📝 The Readback: Outrage after a senator is handcuffed

IN THIS EDITION

Outrage in the Senate over Padilla chaos

The art of Ted Cruz’s deal

Texas’ redistricting showdown

The story behind the taxpayer-funded ads

THE TOP

Outrage in the Senate over Padilla chaos

Welcome to The Readback, our weekend digest featuring the best of Punchbowl News this week – a quick roundup of all our scoops, analysis and Capitol Hill insight you won’t find anywhere else. We’ve also included a few of our favorite outside reads from the week.

Padilla handcuffed: By lunchtime on a Thursday, things are usually winding down for the week in the Senate. This past Thursday was the opposite.

Senators were in the middle of a five-vote series on the floor to close out the week when they saw the viral video of one of their colleagues, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), being shoved and thrown to the ground by federal agents. Some were watching the video while on the Senate floor.

Padilla was back home in Los Angeles amid the Trump administration’s deployment of the National Guard and U.S. Marines in response to protests against immigration raids in and around the city.

Padilla was at a federal building getting a briefing and said he learned that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was in a nearby room for a press conference.

So the California Democrat walked in and interrupted the event by shouting a question at Noem. Federal law enforcement officers immediately grabbed Padilla and forcibly removed him from the room even as he was identifying himself as a U.S. senator. Padilla, a well-known figure in LA and across California, was then thrown to the ground and handcuffed.

This all came shortly after we had scooped that Senate Republicans clashed behind closed doors with top White House aide Stephen Miller over border security funding. It was an extraordinary and unusual argument over an issue that typically unites Republicans.

But that was suddenly old news.

The reaction: As you’d expect, it was a “shirts vs. skins” exercise with a few exceptions. Democratic senators were outraged and took to the Senate floor after the vote series concluded, pointing to the incident as evidence that the Trump administration was using unconstitutional means to quash dissent. They held the floor for several hours.

One senator whose speech stood out to me was Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who flashed anger in ways I hadn’t seen from him before. Schatz said he hadn’t been this outraged since the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

On the other side of the building, House members were screaming at each other on the floor. Some Democratic lawmakers were shouting down Speaker Mike Johnson as he was gaggling with reporters. Johnson, for what it’s worth, said Padilla should be censured. That’s not going to happen — especially because Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who’s friends with Padilla, didn’t even get close to Johnson’s level of criticism.

Most GOP senators said they hadn’t seen the video and didn’t want to comment as they were heading out for the week. Some, like Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso, criticized Padilla for not being in Washington for scheduled votes and accused him of putting on a “spectacle.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), however, said the treatment of Padilla was “horrible” and “not the America I know.”

Padilla appeared on MSNBC later Thursday and said two Republicans had reached out to him: Sens. Tim Sheehy of Montana and John Curtis of Utah. Padilla and Sheehy have worked closely together on the issue of wildfire prevention.

Most senators would acknowledge that interrupting an event is an appropriate form of protest, even if you believe such an outburst is disrespectful or self-serving. Padilla wasn’t being violent and, it’s worth noting, repeatedly urged Americans considering protesting this weekend to remain peaceful.

What I’m watching: It’s been quite a busy week with reconciliation and all of the aforementioned chaos, but I’m looking forward to spending some time this weekend catching up on the Phillies, who desperately need to rack up some wins amid an awful slide these past two weeks.

— Andrew Desiderio

You can find The Readback in your inbox every Saturday at 8 a.m. And don’t hesitate to reach out to readback@punchbowl.news with feedback. Enjoy The Readback.

The art of Ted Cruz’s deal

We cover a lot of legislative deals. Rarely, though, do we get to hear a blow-by-blow from the actual talks.

So, this past week, when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sat down with Punchbowl News Founder Jake Sherman, his account of the horse-trading over spectrum was a lot of fun. It also highlighted the real power center of the GOP.

The details are a little technical, but here’s what you need to know to appreciate the story: Getting access to certain electromagnetic frequencies — think, radio waves — is how pretty much everything wireless works.

The government “owns” a lot of the spectrum and uses certain bands for defense communications like radar technology.

Cruz wanted to sell off access to at least 600 MHz of spectrum to private companies and contends that existing laws sufficiently protect the military uses. A group of his GOP colleagues want stronger language exempting the Pentagon waves.

One more factor is President Donald Trump. Cruz said he lobbied the White House extensively to get Trump on the side of a big sale.

Now, here’s Cruz on Trump — who is sometimes much less off-the-cuff than it appears — making an “incredibly helpful” post on Truth Social:

That’s not quite what Trump said back in May, but even at the time, the White House’s position was clear.

