Why Trump could be the X factor in New Jersey: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
In today's edition, Steve Kornacki looks ahead to the general election in New Jersey after last night's gubernatorial primaries. Peter Nichols previews this weekend's military parade in Washington, which occurs against the backdrop of immigration protests around the country. And Andrea Mitchell examines the ripple effects of the new travel ban.
Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.
— Adam Wollner
The matchup for New Jersey's gubernatorial election is set, but looming over the contest will be a name that won't be on any ballot: Donald Trump.
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, who secured the Democratic nomination in Tuesday's primary, is already running ads that attack Republican Jack Ciattarelli for his ties to the president. Ciattarelli, who was also the GOP's nominee in 2021, romped to victory in his party's primary after successfully cultivating Trump's support.
In focusing on Trump, Democrats have history on their side. New Jersey voters have a strong tendency to elect governors from the party that doesn't control the White House. This has been the case in all but two races over the past four decades.
Plus, Democrats have run this playbook successfully in New Jersey before. Eight years ago, during Trump's first term, Gov. Phil Murphy scored a 14-point win over Republican Kim Guadagno. Murphy sought to tie Guadagno to Trump, whose approval rating in New Jersey that fall stood at just 33%. (Murphy was also aided by the cratering popularity of outgoing Republican Gov. Chris Christie.)
Republicans are counting on the Trump factor playing differently this time around. And, at least for now, there are some key variables they can point to with optimism.
One is the result of last year's presidential race, when Trump lost New Jersey by 6 points to Kamala Harris. That was a far cry from his 16-point loss in 2020 and his 14-point defeat in 2016. From the outset of the 2017 gubernatorial race, it was obvious that Trump would be a major electoral liability for the GOP. That's not as clear this time around.
In fact, a PIX11/Emerson College poll conducted a few weeks ago showed Trump with a 47% job approval rating in New Jersey. That's far higher than he fared during the 2017 campaign, or for that matter, at any point during his first term. It's also higher than the 40% approval rating for Murphy, who is term-limited and provides Ciattarelli with his own opportunity to tie his opponent to an unpopular leader.
There's also some history Republicans can point to. Democrats have controlled the New Jersey governorship for two consecutive terms now, with Sherrill seeking to make it three. This is the fifth time since 1981 that one of the two parties has tried for a third straight term. They all failed.
Read more from Steve →
Catch up on NBC News' latest New Jersey election coverage:
Bridget Bowman and Ben Kamisar have five key takeaways from Tuesday's results.
Adam Noboa breaks down how each of the candidates in the crowded Democratic field fared on their home turf.
Julie Tsirkin, Olympia Sonnier and Bridget explore how Ciattarelli is now attempting to pivot to the general election.
President Donald Trump is getting the parade he wanted showcasing America's military power — but he'll also be getting mass protests exposing the nation's partisan divisions.
The tanks and artillery launchers rolling through Washington on Saturday will honor the Army's 250th anniversary, which falls on the day Trump turns 79.
But in Washington and in all 50 states, organizers are scheduled to stage protests that could dwarf the parade in size. A coalition of pro-democracy, labor and liberal activists is arranging a full day of counterprogramming to make the case that Trump is hijacking the Army celebration to venerate himself.
The parade is happening at a fraught moment when Trump has drawn the military — among the nation's most trusted institutions — into a tense standoff in Los Angeles over his aggressive efforts to deport people living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration this week activated about 700 Marines to help quell demonstrations over his immigration enforcement methods, despite warnings from California officials that he is inflaming the situation.
Read more from Peter →
Catch up on NBC News' latest coverage of Trump's deportation plans and the protests in response:
ICE is preparing to deploy its Special Response Teams to five cities run by Democratic leaders, according to two sources familiar with the planning of the future operations.
The Trump administration is telling immigration judges — who report to the executive branch and are not part of the independent judiciary — to dismiss pending cases as a tactic for speeding up arrests.
During an interview with NBC's 'Nightly News' anchor Tom Llamas, White House border czar Tom Homan said that protests in Los Angeles are making immigration raids more 'difficult' and more 'dangerous.'
Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott said he'll deploy the National Guard across the state 'to ensure peace and order' ahead of a planned protest in San Antonio.
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom warned that 'democracy is under assault' in a speech blasting Trump's immigration tactics.
A federal grand jury indicted Rep. LaMonica McIver, D-N.J., on charges stemming from a confrontation with law enforcement at an ICE detention center in Newark last month.
The way Trump has responded to protests in California is very different than how he treated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
Follow live updates →
Little noticed amid the uproar over the ICE raids in Los Angeles this week is the imposition of a travel ban 2.0 — a retooled version of President Donald Trump's first-term policy, modified to avoid legal challenges.
'We want to keep bad people out of our country,' Trump said.
The last time around, the Trump White House had to rewrite the proposed ban three times before it passed Supreme Court muster. This time, the administration released fact sheets to show they were singling out countries whose citizens had high rates of overstaying their visas or don't properly screen their citizens for terrorism, not because most of the 12 countries banned are in Africa or the Middle East — prompting accusations of racial motivation, which would be unconstitutional.
While not facing immediate legal challenges, the decision to bar travelers from Afghanistan in particular is outraging many U.S. veterans, including Trump supporters, who say they could not have survived the war without their Afghan translators. They say the U.S. is abandoning its Afghan allies and their families, who are being attacked, imprisoned and, in some cases, tortured by the Taliban for their past association with the U.S.
Shawn VanDiver, president of #AfghanEvac, a coalition of U.S. veterans and advocacy groups, told me: 'The Taliban has made it very clear through their actions, not their words, what's going to happen to them. We get photos and videos every week of people being hunted down and killed.'
We met an Afghan man who worked as a translator with the U.S. military for seven years who we can't identify without putting his family at risk. He got a special visa to come to the U.S, became a citizen and enlisted in the Marines to return to Afghanistan for another tour in Helmand Province. He spent years trying to bring his siblings and aging parents to the U.S. from Afghanistan to escape retaliation. They were approved last December and told to prepare to travel within days.
Now the travel ban has shut the door. He told me when Trump announced the ban, 'For the first week, I couldn't go to work. I laid in bed, I was shocked for a week.' He added, 'I want to see my parents. They're getting old and I feel so bad. I cannot forgive myself if they pass and I can't see them.'
He blames himself. But critics of the travel ban say it's the U.S. that went back on its word — something they warn future allies will remember when America wants their help.
😕 Is it too late now to say sorry? Elon Musk wrote on X that he regrets 'some' of his recent posts about Trump, saying 'they went too far.' Read more →
📦 Trade talks: Trump said the U.S. will keep tariffs high on Chinese goods, touting a preliminary trade agreement that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping still need to approve. Read more →
⚖️ In the courts: A federal appeals court allowed Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect as it reviews a lower court decision. Read more →
📈 Inflation watch: Consumer prices rose by 0.1% in May from the prior month, less than what economists expected. Read more →
🌀 FEMA's future: Trump said he planned to begin 'phasing out' the Federal Emergency Management Agency after the hurricane season. Read more →
🔵 2028 watch: Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Tim Walz of Minnesota have taken steps in recent weeks to freeze or cut government-funded health care coverage for undocumented immigrants. Read more →
🔵 2028 watch, cont.: Two Michigan Democrats, Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, are taking starkly different approaches to Trump. Read more →
📊 Global perspective: A new Pew Research Center poll found that views of the U.S. under Trump have dropped in more than a dozen allied countries, with declines most pronounced among those in Mexico and Canada. Read more →
🗣️ Do you hear the people sing? Trump is set to attend the opening of 'Les Misérables,' a musical set against a background of revolution and protest, at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts tonight. Read more →
Follow live politics coverage →
That's all From the Politics Desk for now. Today's newsletter was compiled by Adam Wollner and Dylan Ebs.
If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at politicsnewsletter@nbcuni.com
And if you're a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Intercept
13 minutes ago
- The Intercept
Did Israel Just 'Blow Up' Trump's Bid For an Iran Nuke Deal?
