How the Black Caucus is navigating the high-profile Oversight race
A four-way race for Oversight ranking member is underway, but CBC members say it’s no family feud. Instead, the contest reflects a range of generational, regional and strategic priorities.
👋🏾 Hi, hey, hello! In this week’s edition: The latest on the race to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee from inside the influential Congressional Black Caucus, which has two of its members in the running.
I’ve also got news and notes on the high-stakes balancing act Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are navigating between bipartisan pressure for new sanctions and the White House’s push for diplomatic space, a new bipartisan member group to support the creator economy and where things stand as the Senate considers how far to revise the House version of Trump’s megabill.
But first things first: Shout out to everyone celebrating World Pride in the nation’s capital this weekend. Just ahead of the festivities, local police reversed course and announced that Dupont Circle Park will remain open, restoring a cherished gathering space for the LGBTQ+ community after backlash over an earlier closure plan.
The reversal was especially resonant given the charged backdrop of this year’s Pride. A day earlier, the Trump administration ordered the Navy to rename the USNS Harvey Milk, a ship honoring the slain gay rights icon and Navy veteran. LGBTQ+ advocates slammed the decision as a calculated affront during Pride Month—part of what they see as a broader effort to erase queer history from public life. Between the near-closure of Dupont and the Milk renaming, even symbolic spaces and commemorations can’t escape the country’s culture wars.
In other news, “Nobody wins when the family feuds,” Jay-Z famously rapped on his 2017 hit featuring Beyoncé. But he couldn’t have predicted that Democrats would cast themselves as the winners of the latest MAGA meltdown: a fiery online dispute between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk that blew up the internet this afternoon.
I’ve got some candid quotes from House Democrats on the whole ordeal below. Let’s get back to the Oversight ranker election though.
○ ● ● ● ●
A four-way race, with the CBC in the spotlight
With members back in Washington and Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) now officially in the mix, the race to become the next top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee has entered a new phase—one defined by generational contrasts, strategic alliances and a four-way field taking shape in real time.
The conventional wisdom is that Crockett’s candidacy could split the Congressional Black Caucus between an on-the-rise viral sensation and Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), a veteran statesman with deep civil rights roots. But several CBC members pushed back on the notion of internal fracture, noting that Crockett and Mfume aren’t the first two CBC members to run for the same post—and won’t be the last.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) pointed to previous leadership contests, including his against former Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) for caucus chair and a 2003 race between Reps. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.) and Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) for vice chair. In each case, Jeffries said, the CBC treated the race like family business: Members made their case, the caucus voted and the group moved forward together.
Meeks reinforced Jeffries’ point, describing how intra-CBC races are typically navigated through open conversations and mutual respect. Reflecting on his 2003 race, he said he stepped aside after the first round of voting once it was clear where the numbers stood. He added that after the Jeffries-Lee race, several members—including the candidates themselves—went to dinner to discuss the outcome and reaffirm their commitment to moving forward as a unified caucus.
“That’s the way it works. So it’s not a personal thing. It’s individuals who want to give to the Democratic Party and they believe that they have something to add,” Meeks told me this week. “And once the caucus decides, then we are all there together to move forward. There’s a diversity of thought. There’s a diversity of ideas within the caucus itself that’s going to ultimately play out in this situation.”
Crockett was reportedly reconsidering her bid after Mfume signaled his intention to run. She told me she did pause to reflect on the implications of running against another CBC member, citing her respect for the caucus and its traditions, but ultimately decided to move forward.
“I decided that at the end of the day, I’m Black, but I’m American,” she said. “And this country needs me right now.”
Crockett acknowledged that Mfume’s stature within the caucus and civil rights community could complicate her path. But she also framed her candidacy as a chance for Democrats to reconnect with disillusioned voters.
“I’m not pigeonholed into just Black folk,” she said. “And so for me, it’s about putting myself forward and giving the caucus an opportunity to take advantage of what it is that I’m trying to offer, which is an injection of hope for our base constituency that right now doesn’t seem to be the most hopeful.”
