How a Democratic candidate's volatility could shape a key Senate race

In today’s edition … The One Big Beautiful Bill Act had a major impact on food assistance … You give us your thoughts on Netanyahu … but first …

Troy Jackson has a tough road ahead.

He ran for governor in Maine and lost. He wholeheartedly supported Graham Platner, who ended his campaign after a woman he previously dated accused him of sexual assault. And now Jackson, after romping through the state’s hastily organized nomination process to pick a Platner replacement, is the presumptive nominee to take on Sen. Susan Collins (R) in November.

Republicans were already preparing to spend tens of millions of dollars lambasting Platner this year. And that money now turns to Jackson, who has been a staple of Maine politics for years and, as we reported exclusively on Monday, led the state Senate with an intensity that often veered into behavior that people working in Maine politics at the time characterized as bullying.

Here is what I reported with Liz Goodwin, Alexei Koseff and Myla S. Roundy:

Jackson declined to speak with me about his temperament and clashes. BJ McCollister, a campaign adviser, acknowledged “moments when he let his frustration get the better of him,” but said Jackson took responsibility and apologized when it happened. “Troy regrets the moments when disagreements became too heated,” McCollister said, “but passion for the issues he advocates for should not be confused with physical intimidation or bullying.”

But the politics of this for Jackson could get complicated.

Republicans were reluctant to comment on their strategy against Jackson before the nominee is officially selected, but we picked up some pretty strong hints that private controversies and scandals will be among the targets.

“Whoever Maine’s closed-door convention officially coronates as Graham Platner’s successor will carry his socialist, tax-and-spend mantle and campaign in the shadow of his scandals,” said Bernadette Breslin, national press secretary for Senate Republicans’ campaign arm.

Jackson’s conflicts were often with women, and he is slated to face Collins, whose repeated path to reelection in the consistently blue state has been appealing to independent and left-leaning women who otherwise would not vote for a Republican.

Jackson’s campaign was quick to note that the reason many of Jackson’s clashes were with women was because of the sheer number of women in Maine’s political leadership. At the end of Jackson’s time running the state Senate, the five other top leaders of the state House and Senate were women, as was the governor, Democrat Janet Mills. They noted that Jackson also had plenty of heated disagreements with men, and said disputes with women leaders did not mean he treated them any differently.

That likely won’t stop Republicans from using this trend — which was somewhat of an open secret in Maine for years — against Jackson in November.

A spokesperson for Collins declined to comment.

What struck us in reporting this piece is how Jackson seemingly tried to get ahead of it by talking about his “passion” as a strength, not a weakness.

“Power does not give working people anything out of the goodness of their heart … Sometimes, you have to make the people in charge so uncomfortable that they can’t ignore you anymore,” Jackson said during an event last week. “And that’s something I actually have become pretty good at,” he added, drawing a somewhat knowing laughter from the crowd.

In a conversation with reporters after the event, Jackson told our colleague Karen Tumulty and others that “people know … I wear my heart on my sleeve” and that he is “passionate about the issues.” But, he added, there “isn’t going to be anything” that will come out and sink his campaign.

What we have learned since reporting this story is that it may not sink his campaign, but it could inform how Republicans run against him in the coming months.

We often cover the passage of legislation and the politics of a law. But it’s equally important to cover the law’s implications.

A new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank, found that more than 4 million people nationwide were dropped from SNAP — the government food program previously known as food stamps — from July 2025 through March 2026 due to the passage of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans’ massive tax and spending legislation.

Our colleague Emmanuel Martinez wrote about how the law made significant cuts to the food program by shifting the cost from the federal government to the states.

The number of people who lost access is staggering when you consider the implications for families in need.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the drop-offs were particularly pronounced in a few states: SNAP participation declined by 53 percent in Arizona, 17 percent in Florida and 16 percent in Louisiana.

The politics of this could be important, too. Arizona is home to a highly competitive governor’s race, and multiple competitive House races this November. Florida has a Senate contest and multiple compelling House races.

But the real-world implications are the highlight there. The nonpartisan think tank also found “it’s very likely that nationwide, the number of children receiving SNAP has dropped by more than 1.5 million since July 2025.^”

Gothamist: This is a question I have asked myself, after taking so many taxis and Ubers. Are Waymos actually safer in big cities? As the outlet reports, “A new report argues Waymo taxis cause ‘way mo’ fatal crashes and injuries per mile driven than other for-hire vehicles in New York City.”

New Orleans Times-Picayune: A tropical storm has formed in the Gulf of Mexico. The storm, named Bertha, began hitting the Gulf Coast last night, but the most significant impacts are expected to come today.

Bridge Michigan: This is a trend that will need more attention in the coming years — teens in Michigan (and likely nationwide) are facing a very tough summer job market in places like restaurants, movie theaters or retail stores as technology makes competition for entry-level positions far stiffer than it used to be.

You sent in scores of varied responses to our question about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the changes happening inside the Democratic Party around Israel.

Many of you backed New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who recently said there was an “active conversation” among his staff about whether to arrest Netanyahu when he arrives in September for the U.N. General Assembly.

“The man is accused (quite credibly) of war crimes. He must be brought to justice. If Bibi doesn’t want to face the music, he best not show up at the dance,” wrote Paul C Baker.

“Bibi should be arrested, but he won’t for myriad legal reasons protecting heads of state and that the US does not belong to the ICC. It would be a nightmare for Mamdani, so he will offer support and participate in demonstrations against Bibi,” added Jim Prah.

And Lou DeNicola blamed Netanyahu for the war in Iran, alleging he “tricked Trump into joining Israel in attacking Iran for fear that Iran could build a nuclear weapon.”

“Let’s put the blame for this war where it deserves. Israel started it. Trump got duped into supporting it and now we are stuck in a situation that is negatively affecting the entire world,” DeNicola wrote. “STUPID!”

Others complained about the question — and focusing on how Israel has divided the Democratic Party.

“By turning this into some horse race ‘Dems in disarray’ nonsense you fail as both reporters and as political observers,” wrote Drew Hudson.

But I would argue it is a fair question given, as we have noted in this newsletter, the issue is one of the most contentious in American politics, especially on the left.

And Charles Perso was frustrated at how legislators now seemingly only represent their party, not their district.

“We now have party loyalty and impossible division for our country. We lurch one way and another. Hopefully this division within the Democratic Party means candidates are again representing their constituencies,” Perso concluded.

This newsletter is unapologetically pro-coffee. Early mornings, late nights — coffee is not optional. Our colleague Anahad O’Connor wrote this week that “the American Heart Association says that it’s fine to drink up to five cups of coffee a day — and it may even be good for your heart.” So we wanted to ask for some advice: What is the best coffee shop you have ever been to? What is your go-to order? Or maybe, how does coffee make your life better? Let us and your fellow Early Brief readers know at [email protected].

Thanks for reading. You can follow Dan on X at @merica.