The Supreme Court’s decision in April to strike down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana as a racial gerrymander set off a redistricting frenzy across the South. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee moved with alacrity, changing filing deadlines and voting dates to eliminate formerly protected Democratic districts ahead of this fall’s midterms.

South Carolina appeared poised to follow suit. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster called a special session for lawmakers to approve a new map boxing out the state’s lone Democratic congressman, veteran Rep. James Clyburn.

But this week, the Palmetto State’s redistricting attempt ran aground – with some Republicans in the state Senate joining Democrats in declining to move forward with the House-passed map. The outcome underscored the complexities and conflicting motivations involved when determining the makeup of districts and what ultimately benefits a state.

Why We Wrote This

Some Southern states moved to eliminate majority-minority districts in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling last month. But others are holding off for now – underscoring the complexities and political risks.

Some Republican lawmakers balked at the cost to taxpayers of rescheduling South Carolina’s June 9 primary. There were also thorny legal questions, given that early voting began on Tuesday.

Above all, some worried that the new, hastily drawn map could backfire. Mr. Clyburn, who is running for an 18th term, until recently was the No. 3 Democrat in the House. For decades, he has funneled federal funds to his state and played a kingmaker role in Democratic primaries, including in 2020 when he backed Joe Biden. On Friday, Mr. Clyburn was hosting his annual “fish fry,” a fixture of the presidential primary calendar for Democrats exploring or seeking a White House run. If Democrats take control of the House this fall – or the White House in 2028 – it’s easy to see how South Carolina could benefit from still having him in Washington.

And spreading out all of Mr. Clyburn’s voters into Republican districts could potentially have tipped one or even two of those seats to Democrats, especially in a wave election. While South Carolina’s proposed new districts all looked solidly Republican on paper, that might have changed if outrage over the process spurred Black voters to turn out en masse, says Claire Wofford, a political scientist at the College of Charleston.

“When you mess with James Clyburn in South Carolina,” she says, “you make a lot of minority voters really angry.”

To be sure, the redistricting fight is far from over in South Carolina and other states that have declined to act ahead of this year’s elections. The Supreme Court decision weakened a key section of the Voting Rights Act that had put guardrails around minority communities that historically elect Democrats. As a result, the Congressional Black Caucus says 19 of its 58 members could lose their seats over the next few years. All are Democrats; the four Black Republicans in the House are all retiring or running for other offices.

Jaime Harrison, who ran for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina in 2020 and is a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, says GOP lawmakers “believe they have been given a green light” to break up communities. This should concern all Americans, he says, but it is “deeply personal” for Black voters in the South. “We know the history of literacy tests, poll taxes, racial gerrymanders, and systems designed to reduce our political voice,” he said in a text. “That is why this moment carries so much weight.”

Conservatives argue that drawing district lines based on race is actually discriminatory. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Louisiana v. Callais decision that states had been forced by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”

Majority-minority districts were originally designed to ensure voters from racial minority groups had political representation, not necessarily to change the racial makeup of Congress, says David Lublin, the chair of the department of government at American University who studies majority-minority districts. The result, though, was a steady increase in the number of Black lawmakers. Of the 40 non-white federal lawmakers currently from the South, 35 represent majority-minority districts and nearly all are Democrats.

In recent years, more Black candidates have won federal elections from majority-white or racially mixed districts with solid Democratic majorities, notes Professor Lublin. But in much of the South, “the linkage between party and race is pretty tight.” That makes it easier for Republicans to draw district lines that maximize partisan advantage and dilute minority representation, as Tennessee recently did in Memphis, drawing out a majority-minority district represented by the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation.

Still, some majority-minority districts might have cost the Democratic Party pick-up opportunities by concentrating its voters too heavily in one place, he says. “It wasn’t necessarily helpful to them.”

Indeed, not all South Carolina Democrats want to leave Mr. Clyburn’s 6th Congressional District as is.

The last time the state redrew its maps, in 2022, Lincolnville, a small town outside Charleston, was moved out of the 1st Congressional District and into the 6th. Before that, the 1st had been a swing district – represented over the past decade by Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham and then Republican Rep. Nancy Mace.

A lawsuit filed by civil rights groups challenged the 2022 map as racially discriminatory because it moved 30,000 Black voters out of the 1st District to make it safe for Republicans. A federal court ruled unanimously in favor of the litigants in 2023. But the Supreme Court overturned the ruling on appeal, leaving the map in place.

As a result, Lincolnville, a community founded in 1867 by former slaves on land bought from a railroad company, was drawn into the district that’s been represented since 1992 by Mr. Clyburn.

Democrats in the state offer conflicting views on whether that redraw was helpful or harmful.

Enoch Dickerson III, the mayor of Lincolnville, was delighted with the new map. He had never met Ms. Mace, but found Mr. Clyburn was receptive to what his town needed. Last year, it was awarded a $4.1 million grant to renovate a historic school building that is now the town hall. “It’s been neglected for many, many years,” the mayor says. The renovation “is all because of Congressman James Clyburn.”

The prospect of being moved back into a Republican-held district, if not this cycle then possibly in the next one, makes Mr. Dickerson wince. “I just feel this is unfair,” he said.

But the backroom dealings that put Lincolnville in Mr. Clyburn’s district clearly benefited Ms. Mace, who coasted to reelection in 2022 by 14 percentage points, after winning by just one percentage point in 2020. It also made Mr. Clyburn’s seat safer by increasing the Black voting-age population in his district.

Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a veteran Black Democratic state legislator, says the 2022 map closed off opportunities for her party to gain seats.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

She says she thinks the map Republicans were contemplating adopting for this fall, while it ostensibly would create seven Republican districts, could actually have resulted in five GOP and two Democratic seats, in a state that cast 40% of its votes for Kamala Harris in 2024. “Were there not such a commitment to pack voters of color into one district, this could easily have come about back in 2020,” she says.

“I’m not focused on maintaining power for an individual,” Ms. Cobb-Hunter adds. “What I am focused on is the state as a whole and making sure that voters around the state are adequately represented, whether those are voters of color or not.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in April to strike down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana as a racial gerrymander set off a redistricting frenzy across the South. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana, Alabama, and Tennessee moved with alacrity, changing filing deadlines and voting dates to eliminate formerly protected Democratic districts ahead of this fall’s midterms.

South Carolina appeared poised to follow suit. Republican Gov. Henry McMaster called a special session for lawmakers to approve a new map boxing out the state’s lone Democratic congressman, veteran Rep. James Clyburn.

But this week, the Palmetto State’s redistricting attempt ran aground – with some Republicans in the state Senate joining Democrats in declining to move forward with the House-passed map. The outcome underscored the complexities and conflicting motivations involved when determining the makeup of districts and what ultimately benefits a state.

Why We Wrote This

Some Southern states moved to eliminate majority-minority districts in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling last month. But others are holding off for now – underscoring the complexities and political risks.

Some Republican lawmakers balked at the cost to taxpayers of rescheduling South Carolina’s June 9 primary. There were also thorny legal questions, given that early voting began on Tuesday.

Above all, some worried that the new, hastily drawn map could backfire. Mr. Clyburn, who is running for an 18th term, until recently was the No. 3 Democrat in the House. For decades, he has funneled federal funds to his state and played a kingmaker role in Democratic primaries, including in 2020 when he backed Joe Biden. On Friday, Mr. Clyburn was hosting his annual “fish fry,” a fixture of the presidential primary calendar for Democrats exploring or seeking a White House run. If Democrats take control of the House this fall – or the White House in 2028 – it’s easy to see how South Carolina could benefit from still having him in Washington.

And spreading out all of Mr. Clyburn’s voters into Republican districts could potentially have tipped one or even two of those seats to Democrats, especially in a wave election. While South Carolina’s proposed new districts all looked solidly Republican on paper, that might have changed if outrage over the process spurred Black voters to turn out en masse, says Claire Wofford, a political scientist at the College of Charleston.

“When you mess with James Clyburn in South Carolina,” she says, “you make a lot of minority voters really angry.”

To be sure, the redistricting fight is far from over in South Carolina and other states that have declined to act ahead of this year’s elections. The Supreme Court decision weakened a key section of the Voting Rights Act that had put guardrails around minority communities that historically elect Democrats. As a result, the Congressional Black Caucus says 19 of its 58 members could lose their seats over the next few years. All are Democrats; the four Black Republicans in the House are all retiring or running for other offices.

Jaime Harrison, who ran for the U.S. Senate in South Carolina in 2020 and is a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, says GOP lawmakers “believe they have been given a green light” to break up communities. This should concern all Americans, he says, but it is “deeply personal” for Black voters in the South. “We know the history of literacy tests, poll taxes, racial gerrymanders, and systems designed to reduce our political voice,” he said in a text. “That is why this moment carries so much weight.”

Conservatives argue that drawing district lines based on race is actually discriminatory. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Louisiana v. Callais decision that states had been forced by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”

Majority-minority districts were originally designed to ensure voters from racial minority groups had political representation, not necessarily to change the racial makeup of Congress, says David Lublin, the chair of the department of government at American University who studies majority-minority districts. The result, though, was a steady increase in the number of Black lawmakers. Of the 40 non-white federal lawmakers currently from the South, 35 represent majority-minority districts and nearly all are Democrats.

In recent years, more Black candidates have won federal elections from majority-white or racially mixed districts with solid Democratic majorities, notes Professor Lublin. But in much of the South, “the linkage between party and race is pretty tight.” That makes it easier for Republicans to draw district lines that maximize partisan advantage and dilute minority representation, as Tennessee recently did in Memphis, drawing out a majority-minority district represented by the only Democrat in the state’s congressional delegation.

