The Wildfire Fighter Who Just Might Flip Montana

Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.Sign up and get this newsletter for free. Inside WashingtonThe wildfire fighter who just might flip Montana Smoke jumper and union organizer Sam Forstag, running in a shocking dead heat against Republican Aaron Flint in the fight for Montana’s 1st district according to the latest poll, just became one of the most progressive candidates in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s Red to Blue program. On Tuesday, the DCCC added Forstag along with four other candidates to the program, which lends support to Democratic candidates in competitive districts.Forstag, DCCC chair Suzan DelBene said in a statement, “puts his life on the line to protect his neighbors and community from wildfires. Deeply committed to Western Montana, Sam is the kind of authentic, dynamic leader that working people want fighting for them in Washington.” Forstag became the official Democratic candidate after winning the primary on June 2.The other candidates added to Red to Blue on Tuesday include Arizona state Representative Amish Shah in Arizona’s 1st congressional district, Pia Dandiya in Florida’s new 22nd congressional district, Iowa state Representative Lindsay James in the 2nd congressional district, and Jake Johnson for Minnesota’s 1st congressional district. That brings the number of Red to Blue candidates to 30.Forstag now joins Randy Villegas, who is running in California’s 22nd congressional district, in representing the party’s insurgent left in the DCCC’s program. The DCCC originally endorsed Villegas’s moderate opponent, Jasmeet Bains, stirring up controversy and claims that the party was protecting moderates. A similar scene played out in Maine’s 2nd congressional district, where Matt Dunlap, the state auditor, won his June 9 primary over DCCC-backed State Senator Joe Baldacci, who was featured on the Red to Blue list. After his win, the DCCC added Villegas to the Red to Blue program. But the DCCC hasn’t yet done the same for Dunlap.Forstag is backed by progressives like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, but also has the endorsement of a handful of Republican former electeds in Montana. He’s also supported by former Democratic Senator Jon Tester, who won the district in 2024 despite losing the state. The district, established in 2023, includes liberal college towns Bozeman and Missoula. In recent years, tens of thousands of Washington, California, Colorado, and Oregon residents have moved to Montana, which some think could make the state more liberal—although the jury’s still out.In the general election, Forstag is facing Aaron Flint. Flint is 46, and Forstag is 32; whoever wins the election will be the first non–baby boomer to represent the state in Congress in three decades. Both Flint and Forstag attended the University of Montana, and both served as student body president. Forstag went on to fight fires and now is vice president of the National Federation of Federal Employees Local 60, representing around 800 U.S. Forest Service workers; Flint joined the National Guard and now works as a radio host.While Forstag highlights his endorsements from progressives, Flint campaigns against them: “AOC, Mamdani, and Bernie want to flip the House and turn the US socialist. Eliminate private property, ban pickups and fossil fuels, put men in little girls’ locker rooms, and re-open the borders for illegal aliens and deadly drugs,” Flint’s website reads. The two are vying to replace Republican Representative Ryan Zinke, who took the seat in 2023 after a brief, rocky tenure as secretary of the interior under President Trump’s first administration. (Zinke resigned his post at the Interior Department after 18 federal investigations—most of them ethics-related—were initiated against him in under two years.) Zinke and Trump quickly endorsed Flint when he registered to run.Polling suggests a tight race. Forstag and Flint each have 44 percent of the vote in an Impact Research poll of 500 likely voters conducted in late June. Libertarian candidate Nick Sheedy was supported by 5 percent of respondents, and 6 percent remain undecided. Another poll, from early May, showed Flint up five points against Forstag.Flint is hoping to ride the state’s red tendencies to victory, and he very well may: The seat is still rated “likely Republican” by the Cook Political Report. But, if Forstag pulls off a victory, it will be a win for both the DCCC and its progressive critics, who are eager to prove that candidates like Forstag can appeal in rural, redder areas.—Emma Janssen Outside WashingtonAI deepfakes enter a Connecticut judicial race The Democratic primary for probate judge–yes, for probate judge–in Bridgeport, Connecticut, has taken a disturbing turn. Attorney Mark Bradley, challenging incumbent Paul Ganim, recently released a campaign video that “appears to use artificial intelligence to create synthetic versions of Mayor Joe Ganim and Probate Judge Paul Ganim, complete with fake voices delivering dialogue neither man actually spoke about raising taxes and stealing money. The videos seem to be created using still photos, one of which appears to have been used without permission from CT Insider’s archive,” CT Insider’s Jordan Nathaniel Fenster reports. Contacted by Fenster, Bradley didn’t deny that the video was synthesized with AI and included fake quotes, but claimed “nothing in the messaging of my ads are false or misleading.” Make of that what you will.Fenster notes that while state lawmakers have debated a bill to regulate AI-generated campaign videos, they haven’t actually passed one.Elsewhere:A shocking new poll from Texas Public Opinion Research has Democrat James Talarico up by five percentage points over Republican Ken Paxton for the U.S. Senate seat, at 45 percent to 40 percent. Even more surprising, the Texas Tribune’s Gabby Birenbaum reports: “TPOR’s poll found Talarico leading among voters who do not have a college degree—a group that has consistently favored Republicans in Texas and across the country—and dominating among independents, less than a quarter of whom said they planned to vote for Paxton.” Caveat: This poll is something of an outlier, particularly in the cross-tabs. A New York Times/Siena poll previously found an eight-point advantage for Paxton among voters without a college degree. Birenbaum fairly notes that, while formally nonpartisan, TPOR is headed by Democratic strategist Luke Warford. Civil Eats’ Rebekah Alvey looks at which Trump-era funding cuts, specifically, have made the current cyclospora outbreak—the “largest in history,” causing thousands of cases of “explosive diarrhea”—harder to fight. Surveillance cuts come out looking particularly foolish.Stateline’s Nada Hassanein reports on the troubling rise in preteen suicides, and discusses experts’ recommendations at both the personal and political levels. These experts aren’t sure what’s driving the uptick, but Covid-19, sleep disruptions, education trends, lack of unstructured outdoor time, and social media (and general media) use are all floated as possible factors.