No, Adam Wainwright is not running for U.S. Congress anytime soon
ST. LOUIS – Adam Wainwright is a man of many hats: A father of five, a recently-retired St. Louis Cardinals pitcher, a country music artist and an occasional analyst on MLB broadcasts.
One title he won't be adding soon? A Missouri Congressman.
FOX 2 has learned that Wainwright is not pursuing a run for political office in the foreseeable future, despite recent speculation.
Earlier this week, a report from InsideElections.com claimed that Wainwright had been 'recruited' to challenge Missouri U.S. Rep Ann Wagner for political office. Wagner, a U.S. Congresswoman of the Republican party, has served in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District since 2013.
The InsideElections.com report referenced an apparent poll question from Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling, which was reportedly discussed in a Cardinals subreddit post.
According to that post, the poll included questions such as 'Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Adam Wainwright?' and 'If the candidates for Congress next time were Republican Ann Wagner and Democrat Adam Wainwright, who would you vote for?' (The poll did not identify Wainwright with a particular political party in its phrasing.)
The online chatter led some to believe that Wainwright might seriously be considering a campaign for a political office. FOX 2 reached out to multiple sources to verify information, and ultimately heard directly from Wainwright.
On Thursday, Wainwright shared the following statement with FOX 2 Sports Director Martin Kilcoyne:
'It was an honor to be thought of in regards to the upcoming congressional election in Missouri. St. Louis has been home to me and my family for almost 2 decades and I couldn't have picked a better place to play the game that I love or raise a family.
'With 5 kids going 5 different ways everyday, Jenny and I stay incredibly busy as it is, not to mention the broadcast schedule with Fox and concert dates thrown in. Right now I would not be able to spend the time needed to serve Missouri like they deserve, but will be praying for great candidates on both sides of the aisle to run so Missourians have great choices for their future.
'I appreciate the consideration and putting all the well-written political jargon aside… That was cool for me and very encouraging that lots of people thought of me that way. Pretty neat stuff.'
Wainwright's statement did not confirm whether any political group approached him directly or attempted to 'recruit' him for political office. He made clear he would not be running for political office in the upcoming election cycle.
Wagner's seat is next up for election in November 2026.
And based on Wainwright's statement to FOX 2, it's unclear whether he aspires to run for any political office.
According to Public Policy Polling's website, the organization 'conducts surveys for politicians and political organizations, unions, consultants, and businesses' and formed in 2001 'to measure and track public opinion.'
Public Policy Polling's website does not explicitly explain its methodology behind questions asked in surveys. Though its polling methods may include hypothetical high-profile matchups as a way to measure incumbent support, name recognition or voter preferences. That could explain why Wainwright, a well-known St. Louis figure with no previous background in political offices, may have been included in polling.
FOX 2 reached out to Public Policy Polling for comment on the matter, but our requests have not been returned as of this story's publication.
NOTE: Video is from FOX 2's August 2024 coverage of Wainwright taking on MLB broadcast analyst duties, unrelated to this story.
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
Chicago Tribune
9 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Measure before Gov. JB Pritzker would streamline firearms ID process for low-level gun offenders
On the final day of the spring legislative session, the Democrat-led Illinois General Assembly passed a measure intended to make it easier for people who have been arrested for carrying guns illegally to obtain a state firearm permit so they would be allowed to own firearms. The bipartisan bill marked a rare instance in which Democrats and Republicans largely agreed on a measure involving guns. Democrats have been criticized by the GOP for promoting measures that restrict the flow of guns to the point where they negatively affect law-abiding gun owners. But Democrats say this legislation, which awaits Gov. JB Pritzker's signature, encourages the legal ownership of firearms while still emphasizing accountability. 'Getting guns off the streets, yes, absolutely, to me that means stopping the flow of illegal weapons into our streets. That means keeping weapons out of the hands of people who wish to do harm,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who supports the bill. 