Inside House Dems' most "vicious" internal fight in decades
Why it matters: It would be a fight for the ages, pitting progressives' 36-year-old rising star leader against a well-liked, 78-year-old stalwart of the left at a time when age is already one of Democrats' biggest headaches.
"They are going to be vicious," one senior House Democrat told Axios, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer candid thoughts on a sensitive internal battle.
The lawmaker predicted it will be Democrats' most brutal member vs. member primary since California Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman faced off in 2012, or when Michigan Reps. John Dingell and Lynn Rivers fought over a seat in 2002.
Between the lines: There is an unusual amount of contentious public back-and-forth for a primary that isn't even officially happening yet, and it has the Progressive Caucus on edge.
Axios reached out to over a dozen Progressive Caucus members for this story. Most said nothing or declined to comment, even on the condition of anonymity.
Doggett and Casar have had a close political alliance, with Casar still touting Doggett's endorsement on his campaign website as of Wednesday.
What we're hearing: "Most of us are TRYING to stay out," a senior House progressive wrote in a text to Axios.
"It's way too early [to] dish on this for me," said another lawmaker.
Zoom in: House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), who has a policy of endorsing his incumbents when they face insurgent primary challengers, is unlikely to pick sides in this member vs. member race, sources told Axios.
A Democratic leadership aide said there is a zero-percent chance he weighs in on the race.
It's "dangerous to get involved," the senior House Democrat said.
State of play: Casar and Doggett would share a single Austin-based district under the new congressional map that Republican state legislators in Texas are proposing.
The rare mid-decade redistricting effort comes as President Trump has urged Republican lawmakers to try to create additional GOP-leaning seats ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Doggett, who has been repeatedly targeted by Republicans in redistricting during his over 30 years in Congress, currently represents much of Austin and its suburbs.
Casar, a former Austin city councilman first elected to Congress in 2022, represents parts of southern and eastern Austin in a district that snakes down to San Antonio. Under the new map, the Austin portions of his district would be merged with Doggett's.
What they're saying: Both lawmakers are angling to run in the new 37th district, which would be heavily Democratic and centered in Austin.
Doggett, in a campaign email on Sunday, wrote that "over 2/3 of my current constituents will remain in the Trump configured CD37" and that his "seniority is an asset, not a liability."
He urged Casar to "not abandon his reconfigured CD35, in which he is the only incumbent," noting that it would be majority Hispanic and arguing that Casar could "use his organizing skills and populist message to win over the disaffected, particularly disaffected Hispanic voters."
The other side: Casar is ruling out a run in the new 35th district, a San Antonio-area seat that voted for Trump by 10 percentage points and contains just a tenth of his current constituency.
Casar's chief of staff Stephanie Trinh wrote in a campaign email on Tuesday that Doggett sent out his email "without discussing it with Greg or his team" and said it contained "incorrect information."
"Other than the fact that Republicans arbitrarily assigned this seat the same number as Greg's current one, there's no reason it would make sense for Greg to run in that district," she wrote.
The 37th district, she added, "would include all of Greg's old city council district and nearly 250,000 of the people he currently represents."
The intrigue: A pair of progressives who spoke to Axios anonymously last week, noting that Doggett was the first House Democrat to call for then-President Biden to drop out of the 2024 election over concerns about his age, said the 78-year-old should take his own advice.
But the senior House progressive, who spoke to Axios on Wednesday, said it is "sad to see the back door spin on age. Lloyd is anything but the problem."
"Really hard to push out someone if indeed 2/3 [of the district] is Lloyd's," the lawmaker added, though they said Casar "has — rightfully — ambition. That has to come in play too."