Still, some majority-minority districts might have cost the Democratic Party pick-up opportunities by concentrating its voters too heavily in one place, he says. “It wasn’t necessarily helpful to them.”

Indeed, not all South Carolina Democrats want to leave Mr. Clyburn’s 6th Congressional District as is.

The last time the state redrew its maps, in 2022, Lincolnville, a small town outside Charleston, was moved out of the 1st Congressional District and into the 6th. Before that, the 1st had been a swing district – represented over the past decade by Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham and then Republican Rep. Nancy Mace.

A lawsuit filed by civil rights groups challenged the 2022 map as racially discriminatory because it moved 30,000 Black voters out of the 1st District to make it safe for Republicans. A federal court ruled unanimously in favor of the litigants in 2023. But the Supreme Court overturned the ruling on appeal, leaving the map in place.

As a result, Lincolnville, a community founded in 1867 by former slaves on land bought from a railroad company, was drawn into the district that’s been represented since 1992 by Mr. Clyburn.

Democrats in the state offer conflicting views on whether that redraw was helpful or harmful.

Enoch Dickerson III, the mayor of Lincolnville, was delighted with the new map. He had never met Ms. Mace, but found Mr. Clyburn was receptive to what his town needed. Last year, it was awarded a $4.1 million grant to renovate a historic school building that is now the town hall. “It’s been neglected for many, many years,” the mayor says. The renovation “is all because of Congressman James Clyburn.”

The prospect of being moved back into a Republican-held district, if not this cycle then possibly in the next one, makes Mr. Dickerson wince. “I just feel this is unfair,” he said.

But the backroom dealings that put Lincolnville in Mr. Clyburn’s district clearly benefited Ms. Mace, who coasted to reelection in 2022 by 14 percentage points, after winning by just one percentage point in 2020. It also made Mr. Clyburn’s seat safer by increasing the Black voting-age population in his district.

Gilda Cobb-Hunter, a veteran Black Democratic state legislator, says the 2022 map closed off opportunities for her party to gain seats.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

She says she thinks the map Republicans were contemplating adopting for this fall, while it ostensibly would create seven Republican districts, could actually have resulted in five GOP and two Democratic seats, in a state that cast 40% of its votes for Kamala Harris in 2024. “Were there not such a commitment to pack voters of color into one district, this could easily have come about back in 2020,” she says.

“I’m not focused on maintaining power for an individual,” Ms. Cobb-Hunter adds. “What I am focused on is the state as a whole and making sure that voters around the state are adequately represented, whether those are voters of color or not.”

Instead of cheers, commencement speakers at some colleges and universities across the United States heard boos this spring when they mentioned artificial intelligence to anxious graduates facing an employment landscape rapidly being reshaped by AI.

But colleges are hoping that students entering this fall will not graduate with the same level of anxiety about the technology. Schools are scrambling to expand AI offerings with focused majors and are incorporating the technology into their curricula – changes that could lead future graduates to see it more as a tool rather than an existential threat.

A survey of nearly 10,000 students, who had been prospects to start college last fall, found that 42% expect AI to influence their career choice. About 10% said they had already changed their major because of AI, according to an April survey by education consulting firm EAB. Half of the surveyed students expressed uncertainty about how AI could impact their future careers, while many signaled concern, nervousness, and skepticism.

Why We Wrote This

Despite trepidation from some recent college graduates about how AI could reshape their chosen careers, colleges and universities are expanding their offerings. Incoming students express a mix of anxiety and optimism about the technology.

Yet U.S. schools are offering nearly 200 AI bachelor’s degree programs and more than 300 master’s degree AI programs, according to Programs.com, a cybersecurity education platform.

The University of Southern California is starting a $200 million AI program this fall. Drexel University in Philadelphia plans to integrate AI into its experiential cooperative education program, which places students in jobs related to their concentrations, as it launches its AI major this year. Employers have reached out asking that students know how to use AI.

“It’s a market opportunity, but also, this is where things are going,” said Ali Shokoufandeh, interim dean of the Drexel School of Computer and Information Sciences. “In three years from now, if you don’t know AI/ML [Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning] you won’t have a job. They will not hire you.”

Tool or threat?

This spring, Drexel hosted prospective members of its inaugural class of undergraduate AI majors and their parents. There were introductions to faculty, question-and-answer sessions for moms and dads, and student-led tours.

Professor Dario Salvucci beamed at the group and posed a question.

“When you think of AI, what is the first thing that comes to mind?”

“It’s something that makes your life easier,” answered one student. “Like homework or your classes.”

“It helps you simplify everyday tasks, so you can work on bigger things,” another student said.

Remington Ochoa, a graduating high school senior from Jersey City, New Jersey, was at the session. Later, he said, “Part of me thinks that AI is something that I should go to because it’s helped me in school and with the way that I think.”

Mr. Ochoa’s journey with AI was not one of immediate acceptance.

In ninth grade, he shied away from the technology because friends were using it to cheat at school. But he then started learning how to get what he wanted from AI without compromising himself. He would ask it to help with suggestions on topics for research papers or songs that illustrated a subject matter that he wanted to explore.

“If AI can do something like that, it’s really a teacher in a sense, if it can help you with problems,” he says.

Caution urged

Even as colleges are expanding their AI offerings, some faculty members are urging caution, and administrators are wrestling with policies to avoid its misuse.

The University of California, Berkeley, School of Law recently announced a strict anti-AI policy that prohibits its use for most academic work submitted for credit or during exams. AI can only be used if a class is specifically being taught about the technology.

Justin Raden is an English instructor at the University of Mississippi. He says faculty members owe it to students to present the big picture of AI.

“Faculty have a special responsibility to kind of naysay the technology,” Dr. Raden says. “We should at least be trying to show students all the ways in which it will sell them out and sell them short.”

He adds that schools have wrongfully and rapidly adopted AI in various ways that he disagrees with, including administrative decision making, AI training programs and AI-based degrees.

In March, the University of Mississippi announced it was joining a consortium of other schools – known as NextGenAI – that is backed by ChatGPT developer OpenAI. The university said at the time that its participation would allow it to continue advancing the integration of AI into its mission.

Dr. Raden worries about partnerships between colleges and tech companies to study AI. These companies put up money in the guise of training a future workforce, he says, but they also benefit greatly from owning the intellectual property and getting the labor of everyone associated with the university.

“This has been a very shortsighted and entirely too quick retooling of the university,” he says.

Preparing graduates

Regan Kibby is the newly appointed Student Success and AI Librarian at Community College of Aurora in Colorado. This past semester, at the behest of teachers, he taught classes on information literacy with AI, making sure students have good tools and understand the ethical implications.

“I do recognize that [faculty members] are the experts in their fields and that they want what’s best for their students,” Mr. Kibby says. “I also think that every professor blanket-banning AI without talking about it or teaching it is setting our students up for failure.”

Mr. Ochoa, who ultimately decided to attend the Rochester Institute of Technology in the fall, had already changed his planned major from game design to sound design, then to AI. He says he wants to help people through this technological transition and show them the ways that AI has helped him.

He reads headlines full of doom and gloom with AI potentially stealing jobs that could otherwise await new college graduates, but there’s a fix to that, he says. Companies should integrate AI into their workforces so they get the most out of their current employees. People should use AI to augment their skillsets, he says.

“It’s all on how it’s used,” he says. “At the end of the day, you can use it in a way where it can replace jobs, or you can use it in a way where it can help you boost jobs, and it can be like a partner, rather than something that can steal your job.”

All that’s left of Adam Wolman’s house is a garden wall. Revisiting his old neighborhood near Los Angeles recently, the creative consultant and former TV executive pulled up to the spot where he lived for over 25 years. The house had just been through a two-year renovation when it burned to the ground in the Palisades Fire in January of last year. Now, it’s an empty lot.

Mr. Wolman’s story is similar to more than 13,000 others’ in Los Angeles County. They include Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV star who has channeled frustrations over the city’s fire prevention and rebuilding efforts, as well as problems like homelessness and drug addiction, into a surging dark-horse campaign for mayor of Los Angeles.

Mr. Pratt’s messaging – around Los Angeles’ decline and the political establishment’s alleged complicity – has been amplified by a series of provocative AI videos circulating on social media. Many of the videos, which are not official products of his campaign (though Mr. Pratt often reposts them), don’t focus on his proposed policies or his background, but instead lean in to storytelling.

Why We Wrote This

Los Angeles last had a Republican mayor 25 years ago. But reality TV star Spencer Pratt has seen a flurry of donations and support in the run-up to the June 2 vote, in a campaign shaped by last year’s Palisades Fire and a series of provocative AI videos.

One portrays the candidate as a Batman-like figure rescuing a burning, dystopian Los Angeles from a cabal of villains represented by LA Mayor Karen Bass (in Joker makeup), California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and former Vice President Kamala Harris. As the Democratic politicians enjoy a decadent meal in a Versailles-like setting, a man who looks like the actor Hugh Jackman pleads, “I just want to rebuild my home. It’s been over a year.” The politicians all laugh.

The unconventional videos, combined with Mr. Pratt’s own blunt-spoken style, appear to be catching on with at least some voters who’ve grown weary of politics as usual and are looking to shake up the status quo. Recent polls show the Republican running behind Mayor Bass by anywhere from 14 to just 3 points in this heavily Democratic city. If no candidate surpasses 50% in the June 2 primary, which seems likely, he has a shot at being one of two who advance to November’s election. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a progressive Democrat, is also in contention in most polls.

