In today’s edition … the political risks of Trump’s Iran deal … you share your thoughts on vaccines … but first …
Read more Democratic turnout is up, even in Republican districts, Post analysis finds
A group with apparent ties to Republicans put money in ads in Pennsylvania’s Democratic House primary in the Lehigh Valley, hoping to stop firefighter Bob Brooks from moving on to the general election.
They failed. Brooks is the party’s nominee.
The same thing happened in Texas’s Democratic primary in the state’s 35th Congressional District, a sliver of a district that extends from San Antonio to Austin, hoping to prevent Johnny Garcia from advancing to the general.
They failed. Garcia is the Democratic nominee.
And in New Jersey, a group with Republican ties once again meddled in the race to take on Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R), hoping to prevent Rebecca Bennett, a veteran Navy helicopter pilot, from becoming the Democratic nominee in the House race.
And, you guessed it, that failed, and Bennett is the nominee.
Cait Conley, a Democratic veteran vying to face Rep. Michael Lawler (R-New York) in the Hudson Valley this November, is hoping this trend continues. Her primary is on Tuesday.
Conley has been targeted by a group named Progressive Champions, which is hitting Conley from the left on immigration, seemingly hoping to keep the veteran out of the general election.
Judd Legum of Popular Information reported that the group has ties to other such so-called pop-up PACs and to the Congressional Leadership Fund, the top Republican outside group aligned with House leadership. A spokesperson for the group declined to comment when asked whether they were behind these groups.
This practice is not entirely unusual; Republicans appear to have meddled in races across the 2026 map, using groups like Real Change and Lead Left to try to stop the candidate who worries them most before the general election.
FEC filings reported on Saturday from Lead Left confirmed Democratic suspicions. The group’s funding came from Conservative Americans PAC, a group that has given to a range of conservative causes.
Not all Republican efforts have been failures. In Maine’s competitive House primary, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which backed Joe Baldacci, a state senator, alleged Republicans were working to elevate Maine State Auditor Matt Dunlap through $500,000 in spending from Real Change.
The spending worked, and Dunlap won.
But the Maine race is more the exception than the rule this year.
“Trying to influence the other party’s primaries is something that gets talked about in almost every campaign, and it’s really tough to do,” said Doug Heye, a longtime Republican operative. “But as the primary becomes the de facto election in more and more campaigns, it’s natural to see an increase in outside groups seeking to play a role here.”
Conley and her campaign view the spending against her as validation that Lawler, arguably one of the most vulnerable Republicans in the House this year, fears facing Conley in November. And the campaign released an ad — titled “Fighter” — to highlight the outside spending.
“If you need proof that Mike Lawler is scared to face me … what we are seeing play out is affirmation of that,” Conley told us. “He knows I am going to beat him in November.”
Ciro Riccardi, a spokesman for Lawler, did not respond when asked whether they disavow the spending, and instead echoed the content of the ads, hitting Conley for taking money from two groups connected to Palantir, the controversial company that we have highlighted has ties to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Conley said she talked with both Bennett in New Jersey and Brooks in Pennsylvania about the outside spending. “It really reaffirms why I am in this. Politics as usual is what is ruining this country,” she said.
It’s worth noting that this strategy is not unique to Republicans — Democrats have interfered in GOP primaries for years, but Conley said she would like her party to “lead by example” and stop the practice.
Read more Why Trump has been attacking the Supreme Court, with 3 key rulings ahead
“We have worked really hard to ensure that voters are aware of what is playing out,” Conley said. “That they understand Republicans are trying to direct the outcome of the Democratic primary to make sure this is on their radar and allow them to make their choice.”
President Donald Trump’s effort to strike a deal with Iran is facing pressure. And a lot of it.
As our colleague Michael Birnbaum noted in a standout piece yesterday, the three distinct pressure points all present considerable risk for the president:
All of this matters greatly for Trump’s political fortunes. Affordability will almost certainly the biggest issue at the ballot box this year, and Republicans’ ability to bring down gas and other prices that spiked because of Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz will likely be directly correlated to Republican success in November.
Trump all but conceded this last week when asked why he pushed for peace with Iran.
“I didn’t want to see economic catastrophe,” Trump told reporters gathered in the Alpine spa town of Évian-les-Bains, France, after the Group of Seven summit. “If you kept this going, that could have happened, but all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship.”
St. George News (Utah): The Trump administration may soon allow the Bureau of Land Management to once again use the “previously banned M-44 cyanide bombs on BLM public lands across the United States.” They were banned because they were found to “indiscriminately kill thousands of animals.”
San Francisco Standard: The people — and groups — lining up against a possible billionaire tax in California are not those you might expect. As this outlet reports, billionaires are now aligned with some of the state’s most powerful unions.
Bridge Detroit: With summer upon us, we have an important question: Who can walk on the beach? It may not be as simple as you’d expect, this outlet reports, given questions about beach ownership.
We asked about vaccines last week and were struck by the volume of response we received.
“I am a microbiologist and worked on a potential vaccine. We studied them,” wrote Rick Prescott, who added that part of his family has been “affected by the anti-vax sentiments.” “I will be nice.— just plain ridiculous and backward thinking with little basis in facts.”
“I strongly support the vaccine agenda of our medical community — less so the commentary of politicians,” wrote Van Standke. “Vaccines, especially childhood vaccines, have proven to be very successful, notwithstanding the potential problems of certain recipients with other medical issues.”
JC Penny, a reader in Alabama, wrote that the way we presented the question about vaccines was biased.
We welcome all feedback and criticism.
We couldn’t have a newsletter after the U.S. men’s 2-0 win against Australia on Friday without asking about the World Cup. We asked a few weeks ago about your excitement about the tournament and received a range of answers — some excitement, some shrugs. What about now? Has the performance of the U.S. team increased your interest? Has something else expanded your appetite for the World Cup? Let us and your fellow Early Brief readers know at [email protected].
Thanks for reading. You can follow Dan and Matthew on X: @merica and @matthewichoi.
Read more Schwarber, Harper homer again as Phillies beat Mets 6-2 to win series
