A planned immigration crackdown by federal agents has been canceled for the entire Bay Area for now, Mayor Barbara Lee of Oakland said Friday.
“I spoke with Alameda County Sheriff Yesenia Sanchez, who confirmed through her communications with ICE that Border Patrol operations are cancelled for the greater Bay Area – which includes Oakland – at this time,” Lee said in a statement obtained by CBS News Bay Area.
A spokesperson with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office told CBS News Bay Area that Sanchez spoke with ICE Thursday afternoon, who stated that the operations were cancelled at this time.
So far, there’s been no confirmation from the Department of Homeland Security.
Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff was among the tech leaders who asked the president to reconsider, Mr. Trump said. Benioff had previously urged the president to deploy the National Guard to San Francisco to address public safety, comments which he later apologized for.
On Wednesday, U.S. officials told CBS News that Border Patrol agents would stage at the U.S. Coast Guard base in Alameda for a planned operation. Border patrol commander Gregory Bovino, one of the most visible faces of the Trump administration’s nationwide immigration crackdown, was expected to be involved.
Following reports of the crackdown, protesters gathered outside Coast Guard Island early Thursday morning, with demonstrators attempting to block vehicles from entering the island. The day-long protest ended late Thursday after a U-Haul truck attempted to back into a line of U.S. Coast Guard and law enforcement, which led to Coast Guard security personnel opening fire at the truck.
The driver of the truck was wounded in the stomach and was being held for a mental health evaluation, the Department of Homeland Security announced Friday. Meanwhile, two civilians who were injured are expected to survive, while a bystander struck by a fragment was treated at a hospital and released.
Lee also issued a statement about the shooting incident at Coast Guard Island, saying “The Oakland Police Department is assisting the Alameda Police Department in securing the perimeter of the scene. The FBI is the lead agency investigating the incident, and I will continue to gather available information as it becomes accessible.”
Oakland Police Chief Floyd Mitchell is stepping down from his position less than two years after taking the reins of a department under scrutiny and with a recent history of reform attempts.
A press statement from the City of Oakland stated that Mitchell submitted a letter of intent to resign, effective December 5. The statement added that Mitchell had committed to working closely with Mayor Barbara Lee and City Administrator Jestin Johnson to identify an interim police chief to ensure a seamless transition.
“It has been an honor to serve the Oakland community, and I am grateful for the support I’ve received from the residents,” Mitchell said in a prepared statement. “I’m incredibly proud of the men and women of this Department and the collaborative working relationships forged with the community and business owners to reduce crime. My commitment over the weeks ahead is to help ensure a smooth transition and continue to keep Oakland safe.”
Mitchell’s resignation announcement comes a day after Lee delivered her first State of the City Address, in which she touted progress in reducing crime and said the city “is on the move.”
“I want to thank Chief Mitchell for his dedicated service to Oakland and his leadership during a critical time for our city,” Lee said in a prepared statement. “Under his tenure, we have seen significant reductions in crime – a testament to his commitment to public safety and the hard work of our police officers. I am grateful for Chief Mitchell’s collaboration with our administration and his focus on community-centered policing.”
The Oakland Police Officers Association issued a statement saying it was “deeply concerned” by Mitchell’s resignation, and “questioning whether certain anti-law enforcement factions of the community were ready or open to his honesty, dedication, and support of public safety.”
“The OPOA calls on the Mayor and City Council to finally confront the dysfunction that has crippled the effectiveness of OPD for years,” the association said. “It’s time to stop the revolving door, to rebuild trust, and to restore stability — before more good people–both in our department and our community–lose faith that real change is possible.”
The Oakland Police Department has been under federal oversight since 2003, the longest-monitored department in the nation, following the notorious “Riders” police misconduct case. A federal judge again extended the government’s oversight in September 2024, finding that reforms following a negotiated settlement agreement on issues such as use-of-force, internal affairs investigations, and community relations were incomplete and the department remained out of compliance.
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) — This year’s California primary election includes some high-profile races for the Bay Area, as well as the presidential primary and other statewide races.
There are primaries scheduled in 15 states including in California on Super Tuesday.
Polling places will be open 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.
You can take your mail-in ballot to the polling place, a drop box or a county election office. As long as it’s delivered by 8 p.m.
If you prefer to mail it, your ballot must be postmarked no later than Tuesday.
You will still be able to register to vote on Tuesday as California allows people to do same-day voter registration.
Here are some key local and statewide races to keep an eye on March 5
California Presidential Primary
Donald Trump is strongly favored by Republicans in California. It’s possible he could sweep the state’s trove of 169 delegates, the biggest prize in the nominating contest. Heavily Democratic California probably will be an afterthought in November 2024 – the state’s lopsided electorate makes it a virtual lock for Democrats on Election Day. The last Republican presidential nominee to carry the state was George H.W. Bush in 1988.
Senate
California’s Senate race was expected to be a three-way Democratic prizefight, but the possibility of a record-low turnout is elevating the chances of Republican Steve Garvey, a former baseball star, and could derail the congressional careers of two prominent progressives. For months, Rep. Adam Schiff has had the fundraising and polling edge in a crowded Democratic field. Garvey’s ascent has imperiled the political prospects of Reps. Barbara Lee and Katie Porter. The top two finishers in the March 5 contest, regardless of party, advance to the general election in November in the liberal-leaning state.
Proposition 1: Gavin Newsom’s Mental Health Plan
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom is urging voters to approve a ballot initiative that he says is needed to tackle the state’s homelessness crisis, a change social providers say would threaten programs that keep people from becoming homeless in the first place. In 2004, voters approved legislation that imposed a tax on millionaires to finance mental health services, generating $2 billion to $3 billion in revenue each year that has mostly gone to counties to fund mental health programs as they see fit under broad guidelines. Newsom wants to give the state more control over how that money is spent. Proposition 1 would require counties to spend 60% of those funds on housing and programs for homeless people with serious mental illnesses or substance abuse problems.
Congress – House of Representatives Races
District 12
The District 12 seat has been held by Rep. Barbara Lee for more than two decades and is now up for grabs as Lee eyes the Senate.
Those running for the seat include Lateefah Simon who’s currently a BART board director. According to CalMatters, she is also the youngest-ever MacArthur genius grant recipient and she is endorsed by Lee herself along with Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Some other candidates in the race include Jennifer Tran, a Cal State East Bay professor; Tony Daysog, vice mayor of Alameda and Denard Ingram, who serves on Oakland’s rent board.
District 16
In November, Rep. Anna Eshoo announced she would retiring in 2024 after three decades in Congress. With her seat up for grabs, several notable public figures joined the race including tech executive Rishi Kumar and former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo.
CalMatters predicts that with no prominent Republican candidates, there is a strong likelihood that two Democrats will emerge from the March primary to face off in the November election.
Other candidates vying for the seat include State Assembly member Evan Low, Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian, Palo Alto City Councilmember Julie Lythcott-Haims, the only woman in the field, and Peter Dixon a former Marine who co-founded a cybersecurity company.
Incumbents Challenged
Other representatives who are having their seats challenged this primary election are Jared Huffman (D – District 2), Mike Thompson (D – District 4), Mark Desaulnier (D – District 10), Nancy Pelosi (D – District 11), Eric Swalwell (D – District 14), Ro Khanna (D – District 17), Zoe Lofgren (D – District 18), and Jimmy Panetta (D – District 19)
Alameda County Ballot Initiatives
Measure B
This measure will align Alameda County recall guidelines with the California state law on recalling officials. This is notable because of ongoing recall efforts against Alameda County DA Pamela Price and Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao.
San Francisco Ballot Initiatives
Proposition B: Police Officer Staffing Conditioned on Future Funding
Prop B would fund full police staffing and recruitment for 5 to 10 years, set a minimum officer staffing level and allow SFPD to request its own budget changes. The bill is backed by a coalition of city and community leaders who say it could improve public safety and financial transparency.
