A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention official who posted his resignation letter on social media used the term ‘pregnant people’ and capped off his missive by including ‘he/his/him’ pronouns after his name.

‘I am writing to formally resign from my position as Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), effective August 28, 2025, close of business,’ Dr. Demetre Daskalakis wrote in the lengthy post on X.

Daskalakis accused President Donald Trump’s administration of attempting ‘to erase transgender populations.’

‘For decades, I have been a trusted voice for the LGBTQ community when it comes to critical health topics. I must also cite the recklessness of the administration in their efforts to erase transgender populations, cease critical domestic and international HIV programming, and terminate key research to support equity as part of my decision,’ he wrote.

The inclusion of pronouns and the term ‘pregnant people’ caught people’s attention.

‘This resignation is a huge win for the Trump administration and the American people. We don’t need anyone who can’t understand basic biology working at the CDC,’ noted Jeremy Redfern, communications director for Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

Karol Markowicz tweeted, ‘No one who uses ‘pregnant people’ should work at the CDC. This isn’t hard.’ 

Responding to Markowicz’s post, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis wrote, ‘Example of how ‘trusting the science’ really means following the political science and perpetuating the prevailing narrative…’ He added, ‘Embracing evidence-based medicine should be the bare minimum for working at the CDC…’

Daskalakis suggested that the Department of Health and Human Services is on a ‘dangerous’ path.

‘I am unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health,’ he wrote.

‘I wish the CDC continued success in its vital mission and that HHS reverse its dangerous course to dismantle public health as a practice and as an institution. If they continue the current path, they risk our personal well-being and the security of the United States,’ Daskalakis concluded at the end of his message.

Fox News Digital reached out to HHS for comment on Thursday.

Bipartisan anger is brewing over the drama that unfolded at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), with the top members of the Senate’s healthcare panel forming a united front in the midst of the turmoil.

Senate Healthcare, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, R-La., and the panel’s ranking member, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., dove head first into the issues stemming from the firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez, which spurred a string of departures from the agency.

Monarez was abruptly fired from her position by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), less than a month after being confirmed by the Senate. Her removal, which her lawyers rejected, appeared to stem from disagreements over vaccines with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a vaccine skeptic.

Cassidy was the deciding vote during Kennedy’s confirmation hearing earlier this year.

Monarez has since refused to leave the post, with her lawyers arguing that she had neither resigned nor been fired and had not received notification from the president of her removal.

Following news of her ouster, a string of top officials at the CDC announced their resignations, too, including National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Daniel Jernigan, Chief Medical Officer Debra Houry, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases Director Demetre Daskalakis and Director of Public Health Data, Science, Technology Jennifer Layden.

In response to their resignations, Cassidy demanded that the federal government’s vaccine advisory panel, which was filled with Kennedy’s handpicked replacements after he recently booted the original panel members, postpone its scheduled meeting in September.

His demand marks the second time this year that Cassidy called on the panel to halt its meeting, a move that directly bucks Kennedy’s and President Donald Trump’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda. 

Cassidy argued Thursday that there were ‘serious allegations made about the meeting agenda, membership, and lack of scientific process being followed for the now announced September [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] meeting.’

‘These decisions directly impact children’s health, and the meeting should not occur until significant oversight has been conducted,’ Cassidy said. ‘If the meeting proceeds, any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership.’

Daskalakis posted his reason for resigning on X, where he charged that he was ‘unable to serve in an environment that treats CDC as a tool to generate policies and materials that do not reflect scientific reality and are designed to hurt rather than to improve the public’s health.’

Meanwhile, Sanders demanded a congressional investigation be opened into the Trump administration’s decision to fire Monarez.

‘We need leaders at the CDC and HHS who are committed to improving public health and have the courage to stand up for science, not officials who have a history of spreading bogus conspiracy theories and disinformation,’ Sanders said Thursday.

HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment for this story.  

A spokesperson for Kamala Harris confirmed to Fox News on Friday that the former vice president’s Secret Service protection has been revoked by President Donald Trump.

The spokesperson added that there was no reason given as to why it was removed.

A senior White House official told Fox News Digital that vice presidents usually have a Secret Service detail for only six months after departing office.

