The Maine Democratic Party is working “around the clock” to replace Graham Platner, but as the Democrat Senate nominee, he has leverage—and he’s using it. A civil war is brewing in Maine. As calls continue for Platner to step down, he has stayed silent and continues to deny multiple allegations of sexual assault. According to the state’s election law, if he withdraws from the race by Friday, the Maine Democratic Party can replace him with a candidate of its choice. On a private call with his staff Monday evening, after the most recent allegations were made public, Platner said he still has leverage to influence their decision. Democrat Senate Candidates across the country jumped ship last night after their leadership and Super PAC announced they were condemning Platner and “redirecting resources away from the Maine Senate race."The same party and PAC stood by him through countless allegations of… pic.twitter.com/1um5T9t1uy— Virginia Grace McKinnon (@virginiagmck) July 7, 2026 A spokesperson for the local party says the process will be “open, inclusive, transparent, and fair,” and will ensure “the integrity of this process is just as inclusive as the outcome.” The state Democratic Party claims Platner is attempting to put his “thumb on the scale” of who will represent Democrats in November. However, voters chose Platner less than a month ago. The progressive candidate won more than 72% of the vote in the Democrat primary, forcing Gov. Janet Mills out of the race. In 2024, a different thumb was on the scale when the Democrat establishment removed President Joe Biden from the ticket and crowned Vice President Kamala Harris as the nominee without a single primary vote. In a text blast to campaign volunteers, Platner’s campaign manager, Ben Chin, slammed the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for planning a “potential nominating process behind closed doors.” NEW: Ben Chin, campaign manager for Graham Platner in #MESEN, blasted out a mass text Chin slams the Maine Dem Party for allowing the DSCC to send staffers to plan "a nominating process behind closed doors" It also includes a Survey Monkey link for feedback? pic.twitter.com/uFY0MgtSQ4— Ally Mutnick (@allymutnick) July 8, 2026 “Both the state and national parties cut our team, our volunteers, and our vast networks of supporters out of the conversation completely. We firmly believe that the supporters and volunteers who built this movement deserve to have a real role in any nomination process,” Chin wrote. It is now a fight between the Democrat establishment—the committee, which controls the nomination process—and Platner’s campaign, which gets to decide if he will exit the race. Potential Replacements Progressive Troy Jackson Former Maine Senate President Troy Jackson, a friend and former supporter of Platner, is the most likely replacement. Following Platner’s most recent sexual assault allegation, Jackson called for Platner to step down. He said he is “very interested” in replacing Platner and would be “the best person” to do so. On Tuesday, Jackson filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to begin fundraising for a possible bid. However, he has not made a formal announcement. Last month, he finished last in the gubernatorial campaign. Unlike Platner, Jackson has an extensive career in politics, including nearly 20 years in Maine. Like Platner, he is among the more progressive options. Maine Democratic Party calls for Platner to drop out of the race so they can nominate a new candidate. Spox says Platner’s team is attempting to put their“thumb on the scale” of the new nomination. The party has reiterated Platner will have “no role” in determining the new…— Virginia Grace McKinnon (@virginiagmck) July 8, 2026 Gov. Janet Mills Mills, 77, withdrew her nomination before the primary election last month. She represents the Democrat establishment but was pushed out by Platner’s success. This may be a chance for the committee to put her back in the race. Brewery Owner Dan Kleban Maine Beer Company co-founder Dan Kleban has thrown his hat back in the race, announcing his interest in the nomination if Platner drops out. He originally ran against Mills and Platner but quickly withdrew to support the governor in the primary. However, his statement announcing renewed interest sounded more like Platner’s than Mills’. “We’re all sick and tired of a system that’s been rigged by corporate interests, and we’ve had enough meddling from Washington establishment insiders and New York City consultants trying to dictate who represents us. It’s time for a new generation of leadership in Washington, one that’s not beholden to the establishment that has failed us time and time again,” he wrote. Nirav Shah Nirav Shah, a former Maine health official who led the state’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic, is well known and liked in the state and placed second in the gubernatorial campaign. In a statement released Tuesday, Shah laid out suggestions for Democrat candidates vying for the nomination. He suggested anyone running should agree to at least one televised debate and multiple town halls, which he plans to do. The Democratic Party has not responded to this suggestion. Secretary of State Shenna Bellows Shenna Bellows, the secretary of state, might have another chance to go up against Republican Sen. Susan Collins. In 2014, she lost decisively to Collins. Bellows also ran for governor but did not place well.