'That doesn't mean preventing people from owning a tool that is used for both personal protection and sport.' The legislation applies to participants in diversion programs that serve as alternatives to prosecution. Cook County's Democratic state's attorney, Eileen O'Neill Burke, pushed legislators to expand the programs to include a more streamlined opportunity for their participants to obtain a firearm owner's identification, or FOID, card — the form required by the Illinois State Police for state residents to be allowed to legally own guns. The legislation would apply to people eligible for placement in the diversion programs and charged with gun crimes designated as Class 4 felonies, offenses that can carry one-to-three-year prison sentences but are the least severe level of felonies. Under the measure, a person charged with those low-level gun felonies would be able to apply for a FOID card once receiving a court order attesting to their completion of a diversion program, enabling the state police to perform a background check as part of the process of granting them the card. Once the felony case is officially dropped, the state police would grant that individual a FOID card if they pass the background check, the measure would allow. As it stands now, state police can't start the process for someone requesting a FOID card until their felony case is dropped, which may not be until well after the applicant completes the diversion program. The legislation is aimed at helping people like Shamyia Phillips, who was arrested in November 2023 on a felony gun charge. When police stopped her in a car that she said had been reported stolen, she had a handgun in her purse that she said she purchased legally in Texas, an open-carry state where she lived for a time. Unaware of Illinois' gun laws, she didn't have a FOID card or concealed carry license. 'It was just to protect me and my daughter,' said Phillips, a 26-year-old single mother. 'I wasn't using it to harm anyone or anything.' Unemployed at the time, Phillips said she entered a diversion program that helped her get a job and led to the charges being dropped. Seeking work in the security field, she plans to apply for a FOID card and concealed carry license. During a visit to the Tribune Editorial Board earlier this month, O'Neill Burke said one factor motivating the legislation was that during the COVID-19 pandemic, there were major delays for people applying for FOID cards through the state police. At the same time a lot of people acquired guns illegally because of fears stoked by a nationwide rise in violent crime. 'So, we were putting people in a catch-22,' said O'Neill Burke, who took office at the end of last year. 'Suddenly we had this large population of otherwise law-abiding people who are now charged with a Class 4 felony.' The solution, she said, is part of her office's balanced approach toward gun prosecutions: Prioritizing gun cases that involve the use of 'switches,' rapid-fire devices that can convert semiautomatic guns to fully automatic use, while at the same time ensuring that others entitled to have firearms are following the law. 'It's two very different approaches to gun crimes because they're treated very differently under the law,' O'Neill Burke said. 'The goal is to get as many people into compliance with the regulation as possible, while at the same time addressing the very real threat that automatic weapons pose.' More than 2.4 million Illinoisans have FOID cards. The state police has 20 employees processing FOID applications while additional employees handle applications for concealed carry licenses, which allow for a gun owner to carry a firearm outdoors. The state police said the same participants in diversion programming who may be eligible for a FOID may also acquire a CCL, though the qualifications are different. The state police said system improvements over the years have brought down processing times for new FOID applications to an average of about 12 days. During the pandemic, staffing ranged between 17 and 28 employees dedicated to FOID card application processing, in addition to temporary contractors, the state police said. In 2020, the first year of the pandemic, the state police processed 190,693 new FOID applications with an average processing time of 83 days, the state police said. The following year, 292,523 new FOID applications were processed. The final amendment of the diversion program legislation passed through the Senate by a 55-0 vote on May 31, the final scheduled day of session. The bill was approved in the House on May 23 by a vote of 97-11. When state Sen. Elgie Sims presented the final amendment on the Senate floor on May 31, he said there was a 'unique set of proponents to the bill.' In addition to the Cook County state's attorney's office, those proponents included the Cook County public defender's office, Illinois State's Attorneys Association, Illinois State Rifle Association and Gun Violence Prevention PAC. Sims, the bill's main Senate sponsor, said in an interview that the legislation is meant to help people caught up in the criminal justice system for nonviolent gun infractions so they don't get arrested again. 