A source briefed on the matter also told Fox News that the decision to revoke Harris’ Secret Service protection was made yesterday and that is when the Secret Service was notified.

Former President Joe Biden signed an executive memorandum before leaving office which extended Harris’ protection for an additional year after the normal six months that former vice presidents received in the past.

On Thursday, Trump rescinded that memorandum and Harris’ Secret Service protection officially ends on Sept. 1.

The move comes as Harris is set to kick off a tour for her upcoming book ‘107 Days’ in late September.

The tour is scheduled to visit major American cities in its opening days, including New York City, Philadelphia and Los Angeles.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

An American energy leader is warning that several progressive ‘green’ environmental groups opposing President Donald Trump’s nuclear energy plans are linked to a ‘web of dark money’ groups with ties to former President Barack Obama and other Democrats.

Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, warned during an interview with Fox News Digital that while claiming to stand for the planet, these groups ‘have prioritized ideology over innovation’ and are ‘driven by green activists and groups deeply tied to the Democratic Party.’

‘You follow the money, you’ll see where it leads. It leads straight to partisan mega-donors, foreign interests, and failed climate crusaders,’ Isaac said. ‘This isn’t about the environment. It’s about political control over America’s energy future and our energy dominance.’

Isaac’s comments follow Trump’s signing of several executive orders in May to ‘usher in a nuclear renaissance’ by cutting red tape to accelerate advancements in nuclear technologies. In one of the orders, Trump said that ‘abundant energy is a vital national- and economic-security interest’ and ‘in conjunction with domestic fossil fuel production, nuclear energy can liberate America from dependence on geopolitical rivals.’

However, several environmentalist groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Threat Initiative, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and several individuals have been critical of Trump’s actions as unscientific.  

In late July, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a statement lambasting Trump, saying that ‘since the Inauguration, the administration has systematically destroyed federal scientific systems.’

UCS published a report that claimed the Trump administration is advancing a ‘systematic effort to suppress climate science and dismantle actions to address the climate crisis that will increase costs and suffering, particularly for disadvantaged communities, while boosting fossil fuel pollution and profits.’

A Fox News Digital review of UCS donors found that the group has received financial support from left-wing donors like the Tides Foundation, whose 2023 U.S. tax return shows it has helped bankroll anti-Israel protests on college campuses, and the Alliance for Global Justice, which in turn is a fiscal sponsor of the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network, a group the U.S. Department of the Treasury later designated as ‘a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization.’ 

UCS has also received support from the U.S. Energy Foundation, which Fox News Digital previously reported was spun off from the same foundation as the Energy Foundation China.

Meanwhile, Nuclear Threat Initiative, another group that has been publicly wary of Trump’s nuclear agenda, was co-founded by Ted Turner, who once urged other countries to adopt China’s one-child policy, and led by CEO Ernest Moniz, who was secretary of energy under Obama.

Other Nuclear Threat Initiative leaders have links to Democratic causes through political contributions, such as the group’s president, Joan Rohlfing, who donated to former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris, its vice president, Scott Roecker, who has donated to the Democratic National Committee, and its senior director, Nickolas Roth, who donated to Biden. 

A spokesperson for NTI told Fox News Digital that the organization ‘actively supports the rapid expansion of safe, secure, and cost-effective nuclear energy through the Nuclear Scaling Initiative (NSI), in partnership with the Clean Air Task Force and the EFI Foundation.’

‘NSI’s goal is to enable the scaling of more than 50 gigawatts of nuclear capacity annually across the globe by the 2030s—advancing climate goals, energy security, nonproliferation, and economic development.’

The spokesperson added that NTI is a ‘nonprofit, nonpartisan global security organization’ while pointing to a New York Post letter to the editor from Roecker pushing back on allegations of bias. 

Another group, Friends of the Earth, which has actively urged the world to ‘reject’ Trump, has a history of far-left endorsements and contributions. In 2020, Friends of the Earth endorsed Black Lives Matter and called for defunding the police. The group has also endorsed the Green New Deal and said the U.S. must ‘provide finance for people in developing countries commensurate with what science and justice demand.’