—Heather Souvaine HornThe Ideas FactoryPublic Citizen releases a “legislative guide to bolstering resilience and promoting affordability through state resilient home retrofit grant programs.” These policies, the organization says, could help homes withstand wildfires and storms and limit property insurance costs. The Southern Poverty Law Center is suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of Alabama Rivers Alliance, Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Healthy Gulf, Ogeechee Riverkeeper, and Savannah Riverkeeper over two natural gas pipeline projects recently greenlit via a “federal permitting process they say allows major natural gas pipeline projects to avoid detailed environmental reviews and adequate public input,” the Alabama Political Reporter reports.In case you missed it: Earlier this week, Open Markets Institute published a report on how consolidation in the container shipping industry has led the U.S. to rely on “container cartel of six foreign carriers not only to stock store shelves and support businesses, but increasingly to provide military sealift capacity during national emergencies,” in the words of Arnav Rao, the institute’s transportation policy analyst. “That should ring alarm bells for anyone who cares about economic resilience, national security, or fair competition.”—Heather Souvaine Horn In ClosingBook of the Week: America’s Middle East: The Ruination of a Region by Marc LynchWHY NOW: The book came out late last year, but between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington on Tuesday and the continued chaos of Trump’s war on Iran, Lynch’s arguments are going to be on a lot of minds this week. THE GIST: Lynch, Lisa Anderson neatly summarized in Foreign Affairs, “argues that the heady ambitions of the unipolar moment permitted American policymakers, Democrats and Republicans alike, to pursue the imposition of a U.S.-centric order without the resolution of the central conflict in the region—that between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” CRUISING THE INDEX: Lynch, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University and longtime blogger, covers a lot of ground in this sweeping—and cutting—summary of U.S. policy in the Middle East since the 1970s. Although the book was published shortly before the U.S. began an all-out war with Iran, Lynch covers the U.S.-Israeli strikes in the early summer of 2025 as part of the Trump administration’s larger effort to reshape the Middle East. His attention to the role the U.S.-Israeli relationship played in those efforts is particularly bracing.TNR’S QUICK CRITICAL ASSESSMENT: Lynch persuasively argues that U.S. efforts to shape the Middle East have failed on both policy and humanitarian grounds. He’s particularly persuasive on the latter. “It took me a long time to accept the ultimate core of the problem, but after decades of close observation it became unavoidable,” he writes in the preface. “What America doesn’t seem willing to accept is that people in the Middle East are actually human beings. US actions over decades suggest that it does not consider Arab or Muslim lives to matter as much as American or Israeli lives.” As the U.S. and Donald Trump drag out a senseless war on Iran with well-documented civilian casualties, this argument will likely resonate with a lot of readers.—Alex ShephardPolitical Trivia Question of the DaySince 1980—that is, the last 12 presidential elections—how many times has the Democrat carried Florida, and when? (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.) Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.Sign up and get this newsletter for free. Inside WashingtonA lot of Dems don’t like DNC Chair Ken Martin—but he’ll probably stay Recent reports about Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin’s temper and alleged financial mismanagement might not end Martin’s tenure, due to his strong relationships with DNC members and support from the Democratic establishment. But the reports do seem to have opened the floodgates for his critics: Many strategists and politicians suddenly have lots to say about Ken Martin.Over the weekend, new details emerged about the DNC’s debts and financial troubles, casting doubt on Martin’s ability to fundraise and budget; The New York Times also reported that he is paranoid and anxious, and threw a phone at the desk of an aide in early July.“The question is not whether or not Ken should go, the question is how much longer can we afford to keep him, because this is not sustainable,” said David Hogg, the president of Leaders We Deserve, on Monday. Hogg was a vice chair of the DNC during the first half of 2025, but stepped away from the role in June 2025 after tension between him and Martin.Hogg pointed to concerns about Martin’s ability to fundraise for the party, particularly in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that makes party political spending all the more important. The Republican National Committee has $128 million in cash on hand; meanwhile, the DNC has $16 million on hand but is $18 million in debt. This June, the Supreme Court ruled that political parties can both coordinate with candidates and raise unlimited funds. In the aftermath of that ruling, political party fundraising is more important than ever. A March decision by the Federal Communications Commission also increased the importance of political party fundraising. According to federal communications law, candidates for office are entitled to purchase campaign advertising on television and radio networks at a cheaper rate than outside