Race heats up to replace Connolly on powerful Oversight panel
The race to become the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee is heating up — and getting crowded.
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) this week threw her hat into the ring to replace the late-Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who died last month of esophageal cancer, making her the fourth member of the committee — and the second member of the Congressional Black Caucus — to vie for the seat.
She joins Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) and Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who all announced their bids last week.
Not only is the list unusually long for such a race, but it features two veteran septuagenarians and two congressional newcomers who are decades younger — setting the stage for another tense debate over the seniority system Democrats have favored for generations, but has come under increasing scrutiny in an era when the party's popularity is well underwater.
'It's usually two, every now and then three [candidates]. I'd have to go back a while to remember four horses trying to get out of the gate at the same time,' Mfume acknowledged.
'We've got some bright young members, some very distinguished and wise older members, and I think there's got to be a melding of those age groups and those thoughts and those priorities,' he continued. 'Because at the end of the day, we'll all either win together or we'll lose together.'
At 76 years old, Mfume is the oldest candidate in the race, but not the most senior on the committee. That distinction goes to Lynch, 70, who has served as the interim ranking member since Connolly stepped back from the role in April.
The elder statesmen are citing their long experience as an asset, while also vowing to tap the unique strengths of the newer members of the committee, who tend to have a better finger on the pulse of digital outreach and social media.
'I fully appreciate that the effectiveness of our Committee in presenting the truth to the American people is dependent on our ability to maximize and elevate the diversity of talent within our Democratic membership,' Lynch, a former ironworker and union leader, wrote recently to his fellow Democrats.
Mfume, a former head of the NAACP, agreed, saying Democrats can't be effective without a united approach.
'It's important for the new ranking member to gather all the Democrats together on that committee, close the door and figure out what the agenda is going forward as a team,' he said.
But the younger challengers see the Oversight vacancy as a rare opportunity to reimagine the Democratic brand and revive the party's image with new faces and fresh ideas.
'For me, it's about, how do we excite the base?' said Crockett, 44. 'And to be perfectly honest — while I can't put a poll in the field fast enough and get some answers — I can tell you that, tangentially, looking at the entire field, I am the type of member that potentially will inject a little bit of that energy that we're missing right now for our base. And I think that we have to take that into consideration.'
Democratic leaders are well aware of the generational tensions, and are making clear their intent to stand aside and allow the process to play itself out ahead of a vote of the full caucus, which is scheduled for June 24.
'As we've said before, seniority and length of tenure is always a factor, but it is one of many factors that members consider,' Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, told reporters this week. 'Our job is to just make sure that it's done in a fair way.'
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), a prominent member of the CBC, downplayed the notion that the race — which features two CBC members in Mfume and Crockett — might lead to bad blood within the group. He noted that he had defeated former Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), who had once headed the CBC, for the Caucus chair position in 2018, and she remains 'a great friend and colleague.'
'Leadership, of course, remains aggressively neutral,' Jeffries added. 'We don't put our thumb on the scale.'
With subpoena power and broad jurisdiction over virtually every facet of the federal government, the Oversight Committee ranks among Capitol Hill's most potent panels, making the ranking member spot a highly coveted position for ambitious lawmakers seeking a new level of national prominence. That's especially the case for the minority Democrats this year, when they're scrambling for an effective strategy to combat the norm-smashing actions of President Trump, who has used the early months of his second administration to dismantle many of the federal institutions the Democrats hold dear.
Connolly, 75, in seeking the spot after last November's elections, had run into the same questions about age, image and passing the torch that are being raised now. He dismissed those concerns, citing a track-record of fierce advocacy for democratic traditions and the federal workers Trump has sought to purge. And he easily won the closed-ballot contest despite facing a formidable challenger in Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), 35, an icon of the left with a huge national following.
Ocasio-Cortez has since left the Oversight Committee, jumping to the powerful Energy and Commerce panel in January, and declined a bid to replace Connolly.
Garcia, 47, was among the Oversight members who had waited to learn Ocasio-Cortez's intentions before announcing his own. With her out of the race, he quickly jumped in, touting his experience as the former mayor of Long Beach and his position in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He's also vowing to help the party disseminate its message more effectively with modern-age tools.