During the 2020 election, Friends of the Earth Action endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., for the Democratic presidential nomination. In 2024, the group endorsed Harris for president.

Since 2015, Friends of the Earth Action PAC has donated thousands to Democratic or progressive candidates and causes, according to data gathered by OpenSecrets.

For its part, the Sierra Club, which routinely pushes back against Trump on its social media account, has had an even more extensive history of advancing progressive causes.

In 2020, the Sierra Club supported defunding the police, saying, ‘The problems with policing can’t be solved through piecemeal reforms or getting rid of ‘a few bad apples.’’

The group also endorsed the Green New Deal, calling it a ‘big, bold transformation of the economy to tackle the twin crises of inequality and climate change.’

It has also said it is ‘committed to being an anti-racist organization.’ In 2020, the group even condemned its founder, naturalist John Muir, for using racist language in the 1800s, saying it was ‘time to take down some of our own monuments.’

The Sierra Club Foundation has, in turn, received significant support from George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, left-wing Swiss megadonor Hansjorg Wyss’s Wyss Foundation, and The Climate Imperative Foundation, which infamously pushed the Biden administration’s move to ban gas stoves.

Greenpeace, which is well known for its dramatic climate protests, including boarding an oil vessel, has been a vocal critic of Trump for years, accusing the president of ‘defying science.’

Greenpeace has received support from New Venture Fund, whose website states that its day-to-day operations are managed in part by Arabella Advisors, the behemoth philanthropy services firm that also manages left-wing ‘dark money’ funds. According to a 2017 tax filing, Greenpeace has also received funding from the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which in turn receives funding from Mark Zuckerberg, Reed Hastings, and Jack Dorsey.

In 2020, Greenpeace touted that a staff member was involved in creating a ‘Vision for Black Lives’ platform and fully endorsed the program that called for reparations and a ‘guaranteed minimum livable income for all Black people.’ The program also supported cutting funding from law enforcement and decriminalizing ‘all drug-related offenses and prostitution.’

The group has provided funding to progressive state committees like the Colorado League of Responsible Voters, Colorado Rising for Health & Safety, and Democratic candidates and causes.

Speaking with Fox News Digital, Isaac described the groups opposing Trump’s nuclear push as a ‘whole web of dark money-funded partisan and foreign-tied organizations.’

I don’t think they want to solve the problem,’ he said, adding, ‘these groups are about control, they’re about driving the cost of energy up and driving access to energy down so they can control the narrative and control every aspect of our lives.’

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, told Fox News Digital, ‘the reality is the green agenda is a hodgepodge of anti-human activists who have adopted the green agenda as their religion, coupled with megalomaniacs and political operatives exploiting climate issues to push a broader ideological agenda.’

‘What we have seen for years is so-called ‘green’ groups pushing an anti-nuclear agenda that defies science, common sense, and the interests of the American people,’ he said.

NTI has been publicly wary of Trump’s nuclear expansion, while UCS, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace have been heavily critical of the administration’s actions on environmental issues more generally. 

‘Nuclear energy is statistically the safest, cleanest, and most reliable source of power we have, yet the left is doing everything they can to shut it down,’ Hild went on. He criticized these ‘activist groups’ for ‘the damage they’re doing to our economy, our security, and our future in pursuit of an extreme climate ideology.’

Steve Milloy, who is a senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environment Institute and served on Trump’s 2016 transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency, also chimed in, calling the current moment ‘a critical turning point for the future of energy.’

‘For decades, radical environmental groups have tried to block nuclear energy, despite its unmatched record for safety and reliability,’ he said. ‘By championing nuclear power, the President is putting science, technology, and common sense ahead of the outdated, anti-energy green agenda pushed by the Left.’

Fox News Digital also reached out to the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and UCS for comment but did not receive a response.

There is no question that President Donald Trump is deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. Nations, statesmen and elected officials around the globe have seen the fruits of his labor to bring peace to different hemispheres. 

The big question is, ‘Is there a real pathway for President Trump to actually receive the Nobel Peace Prize?’ I believe there is. But it’s a pathway that must be flawlessly executed. 