groups. In March, the FCC expanded that benefit to political party committees acting in coordination with candidates—meaning that every dollar raised by a political party can go further to buy ads for candidates.Martin pushed back on the idea that he had failed at his fundraising duties in a Substack post last week. “We are converting the cash we raise into electoral assets: more people, earlier organizing, better technology, and stronger state parties,” Martin wrote. “That answer may be unsatisfying to people who believe the purpose of a political party is to accumulate the largest possible bank balance until the final days before an election. But a party is not a savings account. Its purpose is to build power.”Hogg didn’t suggest a specific name for who he’d like to see replace Martin. “There’s a lot of people I can think of that, at a minimum, would not put the organization $2 million in debt,” he said. On Sunday, longtime Democratic strategist James Carville suggested that Hogg should succeed Martin; Hogg didn’t comment in time for publication. Hogg is far from the only Democrat who’s lost faith in Martin. On Monday, politician and strategist Rufus Gifford weighed in against Martin on Substack. Gifford was deputy campaign manager for Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign and finance chair for Biden’s presidential reelection campaign. “At this point, I think there is no saving Martin’s chairmanship,” Gifford wrote. “He is a good man with good intentions but simply not meeting this critical moment.”Some Democrats on the Hill have spoken out against Martin, too. In an X post on Sunday, Representative Sam Liccardo called for Martin’s resignation. Representative Veronica Escobar wrote, “There are a number of great democratic leaders who can very competently, brilliantly and strategically lead the DNC. And they’re all women.”Despite the public anger against Martin, he still seems to enjoy strong support from the people who elected him in the first place—DNC members, many of whom are state party chairs and vice chairs. One longtime Democratic strategist told The New Republic that Martin has served those members well by funneling money toward their state parties. “He did what every good politician should do, which is fulfill the promise of their election to their electorate,” the strategist said. “The problem is, there are less than 500 people who elect the DNC chair, who has to represent 80 million people who vote Democrat. And the overwhelming majority outside that 500 do not think Ken Martin is doing a good job.”That strategist, like Hogg, pointed towards Martin’s fundraising woes as the most concerning aspect of his leadership. Martin won the chair over then–Wisconsin state party Chair Ben Wikler, who had the support of major donors like Reid Hoffman and Alexander Soros. After beating Wikler, Martin denied that he had to mend relationships with the donors who had supported his opponent: “I don’t have any repair work to do,” he told The New York Times. “If they want to talk to me, they can come talk to me.”“It’s not [donors’] job to reach out to him. It’s his job to reach out to them. Basic job,” said the strategist on Monday. “And that was his quote the day after he was elected, and then we’re shocked that he can’t fundraise?” Not everyone is convinced that Martin should step down. Micah Sifry, a writer and organizer who covers the DNC extensively, said he viewed the recent reporting on Martin with “skepticism,” and contrasted Martin’s tenure with that of Jaime Harrison, who chaired the DNC from 2021 to 2025. Harrison, Sifry said, “didn’t do much to strengthen state Democratic parties, and he did diddly-squat to support local organizing by Democrats.” In comparison, Sifry suggested, Martin’s financial decisions, organized on the principle of sending money out to state and local efforts, make more sense.Martin received an important vote of confidence on Sunday, when House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries affirmed his support for the chair. “What we’ve seen over the last 18-plus months is that Democrats have won every single meaningful election up and down the ballot across the country during that period of time, and we look forward to our continued partnership,” Jeffries said. Jeffries’s endorsement is a strong signal for Martin’s future as chair. But then again, Jeffries himself has struggled to consolidate Democrats, particularly those on the left—this election cycle is testing Democratic divides in more ways than one.—Emma JanssenOutside WashingtonThe new normal In addition to new headlines of potentially record-breaking wildfires in France and Spain, there remain an estimated 122 active fires in northwestern Ontario, Canada, 90 active wildfires in British Columbia, Canada, and 90 “large” fires in the United States. If you want to read recent analysis of how we got here, and what to do about it, you’ve got a lot of options. Earlier this month, Chip Barber, the director of natural resources governance and policy at the World Resources Institute, penned a piece about the policy changes that could help in this era of worsening wildfires. Modern policymakers could learn a lot from Indigenous fire management, he wrote. But another piece of the puzzle will be “changing political and economic structures that have made fire catastrophe more likely.” He pointed in particular to how many fires are deliberately set due to “agricultural expansion” driven by “global demand for soy, beef, palm oil, and wood.” For other analyses of the fires, you could try The New York Times reporter Chico Harlan’s piece about how “record-setting heat waves and dry conditions” set the stage for Europe’s fires; climate researcher Zeke Hausfather’s review of the “forest mismanagement” narrative on Canadian wildfires; UCLA researchers Mitchell J. Hung and A. Park Williams’s study, released earlier this summer, about the uptick in California fires; or the Public Policy Institute of California’s Bradley Franklin and Kyle Greenspan on how federal cuts endanger the state’s progress on wildfire prevention.Elsewhere:Question of the week: Why has Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer waded into the hotly contested Senate primary to endorse Haley Stevens over Abdul El-Sayed, barely a week before voting day, after 690,000 Michiganders have already voted by mail or absentee ballot, and when almost all polls show El-Sayed leading Stevens—some recent ones by double digits?Newsweek compiles a map of what it deems the most important counties in the Texas Senate race. The publication is particularly intrigued by Starr, Cameron, Webb, and Maverick counties, which have often voted Democratic but in which Trump’s share of the vote increased dramatically between 2016 and 2024. For context: In 2018, Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke got 71 percent of the vote in Webb, 72 percent in Maverick, 77 percent in Starr, and 63 percent in Cameron.