Even if Mr. Pratt doesn’t win, strategists say his campaign has broken new ground – providing a clear example of how artificial intelligence can reshape political communication.

“It’s a watershed moment,” says Crystal Patterson, a Democratic strategist who previously worked at Facebook. “The LA mayor’s race is going to be a really good litmus test for what this kind of new frontier in digital means for voters and how they’re consuming information.”

Experts have long worried that AI could wreak havoc on political campaigns, by amplifying disinformation and making it hard for voters to know what’s real and what’s fake. For now, those fears haven’t played out. Most of the pro-Pratt videos are obviously fake – and come across more as an edgy form of entertainment.

“The whole point is to drive attention and to drive conversation,” says Scott Babwah Brennen, director of New York University’s Center on Technology Policy. Videos depicting candidates as characters from a movie franchise might not change many voters’ minds, he says, but it can create the kind of buzz that’s helpful for fundraising and mobilization. Indeed, Mr. Pratt is far outraising Ms. Bass and Ms. Raman, reporting a haul nearly 10 times that of the mayor’s in the last campaign finance reporting period.

Many of the AI videos have been shared by an X account under the name Charles Curran, a filmmaker who owns a studio in Los Angeles and experiments with AI in his own creative work. He and the Pratt campaign did not respond to interview requests.

Los Angeles last had a Republican mayor 25 years ago, when the share of Republican voters in the city was greater than it is now. After President Donald Trump recently said he heard that Mr. Pratt was “a big MAGA person,” both Ms. Bass’ and Ms. Raman’s campaigns have worked to link the two Republican reality TV stars-turned-politicians. Mr. Pratt has downplayed his party affiliation on the campaign trail, presumably recognizing that associating himself strongly with the GOP brand hurts more than it helps in Los Angeles.

The crux of the race, for all the candidates, is the aftermath of the fires. Mr. Pratt accuses Ms. Bass of poor leadership, which he says left the city unprepared for the wildfires that wiped out neighborhoods in 2025.

The mayor faced widespread criticism over her absence from the city while on a diplomatic trip to Ghana when the fires broke out. And a major reservoir in Los Angeles was empty, leaving firefighters without water in the early days. In the Pacific Palisades, the fire burned over 23,000 acres.

“I don’t know of anybody who says the mayor did a good job [handling] the fires,” says Matt Klink, an LA-based Republican strategist. Criticism of the city’s response is part of the reason Mr. Pratt’s campaign is drawing so much attention, he says. “He’s touching on something that everybody acknowledges is real.”

Some of Mr. Pratt’s campaign ads feature him standing in front of an Airstream trailer. “This is where I live. They let my home burn down,” he says in one. (According to media reports, he has been residing, at least some of the time, at the Hotel Bel-Air.)

Mr. Pratt has also criticized the city’s response to homelessness and drug addiction as wholly inadequate, vowing to crack down on encampments and open-air drug use. But even some fans question whether the political novice has the policy chops to lead America’s second-largest city through a term that will include the Super Bowl and the 2028 Olympics.

“Campaigning and governing are two different things,” says Mr. Klink, adding that Mr. Pratt is a “classic disrupter.”

On the campaign trail, Ms. Bass has emphasized the steps she’s taken on some of the city’s most intractable problems. “Street homelessness and crime are down. Affordable housing is up,” says one Bass social media post. “We’re turning the page and making real progress after decades of inaction.”

But it hasn’t been an easy sell: Polls show a majority of voters view her unfavorably.

“We have a lot of people who are big fans of hers,” says Mr. Wolman, who works as communications director for the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, though he says he’s speaking as a constituent and not on behalf of the club, which has stayed neutral in the race. “But the fire was such a disaster on such an epic scale that people are upset.”

“Even if she couldn’t have prevented it, there’s always a feeling that more could have been done,” he says.

At the same time, Ms. Bass’ long record in public office might give some voters confidence. As a former state legislator and member of Congress, she is well connected across the state – and knows how to navigate political and policy circles.

Steve Cron was one in a group of Angelenos who lost homes in the Palisades Fire who went to lobby state legislators some months back on everything from recovery red tape to mortgage insurance. Ms. Bass, he says, helped lead the effort.

“[The access] was all because she was behind it and wanted us to have that opportunity,” says Mr. Cron, president of the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club. Like Mr. Wolman, Mr. Cron says he’s speaking for himself, not the club.

Mr. Cron says the city and agencies absolutely made mistakes before and during the fire. To a degree, he says, he can understand. “Some amount of mistakes were within the realm of what can happen in a chaotic situation where nobody was quite prepared,” he says.

In the end, he says, it won’t affect his vote.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“I’m still supporting Mayor Bass,” says Mr. Cron, who bought his home 18 years ago and was underinsured. After the fires, rebuilding was so costly that the members of his homeowners association agreed to sell to a developer, rather than rebuild.

“Although I think she made some mistakes, I think she is the most qualified.”

All that’s left of Adam Wolman’s house is a garden wall. Revisiting his old neighborhood near Los Angeles recently, the creative consultant and former TV executive pulled up to the spot where he lived for over 25 years. The house had just been through a two-year renovation when it burned to the ground in the Palisades Fire in January of last year. Now, it’s an empty lot.

Mr. Wolman’s story is similar to more than 13,000 others’ in Los Angeles County. They include Spencer Pratt, a former reality TV star who has channeled frustrations over the city’s fire prevention and rebuilding efforts, as well as problems like homelessness and drug addiction, into a surging dark-horse campaign for mayor of Los Angeles.

Mr. Pratt’s messaging – around Los Angeles’ decline and the political establishment’s alleged complicity – has been amplified by a series of provocative AI videos circulating on social media. Many of the videos, which are not official products of his campaign (though Mr. Pratt often reposts them), don’t focus on his proposed policies or his background, but instead lean in to storytelling.

Why We Wrote This

Los Angeles last had a Republican mayor 25 years ago. But reality TV star Spencer Pratt has seen a flurry of donations and support in the run-up to the June 2 vote, in a campaign shaped by last year’s Palisades Fire and a series of provocative AI videos.

One portrays the candidate as a Batman-like figure rescuing a burning, dystopian Los Angeles from a cabal of villains represented by LA Mayor Karen Bass (in Joker makeup), California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and former Vice President Kamala Harris. As the Democratic politicians enjoy a decadent meal in a Versailles-like setting, a man who looks like the actor Hugh Jackman pleads, “I just want to rebuild my home. It’s been over a year.” The politicians all laugh.

The unconventional videos, combined with Mr. Pratt’s own blunt-spoken style, appear to be catching on with at least some voters who’ve grown weary of politics as usual and are looking to shake up the status quo. Recent polls show the Republican running behind Mayor Bass by anywhere from 14 to just 3 points in this heavily Democratic city. If no candidate surpasses 50% in the June 2 primary, which seems likely, he has a shot at being one of two who advance to November’s election. City Councilmember Nithya Raman, a progressive Democrat, is also in contention in most polls.

Even if Mr. Pratt doesn’t win, strategists say his campaign has broken new ground – providing a clear example of how artificial intelligence can reshape political communication.

“It’s a watershed moment,” says Crystal Patterson, a Democratic strategist who previously worked at Facebook. “The LA mayor’s race is going to be a really good litmus test for what this kind of new frontier in digital means for voters and how they’re consuming information.”

Experts have long worried that AI could wreak havoc on political campaigns, by amplifying disinformation and making it hard for voters to know what’s real and what’s fake. For now, those fears haven’t played out. Most of the pro-Pratt videos are obviously fake – and come across more as an edgy form of entertainment.

“The whole point is to drive attention and to drive conversation,” says Scott Babwah Brennen, director of New York University’s Center on Technology Policy. Videos depicting candidates as characters from a movie franchise might not change many voters’ minds, he says, but it can create the kind of buzz that’s helpful for fundraising and mobilization. Indeed, Mr. Pratt is far outraising Ms. Bass and Ms. Raman, reporting a haul nearly 10 times that of the mayor’s in the last campaign finance reporting period.

Many of the AI videos have been shared by an X account under the name Charles Curran, a filmmaker who owns a studio in Los Angeles and experiments with AI in his own creative work. He and the Pratt campaign did not respond to interview requests.

Los Angeles last had a Republican mayor 25 years ago, when the share of Republican voters in the city was greater than it is now. After President Donald Trump recently said he heard that Mr. Pratt was “a big MAGA person,” both Ms. Bass’ and Ms. Raman’s campaigns have worked to link the two Republican reality TV stars-turned-politicians. Mr. Pratt has downplayed his party affiliation on the campaign trail, presumably recognizing that associating himself strongly with the GOP brand hurts more than it helps in Los Angeles.

The crux of the race, for all the candidates, is the aftermath of the fires. Mr. Pratt accuses Ms. Bass of poor leadership, which he says left the city unprepared for the wildfires that wiped out neighborhoods in 2025.

The mayor faced widespread criticism over her absence from the city while on a diplomatic trip to Ghana when the fires broke out. And a major reservoir in Los Angeles was empty, leaving firefighters without water in the early days. In the Pacific Palisades, the fire burned over 23,000 acres.

“I don’t know of anybody who says the mayor did a good job [handling] the fires,” says Matt Klink, an LA-based Republican strategist. Criticism of the city’s response is part of the reason Mr. Pratt’s campaign is drawing so much attention, he says. “He’s touching on something that everybody acknowledges is real.”

Some of Mr. Pratt’s campaign ads feature him standing in front of an Airstream trailer. “This is where I live. They let my home burn down,” he says in one. (According to media reports, he has been residing, at least some of the time, at the Hotel Bel-Air.)