'We're trying to make sure that for somebody who might have a firearm in their possession, but they've gone through the process, they've taken the steps to atone for the mistake (so) that they are able to get their FOID card,' the Chicago Democrat said. 'It was to encourage people to be law-abiding gun owners.' Among other supporters of the bill was the Gun Violence Prevention PAC, which works to stem gun violence and illegal gun access. John Schmidt, an executive board member of the group, said there's room for a balanced approach within firearm policies to respect the rights of people wanting to own a gun legally. 'G-PAC works to keep illegal guns out of the hands of unqualified owners. But we have no trouble making common ground to support laws that enable people who successfully complete diversion programs to resume their right like other citizens to own lawful guns,' said Schmidt, a former U.S. associate attorney general. Republican legislators have long accused the Democratic majority of infringing on the Second Amendment right to bear arms through laws such as the 2023 assault weapons ban, which remains under court challenge. In the new gun bill, many GOP lawmakers supported the Democrats' legislative fix around diversion programming and FOID cards. Senate Republican leader John Curran, a former assistant Cook County state's attorney, agreed with Sims' rationale behind it. 'Ultimately, if someone's going to possess a gun again down the road, they should have a FOID in Illinois. It's the law of the land. So, we should encourage that behavior. This bill does,' said Curran, of Downers Grove. State Rep. John Cabello of Machesney Park was one of 11 House members to vote against the new legislation. A Republican who has worked as a police detective, he said he's been supportive of diversion programs but was skeptical of the Democrats' motivation for this legislation. 'What they're doing in Springfield, is they take baby steps to what their final goal is. What is their final goal? Is their final goal to make sure that we can't charge felons with possession of a (gun) any longer?' Cabello said. The legislation would apply to various diversion programs for people arrested on Class 4 felony gun charges, including Cook County prosecutors' first-time weapon offense program. People charged with such crimes are eligible for the diversion program only if they've gotten permission from a judge, with the consent of the state's attorney. O'Neill Burke's office said Cook County had roughly 2,800 Class 4 felony gun cases last year of which defendants in some 1,200 were put in gun diversion programs, most of them in the first-time weapon offense program. The program was initially established by the General Assembly in 2018 as a pilot and limited to defendants under 21, while also being part of a law allowing for penalty enhancements for certain people convicted of repeatedly carrying illegal firearms. But in the last several years, especially with the makeup of the General Assembly becoming more progressive, lawmakers let the penalty enhancement provisions expire, made the diversion program permanent and removed its age restriction. Participation in the program could last from six months to two years, according to the law, and to stay in the program, the defendant must not break any laws or use any guns or other weapons. The law doesn't allow someone in the program if they've been arrested for a felony gun crime that was committed during the commission of a violent offense; if they've been previously convicted or placed on probation or conditional discharge for any violent crime; if they've completed the program in the past; or if they have an existing order of protection issued against them. Cook County Public Defender Sharone R. Mitchell Jr. said the legislation's emphasis on obtaining FOID cards is an acknowledgement by the government that the people who often get in trouble for illegal gun possession are not dangerous criminals. But if they have a blemish on their record like a Class 4 felony, that could hurt their chances to get a job and potentially be deprived of other opportunities. But Mitchell says many people might not acquire FOID cards or CCLs for a host of reasons, including ignorance of the law or a criminal conviction from decades ago preventing them from owning a gun. 'People's baseline need is to keep themselves safe and some individuals have made the decision in our community that carrying a gun is their only path toward that safety,' he said. 'People are making really tough decisions based upon safety.' Mitchell couldn't say whether the new legislation would increase awareness for the public to obtain FOID cards but said his office is hopeful the law helps change how illegal gun possession offenses are treated in the criminal justice system. 'Our hope is that this law is a first step, but that we take a more informed and measured approach to all gun possession cases,' he said.