—Heather Souvaine HornThe Ideas FactoryTuesday at 11 a.m. California time (2 p.m. Eastern), the Public Policy Institute of California holds a virtual event about more sustainable crops for the imperiled but vital farmland of the San Joaquin Valley. Speakers include the think tank’s Letitia Grenier, Caitlin Peterson, and Bradley Franklin, along with Geoffrey Vanden Heuvel of the Milk Producers Council, Sustainable Conservation CEO Josette Lewis, and public policy mediator Dave Ceppos.At 1 p.m. E.T. on Tuesday, the Bipartisan Policy Center hosts a virtual event titled “Aging of America: Improving Long-Term Care, Nutrition, and Housing for Older Adults.” Participants include Lisa Harootunian, a managing director at BPC; Rani E. Snyder, president of the John A. Hartford Foundation; Alison Barkoff, a George Washington University professor and former acting administrator and assistant secretary for aging at the Administration for Community Living; Kim Fitzgerald, CEO of Cathedral Square; Tim Getty, regional nutrition manager at the Heritage Area Agency on Aging; Beth Kowalczyk, CEO of the Ohio Association of Area Agencies on Aging; and Robert Blancato, executive director of the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs.On Wednesday from 9:30 to 10:30 a.m. E.T., the Center for American Progress holds a morning event with Senator Catherine Cortez Masto “on the urgent need for accountability and commonsense immigration policies, for Nevada and the nation.” Following Cortez Masto’s keynote remarks, America’s Voice Executive Director Vanessa Cárdenas will moderate a panel featuring First Focus on Children President Bruce Lesley, Somos Votantes founder Melissa Morales, and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Stan Veuger.—Heather Souvaine HornIn ClosingFour Questions For: Daniel Drezner, foreign policy expertInterview by Grace Segers Q: Who are you, and what are you working on right now?A: I’m the academic dean and distinguished professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, and also the author of the Substack newsletter Drezner’s World.Q: What foreign policy story do you believe is underreported right now?A: The slow-motion destruction of the U.S foreign policy machinery. Between military and civilian purges, it’s tough to appreciate the human capital loss in places like the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community.Q: Who is the smartest foreign policy voice in the U.S. government right now?A: This is like asking me who is the tallest baby, in that I’m not sure the answer is all that useful. There are some smart people in this administration, but they seem wedded to the whims of an immature leader. So I’ll say it’s someone in Congress—Mark Kelly or Chris Murphy.Q: What keeps you going in these difficult times?A: The notion that even with the current administration of dunces, this country still has many inherent strengths and values that a competent administration could use to advance U.S. interests and traditional U.S. values. Political Trivia Question of the DayWhat was the biggest Electoral College landslide in U.S. history? We mean most lopsided, not the highest number of votes. (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.) Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.Sign up and get this newsletter for free. Inside WashingtonOpenAI breach forces Dems to pick a path on AI legislationAfter a shocking security breach at OpenAI, Democrats say they plan to get serious about artificial intelligence regulation. It’s a “wake-up call,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday, as Democrats introduced not one but two new AI regulation bills in the House. With numerous proposals on the table, though, lawmakers will have to make some hard compromises when they get back after the August recess. And not everyone’s impressed by the recent options.On Tuesday, OpenAI announced its discovery that two of the company’s AI models had broken free of their “sandbox”—an (allegedly) isolated testing environment without access to the internet—in order to access the internet to complete a testing goal. The models did this by hacking into the servers of a different company, Hugging Face, using stolen credentials.Democratic lawmakers, many of whom were already concerned about AI, say that this week’s incident has lit a fire underneath them. Representative Lori Trahan, who proposed a new bipartisan AI regulation bill on Thursday, said that the news had “accelerated our conversations, pushing lawmakers to shift from “a discussion draft to a piece of legislation.”Trahan and Republican Representative Jay Obernolte’s bill, the Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting, or FRONTIER, Act, would require the biggest AI companies to implement plans to address catastrophic risks, including cybersecurity threats. The bill also calls for third-party auditors to ensure that AI companies follow their own plans. Some state lawmakers—for example New York Assemblymember Alex Bores, who helped draft New York’s 2025 Responsible AI Safety and Education Act—have warned that a broader version of the bill released in June, called the Great American AI Act, could “block” stronger state-level AI regulation.But Democrats on the Hill reiterated on Thursday that some kind of federal law is needed, and quickly. “The ability to not rely on an administration, executive fiat, or a voluntary model of reporting—we need to make that a mandate, and Congress needs to lead on that,” Trahan said.