“I’ve heard some folks say, ‘It’s not our policies, we just have to communicate better,’” says Representative Angie Craig, who is running for an open Senate seat in Minnesota. “It actually is our policies that swing-state voters aren’t with us on. For those colleagues who were calling to defund the police: our voters are not with you on that.”

Most Democrats now acknowledge that the progressive movement encouraged a kind of purity politics that hampered the party’s ability to win majorities. “We swung the pendulum too far to the left,” says Representative Ritchie Torres, who represents a Bronx district where Trump made inroads with working-class people of color, as he did in cities around the country. “We have become more responsive to interest groups than to people on the ground.”

Many Democratic officials believe the party moved too far left on social issues in particular. “There are some sports where trans girls shouldn’t be playing against biological girls,” says one lawmaker, adding that most of his fellow Democrats agree but are “afraid of the blowback that comes from a very small community.” Even abortion is up for a rethink. Some Democrats want a retreat from the enthusiastic embrace of abortion rights, and a return to talking about abortion as “safe, legal, and rare,” as Bill Clinton put it. “Refusing to say that even in the third trimester there’s no limits on it, it’s not where the average American is,” says another Democratic lawmaker. “The really embarrassing truth is Donald Trump is closer to the median voting on abortion than Democrats were.” Yet the fact these lawmakers would only share these thoughts without their names attached shows how much Democrats still fear antagonizing their liberal base.

The White House on Monday insisted it called House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to give him a heads-up about the airstrikes in Iran — but that he didn’t pick up the phone.

“First of all, we did make bipartisan calls,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told “Fox & Friends” — pushing back on what she called “fake news” reports that Democrats weren’t given advance notice about the attacks while also contending that the administration wasn’t “obligated” to do so.

“The White House made calls to congressional leadership. They were bipartisan calls. In fact, Hakeem Jeffries couldn’t be reached,” Leavitt said of the New York pol.

She said a CNN report that claimed “the White House did not give a heads-up to Democrats is just completely false.”

3 White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt denied reports that Democrats weren’t given a heads-up about the strikes. REUTERS

A source familiar with Jeffries’ situation told The Post his office “received a … no-details notification” similar to what other Dems were given shortly before the strikes were announced.

The source said the notification came on an unsecure line and that Jeffries did not get key details or a fuller classified briefing about the strikes before they occurred. The pol’s office did not respond to a Post question about why Jeffries did not answer the call.

Jeffries then held a press conference Monday afternoon and griped, “We haven’t gotten an initial briefing from the White House.

“All we received from the White House was a so-called courtesy call with no explanation as to the rationale for the decision that was taken that could have serious consequences for the American people.”

3 The White House stressed that it had made attempts to reach out to Democratic leaders — including New York pols Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries — before the strikes against Iran. CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) received a similar call but was essentially “given no details” about the strike, another source said.

Jeffries and Schumer are part of the so-called “Gang of Eight” Congress members who receive highly sensitive intelligence briefings. The group is comprised of the top Democratic and Republican leaders and intelligence committee members of both chambers of Congress.

The Post has confirmed that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) were briefed before the strikes, although it wasn’t clear if they received the same alleged limited-information calls.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was not given a heads-up even with a bare-bones call, according to his office.

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.) has implied that he was not given advance notice either. The Post has reached out to his office for clarification.

“According to the Constitution we are both sworn to defend, my attention to this matter comes BEFORE bombs fall,” Himes wrote on X on Saturday after the strikes were announced.

Leavitt fired back at critics, “The White House was not obligated to call anyone because the president was acting within his legal authority under Article II of the Constitution, as Commander in Chief of the President of the United States [sic].

“We gave these calls as a courtesy, and the Democrats are lying about this because they can’t talk about the truth of the success of that operation and the success of our United States military.”

Some rank-and-file members of Congress, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), have groused that the full Congress should’ve been given the chance to weigh in on the strikes, which he called unconstitutional.

3 President Trump hailed the strikes against three of Iran’s nuclear facilities as a success. AP

“He should be a Democrat, because he’s more aligned with them than with the Republican Party,” Leavitt said of Massie.

President Trump has vowed to back efforts to defeat Massie in his primary next year in the 2026 midterm election cycle. Massie is championing a measure in the House to rein in Trump’s war powers. A similar measure is circulating in the Senate.

Trump says he’s ending federal funding for NPR and PBS. They say he can’t

toggle caption Charles Dharapak/AP

President Trump issued an executive order late Thursday directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s board of directors to “cease federal funding for NPR and PBS,” the nation’s primary public broadcasters, claiming ideological bias.

“Neither entity presents a fair, accurate or unbiased portrayal of current events to tax-paying citizens,” the order says. “The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding.”

It is not clear that the president has the authority to make such orders to CPB under the law.

PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger called it a “blatantly unlawful Executive Order, issued in the middle of the night.”

Sponsor Message

CPB is already suing the Trump administration over his executive order seeking to fire three of its five board members; on Friday, it dismissed the validity of the president’s new order.