Proposition E: Police Department Policies and Procedures
Mayor London Breed supports this ballot measure that would grant police more crime-fighting powers, such as the use of drones and surveillance cameras. Proposition E would also reduce paperwork so police have more time to patrol. It would also allow police to pursue more suspects by vehicle, and not just in cases of a violent felony or immediate threat to public safety.
Proposition F: Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and Treatment for Recipients of Public Assistance
Prop F would cut off public assistance to people on welfare who are suspected of using drugs, unless they agree to enter a drug treatment program. Opponents say that’s not only ineffective, but also creates barriers to getting real help for those who need it. Mayor London Breed supports the measure. She proposed it in response to increasing public pressure to curb public drug use and address the city’s opioid epidemic.
Proposition G: Offering Algebra 1 to Eighth Graders
Prop G would make it city policy to encourage SFUSD to offer Algebra 1 to students by their eighth-grade year and to support the school district’s development of its math curriculum for students at all grade levels.
San Mateo County Supervisors Race
District 4 is most competitive, with five candidates vying to replace outgoing supervisor Warren Slocum. However, the biggest candidate name is in the District 1 race. Former Congress member Jackie Speier is running for that seat, but she’s a shoe-in to get to November with only one other candidate running.
Santa Clara County Supervisors
The Bay Area’s largest county will have two new supervisors after long-time leaders are moving on. District 2 will have a new supervisor after Cindy Chavez termed out while District 5 Supervisor Joe Simitian is moving on as he tries to win Anna Eshoo’s vacated seat in Congress.
In addition to the 15 states holding presidential contests on Super Tuesday, there are also a handful of down-ballot primaries on March 5. The contest that’s drawn the most national interest is the U.S. Senate primary in California, a complex and expensive battle to identify general-election candidates for the seat previously held by the late Dianne Feinstein.
California utilizes a so-called top-two primary system in which candidates (below the presidential level) compete for spots on the November ballot without regard to party affiliation. So there could be two Democrats, two Republicans, or one of each in the general election. This system has frequently led to candidates trying to “box out” their most dangerous opponents by keeping them from making the top two in the primary vote.
This sort of gamesmanship has been pivotal in the 2024 Senate race. Given the Democratic Party’s dominant position in California (no Republican has won a statewide race since 2006), the general election will almost certainly be won by a Democrat. But it makes all the difference in the world whether there are one or two Democrats competing in November.
The longtime front-runner in the race, Los Angeles–area Democratic congressman Adam Schiff, very much wants his November opponent to be Republican Steve Garvey, a baseball star in Los Angeles and San Diego, whom he would trounce without much question. So he has been devoting a sizable portion of his massive campaign treasury (he’s raised about $50 million so far) to attacks on Garvey designed to consolidate GOP voters behind the former ballplayer, as opposed to either of the other two significant Republicans in the contest. Schiff is hoping that Garvey can box out his Democratic colleague Katie Porter, the Elizabeth Warren protégé from Orange County who has stronger progressive credentials and is herself a prodigious fundraiser (pulling in an estimated $24 million for the Senate race). An X factor in the race is Schiff and Porter’s distinguished Bay Area colleague Barbara Lee, whose age (she will turn 78 in July) and poor fundraising have offset her sterling progressive reputation.
In addition to Schiff’s promotion of Garvey, Porter has also had to contend with $10 million in attack ads from a group backed by cryptocurrency executives angry at her criticisms of the industry. A wrinkle in the campaign has been an upsurge of progressive fury at Schiff for his staunch backing of Israel in its war against Hamas; Lee was an early supporter of a permanent cease-fire and Porter has supported a more conditional cease-fire effort.
The polls show that Schiff’s strategic effort to boost Garvey at Porter’s expense is working. In the RealClearPolitics polling averages for this race, Schiff is at 26.5 percent, Garvey is at 20.5 percent, Porter is at 18.3 percent, and Lee is at 9 percent. Garvey has been steadily trending upwards in the polls as Schiff’s campaign love-bombed him; in the latest UC Berkeley–Los Angeles Times survey, the Republican actually led the field with 27 percent, two points ahead of his frenemy Schiff and eight points ahead of Porter.
A big imponderable about this primary is turnout. Whatever its merits, the top-two system has done nothing to improve the Golden State’s reputation for poor turnout in primaries, nor have such voter-friendly enhancements as automatic voter registration (in most counties, at least) and the dispatch of mail ballots to all registered voters without the need for an excuse or an application (voters also have in-person options if they don’t want to vote by mail). This year’s turnout may also be depressed by two totally uncompetitive presidential contests and an unusually early date (California primaries are usually held in June but were moved up to coincide with the presidential primaries). Politico looked at the pace of ballots returned early and predicted very low turnout:
California is lagging behind the 2022 midterm return rate, when the state had more ballots returned by this point in the race. Ultimately, 2022 saw a 33 percent turnout.
There’s dozens of factors that could affect the state’s final turnout number, but [turnout monitor Paul] Mitchell is cautiously speculating that only 29 percent of California’s registered voters will turn in their ballots, falling below the current record low of 31 percent in 2012.
Low turnouts in California have traditionally been good for Republicans, which is another factor that might help Garvey, whose own campaign and debate appearances have been decidedly unimpressive. Many Democrats have mixed feelings about the contest. On the one hand, a Schiff-Garvey general election might free up many millions of dollars that would otherwise go to a Senate race between two Democrats. More available donor money would benefit candidates in races more critical to the Democratic Party’s power (notably six competitive U.S. House races, five of them for seats now controlled by Republicans). On the other hand, strategic issues aside, Schiff is not an inspiring choice for many California progressives, as my colleague Rebecca Traister explained in her recent overview of the race:
Porter does not always play well with others in her own party — including Nancy Pelosi, the fearsome éminence grise of both California politics and the U.S. House — and has been accused by multiple former employees of being a tough, perhaps even abusive, boss. Lee is a beloved hero of the left who has not participated in a competitive election in years and at 77 is a dicey choice to fill a seat recently vacated by a woman in possession of the philosopher’s stone. And Schiff? Schiff is fine if you want a warrior on behalf of the meager gruel of status quo politics, a candidate handpicked by the previous generation of Democratic leadership to further its dubious legacy.
If the race for the two spots in the general election is very close, it could be a while before we know the outcome: California is a state that counts mail ballots postmarked by Election Day so long as they are received at local election offices within seven days. Another strange wrinkle is that voters will be selecting a top two not just for the full Senate term that begins in 2025, but — separately — for the last two months of Feinstein’s term (being filled until November by appointed place-holder Laphonza Butler, who chose not to pursue an elected term). It’s possible that confused voters will produce different top twos for the full and truncated terms. That would be an unlikely but fitting end to this odd Senate race full of misdirection and borderline deceit.
The four leading candidates for California‘s open U.S. Senate seat met again this evening, this time in a one-hour San Francisco debate that produced fewer clashes than their first gathering in January.
Still, with less than a month before the state’s open primary, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) focused a number of his attacks on Steve Garvey, the sole Republican on the stage, particularly over the “issue” of Donald Trump.
“Let me just say this also to Mr. Garvey: The greatest threat that we have to our democracy is Donald Trump,” Schiff said.
Garvey voted for Trump in the last two presidential elections but said that, when it comes to supporting him this year, he “will make that decision when the time comes.” In response to Schiff, Garvey said that the “gravest threat to democracy is deconstruction of the Constitution. Packing the court. Doing away with the filibuster. These are things that deconstruct democracy.”
Their exchange continued. Schiff replied, “Then Donald Trump packed the Supreme Court, which is why millions of Americans lost their right of reproductive freedom, why the Supreme Court is striking down air quality and water quality regulations.” As he started to talk about striking down voting rights, Garvey interjected.
“You are fixated on one person and one person only,” Garvey said.
