Democrats believe they’ve found a compelling new message on immigration — thanks to a viral image of Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) in handcuffs.

Padilla, who was forcibly removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s press conference about ICE raids in California, earned support from fellow Democrats and triggered outrage over what they see as the administration’s overreach.

“If they can handcuff a U.S. Senator for asking a question, imagine what they will do to you,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a post on X.

It’s a snappier paraphrase of Padilla’s own words: “If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question. If this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question,” he said at a hastily organized press conference Thursday afternoon. “You can only imagine what they’re doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country.”

Immigration has long vexed Democrats, who face an enormous deficit of public trust on the issue, but now they think they’ve found a way forward. Padilla, a mild-mannered first-term senator, has become the embodiment of the new message from Democrats, who are not arguing whether deportations should be carried out but take issue with the reckless way they’re being done. And they’re enraged at the administration’s effort to tamp down on protests, which Democrats say is unlawful and inciting chaos.

“When people talk about rising to the moment in history, it is a sitting U.S. senator putting his body on the line to highlight injustice in our country,” said Kristian Ramos, a Democratic strategist who worked on immigration issues for more than a decade. “It underlines the fact that the Republican Party and Donald Trump do not care about laws in this country.”

On Capitol Hill, Democratic members, led by the Hispanic Caucus, marched to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s offices to demand that Noem testify before Congress about the incident.

Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois and Wes Moore of Maryland, both of whom are considered presidential contenders in 2028, took to social media to express similar sentiments.

“This is Donald Trump’s America, where they attack our freedoms,” Pritzker wrote. “We cannot be intimidated or scared by their abuses of power.”

Moore added: “The weaponization of our justice system and the normalization of political violence is unacceptable.”

It was a unifying moment around a singular message for the party, which so far has struggled to succinctly push back on Trump.

A number of Democrats quickly used the incident to fundraise, too.

“All Alex was trying to do was ask a question and do his job of oversight,” read one email from the campaign of Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who asked supporters to split donations between his campaign and Padilla’s.

“There can be no justification for this,” said a subject line from Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

“What happened to Senator Alex Padilla this afternoon is appalling,” read a message from Shenna Bellows, a Democrat running for governor in Maine.

Still, even as Democrats saw a clear opportunity to change the tone on immigration, Republicans cast Democrats as the ones welcoming the chaos.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, sought to cast Padilla as the agitator, saying he was “shoving law enforcement officers” to get his way back to Noem’s attention, adding, “Incredibly aggressive behavior for a sitting U.S. senator.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) accused Padilla of enacting a political stunt, telling reporters Thursday he “got what he wanted, he’s on TV.” Others pointed out Padilla was not wearing his Senate pin, though he verbally identified himself a senator.

Johnson told reporters that “at a minimum” Padilla’s behavior “rises to the level of a censure.”

Other Republicans compared Thursday’s incident to other recent actions from Democrats — including Rep. LaMonica McIver’s recent indictment — as proof the party is out of control.

“Democrat officials and their staffers are growing increasingly radical and extreme,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson, in a statement to POLITICO. “It’s alarming they think they can obstruct federal law enforcement or physically push officers while charging a cabinet secretary without consequence.”

Democrats are banking on the idea that the Padilla incident can change the conversation on LA unrest, even as protests are planned across the country this weekend to coincide with Trump’s planned military parade.

“When the government overreaches like this in such a blatant manner, it allows for us to have a conversation with lots of people who may not be political observers,” said Maurice Mitchell, national director of the Working Families Party, which is organizing the “No Kings” demonstrations Saturday in 1,800 locations nationwide.

Mitchell pointed out that the Trump administration has already detained a Democratic mayor in New Jersey, arrested a judge in Wisconsin and indicted a Democratic congressmember in his effort to intimidate those who question the legality of his immigration actions.

“Think about what they might do to you, if you’re on their shit list,” he said.

Jessica Piper and Giselle Ruhiyyih Ewing contributed to this report. 

The Senate’s conservative hard-liners vowed to wage holy war against the “big, beautiful bill.” Now they appear to be coming to Jesus.

