Longtime U.S. Rep. William D. Delahunt of Massachusetts, a Democratic stalwart who postponed his own retirement from Washington to help pass former President Barack Obama’s legislative agenda, has died following a long-term illness, his family announced.

Delahunt died Saturday at his home in Quincy, Massachusetts, at the age of 82, news reports said.

Delahunt served 14 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, from 1997 to 2011, for Massachusetts’s 10th congressional district. He also was the Norfolk County district attorney from 1975 to 1996 after serving in the Massachusetts House of Represenatives from 1973 to 1975.

The Delahunt family issued a statement Saturday saying he passed away “peacefully,” but did not disclose his specific cause of death, news reports said.

“While we mourn the loss of such a tremendous person, we also celebrate his remarkable life and his legacy of dedication, service, and inspiration,” the statement said. “We could always turn to him for wisdom, solace and a laugh, and his absence leaves a gaping hole in our family and our hearts.”

Democratic U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts lauded Delahunt’s long public service as a legislator in the nation’s capital and a prosecutor in the county south of Boston.

“I met with Bill in Quincy in February, and he was clear and as committed as ever to working on behalf of the South Shore and the people of Massachusetts,” Markey said in a statement.

“It is a fitting honor that the door of the William D. Delahunt Norfolk County Courthouse opens every day so that the people inside can do the hard work of making lives better, as Bill Delahunt did. The Commonwealth and the country are better for Bill Delahunt’s vision and service.”

President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela posted a statement on X, formerly Twitter, mourning Delahunt’s passing. As a member of Congress, Delahunt brokered a 2005 deal with then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to obtain heating oil for low-income Massachusetts residents, according to news reports. Delahunt also attended Chavez’s state funeral in Caracas in March 2013.

Delahunt stepped down from the U.S. House in January 2011. He told The Boston Globe he had previously considered retirement, but fellow veteran Bay State legislator Sen. Edward M. Kennedy convinced him he was needed to help pass Obama’s legislative initiatives at the time.

Delahunt was an early Obama backer, becoming the first member of the Massachusetts congressional delegation to endorse the Illinois senator’s presidential bid, according to reporting by The Patriot Ledger, the newspaper in Delahunt’s hometown, Quincy.

Announcing his retirement in March 2010, Delahunt said Kennedy’s death the previous year turned his thoughts to finding time for priorities beyond Washington.

“It became clear that I wanted to spend my time, the time that I have left, with my family, with my friends and with my loved ones,” Delahunt said.

There are few bastions of bipartisanship left in Congress, but the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission was one. That is, until the fight over Brazil.

More than a year after supporters of right-wing former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro ransacked government buildings to express their fury over his election loss, the commission’s two co-chairs are fighting over an attempt to give the Bolsonaro crowd a hearing to air their grievances.

It’s a dispute partly about Brazil, and partly about Bolsanaro’s like-minded friend, former President Donald Trump.

The Republican co-chair, Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, proposed holding the hearing earlier this month, billing it as exploring “democracy, freedom and the rule of law in Brazil,” according to a draft announcement I obtained. Smith insists that he is trying to help Brazilians unjustly persecuted — or prosecuted, if you prefer — by a government whose tactics in the wake of the riots have, in fairness, drawn widespread concerns.

But the Democratic co-chair, Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, saw something more sinister at play and refused to permit the hearing. He and his team point to the parallels between the Jan. 8, 2023, Brazilian insurrection and the one led by Trump supporters in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021.

“This is happening because the GOP no longer believes in democracy and wants to normalize far-right political violence,” McGovern said in a statement to me, noting that “those who attacked the Brazilian Congress were inspired by Trump’s insurrection.”

His team also was upset that social media posts about the hearing appeared online before McGovern had made a decision on it, suggesting that the GOP side had leaked information about the event in violation of commission procedures. Their frustration grew into fury when Smith later held a press conference with some of the people who could have testified, and who had insulted McGovern online for blocking the hearing.

The debate is unusual because it involves the Lantos commission, a panel that focuses on human rights and has long been an oasis of bipartisanship in the growing dystopia that is Congress. The commission was established in 2008 and is named after the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress. It doesn’t vet legislation the way a panel such as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee does. But it does offer lawmakers expertise in crafting bills and serves as a resource to everyone from journalists like myself to Capitol Hill staffers trying to understand rights-related crises abroad.