Schiff, who has long been one of Trump’s leading foes, has been atop the polls in the race, leaving it to Garvey and Rep. Katie Porter (D-CA) to secure the other spot on the ballot in the general election. Further behind is Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
Porter has called Schiff “cynical” for spotlighting Garvey in his ads, on the premise that the former Dodger star would, as a Republican, be much easier to beat than she would be. In other words, by highlighting Garvey’s past backing of Trump, Schiff is also giving the Republican candidate the attention he needs to consolidate support among the state’s rightward voters.
During the debate, Porter took another swipe at Schiff’s ads. In response to a question of upper age limits for elected officials, Porter said, “As Mr. Schiff well knows, it is true that we have gerrymandering and elections that are deeply blue districts in which there really aren’t competitive elections. In fact, he’s hoping that the Senate race turns into one with the ads that he is running right now,” she said.
Assisted by a loud bell ring, moderators Frank Buckley of KTLA and Nikki Laurenzo of Inside California Politics kept candidates to their time limits and tried to pin them down on specific questions. When the candidates tried to answer in their talking points, they followed up with questions again.
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it did not.
Schiff was asked whether President Joe Biden was “wrong” to say last week that Israel’s retaliatory actions had been “over the top” in its response to the Hamas terrorist attack. After initially answering by expressing support for Israel’s right to defend itself and for the way that the president has handled the Israel-Hamas war, Schiff was asked again about Biden’s comment. He said, “I don’t know that I express it the way the president has. But I think he is right to try to bring about this negotiated deal, where we’ll have an extended pause, so we can get the hostages out and more aid in.”
Meanwhile, Garvey spoke in generalities when pressed on what specific regulations he would eliminate as a way to try to solve the state’s housing crisis. Asked again, he said, “We see the cost of housing continue to rise for one simple reason. Let’s take young adults. Young adults cannot afford to have the single most important equity in their lives … So I go back constantly to the idea of opening the gates, cutting down inflation.”
Other moments:
At the last debate, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) clashed with Garvey and she called him out for chiding his Democratic rivals as out of touch on the issue of homelessness, when she herself had once been unsheltered. At tonight’s debate, Garvey told her, “I’m so sorry that you went through that.”
For her part, Lee was asked what legislation she has seen into law that specifically addressed the homelessness crisis. She cited the expansion of a homelessness agency task force and other proposed legislation, including proposals to address the difficulty in obtaining renter security deposits.
Lee also was asked about her call for a $50 per hour minimum wage and how it would impact small businesses. Noting that she owned and ran a business, she said, “I know what worker productivity means — that means that you have to make sure your employees are taken care of and have a living wage.”
Garvey, who has called for an audit of money being spent to solve the homelessness crisis, was asked whether those who are unhoused should be allowed to live in RVs and tents while they wait for a permanent solution. “I don’t think so. I think it’s inhumane. There are two or three fires a week in downtown Los Angeles,” he said. “There are two or three deaths each week. Let’s get back to humanity. They need to be taken off the streets. They need to be cared for.”
On the border, Garvey was the most critical of Biden, saying that he “opened the floodgates and created a crisis in the United States. He should be the one to step up and close the border.”
Even though he has taken a hard line on the border issue, Garvey was non-committal when asked whether he would accept Trump’s endorsement, albeit he didn’t criticize the former president. “These are personal choices. I answer to God, my wife, family and to the people of California. And I hope you would respect that I have personal choices,” he said.
Schiff said that “there’s no question that we have a crime problem in California, particularly with these smash and grab robberies,” while pointing out that when Garvey “was playing baseball,” he was working as a prosecutor in the U.S. attorneys office.
Porter was asked about why, after five years in Congress, she waiting until last week to introduce a 10-point plan to solve the crisis. She noted her work as a consumer advocate, but was then pressed again for an answer. “I have worked on housing issues since the day I was elected and have talked a lot about this, about the challenges that my own family faces,” she said.
At a number of points, Porter attacked “Washington insiders” who ensured that billionaires got tax breaks. “The problem is that the workers who are creating the value who are hard at work are not receiving enough to live on while Washington insiders continue to give huge tax breaks to the wealthy.”
Schiff took a few swipes at Porter’s attacks on career politicians. He said, “You can’t walk down the halls of Congress without tripping over five people that are going to say they are going to shake up Washington. They don’t end up getting anything actually accomplished.”
Many years ago, I interviewed Steve Garvey’s ex-wife, Cyndy, whose memoir had just been published. She’d spent years as a lonely, resentful baseball wife wrongly blamed by fans for the breakup of her marriage to a man whose squeaky clean image belied his philandering and emotional bankruptcy. Shortly before I sat down with her, news had broken that Steve Garvey had fathered two children with two women, while engaged to a third.
There were times after the divorce, Cyndy told me, that she’d even contemplated suicide. But the thought of Steve Garvey raising their two girls stopped her cold.
“If I had died,” she said, “my kids would have been left with a right-wing, pro-life, born-again Christian media prostitute for a father.”
Well then. Even all these years later, what a tidy little description of the man who stood on stage at USC’s Bovard Auditorium on Monday evening, uttering platitudes and nonsense during a very serious debate among candidates for the California U.S. Senate seat that, until her death, was held by Dianne Feinstein.
He faced a trio of accomplished Democratic representatives — Adam B. Schiff of Burbank, who led the first impeachment against then-President Trump; Barbara Lee of Oakland, who was the only member of Congress to vote against authorizing the war in Afghanistan three days after 9/11; and Katie Porter of Irvine, a protege of consumer champion Sen. Elizabeth Warren. As they discussed their solid legislative records, their fears about a second Trump presidency, their ideas for solving the housing crisis in California, their support for universal healthcare and a humane approach to immigration, Garvey, a Republican who voted twice for Trump, nattered on like a Little League first base coach.
“Let’s get back to the economy,” he said. “Let’s get back to the foundations, a free-market economy. … Let’s stop that rising inflation; let’s get to the point where we cut this excessive spending in Washington.”
What’s so damning about Garvey’s bromides is that the man has been talking about running for the Senate for decades. Literally decades. He had a stellar 14-year run with the Dodgers, then retired in 1987 after five years with the San Diego Padres when he was only 38. He is now 75 years old. That means he’s had 37 years — half his life — to bone up on the issues.
Honestly, I could not help but imagine that the late “Saturday Night Live” comedian Phil Hartman had wandered into the room and was posing as a blowhard politician with a Jesus complex and good hair.
“When was the last time any of you went to the inner city, actually walked up to the homeless as I have these last three weeks?” Garvey asked the Democrats. “I needed to talk to the people. I needed to talk to the homeless, went up to them and touched them and listened to them. And you know what? They said, ‘You’re the first time anybody’s come up and asked us about our life.’ ”
Lee, who is African American and once became homeless with her kids after escaping an abusive marriage, practically sputtered: “I cannot believe how he described his walk and touching and being there with the homeless,” she said as the audience chuckled heartily at Garvey’s nerve. “Come on, there. Please, please.”
Schiff was politely acerbic: “This will be my one and only baseball analogy for the evening. Mr. Garvey, I am sorry, that was a swing and a miss, that was a total whiff.”
It’s a mark of the desperation that California Republicans, who have faded into powerlessness, would consider a candidate so ill-suited to the job of United States senator. And it is downright pathetic that Garvey may sail to the runoff on the strength of his name and baseball career.
“Policy for me is a position,” said Garvey at one point. “I’ve taken strong positions.”
Please help me understand how the man is different from an artificial intelligence bot programmed to utter the most anodyne phrases he thinks voters want to hear: “I’m common sense. I’m compassionate. I’m consensus building.”
I think California can do better than to replace the legendary Sen. Feinstein with an algorithm masquerading as a public servant.
Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jussie Smollett were both trending on X after the former claimed a “white guy” had stopped her from getting on the ‘members-only’ elevator in the Capitol building.
Lee made the comments during an interview with CNN’s Kaitlan Collins. She began by asserting that “institutional racism is in the DNA of this country.”
She then pivoted to a story that she claimed is an example of “personal racism” she had suffered as a member of Congress.