“We should not rely upon the good citizenship of these companies,” agreed Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii.Deciding what that legislation should look like, though, is easier said than done. The Brennan Center, which maintains a tracker of the AI-related legislation proposed by Congress, lists 112 pieces of legislation that had been introduced as of September 2025 without being passed. That doesn’t count bills introduced in the past year.Representative Ted Lieu and GOP Representative Nathaniel Moran introduced their own new bill on Thursday. Their AI Kill Switch Act would require companies to report security incidents and create a system to shut down or pause their most powerful AI models.Representative Suhas Subramanyan, who is a co-sponsor of the FRONTIER Act, said he believes the two pieces of legislation are complementary. He called for Congress to mark up the FRONTIER Act in September and push a vote by the end of the year. “That’s my plan,” he told me. “We need to act in Congress. It needs to be this Congress. We shouldn’t wait until next Congress,” he said. (The new Congress will be sworn in in January 2027.)Obernolte also sees opportunity for compromise between separate proposals. “I don’t think it’s a competition,” he said. “We welcome all.” He believes his bill has a strong chance, given its “traction in committee” and bipartisan sponsorship.Not everyone is as optimistic that these proposed bills will actually rein in Big Tech. “That’s a start, but it makes no sense to draft on the fly,” Warren said when I asked what she thought about bills that call for mandatory reporting and independent oversight. “That’s how Congress ends up telling itself it fixed a problem but it didn’t really carefully stitch up the loopholes and solve much of anything.”—Emma Janssen Outside WashingtonWhat North Carolina’s fundraising shortfall says about the broader electoral mapAmid the headlines over Rob Sand’s fundraising “haul” in Iowa or James Talarico’s in Texas, one race has been less of a cash battle than anticipated. Western Carolina University professor Christopher Cooper observes in The Assembly this week that North Carolina’s Senate race between Democrat Roy Cooper (no relation) and Republican Michael Whatley is massively underperforming relative to the “billion-dollar” predictions previously made by political insiders. “In the first half of 2026, Whatley raised $5.8 million to Cooper’s $16.1 million,” Cooper writes. “Candidates in the U.S. Senate race in Texas raised 2.7 times as much as Cooper and Whatley’s combined haul during that period. Georgia candidates raised 1.7 times as much, and Ohio candidates 1.4 times.”Cooper theorizes that the discrepancy between prediction and actual fundraising may reflect how rapidly the electoral map has shifted in the last six months: “In January, North Carolina looked like the most competitive Senate election in the country. States like Texas, Alaska, Ohio, and Iowa weren’t considered in play.” Cooper and Whatley are bringing in less cash, in other words, because Republicans have lost ground in states that were once considered secure—and perhaps because Cooper has led consistently in the polls, although the race seems to have tightened a bit lately.Elsewhere:In case you missed it: Former Democratic senator and Governor Ben Nelson of Nebraska penned an op-ed in The Washington Post arguing that a wealth tax would hurt family farmsPolicy Matters Ohio tax expert Zach Schiller tells the Ohio Capital Journal that Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy’s proposal to “reduce the growing property tax crisis” is “lousy,” while Democrat Amy Acton’s proposal is “sensible” but “nowhere near enough.” Read the full analysis here.—Heather Souvaine Horn The Ideas FactoryThe Urban Institute hosts an event next Monday at 2 p.m. on “Tackling Housing Supply and Affordability Challenges Through Mixed-Income Housing Finance Innovations.” Speakers include Invest Chattanooga president Matt Bedsole, Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade director of innovative funding for housing programs Hilary Cooper, and the Urban Institute’s Laurie Goodman, Daniel Hornung, Chrystal Kornegay, and Christina Plerhoples Stacy.The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication releases a new report, “How Local Governments Can Use Communication to Drive Climate Action.” One of the suggestions: “Identify key messengers,” including “doctors and nurses, faith leaders, business leaders, and community-based organizations.”Public Citizen files a petition with the Food and Drug Administration, saying the agency should “ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising of prescription drugs.” Boy, would that change the experience of watching television …Earlier this week, the Urban Institute’s William J. Congdon, Elisabeth Jacobs, Amanda Briggs, Ryan Kelsey, Shayne Spaulding, Oluwasekemi Odumosu, and Julia Payne released an article outlining “Policy Priorities for an Inclusive AI Economy.” A few of their proposals: “use AI to match workers with jobs and employers with talent,” “update” labor regulations to address the risks of AI, “incorporate worker voice in AI design and implementation,” “improve policies and programs for displaced workers,” and “ensure gains in productivity and prosperity are widely shared.” So, basically a complete redesign of how the AI transition is currently going.—Heather Souvaine HornIn ClosingGood week: Troy JacksonThe Senate candidate in Maine effectively cleared the Democratic field on Sunday, when it was revealed he had the support of a majority of delegates who were elected to attend the party’s convention this Saturday. The other four leading candidates promptly dropped out. Then, on Wednesday, Jackson’s nascent campaign announced that it had already raised $1 million since he entered the race two weeks ago, after Graham Platner’s implosion.Bad week: Andrew and Tristan TateThe MAGA-loving, women-hating brothers were arrested in Miami last weekend and are facing extradition to England over charges of rape and sex trafficking. The manosphere influencers are accused of “choking women, sometimes until they passed out, and then raping them”—which comes as no surprise to anyone who read Heidi Blake’s recent, definitive investigation in The New Yorker of their “empire of abuse.” Now their MAGA backers are suddenly ghosting them.Political Trivia Question of the DayWhom did Clarence Thomas replace on the Supreme Court, and what was notable about his departure from the court? That is, it had a vast historical impact that few could have guessed at the