Hello and welcome back to The Best & the Brightest. I’m Leigh Ann Caldwell, recovering from an unexpectedly dramatic White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

It was a chaotic scene inside the Washington Hilton ballroom: I heard loud sounds that sounded like thumps, or something dropping, followed by a cascade of journalists and politicians rushing to duck under their tables. I joined them, wondering what was going on and whether there was a bomb. I peeked up to take video and observed that the long table at which President Trump had been sitting was empty except for Secret Service agents pointing their weapons into the crowd and searching the area. Other agents whisked away cabinet officials (as well as Stephen and Katie Miller).

The ballroom, for those who haven’t seen it, is both seemingly secure and a potential security nightmare: underground but jam-packed, with nearly 200 round tables (each seating 10 people) squeezed into a space that is very difficult to navigate. My tablemates were great compatriots throughout.

There will be ongoing questions about how the alleged gunman was allowed to get as close to the ballroom as he did. Extraordinarily, the entire line of succession to the president was in the room, with the exception of 92-year-old Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley. But Vice President J.D. Vance, House Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and many other members of the cabinet were in attendance to celebrate what was expected to be a blistering diatribe aimed at the press.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment about whether there was a “dedicated survivor” for the event, as there is for the State of the Union. “We’re not going to stop living, we’re not going to stop doing our jobs, we’re not going to stop all the work that we're doing every day,” Blanche said Sunday on Meet the Press, when asked whether it was wise to have so many officials in one place.

I’ll have more on the WHCD fallout below, plus some new reporting on the Democratic fundraising landscape. Donors are still sour on Democratic leadership, but they’ve started to put their frustrations aside now that control of the House (and possibly the Senate) appears to be in reach.

Also mentioned in this issue: Jon Ossoff, Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Ken Martin, Andy Ogles, Ben Cline, Derrick Van Orden, Jeff Crank, Sheldon Whitehouse, Martin Heinrich, Janet Mills, Graham Platner, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Haley Stevens, Angie Craig, Josh Turek, Zach Wahls, Mallory McMorrow, Juliana Stratton, Seth Moulton, Ed Markey, and more…

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Investing in reliable refining

bp added $190+ billion to the US economy over the past three years. Producing road and jet fuels that keep America moving takes a highly skilled and well-trained team. So we invest in tech, like immersive preparedness simulators. See all the ways we’re investing in America today and tomorrow.

The Cloakroom

The politicization of the WHCD breach: In some ways, the reaction to the security breach at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has been unsurprising. Conspiracy theories instantly spread online that the incident was fake or staged—and a small army of very online MAGA supporters quickly pointed to the episode as “proof” that the new White House ballroom is necessary. In his late-night remarks after the incident, the president did not point any fingers, but the blame game among politicians began about 12 hours later.

In a since-deleted statement on X, South Carolina Republican Sen. Tim Scott, the chairman of the Senate Republicans’ campaign arm, accused the left of trying “to murder President Trump.” I asked a Scott advisor for more context, and he sent me social media commentary from Democratic candidates, such as Maine’s Graham Platner, who reportedly took down a social media post that espoused political violence, and Michigan primary candidate Abdul El Sayed, who said in a speech, “When they go low, we don’t go high. We take them to the mud and choke them out.” If this is the tack the N.R.S.C. decides to take—blaming Democratic candidates for the alleged shooter’s actions—expect the politicization to only get worse.
D.H.S. funding leverage?: This week, the House will take up the two Homeland Security funding bills that passed the Senate—measures that would reopen the agency after a more than 70-day standoff over Democrats’ demands for ICE and Border Patrol reforms. Speaker Mike Johnson hasn’t been able to pass previous Senate efforts to fund D.H.S. given the deep distrust among House Republicans that the Senate would actually fund the two controversial agencies. He’s also faced pushback from members who are demanding that items such as the SAVE Act or other legislative priorities be added to the reconciliation bill.

But after the security breach this weekend at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Secret Service agents worked amid an agency shutdown, there will undoubtedly be increased pressure on conservatives to pass the bills. Plus, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Johnson that the D.H.S. reserve fund, which has been used to pay salaries, will go dry at the end of this week—providing yet another reason for the holdouts to potentially drop their objections.

Now, over to Schumer…

Schumer’s Enemies Within

Democratic donors are feeling jazzed about the midterms but still haven’t made peace with leadership over the party’s post-’24 aimlessness. Support for Chuck Schumer, in particular, has become a litmus test for candidates and donors alike.

Leigh Ann Caldwell

Last spring, at a fundraiser for Sen. Jon Ossoff in New York City, the telegenic Georgia Democrat was asked by one of the 40 deep-pocketed donors in the room if Chuck Schumer would still be Senate leader after the midterms. Ossoff evaded the question, according to a person who attended the event—but it was an early sign that Democratic donors were dissatisfied with party leadership. A year later, the dissatisfaction is perhaps even more palpable. In the past week, I’ve had conversations with more than half a dozen donors and fundraisers, all of whom spoke to the deep and abiding ambivalence surrounding the party’s leadership.

The sentiment is understandable—2025 was a tough year. Democratic donors, frustrated after Kamala Harris’s bitter loss, blamed leadership for the party’s aimlessness. Fundraising numbers lagged for the first three-quarters of the year. As Trump tore down the East Wing, renamed the Kennedy Center, enriched himself and his family via crypto, and accepted other lavish gifts, the Democratic donor world sprung back into action. But the griping about party leadership hasn’t stopped.

A MESSAGE FROM OUR SPONSOR

Fill-ups from coast to coast

bp supports ~300,000 US jobs. That includes the people who help you across our US family of brands – bp, Amoco, ampm, Thorntons and TravelCenters of America. And those producing and delivering energy nationwide. See all the ways bp is investing in America.