And in doing so, it’s important to understand the history of the Nobel Peace Prize and the actual process for awarding it. We can also gain insight from how a former Trump appointee led an international organization to receive it. And we can learn from how a former Republican president worked to end a war and received the Nobel Peace Prize despite protests from Norwegian and Swedish politicians and media.

The Nobel Prizes were established by the will of the famed Swedish industrialist and inventor, Alfred Nobel. Nobel was the inventor of dynamite and, at the time of his death in 1896, was the owner of Bofors, the Swedish armaments manufacturer. 

I personally became intrigued with the Nobel Prizes while doing consulting work for Bofors in the late 1990s and visiting Karlskoga, Sweden, a number of times.

Nobel’s will provided for prizes in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. A Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was added in 1968. The original prizes have been awarded since 1901. 

In his will, Nobel provided that the prizes were to be awarded by different Swedish entities, with the exception of the Nobel Peace Prize, which was to be awarded ‘by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting [Parliament].’ Today, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is responsible for selecting Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Appointed by the Norwegian Parliament, it should surprise no one that historically its members have been former members of Parliament and cabinet ministers.

Only ‘qualified nominators’ can submit a name for the Nobel Peace Prize. These include members of national assemblies, national governments, current heads of state, previous recipients, certain university professors and directors of peace research institutions. 

This explains why President Trump has been nominated by numerous members of Congress, several nations, heads of state and university professors. Nominations are due on Jan. 31 each year, followed by a multi-stage selection process. The winner is announced in early October, with the award ceremony taking place on Dec. 10 every year at Oslo City Hall.

Make no mistake, this is a very political process. I served for a number of years on the board of the Norwegian-American Foundation. I remember when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama for ‘the promise’ of his vision. My Norwegian friends were flabbergasted. 

The running joke in Norway was that he received it because a couple of left-wingers on the Committee wanted a chance to meet him and have a photo-op. In Trump’s case, you actually have a president who has resolved conflicts and helped to bring peace to different regions of the world.

In addition to the formal nominations, I believe there are key actions supporters of President Trump can undertake to maximize his chances. Consider these: 

, the former NATO secretary-general, is back in the current Labour government’s cabinet serving as finance minister. Following Trump’s victory last November, Stoltenberg said that during Trump’s first term, they had ‘established a good and reliable working relationship.’ He further noted that they ‘got things done,’ and that ‘NATO had become stronger.’ A former Labour prime minister, he could be helpful with one or two members of the committee. In fact, committee member Gry Larsen is a member of the Labour Party and served as state secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs when Stoltenberg was prime minister. 

, founded by former Norwegian Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, is considered much less political than the Norwegian Nobel Institute. It has a history of actually being in the field promoting peace and strengthening democratic political institutions and processes. I met with him as he was laying the foundation for the center and heard his vision. An ordained Lutheran minister, he’s the former head of the Christian Democratic Party. Current committee member Anne Enger served as Bondevik’s deputy during his first term as prime minister. And committee member Kristin Clemet served as Bondevik’s minister of education during his second term.

Either through the ambassador when he’s confirmed, or through the current charge d’affaires, the embassy needs to take a proactive role in making the case for President Trump to the Norwegian media and institutions. 

: Former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley received the prize as the Trump-appointed executive director of the World Food Program (WFP) in 2020. The WFP had been nominated numerous times over 40 years, but it was under a Trump appointee’s leadership that it finally happened. Insights on how Beasley and the WFP interacted with Norwegian authorities can be helpful. 

: The Republican president received the Nobel Peace Prize despite protests from liberal Norwegian politicians and Swedish media. His efforts to end the Russo-Japanese War were too meritorious and couldn’t be ignored. Likewise, President Trump supporters can make a similar case with the conflicts that he has helped to end. The embassy can play a big role in articulating this.

On the merits, President Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. But this is a political process, and his supporters need to work the process. 

A Norwegian friend reminded me that the prize is supposed to consider achievements over a period of time. He pointed to President Trump’s brokering the Abraham Accords during his first term as laying a foundation for real peace in the Middle East. 