time. (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it. Sign up and get this newsletter for free. Inside WashingtonInstead of tariffs, maybe help Canada put out wildfires?Democratic lawmakers don’t merely think Trump’s newly announced 50 percent tariffs on Canada are a bad idea from an economic standpoint. They also want to see the U.S. actively helping Canadians fight the Ontario wildfires currently sending smoke into the U.S., and fear for the future of the two countries’ relationship.Trump has told reporters that the tariffs he announced Monday aren’t in response to the wildfires, but the timing is highly suspicious. The announcement came just days after Trump said, “Maybe they should pay us some damages or something, or we should do some tariffs.”To some, the arbitrary nature of Trump’s decision is the biggest affront. “There’s no question that Trump thinks he’s a king and he can use these tariffs to execute whatever he wants,” said Senator Ron Wyden, who on Wednesday unveiled a bill to reassert congressional authority over tariffs.Others are worried about the economic impact in their own states. “Canada is a friend, one of our closest allies,” said Michigan Senator Gary Peters. “In Michigan, where we have close trading relations with Canadians, they’re a vital part of our economy, and it’s an important friendship.”Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota is similarly concerned about her home state. “Minnesota has a good relationship with Canada. Clearly, the hostile and reckless approach of the Trump administration towards Canada makes those relationships hard to maintain.”But beyond the typical condemnation of tariffs, several politicians are also suggesting that with wildfires in particular, the U.S. might be better served by collaborating more closely with its northern neighbor. Some would even like to see direct aid. “I was on a call this morning with Secretary [of Agriculture Brooke] Rollins and leaders from the Forest Service talking about the fires in northern Minnesota, and I know that the Forest Service and Canadian officials are working closely and well together. So I think at the operating level, the relationships continue to be effective,” Smith told me.On Saturday, Ontario Premier Doug Ford criticized the “short memory” of American politicians who have blamed Canada for Ontario’s wildfire smoke drifting southward. “We had the water bombers and everyone going over to California [last year],” he said. “That’s what neighbors do.”Californian Senator Alex Padilla hasn’t forgotten that. “They’re there for us in our time of need,” he said, “and we should be there for them.”—Emma Janssen Full-time workers increasingly need SNAP and Medicaid to make ends meetThe number of Americans who rely on SNAP and Medicaid despite working full-time for major companies has shot up, according to a report the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, released Wednesday. The number of Amazon workers who receive anti-poverty benefits nearly tripled between February 2020 and September 2025, the report found. Gig-based companies like Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, Instacart, and DoorDash also employ high numbers of Medicaid and SNAP recipients, the report found, a major change from 2020. Meanwhile, Walmart was the top employer of Medicaid recipients in both 2020 and 2025.The report confirms what anti-poverty advocates have been saying for years: It’s becoming harder to be a working American, and working full-time does not guarantee financial security. It also shows that some of the country’s most successful companies don’t pay their workers a living wage, according to Senator Bernie Sanders, who requested the GAO produce the report.“American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize the starvation wages of large corporations like Walmart and Amazon,” said Sanders in a statement.Between 2020 and 2025, Walmart increased its profits from nearly $15 billion to nearly $22 billion. Meanwhile, the number of Walmart employees relying on Medicaid in the 11 states sampled in the GAO report increased by 55 percent.Life has probably gotten harder for these employees in the months since the data was collected. This report comes just over a year after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, implementing massive cuts to SNAP and Medicaid. SNAP participation is already down more than 4.5 million people, according to USDA data. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, estimates that up to 15 million people could lose their Medicaid coverage by 2034. Californian Senator Alex Padilla hasn’t forgotten that. “They’re there for us in our time of need,” he said, “and we should be there for them.”—Emma Janssen Outside WashingtonCanada “politely” withdraws party invites in response to Trump tariffsAmericans have been “politely, but effectively, disinvited” from the opening ceremony on Friday for the new and long-awaited Gordie Howe International Bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, three sources tell the Detroit Free Press. The reason, Todd Spangler reports, is Trump’s threat to slap 50 percent tariffs on Canada. Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer has publicly worried about the threat’s effect on the state’s economy, and the Trump administration already delayed the bridge’s opening last month by demanding that Canada give the United States half the bridge’s profits for the first 15 years—in addition to a debt-repayment arrangement that remains a little unclear. (The text of the deal was only released on Tuesday.)Tariffs are also a wild card in Maine’s Senate race, where Democrats have been frantically shoring up support for Troy Jackson to replace the scandal-a-day Graham Platner as Democratic nominee against Republican incumbent Susan Collins. Republican candidates in the state quickly distanced themselves from Trump on tariffs, with Collins disavowing her own party head to Politico on behalf of Maine’s lobsters and blueberries. (They’re “harvested in Maine, processed in Canada, and then come back,” said Collins.) Meanwhile, U.S. businesses obviously aren’t thrilled with the new chaos, and the American dairy and distilled spirits lobbies, representing industries Trump is allegedly protecting with these tariffs, have already voiced their displeasure.Elsewhere:The Massachusetts state Senate is considering a proposal to increase affordable housing by upzoning vast swaths of the state, ending single-family zoning in favor of allowing “duplexes by right.”At CalMatters, Jeanne Kuang examines Gavin Newsom’s intricate balancing act as he attempts to position himself as a populist candidate for 2028—an act that has included opposing a state billionaire tax while voicing support for a federal one. Progressives are skeptical, Kuang notes.