Tennessee Dems back O'Connell in GOP attacks
Why it matters: O'Connell needs all the friends he can get amid an unrelenting GOP pressure campaign.
Catch up quick: Two of the most vocal members of Tennessee's congressional delegation are leading the charge against the mayor.
Rep. Andy Ogles announced two U.S. House committees are investigating O'Connell's response to immigration raids in Nashville last month.
And Sen. Marsha Blackburn wants the U.S. Department of Justice to launch its own probe.
Context: After U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested nearly 200 people during a Nashville operation, O'Connell touted the creation of a charitable fund to help immigrant families.
He also updated a longstanding executive order, requiring city departments to report interactions with ICE within one day. Following that policy, city officials released the names of some federal agents in an online database.
Republicans accused the O'Connell administration of doxxing. O'Connell said publishing the names was an unintentional mistake. They were quickly removed.
What they're saying: Democratic officials surveyed by Axios presented a united front, uniformly defending O'Connell and accusing Republicans of trying to "out-MAGA each other."
Tennessee Democratic Party chairperson Rachel Campbell called the attacks by Blackburn and Ogles a "political stunt."
State Sen. Charlane Oliver told Axios that O'Connell is "leading our city with the compassion, maturity, and resilience that Nashvillians elected him for."
Davidson County Democratic Party chair Dakota Galban, state Rep. John Ray Clemmons and state Sen. Jeff Yarbro also expressed support for O'Connell.
Zoom in: State Sen. Heidi Campbell told Axios that O'Connell is "right to call out the use of masked and anonymous federal agents in our city."
"We all want dangerous people held accountable," Campbell said. "But the Trump administration isn't targeting violent criminals — they're targeting everyone."
"They're rounding up workers, splitting up families, and instilling fear in communities that are just trying to live and contribute."
Metro Councilmember Delishia Porterfield, one of the city's most influential progressives, who has at times disagreed with O'Connell on public safety issues, is squarely in his corner now. Her support is a bellwether since O'Connell received criticism from the left in the immediate aftermath of the raids.
Porterfield said it is "disappointing to see Rep. Ogles and Sen. Blackburn launch a political witch hunt against a mayor who has followed the law."
Reality check: The sight of Democrats backing O'Connell won't exactly have Blackburn and Ogles quivering in their boots.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Without compromise, American democracy has no future
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The following day, Bacon announced that he'd also had enough of the intolerant partisanship dominating Congress. The former Air Force brigadier general, Advertisement Tillis and Bacon aren't rebels. They just don't believe their job is to elevate hardline ideological rigidity above all other considerations. In that sense they are like former Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two Democrats who likewise found themselves demonized for occasionally making common cause with members of the opposing party. Last year, they too chose not to run for reelection. Advertisement Of all the developments that have sickened American politics in this generation, the abandonment of democratic civility and the resulting hostility to compromise are the most toxic. The virtues of moderation and magnanimity, the willingness to engage respectfully with others' views, the assumption that individuals with contrary opinions may be wrong but are not evil — without these, our political institutions cannot function. The first and most vital task of liberal democratic politics is to accommodate strong differences without tearing society apart. But that becomes impossible when conciliation is regarded as treachery — and when politics stops focusing on persuasion and debate and becomes obsessed instead with defeating enemies by any means necessary. Granted, Yet compromise has been the lifeblood of the American experiment from its earliest days. The very possibility of self‑government is grounded in the presumption that citizens with intensely held but divergent views can find ways to cooperate. The American founders knew perfectly well that there would always be deep disputes over principles, tactics, means, and ends. That is why they regarded compromise not as a necessary evil but as an essential element of our constitutional system. Advertisement 'Those who hammer out painful deals perform the hardest and, often, highest work of politics,' the American thinker Jonathan Rauch wrote in In ' America's independence holiday is a good time to remember that some of this nation's greatest achievements emerged from political give‑and‑take, not from unilateral assertions of power. The Constitution itself was born of compromise. At the convention in 1787, delegates were deadlocked between a population-based legislature (favored by large states) and one that would treat all states equally (favored by small states). Had the impasse not been broken by what was later called the Great Compromise — a bicameral Congress with proportional representation in the House and equal representation in the Senate — the convention would have collapsed and the fragile confederation of states might never have endured. American progress has depended time and again on the ability of political leaders to transcend their partisan, sectional, or ideological loyalties and reach a compromise all sides could live with. Advertisement Consider the bargain struck in 1790 between Alexander Hamilton of New York and Virginia's Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Hamilton wanted the federal government to assume all state debts, which would amount to a dramatic expansion of national power. That prospect alarmed Southern leaders like Jefferson and Madison — but they agreed not to derail the plan in exchange for locating the new national capital on the Maryland-Virginia border instead of in one of the major commercial centers of the North. Though each side had to swallow a bitter pill, the deal achieved two vital ends: national creditworthiness through debt assumption, and a seat of government accessible to both North and South. And it showed that even foundational questions about the scope of federal power could be resolved through negotiation rather than force. Congress similarly chose compromise over caustic stalemate in 1964, with a Civil Rights Act that combined Southern concessions on federalism with Northern demands to outlaw