A conservative watchdog group has sued the Department of Homeland Security seeking data on the “actual” number of deportations of illegal immigrants. The Oversight Project filed two lawsuits this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that “inflated” deportation counts have enabled some Republicans to push softer immigration policies. “In order for deportation public policy choices to be appropriately informed, we need ACTUAL DEPORTATION DATA,” Jeff Clark, the vice president of litigation for the Oversight Project, posted on X Wednesday. In order for deportation public policy choices to be appropriately informed, we need ACTUAL DEPORTATION DATA.This why we brought two suits yesterday in order to get that information for the American people. https://t.co/w3c9MPPbPl pic.twitter.com/DiJwCjUIIn— Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) July 8, 2026 “This why [sic] we brought two suits yesterday in order to get that information for the American people,” added Clark, a former assistant attorney general and the former acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during President Donald Trump’s first term. The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to an inquiry for this story by publication time. The Oversight Project notes that the Mass Deportation Coalition, of which it is a member organization, has also called for transparency. “Deportation numbers should be publicly available and accompanied with meaningful metrics and data to support them. It used to be this way and restoring transparency would build trust and excitement in the progress along the way,” Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, said in a public statement. It’s possible to surpass the deportations of President Dwight Eisenhower, Howell said. “With strong data, the public will be able to both understand what is happening and also what could be happening,” Howell added. “This is particularly important as we measure activity related to worksite enforcement, which is the key pillar of a mass deportation program and largely how President Eisenhower did it and why he still holds the record that I hope President Trump beats.” The Oversight Project is calling for the deportation numbers to be released with the same transparency and regularity that the government releases other numbers, such as the monthly jobs report. In May, the Oversight Project sent eight targeted public records requests to the agency and announced its “Two Commas Compliance Tracker,” aiming to update the tracker with accurate deportation numbers. The DHS did not respond to the requests, so the Oversight Project then filed two separate lawsuits to compel the department to produce the documents.  One of the lawsuits sought records to justify the Department of Homeland Security’s claim from January that more than 3 million illegal immigrants had left the United States—675,000 of them removed by DHS, and an estimated 2.2 million self-deporting. The Oversight Project contends its actions are backing up one of Trump’s core campaign promises to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.” The group also points to White House border czar Tom Homan telling the Washington Examiner in May 2026, “we need to be transparent, because my concern was if we’re not transparent, show the American people what we’re doing, who we’re arresting, then we’ll lose faith of the American people on immigration enforcement and historic level.” The Oversight Project contends the information should already be available, noting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement published a report covering deportations from fiscal years 2020 through 2024. Further, in the DHS budget request to Congress, the agency asserted it removed and returned 442,637 aliens in fiscal year 2025.