“I was walking … to the Capitol and a man, a white guy, stopped me and told me I could not get into the members’ elevator,” she claimed without evidence.
“And he blocked me from getting into the elevator and told me I was not a member of Congress and it was for members only. I said, ‘Sir, I’m a member of Congress,’” she continued. “And I showed him my pin and he said, ‘Whose pin did you steal?’”
Rep. Barbara Lee: “I was walking to the Capitol and a man stopped me, a white guy, and told me I could not get into the members’ elevator…He told me it was for members only. I said, ‘Sir, I’m a member of Congress’ and showed him my pin. And he said, ‘Whose pin did you steal?’” pic.twitter.com/RGhOpfTMjM
Now, as far as we know, Barbara Lee didn’t embellish her story with a mention that she was heading to Subway at 2 am in a -20-degree windchill when a “white guy” suddenly yelled, “This is MAGA country!”
But it kind of felt like she was one step away from doing so. And social media users on X noticed, with Jussie Smollett trending alongside the congresswoman.
“I’m gonna go with this never actually happened. How very Jussie Smollett of you,” one person wrote.
Conservative documentary filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza noted that Lee’s story “has that Jussie Smollettring of inauthenticity” and added that Collins’ “uncritical reaction adds to the atmosphere of political fakery.”
I don’t believe this story. It has that Jussie Smollett ring of inauthenticity. Kaitlin Collins’ uncritical reaction adds to the atmosphere of political fakery. This fanciful tale might have worked in the past but now we are on to the lies. https://t.co/6FflP7OYaq
Others suggested that had the incident actually taken place, it’s highly unlikely that Lee wouldn’t report it to somebody in the building and even less likely that they wouldn’t be able to pull video of the exchange.
In order to access members’ elevators, one needs to get through various security checkpoints with a staff I.D. or Members’ pin, so it should be easy to root out the alleged racist. It’s someone who works at the Capitol.
If this actually happened, it’s awful. But if it didn’t actually happen, it’s even more awful.
Easy solve: there are tapes. Let’s all watch them.
When she’s not channeling her inner Jussie Smollett, Barbara Lee is busy channeling her inner Hunter Biden. No, not ‘crackhead’ Hunter. ‘Crashing congressional hearings for attention’ Hunter.
Lee tried to disrupt the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday, only to be turned away by Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL).
“Today, I exercised my authority as Subcommittee Chairwoman to not allow an off-Committee Member to spread communist propaganda during my Cuba hearing,” Salazar wrote on X. “Members are not entitled to join any Committee proceedings without full consent of the Committee Members.”
Today, I exercised my authority as Subcommittee Chairwoman to not allow an off-Committee Member to spread communist propaganda during my Cuba hearing.
Members are not entitled to join any Committee proceedings without full consent of the Committee Members.
Lee posted video of her getting the boot after she tried to interrupt official congressional business or, as some have called it, staged an insurrection.
I was just kicked out of a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee hearing on Cuba policy because the Republican Chair didn’t like my views.
I’d share the livestream, but Republicans cut out the sound when I stood up to defend myself & call them out. pic.twitter.com/eqV1ymor9j
The committee hearing was called to discuss the Biden administration’s lenient policies on Cuba.
Lee has been a noted sympathizer of the late Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro. The congresswoman took the occasion of his death to praise Castro, calling him a global leader who deserves to be mourned.
“We need to stop and pause and mourn his loss,” she said, adding he was a “smart man” who “led a revolution in Cuba that led social improvements for his people.”
Rusty Weiss has been covering politics for over 15 years. His writings have appeared in the Daily Caller, Fox… More about Rusty Weiss
FREE NEWS ALERTS
Subscribe to receive the most important stories delivered straight to your inbox. Your subscription helps protect independent media.
By subscribing, you agree to receive emails from ThePoliticalInsider.com and that you’ve read and agree to our Privacy policy and to our terms and conditions.
Representative Adam Schiff was mingling his way through a friendly crowd at a Democratic barbecue when the hecklers arrived—by boat. Schiff and two other Senate candidates, Representatives Katie Porter and Barbara Lee, convened on the back patio of a country club overlooking the port of Stockton, California. Schiff spoke first. “It’s such a beautiful evening,” he said, thanking the host, local Democratic Representative Josh Harder.
It was hard to know what to make of the protest vessel, except that its seven passengers were yelling things as Schiff began his remarks. And not nice things. Although their words were tough to decipher, the flag flying over the craft made clear where they were coming from: FUCK BIDEN. Notably, of the three candidates, Schiff was the only one I heard singled out by name—or, in one case, by a Donald Trump–inspired epithet (“Shifty”) and, in another, a four-letter profanity similar to the congressman’s surname (clever!).
Schiff is used to such derision and says it proves his bona fides as a worthy Trump adversary. Given the laws of political physics today, it also bodes well for his Senate campaign. The principle is simple: to be despised by the opposition can yield explicit benefits. This is especially true when you belong to the dominant party, as Schiff does in heavily Democratic California. One side’s villain is the other side’s champion. Adam Schiff embodies this rule as well as any politician in the country.
In recent years, Schiff has had a knack for eliciting loud and at times unhinged reactions from opponents, even though he himself tends to be quite hinged. The 45th president tweeted about Schiff 328 times, as tallied by Schiff’s office. Tucker Carlson called the congressman “a wild-eyed conspiracy nut.” A group of QAnon followers circulated a report in 2021 that U.S. Special Forces had arrested Schiff and that he was in a holding facility awaiting transfer to Guantánamo Bay for trial (the report proved erroneous). Before Schiff had a chance to meet his new Republican colleague Anna Paulina Luna, of Florida, she filed a resolution condemning his “Russia hoax investigation” and calling for him to potentially be fined $16 million (the resolution failed).
This onslaught has also been good for business, inspiring equal passion in Schiff’s favor. A former prosecutor, he became an icon of the left for his emphatic critiques of Trump’s behavior in office, including as the lead House manager in Trump’s first impeachment trial. “You know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country,” Schiff said as part of his closing argument, a speech that became a rallying cry of the anti-Trump resistance. (“I am in tears,” the actor Debra Messing wrote on Twitter.) Opponents gave grudging respect. “They nailed him,” Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell told Mitt Romney, according to an account in a new Romney biography by my colleague McKay Coppins. Schiff’s own Trump-era memoir, Midnight in Washington, became a No. 1 New York Times best seller.
Representative Adam Schiff speaks to supporters at a barbecue hosted by fellow Democratic House member Josh Harder in Stockton, California. (Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)
You could draw parallel lines charting the levels of vilification that Schiff has encountered and his name recognition and fundraising numbers. Both the good and the grisly have boosted Schiff’s media profile, which he has adeptly cultivated. Schiff has come in at or near the top of the polls in the Senate race so far, along with Porter. A Berkeley IGS survey released last week revealed him as the best-known of the candidates vying for the late Dianne Feinstein’s job; 69 percent of likely voters said they could render an opinion of him (40 percent favorable, 29 percent unfavorable). He raised $6.4 million in the most recent reporting period, ending the quarter with $32 million cash on hand, or $20 million more than the runner-up, Porter. That’s more than any Senate candidate in the country this election cycle, and a massive advantage in a state populated by about 22 million registered voters covering some of the nation’s most expensive media markets.
“He’s become an inspiration and a voice of reason for many of us,” Becky Espinoza, of Stockton, told me at the Democratic barbecue.
Or at least the sector of “many of us” who don’t want him dead.
Schiff started getting threats a few months into Trump’s presidency. “Welcome to the club,” Nancy Pelosi, his longtime mentor, told him. He endured anti-Semitic screeds online and actual bullets sent to his office bearing the names of Schiff’s two kids. “I can’t stand the fact that millions of people hate you; they just hate you,” Schiff’s wife, Eve—yes, Adam and Eve—told her husband after the abuse started. “They just hate you.”