“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority,” the corporation wrote in a statement issued Friday morning. “Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government.”

The CPB noted that the statute Congress passed to create it “expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over [CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors.”

Congress said that such funds “may be used at the discretion of the recipient” for producing or acquiring programs to put on the air.

Trump’s newest order appears to envision a continuation of federal subsidies for public radio and television stations — apart from NPR and PBS. It is unclear how that squares with Trump’s pledge to ask Congress to rescind all funds already approved for public broadcasting.

Congress allocates federal funding for CPB and specifies how it shall be spent. The funding is carried out in two-year cycles, ahead of time, a structure designed to help shield public media from political pressure.

Trump, by contrast, has waged rhetorical warfare against it, fueling and channeling his supporters’ distrust of traditional newsgathering.

On social media platforms, Trump recently blasted the two national public broadcasting networks, posting in all caps: “REPUBLICANS MUST DEFUND AND TOTALLY DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM NPR & PBS, THE RADICAL LEFT ‘MONSTERS’ THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!”

Sponsor Message

NPR vowed to fight back in a statement released Friday by Heather Walls, its senior vice president of communications.

“We will vigorously defend our right to provide essential news, information and life-saving services to the American public,” NPR said in the statement. “The President’s order is an affront to the First Amendment rights of NPR and locally owned and operated stations throughout America to produce and air programming that meets the needs of their communities.”

It said the executive order jeopardizes the national airing of NPR newscasts, and programs like Morning Edition and Tiny Desk Radio.

Accusations of political bias

The leaders of NPR and PBS testified at a House oversight committee hearing in March on allegations of ideological bias in public broadcasting.

Republican lawmakers assailed NPR President and CEO Katherine Maher for political messages she had posted to social media years before she joined NPR in March 2024, as well as news decisions the network made largely before her tenure.

PBS’ Kerger found herself queried about a video involving a performer in drag singing a variation on a children’s song for a young audience. (Kerger testified that the video was posted on the website of PBS’ New York City member station and never aired on television.)

Earlier this week, the Federal Election Commission unanimously dismissed a complaint of bias and illegal electioneering against NPR, finding that the network is engaged in a “legitimate press function.”

How federal funds reach NPR and PBS

Federal funding for public media flows through the congressionally chartered Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Congress allocated $535 million for the CPB for the current fiscal year — an amount affirmed in a recent stop-gap bill passed by the Republican-controlled U.S. House and Senate.

According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Congress has fully funded it through Sept 30, 2027.

At the hearing in late March, heads of both networks spoke of the mission to provide nonpartisan news and programming to the American public, without charge. They said stations would be most vulnerable if federal funding was cut off for public broadcasting.

NPR typically receives about 1% of its funding directly from the federal government, and a slightly greater amount indirectly; its 246 member institutions, operating more than 1,000 stations, receive on average 8% to 10% of their funds from CPB.

By contrast, PBS and its stations receive about 15% of their revenues from CPB’s federal funds.

Most of the funds for public media go to local stations; and most to subsidize television, which is more expensive than radio.

A government investigation of public broadcasters

The Trump administration’s assault on public media began just weeks after his inauguration. Trump’s appointee as the nation’s chief broadcast regulator, Federal Communications Commission Chairperson Brendan Carr, launched an investigation of NPR and PBS, contending it appears that their corporate underwriting spots violate laws banning commercial advertisements. Carr has used it to question federal funding of the networks and their non-commercial status.

Sponsor Message

The networks say they have been encouraged repeatedly by the agency and Congress to develop private financial support and have worked assiduously for years with the FCC to ensure that content falls within FCC guidelines.

PBS offers a heavy amount of educational fare; NPR relies more on news and music. Both provide locally grounded content and reach more than 99% of the population, at no cost. In many states and communities, the stations also serve as a key component of emergency and disaster response systems.

While the CPB is suing the Trump administration over the attempted firings of three of the five board members, were Trump to succeed in doing so, it would appear he would have, for now, erased the quorum necessary for the CPB board to take any actions. That includes, presumably, the elimination of funds for PBS and NPR.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp, Managing Editor Gerry Holmes and Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James. Under NPR’s protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

White House officials have in recent weeks brainstormed strategies for enshrining into law the government cuts implemented by billionaire Elon Musk’s team, aiming to turn the U.S. DOGE Service’s moves into lasting policy shifts. So far, however, administration officials are running into resistance not just from Democrats, but also from congressional Republicans, who have in private conversations made clear that it would be difficult to codify even a small fraction of the measures that Musk’s team unilaterally implemented, according to lawmakers and several other people familiar with the discussions. GOP members of Congress have also raised concerns about tackling cuts as Republicans are trying to corral their rowdy and tiny majorities into extending tax cuts in one “big, beautiful bill” that President Donald Trump has demanded.

The impasse over DOGE reflects a looming challenge for the administration’s vision of a sprawling overhaul of federal agencies. With both the courts and Congress refusing to provide legal cover to spending cuts that Musk forced through, the administration is running out of options for ensuring that its unilateral reductions take effect — potentially limiting DOGE’s lasting impact despite the disruption it brought to the government.