But a source familiar with CBC dynamics said it’s short-sighted to reduce the caucus to simply serving its members. And the CBC boasts its largest membership in history and is far from a monolith, just as the broader Black community isn’t.
“It has been and continues to be a significant voice in the entire caucus and Congress,” the source said of the caucus.
The person familiar also emphasized that the race features four candidates, not just two.
Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who another source described as a “dark horse” candidate, hails from the largest congressional delegation in the country and belongs to both the Congressional Progressive and Hispanic Caucuses, giving him the potential makings of a winning coalition. Meanwhile, Acting Ranking Member Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) represents a New England region with three Black Caucus members: Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), and Jahana Hayes (D-Conn.).
The CBC is unlikely to endorse in the race, according to Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), who said members would ultimately vote based on their relationships with the candidates and the strength of each candidate’s presentation. Jeffries added that leadership will remain “aggressively neutral” and “not put our thumb on the scale.”
While she no longer holds a formal leadership post, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)could still play a quiet but powerful role in the race. She remains deeply respected by senior Democrats, especially those who prize institutional continuity and procedural discipline—qualities embodied by candidates like Lynch and Mfume. (Pelosi is also dean of the California delegation, which also gives her a Garcia connection.)
Her influence may not come as a public endorsement, but in subtle cues and strategic conversations that shape how members frame their votes.
“Let’s see the lasting and enduring strength of the great Speaker Emerita Pelosi,” said a source familiar with the situation, delivered with a wink and a grin that underscored how her presence continues to loom large over pivotal caucus decisions.
A spokesperson for Pelosi did not respond to a request for comment.
The race is also beginning to take on a more structured shape behind closed doors. The Progressive Caucus is set to host a candidate forum during its regular Tuesday meeting, followed by a CBC on Wednesday afternoon. The center-left New Democrat Coalition will also host a forum next week. It’s unclear which candidates will attend, but the scheduling of these events signals that the contest is entering a new phase—one where key ideological blocs are beginning to engage more formally with the field.
● ○ ● ● ●
Dems try to stay on message… but they’re watching the drama too
In case you somehow missed it: The Trump-Musk fallout began yesterday after Musk, who recently departed his government post as head of the Department of Government Efficiency, harshly criticized what Trump hopes will be the legislative crown jewel of his second term—a sprawling tax, border and energy bill that enacts the bulk of his 2024 campaign promises. The X and Tesla billionaire called the “One Big Beautiful Bill” a “disgusting abomination” due to its projected addition of more than $2 trillion to the national debt and its cuts to electric vehicle tax credits.
Trump fired back, accusing Musk of ingratitude and threatening to revoke federal contracts and subsidies for Musk’s companies, including Tesla and SpaceX. Musk retaliated by announcing plans to decommission SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft and insinuated that Trump’s name appears in sealed Jeffrey Epstein files, suggesting that’s why they remain undisclosed. He also endorsed a social media post calling for Trump’s impeachment.
The feud had immediate financial repercussions: Tesla’s stock plunged 17 percent, wiping out $100 billion in market value and raising concerns about the stability of federal programs reliant on Musk’s enterprises. (For example, Dragon is critical to NASA missions.)
It also tested Hill Democrats’ message discipline as they tried to keep up their steady barrage of attacks on the megabill, while privately savoring the implosion of one of the most consequential political alliances in recent history.
“You watching the circus unfold?” Jeffries asked me as he stepped out of the House Democratic cloakroom during an afternoon vote series.
Jeffries said Trump and Musk “have gone nuclear on each other” and called their falling-out “a dramatic escalation in the Republican Civil War.”
Democrats attempted to stay above the fray as they walked onto the House floor:
“I’m loving it,” Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.) said. “It was inevitable.”
Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) added: “Let them fight among themselves.”
One Democratic aide: “Just get your popcorn and stay out of their way.”
Members were even more candid in the group chat.
“Ain’t this some crazy shit?” one House Democrat texted me.
Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.) used the occasion to wryly flip a familiar gender stereotype.