The bottom line: "Nobody wants to see a primary between two progressive members," another House progressive told Axios. "This is the kind of thing Trump wants."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump unfroze education funding, but the damage is already done
Summer is when superintendents and principals finalize staffing and allocate resources for the year ahead. Instead, they've spent the past month scrambling to revise budgets and delay decisions after the Trump administration recklessly froze more than $6.8 billion in federal education funds approved by Congress four months ago — a move that unnecessarily threw school planning into chaos with the school year starting in just a few weeks. On June 30, the Education Department abruptly informed states it would not release key fiscal year 2025 education funds as scheduled, affecting programs like teacher training, English learner support and after-school services. After bipartisan backlash — including lawsuits from 24 states and pressure from Republican senators — the administration reversed course on July 25, announcing it would release the remaining funds. But the damage had already been done. The administration claimed the freeze was part of a 'programmatic review' to ensure spending aligned with White House priorities. Yet, the review was conducted without transparency while the funds were only released after intense political pressure. The Education Department stated 'guardrails' would be in place to prevent funds from being used in ways that violate executive orders, which is a vague statement that should raise concerns about future interference. Districts had built their budgets assuming these funds would arrive by July 1, as they do each year. Instead of preparing for the new school year, states and districts were forced to scramble to minimize the damage. In my home state of Texas, nearly 1,200 districts faced a freeze of $660 million, which represented about 16 percent of the state's total K-12 funding. I have spoken to superintendents, chief academic officers and chief financial officers who described how these unanticipated funding deficits undermined strategic investments into high-quality instruction and mental health services. In Tennessee, $106 million was frozen, representing 13.4 percent of the state's K-12 funding. Knox County Schools eliminated 28 central office positions, including staff supporting instruction for English learners. Florida had $400 million frozen. Pinellas County School District alone stood to lose $9 million. The superintendent reported that they would have to make cuts that directly affect student achievement while the school board chair said the freeze 'feels kind of like the straw that broke the camel's back.' Kansas saw $50 million frozen. Kansas City, Kan. Public Schools warned families that $4.9 million in lost funding would affect 'programs that directly support some of our most vulnerable students — including those from low-income families, English language learners and students with disabilities.' Even with the funds now being released, the uncertainty and disruption caused by the freeze will have lasting impacts. In some cases, district leaders were forced to make staffing and programming decisions without knowing whether critical federal support would be unfrozen. All who care about public education must make clear that this kind of reckless disruption is unacceptable and will carry political consequences. Governors from both parties should press their congressional delegations to pass legislation preventing future executive overreach. And Congress must require the Education Department to provide advance notice and justification for any future funding delays. The funding freeze was a reckless policy choice that disrespected educators, destabilized schools and put children at risk. Public education cannot function on the Trump administration's political whims and such unwarranted actions cannot go unchecked without the risk of normalizing executive overreach at the expense of students. Now is the time for all policymakers and educators to stand up for our schools and ensure that no child's education is ever again held hostage to such problematic politics.
CNBC
7 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump warned by top Senate Democrats to rethink advanced AI chip sales to China
Six Senate Democrats on Friday released an open letter asking President Donald Trump to reconsider his decision to allow tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to sell AI semiconductor chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenue from the sales. The letter — signed by Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Christopher Coons, D-Del.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — was in response to an Aug. 11 announcement by Trump that Nvidia and AMD would pay the U.S. government a 15% cut of revenue from chip sales to China in exchange for export licenses. "Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies," the letter states. "The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm," the letter continues. Senators also warned that selling advanced AI chips — specifically Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips — to China could help strengthen its military systems, a claim that Nvidia denies. In a statement to CNBC, a Nvidia spokesperson said: "The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit." The letter from Senate Democrats also requests a detailed response from the administration by Friday, Aug. 22, regarding the current deal involving Nvidia and AMD, as well as any similar arrangements being made with other companies. "We again urge your administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership," the letter states. A request for comment from the White House and AMD was not immediately returned. Despite Trump allowing chip sales to resume, it has already become clear that China isn't welcoming Nvidia back with open arms, instead urging tech companies to avoid buying U.S. companies' chips, according to a Bloomberg report. "We're hearing that this is a hard mandate, and that [authorities are actually] stopping additional orders of H20s for some companies," Qingyuan Lin, a senior analyst covering China semiconductors at Bernstein, told CNBC. In a separate report, The Information said regulators in China have ordered major tech companies, including ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases until a national security review is complete. —
CNN
7 minutes ago
- CNN
How Ken Paxton keeps pushing the legal envelope