Two McGovern aides told me that they now worry the dispute over the Brazil hearing is a sign of future problems for the commission. “This politicization undermines the commission’s mandate,” one of the McGovern aides said. Both aides were granted anonymity to candidly discuss sensitive behind-the-scenes issues.

The worries come as a similar bipartisan institution, the Helsinki Commission — an independent government body that includes lawmakers — is experiencing its own internal rifts while facing hostility from some in the MAGA wing of the GOP.

Such disputes bode poorly for U.S. national security. Congress already is increasingly unable to make important foreign policy decisions — from confirming ambassadors to sending military aid to Ukraine — because of political polarization. When even panels such as Lantos, which, relatively speaking, has little actual power, face partisan flare-ups, it’s another sign of the deep impairment.

Tom Malinowski, a former Democratic lawmaker from New Jersey who also served as a top human rights official in the Obama administration, told me that the potential fallout from the Lantos fight affects America’s global reputation, which is increasingly suffering due to partisan swings.

Lantos commission hearings are “valuable for people around the world to see Democrats and Republicans genuinely agreeing that repression and dictatorship is bad, whether the dictators were on one end of the spectrum or the opposite,” he said.

One way in which the Lantos commission has long tried to minimize political disputes is by having the Republican and Democratic co-chairs sign off on hearings proposed by the other. Each can edit hearing notices and add witnesses to proposed panels. And until both sides agree on such elements, no information is to be shared publicly.

In its proposal, Smith’s side of the commission said the hearing would explore “serious human rights violations committed by Brazilian officials on a large scale, including judicial malfeasance; the political abuse of legal procedures to persecute political opposition; violations of freedom of speech; and muzzling opposition media,” according to the draft announcement.

Concerns about Brazil’s legal process have hit new highs among conservatives in and outside the country amid the government’s efforts to prosecute supporters of Bolsonaro and the ex-president himself. Bolsonaro’s supporters involved in the 2023 insurrection have many of the same grievances as Trump supporters did in 2021, alleging, for instance, they’re being unfairly prosecuted for trying to save democracy after a stolen election.

But it’s not just conservatives who are worried about Brazil. Brazilian authorities’ often heavy-handed response to the attacks in Brasilia and other activities of the far-right has raised broader concerns about whether, in attempting to protect democracy, they’ve become oppressive.

McGovern’s aides said they initially told Republicans that the description of the hearing and the proposed witnesses showed that the goal was to allow Bolsonaro allies to vent anger against Brazil’s government. That, they said, was a misuse of the commission. The GOP and Democratic sides also sparred over whether one of the potential witnesses faced criminal investigations, which Democrats said raised questions about his motivations for testifying.

As the McGovern aides learned more about the situation, they grew to believe it was also a way for Republicans to give cover to Trump insurrectionists — whom Trump has suggested he would pardon if reelected.

In his statement, McGovern — who has co-chaired the commission since its beginning — said it was “disgraceful” that Republicans were trying to “legitimize and amplify far-right election deniers.”

McGovern also was upset to be blasted with social media attacks after he blocked the hearing. Among those lacing into him was Bolsonaro’s son, Eduardo, and at least one proposed witness.

“It now appears that Republicans are coordinating directly with the leaders of that attempted coup to intimidate me,” he said in his statement.

Smith insisted in a statement to me that he’s long had concerns about human rights in Brazil, especially when the country has been under the leadership of prominent leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, known as Lula. He is the current president but also held the role between 2003-2010.

“It’s unfortunate that Co-Chair Jim McGovern is uncomfortable discussing the human rights situation in Brazil, especially under Lula’s reign of terror,” said Smith, who took over as GOP co-chair in 2019. “I have had grave concerns about human rights in Lula’s Brazil dating back to the mid-2000s, when I traveled to Brazil to successfully fight for the return of a New Jersey child who had been abducted and held there for five years.” He nonetheless noted that the commission continues to function, with other hearings scheduled.

Smith made sure his side still got its say with the March 12 press conference at the Capitol.

Surrounded by a few dozen people and under the glare of the sun, Bolsonaro supporters — including Eduardo — warned that Brazilian democracy was under threat from the current government of Lula. In particular, they said the Brazilian courts have too much power.

McGovern and his team were incensed that the news conference included people who had attacked McGovern personally. While the figures did not directly go after the Democratic lawmaker during the news conference, McGovern felt Smith should not have given them a platform.