The recent rhetorical downshift from some of the loudest GOP critics of the pending megabill underscores the political reality for conservatives: As much as they want to rail publicly about the legislation and the need to address any number of pressing national emergencies in it, very few are willing to buck President Donald Trump on his biggest priority.

None of them are ready to cave just yet. But the White House and their GOP colleagues increasingly believe that three senators in particular — Sens. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Lee of Utah and Rick Scott of Florida — are now on track to support the bill.

Johnson, in particular, has softened his once-fierce criticism of the legislation in recent days.

“We all want to see President Trump succeed,” he said in a brief interview this week. “Everybody is trying to help. That’s why, if I seem to have been striking a more hopeful tone, it’s because I am more hopeful.”

Just a couple of weeks ago, Johnson was demanding near-unworkable levels of spending cuts and warning that the bill would drive the nation off a fiscal cliff. Then the Trump administration and members of Republican leadership went to work.

Johnson made a pitch to Trump during a recent one-on-one phone call to let him work with administration officials on his deficit reduction plan. That led to a meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council. A person with knowledge of the meeting, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said afterward that the White House is “optimistic that there’s a path to getting Johnson to yes.”

Trump also privately urged Johnson during a meeting with other Finance Committee Republicans last week to speak more positively about the bill. The callout came after Trump officials — and Trump himself — grew annoyed watching Johnson savage the bill on television.

His message: You should be out there selling this bill proudly, he told Johnson, according to two White House officials granted anonymity to describe the meeting — arguing that even if he doesn’t love every detail, there was plenty in the bill for Republicans to be proud of.

“When the president says, ‘Ron, you’ve been so negative, that’s just not even helpful,’ I want to be helpful,” Johnson said, acknowledging Trump’s message in the meeting and admitting he has “downplayed what is good in the bill.”

One of the White House officials summarized the approach to Johnson: “Don’t be negative to create leverage for yourself,” the person said. “If you want to negotiate, like, we can negotiate in private. We’re all reasonable people.”

The hands-on efforts to win over Johnson are part of a larger effort to try to help the fiscal hawks find a soft landing — and at least the semblance of some concessions that will be able to hold up as wins in the end. That’s played out in face-to-face meetings with administration officials, negotiations over pet provisions and discussions about how to continue the fight to cut budget deficits down the road.

Being able to win over their deficit hawks would be a huge boon to Majority Leader John Thune, who has acknowledged that he’s got one hard “no” vote in Sen. Rand Paul, who firmly opposes the bill’s debt-ceiling hike. Thune can only afford to lose three GOP senators, with Vance breaking a tie.

That has given the fiscal hawks leverage, since the GOP leaders can’t afford to lose all of them, and that’s on top of the other potential headaches they have to navigate elsewhere in the conference.

To hear the fiscal hawks tell it, they are sounding a more positive note about their ability to support the bill because the administration is starting to take their demands seriously. To help appease their holdouts, GOP leaders have tried to scrounge up additional savings beyond what is included in the House bill.

“I believe we’ll get a deal done. I’m doing everything I can to represent my state,” Scott said in a brief interview.

GOP leaders are working to assuage Lee by tucking one of his top priorities into the bill. The deregulatory proposal, known as the REINS Act, was initially expected to run afoul of Senate rules for the party-line reconciliation process, but leaders have been working to try to find a version that could pass muster.

House conservatives, meanwhile, have grown increasingly worried that the Senate, with the blessing of their fiscal-hawk allies, will send back a bill that waters down some of their hard-fought victories. The House Freedom Caucus has laid out public demands, while its members have met privately with Lee, Scott and Johnson to strategize about additional spending reductions and maintaining their policy wins.

The Senate hard-liners aren’t ready to concede just yet. Senate Budget Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has promised Johnson he will advance a second reconciliation bill, giving conservatives another chance to enact cuts. But Johnson said that wouldn’t be enough to get him on board. Instead he wants a “forcing mechanism” to maintain a longer-term push to return to 2019 spending levels. He’s letting the White House brainstorm other ideas and described himself as “reasonably flexible.”

Lee said in a statement he’s “been working with my colleagues and the White House to make the Big Bill Beautiful.” But added: “It’s not where it needs to be yet.”