The morning after news broke that Texas House Democrats planned to return to the state, effectively ending their efforts to block Republicans from redrawing the state's congressional maps, Attorney General Ken Paxton took a victory lap. The firebrand conservative ally of President Donald Trump had used his office to wage several legal battles against the absent Democrats at once, drawing outsized attention as he challenges Sen. John Cornyn in next year's Republican Senate primary. Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to expel 13 of them from office. He asked an Illinois court to help enforce the Texas House speaker's civil arrest warrants for the Democrats who had holed up outside Chicago. And he obtained a court order preventing former Texas congressman Beto O'Rourke's political action committee from raising money to assist those boycotting Democrats. Then, he claimed O'Rourke violated that court order and sought his arrest. On Wednesday morning, Paxton said his strategy worked: Democrats planned to end their quorum-breaking effort faster than they had in previous standoffs, including 2003 and 2021. 'The idea of putting pressure on them from different angles — I think it got to them. Because they certainly came back faster than they have in the past,' Paxton told conservative talk radio host Mark Davis. Paxton's actions, and his comments in the radio interview, offered a window into how one of the nation's most controversial attorneys general has long operated. He has pushed legal boundaries — riling up conservatives and using the courts to place himself at the center of political fights with national consequences, even when his lawsuits have little chance of success. The three-term attorney general's willingness to wage those battles has earned him deep support among conservatives — including those in the state Senate who acquitted him two years ago, after the Republican-dominated House had impeached him over allegations of corruption and bribery. It has also alienated many Democrats and some moderate Republicans — and it's why Democrats believe the state's Senate race could become competitive next fall if Paxton ousts Cornyn in the GOP primary. The swirl of controversy surrounding Paxton intensified last month, when his wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, filed for divorce, alleging infidelity. Still, as his primary against Cornyn looms, Paxton has effectively silenced his Republican critics as the party waged a pressure campaign to return the absent House Democrats to Texas. And he did so using tools unavailable to Cornyn — who asked US Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate the source of the Democrats' funding, but could not launch his own probe. Paxton is 'one of the most innovative AGs in terms of using his office for advancing his political vision,' said Paul Nolette, a professor and the director of Marquette University's Les Aspin Center for Government who has written extensively about attorneys generals' use of their offices to influence national policy. 'What's new and unusual is that he's really been the one who has modeled how to use tools that don't, on their face, seem partisan, for greater partisan effect,' Nolette said. Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said that among legal experts, 'I think everyone views Paxton the same way — as someone who will stop at nothing to use and abuse his office to advance whatever he views as the partisan political imperative of the moment.' 'He views himself less as the attorney general of Texas than as the attorney general of the Republican Party,' Vladeck said. 'And that may endear him to the folks who vote for him and who his actions benefit, but it certainly isn't consistent with his constitutional, statutory and ethical duties and obligations to all of the people of Texas.' After 12 years in the Texas legislature, Paxton was elected attorney general in 2014. During his first two years in office — the last two years of Barack Obama's presidency — Paxton filed 27 lawsuits against the Obama administration. He initiated a lawsuit seeking to have Obama's signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act, declared unconstitutional — an effort the Supreme Court rejected. Paxton was more successful battling Obama's immigration reforms, blocking the implementation of a policy that would have granted deferred action to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are American citizens or lawful permanent residents. He also fought Obama's administration over environmental protections, water regulations, overtime policy, hiring rules for felons and more. He led 13 states that won an injunction halting the Obama administration's guidance for schools on transgender students' bathroom access. Perhaps Paxton's most audacious legal move came in 2020, when he filed a post-election lawsuit against four presidential battleground states — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — where President Joe Biden had defeated Trump. He alleged in a statement that those states' actions to expand voter access during the coronavirus pandemic had cast 'a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election.' The Supreme Court quickly denied the lawsuit, ruling that Texas lacked standing. During Biden's term, Paxton again regularly challenged the Democratic administration in court. His office bragged in a November 2024 news release that it had filed its 100th lawsuit against Biden's administration. Paxton said in a statement at the time that 'the federal government has been ruthlessly weaponized against the American people. But Texas stood in their way.' He challenged Biden's immigration policies, including winning a ruling blocking Biden's 'parole in place' policy that gave legal status to certain undocumented individuals who are married to US citizens. He unsuccessfully challenged the Biden administration's coronavirus vaccine mandate and later launched investigations into the pharmaceutical drug makers who manufactured vaccines. With Trump back in office, Paxton has continued to wage cultural battles by targeting blue states. In December, Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion pills to a woman near Dallas — one of the first challenges to shield laws enacted by Democratic-controlled states to protect doctors in the wake of Roe v. Wade's overturning. Then, in July, he sued a New York county clerk for failing to levy a fine imposed in Texas when that doctor did not show up for court. The suits are ongoing. He has also returned to an issue Trump raised constantly during the 2024 campaign: allegations of voter fraud. Paxton's office said in a news release last month it had 'launched a sweeping investigation into more than 100 potential noncitizens who cast over 200 ballots in the 2020 and 2022 election cycles.' Nolette said Paxton has 'used the very ample tools of the AG's office to maximum effect.' He pointed to Paxton's targeting of a migrant shelter in El Paso by demanding its client records, his use of consumer protection laws to probe pharmaceutical drug-makers, hospitals that provided gender-affirming care to minors and more. 'He's really been a leader in using those almost bread-and-butter tools of the office, which are typically for run-of-the-mill cases at the state level or noncontroversial, bipartisan issues, and using those in a more sharply partisan way,' Nolette said.