Malinowski is among those hoping the Lantos infighting over Brazil doesn’t turn into a permanent fracture, because it would rob vulnerable people of an important platform.

“It’s a place that’s allowed dissidents and human rights activists from around the world to have a voice on a big American stage,” he said.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is readying an army of bureaucrats to defend the state’s nation-leading climate policies against a potential second Trump administration.

Newsom administration officials are keenly aware that deep-blue California is a prime target for former President Donald Trump’s political diatribes and policy rollbacks — and they fully expect he’ll resume his attacks on the Golden State if he wins in November.

Trump campaign officials openly acknowledge that they plan to attack California policies, confirming to POLITICO this week that the state’s electric vehicle programs would be a top target.

“We know the playbook,” said Newsom at the recent signing of a climate change agreement with Sweden. “We’re definitely trying to future-proof California in every way, shape or form.”

What Newsom called future-proofing is effectively Trump-proofing. The latest sign of these preparations came last week with a deal between California and Stellantis, the world’s fourth-largest automaker, which agreed to abide by the state’s emissions rules. With that voluntary commitment, the Chrysler and Dodge manufacturer helped armor California’s climate agenda against lawsuits and a potential federal effort to roll back its more ambitious policies.

While other states and the federal government under President Joe Biden are also taking steps to insulate their progressive values, California would have a particularly distinct clash of policies — and characters — if the MAGA leader returns to the White House. Trump would take office in 2025, the final year of Newsom’s tenure in the governor’s mansion as he looks toward his next chapter. Newsom, a rising star in the Democratic Party with presidential ambitions, would relish a starring role as Trump 2.0’s chief antagonist.

Newsom hasn’t explicitly articulated his strategy this time around, but the state has a well-worn script from Trump’s first term that it’s already turning to again: a mix of legal strategies, voluntary agreements with industry and displays of soft power in the diplomatic arena.

Trump locked horns with California on everything from abortion to gun control during his first term. But the most frequent battleground was the Golden State’s nation-leading environmental policies.

His EPA and Interior Department revoked the state’s authority to set its own tailpipe emissions standards under the Clean Air Act, attempted to increase water deliveries by altering Endangered Species Act protections and opened up thousands of miles of the California coast to oil drilling.

And Trump has frequently taken aim at California in his campaign for a second term. A campaign spokesperson vowed to go after the state’s electric vehicle rules.

“The complete and total ban on gas-powered cars and trucks in California and every other state that follows the California rules will decimate countless U.S. auto jobs,” said Trump campaign national press secretary Karoline Leavitt in a statement. She added that the ban, which ends sales of new gas-powered cars in 2035, would “flood the United States with Chinese-made Electric Vehicles to steal our jobs, and crush working families with the crippling costs and limitations of expensive Electric Vehicles.”

Newsom is well aware of the looming threat.

“Donald Trump is a danger to our kids’ health,” Lindsey Cobia, a political adviser to the governor, said in a statement. “He seeks to invalidate our clean air laws and auction off public lands to the oil industry. He wants to be once again Big Oil’s president.”

The role of the courts

Chief among California’s arsenal is its strategy in the courts. The state sued Trump 136 times under Attorneys Generals Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, according to Paul Nolette, a Marquette University political scientist who studies states’ legal tactics. California achieved at least partial wins in more than half of its challenges, Nolette said, but Trump’s defenses sharpened even over his first term — particularly when he replaced former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt with veteran energy lobbyist and congressional staffer Andrew Wheeler.

“We’ve already seen the Trump administration get more sophisticated over time,” he said.

And Republican-led states, emboldened by his attacks on California, are still advancing their cases. A lawsuit from 17 Republican attorneys general, led by Ohio, is challenging California’s unique ability under the Clean Air Act to set stricter-than-federal pollution standards for passenger vehicles, in a case that’s expected to reach the Supreme Court. Seventeen other states are also signed onto California’s rules, making the suit a nationwide red-blue brawl over how the automotive sector will be required to respond to climate change.

This time around, California is trying to set up its legal fortifications in advance. Much of the work is being done at the state’s main air and climate agency, the California Air Resources Board.

CARB attorneys “spend a lot of time trying to think through how to build regulations that are going to be robust in the worst case,” said California Energy Commissioner Patty Monahan. “They’ve been flexing that muscle for a while. And even when we’re in good times they’re still doing pushups.”