A firefighter calls out his colleagues at the scene of an explosion in a residence compound in northern Tehran, Iran, on June 13, 2025. Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP The attack had been predicted for weeks, but over the last few days, the chatter was taken seriously enough that the U.S. ordered non-essential diplomatic personnel to evacuate the region. By the time the Israeli military finally struck Iran on Thursday evening — early Friday morning in Tehran — the U.S. and Iran were just three days out from a sixth round of scheduled nuclear talks in Muscat, Oman. With the bombs dropped, questions hung in the air. How fierce would Iran's promised response be? Did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aim to scuttle the nuclear talks? President Donald Trump had been pursuing hard-nosed diplomacy with Iran, but did he even try to stop Israel? In what it deemed a 'preemptive strike,' the Israeli military claimed to target Iran's nuclear sites, like the one in Natanz, its ballistic missile program, nuclear scientists, and senior military officials. Among them was armed forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, who was initially rumored to be dead but is apparently safe. Given that Iran had neither shown any preparations for an attack on Israel nor made any military threats against it, the preemptive strike was certainly illegal under international law—not that Netanyahu has shown any particular concern for such niceties. Netanyahu said the operation will continue. That, presumably, means war. Whatever damage Iran sustained in the overnight attack, Netanyahu stated in a speech that the operation targeting Iran's nuclear program will continue until he is satisfied that the threat it presents is eliminated. That, presumably, means war — one that will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to stay out of, especially when it comes to defending Israel in the face of Iranian retaliation. At this early hour exact casualty numbers from the strikes are not known, but images coming out of Tehran show multiple residential buildings damaged and explosions across the capitol city. Several prominent figures in Iranian military, nuclear, and academic circles have been confirmed killed. The chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was among them, as were Azad University president Mohammad Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist; Fereydoon Abbasi, a politician and former head of the Atomic Energy Organization; and Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran's unified military command. Ahead of the attack, Israel telegraphed its plans through leaks to the media — and Trump faced questions from a reporter on Thursday about the possibility. The president suggested a strike could happen at any time, though he maintained that he preferred diplomacy. It seems clear enough from Trump's response that, while the U.S. may not have given Netanyahu a green light to attack, it didn't demand that it refrain from doing so. Tellingly, in his answer to the reporter, Trump said that an attack by Israel could 'blow up' the scheduled talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but added that an attack may also be helpful. Presumably, Trump thought an attack might give the U.S. more leverage over a weakened and chastened Iran. It's impossible to know if Trump came up with the notion himself, or if it came out of the meeting on the Iran nuclear issue he held with his foreign policy team at Camp David on Sunday. Regardless, if meant seriously, the idea showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran, which is even less likely to compromise on its nuclear program than it might have been before the attack. Netanyahu may just have a better grasp on the Iranians than the Trump administration. It seems likely that the Israeli leader chose to attack Iran not to give Trump and Witkoff more leverage, but to put an end to the talks once and for all. Taken aback by Trump's announcement earlier this year that the U.S. would begin direct talks with Iran, Netanyahu has seemed determined since then to scupper the possibility of a new nuclear agreement. Netanyahu, echoed by Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress, demanded the talks result in a complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program — which he is well aware was a non-starter for Iran — or threatening military action if the talks didn't accomplish his goal. The Israeli strike, in the end, could have more far-reaching consequences, scuttling not just the talks themselves, but any chance of an entente between the U.S. and Iran. In that sense, Netanyahu has succeeded. Even if talks continue, the idea Trump once had for a 'successful' Iran — at peace and integrated into the world economy — is today certainly blown up.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration blocked from deploying National Guard to LA