Gov. Greg Abbott is calling for new AI data centers to be blocked from development in rural neighborhoods across Texas amid growing backlash over their effects on residential communities and water supplies. During a property tax event in Bullard, a rural community located south of Tyler, Abbott said he would push back against AI data centers seeking to build in neighborhoods, adding that companies should pay their own way. He also said he wants to eliminate the tax breaks companies receive for locating in Texas. “I’ve made it clear already: Any AI data center thinking about coming here, they have to bring their own money, bring their own power, use their own water, and do it in a way that reduces the cost of electricity for residents across our state,” Abbott said. “We must prohibit them from building AI data centers in rural Texas neighborhoods, and we must eliminate the tax break they are getting.” Abbott’s remarks contrast sharply with a November 2025 press release in which he praised AI data centers and called Texas the “epicenter of AI development.” “This is a Texas-sized investment in the future of our great state,” Abbott said at the time. “Texas is the epicenter of AI development, where companies can pair innovation with expanding energy.”  “We must ensure that America remains at the forefront of the AI revolution, and Texas is the place where that can happen,” he added.  Since then, Abbott has shifted his position. In June, the governor sent a letter to Thomas Gleeson, chairman of the Public Utility Commission of Texas, and Pablo Vegas, president and chief executive officer of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, instructing them to “guarantee any data center development does not come at the cost of Texans and our local communities.” Abbott’s letter directed the utility commission to ensure that the data centers’ interconnections reduce residential electricity costs, require developers to pay for all electric infrastructure without passing costs on to residential ratepayers, and have both the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas review their existing authorities to identify additional actions that could protect Texas residents, their property, and resources. Abbott’s latest comments go a step further, calling for AI data centers to be prohibited from being built in rural neighborhoods. The proposal comes as many rural residents have raised concerns about the facilities’ noise, electricity demand, water consumption, and the limited number of permanent jobs created by the centers. Last month, San Marcos became the first Texas city to ban data centers in a 4-3 city council vote. Residents argued the facilities would strain the Edwards Aquifer and increase electricity demand around the clock. Communities across North Texas have also voiced opposition to proposed data centers. Residents from Fort Worth to Henderson County have raised concerns about agricultural impacts, local water supplies, noise, and pollution. Carson Clayton, the campaign director for an energy-education initiative at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, said the opposition from rural communities is not surprising. “Rural Texas has had to deal with wind and solar being built out in their area, battery storage being built out in their area. Many of them are dealing with these high-voltage transmission lines being built out, and now they have data centers,” Clayton told the Daily Signal. “This isn’t out of nowhere; this is, for many people, the last straw.” Clayton said the data centers can provide temporary construction jobs, permanent employment opportunities, and additional property tax revenue. However, he said the biggest complain he hears is the lack of communication from developers, particularly regarding construction noise. “A lot of this could be headed off if the data center companies were just a little bit more transparent, a little bit more forthcoming with their plans in that community prior to building out the actual facility,” Clayton said. Another major concern is water consumption. Existing data centers in Texas consume an estimated 25 billion gallons of water annually, which equals out to roughly 4% of the state’s total water use. “There’s not a lot of transparency as to how much water they’re actually using, and water issues are ultra-local,” Clayton said. “I think they need to be transparent up front with what sort of cooling technology they’re using and how much water that’s actually going to require.” Clayton says that he anticipates Texas lawmakers to address the issue during the 90th Legislative Session as they consider what technologies and standards should apply to future data center development.