Mr. Pratt has also criticized the city’s response to homelessness and drug addiction as wholly inadequate, vowing to crack down on encampments and open-air drug use. But even some fans question whether the political novice has the policy chops to lead America’s second-largest city through a term that will include the Super Bowl and the 2028 Olympics.

“Campaigning and governing are two different things,” says Mr. Klink, adding that Mr. Pratt is a “classic disrupter.”

On the campaign trail, Ms. Bass has emphasized the steps she’s taken on some of the city’s most intractable problems. “Street homelessness and crime are down. Affordable housing is up,” says one Bass social media post. “We’re turning the page and making real progress after decades of inaction.”

But it hasn’t been an easy sell: Polls show a majority of voters view her unfavorably.

“We have a lot of people who are big fans of hers,” says Mr. Wolman, who works as communications director for the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, though he says he’s speaking as a constituent and not on behalf of the club, which has stayed neutral in the race. “But the fire was such a disaster on such an epic scale that people are upset.”

“Even if she couldn’t have prevented it, there’s always a feeling that more could have been done,” he says.

At the same time, Ms. Bass’ long record in public office might give some voters confidence. As a former state legislator and member of Congress, she is well connected across the state – and knows how to navigate political and policy circles.

Steve Cron was one in a group of Angelenos who lost homes in the Palisades Fire who went to lobby state legislators some months back on everything from recovery red tape to mortgage insurance. Ms. Bass, he says, helped lead the effort.

“[The access] was all because she was behind it and wanted us to have that opportunity,” says Mr. Cron, president of the Pacific Palisades Democratic Club. Like Mr. Wolman, Mr. Cron says he’s speaking for himself, not the club.

Mr. Cron says the city and agencies absolutely made mistakes before and during the fire. To a degree, he says, he can understand. “Some amount of mistakes were within the realm of what can happen in a chaotic situation where nobody was quite prepared,” he says.

In the end, he says, it won’t affect his vote.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“I’m still supporting Mayor Bass,” says Mr. Cron, who bought his home 18 years ago and was underinsured. After the fires, rebuilding was so costly that the members of his homeowners association agreed to sell to a developer, rather than rebuild.

“Although I think she made some mistakes, I think she is the most qualified.”

Just about anything a president wants to do – such as go to war, start an infrastructure project, or strengthen law enforcement – requires financing from Congress.

But increasingly, the government’s money hasn’t been going where Congress says it should.

The Trump administration is using unprecedented tactics to test the boundaries of how it can control taxpayer money that Congress has budgeted, threatening one of Congress’ core functions under the Constitution – and one of its strongest checks on executive power.

Why We Wrote This

President Donald Trump is taking more control over federal spending, and Congress is ceding some of its power of the purse. They could be setting a new precedent that permanently expands a president’s power.

The efforts are a direct assertion of presidential power, often wielded in the name of taming wasteful spending. But the actions also reach into Congress itself.

Under presidential pressure, Congress is slowly upending its own spending process, passing party-line bills that circumvent its normal, bipartisan procedure and give presidents broader leeway. For example, Republicans hope to soon pass a bill that will fund federal immigration enforcement for years in advance.

Supporters of President Donald Trump’s policy say a president should be able to, for example, stop funds from going to countries that harm the United States’ interests, or save money if Congress’ goals can be accomplished with fewer funds than they laid aside.

Still, the practice signals a profound shift in how money is spent, raising questions over how or whether taxpayers can hold the government accountable and whether more White House control over spending will become a “new normal” that permanently expands a president’s power.

In Congress, even some members of President Trump’s party aren’t entirely comfortable with the transfer of spending authority.

“Retaining our constitutional authority has always been something that I see as important, and hopefully my colleagues do, too. So I hope that we maintain a balance,” says Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee. “Or else we become more and more irrelevant.”

David Super, a federal budget expert at Georgetown University Law Center, believes that actions over the past year show that the new normal is already here.

“This changes [the funding process] forever,” he says. “If Trump can do it, so can everybody else.”

The administration hasn’t rejected Congress’ budgetary authority wholesale. But since Mr. Trump’s inauguration more than a year ago, his administration has unilaterally slashed some large categories of spending, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Education.

Mr. Trump and his executive branch have asserted the power to spend as well as to cut, in ways that Congress hasn’t authorized. Emergency declarations over immigration and energy paved the way for sending military reservists to the Southern border and promoting fossil fuel development.

On some of its actions, the White House has come to Congress after the fact to seek legislative support. Other times it has worked to undercut any legislative role.

Checks and balances

In August 2025, the president sent a request to Congress to cancel nearly $5 billion that Congress had directed be spent on foreign aid.

The Impoundment Control Act says a president must give Congress 45 days to consider any such request. But the White House sent their letter just over 30 days before the fiscal year ended.

The administration touted this as something called a “pocket rescission”: a procedural loophole promoted by White House budget director Russell Vought. The idea is that by submitting a request to cancel funding with only a few days left in the fiscal year, a president can effectively bypass Congress because the money simply lapses.

A lawsuit seeking to block the maneuver went to the Supreme Court, which sided with the administration. The intended recipients of the relief funds never saw that money.

Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland professor who researches public budgeting, says when actions like pocket rescissions get even a small sign-off from a court, it establishes them as options.

“That means that presidents have that power. Not just this president – all future presidents have this power,” says Dr. Joyce.

That’s not the only time the administration tried to withhold money Congress has set aside to be spent – a practice known as impoundment. The Trump White House has tested the limits of what constitutes impoundment by withholding grants and freezing or canceling programs it said conflicted with its priorities.

Mr. Vought has asserted that the Constitution doesn’t require a president to spend every dollar that Congress appropriates.

“It’s a ceiling, not a floor,” he said at a July 2025 breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

Some Republicans in Congress make a similar case.

Republican Rep. John Rutherford of Florida argues impoundment could be a useful tool in cases where, for example, Congress overestimates the amount of money it will take to complete a certain project – and a president doesn’t need Congress’ OK.

“He controls the executive branch,” Representative Rutherford says.

A change to bipartisan funding

Another potential transformation in how Congress wields its power of the purse is coming from Congress itself.

Each year, members approve agency budgets, in what’s known as the appropriations process – or “the center of government,” as Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who is the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, puts it.

But amid budgetary gridlock in recent decades, it’s become increasingly common for parties in Congress to use a maneuver known as budget reconciliation in a novel way: to skirt that process when it comes to the things they really want passed.

These reconciliation bills – like the Republicans’ 2025 tax-and-spending bill dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – are distinct in two key ways: They effectively don’t require bipartisanship, and can provide funding for a party’s priorities for multiple years. That means there’s no annual evaluation of whether government spending is achieving its intended goals.

Under the traditional funding process, says Professor Super, “If [programs have] been inefficient or spending their resources on things that are not their job, or corrupt, they face a lot of embarrassment and they face funding cuts.”

Some lawmakers worry about Congress growing too used to this alternative funding pathway.

“We certainly don’t want to make it such that the way we get spending bills passed is exclusively through reconciliation,” says Arkansas Republican John Boozman, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “The problem here is everything is done by precedent. So that gets to be the easy way to do it.”

Keeping track of the money

The Trump administration has taken some actions that make it difficult to untangle exactly how taxpayer money that’s been budgeted by Congress is being spent.

After Mr. Trump’s first impeachment – in which he was accused of conditioning the release of congressionally approved money to pressure Ukraine – Congress passed a law requiring the Office of Management and Budget to make apportionment data public. That meant it had to disclose exactly how it parcels out congressionally approved funds to different agencies.

In March 2025, the OMB deactivated its public apportionment website, saying it could reveal sensitive information. The office later complied with a court order to start reposting documents, although watchdog groups reported missing elements, such as required footnotes.

“The administration has been … fast and loose in terms of what they’re making public and what they’re not,” says Dr. Joyce.

The White House has also used money appropriated by Congress in novel ways that make it hard to track.

During two recent government shutdowns, the Trump administration paid employees. Some legal experts said that was a kind of impoundment in reverse: Instead of the government refusing to spend money Congress had set aside, the government spends money that Congress hasn’t set aside – at least not for that purpose.

During the Department of Homeland Security shutdown that began February 2026, for example, the administration directed DHS employees to be paid with funds that had a “reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of D.H.S.” That definition left it unclear exactly which funds the president was using to pay these workers, and gave the administration – not Congress – wide leeway to decide what “reasonable and logical” meant.

“They were not at all clear about their legal justifications,” says Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

“Once you’ve ceded power … it’s gone.”

The current Congress hasn’t shown much inclination to claw back its power. And some experts predict the expanded presidential authority will carry into the future.

“It doesn’t really matter whether that executive is a Democrat or a Republican,” Dr. Joyce says. “Once you’ve ceded power – once you’ve given power from the legislative branch to the executive branch – it’s gone.”

Professor Super says it’s possible the balance of power between Congress and the president swings back in the other direction.

“Once we get past President Trump, I suspect Congress will reassert itself and dramatically shrink the flexibility that administrations have,” he says.

There’s some historical precedent. The Nixon administration’s use of expansive executive power led Congress to try to reassert its power. Congress passed laws – sometimes over the president’s veto – to enforce its authority over things like decisions about military conflict and limiting how the president spends congressionally appropriated money.

In the aftermath of Richard Nixon’s resignation, Congress passed a series of reforms designed to promote ethics and transparency in government.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, an Appropriations Committee member, says he doesn’t necessarily see Mr. Trump’s actions as opening the door for presidents’ expanded use of controversial tools going forward – “not if the Congress is zealous in protecting its Article I authority.”

Asked if Congress has been zealous enough so far, he replies, “We’ve had good days and bad days.”