A push from Congress

California’s Democratic congressional delegation is also pushing Biden’s EPA to grant all of the Clean Air Act waivers that the state has requested since the beginning of his administration, including for rules to limit pollution from tugboats, lawn mowers, trucks and locomotives.

Trump has made it clear he would again target the approvals to enforce California’s emissions standards.

“On Day One of the Trump administration, not only will Crooked Joe’s Electric Vehicle mandate be terminated, but any Biden waiver allowing gasoline-powered cars to be outlawed will be immediately revoked,” Leavitt added in her statement.

California officials are hoping to make that harder for him by getting the waivers approved before the May 22 deadline for the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn federal agency rules during a change in administration.

“With the Trump administration’s previous and unlawful attempts to rescind a California waiver, we cannot afford to wait,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said in a statement.

Absent federal permission to enforce state pollution rules, California has a second line of defense: voluntary agreements with industry, based on the state’s sheer size and market-making power.

Industry favors stability

CARB tried different strategies to enforce its rules when its waiver was last under attack, from limiting state agencies to buying vehicles from automakers who were aligned with the state’s rules to boosting incentives to promote electric vehicles.

Perhaps its most effective maneuver, though, was securing commitments from five major automakers — Ford, Volkswagen, Honda, BMW and Volvo — to comply with its tailpipe emissions rules and zero-emission sales targets regardless of legal challenges.

The Trump administration responded to the agreements by launching an antitrust investigation, threatening to take away the state’s highway funding and attempting to block the agency’s cap-and-trade program’s ability to link with Quebec.

But the automakers held firm — and eventually GM, Toyota, Nissan and other industry heavy hitters agreed to recognize California’s authority after Trump left office.

The gambit worked partly because automakers wanted to stay in the good graces of the nation’s largest auto market, but also because they found it too difficult to predict what Trump would do to existing regulations, said one former top CARB official who was at the agency during the Trump administration.

“The auto industry had originally asked for what they thought were tweaks,” said Craig Segall, a former CARB deputy executive officer who now serves as vice president of the environmental group Evergreen Action. “Trump was like, ‘OK, I’ll take a sledgehammer to 50 years of the program and to all of your many billions of investments in batteries. Would that be cool?’”

Newsom added Stellantis to his side last week with an agreement committing the automaker to California’s rules “even if CARB is unable to enforce its standards as a result of judicial or federal action.” It goes even further than the previous automaker agreements by extending through 2030, rather than 2026.

CARB also signed a pact with truck manufacturers last year when they agreed not to challenge the agency’s rule to transition to 100 percent zero-emission truck sales by 2036 in exchange for weaker smog emissions standards.

“We have a long history of having rules adopted by one administration and implemented by another,” said Jed Mandel, the president of the Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association. “We like certainty, we like stability, we don’t like to see changes once reasonable rules are finalized.”

Still, trucking companies are fighting California’s clean truck rules in the courts. And it’s unsettled whether all the automakers stick to California’s side in the event of a Trump versus Golden State showdown on its rule to require them to stop selling gas passenger cars in the state by 2035.

While some car companies put out statements in support of the final rule, they also pushed Biden to weaken his tailpipe emissions rules as they were being finalized this month. And the Alliance for Automotive Innovation is asking EPA to consider the feasibility of scaling up EV sales in other states that follow California’s clean cars rule as it weighs the state’s waiver request.

Other bulwarks

A looming state budget deficit poses a challenge for increasing EV incentives, as CARB was able to do in 2019. But one thing California could have in its favor is that Inflation Reduction Act investments, though the target of Trump’s public ire, have been politically popular in both blue states and red, which have reaped the biggest rewards from the tax credits.

“I don’t know if it’s politically feasible to undo the Inflation Reduction Act,” said Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment.

Newsom’s also looking at partnerships — not just with industry and other states but also with other countries, to bolster and advance California’s climate leadership. The agreement with Sweden, to promote green innovation and investment, is one of at least ten bilateral climate agreements California has struck with foreign governments in recent months to develop a thread of consistency as national politics around climate change waver.

“You can count on California to be a stable partner and a strong partner on climate change, for all the prevailing winds that shift in Washington, D.C.,” he said on an October trip to China where he signed five climate agreements with local governments and national agencies.

“We saw that during the Trump administration, 100-plus lawsuits we had against the Trump administration — California is a steady partner on that future.”