The following is an excerpt of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Paul Kengor, editor of The American Spectator and author of the new book “American Pontiff,” for the “Signal Sitdown,” which premieres on the Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. EDT on July 8. This transcript has been edited for clarity. Bradley Devlin: We’re a year into this papacy now. A year of an American pope, Pope Leo XIV. Where do things stand? What major moves have been made?  Paul Kengor: One of the things that I predicted—it wasn’t much of a prediction, right? The people that elected Robert Francis Prevost—and the election—well, first of all, the fact that an American pontiff, an American, was chosen pope was just astonishing, right? Completely astonishing. But as I started doing research and we got information, especially from Vaticanistas, Italian journalists and so forth, the overwhelming desire of the College of Cardinals—and there were 135 of them that were voting cardinals; 133 actually made it to the conclave—this would have been May 7, 2025.  They all wanted stability and normalcy brought back to the papacy, right? After 12 years of Francis, everybody—whether they were liberal, conservative, moderate—were all tired of the chaos and division. There was a lack of peace in the Church, right? And it’s very telling that his first words when he walks out onto the loggia May 8, 2025, were, “Peace.”  In fact, in Italian, “La pace sia con tutti voi,” “Peace be with all of you.” I’ll never forget that because first he walks out, and I’m astonished, right? I was at our office at The American Spectator. We were preparing for an event that night—in fact, I think you were probably at the event. And the white smoke went up—fourth ballot—so within about 24 hours, right, we had a habemus papam. We had a pope.  Everybody thought this was going to go through the weekend, right? So at that point you think, “OK, it must have been somebody like Cardinal Parolin or Tagle from the Philippines.” Instead, walking out was, what, an American of all things.  First the protodeacon, Mamberti, comes out and says the name, right? “Roberto.” At that point I thought, “Wow, they picked Robert Sarah.” Then he said, “Francesco,” and I thought, “I have no idea who this is.” Then he said, “Prevost.” Then the translator said, “An American, Robert Francis Prevost.”  I’m standing there with Leonora Cravatta and Steve Kaputska from The American Spectator, and they’re like, “Well, what do you think?” And I was speechless. I knew nothing about him—absolutely nothing.  We wait a little bit, and then he walks out. I remember thinking, “Wow, he looks like a pope, first of all.” Francis came out in all white. This is part of the answer to your question, too. Right away he’s dressed traditionally. He’s dressed like the way Benedict XVI came out—Cardinal Ratzinger—the way Karol Wojtyla came out in 1978, John Paul II.  So that itself is different. Then he comes out, walks up to the microphone, and puts his hands under his chin kind of pensively, prayerfully. I’ve since found out from people who went to school with him in little Dolton, Illinois, that he was very devout, very pious. He would always put his hands under his chin and pray like that. They called him “Holy,” right? That was like his nickname. Not to ridicule. She said he wasn’t weird. Everybody liked him. He was nice, kind, but genuinely pious and holy.  So he comes out, and I could tell he’s thinking. He swallows, taking in the moment. Everyone’s thinking, “What’s going to be the first words?” He says, “La pace sia con tutti voi.” If you had scripted it, I couldn’t think of a better phrase after 12 years of a lack of peace under Francis.  They voted that way, and we now know that in the first round of voting, the top three vote-getters were [Cardinal Péter] Erdő from Hungary, [Cardinal Pietro] Parolin, and Prevost.  Bradley Devlin: Parolin was the establishment pick. He was the secretary of state of the Vatican, essentially. And Erdő was kind of this conservative outsider challenger who had made a name for himself in Budapest, being a conservative countermeasure to some of the things the Francis pontificate was doing. There was clearly an appetite for that in the College of Cardinals from what you’re describing.  Paul Kengor: Yeah. They were in almost a three-way tie. Erdő made a strong showing for conservatives, Parolin did OK, and Prevost was in that mix. Once you start getting votes, everyone notices.  From there, Parolin hit his ceiling—somewhere in the range of 40 to 60 votes. Prevost, the candidate everybody saw as stable, sensible, moderate in temperament, orthodox in belief, just took off. By the fourth ballot, he had about 108 votes out of 133. A landslide.  Everybody—from liberal Jesuit priest Father James Martin to Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke—said people were hungering for someone to bring back normalcy.  After a year of the papacy, things have slowly moved back toward normal.  Bradley Devlin: He chose the name Pope Leo XIV because of the AI revolution we’re on the cusp of. Pope Leo XIII guided the Church through the Industrial Revolution. Why does he see AI as something the Church needs to watch closely?  Paul Kengor: As a theologian, he wants to help guide the flock through change. He’s also a man of science—a mathematician. At Villanova, he majored in math.  Mathematicians believe in absolutes. Two plus two equals four. There’s order. There’s design. You’re not going to get relativistic math. That mindset shapes how he approaches issues like AI.  He’s interested in astronomy, science. He’s an ideal pope to deal with a challenge like artificial intelligence.  Bradley Devlin: It’s interesting because his stance on AI is similar to the Trump administration. Not Luddite—innovation is natural and necessary—but it must be guided and scrutinized.  The focus recently, though, has been immigration and foreign policy. What efforts have been made to find common ground between the Vatican and the Trump administration?  Paul Kengor: It began immediately. The formal installation of the pope came May 18, 2025. The next day, he met with Rubio and Vance.  The image of that meeting is striking—three men smiling. You think one of them must have said, “None of us imagined we’d be here a year ago.”  They’ll continue building that relationship. Eventually he’ll meet with Trump as well.  This pope is diplomatic. He’ll meet with anyone. And like Trump’s meeting with Pope Francis, which many expected to be confrontational but turned cordial, this relationship will likely develop positively over time.  This will get better. 