No one deserves to be subjected to such menace, and the threats can be particularly chilling for a member of Congress who would not normally have a protective detail. (Schiff’s office declined to discuss its security staffing and protocols.) Schiff is not shy about repeating these ugly stories, however. There’s an element of strategic humblebragging to this, as he is plainly aware that being a target of the MAGA minions can be extremely attractive to the Democratic voters he needs.
In June, congressional Republicans led a party-line vote to censure Schiff for his role in investigating Trump. As then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy attempted to preside, Democrats physically rallied around Schiff on the House floor chanting “shame” at McCarthy. On the day of his censure, Schiff was interviewed on CNN and twice on MSNBC; the next morning he appeared on ABC’s The View. “Whoever it was that introduced that censure resolution against him probably ensured Adam’s victory,” Representative Mike Thompson, another California Democrat, told me. A few colleagues addressed him that day as “Senator Schiff.”
I dropped in on Schiff periodically over the past few months as he traversed the chaos of the Capitol, weighed in on Trump’s legal travails, and campaigned across California. What did a Senate candidacy look like for a Trump-era cause célèbre who is revered and reviled with such vigor? I found it a bit odd to see Schiff out in the political wild—glad-handing, granny-hugging, and, at the barbecue in late August, nearly knocking a plate of brisket from the grip of an eager selfie-seeker. He has graduated to a full-on news-fixture status, someone perpetually framed by a screen or viewed behind a podium, as if he emerged from his mother’s womb and was dropped straight into a formal courtroom, hearing room, or greenroom setting.
I watched a number of guests in Stockton clutch Schiff’s hand and address him in plaintive tones. “After I stopped crying a little bit, I just wanted to thank him for all he did during impeachment and to just save our democracy,” said Espinoza, following her brief meeting with the candidate.
Nearby, David Hartman, of Tracy, California, put down a paper plate of chicken, pickles, and corn salad and made his way to Schiff. “I just want to shake the man’s hand and thank him,” Hartman told me, which is what he did. So did his wife, Tracy (of Tracy!), who was likewise surprised to find herself in tears.
“I’m like a human focus group,” Schiff told me, describing how strangers approach him at airports. “Sometimes I will have two people come up to me simultaneously. One will say, ‘You are Adam Schiff. I just want to shake your hand. You’re a hero.’ And the other will say, ‘You’re not my hero. Why do you lie all the time?’”
For his first eight terms in Congress, Schiff, 63, was not much recognized beyond the confines of the U.S. Capitol or the cluster of affluent Los Angeles–area neighborhoods he has represented in the House since 2001. “I think, before Trump, if you had to pick one of these big lightning rods or partisan bomb-throwers, you would not pick me,” Schiff told me.
Largely true. Schiff speaks in careful, somewhat clipped tones, with a slight remnant of a Boston accent from his childhood in suburban Framingham, Massachusetts. (His father was in the clothing business and moved the family to Arizona and eventually California.) A Stanford- and Harvard-trained attorney, Schiff gained a reputation as an ambitious but low-key legislator in the House, and a deft communicator in service of his generally liberal positions.
A Fox News reporter and other guests at the barbecue in Stockton.(Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)
After Trump’s election, however, Schiff’s district effectively became CNN, MSNBC, and the network Sunday shows, along with the scoundrel’s gallery of right-wing media that pulverized him hourly. This included a certain Twitter feed. The worst abuse Schiff received started after Trump’s maiden tweet about him dropped on July 24, 2017. This was back in an era of relative innocence, when it was still something of a novelty for a sitting president to attack a member of Congress by name—“Sleazy Adam Schiff,” in this case.
Schiff tweeted back that Trump’s “comments and actions are beneath the dignity of the office.” Schiff would later reveal that he rejected a less restrained rejoinder suggested by Mike Thompson, his California colleague: “Mr. President, when they go low, we go high. Now go fuck yourself.” Anyway, that was six years, two impeachments, four indictments, 91 felony counts, and 327 tweets by Donald Trump about Adam Schiff ago.
“Adam is one of the least polarizing personalities you will ever find,” said another Democratic House colleague, Dan Goldman, of New York. “The reason he’s become such a bogeyman for the Republican Party is simply that he’s so effective.” Goldman served as the lead majority counsel during Trump’s first impeachment, working closely with Schiff. “We originally met in the greenroom of MSNBC in June of 2018,” Goldman told me. (Of course they did.)
Schiff understands that some of the rancor directed at him is performative, and likes to point out the quiet compliments he receives from political foes. Trump used to complain on Twitter that Schiff spent too much time on television—in reality, a source of extreme envy for the then-president. Schiff tells a story about how Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, came to Capitol Hill for a deposition from members of Schiff’s Intelligence committee in 2017. “Kushner comes up to me to make conversation, and to ingratiate himself,” Schiff told me. “And he said, ‘You know, you do a great job on television.’ And I said, ‘Well, apparently your father-in-law doesn’t think so,’ and [Kushner] said, ‘Oh, yes, he does.’” (Kushner didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
One of Trump’s most fervent bootlickers, Senator Lindsey Graham, walked up to Schiff in a Capitol hallway during the first impeachment trial and told him how good of a job he was doing. Schiff, who relayed both this and the Kushner stories in his memoir, says he gets that from other Republicans, too, usually House members he’s worked with—including some who lampoon him in front of microphones. A few House Republicans apologized privately to Schiff, he told me, right after they voted to censure him.
“The apologies are always accompanied by ‘You’re not going to say anything about this, are you?’” Schiff said. When I urged Schiff to name names, to call out the hypocrites, he declined.
I asked Schiff if he would prefer the more anonymous, pre-2017 version of himself running in this Senate campaign, as opposed to the more embattled, death-threat-getting version, who nonetheless enjoys so many advantages because of all the attention. He paused. “I’d rather the country didn’t have to go through all this with Donald Trump,” he said, skirting a direct answer.
As with many members of Congress seeking a promotion or an exit, Schiff gives off a strong whiff of being done with the place. “The House has become kind of a basket case,” he told me, citing one historic grandiloquence that he was recently privy to—the episode in which Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene called her colleague Lauren Boebert a “little bitch” on the House floor.
“And I remember thinking to myself, There used to be giants who served in this body,” Schiff said. He sighed, as he does.
I met with Schiff at the Capitol in early October, amid the usual swirl of weighty events: Feinstein had died three days earlier; news that Governor Gavin Newsom would appoint the Democratic activist Laphonza Butler as her replacement came the night before. That afternoon, Republican Representative Matt Gaetz had filed his fateful “motion to vacate” that would result in the demise of McCarthy’s speakership the next day. Schiff stood just off the House floor, colleagues passing in both directions, Republicans looking especially angry, and reporters gathering around Schiff in a small scrum.
No matter what happens next November, Schiff is not running for reelection in the House. He told me he has long believed that he’d be a better fit for the Senate anyway, where he has been coveting a seat for years. Schiff said he considered running in 2016, after the retirement of the incumbent Barbara Boxer (who was eventually succeeded by Kamala Harris).
A Democrat will almost certainly win the 2024 California race. Senate contests in the state follow a two-tiered system in which candidates from both parties compete in a March primary, and then the two top finishers face off in November, regardless of their affiliation. In addition to Schiff, Porter, and Lee, the former baseball star Steve Garvey, known also for his various divorce and paternity scandals, recently entered the race as a Republican. A smattering of long shots are also running, including the requisite former L.A. news anchor and requisite former Silicon Valley executive. Butler announced on October 19 that she would not seek the permanent job.
To varying degrees, all of the three leading Democratic candidates have national profiles. Lee, who has represented her Oakland-area district for nearly 25 years, previously chaired both the Congressional Progressive and Black Caucuses. Porter was elected to Congress in 2018 and has gained a quasi-cult following as a progressive gadfly who has a knack for conducting pointed interrogations of executives and public officials that go rapidly viral. A few of her fans were so excited to meet Porter at the Stockton barbecue that three actually spilled drinks on her—this according to the congresswoman, speaking at an event a few days later.