Chicago Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Following ICE subpoena, Chicago city clerk suspending online municipal ID program portal
The Chicago city clerk is suspending the online application portal to a municipal ID program recently subpoenaed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the latest defense from local officials grappling with the threat of mass deportations under Republican President Donald Trump. Clerk Anna Valencia announced Friday that her office would take the CityKey online portal offline Friday night, a week after the Tribune reported that ICE subpoenaed her office for the personal information of applicants to the program that is often used by noncitizens. The clerk said that while CityKey's in-person events — which do not leave behind a written trail that identifies applicants — will not be affected, her office decided to halt online applications after other elected officials and community groups expressed concern. 'We did hear, 'Let's pause the online platform temporarily as we take a pulse and evaluate what's happening,'' Valencia said during an interview with the Tribune. 'We're going to assess what's happening daily and where the climate is, and if we feel we are in a different place, we can easily turn the online platform back on, but we are not going anywhere.' The April 17 subpoena from ICE, which Mayor Brandon Johnson's administration has vowed to resist, represents a new frontier in the president's immigration crackdown that has placed Chicago squarely in his crosshairs. But for those familiar with CityKey, news of the federal government's unprecedented hunt for applicants' personal information raised the question of why there were records to subpoena in the first place. When the municipal ID launched in 2017 under Valencia and then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel, they promised the city would not keep identifying documents because the cards would be printed on the spot at in-person events. Years later, crushed by the surging demand during the Venezuelan migrant crisis, Valencia's office debuted a website in December 2024 to sign up for appointments or apply for the card online. Because of local public records law, the city began retaining documents for those online applicants, more than 2,700 as of this month. Valencia said the city's data retention policy does not allow her office to destroy those documents, which are hosted by third-party software vendor Omicron Technology Solutions but under the control of her office. Asked to offer specific advice for past applicants who may be concerned, she pivoted to reassuring the public that their personal information remains safe. 'Listen, I've always been honest and transparent and led with integrity,' Valencia said. 'I know there's a lot of fear out there, so I want to be very clear that we're going to fight giving over any data to the federal government. … No data was given over to ICE, period, zero, for the CityKey.' But that's the exact scenario that Forest Gregg, a data privacy advocate, warned the city against when it sought community and expert input on how to safely implement CityKey before its debut. 'I was shocked,' Gregg said. 'This seemed to me to be the utmost carelessness. This is the kind of information that you really don't want to depend upon only legal protections to protect. … I really feel it's a betrayal of the people who the clerk asked to trust them.' Asked about whether she has any regrets, Valencia sought to instead pin the blame on Trump during her 45-minute sit-down. 'I want to go back to the original problem, that if this Trump administration wasn't overreaching for private people's data, this would not even be a conversation,' Valencia said. 'This is Trump doing a witch hunt and intentionally trying to instill fear in people so that they can overtake our democracy.' During the city's last round of budget hearings in November, Valencia applauded Chicago for becoming 'the first municipality to give residents the ability to apply for an ID online and receive it through the mail.' By then, Trump had been reelected, unnerving many in the liberal city over his promise to enact the largest mass deportation operation in American history. For one former City Hall official who helped create CityKey, the revelation that the clerk's office still went ahead with an online portal left them 'stunned.' 'I can't believe it, and I know others that were part of the project, I talked to them, they are enraged by this as well,' the ex-staffer said. 'The creation of the online portal was a very specific thing that clearly collided with the original design and the intent that introduced risks.' The former member of the Emanuel administration, who requested anonymity to speak freely about internal government deliberations, said the CityKey team back then agreed the program must be 'subpoena-proof,' meaning no digital record could be created given local laws surrounding public records. The city consulted with Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois to gauge these concerns. Now, the city is awaiting ICE's next steps after refusing to comply with its subpoena calling on the city to 'provide a copy of the application and all supporting documents for all individuals who applied for a CityKey identification card between April 17, 2022, and April 17, 2025, and used any foreign document as proof of identity, including but not limited to: consular identification card, foreign driver's license, or foreign passport.' The Tribune also obtained an ICE subpoena sent to Chicago's