'Democrats are the party of working families — but we must meet people where they are,' he wrote in his pitch to colleagues. 'Traditional media isn't enough — to drive real policy wins, we must break through the noise, capture public attention, and energize people to act.'
Crockett delivered a similar pitch, stressing the need for Democrats to highlight wins and make information accessible to voters. But she also noted the role is more than just communications.
'At the end of the day, I am a trial lawyer,' she said, noting her years as a public defender and her familiarity in 'dealing with criminals.' At the mention of the word, her mind turned to Trump.
'To be perfectly honest, there's probably only one person that the president does not want to head up Oversight, and I can tell you that it's me,' Crockett said.
'That alone should actually — hopefully — get my colleagues to say that's probably the one that we want, because I am the one that he's afraid of.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AP PHOTOS: Life in Iran's capital, Tehran, as high-stakes nuclear negotiations with the US go on
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — As I prepared to take a photograph of an anti-American mural outside of the former U.S. Embassy in Iran's capital recently, a passerby called out to me. 'Take any picture you like, they'll remove all of them later,' the man said. It was a telling moment as the murals have long been a feature of the U.S. Embassy compound, which has been held and run by Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard as a cultural center since the 1979 student-led hostage crisis there destroyed ties between Iran and the United States. Today, Iran is talking to America about a possible diplomatic deal over its nuclear program and the idea of ties between the West and the outside world again seems possible, though difficult. That's especially true after President Donald Trump's new travel ban includes Iran once more. The thing about taking pictures and working as a photojournalist in Tehran, my hometown, is that Iranians will come up to you in the street and tell you what they think. And sometimes, even when they won't say something out loud, I'll see it in the images I capture. That's particularly true with the gradual change we have seen in how women dress, whether in ancient corridors of Tehran's Grand Bazaar or in the tony streets of northern Tehran. Women are forgoing the mandatory hijab , or headscarf, even as hard-liners try to pressure a renewed enforcement of the law against what they call the "Western Cultural Invasion.' The government of reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian has meanwhile been urging restraint by police and others over the hijab. There are enough problems right now in Iran is their thought, particularly as Iran's economy remains in dire straits. U.S. sanctions have decimated it. Iran's rial currency has plummeted in recent years. That economic hardship has made people more distrustful of the country's theocracy. And so people continue their daily lives in Tehran as they wait for any news after five rounds of talks so far between Iran and the U.S. You can see it in my photos. A carpet-seller waits to sell his wares in a darkened bazaar corner. Women without hijabs smoke shisha, or water-pipe tobacco. Another woman, wearing an all-black, all-encompassing chador, prays in a mosque's courtyard. It can all appear contradictory, but that's life here. Tehran, home to some 10 million people, is the ever-growing beating heart of Iran. And as it awaits the results of the negotiations, it can feel like it is skipping beats in anticipation. ___ See more AP photography at
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to the US, charged with transporting people in the country illegally
WASHINGTON (AP) — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador became a political flashpoint in the Trump administration's stepped-up immigration enforcement, was returned to the United States on Friday to face criminal charges related to what the Trump administration said was a large human smuggling operation that brought immigrants into the country illegally. His abrupt release from El Salvador closes one chapter and opens another in a saga that yielded a remarkable, months-long standoff between Trump officials and the courts over a deportation that officials initially acknowledged was done in error but then continued to stand behind in apparent defiance of orders by judges to facilitate his return to the U.S. The development occurred after U.S. officials presented El Salvador President Nayib Bukele with an arrest warrant for federal charges in Tennessee accusing Abrego Garcia of playing a key role in smuggling immigrants into the country for money. He is expected to be prosecuted in the U.S. and, if convicted, will be returned to his home country of El Salvador at the conclusion of the case, officials said Friday. 'This is what American justice looks like,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in announcing Abrego Garcia's return and the unsealing of a grand jury indictment. Abrego Garcia's attorneys called the case 'baseless." 