segregation. The law was far from perfect, but it transformed American society and politics. It passed despite the opposition of hard-core segregationists, thanks to a bipartisan coalition hammered together by President Lyndon Johnson and Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican minority leader — proof that compromise, when linked to moral conviction, can dismantle entrenched injustice. To mention one more, recall the 1997 budget agreement. When Republicans under Newt Gingrich won control of the US House for the first time in decades, their ' surpluses . It was one more illustration of how ideological opponents, if they are motivated to do so, can find ways to compromise. Advertisement None of this is to suggest that all compromises are good. That would be as ridiculous as insisting that any compromise is bad. The point, rather, is that without the ability to compromise — and without the civility and mutual respect that make that possible — our democratic republic cannot survive. Maybe we've already crossed that point. Is there any reason to be optimistic about a Congress in which fanatics like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Bernie Sanders flourish while thoughtful legislators such as Thom Tillis and Kyrsten Sinema are marginalized until they resign? In ' What would have happened if those men hadn't been able to reason together — if they had abandoned all efforts to persuade and had resorted instead to invective and intimidation? The American experiment might have ended before it even got off the ground. If today's leaders continue to scorn compromise and civility, ours may be the generation that brings it crashing back to earth. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
an hour ago
Trump branded, browbeat and prevailed. But his big bill may come at a political cost
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama had the Affordable Care Act. Joe Biden had the Inflation Reduction Act. President Donald Trump will have the tax cuts. All were hailed in the moment and became ripe political targets in campaigns that followed. In Trump's case, the tax cuts may almost become lost in the debates over other parts of the multitrillion-dollar bill that Democrats say will force poor Americans off their health care and overturn a decade or more of energy policy. Through persuasion and browbeating, Trump forced nearly all congressional Republicans to line up behind his marquee legislation despite some of its unpalatable pieces. He followed the playbook that had marked his life in business before politics. He focused on branding — labeling the legislation the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill' — then relentlessly pushed to strong-arm it through Congress, solely on the votes of Republicans. But Trump's victory will soon be tested during the 2026 midterm elections where Democrats plan to run on a durable theme: that the Republican president favors the rich on tax cuts over poorer people who will lose their health care. Trump and Republicans argue that those who deserve coverage will retain it. Nonpartisan analysts, however, project significant increases to the number of uninsured. Meanwhile, the GOP's promise that the bill will turbocharge the economy will be tested at a time of uncertainty and trade turmoil. Trump has tried to counter the notion of favoring the rich with provisions that would reduce the taxes for people paid in tips and receiving overtime pay, two kinds of earners who represent a small share of the workforce. Extending the tax cuts from Trump's first term that were set to expire if Congress failed to act meant he could also argue that millions of people would avoid a tax increase. To enact that and other expensive priorities, Republicans made steep cuts to Medicaid that ultimately belied Trump's promise that those on government entitlement programs 'won't be affected.' 'The biggest thing is, he's answering the call of the forgotten people. That's why his No. 1 request was the no tax on tips, the no tax on overtime, tax relief for seniors,' said Rep. Jason Smith, R-Mo., chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. 'I think that's going to be the big impact.' Presidents have seen their signature legislative accomplishments unraveled by their successors or become a significant political liability for their party in subsequent elections. A central case for Biden's reelection was that the public would reward the Democrat for his legislative accomplishments. That never bore fruit as he struggled to improve his poll numbers driven down by concerns about his age and stubborn inflation. Since taking office in January, Trump has acted to gut tax breaks meant to boost clean energy initiatives that were part of Biden's landmark health care-and-climate bill. Obama's health overhaul, which the Democrat signed into law in March 2010, led to a political bloodbath in the midterms that fall. Its popularity only became potent when Republicans tried to repeal it in 2017. Whatever political boost Trump may have gotten from his first-term tax cuts in 2017 did not help him in the 2018 midterms, when Democrats regained control of the House, or in 2020 when he lost to Biden. 'I don't think there's much if any evidence from recent or even not-so-recent history of the president's party passing a big one-party bill and getting rewarded for it,' said Kyle Kondik, an elections analyst with the nonpartisan University of Virginia's Center for Politics. Democrats hope they can translate their policy losses into political gains. During an Oval Office appearance in January, Trump pledged he would 'love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.' 'We're not going to do anything with that, other than if we can find some abuse or waste, we'll do something,' Trump said. 'But the people won't be affected. It will only be more effective and better.' That promise is far removed from what Trump and the Republican Party ultimately chose to do, paring back not only Medicaid but also food assistance for the poor to make the math work on their sweeping bill. It would force 11.8 million more people to become uninsured by 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office, whose estimates the GOP has dismissed. 'In Trump's first term, Democrats in Congress prevented bad outcomes. They didn't repeal the (Affordable Care Act), and we did COVID relief together. This time is different,' said Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii. 'Hospitals will close, people will die, the cost of electricity will go up, and people will go without food.' Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., repeatedly argued the legislation would lead to drastic coverage losses in his home state and others, leaving them vulnerable to political attacks similar to what Democrats faced after they enacted 'Obamacare.' With his warnings unheeded, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection, after he opposed advancing the bill and enduring Trump's criticism. 'If there is a political dimension to this, it is the extraordinary impact that you're going to have in states like California, blue states with red districts,' Tillis said. "The narrative is going to be overwhelmingly negative in states like California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey.' Even Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, who eventually became the decisive vote in the Senate that ensured the bill's passage, said the legislation needed more work and she urged the House to revise it. Lawmakers there did not. Early polling suggests that Trump's bill is deeply unpopular, including among independents and a healthy share of Republicans. White House officials said their own research does not reflect that. So far, it's only Republicans celebrating the victory. That seems OK with the president. In a speech in Iowa after the bill passed, he said Democrats only opposed it because they 'hated Trump.' That didn't bother him, he said, 'because I hate them, too.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Megabill hits health care for immigrants, including legal ones, hard
As President Donald Trump intensifies his targeting of undocumented immigrants, the GOP megabill passed Thursday takes aim at those here legally by revoking their access to subsidized care. Under current rules, those immigrants — green card holders, refugees, survivors of domestic violence, and individuals on work and student visas — can purchase health insurance on the Obamacare marketplace and receive tax credits to offset the cost. Some of them are also eligible for coverage through Medicaid, the state-federal program for low-income people, if they earn incomes below the poverty level, as well as Medicare, the federal program for elderly people. But the provisions in the GOP megabill narrow immigrant eligibility for these programs, allowing only green card holders, immigrants from Cuba and Haiti, and immigrants from certain Pacific Island countries access to federally funded health care. The move to restrict coverage for legal immigrants comes as the Trump administration pushes ahead on its aggressive immigration campaign, delivering mass deportations, challenging birthright citizenship, and ending temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. 'These are the largest cuts to health coverage that we have seen, and this will be one of the largest cuts to immigrants in recent years,' said Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy think tank in Washington. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan scorekeeper, estimated similar provisions would leave 1.3 million lawfully present immigrants uninsured in 2034. Low-income green card holders in the five-year waiting period that applies to them for Medicaid, but who are currently eligible for subsidized Obamacare coverage, are expected to be the largest group hit. The provisions have been overshadowed by broader Medicaid cuts, and the politically fraught nature of immigration has made Republicans reluctant to speak out about the restrictions. Still, they have raised concerns in both red and blue states because it would mean their already financially strained health care systems would have to bear the higher costs of uncompensated and emergency care. 'There is a lot of concern about how some of the immigration policies and some of the enrollment policies might play out throughout our patient population and our communities,' said Jonathan Chapman, chief executive of the Florida Association of Community Health Centers, who flew to Washington last week to lobby Congress and the White House on the megabill. Over 70 percent of patients at the state's federally qualified health centers are uninsured or on Medicaid, and they have already reduced services due to insufficient funding. Chapman added that Florida GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis' support for Trump's crackdown has already discouraged patients from seeking care at the community health centers, even though they typically do not ask about immigration status. 'If my status was not clearly defined, I would be concerned about signing anything,' he added. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), vice chair of the Ways and Means Committee, told POLITICO the megabill 'ensures that federal health care dollars are prioritized for American citizens.' Buchanan led a letter with 11 members of the Florida Republican House delegation supporting the megabill. Under fiscal pressure, blue states, including Minnesota and Illinois, have moved to roll back health care access for undocumented immigrants, who are not eligible for any federally subsidized health care programs. Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, approved a state budget that will scale back free health care for undocumented immigrants. One of the hardest-hit states from the megabill restrictions on immigrants will be New York, which is one of three states that have enacted a basic health program allowed under the Affordable Care Act known as the Essential Plan. The Essential Plan offers low-cost health insurance for New Yorkers earning up to 250 percent above the federal poverty line and is funded by federal dollars that would otherwise be used for ACA tax credits. The GOP megabill will strip coverage for half a million immigrants covered by the plan and shift the cost to New York. The state must pick up the tab because of a 2001 state court decision that requires it to cover immigrants who are ineligible for Medicaid due to their immigration status. The state's hospital lobby, the Greater New York Hospital Association, believes the provisions as a whole will cost New York $3 billion annually and leave 225,000 immigrant New Yorkers uninsured. 'The downstream impacts are not just on immigrants,' said Elisabeth Wynn, executive vice president at the New York hospital group. 'We don't close services for a particular insurance category, those get closed for all.' Earlier this month, five Republican House members from New York wrote a letter to Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) urging a two- to three-year delay to the immigrant restrictions, warning an 'abrupt elimination…will have drastically disruptive consequences for New York's healthcare system.' The bill will exclude lawfully present immigrants earning below the federal poverty level from the Obamacare marketplace starting next year. Marketplace restrictions for lawfully present immigrants earning above the poverty level will start in 2027.