He’s right. President Trump’s achievements during his first term, combined with what he’s done so far in his second term, have earned him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has denied Palestinian leaders visas to attend next month’s United Nations General Assembly, citing longstanding U.S. law that prohibits recognition of Palestinian statehood and sanctions the Palestinian Authority for so-called ‘pay for slay’ payments to terrorists.

According to internal documents reviewed by Fox News, Rubio signed off on recommendations that would block visas for senior officials of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), including PA President Mahmoud Abbas. 

‘In compliance with the laws and national security interests of the United States, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is denying and revoking visas from members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA) ahead of the upcoming UN General Assembly,’ State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement on Friday. 

‘Before they can be taken seriously as partners for peace, the PA and PLO must repudiate terrorism, lawfare campaigns at the ICC and ICJ, and the pursuit of unilateral recognition of statehood.  The PA Mission to the UN will receive waivers per the UN Headquarters agreement.  The United States remains open to re-engagement should the PA/PLO demonstrably take concrete steps to return to constructive engagement.  The Trump Administration does not reward terrorism.’ 

The move prevents Palestinian leaders from addressing the annual U.N. gathering in New York next month, a stage they have frequently used to advance unilateral recognition of statehood.

The decision stems from findings under the Palestinian Liberation Organization Commitments Compliance Act (PLOCCA) and the Middle East Peace Commitments Act (MEPCA), which determined the PA and PLO were out of compliance with U.S. commitments by ‘unilaterally declaring Palestinian statehood; glorifying violence; promoting antisemitism; and providing material support to terrorists.’ The sanctions mandate an automatic denial of visas for at least 180 days.

While the United States has previously denied visas on a case-by-case basis — including for members of the Iranian delegation — officials acknowledged in the documents that Washington has never before barred an entire delegation from attending the U.N. General Assembly. The internal guidance argues that the unprecedented step is justified because Palestinian leaders plan to use the September forum to push a ‘constitutional declaration’ of independence, a move the U.S. views as a major propaganda victory for Hamas and a threat to ceasefire talks in Gaza.

The recommendations call for rejecting visa applications from Palestinian officials, declining a waiver for Abbas himself, and revoking visas issued before July 31 for PLO and PA members. However, the guidance makes one exception: permanent staff and dependents at the Palestinian U.N. Observer Mission would be allowed to remain under U.S. obligations to the U.N. Headquarters Agreement.

U.S. officials wrote that granting waivers ‘would undermine the credibility’ of existing sanctions and embolden the PA to pursue unilateral recognition efforts. By contrast, enforcing the visa bans was described as a ‘low-cost, high-impact action’ to reinforce U.S. policy.

Since 2012, Palestinian representatives have held non-member observer status at the U.N., a designation that allows them to participate in debates but not vote. While the U.S. has pledged under the U.N. Headquarters Agreement not to obstruct travel for official U.N. business, the documents argue that the PA’s use of the General Assembly to advance statehood recognition falls outside routine mission work and poses a direct challenge to U.S. national interests.

Rubio’s decision marks a historic departure from the U.S. practice of accommodating U.N. participation, setting up a likely clash with international bodies and U.S. allies that continue to recognize Palestinian representatives.

The move follows decades of friction between Washington and the United Nations over Israel-related issues, most especially after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. 

The United States has used its Security Council veto power dozens of times to block resolutions critical of Israel — more than any other permanent member has used its veto for a single ally.

As we settle into the second Trump administration, eyes are already turning toward 2028. With President Donald Trump barred from a third elected term by the 22nd Amendment, the Republican nomination looks like a coronation for Vice President JD Vance. Polling shows Vance dominating the GOP field, with 46% support in a recent survey. That’s far ahead of potential challengers.

Vance, the Ohio senator and author of ‘Hillbilly Elegy,’ embodies the Trumpian blend of populism, economic nationalism and cultural conservatism that has reshaped the GOP. Operationally, his run would extend Trump’s legacy, focusing on border security, trade deals favoring American workers and an America First foreign policy.

On the Democratic side, the picture is murkier. The list of potential nominees reads like a progressive wish list: California Gov. Gavin Newsom, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.., and Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz.

