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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Hungary Offers Model for Conservative Higher Ed Reform
Across the West, universities have ceased to be neutral institutions. Once dedicated to the pursuit of truth, they have become fortresses of ideological conformity. Anyone who diverges from progressive orthodoxy is excluded from faculty ranks, free inquiry is subordinated to activism, and taxpayer funds flow into administrative bureaucracies that enforce political correctness. What was once debate is now enforcement. What used to be education is now indoctrination. This is no longer a matter of liberal drift but an illiberal takeover—the Berkeley hippies who moved into faculty lounges decades ago would now be considered retrograde white supremacists—a structural crisis. As our colleague Christopher Rufo laid out last month in the Manhattan Statement on Higher Education, this moment calls for more than gentle nudges. Universities have violated their founding compact to seek truth and develop knowledge for the common good. They take billions from the federal government and repay it with contempt for most of the country. Reform will not come from within, so it must be cajoled from without. The West already has a model for what such reform can look like: Hungary. Hungary's approach to higher education has attracted scorn from international media and Western academics, who label it authoritarian. In truth, it has begun what American reformers have only recently proposed, and which the Trump administration is attempting to achieve as it moves to remedy our leading universities' massive civil rights violations: a serious realignment of higher education with the values of the nation that sustain it. Since 2021, the Hungarian government has restructured many of its public universities into foundation models, governed by boards of trustees. These boards, comprised of academics and civic leaders, are tasked with upholding academic integrity while ensuring institutional accountability. These structures resemble those in place in Germany and the Netherlands, so the opposition to them isn't technical, but political: Hungary's critics oppose this restructuring not because they fear dysfunction, but because they fear competition. ROME, ITALY - JUNE 24: Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán meets the press at Palazzo Chigi after a meeting with Giorgia Meloni on June 24, 2024 in Rome, Italy. ROME, ITALY - JUNE 24: Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán meets the press at Palazzo Chigi after a meeting with Giorgia Meloni on June 24, 2024 in Rome, Italy. Simona Granati - Corbis/Getty Images Some of these reforms are specific to the Hungarian context, but the reaction to them lays bare an underlying reality: "academic freedom" in the mouths of Western progressives no longer means the freedom to pursue open inquiry. Instead, the concept has been perverted to mean higher-ed grandees' exclusive right to determine who participates in scholarly life. In an Orwellian twist, it means suppressing dissenting views, excluding nonconformists, and protecting institutional monopolies under the pretense of intellectual neutrality. Nowhere has this dynamic become clearer than in the recent controversy surrounding Balázs Orbán, the political director to Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orbán (no relation). Last December, Balázs Orbán successfully defended his PhD dissertation at Eötvös Loránd University. His thesis, focused on constitutional issues attending national sovereignty, was approved by a faculty committee, earned the highest honors, and passed all academic and procedural reviews. But that didn't stop left-wing academics from launching a smear campaign. A German academic blog alleged that Orbán benefited from political favoritism. Critics also alleged plagiarism, then abandoned that charge when no evidence emerged. Dissenting members of the university's doctoral council admitted that the thesis was academically sound but still opposed it on vague ethical grounds, citing Orbán's position in government. One professor called on the university to deny the degree outright, not because of scholarly deficiencies, but because of Orbán's political affiliation. This was no isolated outburst, but part of a broader effort to delegitimize conservative participation in academic life. Even Anna Unger, a legal scholar critical of the government, described the backlash as a coordinated campaign of intimidation. The campaign failed and Orbán earned his degree. But the real lesson of the episode lies in what it revealed. The opposition was not to the content of his work, but to the idea that someone aligned with Hungary's government could be allowed to participate in academic life at all. The critics were not defending scholarly standards, but their exclusive claim to setting those standards. This pattern is not unique to Hungary. American universities famously screen out candidates based on "diversity statements," enforce other ideological litmus tests, and use public funds to support political activism. Institutions that were created to educate citizens have become tools for reshaping them. The Manhattan Statement calls for a new compact, as does model legislation that one of us (Shapiro) helped develop and that's been adopted in many states. Universities should be required to eliminate political loyalty tests, disband race-based bureaucracies, and restore merit as the primary basis for admission, hiring, and promotion. Free speech must be enforced in practice, not just in theory. Institutions that refuse to comply should lose taxpayer funding. These are not radical demands, but overdue correctives necessary for restoring public trust in higher education. Hungary's experience shows that such reforms are both possible and effective. The foundation model has stabilized university finances, increased transparency, and enabled new institutions, such as the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC), to grow. MCC, whose board Orbán chairs—and where both of us have been involved in programming—sponsors research, runs seminars, hosts visiting speakers, and offers fellowships to students with a range of views. It represents a different vision of what academic life can be. That vision is one in which public institutions serve the public, not a self-replicating elite. It's one in which conservatives and classical liberals can participate in scholarly debate without being treated as intruders. It's one in which universities are once again judged by whether they produce knowledge and educate citizens, not whether they reinforce progressive narratives. The university is not above the political community that sustains it. When it ceases to reflect and serve that community and begins to function as an engine of ideological enforcement—not to mention identity-based discrimination—it forfeits its privileged status. In that case, as Hungary's example shows, the state has not only the right, but also the duty, to act. Ilya Shapiro is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute and author of Lawless: The Miseducation of America's Elites. Charles Yockey was formerly a legal policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute who spent the past year living in Budapest as a fellow of the Hungary Foundation. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.