Department of Streets and Sanitation on March 21 that sought payroll records for current and recent employees as part of a worker eligibility audit. Law Department spokesperson Kristen Cabanban confirmed to the Tribune on Friday that the city turned over 'some documents' in response to that subpoena but declined to answer follow-up questions on what those records were. The CityKey subpoena was the first of its kind seeking the program's documents and represents an escalation by the federal government to seize entire batches of private information. And Chicago is not alone. Under the second Trump administration, Colorado too was subpoenaed by federal immigration agents for the personal information of sponsors of immigrant children. Washtenaw County, Michigan, officials were hit with a U.S. Department of Homeland Security subpoena for employment eligibility documents. The White House has also been pressuring the Internal Revenue Service to share data with ICE to identify immigrants for deportations. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with Trump in allowing his Department of Government Efficiency to access personal data stored in Social Security systems. About 145,800 CityKeys have been issued since its 2017 inception, per the clerk's office. For the period of time in the ICE subpoena — April 17, 2022, to April 17, 2025 — 87,100 individuals had applied for CityKey. However, only 2,700 of them used the online portal that launched in December, the only CityKey applicants for whom identifying records exist today. Though the idea behind Chicago's CityKey originally came from immigrant advocates, the program was billed to be for all Chicagoans, including the LGBTQ, homeless and formerly incarcerated populations, so as not to serve as a scarlet letter for noncitizens without legal status. And critically, the 2017 ordinance establishing CityKey noted, 'The Clerk shall review, but not collect, documents provided by an Applicant.' In May 2024, the City Council signed off on an amendment from Valencia that added, 'Information provided by Applicants utilizing the online platform to obtain a City of Chicago ID will be stored.' Because the ICE summons is only an administrative subpoena, the city does not have to comply. Should the federal government seek a court order, the city can move to quash the subpoena, after which it is in the hands of a federal judge. The decision could be appealed to higher courts. Johnson's Corporation Counsel Mary Richardson-Lowry asserted in a Tuesday news conference that 'with respect to CityKey, we don't believe such an obligation is there' to produce records. 'We respectfully declined within the bounds of the law, given the privacy issues and specifically the exposure of groups like domestic violence victims,' Richardson-Lowry told reporters. 'Should they move toward a court setting, we will respond in kind.' State privacy laws do specifically address the privacy of domestic violence victims. Ron Safer, a former federal prosecutor, successfully represented the city in its lawsuit against the first Trump administration for withholding federal funds because of Chicago's sanctuary city ordinance. He thinks that law applies here too. First established by Mayor Harold Washington 40 years ago and strengthened by city officials during Trump's first term, Chicago's sanctuary city policy bans local law enforcement and city officials from cooperating with federal immigration agents unless they have a criminal warrant. The state has a similar sanctuary law, known as the Illinois TRUST Act. Safer said any potential litigation over the ICE subpoena could entail a constitutional turf war between those local and federal laws. 'It's ironic that this plays out because almost all of the recent jurisprudence would be 'conservative' forces who are resisting federal attempts to usurp state rights,' Safer said. 'These are complex doctrines that we haven't thought of for hundreds of years, because the federal government has never launched an attack on the cities like they have under this administration.' In her interview, Valencia defended her rollout of CityKey by pointing to disclaimers on the online portal about the document retention policy. The website warned users of the following: 'By using the CityKey online platform, you are agreeing to allow the Office of the City Clerk to keep a record of all the information you submit during your application process.' However, data privacy and immigrant advocates who spoke with the Tribune said it's not reasonable for applicants — especially those unfamiliar with U.S. subpoena laws and immigration enforcement — to have understood what they were consenting to when they uploaded their private documents. Daniel Loftus, CEO of the immigrant advocacy nonprofit PODER, said there were 'lines down the block' during past CityKey events hosted by his organization. 'The response has been tremendous, and that obviously tells you that the need to have a government-issued ID,' Loftus said. With respect to the online portal, Loftus said, 'I don't think people understood the risk. And so that, to me, would have to be crystal clear if the city clerk's office were to continue with CityKey and the online portal.' But Gregg, the data privacy advocate, thinks the clerk's office should shut down the entire program because 'they've blown it.' 'I don't think anyone in good conscience could advise someone who needs to have the information to be protected to trust the clerk,' Gregg said. 'Because those records now exist, and it's very hard to put that genie back in the bottle.'