One large-dollar Democratic donor summed up the mood among their ilk this way. “Schumer is not anybody’s favorite,” this person said. “It’s been a great run, but it’s run its course.” When asked about House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries, this person said, “If people give to Jeffries, it’s because they want him to be speaker, not because they are inspired.” And regarding the D.N.C., led by Ken Martin: “I can’t remember a time in my political career when the D.N.C. was less of a factor than it is now.”

Naturally, donors are handling their frustration in different ways. Some are choosing to give directly to candidates, bypassing the party committees run by leadership. Others are still opening their wallets but complaining about it as they do so. “People are really pissed at Schumer,” one Democrat familiar with fundraising operations told me, but said donors just needed an outlet to vent while they write their checks.

Fuzzy Fundraising Math

In what’s now a familiar pattern, Republicans have outraised Democrats across all of the parties’ leadership entities so far this cycle. To wit: The Senate Republican campaign arm beat its Democratic counterpart by $27 million, while the Republican Senate Leadership Fund outraised the Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC by $60 million through the first quarter of this year.

It’s a similar story in the House, where the Republican campaign arm has brought in $4 million more than its Democratic counterpart, and there’s a $30 million fundraising disparity between the parties’ affiliated super PACs. For his part, Trump has some $348 million stashed away in his super PAC, MAGA Inc. (although there’s deep skepticism that he’ll actually spend it). Meanwhile, at the national level, the D.N.C. has only raised $145 million this cycle compared to the R.N.C.’s $228 million. (For what it’s worth, Democrats begged me not to compare the House and Senate committees to a struggling and dysfunctional D.N.C.)

Of course, these numbers don’t tell the whole story. The Democrats’ Senate Majority PAC recorded its best first-quarter fundraising to date, and the Democrats’ House Majority PAC outraised Republicans’ Congressional Leadership Fund in the first quarter as well, a clear sign that donors are now looking beyond their personal frustrations with leadership. Plus, Democratic candidates, as in cycles past, are outraising their Republican counterparts in most Senate races and open House races—a testament to the strength of progressive grassroots fundraising. Democratic candidates in 10 competitive Senate races have raised about $250 million this cycle, while Republican candidates in the same races have raised just $98 million, according to the latest candidate filings. In nine open, competitive House races, the leading Democratic candidate has more money than the leading Republican, and Democratic challengers are beating Republican incumbents in seven highly competitive districts, including those of Reps. Andy Ogles, Ben Cline, Derrick Van Orden, and Jeff Crank. No Republican challenger is outraising a Democratic incumbent in a competitive race.

The fundraising advantage for Democratic candidates is one reason Republicans have sued to challenge limits on how much campaign committees can spend in coordination with candidates. The Supreme Court will rule on the case this term, and if the limits are eased, the advantage of candidate cash will be eliminated. The Republicans, who have stronger centralized campaign committees, will also be able to take advantage of cheaper advertising rates, just as individual candidates can.

The Oyster Wars

Many Democrats still credit Schumer with being a phenomenal fundraiser, and fundraising sources tell me he is still working incredibly hard to raise cash. But more than anything, he’s been a source of discontent. And there’s no race that better exemplifies Schumer’s diminished stature than the Maine Senate primary, which one Democrat described as a “real blot” on his record.

Schumer has made it abundantly clear that he wants Maine Governor Janet Mills, and not oysterman Graham Platner, in the Senate. But last month, two of Schumer’s typically loyal members, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich, co-hosted a fundraiser for Platner in D.C., a rare act of disobedience. Despite the Marine Corps veteran’s regrettable Nazi tattoos and offensive internet posts, Platner is currently sailing to victory over Mills, whom Schumer personally recruited. Schumer’s candidates in three other Senate races—Haley Stevens in Michigan, Angie Craig in Minnesota, and Josh Turek in Iowa—aren’t on an obvious winning track, either.

The disconnect has contributed to a sense that Schumer, 75, is out of step with the energy in his party. Progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are on the opposite side of him in many endorsements. In fact, support for Schumer has become a litmus test for many candidates, and a way to distinguish themselves from primary competitors. Platner in Maine, Zach Wahls in Iowa, and Mallory McMorrow in Michigan have all said explicitly that they would not back Schumer as leader. Juliana Stratton, who won the Illinois Senate primary, said the same. And even Rep. Seth Moulton, who is running against Sen. Ed Markey in Massachusetts, said he would back someone else as leader. “One of the first questions candidates are being asked is if they’re going to support Schumer,” one Democratic fundraiser told me. For many, the answer is no.

So even if Democrats clobber Republicans in the midterms, the challenges surrounding party leadership will remain—and there’s no sign that Schumer will step down as leader before his expected retirement in 2028. Meanwhile, Jeffries, who will likely be elected speaker if Democrats win the House, will be under pressure to deliver. But the spotlight on both of them could dim as the 2028 presidential campaign gets underway soon after the midterms. At that point, donors hope there will be ample reason to give.

Join Emmy Award-winning journalist Peter Hamby, along with the team of expert journalists at Puck, as they let you in on the conversations insiders are having across the four corners of power in America: Wall Street, Washington, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood. Presented in partnership with Audacy, new episodes publish daily, Monday through Friday.

Unique and privileged insight into the private conversations taking place inside boardrooms and corner offices up and down Wall Street, relayed by best-selling author, journalist, and former M&A senior banker William D. Cohan.

Need help? Review our FAQ page or contact us for assistance. For brand partnerships, email ads@puck.news.

You received this email because you signed up to receive emails from Puck, or as part of your Puck account associated with {{customer.email}}. To stop receiving this newsletter and/or manage all your email preferences, click here.

Puck is published by Heat Media LLC. 107 Greenwich St., New York, NY 10006

SEE THE ARCHIVES