McCarthy launching public affairs firm with political allies
Former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) is launching a public affairs firm with several of his political allies following his departure from Congress.
Watchtower Strategy will be a 'full-service public affairs firm' that specializes in strategy, advocacy and strategic communications, the group said in a release Tuesday.
McCarthy will be joined at the firm by former White House communications aide Cliff Sims; Arthur Schwartz, an ally of Vice President Vance's; and GOP allies Jeff Miller, Dan Conston and Brian O. Walsh.
'The launch of Watchtower Strategy comes at a pivotal and promising moment for our country,' McCarthy said in a statement. 'Navigating this moment can be both and opportunity and a challenge.'
'The Watchtower team is trust, tested, and built for success,' he continued.
McCarthy left Congress in late 2023 after being ousted from the Speakership by far-right conservatives. He's been at odds with the conservatives in his party and remained active in the media since his departure from the House.
He will serve as the firm's chair, the group said.
Conston, the group's CEO, said in the release that they are in a position to provide 'sound counsel' and engage in some of Washington's biggest fights.
The group argued their firm is able to offer CEOs and executives their unique experience over the upcoming policy and reform debates.
'With decades of experience at the highest levels of politics and government, Watchtower Strategy's leadership knows how to get things done,' they wrote. 'The firm is built to help clients navigate Washington's toughest challenges—whether shaping policy outcomes, managing high-stakes crises, or guiding top executives through complex decisions.'
The firm won't be engaged in lobbying, according to Punchbowl News.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
NY lawmaker lambastes failed commemoration of Oct 7 attack, as Dem leadership accused of 'antisemitism'
The New York assemblyman behind an effort to formally commemorate the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attack in Israel lambasted leadership for tanking what was supposed to be a "poignant" bill remembering the tragedy. Assemblyman Lester Chang, R-Brooklyn – one of the few GOP members from New York City in the 103-47 Democratic-majority chamber – said he had been working on a resolution for New York state to officially remember the terror attack since hostage negotiations began a year ago. "I'm a Navy veteran of 24 years and I did a tour in Afghanistan. So I understand what war is all about," said Chang. "I've seen atrocities out there." Once American figures like then-candidate Donald Trump began helping hostage negotiations, Chang said he directed his staff to craft a message – which he said took more than a month of back-and-forth to make sure it was "balanced" and did not have a partisan streak. "We submitted it in January, as a resolution, and it was rejected… because [leadership] said it was 'controversial,'" Chang said. "We were astounded but not surprised. So we converted it to a bill," he said, adding that, in the end, a bill would be better because a resolution only commemorates an event for that year, while a bill would codify the remembrance for eternity. With a handful of Democratic co-sponsors, Chang and colleagues believed they had the right balance to attempt to put it up for a vote, but as the New York Post reported, it was reportedly ultimately blocked by House Speaker Carl Heastie, D-Bronx, and other top Democrats. Chang said the bill, destined for the smaller governmental operations committee, was redirected to the larger Ways and Means committee, and that four members were "switched out." The top Republican on that panel, Assemblyman Ed Ra, told the New York Post that remembering Oct. 7 and/or combating antisemitism should never be "political." Republican Assemblyman Ari Brown, who, like Ra, represents Long Island, accused Albany Democrats of "veiled antisemitism," telling the Post the legislature is "rotten" with it. The assembly also tanked a resolution from Brown that complimented Chang's bill. Compounding that was, as Chang described, no GOP bills have been successfully put through the process at all this session. "Having me as a Republican [sponsor] – that would [procedurally] choke them – not because of me, the person, but as a member of that party." Chang said he would just as soon "give this bill to a Democrat" to sponsor if it meant commemorating the Oct. 7 attack. He added that, as a person of Chinese ancestry who represents largely Asian and Italian Bensonhurst, he has no religious horse in the race. "That should make it more poignant as a non-Jewish person pushing this bill in a mostly Christian and Buddhist district," he said. At least seven Democrats did come out in support of the Oct. 7 remembrance legislation, all of whom hail from New York City. Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt, R-Niagara Falls, echoed Chang's concerns in comments to Fox News Digital. "Many New Yorkers had loved ones injured or worse in the terror attacks in Israel on Oct. 7," Ortt said. "The least we can do is commemorate this tragic day." "Instead of taking commonsense action, Albany Democrats would rather play politics, and have time and again refused to defend our Jewish brothers and sisters." Fox News Digital reached out to Heastie for comment and response to the allegations but did not hear back.
