are all on board with exploring redistricting, Ferguson has remained a holdout.

Two weeks ago Ferguson sent his own letter to dozens of state lawmakers bucking his party and outlining why the Maryland Senate would not take up the effort. Part of his rationale was that the Maryland Supreme Court is packed with several justices appointed by Moore’s successor, former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan. He suggests that not only raises the possibility that any new maps that give Democrats an 8-0 advantage could be struck down, but it could trigger a loss of Democratic seats in the state, something he referred to as “the downside risk to Democrats is catastrophic.”

Ferguson’s office acknowledged it had received the letter but did not comment. The Baltimore Sun was the first to report on the letter.

Moore, a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, said in an appearance on CBS “Face the Nation” on Sunday that Maryland should not stand on the sidelines as other states, especially Republican-led states, jump into redistricting.

“If other states are going to have this process and go through this- go through this journey of identifying whether or not they have fair maps in a mid-decade cycle, then so should Maryland,” Moore said. “I'm just not sure why we should be playing by a different set of rules than Texas, or than Florida, or than Ohio or all these other places.”

There’s been pressure mounting on Maryland to move for weeks, and Ferguson is seen as the party’s biggest impediment to moving forward. Democrats’ resounding victories last week in Virginia and New Jersey’s gubernatorial races, as well as the overwhelming passage of a ballot initiative passed by California voters to redraw state lines to pick up five liberal-leaning seats to counteract a similar move in Texas to net five Republican-leaning seats, is ramping up the urgency to act.

Hoyer and Raskin’s letter calls Ferguson out by name and attempts to undercut some of his reasons for hesitating on moving forward.

“While Senator Ferguson is obviously right that there is an element of uncertainty in all litigation, there are some well-established doctrines that courts follow out of deference to the legislature’s constitutional power over redistricting,” the lawmakers write. “Chief among these is the principle that, when a court strikes down a newly enacted map as unlawful, the legislature must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to remedy the violation.”

The letter also appears to be aimed at pressuring Ferguson by energizing some of the state lawmakers that he leads, possibly ramping up the stakes they could move against him.

“We don’t need to remind you that Marylanders have paid a heavy price during the first year of the second Trump Administration,” they write, listing off items including 15,000 federal employees that have been fired since Trump returned to power and thousands more workers and federal contractors that have been furloughed since the shutdown began more than a month ago.

The memo also asks state lawmakers three questions they should answer as to whether they deem the redistricting fight as imminent. “Are we in the fight of our lives to defend American democracy and freedom and our Constitution, Bill of Rights and rule of law?... is it an ethical, moral and political imperative to use every lawful means at our disposal to fight back…: can we successfully and lawfully redistrict to respond to these GOP assaults?”

To all three questions, Raskin and Hoyer write, “We believe the answer is yes.”

Senate Democrats’ embrace of a shutdown deal that doesn’t guarantee extended health care subsidies is already an electoral issue.

Nearly every major Democratic Senate candidate panned the deal, from Texas hopeful Colin Allred, a former member of Congress, deriding it as a “joke” to Illinois Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton condemning it as a “complete betrayal of the American people.” Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), the party’s most vulnerable incumbent in 2026, voted against advancing it, as did several senators eyeing a 2028 White House bid.

“Pathetic,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X. “This is not a deal — it’s an empty promise,” Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois said. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called it a “bad deal.”

The Sunday agreement even caused a familial dispute: Stefany Shaheen, who is running in a crowded Democratic primary for an open House seat in New Hampshire, said she couldn’t support a deal that failed to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits. Her mother, retiring Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, was one of the lead Democratic negotiators of the deal.

Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, who is running to replace Jeanne Shaheen, creating the very opening her daughter is vying to fill, also rejected it in a statement Monday.

After looking to make soaring health care costs an albatross for Republicans in the midterms, Democrats’ deal to reopen the government after 40 days without language extending the expiring insurance subsidies delivered a blow to their base. The result was so fraught, even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) opposed it amid intense criticism for allowing eight members of the Democratic caucus to side with Republicans.

Now it’s creating a litmus test for candidates in competitive midterm races next year, as Democrats fight to retake the Senate — a tough task they feel better about after routing Republicans in last week’s off-cycle elections throughout the country. They’d need to net four seats in order to seize control of the upper chamber.

“The infighting over the deal will fade quickly and by the time we get closer to the midterms, it’s very clear that Democrats will aggressively prosecute the case against Republicans on health care,” said Matt Bennett of the centrist think tank Third Way. “They will say Republicans yanked lifesaving money away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for the rich. And that will have the benefit of being true.”

Thirty-three Senate seats are up for grabs next year and Democrats are making a serious play for holding or flipping at least a dozen of them. A quartet of candidates vying for open seats — Graham Platner in Maine, Mallory McMorrow in Michigan and Zach Wahls and Nathan Sage in Iowa — reiterated their opposition to Schumer’s leadership as news of the deal spread.

“Chuck Schumer failed in his job yet again,” Platner said in a video on X. “We need to elect leaders who want to fight. … Call your senators and tell them Chuck Schumer can no longer be leader. Call your congressman and tell them that they cannot vote for this when it comes to them.”