The Hill
27 minutes ago
- The Hill
Israel-Iran conflict poses new dilemma for Democrats
Democrats on Capitol Hill can't catch a break. Just as Sen. Alex Padilla's (D-Calif.) physical clash with Trump administration security officials had given them cause to unite on the otherwise divisive issue of immigration, Israel's attack on Iran has shifted the national gaze onto yet another radioactive topic that has long split the party. While many Democrats quickly condemned conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for launching Israel's assault on Thursday night, many others hailed the decision as a necessary step to put a halt to Tehran's nuclear expansion. The disagreement is an unwelcome one for Democratic leaders, who had rallied forcefully behind Padilla on Thursday afternoon and were hoping to take that unified front into the weekend, when President Trump is staging an elaborate military parade, and then into next week's holiday, when the House is on a long recess and lawmakers will be back in their districts to confront voters. Instead, Israel's strikes on Iran's nuclear program — a mere coincidence of timing — has dragged Democrats back into the quarrelsome discussion over Netanyahu's aggressive military strategy, which has already been a topic of internal strife amid Israel's demolition of Gaza in search of the Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. On one side of that debate are Israel's closest congressional allies, who quickly cheered Netanyahu's preemptive attacks as an imperative effort to make the region, and the world, a safer place. 'The October 7 attacks showed that Israel can leave nothing to chance — the threats they face are real, and inaction can cost lives,' Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), a former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in a statement. 'The strikes that began last night in Iran targeted military leaders and nuclear facilities that posed a clear risk for Israel and for future peace in the region.' Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) sounded a similar note, warning that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons 'would place Israel, the United States, and partners in the region under direct and constant danger.' 'Iran could have prevented this. They chose this path,' Moskowitz said in a statement. 'Democratic and Republican administrations have all agreed that Iran should never obtain a nuclear weapon, and this will help that bipartisan goal.' Many liberal Democrats have a decidedly different view. Those voices have long criticized Netanyahu, especially as the death toll in Gaza has soared beyond 50,000 people, including thousands of children. And they wasted no time blasting the Israeli government's latest foray into Iran. 'Israel's reckless, escalatory strikes on Iran risk igniting a larger regional war, & undermine planned negotiations for a potential new nuclear deal,' Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the former head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote on X. 'Netanyahu must not be allowed to pull America into another forever war. Instead, we must immediately push for negotiated de-escalation.' Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, piled on, warning that 'Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence.' 'These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces,' Reed said in a statement. 'While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer.' The Democratic divisions are not mirrored on the other side of the aisle, where Republicans — with a very few exceptions — are united in lockstep behind Netanyahu's attacks. 'What Israel's preemptive strike ensured tonight is that Iran's next attack will not be with a nuclear weapon,' said Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Keeping the issue in the headlines, Iran responded on Friday by launching a series of retaliatory ballistic missile strikes, some of which targeted Tel Aviv. Tehran also backed out of its plans to meet with U.S. officials in search of an elusive nuclear deal. Those talks had been scheduled for Sunday in Oman. The conflict — both abroad and within the Democratic Party — was not what Democratic leaders had in mind as Congress was leaving Washington on Thursday afternoon. Hours earlier, Padilla had confronted Kristi Noem, the secretary of the Homeland Security Department, at a press conference in Los Angeles, where residents have been facing off against law enforcers to protest Trump's immigration raids. Noem's security detail grabbed Padilla and pushed him into an adjacent hallway, where he was shoved to the ground and handcuffed. The scuffle sent alarm bells through the Capitol, where Democrats have been scrambling to locate a unified response to Trump's aggressive enforcement crackdown in Los Angeles, which has featured the activation of the National Guard without the governor's consent, and the deployment of hundreds of Marines. Some Democrats have leaned into the conflict, hoping to keep the focus on Trump's controversial actions, including some who have called for impeachment. Others have used it to revisit Trump's role in the Capitol attack of Jan. 6, 2021. Still others have warned against highlighting a contentious topic — one that had helped propel Trump to the White House — for fear of alienating voters in battleground districts. And party leaders have sought a delicate balance, condemning Trump's tactics in L.A. while fighting to shift the conversation back to the president's legislative agenda, including Medicaid cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy. 'He sees the protests in Los Angeles as an excuse to unleash more chaos and distract the American people from the failing economy and his plans to cut Medicaid and food assistance,' Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said earlier in the week. The Padilla affair, in contrast, became a rallying cry. And Democrats in both chambers quickly united in defense of their colleague, accusing the administration of abusing its powers and demanding an investigation into how a sitting U.S. senator could be knocked around by officials of the same government he represents. Many called it an assault. 'The Trump administration is a disgrace. Secretary Noem is a disgrace. The manhandling of Senator Alex Padilla was a complete and total disgrace,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters on the steps of the Capitol on Thursday afternoon. A short time later, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) organized a march from the House chamber across the Capitol, to the office of Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), demanding a response. When Thune wasn't there, they retraced their steps and marched into the office of Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who declined to see them. While the effort was led by the CHC, many other Democrats participated, including top figures like Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), the Democratic whip; Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee; and the heads of the Black and Asian Pacific American caucuses. 'I want to really emphasize that this is an all-caucus-wide movement and outrage against the authoritarian, violent behavior of this administration,' Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), a former head of the Hispanic Caucus, said outside the Speaker's office. Hours later, after the Capitol had emptied and lawmakers had headed home, Israel launched its strikes on Tehran.