Washington is barreling toward another funding deadline, and Senate Democrats seem increasingly willing to use the threat of a government shutdown as political leverage. The biggest mistake Senate Republicans could make is assuming that Democrats share their interest in avoiding such a shutdown and the harm it would do to everyday Americans. They don’t. Democrats have endlessly proven they are willing to sacrifice the well-being of the American people to advance their radical agenda. Democrats shut down the government for 43 days at the end of last year and refused to fund parts of the Department of Homeland Security for most of this year, forcing Republicans to use budget reconciliation to fund border enforcement. Even though Senate Republicans eventually got the government funded, they burned eight months of valuable floor time that could have been used to advance other Republican priorities, like the SAVE America Act or an affordability-focused reconciliation package. Senate Democrats are already refusing to operate in good faith ahead of the  fiscal year 2027 government funding deadline. Feeling emboldened by their previous shutdown tactics, they plan to run the exact same play ahead of the 2026 midterms. Rather than waiting until September, Republicans should force votes on a continuing resolution (CR) immediately upon returning from the Independence Day recess. Such a resolution would be a temporary funding measure passed by Congress to keep the federal government operating at existing or near-existing spending levels By putting a CR on the floor in mid-July, Senate Republicans can show the Democrats they will not assent to another shutdown, and that the fight to keep the government open will start as early as possible. If Democrats refuse to provide their votes, Republicans will have demonstrated who is driving the country toward a shutdown—and will be in a far stronger position to deploy more aggressive procedural tactics to stop it. For example, Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., can threaten to keep the Senate in session through the August recess. Few things are more valuable to members of Congress than their time away from the District of Columbia. Though some detractors argue it would be foolish to keep vulnerable Republicans away from the campaign trail, the damage from a government shutdown potentially stretching through the election would be significantly worse. Republicans can further turn up the heat by bringing full appropriations bills to the floor and holding nonstop votes. They can bring committee-drafted bills to the floor and force Democrats to explain why they suddenly oppose the same swampy appropriations process that they have championed for decades. Even if this strategy fails, it will show Republican appropriators that the Democrats have no intention of acting in good faith and are intent on shutting down the government.     Should Democrats refuse to vote for both a CR and regular appropriations bills, it will be the clearest sign that a government shutdown is their ultimate aim. Republicans have one final option to keep the government open: force a talking filibuster on an appropriations package. The talking filibuster has received renewed interest with the SAVE America Act, and the process could be effectively used to keep the government open. Senate Republicans can bring House-passed conservative appropriations bills to the floor and force Democrats to debate them indefinitely. Unlike a traditional talking filibuster, Senate Rule XIV specially prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill, so any efforts to force vulnerable Republicans to vote on unrelated legislation would be thwarted. Democrats would likely offer amendments to increase funding for various welfare programs and Democratic priorities, but a disciplined Republican conference could easily vote them down. Any fear of consequences at the ballot box for votes against increased funding should be assuaged by the prospect of a government shutdown during an election. Republicans will have to take tough votes to get anything worthwhile accomplished. That’s the nature of politics. There are no solutions or strategies without risk. The Democrats want another government shutdown, and they will do all they can to make it happen. Republicans have no choice but to respond with similar force and urgency.