—Heather Souvaine Horn The Ideas FactoryThe Century Foundation’s Angela Hanks, Aissa Canchola Bañez, and Eduard Nilaj find that “rising energy debt is climbing into the middle class,” in part because “energy bills have increased three times faster than the rate of inflation while Trump has been president.”The Natural Resources Defense Council slams the Trump administration for “making climate science denial its official policy” and then threatening Canada with tariffs over Ontario wildfire smoke. “Some 180 million Americans were threatened last week by dangerous heat” in addition to the perilously poor air quality, senior attorney David Doniger writes in a memo, and widespread drought has contributed to “Colorado wheat farmers … reporting their worst year in six decades; in Nebraska, it’s the worst in more than a century.”Brandon Holmes, Molly Robertson, Kevin Rennert, Keith J. Benes, Natalie Baillargeon, Juniper Katz, Robi Nilson, and Ben Hoen publish a new working paper through Resources for the Future analyzing solar and wind development, finding that “Texas’s renewable energy development often proceeds quickly when compared with projects on federal land and many state-level permitting processes.”Earlier this week, the Urban Institute’s William J. Congdon, Elisabeth Jacobs, Amanda Briggs, Ryan Kelsey, Shayne Spaulding, Oluwasekemi Odumosu, and Julia Payne released an article outlining “Policy Priorities for an Inclusive AI Economy.” A few of their proposals: “use AI to match workers with jobs and employers with talent,” “update” labor regulations to address the risks of AI, “incorporate worker voice in AI design and implementation,” “improve policies and programs for displaced workers,” and “ensure gains in productivity and prosperity are widely shared.” So, basically a complete redesign of how the AI transition is currently going.—Heather Souvaine Horn In Closing$37.5 billion for Trump’s war on Iran? Something doesn’t add up ... Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee this week, saying the Pentagon has spent $37.5 billion bombing Iran so far, and needs another $67 billion, stat. Those numbers are a bit suspicious. Watch TNR’s Edie Olmsted get into the math.Political Trivia Question of the DayWho was the first Socialist Party member elected to the House of Representatives, and when, and where was he from? (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)Editor’s Note: Welcome to The TNR Blue Book. It’s our new daily newsletter that covers Congress and much more, but with a distinctly TNR twist: Our focus will be strictly on Democrats, liberal and progressive groups, and the fight to take back power and save democracy. Every morning, you’ll get a rundown of late-breaking news, what Democrats on Capitol Hill are thinking, quick hits on what you need to know nationally, the latest on what’s coming out of the think tanks and activist groups, short interviews with progressive newsmakers and authors, and more (including some humor and political trivia!). There’s nothing else out there like it.Inside Washington“On day one, Democrats will pass a bill to end the Iran war” Democratic lawmakers currently can’t do much to stop the Iran war, House members admitted on Tuesday. Instead, their strategy is to continue to push for oversight and remind voters why gas prices are high. Then, if voters deliver them the House in November, Democrats could cut off funding. Some members would like to see that happen right after the swearing-in ceremony.“It’s going to be very difficult,” said Representative Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, when I asked what legislative options Democrats currently have to curtail the war. “At the end of the day, this president—most presidents—have asserted their authority to use the military as they see fit.”Democrats have tried a number of options against President Trump and Republicans. They’ve offered multiple amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, that would prevent future Defense Department funds from being spent on the war, but the Republican-led Rules Committee rejected the amendments. In June, Democrats passed concurrent war powers resolutions in both the House and Senate, each time with the help of four Republicans. But concurrent resolutions don’t have the force of law. Just this Monday, two American service members were killed in Jordan by an Iranian strike.Now, some House Democrats are planning to vote against the NDAA this week in protest of its unrestricted funding for the war. “To ask us to spend another $1.5 trillion of our constituents’ taxpayer funds, hard-earned, is just outrageous,” said Representative Pat Ryan on Tuesday. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was on the Hill Tuesday afternoon making the case that the funding is crucial for national security, and for the first time gave an estimate on the war’s cost to date: a staggering $37.5 billion. His testimony was interrupted multiple times by antiwar protesters, who were removed from the hearing room.Representative Pete Aguilar, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said Dems’ other symbolic legislative protests will continue, too. “We’re going to use the opportunities we have in the Rules Committee to add amendments to the NDAA [and] to future appropriation bills each and every time,” he said—even though Republicans will likely continue to reject the amendments.But Dems also have a parallel mission: winning the messaging fight. “Normally, the way this works is public opposition reaches the point where the executive branch realizes they have to respond. But Trump has decided the public opinion doesn’t matter, and that puts us in a very dangerous place,” said Smith.Even if Trump doesn’t respond to public opinion like most presidents do, Democrats hope voters will. “I think the American public is clear that this is a war they didn’t ask for,” said Aguilar. “I think they’re also very clear that Democrats want nothing to do with this, and so that’ll be the case that we make over the next 105 days or so.”Representative Ro Khanna thinks the case will make itself: “As gas prices go up, as food prices go up, as Americans see more, unfortunately, of their service members be killed, the cry to end the war will increase,” he told me.Without currently having enough votes to get their oversight amendments into the NDAA and enforce restrictions on the war, some Democrats are looking ahead to January, when they hope to have a majority in the House. “Hopefully, this war is going to be ended soon,” said Representative Ted Lieu. “If it is still around next term, on day one, Democrats will pass a bill to end the Iran war.”