With a printout of Trump’s post literally in hand, Cruz headed to the back of the Senate floor to meet with the four main hawks. Cruz said he’d agree to some exemptions but wanted to go even bigger than 600 MHz.

“When I cut deals, I’m transparent and transactional,” Cruz said. “I don’t give up anything for nothing.”

The hawks agreed to 800 MHz, although they’ve been telling us Cruz didn’t honor the full agreement. They’re seeking further changes, which Cruz said he won’t be entertaining.

When the text of the deal came out, Cruz said he heard from Trump again. The president, according to Cruz, asked how the latter got “such an amazing deal.”

“My response was, ‘Well, Mr. President, we got it because of you,” Cruz said.

What I’m watching: After my feature on the creator economy went live this week, I’ve been catching up on more videos from one of the creators I spoke to, Kent Rollins, aka Cowboy Kent.

– Ben Brody

Texas’ redistricting showdown

There’s no political story that’s more exciting to me than redistricting.

It’s got everything. A zero-sum game of electoral survival. Demographic trends. Political geography. Member-vs-member brawls.

So when news broke that the White House was trying to push Texas Republicans into creating a new congressional map mid-decade, I knew the 2026 midterms would get even more exciting.

We don’t know if the White House will be able to force a new map over the hesitance of the GOP delegation and the state’s governor. But if they do, get ready to hear this word thrown around a lot: dummymander.

A dummymander is a nerdy redistricting term that refers to a map drawn by one party that ends up benefiting the opposite one. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries taunted Republicans last week by saying he was certain this would happen in Texas.

So in this case, Jeffries predicted Republicans would try to spread their voters too thin and in the process, leave their incumbents vulnerable to Democratic challengers. Democrats, he said, could win more seats in Texas under a new map.

Could that happen? Or did Republicans leave seats on the table when they made the current map in 2021? The answer depends on who you ask.

I covered the Texas redistricting process very closely. They definitely prioritized protecting GOP incumbents over targeting Democratic incumbents or creating competitive seats that either party could win. They created a map that elected 25 Republicans and 13 Democrats.

Some GOP operatives believe they can draw a map that will safely elect more than 25 Republicans without making anyone run in a purple seat. A big part of their reasoning is that Latino voters have trended right in the Trump era. If that continues, they might be making a safe bet.

However, Trump is not on the ballot in 2026. It’s unclear if (1) his voters will turnout or (2) if their allegiance to Trump extends to other GOP candidates. After all, Democratic Reps. Vicente Gonzalez and Henry Cuellar won reelection even though Trump carried their districts.

It’s a risky play for the GOP to make in a midterm when they control the White House and the political environment looks favorable for Democrats. I can’t wait to see what happens next.

What I’m reading: I just finished The Island at the Center of the World by Russell Shorto, a story about the original New Amsterdam settlement that became the modern New York City. The author makes a really compelling case for why our American origin story stems more from the Dutch’s short-lived multicultural colony in Manhattan than from the Puritans’ theocracy to the north.

– Ally Mutnick

The story behind the taxpayer-funded ads

This week, I got to write about one of my favorite topics: how lawmakers are spending taxpayer money on ads.

As followers of the Readback newsletter know, I am an avid tracker of all things political ads. The subject of my story on Monday — franked communication — is a fascinating quirk of congressional messaging.

The practice allows members to use official funds to get the word out to their constituents. Regulations prevent the ads from being explicitly political and all franked communication must be approved by congressional officials.

For more on the regulations and history of the practice, check out this excellent Inside Elections article by our friend Jacob Rubashkin. And there’s a handy Congressional Research Service report that covers all the bases, too.

In reality, some of the ads blur the line between constituent services and are a way to boost the political fortunes of politicians.

For instance, consider the timing of a couple ads.

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.) aired taxpayer-funded ads in the opening months of 2025, as he was running for governor. Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) ran a taxpayer-funded ad as rumors swirled that he was looking at a Senate run. And Rep, Nick LaLota (R-N.Y.) ran a taxpayer-funded ad to directly hit back at attacks on his Medicaid voting record.

The ads themselves are unique. I’m used to viewing slickly produced 30-second spots with lots of investment and focus testing. These ads, in comparison, are almost quaint in their low-fi production.

One franked ad from Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), contains stock footage with Shutterstock text plastered across the screen. You don’t see that every day!

The practice of franking, originally designed for mailing, has dramatically evolved in the digital era. And as long as members can exploit this loophole, it’s safe to say that ads paid for by official funds are here to stay.

What I’m watching: The captivating Scottish crime thriller “Dept. Q.” Catch it on Netflix for superb accents and top-notch performances. Once you start, you won’t be able to stop watching.

– Max Cohen