Advertisement

“None of the activities of the DOGE have heretofore had any impact on the budget, the debt or the deficit. Until Congress acts, those savings don’t really become real,” said Robert Shea, a Republican who served in senior political roles at the White House budget office.

The White House — which released its budget proposal Friday — has to choose between implementing the funding Congress approved or violating federal budget law, triggering a constitutional crisis, according to Shea and several other budget experts.

The administration initially floated sending $9.3 billion of DOGE cuts to the Hill, which would encompass DOGE’s elimination of the main agency providing foreign aid, the U.S. Agency for International Development, as well as zeroing out some money for public broadcasting. The cuts would take just 51 votes in the Senate to pass, which means lawmakers would not need to worry about a Democratic filibuster to make the cuts permanent, under a provision in the 1974 budget law that allows requests for rescinded funding to be expedited. Musk has claimed $160 billion in savings so far.

In October, Elon Musk said he would cut government spending by $2 trillion. Now, he says it’s closer to $150 billion — less than 8 percent of what he promised. (Video: JM Rieger/The Washington Post, Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

This week, however, lawmakers began to raise concerns about even that smaller effort, with Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) telling colleagues she would have trouble supporting cuts to PEPFAR, an effort to combat HIV/AIDS abroad that other foreign-policy-minded senators also support.

Advertisement

“I think it depends what’s in it precisely,” Collins said of the package’s chances of passing in the Senate. “For example, the $8.3 billion in foreign aid cuts, if that includes the women’s global health initiative as is rumored, if it cuts PEPFAR as it may, I don’t see those passing.”

Collins added that the Senate can amend the rescission request, which could address those issues.

“Until we see precisely what it is, I think it’s really hard to predict,” she said.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma) said passing DOGE cuts could also be difficult in the House, given the GOP’s tiny majority. Cole, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, asked the administration to review the package before it is submitted to ensure the cuts have political support.

“Do you really want to roll out and have a failure?” Cole said. “I think if they put it out there, they need to succeed at it.”

Advertisement

The roadblocks pose a major challenge for the White House on one of its top domestic priorities: cutting spending. Budget officials have for weeks brainstormed proposals for Republicans to give legal cover to the DOGE cuts, of which the $9 billion request was supposed to be only the first, according to two of the people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal talks. Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, has long speculated that Congress would not approve the package, two of the people said.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), a fiscal hawk, said he hoped the Senate would be able to pass such a small amount of cuts.

“If we can’t pass a $9 billion rescission package, we might as well all pack it up, give in and admit we’re all going to go bankrupt,” Paul said.

Advertisement

In Trump’s first term, a rescission package narrowly failed on the Senate floor, but Republicans’ majority in the chamber has grown since then.

“I think it’s tiny because they’re trying to get to the smallest number they can get and get a victory,” Paul said of the package, urging the White House to send more rescissions.

Cole said the first package focused on USAID funding is the “easiest” to pass.

“You got to see how that goes before you decide what else can we really do,” Cole said of any future rescission packages.

Cole said his preference would be to make other cuts through the appropriations process, instead of through more rescission proposals. Any appropriations bills will need Democratic votes in the Senate to pass, making it unlikely they will ultimately include dramatic cuts.

Several Republican senators have also been spooked by the idea of the freewheeling amendment process that would be triggered by a rescission vote, which could force members to take uncomfortable positions on issues. The timing is also difficult, because both chambers are racing to extend tax cuts initially passed in Trump’s first term, which will require holding together their fragile majorities.

Advertisement

The idea for Congress to pass Musk’s cuts dates to a closed-door lunch between lawmakers and Musk in March. Paul and others suggested to Musk that the administration should send billions of dollars in DOGE cuts to Congress in the form of a rescission package, which would take only a bare majority to pass the Senate. That would probably protect the cuts from being struck down by the courts. Musk reacted enthusiastically to the idea, according to several senators.

“He said unless Congress takes action on this, none of it is permanent,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) said at the time.

Musk told reporters that it’s time for Congress and the rest of the Cabinet to step up, now that he is stepping back from DOGE.

“How much pain is the Cabinet and this Congress willing to take?” he said this week. “Because it can be done, but it requires dealing with a lot of complaints.”

Advertisement

Trump campaigned on overturning traditional limits on his ability to cancel funding appropriated by Congress, saying he should be able to use a technique called “impoundment” to reduce or eliminate spending. Trump and DOGE have aggressively flouted Congress’s power with potentially illegal freezes on spending, and many of the moves have ended up in court, where judges have at least temporarily reversed some actions.

Trump has frozen or canceled at least $430 billion in funds since taking office, according to an estimate compiled by the top Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees.

“No American president has ever so flagrantly ignored our nation’s spending laws or so brazenly denied the American people investments they are owed,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) said in a statement releasing the tracker.

Advertisement

Some budget experts say the administration needs to follow budget law and either put cuts to a vote in Congress or abandon the effort to freeze money without lawmakers’ approval.