“We need to sell federal land to help fix the housing crisis, terminate benefits that flow to illegals, end the Green New Scam, and get rid of the Medicaid provider tax. I want to see this effort cross the finish line, but we need to do more,” he added.

Even as they continue to push, their colleagues see the signs of late softening — and aren’t surprised whatsoever. “They’ll fold,” said a GOP colleague who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said that Republicans have “made progress” with Johnson and “I wouldn’t count him out.” And two others, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), said they expect Lee, Scott and Johnson to come around when the bill comes up for a final vote, even if they don’t ultimately love every provision.

“They’re very gettable,” Kennedy said. “At some point people are just going to have to decide, is this good enough?”

Rachael Bade and Meredith Lee Hill contributed reporting.

House Republicans have narrowly advanced a request from the White House to claw back $9.4 billion that lawmakers have already approved for public media and more than a dozen accounts across the State Department focused on foreign assistance.

The 214-212 vote is a major victory for President Donald Trump, who had been lobbying hard for lawmakers to pass the legislation, including in a social media post shortly before members went to the floor.

“For decades, Republicans have promised to cut NPR, but have never done it, until now,” Trump said, in part. “The Rescissions Bill is a NO BRAINER, and every single Republican in Congress should vote, ‘YES.’ MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

It’s also a huge relief for Speaker Mike Johnson, who hours earlier was projecting cautious optimism that the package of funding cuts would pass despite knowing his margins were exceedingly narrow.

“We think we have the votes. We’re going ahead with it,” Johnson told reporters Thursday afternoon.

One “yes” vote: Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is known to frequently break with his party.

“First time I’ve ever seen us cut spending in my life. I would be ‘yea’ all day long,” Massie said in a brief interview earlier this week, previewing his support.

The legislation would revoke $8.3 billion in foreign aid and $1.1 billion for public broadcasting. It faced opposition from some Republican lawmakers concerned about slashing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, and how emergency alerts could be impacted by the public media cuts.

House Republican leadership and White House officials spent days trying to assuage the concerns of lawmakers worried that the clawbacks would hurt their local public broadcasting stations, emergency alert systems and efforts to prevent AIDS around the world.

The fight to convince House Republicans continued up until the final gavel on Thursday. Johnson and Whip Tom Emmer huddled with the holdouts on the House floor during the vote to try to sway them in favor of the measure after they had already voted against the measure.

At one point, as many as six Republicans were recorded as voting “no” — enough to tank the bill. Two of those holdouts, Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Nick LaLota of New York, flipped to yes, handing Johnson — and Trump — the win. GOP Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Mike Turner of Ohio opposed the bill.

In defense of cuts to public broadcasting, senior GOP lawmakers argued that the local PBS affiliates in their home states do good work but that those in some other states air inappropriate programming.

“These stations are some of the most partisan stations out there. Can you imagine if a conservative station was funded? The left would have screamed, vilified and exterminated it a long while ago,” said Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.), during floor debate.

Democrats countered that’s a lie. “That’s BS. It’s total BS,” Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the House’s top Democratic appropriator, said in a brief interview. “These comments that it’s ‘woke’ in this state or that — what the hell do you know? Nothing.”

Still, there are discussions underway among many appropriators that they could try to offset some of these slashes in upcoming spending bills, since the funding cuts won’t impact accounts until after the new fiscal year kicks in come October 1.

“I am concerned about the future of trying to do away with public television. I’m a supporter of public television in Idaho, they do a fantastic job,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill.

The package now heads to the Senate, where Republicans are discussing whether they can amend it – despite the complicated mechanics for doing so. The rescissions process was created under the decades-old law enacted to block presidents from withholding federal cash Congress has already approved.

The Senate also has the option to approve sections of the package piecemeal and reject others. That’s what Congress did back in 1995 when the House and Senate approved a rescissions package that clawed back less funding than then-President Bill Clinton had requested to cut. But doing that would send it back to the House, where passage a second time may not be guaranteed.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the package “could be” changed in the Senate. “We’ll see,” he told reporters Thursday.

“I would expect that rescissions package probably will be a July timeframe,” Thune said.

Congress has until midnight on July 18 to act on the legislation, otherwise the proposal will expire and the White House is required to spend the money as lawmakers intended.

Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.