Schiff, Porter, and Lee all identify as progressive Democrats on most issues, though Schiff tends to be more hawkish on national security. He voted to authorize the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and supported the 2011 U.S. missile strikes against Libya. Lee, who opposed all three, recently criticized Schiff’s foreign-policy views as “part of the status quo thinking” in Washington. (Porter was not in office then.) Schiff expressed “unequivocal support for the security and the right of Israel to defend itself” after last month’s attacks by Hamas. Lee has been more critical of the Israeli government, and called for a cease-fire immediately after the Hamas attacks. As for Porter, she has been a rare progressive to focus her response on America’s Iran policy, which she called lacking and partly to blame for the attacks.
Although Schiff is best known for his work as a Trump antagonist—and happily dines out on that—he is also wary of letting the former president define him entirely. “This is bigger than Trump,” he reminds people whenever the conversation veers too far in Trump’s inevitable direction. Schiff dutifully pivots to more standard campaign themes, namely the “two hugely disruptive forces” he says have shaped American life: “the changes in our economy” and “the changes in how we get our information.” He reels off the number of cities in California that he’s visited, events he’s done, and endorsements he’s received as proof that he is a workmanlike candidate, not just a citizen of the greenroom.
A group of hecklers in a boat floats by near the barbecue. (Photographs by Austin Leong for The Atlantic)
Recently, he lamented that many of his Republican colleagues are now driven by a “perverse celebrity” that he believes the likes of Greene and Boebert have acquired through their Trump-style antics and ties to the former president. I pointed out to Schiff that he, too, has received a lot of Trump-driven recognition. Doesn’t being affiliated with Trump, whether as an ally or an adversary, have benefits for both sides?
“Well, I don’t view it that way at all,” Schiff said. “I don’t view it as having any kind of equivalence. On one hand, we’re trying to defend our democracy. And on the other hand, we have these aiders and abettors of Trump by these vile performance artists. It’s quite different.”
Schiff’s biggest supporter has been Pelosi, who endorsed him over two other members of her own caucus and delegation. This included Lee, whom Pelosi described to me as “like a political sister.” I spoke by phone recently with the former speaker, who was effusive about Schiff and scoffed at any suggestion that he benefited from his resistance to Trump and the counter-backlash that ensued. “If what’s-his-name never existed, Adam Schiff would still be the right person for California,” Pelosi said. It was one of two occasions in our interview in which she refused to utter the word “Trump.”
“I just don’t want to say his name,” she explained. “Because I worry that he’s going to corrode my phone or something.”
In one of my conversations with Schiff, I asked him this multiple-choice question: Who had raised the most money for him—Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, or Donald Trump? My goal was to get Schiff to acknowledge that, without Trump, he would be nowhere near as well known, well financed, or well positioned to potentially represent the country’s most populous state in the Senate.
“I’m not sure how to answer that,” he said. After a pause, he picked himself. “I am my own biggest fundraiser,” he declared. Okay, I said, but wasn’t Trump the single biggest motivator for anyone to donate?
“It’s the whole package,” Schiff maintained, ceding nothing. He then made sure to mention the person who’s been “most formative in helping shape my career and phenomenally helpful in my campaign—Nancy Pelosi.” He was in no rush to give what’s-his-name any credit.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The next big fight over college admissions already has taken hold, and it centers on a different kind of minority group that gets a boost: children of alumni.
In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that strikes down affirmative action in admissions, colleges are coming under renewed pressure to put an end to legacy preferences — the practice of favoring applicants with family ties to alumni. Long seen as a perk for the white and wealthy, opponents say it’s no longer defensible in a world with no counterbalance in affirmative action.
President Joe Biden suggested colleges should rethink the practice after the court’s ruling, saying legacy preferences “expand privilege instead of opportunity.” Several Democrats in Congress demanded an end to the policy in light of the court’s decision to remove race from the admissions process. So did Republicans including Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is vying for the GOP presidential nomination.
“Let’s be clear: affirmative action still exists for white people. It’s called legacy admissions,” Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, said on Twitter.
For critics of legacy admissions, the renewed debate over fairness in admissions has offered a chance to swing public sentiment behind their cause.
As colleges across the U.S. pledge their commitment to diversity following the court’s ruling, activists have a simple response: prove it. If schools want to enroll more Black, Hispanic and Indigenous students, activists say, removing legacy preferences would be an easy first step.
“Now more than ever, there’s no justification for allowing this process to continue,” said Viet Nguyen, a graduate of Brown and Harvard who leads Ed Mobilizer, a nonprofit that has fought legacy preferences since 2018. “No other country in the world does legacy preferences. Now is a chance to catch up with the rest of the world.”
Using the Supreme Court decision as a catalyst, Nguyen’s group is rallying the alumni of top colleges to press their alma maters to end the practice. The goal is to get graduates of the 30 schools to withhold donations until the policy ends. The schools include Harvard and the University of North Carolina, which were at the center of the court case, along with the rest of the Ivy League and the University of Southern California.
It builds on other efforts taking aim at the practice. Colorado banned it at public universities in 2021, and lawmakers in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York have introduced similar bills. In Congress, Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York and Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, both Democrats, are reviving legislation that would forbid it at all universities that accept federal money.
Legacy preferences have become an easy target in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that hinged on questions of merit in the college application process, said Julie Park, who studies college admissions and racial equity at the University of Maryland. Instead of getting in on their own merit, she said, legacy students are just “standing on their parents’ shoulders.”
“It’s just low-hanging fruit,” she said. “People want something to do, and there’s a strong rationale to get rid of it.”
Secretary Miguel Cardona urged colleges to “ask themselves the tough questions,” adding that legacy admissions and other types of special treatment “have long denied well-qualified students of all backgrounds a level playing field.”
“In the wake of this ruling, they could further tip the scales against students who already have the cards stacked against them,” Cardona said in a statement to The Associated Press.
In the hazy world of college admissions, it’s unclear exactly which schools provide a legacy boost and how much it helps. In California, where state law requires schools to disclose the practice, USC reported that 14% of last year’s admitted students had family ties to alumni or donors. Stanford reported a similar rate.
At Harvard, which released years of records as part of the lawsuit that ended up before the Supreme Court, legacy students were eight times more likely to be admitted, and nearly 70% were white, researchers found.
Supporters of the policy say it builds an alumni community and encourages donations. A 2022 study of an undisclosed college in the Northeast found that legacy students were more likely to make donations, but at a cost to diversity — the vast majority were white.
Some prestigious colleges have abandoned the policy in recent years, including Amherst College and Johns Hopkins University. In the first year after dropping it, Amherst saw its share of legacy students in the freshman class fall by about half, while 19% of first-year students were the first in their families to attend college, the most in the school’s history.
Some colleges argue that, as their student bodies become more racially diverse, the benefits of legacy status will extend to more students of color. Opponents argue that white families still have an advantage, with generations of relatives who had access to any college.
Ivory Toldson went to college at Louisiana State University, but it wasn’t an option for his parents in the Jim Crow South.
“My parents couldn’t legally go to LSU. Discrimination is a lot more recent in our history than a lot of people seem to understand,” said Toldson, a Howard University professor and the director of education, innovation and research for the NAACP.
Toldson said there’s growing awareness of the irony that preferences for athletes and legacy students are still allowed, while race must be ignored.
In May, an AP-NORC poll found that few Americans think legacy admissions or donations should play much of a role in college admissions. Just 9% say it should be very important that a family member attended and 18% say it should be somewhat important. Likewise, only 10% say donations to the school should be very important and 17% say that should be somewhat important.
That same poll found that most Americans support affirmative action in higher education but think race should play a small role. Sixty-three percent said the Supreme Court should not block colleges from considering race in admissions, but 68% said it should not be a big factor.
Several colleges declined to say whether they will continue providing a boost for legacy students next year, including Cornell and the University of Notre Dame.
Meanwhile, Nguyen said he’s more optimistic than ever. In the past, colleges have been reluctant to be among the first to make the change, he said. Now he thinks that’s changing.