Nationally, an Emerson College poll from June 2025 pegs the race as wide open with former V.P. and 2024 Democratic nominee Kamala Harris fading quickly. Early polls for the 2028 nomination reveal a crowded field of far-left contenders, with Newsom emerging as a frontrunner in recent weeks. A Newsweek analysis of state-level polling shows Newsom leading in at least two key states, including his home turf of California as well as Ohio, where he reportedly commands strong support among Democratic voters.

Other polls, such as one from Zeteo and Data for Progress in April 2025, show Buttigieg, Booker and Ocasio-Cortez leading in scenarios without Harris. But Newsom’s name recognition and fundraising prowess give him an edge — especially with Newsom’s high-profile, but likely doomed effort to redistrict California via ballot initiative this November.

In America’s two-party system, winning the presidency hinges on capturing the Electoral College, which rewards candidates who appeal to the center. Candidates typically tack toward the commonsense center in general elections, shedding primary extremism to court swing voters in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

But Democrats have struggled with this since 1968, when the Vietnam War radicalized the elite left, pulling the party away from the mainstream. 

The result? Four blowout elections out of five contests: 1972, Richard Nixon with 520 Electoral College votes to George McGovern with 17; 1980, Ronald Reagan, 489 to Jimmy Carter, 49; 1984, Ronald Reagan 525 to Walter Mondale, 13; 1988, George H.W. Bush 426 to Mike Dukakis, 111. 

Bill Clinton’s two elections in the 1990s were anomalies fueled by George H.W. Bush’s infamous ‘no new taxes’ pledge break, which alienated conservatives, and H. Ross Perot’s third-party run (fueled by personal animus towards Bush), which siphoned votes from Bush. 

The Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) played a huge role as well, as it pushed for a moderate and electable nominee. Even so, Bush’s sky-high popularity (the result of the crushing victory against Iraq in 1991 in the Gulf War) caused many popular Democrats not to run for the nomination.

Clinton won two general elections with 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. Importantly, Clinton governed with centrist moves like welfare reform and a balanced budget (though largely due to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994)—policies that today’s Democrats would decry as right-wing.

Fast-forward to today, and the Democratic Party is adrift. The influence of progressives, supercharged during President Barack Obama’s eight years, has made it nearly impossible to nominate someone who can win nationally. 

The Democratic Party base demands fealty to identity politics, open borders and climate extremism. This alienates working-class voters who flipped to Trump in 2016 and stayed Republican thereafter. Polls consistently show Americans rejecting these positions: majorities support border walls, favor energy independence over green mandates and oppose defunding the police.

Newsom exemplifies this dilemma. As California’s governor, he’s presided over skyrocketing homelessness, rapidly rising energy prices and a population exodus — policies that play well in San Francisco, but flop in Pennsylvania.

Early in 2025, Newsom made a rare nod to the center, stating during a podcast that allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports is ‘deeply unfair’ and an ‘issue of fairness.’ Newsom’s remarks align with public sentiment; surveys show 80% or more of Americans oppose transgender athletes in female competitions, viewing it as a commonsense protection for women’s opportunities. 

Newsom quickly backpedaled amid backlash from party activists. By April, he downplayed the remarks as unplanned and in May he supported rule changes allowing more transgender participation in state events — despite controversy.

Newsom’s flip-flop under left-wing pressure reveals the bind: Stray from the left and you risk the nomination. Stick to it and you lose the general.

A few Democrats hint at moderation, like Khanna of California. Khanna, a progressive who co-chaired Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential campaign has carved out bipartisan ground on issues like tech regulation and manufacturing revival. He’s advocated for bringing jobs back to America, echoing Trump-era themes and called for Democratic unity amid ideological excesses. 

Khanna critiques ‘woke’ politics as weakening the party, positioning himself as a bridge-builder. Yet even he supports progressive staples like ‘Medicare for All’ and aggressive climate action, limiting his appeal beyond the base.

Barring an economic or foreign crisis, the Democrats’ leftward drift dooms them. Vance, inheriting Trump’s coalition and likely expanding it, starts with advantages in the Rust Belt and Sun Belt. 

History shows parties win by claiming the center. Republicans have mastered that under Trump. Democrats? Their left-wing tidal lock leaves them wholly unable to see, much less voice, commonsense policies.