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration's deployment of California's National Guard to Los Angeles and called the move illegal. The judge's order to return control of the troops to California Governor Gavin Newsom will not go into effect immediately and the administration has filed an appeal. The state sued President Donald Trump on Monday over his order to deploy the troops without Newsom's consent. Trump said he was sending the troops - who are typically under the governor's authority - to stop LA from "burning down" in protests against his immigration crackdown. Local authorities have argued they have the situation in hand and do not need troops. US District Judge Charles Breyer said the question presented by California's request was whether Trump followed the law set by Congress on the deployment of a state's National Guard. "He did not," the judge wrote in his decision. "His actions were illegal... He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith." But the judge stayed the order until Friday afternoon to give the Trump administration time to appeal against it. The administration did so almost immediately after the order was issued. Newsom posted on social media on Thursday afternoon that "the court just confirmed what we all know — the military belongs on the battlefield, not on our city streets". The Trump administration has said it took over California's National Guard to restore order and to protect Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as they swept up people in Los Angeles who were believed to be in the country illegally. Despite Newsom's objections, Trump ordered a total of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to help quell the unrest. Some of the Guard troops are now authorised to detain people until police can arrest them. A president last deployed the National Guard without a governor's consent more than 50 years ago - during the civil rights era. It is more common for a governor to activate troops to deal with natural disasters and other emergencies, and then ask for federal assistance. Before a packed courtroom on Thursday, a justice department attorney told Judge Breyer that Newsom did not need to be consulted when Trump issued his order. "Governor Newsom was fully aware of this order…he objected to it," Attorney Brett Shumate said. "There is one commander-in-chief of the US armed forces." "No," Judge Breyer, the younger brother of former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, responded. "The president isn't the commander -in-chief of the National Guard," he said but added there were times and situations where the president could become the head of the troops. Breyer, who had donned a light blue bowtie, invoked the Constitution multiple times during the hearing, holding up a booklet copy of the document at one point. "We're talking about the president exercising his authority. And the president is, of course, limited in his authority," he said. "That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George.". The Trump administration used a law that allows the president to call the National Guard into federal service when a "rebellion" is happening. But California said in its lawsuit that the protests that have spanned nearly a week in LA - and included more than 300 arrests and the shutting down of a major freeway - did not rise to that level. "At no point in the past three days has there been a rebellion or an insurrection. Nor have these protests risen to the level of protests or riots that Los Angeles and other major cities have seen at points in the past, including in recent years," the lawsuit read. Additional reporting by Ana Faguy in Washington, DC Trump has long called for using the military to quash protests. Los Angeles gave him an opening Newsom v Trump holds promise and peril for California governor Downtown LA under curfew for second night after days of protests
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fears over the safety of US government bonds have been put to rest — for now
Concerns over what Trump's tax bill will do to the federal deficit have rattled the Treasury market. Nerves were soothed somewhat on Thursday after strong demand at a 30-year auction. Both near- and long-dated bonds rallied, pushing yields lower. The bond market just cleared a key hurdle and put investors at ease about the state of government borrowing — at least for now. The Treasury Department saw solid demand for its anxiously awaited auction of 30-year government bonds on Thursday. It comes a day after a 10-year offering saw similarly strong demand. The Treasury market has been destabilized in recent weeks by concerns over the impact President Donald Trump's tax bill will have on an already-swollen federal deficit. It was those same worries that led to tepid demand at a 20-year auction a few weeks ago, and led to the fixation on this week's offerings. Recent volatility in the 30-year has led some to speculate that the bond — historically considered to be one of the safest investments in existence — was losing it its luster as a safe haven. Despite continued calls for investors to continuing "selling America," US government bonds look fine for the time being. This embedded content is not available in your region. In the end, the government sold $22 billion worth of 30-year bonds on Thursday at a yield of 4.84%. That's 8 basis points below what the 30-year US Treasury yield traded around at the time the auction closed, implying strong demand. Demand was also solid at the 10-year US Treasury auction on Tuesday, when the government sold $39 billion worth of 10-year bonds at a 4.42% yield, which was also lower than expected. Bonds were mired in a sell-off for most of April and May as concerns swirled around mounting debt levels, the impact of tariffs on the US economy, and the GOP tax bill, which is expected to add trillions to the budget deficit over the coming decade. Treasury bonds are thought of as an ultra-safe corner of US financial market. Soft demand is a sign investors may be too skittish about the US macro picture to pick up government debt — something that would be unusual and reflect extreme fear about the macro outlook. Read the original article on Business Insider Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