“We have a bunch of men who are too emotional to lead, right? They do not know how to get along versus women who do,” she told me. “They just keep fighting. I think they are too emotional to lead.”
● ● ○ ● ●
Senate scrutiny, SALT threats and an AI slip: The House GOP’s megabill hits turbulence
It’s easy to forget amid the drama that it all stems from the megabill, which is now under Senate consideration.
As I mentioned earlier, the sprawling package—passed by House Republicans before Memorial Day—combines sweeping tax cuts, strict border enforcement and rollbacks of clean energy incentives into one reconciliation bill meant to deliver on Trump’s campaign promises.
While two Senate committees—Armed Services and Energy and Public Works released the text of their versions of the bill this week, with drafts from both the Banking and Commerce panels expected as early as tomorrow, other portions of the bill are facing cross-chamber turbulence. Behind the scenes, GOP aides are preparing for a lengthy amendment process and possible negotiations over which provisions might be softened or sacrificed to secure final passage.
Several Senate Republicans are eyeing revisions to ease provisions like the EV tax credit repeal and controversial Medicaid reforms, while House GOP leaders are warning that changes to the bill could unravel their fragile coalition. A bloc of New York and California Republicans is threatening to tank the package if the Senate lowers the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap below the $40,000 threshold they negotiated. And in a viral moment this week, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) admitted she hadn’t read the bill and was unaware it included a 10-year moratorium on most federal investments in artificial intelligence—prompting bipartisan concern over the sweeping scope of the legislation and who’s reading it.
Democrats, meanwhile, are using the bill’s size and scope as political ammunition, casting it as a handout to billionaires at the expense of working families. Led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Democrats have focused on the cuts to health care and a less-discussed provision that they say would empower Trump to ignore the courts, including the Supreme Court. (It would prevent federal courts from enforcing contempt citations for violations of injunctions or temporary restraining orders unless the plaintiffs have posted a monetary bond, a requirement rarely imposed in cases against the government.
Jeffries told reporters this week that he and Schumer have been in frequent communication this week as the two leaders attempt to coordinate a united front against the bill.
The strategy: Paint the bill as unpopular and Republicans divided.
“House Republicans continue to fight with Senate Republicans. Senate Republicans are fighting with House Republicans. The Trump administration has also gone to war with the Federalist Society,” Jeffries told me. “The whole thing is falling apart.”
Want to reach the people shaping policy and politics? Once Upon a Hill puts your message in front of the Capitol’s most plugged-in audience—where influence meets insight. Let’s talk about how a sponsorship can align with your goals. Email michael@onceuponahill.com to learn more.
● ● ● ○ ●
Congress weighs tougher sanctions on Russia as Trump urges restraint
Capitol Hill was buzzing this week in the days following the coordinated drone offensive Ukraine launched deep inside Russian territory, reportedly damaging or destroying dozens of aircraft at five separate airbases. Russia responded with retaliatory strikes across Ukraine, including a deadly drone attack in north-central Ukraine that killed five civilians, drawing condemnation from President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.
Amid these developments, the Senate is considering a bipartisan bill introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) that proposes imposing 500 percent tariffs on countries importing Russian oil, gas, uranium and other goods. The aim is to economically isolate Russia and pressure it into serious peace negotiations, which recently stalled in Istanbul after Ukraine rejected a Russian proposal that would require recognizing Moscow’s annexation of occupied territory.
The bill has garnered support from at least 82 senators. However, President Trump has urged Leader Thune to delay the vote, expressing concerns that new sanctions might hinder ongoing diplomatic efforts. Speaker Johnson has indicated support for the bill but emphasized the need to coordinate with the White House to align sanctions with diplomatic strategies.
That balancing act hasn’t gone unnoticed. House Democrats say the GOP leadership is deferring to Trump at the expense of bipartisan resolve—and Ukraine’s survival.
“It’s time for Speaker Johnson to grow up,” Rep. Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said. “He’s not part of the Trump administration. He’s a part of the legislative branch of government, which is separate and equal.”
Meeks called on Congress to pair additional Ukraine aid with tougher sanctions, including seizing frozen Russian assets to support Ukrainian reconstruction: “There’s been no pressure put on Russia at all.”