The Hill
15 minutes ago
- The Hill
Aid groups call on Israel to end ‘weaponization' of aid in Gaza
JERUSALEM (AP) — More than 100 nonprofit groups warned Thursday that Israel's rules for aid groups working in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank will block much-needed relief and replace independent organizations with those that serve Israel's political and military agenda — charges that Israel denied. A letter signed by organizations including Oxfam, Doctors Without Borders and CARE accused Israel of 'weaponizing aid' as people starve in war-torn Gaza and using it as a tool to entrench control. The groups were responding to registration rules announced by Israel in March that require organizations to hand over full lists of their donors and Palestinian staff for vetting. The groups contend that doing so could endanger their staff and give Israel broad grounds to block aid if groups are deemed to be 'delegitimizing' the country or supporting boycotts or divestment. The registration measures were 'designed to control independent organizations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian reporting,' they said. The letter added that the rules violate European data privacy regulations, noting that in some cases aid groups have been given only seven days to comply. COGAT, the Israeli military body in charge of humanitarian aid to Gaza, denied the letter's claims. It alleged the groups were being used as cover by Hamas to 'exploit the aid to strengthen its military capabilities and consolidate its control' in Gaza. 'The refusal of some international organizations to provide the information and cooperate with the registration process raises serious concerns about their true intention,' it said in a statement on Thursday. 'The alleged delay in aid entry … occurs only when organizations choose not to meet the basic security requirements intended to prevent Hamas's involvement.' Israel has long claimed that aid groups and United Nations agencies issue biased assessments. The aid groups stressed on Thursday that most of them haven't been able to deliver 'a single truck' of life-saving assistance since Israel implemented a blockade in March. A vast majority of aid isn't reaching civilians in Gaza, where tens of thousands have been killed, most of the population has been displaced and famine looms. U.N. agencies and a small number of aid groups have resumed delivering assistance, but say the number of trucks allowed in remains far from sufficient. Meanwhile, tensions have flared over Israel and the United States backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to serve as the main distributor of aid in the besieged territory. The American contractor, meant to replace the traditional U.N.-led aid distribution system in Gaza, has faced international condemnation after hundreds of Palestinians were killed while trying to get food near its distribution sites. Israel has pressed U.N. agencies to accept military escorts to deliver goods into Gaza, a demand the agencies have largely rejected, citing their commitment to neutrality. The standoff has been the source of competing claims: Israel maintains it allows aid into Gaza that adheres to its rules, while aid groups that have long operated in Gaza decry the amount of life-saving supplies stuck at border crossings. 'Oxfam has over $2.5 million worth of goods that have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel, especially WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) items as well as food,' said Bushra Khalidi, an aid official with Oxfam in Gaza. Aid groups' 'ability to operate may come at the cost of their independence and ability to speak out,' she added.
Boston Globe
15 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Aid groups call on Israel to end ‘weaponization' of aid in Gaza
The groups contend that doing so could endanger their staff and give Israel broad grounds to block aid if groups are deemed to be 'delegitimizing' the country or supporting boycotts or divestment. Advertisement The registration measures were 'designed to control independent organizations, silence advocacy, and censor humanitarian reporting,' they said. The letter added that the rules violate European data privacy regulations, noting that in some cases aid groups have been given only seven days to comply. COGAT, the Israeli military body in charge of humanitarian aid to Gaza, denied the letter's claims. It alleged the groups were being used as cover by Hamas to 'exploit the aid to strengthen its military capabilities and consolidate its control' in Gaza. 'The refusal of some international organizations to provide the information and cooperate with the registration process raises serious concerns about their true intention,' it said in a statement on Thursday. 'The alleged delay in aid entry … occurs only when organizations choose not to meet the basic security requirements intended to prevent Hamas's involvement.' Advertisement Israel has long claimed that aid groups and United Nations agencies issue biased assessments. The aid groups stressed on Thursday that most of them haven't been able to deliver 'a single truck' of life-saving assistance since Israel implemented a blockade in March. A vast majority of aid isn't reaching civilians in Gaza, where tens of thousands have been killed, most of the population has been displaced and famine looms. U.N. agencies and a small number of aid groups have resumed delivering assistance, but say the number of trucks allowed in remains far from sufficient. Meanwhile, tensions have flared over Israel and the United States backing the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to serve as the main distributor of aid in the besieged territory. The American contractor, meant to replace the traditional U.N.-led aid distribution system in Gaza, has faced international condemnation after hundreds of Palestinians were killed while trying to get food near its distribution sites. Israel has pressed U.N. agencies to accept military escorts to deliver goods into Gaza, a demand the agencies have largely rejected, citing their commitment to neutrality. The standoff has been the source of competing claims: Israel maintains it allows aid into Gaza that adheres to its rules, while aid groups that have long operated in Gaza decry the amount of life-saving supplies stuck at border crossings. 'Oxfam has over $2.5 million worth of goods that have been rejected from entering Gaza by Israel, especially WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene) items as well as food,' said Bushra Khalidi, an aid official with Oxfam in Gaza. Aid groups' 'ability to operate may come at the cost of their independence and ability to speak out,' she added. Advertisement