'There's no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said. Federal Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee, determined that Abrego Garcia will be held in custody until at least next Friday, when there will be an arraignment and detention hearing. Abrego Garcia appeared in court wearing a short-sleeved, white, button-down shirt. When asked if he understood the charges, he told the judge: 'Sí. Lo entiendo.' An interpreter then said: 'Yes. I understand.' Democrats and immigrant rights group had pressed for Abrego Garcia's release, with several lawmakers — including Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, where Abrego Garcia had lived for years — even traveling to El Salvador to visit him. A federal judge had ordered him to be returned in April and the Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by directing the government to work to bring him back. But the news that Abrego Garcia, who had an immigration court order preventing his deportation to his native country over fears he would face persecution from local gangs, was being brought back for the purpose of prosecution was greeted with dismay by his lawyers. Abrego Garcia's lawyer calls charges 'preposterous' 'This administration ... instead of simply admitting their mistake, they'll stop at nothing at all, including some of the most preposterous charges imageable," Sandoval-Moshenberg said. Ama Frimpong, legal director with the group CASA, said Abrego Garcia's family has mixed emotions about his return to the U.S. 'Let him talk to his wife. Let him talk to his children. This family has suffered enough,' she said. Sandoval-Moshenberg said Abrego Garcia is one of the first, if not the first, person released from a notorious prison in El Salvador, though he was later imprisoned at another facility. 'So it's going to be very interesting to hear what he has to say about the way in which he was treated,' the attorney said. The indictment, filed last month and unsealed Friday, lays out a string of allegations that date back to 2016 but are only being disclosed now, nearly three months after Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported and following the Trump administration's repeated claims that he is a criminal. It accuses him of smuggling throughout the U.S. thousands of people living in the country illegally, including members of the violent MS-13 gang, from Central America and abusing women he was transporting. A co-conspirator also alleged that he participated in the killing of a gang member's mother in El Salvador, prosecutors wrote in papers urging the judge to keep him behind bars while he awaits trial. The indictment does not charge him in connection with that allegation. 'Later, as part of his immigration proceedings in the United States, the defendant claimed he could not return to El Salvador because he was in fear of retribution from the 18th Street gang,' the detention memo states. 'While partially true — the defendant, according to the information received by the Government, was in fear of retaliation by the 18th Street gang — the underlying reason for the retaliation was the defendant's own actions in participating in the murder of a rival 18th Street gang member's mother," prosecutors wrote. The charges stem from a 2022 vehicle stop in which the Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected him of human trafficking. A report released by the Department of Homeland Security in April states that none of the people in the vehicle had luggage, while they listed the same address as Abrego Garcia. Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime, while the officers allowed him to drive on with only a warning about an expired driver's license, according to the DHS report. The report said he was traveling from Texas to Maryland, via Missouri, to bring in people to perform construction work. In response to the report's release in April, Abrego Garcia's wife said in a statement that he sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, 'so it's entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle. He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing.' Immigrant rights advocates vs. the Trump administration Abrego Garcia's background and personal life have been a source of dispute and contested facts. Immigrant rights advocates have cast his arrest as emblematic of an administration whose deportation policy is haphazard and error-prone, while Trump officials have pointed to prior interactions with police and described him as a gang member who fits the mold they are determined to expel from the country. Abrego Garcia lived in the U.S. for roughly 14 years, during which he worked construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities, according to court records. Trump administration officials said he was deported based on a 2019 accusation from Maryland police that he was an MS-13 gang member. Abrego Garcia denied the allegation and was never charged with a crime, his attorneys said. A U.S. immigration judge subsequently shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs. The Trump administration deported him there in March, later describing the mistake as 'an administrative error' but insisting he was in MS-13. Even if Abrego Garcia is convicted of the charges announced Friday, the Trump administration would still have to return to a U.S. immigration court if it wanted to deport him to El Salvador, Sandoval-Moshenberg said. He also expects the case in Maryland to continue as the federal judge there considers whether the administration obeyed her orders to return him. Abrego Garcia's return comes days after the Trump administration complied with a court order to return a Guatemalan man deported to Mexico despite his fears of being harmed there. The man, identified in court papers as O.C.G, was the first person known to have been returned to U.S. custody after deportation since the start of President Donald Trump's second term. ___ Associated Press reporter Travis Loller in Nashville, Tennessee, contributed to this report. Eric Tucker, Alanna Durkin Richer, Lindsay Whitehurst And Ben Finley, The Associated Press