House Democratic Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) added that the Senate’s push for action on the Graham-Blumenthal bill seemed aimed less at the House than at Trump himself.
“They clearly are trying to work Donald Trump to get to this position,” Aguilar said. “We have voted for sanctions on Russia previously. We continue to view it through the lens of national security.”
House Democratic Caucus Vice Chair Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) agreed, arguing that Putin won’t negotiate in good faith unless the West applies maximum pressure.
“The best way to get Putin to the negotiating table is to apply maximum pressure in terms of sanctions,” Lieu said. “Give Ukraine what they need to defeat Russian troops on the battlefield, and then we’ll get Putin to negotiate again.”
Following a 75-minute call with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week, President Trump said both sides may need to “fight for a while” before meaningful diplomacy can resume. (During his visit to Washington today, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged the U.S. to apply more pressure on Russia to end the conflict.)
The human toll continues to rise: Nearly one million Russian soldiers have reportedly been killed or wounded, making this the deadliest conflict for Russia since World War II. Ukrainian casualties are also substantial, with tens of thousands dead and wounded.
North Korea has publicly pledged “unconditional support” for Russia and reportedly deployed troops to assist the Kremlin’s forces, while the U.S. has diverted key anti-drone systems originally intended for Ukraine to its troops in the Middle East. Frontline fighting remains fierce, with Russia pressing forward in eastern Ukraine while Ukrainian forces have reportedly launched limited incursions into Russia’s southwestern Kursk region.
NATO leaders convened in Brussels this week to reaffirm long-term support for Ukraine. They endorsed new military capability targets and proposed that allies spend at least five percent of their GDP on defense in response to Moscow's growing threat.
What’s clear is that with no ceasefire in sight and major powers recalibrating their involvement, the war is entering a new, more dangerous phase. So much for Trump fulfilling his promise to end it on Day One.
● ● ● ● ○
The creators are here—and now they’ve got a caucus
And finally, OG supporters of my work know that before I launched OUAH, I wrote a newsletter called Supercreator about the intersection of politics and the creator economy. Before the pandemic, there wasn’t much mainstream discussion of the ecosystem, but that’s changed due to the explosion of creators who leverage social media apps and artificial intelligence tools to produce and distribute content, products and services directly to their audience.
Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) and Beth Van Duyne (R-Texas) launched a new bipartisan Congressional Creators Caucus this afternoon, aiming to elevate the voices of online content creators in tech policy debates. Flanked by creators including Matthew and Stephanie Patrick of Theorist Media, the lawmakers said the caucus will focus on digital entrepreneurs’ unique challenges as they build businesses on platforms that shape—and often control—the modern economy.
What began as a niche space has evolved into a multibillion-dollar industry, with creators now serving as cultural tastemakers, economic engines, and increasingly, policy stakeholders. But as the platforms they rely on consolidate power and lawmakers ramp up scrutiny of Big Tech, many creators are calling for greater transparency, accountability and protections in the digital economy they helped build.
I asked Reps. Clarke and Van Duyne how they planned to bring less tech-savvy lawmakers into the fold—especially as creators push for faster, more responsive policymaking from a notoriously slow-moving Congress.
Both members acknowledged the urgency and emphasized the caucus’s role as a storytelling vehicle: A space to center creators’ lived experiences and build fluency among their colleagues.
Rep. Van Duyne said that even if some lawmakers aren’t fully immersed in the creator economy, “all of us know that it’s out there.” She pointed to constituent outreach and campaign encounters as entry points, and framed the caucus as a way to “partner with the industry, as opposed to trying to define the industry.”
Rep. Clarke took a more personal tack, describing herself as “a sci-fi geek” whose curiosity fuels her approach to tech policy.
“We’ve gotten them to drop the flip phones,” she said of her colleagues. “And now they are prepared, because they’re receiving content through their staff, through their family members on their mobile devices.”
The timing, she argued, couldn’t be better to deepen that engagement—and build momentum behind the caucus.