Three lessons from this year’s primaries: From the Politics Desk

Welcome to From the Politics Desk, a daily newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team’s latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.

In today’s edition, our politics team digs into this week’s primary results — and how they fit into patterns we’ve seen from contests in both parties so far this year. Plus, a special report digging into how the president’s “big, beautiful bill” has changed the U.S. in its first year.

Sign up to receive this newsletter in your inbox every weekday here.

— Scott Bland

Three lessons from 2026 primary season so far

Analysis by Ben Kamisar and Bridget Bowman

We’re past the halfway point of primary season, and while the full story is yet to be written, we’re already learning some important lessons.

The old definition of “progressive” isn’t enough anymore. In many of this year’s primary upsets, the candidates who lost had résumés that checked the boxes of what Democrats used to want in their leaders.

Reps. Dan Goldman and Diana DeGette were both prominent figures in President Donald Trump’s impeachments. Rep. Adriano Espaillat took the Trump administration to court over its immigration detention oversight. Some losing incumbents also supported progressive policies like “Medicare for All” or abolishing ICE. And many of these candidates had the backing of prominent progressive lawmakers. Yet, that wasn’t enough, as up-and-coming Democrats wage war on their party’s establishment, attack them for a lack of urgency and try to change the definition of what it means to be a modern-day progressive.

It’s a bad time to be a D.C. politician. The anti-Washington fervor hasn’t just cost incumbents their seats. It has also played out in key open-seat battles on both sides of the aisle.

Reps. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D.; Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas; Randy Feenstra, R-Iowa; Raja Krishnamoorthi, D-Ill.; and Robin Kelly, D-Ill., are among those who lost bids for higher office. And some of the lawmakers who did win did so either in races against their Washington peers or with a helpful hand from Trump.

It’s still good to be an incumbent. They are still far more likely to win their primaries, with advantages in name recognition and fundraising. But that advantage appears to be shrinking.

Battlegrounds have been a mixed bag. So far, some more progressive candidates have been able to win primaries in competitive districts, like Colorado’s 8th District, where state Rep. Manny Rutinel won last night’s Democratic contest. And progressives have bested some candidates backed by the House Democratic campaign arm, including in California’s 22nd District and Maine’s 2nd District (where Republicans also meddled).

Democratic Senate primaries have seen voters prioritize electability, and the more moderate candidates won the Democratic nods in Iowa and Texas. And even as Democrats backed Graham Platner, the more progressive candidate in Maine, some said in focus groups that they did so because they viewed Platner as the candidate best-positioned to win.

The Michigan Senate Democratic primary coming up next month will be key to watch, as progressive Abdul El-Sayed faces Rep. Haley Stevens and state Sen. Mallory McMorrow. Democratic voters in Minnesota will also be choosing next month between progressive Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan and moderate Rep. Angie Craig in that state’s Senate race.

Meanwhile, as primary season begins to wind down, progressive candidates in these districts and states will turn to November, where they’ll try to prove that their message can resonate beyond deep-blue parts of the country.

For subscribers: A Colorado primary defeat highlights a dangerous political environment for Democratic incumbents

By Scott Bland

Another member of Congress fell in a primary Tuesday night, as 30-year Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette lost to democratic socialist Melat Kiros, 29, in Denver. But as shocked as national Democrats might be by this and other recent losses, a deeper look at the 2026 primary results might paint an even more dangerous picture for the party’s entrenched incumbents.

Keep reading →

How Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ changed America

By Shannon Pettypiece and Mike Hixenbaugh

One year after President Donald Trump signed the law he dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” on the South Lawn of the White House, it has begun reshaping the country — altering who gets help from the government and who goes without.

The most consequential legislation of Trump’s second term reaches into nearly every corner of American life. It supercharges immigration enforcement, pouring billions into border security and deportations. It rewrites student loan rules. It dismantles tax incentives for electric vehicles and clean energy. It creates a national school-voucher tax credit.

And at its core is a seismic shift: extending roughly $4.5 trillion in tax cuts disproportionately benefiting corporations and the wealthy over 10 years while cutting about $1.1 trillion from healthcare and food assistance programs serving poor and working-class people.

Historians say the law represents a watershed moment in a decades-long conservative effort to shrink the social welfare system built during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and expanded through Great Society legislation of the 1960s. Supporters frame the act as a long-overdue correction. They argue it’s reducing dependence on government programs, rooting out waste, encouraging work and making American businesses more competitive.

Many of the law’s largest program cuts won’t begin to take effect until next year, but the first consequences are already visible.

Read more →

That’s all From the Politics Desk for now. Today’s newsletter was compiled by Scott Bland and Annelise Hanson.

If you have feedback — likes or dislikes — email us at [email protected]

And if you’re a fan, please share with everyone and anyone. They can sign up here.