What a Senate floor clash between two Democrats says about where the party is headed
Afterward, Booker alluded to his efforts in the face of criticism from Cortez Masto saying, 'What's bothering me right now is we don't see enough fight in this caucus.'
In an interview, Cortez Masto had her own message.
'I don't need a lecture from anybody about how to take on and push back and fight against Donald Trump,' Cortez Masto said.
She took a shot at 'long speeches' as a form of resistance, calling them ineffective as Democrats seek to win back Congress and eventually the White House. In April, Booker broke a Senate record by speaking for 25 hours, warning of the 'grave and urgent' threat Trump's administration posed to the country.
He posted a personal record fundraising haul after that speech.
'If we really are going to take on Donald Trump, we need to win. It's not long speeches on the floor,' Cortez Masto said. 'It's showing the American public that we're there fighting for them, that we're passing commonsense legislation that they care about.'
Booker's office declined to comment.
The whole spat, a rare intraparty clash that played out in public, is indicative of a larger question vexing Democrats as they look toward the midterms and 2028: Is the party hankering for a fight, or does it just want its lawmakers to get the nuts and bolts done for their communities, even if it means working with Republicans?
Cortez Masto, who also heads ModSquad, a political action committee that works to elect moderates to the Senate, is leaning into a Sen. Lisa Murkowski-like strategy that makes bringing home the goods priority No. 1. Murkowski, R-Alaska, was the deciding vote on Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' because of provisions she believed benefited her state — even as she said she didn't overall like the legislation, which heavily cut Medicaid.
Just this week, Cortez Masto and fellow Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada were the only Democrats to vote to confirm Republican Sam Brown as undersecretary of veterans affairs. Cortez Masto then asked Brown for an update on the construction of a national cemetery in rural Nevada to benefit veterans and their families.
Cortez Masto said the path to a Democratic majority is paved by moderates, those who oppose Trump but still work across the aisle to specifically address their states. She pointed to former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper's Senate candidacy and the new ad her group just released. It focuses on Cooper's getting 'stuff done' and doesn't even mention Trump.
"In North Carolina, it's not about Republican or Democrat. It's about what you'll do for our families," the ad says.
To Cortez Masto, who faces re-election in 2028 in a battleground state that Trump won in November, the answer is less about taking hard-line stances against Republicans or disruptions on the Senate floor than about sticking to 'kitchen table' issues that drove the narrative in the last presidential election.
The state of the economy, public safety and health care are among the issues dominating conversations with constituents in her home state of Nevada, Cortez Masto said. Some small-business owners fear closing or facing debilitating losses due to Trump's tariffs, grocery prices haven't relented, and gas prices — nearly $4 a gallon in the Reno area — are still too high (though lower than their peak in 2022), she added.
"Yes, we want to fight Trump and push back on him and hold him accountable and take him on," she said. "But that doesn't mean at the same time we are doing that we are stopping and harming the people in our states."
She didn't think the humanitarian crisis in Gaza or the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files ranked high on the list of issues she would talk about back home.
'If you're asking me is it the No. 1 issue I hear in my state, no, it's not, but do some of my voters care about it? Yes, they absolutely do,' she said of the war in Gaza. On Epstein, she called for transparency while protecting victims but reiterated that she didn't hear her constituents asking about it.
Cortez Masto was among a group of senators who sent a letter to the White House calling for greater action to get aid to people starving in Gaza. But in a sign of support for Israel, she voted against resolutions put forth by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., that would block the sale of weapons to Israel.
'The arms sales all already occurred. So it was, most importantly, a symbolic gesture. At the same time, I understand why they're doing [it]. … I don't think we all have to be on the same page for everything,' she said in explaining her vote.
To Cortez Masto, the moderate path means supporting border security but taking a stand against raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement that she described as 'absolutely extreme.'
'There's fear in my community. I see it. I talk and visit with them all the time. Rightfully so; we have less people going to church, going to school. Some of our workforce are gone. They're too afraid to come forward,' said Cortez Masto, whose state is roughly one-third Latino. 'These aren't hardened criminals. These are people who came to our country for a good life and opportunity. They're paying taxes. They want a better life for their kids. They haven't committed violent crimes, but they're being swept up intentionally by this administration because that's what they want to do, and that's where I think this administration has gone too far.'
Separately, Cortez Masto said she fully supported any Democratic efforts to redistrict and create additional seats in Congress for her party the same way Republicans have done in Texas.
'Right now the process is Republicans are going to redistrict so that they can gain control. The Democrats should, too. Why wouldn't we fight to take control?' she said. 'Does the general public, do we all like the way that redistricting is played for that power? No, we don't, and we should change the laws, ultimately. But they're not changing now."
"The Republicans aren't going to change them," she added. "Republicans are going to benefit, and so until we can gain control and win some of these races, we should be playing by the same rules that the Republicans are using against us and fight back.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump and Putin will meet at an Alaska military base long used to counter Russia
WASHINGTON — In an ironic twist, President Donald Trump is set to discuss the war in Ukraine with Russian leader Vladimir Putin at a military base in Alaska that was crucial to countering the Soviet Union during the height of Cold War and still plays a role today. The meeting is scheduled to take place Friday at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, according to a White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal planning. The base created by merging Elmendorf Air Force Base and Army Fort Richardson in 2010 has played a key strategic role in monitoring and deterring the Soviet Union during much of the Cold War. Throughout its long history, the base hosted large numbers of aircraft and oversaw operations of a variety of early warning radar sites that were aimed at detecting Soviet military activity and any possible nuclear launches. It earned the motto 'Top Cover for North America' at this time, according to the base website. While much of the military hardware has since been deactivated, the base still hosts key aircraft squadrons, including the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jet. Planes from the base also still intercept Russian aircraft that regularly fly into U.S. airspace. The irony of Putin visiting an American military base that long has — and still does — aimed to counter Russian threats comes as Trump works to reach a ceasefire deal in a war that he promised during the 2024 campaign to end quickly. Officials from Ukraine and Europe fear that the one-on-one meeting they will not take part in could lead to an outcome that favors Russian goals. French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump was 'very clear' that the United States wants to achieve a ceasefire at the summit. Macron spoke after a virtual meeting between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other European leaders. Trump has said any major agreement could involve land swaps and that Zelenskyy and Putin could meet next or he could meet with both leaders. 'There's a very good chance that we're going to have a second meeting, which will be more productive than the first, because the first is I'm going to find out where we are and what we're doing,' Trump told reporters Wednesday. 'It's going to be a very important meeting, but it's setting the table for the second meeting.'