In Michigan’s three-way primary, each candidate panned the deal, representing the ideologically vast opposition within a party otherwise mired in internal dispute.

“This is a bad deal,” McMorrow said in a video late Sunday, adding that “the old way of doing things is not working.” Abdul El-Sayed slammed the “shit” agreement and castigated Democrats for giving up their leverage “when we actually can force [Republicans] to the table” after their electoral losses last week. Rep. Haley Stevens said the deal “doesn’t work for Michigan” and that she’s “going to need a whole lot more than empty promises that we’re going to lower costs.” She did not say how she’d vote on the measure in the House. Stevens’ team confirmed she would vote against the measure in the House.

Senate Democrats’ capitulation opened an off-ramp to the record-breaking government shutdown that has snarled air travel and led to missed paychecks and lapsed food assistance. The agreement now advancing through the Senate would fund some agencies and programs for the full fiscal year and extend others until Jan. 30, 2026. It also promises Democrats a December floor vote on extending the expiring Obamacare subsidies, though it’s uncertain to pass the GOP-controlled chamber and Speaker Mike Johnson won’t promise to bring up such a vote in the House.

But in cutting a deal, Senate Democrats infuriated a party reinvigorated by its off-year electoral blowout, sparking accusations that the party again squandered its only leverage in the Republican-led Congress — and ensuring Schumer’s leadership will remain a touchstone in competitive Senate races.

None of the eight Democrats who voted to break the shutdown stalemate are facing voters next year. Two are retiring; the rest are not up for reelection until at least 2028.

They cited the financial pain the prolonged federal funding lapse was inflicting on their constituents. They cast the pending floor vote on the tax credits as a win for Democrats. And they touted other concessions they secured, like the rehiring of federal workers laid off during the shutdown.

“This bill is not perfect, but it takes important steps to reduce their shutdown’s hurt,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat who is retiring next year, said Sunday.

The Democrats vying to replace him disagree. Stratton, who’s previously called for new Senate leadership, cast Democrats’ cave as “a complete betrayal of the American people.” Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly both said the outcome failed to help millions of people whose health care premiums are set to skyrocket.

Across the Senate map, opposition spanned Schumer’s handpicked recruits — who’ve been largely silent about the shutdown — to the insurgents who’ve called for his ouster.

“This is a bad deal for Ohioans,” former Sen. Sherrod Brown said in a statement. Maine Gov. Janet Mills panned “the promise of a vote [on the subsidies] that won’t go anywhere.” Former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper — Democrats’ best chance for flipping a Senate seat and the last major candidate to weigh in on the deal — said in a statement that “any deal that lets health care costs continue to skyrocket is unacceptable.

Sage slammed the Senate Democrats who “caved and accomplished nothing.” Jordan Wood, another Democrat running in Maine, said “America needs an opposition party willing to fight for them.” Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan said in a video, “we deserve so much more than this bullshit.” Hours later, she was endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who voted against the deal.

“If people believe this is a ‘deal,’ I have a bridge to sell you,” said Flanagan’s rival, Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), adding that she’s a “no” when the measure comes up for a vote in the House. “I’m not going to put 24 million Americans at risk of losing their health care.”

Senate Democrats who brokered the spending deal argued Sunday that they had succeeded in hanging rising health care costs on Republicans’ necks heading into the midterms.

“If Republicans want to join us in lowering costs for working families, they have the perfect opportunity,” Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada) said Sunday at the Capitol. “If they do choose not to come to the table, they can own the disastrous premium increases.”

Democrats continued to target their own.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who was elected the next governor of New Jersey in last week’s blue wave, denounced the deal as “malpractice.” Zohran Mamdani, New York City’s incoming mayor who Schumer declined to endorse, said the compromise and anyone who supports it “should be rejected.”

“That’s not a deal,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who drew a primary challenge last week, said Sunday. “It’s an unconditional surrender.”

Anger toward Senate Democrats also appears to be fueling the party’s recruitment efforts. Run for Something, a progressive candidate recruitment organization, saw double the number of signups over seven hours Sunday night — as the shutdown deal moved through the Senate — than over the same time period last Tuesday night as Democrats won elections across the country, according to co-founder Amanda Litman. The group saw 838 signups Sunday night versus 417 on election night.

The political blast radius is extending to Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2028.

Some progressive Democrats and advocacy groups called for his ouster as leader, blaming him for failing to keep his caucus in line even as he voted against the deal he said didn’t address the “health care crisis” and vowed to “keep fighting.”

Schumer “is no longer effective and should be replaced,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a potential 2028er, blasted out on X. On Monday, Khanna turned that push into a pitch to pad his supporter list.

The Sunrise Movement called for Schumer to step aside. Justice Democrats urged voters to reject the eight Senate Democrats who allowed the funding patch to proceed.

“I don’t think the Democrats leading this surrender effort understand the trust they are shattering in their own voting coalition,” Andrew O’Neill, the national advocacy director for Indivisible, warned Sunday night.

Schumer voted against the bill because it does “nothing” to address a “health care crisis” he called “devastating.” He pledged to “keep fighting.”

As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, too, vowed to fight on, O’Neill called for his caucus to follow suit. Several said Sunday that they would.

Adam Wren and Elena Schneider contributed to this report.