Just about anything a president wants to do – such as go to war, start an infrastructure project, or strengthen law enforcement – requires financing from Congress.

But increasingly, the government’s money hasn’t been going where Congress says it should.

The Trump administration is using unprecedented tactics to test the boundaries of how it can control taxpayer money that Congress has budgeted, threatening one of Congress’ core functions under the Constitution – and one of its strongest checks on executive power.

Why We Wrote This

President Donald Trump is taking more control over federal spending, and Congress is ceding some of its power of the purse. They could be setting a new precedent that permanently expands a president’s power.

The efforts are a direct assertion of presidential power, often wielded in the name of taming wasteful spending. But the actions also reach into Congress itself.

Under presidential pressure, Congress is slowly upending its own spending process, passing party-line bills that circumvent its normal, bipartisan procedure and give presidents broader leeway. For example, Republicans hope to soon pass a bill that will fund federal immigration enforcement for years in advance.

Supporters of President Donald Trump’s policy say a president should be able to, for example, stop funds from going to countries that harm the United States’ interests, or save money if Congress’ goals can be accomplished with fewer funds than they laid aside.

Still, the practice signals a profound shift in how money is spent, raising questions over how or whether taxpayers can hold the government accountable and whether more White House control over spending will become a “new normal” that permanently expands a president’s power.

In Congress, even some members of President Trump’s party aren’t entirely comfortable with the transfer of spending authority.

“Retaining our constitutional authority has always been something that I see as important, and hopefully my colleagues do, too. So I hope that we maintain a balance,” says Republican Rep. Dan Newhouse of Washington, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee. “Or else we become more and more irrelevant.”

David Super, a federal budget expert at Georgetown University Law Center, believes that actions over the past year show that the new normal is already here.

“This changes [the funding process] forever,” he says. “If Trump can do it, so can everybody else.”

The administration hasn’t rejected Congress’ budgetary authority wholesale. But since Mr. Trump’s inauguration more than a year ago, his administration has unilaterally slashed some large categories of spending, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Education.

Mr. Trump and his executive branch have asserted the power to spend as well as to cut, in ways that Congress hasn’t authorized. Emergency declarations over immigration and energy paved the way for sending military reservists to the Southern border and promoting fossil fuel development.

On some of its actions, the White House has come to Congress after the fact to seek legislative support. Other times it has worked to undercut any legislative role.

Checks and balances

In August 2025, the president sent a request to Congress to cancel nearly $5 billion that Congress had directed be spent on foreign aid.

The Impoundment Control Act says a president must give Congress 45 days to consider any such request. But the White House sent their letter just over 30 days before the fiscal year ended.

The administration touted this as something called a “pocket rescission”: a procedural loophole promoted by White House budget director Russell Vought. The idea is that by submitting a request to cancel funding with only a few days left in the fiscal year, a president can effectively bypass Congress because the money simply lapses.

A lawsuit seeking to block the maneuver went to the Supreme Court, which sided with the administration. The intended recipients of the relief funds never saw that money.

Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland professor who researches public budgeting, says when actions like pocket rescissions get even a small sign-off from a court, it establishes them as options.

“That means that presidents have that power. Not just this president – all future presidents have this power,” says Dr. Joyce.

That’s not the only time the administration tried to withhold money Congress has set aside to be spent – a practice known as impoundment. The Trump White House has tested the limits of what constitutes impoundment by withholding grants and freezing or canceling programs it said conflicted with its priorities.

Mr. Vought has asserted that the Constitution doesn’t require a president to spend every dollar that Congress appropriates.

“It’s a ceiling, not a floor,” he said at a July 2025 breakfast hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.

Some Republicans in Congress make a similar case.

Republican Rep. John Rutherford of Florida argues impoundment could be a useful tool in cases where, for example, Congress overestimates the amount of money it will take to complete a certain project – and a president doesn’t need Congress’ OK.

“He controls the executive branch,” Representative Rutherford says.

A change to bipartisan funding

Another potential transformation in how Congress wields its power of the purse is coming from Congress itself.

Each year, members approve agency budgets, in what’s known as the appropriations process – or “the center of government,” as Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, who is the ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, puts it.

But amid budgetary gridlock in recent decades, it’s become increasingly common for parties in Congress to use a maneuver known as budget reconciliation in a novel way: to skirt that process when it comes to the things they really want passed.

These reconciliation bills – like the Republicans’ 2025 tax-and-spending bill dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Democrats’ 2022 Inflation Reduction Act – are distinct in two key ways: They effectively don’t require bipartisanship, and can provide funding for a party’s priorities for multiple years. That means there’s no annual evaluation of whether government spending is achieving its intended goals.

Under the traditional funding process, says Professor Super, “If [programs have] been inefficient or spending their resources on things that are not their job, or corrupt, they face a lot of embarrassment and they face funding cuts.”

Some lawmakers worry about Congress growing too used to this alternative funding pathway.

“We certainly don’t want to make it such that the way we get spending bills passed is exclusively through reconciliation,” says Arkansas Republican John Boozman, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “The problem here is everything is done by precedent. So that gets to be the easy way to do it.”

Keeping track of the money

The Trump administration has taken some actions that make it difficult to untangle exactly how taxpayer money that’s been budgeted by Congress is being spent.

After Mr. Trump’s first impeachment – in which he was accused of conditioning the release of congressionally approved money to pressure Ukraine – Congress passed a law requiring the Office of Management and Budget to make apportionment data public. That meant it had to disclose exactly how it parcels out congressionally approved funds to different agencies.

In March 2025, the OMB deactivated its public apportionment website, saying it could reveal sensitive information. The office later complied with a court order to start reposting documents, although watchdog groups reported missing elements, such as required footnotes.

“The administration has been … fast and loose in terms of what they’re making public and what they’re not,” says Dr. Joyce.

The White House has also used money appropriated by Congress in novel ways that make it hard to track.

During two recent government shutdowns, the Trump administration paid employees. Some legal experts said that was a kind of impoundment in reverse: Instead of the government refusing to spend money Congress had set aside, the government spends money that Congress hasn’t set aside – at least not for that purpose.

During the Department of Homeland Security shutdown that began February 2026, for example, the administration directed DHS employees to be paid with funds that had a “reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of D.H.S.” That definition left it unclear exactly which funds the president was using to pay these workers, and gave the administration – not Congress – wide leeway to decide what “reasonable and logical” meant.

“They were not at all clear about their legal justifications,” says Zachary Price, a professor at the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco.

“Once you’ve ceded power … it’s gone.”

The current Congress hasn’t shown much inclination to claw back its power. And some experts predict the expanded presidential authority will carry into the future.

“It doesn’t really matter whether that executive is a Democrat or a Republican,” Dr. Joyce says. “Once you’ve ceded power – once you’ve given power from the legislative branch to the executive branch – it’s gone.”

Professor Super says it’s possible the balance of power between Congress and the president swings back in the other direction.

“Once we get past President Trump, I suspect Congress will reassert itself and dramatically shrink the flexibility that administrations have,” he says.

There’s some historical precedent. The Nixon administration’s use of expansive executive power led Congress to try to reassert its power. Congress passed laws – sometimes over the president’s veto – to enforce its authority over things like decisions about military conflict and limiting how the president spends congressionally appropriated money.

In the aftermath of Richard Nixon’s resignation, Congress passed a series of reforms designed to promote ethics and transparency in government.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, an Appropriations Committee member, says he doesn’t necessarily see Mr. Trump’s actions as opening the door for presidents’ expanded use of controversial tools going forward – “not if the Congress is zealous in protecting its Article I authority.”

Asked if Congress has been zealous enough so far, he replies, “We’ve had good days and bad days.”

(Editor’s note: This story is part of the Monitor’s summerlong series following old U.S. Route 66 from Chicago to Santa Monica, California.)

Park Ranger Joseph Tonjes is standing on the steps of Abraham Lincoln’s home, giving instructions to a group of about 20 visitors: Don’t touch the furniture. Stay inside the stanchions and ropes.

“But as we head up, please use this handrail,” Mr. Tonjes says. “It is the only original artifact that we want you to touch. Think of it like giving Abraham a handshake as you walk up.”

Why We Wrote This

Most Americans know Abraham Lincoln’s story. But the historical guides at his home come to know him on a deeper level, connecting with his principles of fairness and his rise from the ordinary.

He’s a relatively new ranger. He grew up on Long Island, New York, and graduated from Suffolk University in Boston a few years ago after majoring in history and philosophy. His father, a university professor, had summers off. “So we drove pretty much everywhere,” Mr. Tonjes says, and those family road trips through national parks planted the idea that the National Park Service was a place a history degree could take you – in his case: Springfield, Illinois.

“You learn about Lincoln, but then you kind of learn about the man room by room,” Mr. Tonjes says. It takes him off his pedestal, he says, and makes him more relatable.

The house sits just blocks from the old path of Route 66, the American road now marking its 100th year. And as the nation approaches its 250th birthday, Springfield offers a particular kind of encounter with Lincoln: not just the president who preserved the United States, but the self-taught lawyer whose political imagination, as he later said himself, could be traced back to the Declaration of Independence. Here, the founding ideals are not encountered first in marble or oratory, but in the rooms where Lincoln became the man who would carry them into the country’s most significant crisis.

Inside the home, Mr. Tonjes guides visitors through a version of Lincoln that can feel unexpectedly ordinary. There are stories about sons wrestling in the sitting room rough enough to tear their clothes. Lincoln arriving home late and bringing stray cats inside. A family mourning the death of a child in the front parlor. With its original doors and furniture, the rooms feel less like the birthplace of a national icon than the remnants of a life interrupted.