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court hands DOGE big wins in Social Security, records cases
The Supreme Court on Friday handed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) two major victories in its expanding legal battle over drastic efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy. In two separate emergency rulings issued simultaneously, the court lifted a block on DOGE personnel accessing sensitive Social Security Administration (SSA) systems and wiped a ruling forcing DOGE to turn over discovery in a records lawsuit. Both rulings appeared to be along the Supreme Court's ideological lines, with the court's three Democratic-appointed justices publicly dissenting. The decisions come as President Trump's relationship with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk, the face of DOGE for months, publicly imploded Thursday. His administration continues to defend DOGE's work in the courts. In the Social Security case, the justices lifted a Maryland-based federal judge's order blocking DOGE from snooping around the SSA's systems that contain personally identifiable information, including Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, bank data, and earnings history. The majority did not explain the reasoning, only saying that the 'SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency record' under the present circumstances. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the Trump administration hadn't met the court's high bar for emergency relief, accusing her colleagues of 'jettisoning careful judicial decisionmaking.' 'The Court is thereby, unfortunately, suggesting that what would be an extraordinary request for everyone else is nothing more than an ordinary day on the docket for this Administration,' Jackson wrote. 'I would proceed without fear or favor to require DOGE and the Government to do what all other litigants must do to secure a stay from this Court,' she continued. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented, but she did not join the duo's opinion. The challenge to DOGE's ability to poke around in the SSA's systems came from a coalition of government unions, backed by the left-leaning legal group Democracy Forward, that claimed DOGE's unfettered access to the sensitive data ran afoul of privacy laws and the SSA's own rules and regulations. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order allowed the SSA to provide DOGE with access to redacted or anonymized data and records, but it required DOGE agents to receive the necessary training for those systems. She wrote that DOGE's efforts to slim down the federal bureaucracy weren't the problem at hand, but rather 'how they want to do the work.' Hollander is an appointee of former President Obama. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had argued that her preliminary injunction undermined DOGE's mission to streamline and modernize the government while rooting out waste and fraud. He criticized the nationwide relief as a 'now-familiar theme,' alluding to several Justice Department emergency appeals challenging universal injunctions — a practice the justices heard arguments about last month in the administration's appeal of an order blocking Trump's bid to narrow birthright citizenship. 'The government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs,' Sauer wrote in the government's emergency application. The Supreme Court's second emergency decision stems from a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against DOGE. The government had asked the justices to overturn a judge's order allowing limited discovery into whether DOGE is an 'agency,' which would dictate whether it's subject to FOIA requests. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, an appointee of Obama, directed the release of all 'recommendations' DOGE made to various federal agencies, in addition to other internal documents. He also ordered a deposition of acting DOGE Administrator Amy Gleason. By agreeing to wipe that order, the Supreme Court's decision marks a major victory for the Trump administration's efforts to keep DOGE's inner workings behind the veil. The majority said Cooper's order was 'not appropriately tailored' to whether DOGE was an agency. 'Furthermore, separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal Executive Branch communications,' the court wrote in its unsigned ruling. The three Democratic-appointed justices again publicly dissented, but they didn't offer an explanation. Sauer argued that DOGE is a 'presidential advisory body' housed within the Executive Office of the President — not an agency. He said that Cooper's order would 'significantly distract' from DOGE's mission to identify and eliminate 'fraud, waste and abuse' within the federal government, calling the discovery ordered 'extraordinarily overbroad and intrusive.' 'That order turns FOIA on its head,' Sauer claimed, 'effectively giving respondent a win on the merits of its FOIA suit under the guise of figuring out whether FOIA even applies.' The legal challenge was mounted by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which argued that the public has a right to know about DOGE's 'secretive operations.' It is one of many designed to test whether DOGE must respond to FOIA requests. Several legal battles linked to DOGE have reached the Supreme Court, but these two cases are the first where DOGE is a respondent. Updated at 5:19 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