“In the next few months, I think the hesitancy will actually be who will be the last,” he said. “No university wants to be the last.”
___
The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) announced her candidacy for Senate in California, becoming the third member of Congress running for the seat being vacated at the end of next year by retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
“For those who say my time has passed, well, when does making change go out of style? I don’t quit. I don’t give up. Come on. That’s not in my DNA,” Lee, 76, said in a video released by her campaign on Tuesday. “Because when you stand on the side of justice, you don’t quit. If they don’t give you a seat at the table, you bring a folding chair for everyone.”
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) told her colleagues on Wednesday she intends to run for Senate, a source familiar with the discussions told HuffPost.
Politico first reported that the representative mentioned her plans to run for Senate in 2024 during a closed-door meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus. Lee said she is waiting to make a formal announcement about her candidacy out of respect for Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has yet to say if she’ll run for a sixth term, and the ongoing storms and resulting floods currently plaguing California.
“Right now, in respect to [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein and the floods and what I’m doing, I’m doing my work. And we’ll let them know when I intend to go to the next step. But now’s the time not to talk about that,” she told Politico.
Lee intends to make an official announcement “when it’s appropriate,” but has already spoken to Feinstein about her intention to run, The Washington Post reports.
News of Lee’s plans to run for Senate emerged a day after Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif) announced her candidacy. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has also hinted at a run. Meanwhile, Feinstein said Tuesday that “everyone is of course welcome to throw their hat in the ring” and that she’d make an announcement about her electoral future “at the appropriate time.”
Lee represents Oakland and Berkeley and has served in the House of Representatives for over two decades. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) reportedly considered Lee to replace Kamala Harris in the Senate in 2020 but opted for California elections chief Alex Padilla instead.
Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California announced Sunday that he won’t enter the competitive Democratic primary to fill retiring Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s senate seat in the Golden State, electing to endorse Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee instead.
“I have concluded that despite a lot of enthusiasm from Bernie [Sanders’] folks, the best place, the most exciting place, action place, fit place, for me to serve as a progressive is in the House of Representatives,” Khanna told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
“And I’m honored to be co-chairing Barbara Lee’s campaign for the Senate and endorsing her today. We need a strong anti-war senator and she will play that role.”
The Democratic field to fill Feinstein’s seat also includes Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter, who announced their bids earlier this year. Khanna had previously expressed interest in running for the vacant seat.
Lee, who announced her bid last month, is a member of the House Democratic leadership, serving as co-chair of the Democratic Steering Committee, and she was the former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Throughout her time in Congress, Lee has served as the co-chair and whip of the Progressive Caucus. And before coming to Washington, she spent several years serving in the California state legislature.
If elected, Lee would be the sole Black female senator serving in the Congress and only the third in US history.
Lee, Khanna said Sunday, is a “unique voice. She was the lone vote against the endless war in Afghanistan. She stood up so strongly against the war in Iraq. She worked with me in trying to stop the war in Yemen, the War Powers Resolution. And frankly, Jake, representation matters. We don’t have a single African American woman in the United States Senate.”
Currently, Lee is at a disadvantage compared to her well-funded rivals. She had just $52,000 in cash on hand entering 2023, according to FEC filings, while Schiff had more than $20 million stockpiled at the end of the year and Porter had more than $7.4 million.
Under California’s primary system, all candidates run on the same ballot, with the top two candidates, regardless of party, advancing to the general election.
This story has been updated with additional information.
As California Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped on stage at the state Democratic Party Convention this weekend, Vilma Dawson applauded with the visible faith of someone who had supported him through multiple elections and a recall campaign.
Dawson does not expect her loyalty to Newsom will be tested in a politically fraught decision that may lie ahead – selecting a successor to fill the seat of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, should the 89-year-old, who has already announced she’s not running for reelection in 2024, resign before the end of her term.
“I’m sure Governor Newsom has a plan to appoint an African American female,” said Dawson. Pausing to consider her words, she continued, “I don’t think the governorship is where he’s going to stop his political career. People have long memories as to whether they can trust someone to support, shall we say, promises that they made.”
In 2021, Newsom had said, “The answer is yes,” when asked on MSNBC if he would nominate a Black woman for Feinstein’s seat.
After Feinstein was absent from the Senate for months due to a shingles diagnosis that resulted in complications of Ramsay Hunt syndrome and encephalitis, California Democrats gathered for their state convention with her health top of mind.
“We do believe that Governor Newsom will keep his promise. We have known him to be a man of his word,” said Kimberly Ellis, a Democratic strategist and activist in California.
Ellis is part of an effort by Democratic Black women lobbying Newsom on the Senate choice, should he have to make it. Ellis described the effort as “putting our shoulder to the wheel – really trying to ensure that we get the best qualified person to lead us at this moment in time.”
Two Black women have served in the US Senate – Carol Moseley Braun, who served from 1993 to 1996, and Kamala Harris, who left to join the Biden administration as vice president. Currently, there are no Black women senators.
Citing battleground states like Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Ellis said, “Black women are the margin of victory. We get it done. [Newsom] knows that just like many in the country know that. And so, we have no doubt that he will indeed appoint a Black woman. The only question that’s on the table is which Black woman.”
Ellis thinks Rep. Barbara Lee should be first on Newsom’s list, calling her sentiment “Barbara or bust.”
Lee has already declared her candidacy for the seat in 2024.
Greeting supporters at her booth at the party convention meeting, Lee said her campaign would be fueled by a “multi-generational, multi-racial, progressive coalition.”
Calling the lack of Black women representation in the US Senate “outrageous,” Lee declined to press Newsom on any possible nomination choice. “I’m not going to get involved in his process,” she said. “He made a commitment. But I’m focused on this campaign. I am running to win this election.”
But choosing Lee wouldn’t be a simple choice for Newsom. The US Senate race is already underway, with three sitting members of Congress representing various factions of the Democratic Party in the race.
Lee’s rivals include Reps. Adam Schiff and Katie Porter.
Pelosi’s eldest daughter, Nancy Corinne Prowda, was reported and later pictured around Feinstein as she returned to the Senate. The Pelosi and Feinstein families have been close friends for decades, but a Pelosi family member so closely assisting Feinstein led to further speculation about the political dealings around the Senate seat.
“You can’t help but think about how it could impact your campaign,” Schiff said about Feinstein’s future and the wildcard it presents. “She’ll make a decision that she feels is consistent with her health and what’s best for the state.”
Regarding the noise surrounding a possible Newsom appointment, Schiff said he was doing his best to ignore it. “My father gave me some very good advice, which is focus on the things you can control, not the things you can’t. I do think that ultimately, voters want to decide this race and they want that choice to make. And I think they will have that choice.”
Porter, a favorite of California and national progressives, said, “I assume that Governor Newsom will keep his promise, but I can’t speak for him or what he’s thinking about,” adding that she was grateful for Feinstein’s return to Washington.
But she stressed that the campaign is about the future. “It’s not just about the next six months. It’s about the next six years and the next 60 years for California.”
At an event honoring Black women at the state party convention, Patrice Marshall McKenzie of Pasadena called herself “cautiously optimistic, but not confident” that Newsom would deliver. “I’m trying to keep my expectations moderate so that there’s not an issue of being disappointed if there’s under deliverance.”
Under-deliverance, for several Black women Democrats, would mean nominating a caretaker in the seat – either a non-political appointee or a politician who pledges not to run in 2024.
Tracie Stafford, a Democratic activist from Sacramento, said she was bracing herself for disappointment should Feinstein step aside before the election.
“The reality is, unfortunately, that there have not been ramifications for not keeping promises to specifically Black people and Black women,” she said.
“The reality is, where else are we going to vote? What else do we have, but our Democratic Party and our Democratic elected officials? We are absolutely between a rock and a hard place.”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said Sunday that California Gov. Gavin Newsom should “absolutely” appoint Rep. Barbara Lee to the Senate should Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s seat become vacant before the end of her term.