—Emma Janssen Outside WashingtonRob Sand rakes in the (populist?) cash Democrat Rob Sand is smashing fundraising records in the Iowa gubernatorial race, The Des Moines Register reports. The most recent disclosures, filed this week, show $9.4 million flowing to Sand and only $6.4 million to Republican Zach Lahn, bringing Sand’s total receipts up to almost $38 million, while Lahn stands at $10 million. The Sand campaign on Tuesday was quick to argue that these numbers weren’t just high, but also fundamentally populist: Sand’s donations, the campaign wrote in a press release, came from 33,500 individuals as opposed to Lahn’s 431. Also, 95 percent of Sand’s contributions were under $100, with an average contribution of $280, whereas only 61 percent of Lahn’s contributions were under this figure, with an average contribution of $14,786.This week, noted political commentator Charlie Cook predicted to people on a Zoom call that Sand will win in November, but he cast doubt on Democrat Josh Turek’s chances against Ashley Hinson in the Senate race. A New York Times/Siena University poll in late June showed Sand up two points, while a Fox News poll conducted by Beacon Research and Shaw & Company Research showed Sand up nine points.Elsewhere:Florida’s gubernatorial hopefuls, still waiting for the state’s very late August 18 primary, are already pivoting to their general election messaging. Democratic front-runner David Jolly, a former Republican congressman, spent Tuesday hammering his likely Republican opponent Byron Donalds on data centers, Politico reports—“reiterating” his own support for a moratorium and saying Donalds is in the industry’s pocket. Maybe you haven’t been following this race, given that Republicans have occupied the Florida governor’s mansion for the past 27 years. But a recent poll from the University of North Florida showed Donalds leading Jolly by only five points—an intriguingly close margin given that the state’s voters backed Trump to the tune of over 13 points in 2024.The Washington Post’s “Climate Coach” columnist Michael J. Coren reports that peanut butter jars only need “a quick scrape” to be recyclable—no scrubbing or rinsing. Huge, if true, as they say on social media. “Peanut butter jars” were trending on the WaPo homepage on Tuesday, while the paper’s scoop on Troy Jackson’s temper languished below the digital fold.—Heather Souvaine Horn The Ideas FactoryPublic Citizen announces a “Combating Corruption” event on July 30 at the National Press Club, featuring Senators Chuck Schumer and Sheldon Whitehouse. The watchdog promises that the event “will dive into topics such as money in politics, contracting scandals, pay-to-play schemes and family enrichment deals for elected officials.”Data for Progress releases a new poll finding that jittery voters overwhelmingly want the government to put some guardrails on AI. First, 69 percent of voters support “requiring AI companies to give the U.S. government a 30-day window to review their new AI models before releasing them to the public.” Second, 68 percent support “requiring large AI companies to invest a portion of their revenue in local development projects and community services.” And even larger majorities support creating new jobs training programs and direct government employment programs for workers who may be displaced by AI.On Thursday, Brookings hosts a conversation about “top priorities for US-Africa relations in an era of great power competition,” featuring numerous experts, including Brookings senior fellow Landry Signé; Mozambique’s ambassador to the U.S., Alfredo Fabião Nuvunga; U.S. Trade and Development Agency Director of Policy and Program Management Mary Sloan; Deputy Assistant Energy Secretary Dan Byers; and others.—Heather Souvaine Horn In ClosingBook of the Week: This Is The Plan: How to End America’s Meltdown and Save Democracy by Ben Wikler.THE GIST: This Is the Plan is a “field guide” to “dictator-proof” the United States. As former head of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Wikler helped Democrats win back the Midwestern swing state after years of gerrymandering and attacks on unions. He knows how to organize locally to fight GOP-backed voter suppression, and he knows what works in swing states, particularly in the Midwest. His plan also includes abolishing the filibuster, Supreme Court reform, and changing how the 435 members of the House of Representatives are elected. Most importantly, he thinks reform should be joyous. Democrats, he writes, should “have fun storming the castle—in a civil, metaphorical, and non-January-6th-y way.”PRAISE: Nancy Pelosi says, “If we do what this book says, we will win.”CRUISING THROUGH THE INDEX: In addition to big-ticket reform, Wikler also favors passing the Protecting the Right to Organize, or PRO, Act, which would expand collective bargaining rights and expand labor protections, and the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would establish a nationwide statutory right to provide and receive abortion care. TNR’S QUICK CRITICAL ASSESSMENT: With hindsight, it’s clear that Wikler should have been elected as chair of the Democratic National Committee after the 2024 election—though that was clear at the time, too. This isn’t the first book about unrigging democracy and saving America—but Wikler’s résumé makes this stand out. His plan worked in Wisconsin. It can work everywhere else, as well.—Alex ShephardOnly one American president was officially kicked out of his own political party while serving as president. Who was it, and what was the party? (Sign up for The Blue Book to find the answer in tomorrow’s newsletter.)