“A lot of other places kind of focus on who he is as the great president, the great emancipator,” Mr. Tonjes says after the tour. “But here it’s kind of like — this is where he is as a lawyer, in that in-between period when he really goes from a person from the Illinois frontier into the great figure we think of.”

Though new to the area, Mr. Tonjes realized that few American cities are so thoroughly organized around the memory of one person.

In Springfield, Lincoln’s name marks the airport, numerous schools, and a wide number of civic institutions. His home and his tomb anchor opposite ends of downtown. Across central Illinois, too, communities large and small have built markers, exhibits, and heritage programs around his life.

And with America’s 250th and the Route 66 centennial coinciding, many of those institutions are preparing for renewed attention as a lot more travelers move west along the old highway. So there are even more workers and volunteers telling the story of Lincoln’s life in Illinois from 1844 until 1861.

“Route 66 cuts diagonally down through our heritage area,” says Sarah Watson, CEO of the Looking for Lincoln Heritage Coalition, which manages the Abraham Lincoln National Heritage Area across 43 counties in Illinois. This June, her organization is launching a campaign called “Lincoln on 66.”

Communities along that corridor – Pontiac, Atlanta, Lincoln, Litchfield – already draw travelers for the mythology of the road. The goal is to invite them into another American story while they are there.

“The Illinois story is really that story of – who’s that man?” Ms. Watson says. “Who’s that bumpkin who had one year of formal education and became our president?”

“Ordinary person...extraordinary thing”

Herb Higgs once lived three blocks south of the Lincoln home, on Cook Street. He left Springfield as a young man for a career in agricultural fair management – nearly two decades at the Illinois State Fair, five years running a fair in Michigan, and then 13 years managing the South Plains Fair in Lubbock, Texas. He retired in 2017 and came home.

“I wasn’t a big Abraham Lincoln buff by any means, and the Civil War never attracted my attention,” says Mr. Higgs, who’s been volunteering here for nearly four years. “But it’s extremely interesting to learn a little bit every time I come to work.”

He has come to appreciate the work of the rangers alongside him – young people who have given themselves to keeping Lincoln’s legacy alive. “Lincoln has been canonized in many respects,” Mr. Higgs says. “He was an ordinary person who wound up doing an extraordinary thing.”

Next to Mr. Higgs, Park Ranger Danny Guttas is swearing in a group of four young people who have completed the activities to become Junior Rangers. They raise their right arms and recite after him: “As a Junior Ranger, I promise to explore, protect, and learn about the national parks.”

Mr. Guttas grew up in Springfield and has been a park ranger here for about six years. He is very enthusiastic about how his city preserves the memory of how complicated Lincoln was.

“I really resonate with Lincoln’s commitment to this idea of equality of opportunity,” Mr. Guttas says. “He didn’t think it was fair for anybody to work hard and put in a lot of sweat and energy and time and effort to do some kind of job but not get compensated for that, not get rewarded, and not have the opportunity to advance.”

Mr. Guttas doesn’t put this into the context of Lincoln’s antislavery positions, but his admiration highlights the fact that rather than grounding his opposition in higher moral or religious terms, Lincoln opposed slavery because it violated the labor-reward principle.

“That theme of everybody being able to get the rewards for the work that they put in – that are bettering themselves in their communities – is what Lincoln’s biggest inspiration to me would be.”

Staying true to principles

A few blocks north, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum draws its own devoted circle. Since the museum opened in 2005, its volunteer program has grown to nearly 600 people – 593 at last count, who log roughly 35,000 hours a year, according to Jeremy Carrell, the director of volunteer services who has been there since opening day.

Richard Schuldt has been among them for 12 1/2 years. He arrived in Springfield four decades ago – longer, he is quick to note, than Lincoln himself lived here. He taught American government at local colleges, and eventually spent nearly three decades directing survey research at the University of Illinois Springfield.

He finds in Lincoln what a lifetime in civics prepared him to find: a politician who held to principle under pressure. His touchstone is a speech Lincoln gave at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in February 1861, on his way to Washington for his inauguration.

“He’s a politician, a pragmatist, but he also had principles,” Mr. Schuldt says. “And while he had to maneuver political winds, he always stayed true to those principles. And I think an appropriate quote, particularly for this year, he said, ‘I never had a feeling politically I could not trace back to the sentiments in the American Declaration of Independence.’”

What keeps him coming back, he says, is the visitors – people who arrive from across the country and around the world, some of them knowing Lincoln deeply, others encountering the full story for the first time.

Becky Pruitt has also been volunteering at the museum for 12 years – though her connection to Lincoln reaches further back than that.

She grew up in Decatur, about 40 miles east, in the region Lincoln traveled as a young lawyer riding the Eighth Judicial Circuit, she says. Her father’s family came from the same rural, remote part of Kentucky where Lincoln was born. And she spent her career as an attorney in the Illinois Attorney General’s office.

After she retired, she came straight to the museum – she had already arranged her volunteer training before her last day of work.

In retirement, she audited a course taught by the Lincoln biographer Michael Burlingame at the University of Illinois Springfield. Along with the fact that Lincoln was self-taught, she says, she admires another quality that does not appear on monuments.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

“He did not hold grudges,” Ms. Pruitt says. “He did not try to get back at his enemies, ever. In fact, he would bring them in and welcome them to work with him. And these are qualities that serve us as a country well, serve us in government well.”

She pauses. “If we could just have more of that, I think we’d be in better shape today.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton​'s Senate-nomination victory ​Tuesday has underscored how, even at a time of low favorability for President Donald Trump, MAGA zeal remains the driving force of the Republican Party base.

Mr. Paxton notched a landslide victory to become the Republican nominee ​i​n one of this year's marquee Senate races, unseating four-term incumbent Sen. John Cornyn to end a bitter and protracted primary.

Mr. Paxton’s win – with over 60% of the vote, despite a significant fundraising disadvantage – now tees up a general election contest against Democratic nominee James Talarico, a progressive state representative from the Austin area. With the GOP defending a four-seat majority in the Senate, the race could determine whether Democrats win control of the chamber in November. It could also signal Republican voters’ appetite for another shift to the ideological right.

Why We Wrote This

Texas’ polarizing attorney general easily bested the veteran senator, underscoring President Donald Trump’s sway with GOP voters. November’s general election, against Democrat James Talarico, may be a tighter race.

Mr. Paxton is more ideologically conservative than Senator Cornyn, says Renee Cross, a political scientist at the University of Houston. But it’s not just policy that has fueled Mr. Paxton’s popularity with Texas conservatives.

The state attorney general “has not shown any interest in working across the aisle, or even working with the more moderate members of his party,” she adds. 

The March primary, which Mr. Cornyn won by one point, and the subsequent runoff amounted to more than $130 million, one of the most expensive primaries in modern history. The general election is likely to attract even more eyeballs, and even more eye-watering sums of money.

With the political winds in midterm elections typically favoring the party outside the White House, Democrats will be hoping for an added boost from Mr. Paxton’s scandal-ridden career to date.

Shortly after his first election victory as attorney general in 2014, he was indicted on federal securities fraud charges (he settled them in 2024). In 2023 the Republican-controlled state House impeached him on allegations of corruption and bribery; the Republican-controlled state Senate acquitted him. Last year, his wife announced that they were getting a divorce “on biblical grounds.” In court filings, she alleged adultery.

Senator Cornyn made the controversies central to his campaign, calling his opponent “Crooked Ken” and warning that his scandals would imperil what has for decades been a safe Republican seat. Leaders of the National Republican Senatorial Committee reportedly pleaded with Mr. Trump to endorse the incumbent and tip the race in Senator Cornyn’s favor. The NRSC also pumped  millions of dollars into the Cornyn campaign.

Instead, Mr. Trump gave an 11th-hour endorsement to Mr. Paxton. Senator Cornyn, with a 3-to-1 fundraising advantage, lost. On Tuesday night, Lauren French – spokesperson for the Senate Majority PAC, a fundraising arm for the Democratic Party – made note of the intraparty conflict in a statement.

"Washington Republicans burned nearly $100 million trying to stop Ken Paxton – and still lost,” she wrote. “Even members of his own party call Paxton too corrupt and too damaged for Texas. Now he's the GOP standard-bearer. Good luck with that."

In a social media post, Representative Talarico shared a message thanking Senator Cornyn “for his years representing our state.”

He added: “To Senator Cornyn’s supporters: you have a place in our campaign.”

In addition to attacking Mr. Paxton over his controversies, another favorite line from Senator Cornyn’s campaign has been that he’s voted with Mr. Trump “more than 99% of the time.”

Mr. Paxton’s victory indicates that, for the Republican base, that number needs to be 100%. Unlike Senator Cornyn, the state attorney general had been an early supporter of the president, and Mr. Paxton proved his unwavering loyalty after the 2020 election when he led a legal attempt to decertify the election results in four states that Mr. Trump lost. In the hours before the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, he stood on a stage with the president at a “Stop the Steal” rally.

In his message endorsing Mr. Paxton last week, Mr. Trump described the state attorney general as “a true MAGA warrior.” Senator Cornyn, meanwhile, “was not supportive of me when times were tough,” he wrote.

Tuesday night’s result illustrates the weight of that endorsement. Mr. Paxton appeared to be in the lead beforehand, “but Trump put him on rocket fuel,” says Ford O’Connell, a GOP strategist.

“Trump endorsements aren’t gold, they’re platinum,” he adds.