Time Magazine
16 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Parents Should Know About the $1,000 ‘Trump Accounts' for Babies
Almost every baby born in America would get a $1,000 investment account from the government under a program President Donald Trump promoted on Monday. 'This is a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life,' Trump said at a roundtable at the White House with top business executives. Dubbed 'Trump Accounts' by the Administration, the proposal is a provision in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' the sweeping tax and spending package now making its way through Congress. The bill passed the House with the provision included, but the package has faced resistance in the Senate. If the legislation passes, the proposed program would create accounts for children born as early as the beginning of this year. Here's what parents should know about the program. What are 'Trump Accounts'? The 'Trump Accounts' created for newborns under the program would be tax-deferred investment accounts privately held by children's guardians. The government would make a one-time contribution of $1,000 to each account, according to the White House. The accounts would then 'track a stock index and allow for additional private contributions of up to $5,000 per year,' the White House said. The program 'will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning,' the White House said. Who would be eligible? The accounts would be available for children born in the country after Dec. 31, 2024 and before Jan. 1, 2029. In order to open an account, at least one of the child's parents or guardians would need to have a Social Security number with the authorization to work in the U.S., The Washington Post reported. How would withdrawing the money work? At the age of 18, the child would be able to withdraw up to half of the money in the account, according to Forbes. When they turn 25, they would be able to access the full account balance for certain purposes, such as small business loans and higher education. Only when the account beneficiary turns 30 would they gain full control of all the funds for any purpose. The Milken Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, estimated in a report released in March that an initial government grant of $1,000 invested in a broad-based equity index fund of U.S. companies would, on average, grow to $8,000 after 20 years, $69,000 after 40 years, and $574,000 after 60 years. How much would the program cost? Lawmakers have not shared a projected cost for Trump Accounts. But the Post estimated that, since there are roughly 3.6 million babies born in the country each year, the cost of the program could be greater than $3 billion a year. What would the impact of the program be? Some economists and policy experts have expressed concern that the program could exacerbate economic inequality. Trump Accounts are similar to 'baby bond' programs that operate in California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. But those state programs were intended to minimize the wealth gap by offering support for children from low-income households, whereas the Trump program would be available to people regardless of their socioeconomic status. As a result, experts have noted that families from higher income households would be able to contribute more to the account, on top of the initial $1,000, and therefore have more funds accumulated in the account. Some financial experts have also voiced skepticism of the program, saying the benefits are small compared to other tax-shielded savings options, such as 529 college savings accounts. Others have pointed out that the proposal is coming at the same time that Republican lawmakers are proposing significant cuts to social safety net programs, such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. 'Feel like low-income families would prefer their assistance buying groceries not get cut, but that's just me,' Brendan Duke—the senior director for federal budget policy at the nonpartisan research and policy institute, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities— said in a post on X, in response to a post about Trump Accounts.
Politico
17 minutes ago
- Politico
House Republicans warn Thune over megabill ‘budget gimmicks'
Thirty-eight House Republicans are warning Senate leaders against using 'budget gimmicks' as they revise President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' adding a new red line as GOP lawmakers clash over the scope of new tax cuts. The Republicans, led by House Budget Vice Chair Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), told Senate Majority Leader John Thune in a letter Tuesday that 'that any additional tax cuts' in the party's megabill 'must be matched dollar for-dollar by real, enforceable spending reductions.' House lawmakers who signed the letter include Republican Conference Vice Chair Blake Moore of Utah, House Budget Chair Jodey Arrington of Texas and House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris of Maryland. It's the latest power play orchestrated by Smucker, who in May successfully mobilized 32 colleagues to compel House leadership to commit to finding additional spending cuts to meet overarching deficit reduction targets — if Republicans also enact additional tax cuts in their larger domestic policy package. Smucker's new letter, obtained first by POLITICO, is now seeking to squeeze the other chamber as Thune and his top lieutenants are scrambling to strike a balance between making changes to the House-passed product that senators can support without losing the necessary votes across the Capitol. 'We recognize the Senate will have its own say to make changes to the bill, and we welcome amendments that increase verifiable savings and make the overall package even more sustainable,' the House Republicans wrote in their letter, sent Tuesday to Thune. 'Additional spending reduction strengthens the bill and the nation alike. What cannot change is the architecture established by the House framework.' Specifically, Smucker and his allies want Thune to adhere to the same structure of the House bill, while also disavowing accounting tactics like 'timing shifts' to artificially reduce the cost of the bill and instead find 'genuine savings.' 'Pairing tax relief with spending restraint preserves investor confidence, reins in interest costs, and maximizes economic growth from the bill,' the members said. In both the House and the Senate, Republican leaders can only lose three votes and still pass the measure along party lines.