“I absolutely think he should appoint Barbara Lee. But we will see,” Bass told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
Newsom has pledged to appoint a Black woman to the Senate in case of a vacancy.
Bass pointed out Sunday that Lee had been under consideration to fill Kamala Harris’ Senate seat, which became vacant in 2021 when she assumed her role as vice president. Newsom, however, ultimately picked California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, who became the state’s first Latino senator.
Feinstein, who was first elected to the Senate in 1992, returned to the Capitol last month after an extended absence while recovering from shingles. During her absence, the 89-year-old senator faced calls to resign from some fellow Democrats in the House, with many pointing to the delay in advancing certain judicial nominees of President Joe Biden that her absence had caused.
But Bass noted Sunday that with Feinstein still in office, “It’s not an issue right now.” Pressed by Tapper if the senator should be in office, Bass said, “That’s her decision.”
“I worry about her. I worry about her health. But, ultimately, of course, that’s her decision to make,” the mayor said.
Newsom is under enormous pressure to stick to his pledge to appoint a Black woman to the Senate. In 2021, the governor said, “The answer is yes,” when asked on MSNBC if he would appoint a Black woman should Feinstein’s seat become open.
But choosing Lee wouldn’t be a simple choice for Newsom. The US Senate race is already underway, with Lee and fellow House Democrats Adam Schiff and Katie Porter representing various factions of the Democratic Party in the race. Another Democrat, tech executive Lexi Reese, recently filed paperwork to run for Senate.
There are currently three Black men in the Senate and no Black women in the legislative body that is made up of 100 officials. Throughout history, there have been eleven Black senators in total, including two Black female senators – Harris and former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun.
In her interview with Tapper, Bass spoke about the pushback former President Barack Obama has received over his call for the Republican Party to acknowledge issues of racial inequality in the US instead of espousing rhetoric that opportunities in the country are equal and fair.
“What President Obama was talking about was basically our history,” Bass said. “We are in a period right now where there are certain states, certain cities, where they literally do not want to tell the truths about US History.”
“What’s great about our country is everything, the whole package. You can’t just talk about the nice stories – George Washington’s cherry tree but not the 350 enslaved individuals that he had. All of it is the American story, and it all needs to be told, because we’re not going to overcome the problems if we cannot even reflect on how we got where we are,” Bass continued.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a GOP presidential contender whom Obama had mentioned by name in his remarks, said Sunday that there was “no higher compliment than to be attacked by President Obama.”
“Whenever the Democrats feel threatened, they pull out, drag out the former president and have him make some negative comments about someone running, hoping that their numbers go down,” Scott told Fox News. “The truth of my life disproves the lies of the radical left.”
Scott had earlier responded on Twitter to Obama’s comments, saying, “Let us not forget we are a land of opportunity, not a land of oppression.”
This story has been updated with additional details.
A top House Republican said Sunday he agreed with the Biden administration’s contentious decision to supply cluster munitions to Ukraine as part of a new military aid package, while a prominent progressive Democrat said the US risks “losing our moral leadership” over the move.
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican, and Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat, made their remarks in separate interviews with CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”
McCaul said the weapons “would be a game-changer” in the war in Ukraine, noting that “Russia is dropping with impunity cluster bombs” on Ukrainian territory.
“All the Ukrainians and (President Volodymyr) Zelensky are asking for is to give them the same weapons the Russians have to use in their own country against Russians who are in their own country,” he said. “They do not want these to be used in Russia.”
‘That’s crossing a line’: Democrat responds to Biden’s decision to send cluster munitions to Ukraine
The munitions, also known as cluster bombs, spread shrapnel that is designed to kill troops or take out armored vehicles such as tanks, but they also scatter “bomblets” across large areas that can fail to explode on impact and can pose a long-term risk to anyone who encounters them, similar to landmines.
Over 100 countries, including the UK, France and Germany, have outlawed the munitions under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, but the US and Ukraine are not signatories to the ban – a point that McCaul emphasized on Sunday.
Biden said in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that it was a “difficult decision” but he was ultimately convinced to send the controversial weapons because Kyiv needs ammunition in its counteroffensive against Russia.
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby told ABC on Sunday that the administration was “mindful of the concerns about civilian casualties” but reiterated that Ukrainian forces plan to use the cluster munitions to “defend their own territory, hitting Russian positions.”
National security adviser Jake Sullivan sought Sunday to downplay any concern that Biden’s decision would present any “fracture” with allied countries that oppose the use of such weapons ahead of the president’s high-stakes trip to Europe.
“We have heard nothing from people saying this cast doubt on our commitment, this cast doubt on coalition unity or this cast doubt on our belief that the United States is playing a vital and positive role as leader of this coalition in Ukraine,” he told reporters traveling with Biden en route to London.
Lee, however, told CNN that cluster bombs “should never be used. That’s crossing a line.”
“They don’t always immediately explode. Children can step on them,” she said. “The president’s been doing a good job managing this war, this Putin aggressive war against Ukraine. But I think that this should not happen.”
Asked by Tapper if the US could be engaging in war crimes by providing the weaponry, Lee said, “What I think is that we … would risk losing our moral leadership because, when you look at the fact that over 120 countries have signed the convention on cluster munitions saying that they should never be used, they should never be used.”
The remarks underscore the sensitivity surrounding cluster munitions, which US forces began phasing out in 2016 because of the danger they pose to civilians.
Another Democrat, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, said Sunday he appreciated that the Biden administration “grappled with the risk and reached agreements with the Ukrainian military” about the use of the munitions but he has “real qualms” about the decision.
“There is an international prohibition. And the US says, ‘But here is a good reason to do something different.’ It could give a green light to other nations to do something different as well,” Kaine said.
Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, welcomed the sending of cluster munitions to Ukraine but said the US was taking “too long” to supply weapons to the country.
“The best thing we can do now is to step up,” Barrasso told Fox News. “It just does seem to me there is so much delay in the activity of this administration and ultimately getting to Ukraine what they need.”
Lee and McCaul also diverged Sunday on the chaotic 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which has reemerged as a topic after the recent release of a State Department report that found that both the Trump and Biden administrations’ decisions to pull all US troops from Afghanistan had detrimental consequences.
“I don’t believe the (Biden) administration deserves any blame for this,” Lee said.
“We have to remember that Donald Trump made this agreement with the Taliban. Secondly, the Trump administration literally gutted our State Department and our diplomatic corps. I believe that the State Department and those who were involved in the end of the Afghanistan war, which should have happened before then, I believe, did the best they could,” Lee said.
McCaul called the report “damaging” and said the entire ordeal was a “huge foreign policy blunder.”
The report was publicly released on June 30, more than a year after the 90-day review of the evacuation was completed and includes findings around the tumultuous final weeks of the US presence in Afghanistan, as well as several recommendations for improvement moving forward.
The Biden administration’s frenzied withdrawal after 20 years of US involvement has come under immense scrutiny by predominantly Republican lawmakers. However, accusations about who was responsible for the chaotic final weeks have fallen largely along party lines, with Republicans pointing fingers at the Biden administration and Democrats, including the White House, casting blame on the Trump administration for the deal that set the US withdrawal into motion.
Asked on June 30 about the report and whether he admitted there were “mistakes during the withdrawal,” Biden noted that he had vowed that al Qaeda “wouldn’t be there.”
“I said we’d get help from the Taliban,” the president said. “I was right.”
McCaul on Sunday said the president’s response was “devoid of reality.”
“It’s a little bit eerie that a president of the United States would … be so disillusioned about what’s happening on the ground in Afghanistan, the idea that al Qaeda is gone,” the Texas Republican said. “He just really wants to sweep Afghanistan under the rug.”
Since retaking control of Afghanistan, the Taliban has rolled back decades of progress on human rights.
According to a recent report by United Nations experts, the Taliban has committed “egregious systematic violations of women’s rights,” by restricting their access to education and employment and their ability to move freely in society.
This story has been updated with additional information.