After voting for Mr. Paxton in the small central Texas town of Bastrop, Chuck Acree said he wasn’t worried about losing the seat to the Democrats in the fall.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Mr. Paxton “has baggage,” says Mr. Acree, a longtime GOP voter who moved here from Nevada three years ago. “But what he’s done in office aligns with our values.” 

In other primary results Tuesday night, Democratic Rep. Christian Menefee defeated long-serving Rep. Al Green in the race to represent a Houston district redrawn by state Republicans after a bitter mid-decade redistricting fight. And Democratic Rep. Colin Allred defeated Rep. Julie Johnson in a primary to represent a redrawn Dallas-area congressional district. Maureen Galindo – a Democratic nominee who called for Zionists to be imprisoned in immigrant detention centers – lost her primary to represent a redrawn central Texas district stretching from Austin to San Antonio.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton​'s Senate-nomination victory ​Tuesday has underscored how, even at a time of low favorability for President Donald Trump, MAGA zeal remains the driving force of the Republican Party base.

Mr. Paxton notched a landslide victory to become the Republican nominee ​i​n one of this year's marquee Senate races, unseating four-term incumbent Sen. John Cornyn to end a bitter and protracted primary.

Mr. Paxton’s win – with over 60% of the vote, despite a significant fundraising disadvantage – now tees up a general election contest against Democratic nominee James Talarico, a progressive state representative from the Austin area. With the GOP defending a four-seat majority in the Senate, the race could determine whether Democrats win control of the chamber in November. It could also signal Republican voters’ appetite for another shift to the ideological right.

Why We Wrote This

Texas’ polarizing attorney general easily bested the veteran senator, underscoring President Donald Trump’s sway with GOP voters. November’s general election, against Democrat James Talarico, may be a tighter race.

Mr. Paxton is more ideologically conservative than Senator Cornyn, says Renee Cross, a political scientist at the University of Houston. But it’s not just policy that has fueled Mr. Paxton’s popularity with Texas conservatives.

The state attorney general “has not shown any interest in working across the aisle, or even working with the more moderate members of his party,” she adds. 

The March primary, which Mr. Cornyn won by one point, and the subsequent runoff amounted to more than $130 million, one of the most expensive primaries in modern history. The general election is likely to attract even more eyeballs, and even more eye-watering sums of money.

With the political winds in midterm elections typically favoring the party outside the White House, Democrats will be hoping for an added boost from Mr. Paxton’s scandal-ridden career to date.

Shortly after his first election victory as attorney general in 2014, he was indicted on federal securities fraud charges (he settled them in 2024). In 2023 the Republican-controlled state House impeached him on allegations of corruption and bribery; the Republican-controlled state Senate acquitted him. Last year, his wife announced that they were getting a divorce “on biblical grounds.” In court filings, she alleged adultery.

Senator Cornyn made the controversies central to his campaign, calling his opponent “Crooked Ken” and warning that his scandals would imperil what has for decades been a safe Republican seat. Leaders of the National Republican Senatorial Committee reportedly pleaded with Mr. Trump to endorse the incumbent and tip the race in Senator Cornyn’s favor. The NRSC also pumped  millions of dollars into the Cornyn campaign.

Instead, Mr. Trump gave an 11th-hour endorsement to Mr. Paxton. Senator Cornyn, with a 3-to-1 fundraising advantage, lost. On Tuesday night, Lauren French – spokesperson for the Senate Majority PAC, a fundraising arm for the Democratic Party – made note of the intraparty conflict in a statement.

"Washington Republicans burned nearly $100 million trying to stop Ken Paxton – and still lost,” she wrote. “Even members of his own party call Paxton too corrupt and too damaged for Texas. Now he's the GOP standard-bearer. Good luck with that."

In a social media post, Representative Talarico shared a message thanking Senator Cornyn “for his years representing our state.”

He added: “To Senator Cornyn’s supporters: you have a place in our campaign.”

In addition to attacking Mr. Paxton over his controversies, another favorite line from Senator Cornyn’s campaign has been that he’s voted with Mr. Trump “more than 99% of the time.”

Mr. Paxton’s victory indicates that, for the Republican base, that number needs to be 100%. Unlike Senator Cornyn, the state attorney general had been an early supporter of the president, and Mr. Paxton proved his unwavering loyalty after the 2020 election when he led a legal attempt to decertify the election results in four states that Mr. Trump lost. In the hours before the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, he stood on a stage with the president at a “Stop the Steal” rally.

In his message endorsing Mr. Paxton last week, Mr. Trump described the state attorney general as “a true MAGA warrior.” Senator Cornyn, meanwhile, “was not supportive of me when times were tough,” he wrote.

Tuesday night’s result illustrates the weight of that endorsement. Mr. Paxton appeared to be in the lead beforehand, “but Trump put him on rocket fuel,” says Ford O’Connell, a GOP strategist.

“Trump endorsements aren’t gold, they’re platinum,” he adds.

After voting for Mr. Paxton in the small central Texas town of Bastrop, Chuck Acree said he wasn’t worried about losing the seat to the Democrats in the fall.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Mr. Paxton “has baggage,” says Mr. Acree, a longtime GOP voter who moved here from Nevada three years ago. “But what he’s done in office aligns with our values.” 

In other primary results Tuesday night, Democratic Rep. Christian Menefee defeated long-serving Rep. Al Green in the race to represent a Houston district redrawn by state Republicans after a bitter mid-decade redistricting fight. And Democratic Rep. Colin Allred defeated Rep. Julie Johnson in a primary to represent a redrawn Dallas-area congressional district. Maureen Galindo – a Democratic nominee who called for Zionists to be imprisoned in immigrant detention centers – lost her primary to represent a redrawn central Texas district stretching from Austin to San Antonio.

Still just in his 20s, Cody Eades is a grizzled veteran of the American housing market.

After he and his wife split up in 2019, the couple sold a home they had purchased in Orlando. They made a small profit. Mr. Eades left town in an RV with a dog and his part of the earnings, working remotely and following the open road.

“Problem was,” he says, “I had no home.”

Why We Wrote This

Finding a reasonably priced home used to be easy in the South. But soaring home prices have far outpaced wage growth, creating a housing squeeze.

He had figured he could always buy a new home when he decided to return to the Sunshine State. After all, the South has long been the nation’s epicenter of affordable housing.

He was wrong.

For Mr. Eades and millions like him, Florida’s low home prices long represented a shot at the middle class. But a boom in population has helped push prices dramatically upward, while median household incomes have stagnated.

Today, the average first-time homebuyer in Florida is 40 years old, up from under age 30 two decades ago. Housing affordability “is a defining challenge for our economy right now, particularly in the South,” says Joey Von Nessen, a research economist at the University of South Carolina in Columbia.

Although Florida is a complicated case – with slowing in-migration, rising insurance rates, new laws that have increased homeowners association fees, and a recent drop in median home prices – the market is still too expensive for many potential buyers.

“Buyers right now are terrified,” says Jon Brooks, a millennial real estate analyst in Jacksonville.

Drive until you can afford a mortgage

Nationally, even as demand has remained high, housing starts – the industry term for the beginning point of new construction – have slowed, a trend that started right after the Great Recession of 2008. Residential permitting dropped by more than 20% between 2021 and 2022, even without a recession. In South Carolina, housing starts after 2008 dropped to 3% from 5% even as the state added 650,000 people between 2010 and 2020. Qualifying income for a new house has doubled since 2019 and is now over $100,000 a year, according to CRBE, a Dallas-based real estate investment firm.

Along the Jacksonville beaches, young couples still shop for homes and snap up nice digs. But many have wealthy parents who cover down payments, say real estate agents, so these young house hunters don’t tend to worry much about buying at peak prices or job insecurity. The problem is, “90% of people don’t have rich parents,” says Mr. Brooks.

That’s also true 300 miles to the north, in Hall County, Georgia, near the sprawling chicken processing plants of Gainesville. There are hundreds of homes on the market. What’s missing are homes that new buyers can afford, says Gregg Poole, a Hall County commissioner.

“The biggest problem facing our children is that they’re not able to have the hope and dreams of my generation or the generations before me,” he says.

The mismatch is in part a market failure, but also a failure of American imagination and policy, experts say.

“You can’t abandon entry-level homes and expect to have a workforce and be competitive in a global marketplace. People have to have a place to live and start a family,” says Jeff Brandes, director of the Florida Policy Project in St. Petersburg. “Companies tend to forget the bottom of the market. And what we’re seeing now is kind of a story about what happens when you do: You ultimately find there is no market.”

The trend is causing shifts in how younger Americans think about wealth creation, says Mr. Brooks, who has two young children. “For a lot of young people it’s become a payment economy,” he says. “Instead of paying $2,500 for a mortgage, we pay $1,600 for an apartment and then invest the rest in the stock market.”

As Florida’s in-migration slows, South Carolina has become the nation’s fastest-growing state. But it also has housing problems. Of the state’s 47 counties, just 12, mostly nestled along the coast, have driven the growth. Housing affordability “is not a short-term fix,” says Professor Van Nessen. “And affordability can vary greatly depending on the market you’re looking at,” he says, noting the growth of homes in rural Ocala, Florida. “You drive until you can afford a mortgage.”

Homes finally getting smaller

Nationally, the White House has pushed the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates and at one point floated the idea of 50-year mortgages. States such as California and Massachusetts are working to increase urban density – often to howls of protest from neighborhoods worried about dings to property values.

But there are signs of a market shifting toward starter home sizes as the number of households with children under age 18 has been shrinking since 1980. Square footage for new construction peaked in 2016 at 2,700 square feet and has now eased down to 2,400 square feet. That’s still larger than the average starter home, at 1,800 square feet.

So far, most reforms have come at the local level. Charleston, South Carolina, has embarked on a bid to build 3,500 affordable homes over the next decade. In Tampa, Florida, a local law called “Yes in God’s Backyard” now allows nonprofit churches to develop land. Atlanta has eased rules on “accessory dwellings” to ease the housing crunch.

While those efforts are important, some of the housing problem stems from national factors, including the way things like tariffs and labor shortages affect construction costs.

“There are so many things going on that are from the national picture that impacts locally, and you can see that,” says veteran Jacksonville real estate agent Janie Boyd.

Ms. Boyd also points to unrealistic home-buyer expectations as an issue. Part of homeownership, after all, she says, is accepting some risk to join a community and work to make it better to everybody’s benefit. As an example, she cites the quietly gentrifying Murray Hill neighborhood, one of Jacksonville’s oldest, which offers hipster eateries, jazz circles, and even a beekeeper store. Median home prices hover around $240,000.

But many of the homes are older and in need of repair. And petty crime rates in the area worry some. One factor keeping prices down are local complaints about whiffs from a perfume factory nearby. Racial and socioeconomic issues also come into play, adds Mr. Brooks. “People don’t want to live next to poor people.”

Such realities are part of a trade-off for Tony Suits, a 50-something construction worker who now owns the Murray Hill home where he grew up.

He has raised three sons in the house, and now he worries whether they’ll have their own place before they reach his age.

“They’re going to be playing catch-up for a long time,” he says.

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

As for Mr. Eades, he has put his home dreams on ice for now. He rents in one of the increasingly popular mother-in-law apartments in a neighborhood where he says he could never afford to buy a home.

Homeownership “is starting to feel far out of reach,” he says. Mr. Eades, who manages a pizza shop, says he is pining for his native Louisiana. “I’m ready to give up on Florida,” he says. “I’m thinking about going home.”

President Donald Trump’s emerging deal to end the Iran war is drawing heavy criticism from some fellow Republicans who favor a harder line against the government in Tehran and fear a lost opportunity to finally rein in a longtime Mideast nemesis.

The deal the Republican president had said was “largely negotiated” has left a range of lawmakers, former Cabinet members and conservative analysts wondering aloud whether the terms as currently known will render the conflict all “for naught.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the president's decision to strike Iran was the “most consequential” of his second term and that he should not let up now.

“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Mr. Cruz wrote Saturday on the social media platform X. It was in reaction to Trump's update after he had spoken with the leaders of Israel and other U.S. allies in the region.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who also is close to Trump, panned any deal that would leave Iran perceived as being a dominant force in the region and in which it would retain its ability to destroy oil infrastructure throughout the Gulf.

Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned the merit of a proposed 60-day ceasefire, saying it would be a “disaster.”

“Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!” said Mr. Wicker, R-Miss.

Trump says it will take time to ‘get it right’

Mr. Trump, who has said he only makes good deals and detests being seen as not having the upper hand in any negotiation, dismissed objections to a deal that he said was not “even fully negotiated yet.”

“So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about,” he said on his social media platform.

Mr. Trump said the deal he and his representatives are working out is “THE EXACT OPPOSITE” of a nuclear pact that Iran agreed to under the Democratic Obama administration. Mr. Trump pulled out of that agreement and has been trying to iron out a new one.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!” Mr. Trump said.

He added that a U.S. military blockade of Iranian ports would remain “in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.”

Some support for Mr. Trump came from Capitol Hill, too.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, often a thorn in the president’s side, defended the White House's approach.

“War virtually always ends with negotiations,” Mr. Paul wrote on X. “Critics of President Trump’s peace negotiations should give President Trump the space to find an American First solution.”

Under the proposal, the war would come to an end and Iran would reopen the strait and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, with the details and timelines to be worked out during a later 60-day window, regional officials told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Critics air objections as details trickle out

Polls show the war, which began when the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, is unpopular with the American public and has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $29 billion, as of this month. Thirteen service members have been killed during the operation.

Mr. Trump initially said the war would be over in four weeks to six weeks, but the standoff continues. Iran's closure of the strait, through which about 20% of global energy supplies transit, has jolted the world economy and sent prices for gasoline and other goods climbing.

Mike Pompeo, one of Trump's first-term secretaries of state, asserted on Saturday that the emerging deal seemed to him to be the same as the Obama-era one from which Trump withdrew.

“Not remotely America First,” Mr. Pompeo said on X, prompting a profanity-laced rejoinder from Steven Cheung, the White House director of communications.

John Bolton, a national security adviser in the first term who has become a critic of the president, said the emerging plan details seemed to favor the Iranian government.

“If news reports about the impending Iran deal are correct, the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory,” Mr. Bolton wrote Sunday on X. “They will be back on the road to nuclear weapons, supporting global terrorism and repressing their own people.”

Rubio says a nuclear Iran is ‘not going to happen’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on Sunday during a diplomatic mission in India, telling reporters at a news conference that no president has been stronger against Iran than Trump.

“His commitment to that principle that they’ll never have a nuclear weapon shouldn’t be questioned by anybody,” Mr. Rubio said. “And the idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd. That’s just not going to happen.”

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Trump antagonist who had pushed legislation to restrain the president’s ability to wage war against Iran, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that while the terms are not yet fully known, “if Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are crashing out last night, I’d say it’s probably a pretty good deal.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Mr. Massie will leave Congress in January after incurring Trump's wrath and losing his GOP primary last week to a Trump-backed challenger.

This story was reported by the Associated Press. 

President Donald Trump’s emerging deal to end the Iran war is drawing heavy criticism from some fellow Republicans who favor a harder line against the government in Tehran and fear a lost opportunity to finally rein in a longtime Mideast nemesis.

The deal the Republican president had said was “largely negotiated” has left a range of lawmakers, former Cabinet members and conservative analysts wondering aloud whether the terms as currently known will render the conflict all “for naught.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said the president's decision to strike Iran was the “most consequential” of his second term and that he should not let up now.

“If the result of all that is to be an Iranian regime – still run by Islamists who chant ‘death to America’ – now receiving billions of dollars, being able to enrich uranium & develop nuclear weapons, and having effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, then that outcome would be a disastrous mistake,” Mr. Cruz wrote Saturday on the social media platform X. It was in reaction to Trump's update after he had spoken with the leaders of Israel and other U.S. allies in the region.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who also is close to Trump, panned any deal that would leave Iran perceived as being a dominant force in the region and in which it would retain its ability to destroy oil infrastructure throughout the Gulf.

Sen. Roger Wicker, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, questioned the merit of a proposed 60-day ceasefire, saying it would be a “disaster.”

“Everything accomplished by Operation Epic Fury would be for naught!” said Mr. Wicker, R-Miss.

Trump says it will take time to ‘get it right’

Mr. Trump, who has said he only makes good deals and detests being seen as not having the upper hand in any negotiation, dismissed objections to a deal that he said was not “even fully negotiated yet.”

“So don’t listen to the losers, who are critical about something they know nothing about,” he said on his social media platform.

Mr. Trump said the deal he and his representatives are working out is “THE EXACT OPPOSITE” of a nuclear pact that Iran agreed to under the Democratic Obama administration. Mr. Trump pulled out of that agreement and has been trying to iron out a new one.

“Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!” Mr. Trump said.

He added that a U.S. military blockade of Iranian ports would remain “in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed.”

Some support for Mr. Trump came from Capitol Hill, too.

GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, often a thorn in the president’s side, defended the White House's approach.

“War virtually always ends with negotiations,” Mr. Paul wrote on X. “Critics of President Trump’s peace negotiations should give President Trump the space to find an American First solution.”

Under the proposal, the war would come to an end and Iran would reopen the strait and give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, with the details and timelines to be worked out during a later 60-day window, regional officials told The Associated Press on Sunday.

Critics air objections as details trickle out

Polls show the war, which began when the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, is unpopular with the American public and has cost U.S. taxpayers at least $29 billion, as of this month. Thirteen service members have been killed during the operation.

Mr. Trump initially said the war would be over in four weeks to six weeks, but the standoff continues. Iran's closure of the strait, through which about 20% of global energy supplies transit, has jolted the world economy and sent prices for gasoline and other goods climbing.

Mike Pompeo, one of Trump's first-term secretaries of state, asserted on Saturday that the emerging deal seemed to him to be the same as the Obama-era one from which Trump withdrew.

“Not remotely America First,” Mr. Pompeo said on X, prompting a profanity-laced rejoinder from Steven Cheung, the White House director of communications.

John Bolton, a national security adviser in the first term who has become a critic of the president, said the emerging plan details seemed to favor the Iranian government.

“If news reports about the impending Iran deal are correct, the ayatollahs will have won a significant victory,” Mr. Bolton wrote Sunday on X. “They will be back on the road to nuclear weapons, supporting global terrorism and repressing their own people.”

Rubio says a nuclear Iran is ‘not going to happen’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio pushed back on Sunday during a diplomatic mission in India, telling reporters at a news conference that no president has been stronger against Iran than Trump.

“His commitment to that principle that they’ll never have a nuclear weapon shouldn’t be questioned by anybody,” Mr. Rubio said. “And the idea that somehow this president, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd. That’s just not going to happen.”

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a Trump antagonist who had pushed legislation to restrain the president’s ability to wage war against Iran, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that while the terms are not yet fully known, “if Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz are crashing out last night, I’d say it’s probably a pretty good deal.”

Deepen your worldview

with Monitor Highlights.

Already a subscriber? Log in to hide ads.

Mr. Massie will leave Congress in January after incurring Trump's wrath and losing his GOP primary last week to a Trump-backed challenger.

This story was reported by the Associated Press.