Politics
Anatomy of the phone call now imperiling Trump’s presidency
Published
7 years agoon
WASHINGTON (AP) — There were dozens of ears listening to President Donald Trump’s 30-minute phone call with the leader of Ukraine that is at the center of a House impeachment inquiry , and as many eyes that saw what he said.
White House staffers, working in the secure, soundproof Situation Room in the West Wing basement, listened in and chronicled the conversation . National Security Council personnel edited a memo written about the call. White House lawyers, according to a government whistleblower , directed that the memo be uploaded into a highly restricted classified computer network. And there were the staffers whose keystrokes on a computer made that happen.
They represent a universe of people, little known outside their vital circle of national security officials, who can either support or disavow the whistleblower’s account. Their roles could well become more public as the impeachment investigation unfolds and Congress seeks additional witnesses.
Some staffers involved with the call still work at the White House; others have left. But what was thought to be a routine conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy turned into anything but that, when Trump asked him to investigate Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election and the activities of Democratic political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
___
30 MINUTES THAT CHANGED THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY
By the time staffers in the Situation Room got the president of Ukraine on the phone at 9:03 a.m., Trump had just finished firing off tweets claiming complete vindication from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony the day before about the Russia investigation. On the call, Trump was first to speak. He showered the 41-year-old Ukrainian, a novice politician and former comedian, with praise following his party’s victory in parliamentary elections. Zelenskiy chatted about how he wanted to “drain the swamp” in Kyiv and how he wished the European Union would provide more financial support. He told Trump that Ukraine was ready to buy more Javelin anti-tank missiles from the United States.
The next 10 words that came out of Trump’s mouth — “I would like you to do us a favor, though” — are what triggered the House impeachment inquiry that has imperiled his presidency.
Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son, who served on the board of a Ukrainian gas company.
Trump says it was an innocent, “perfect” call. But some White House staffers, worried that Trump seemed to be asking Ukraine for dirt on Biden, sounded alarms. They suggested the memorandum of the call — “telcon” for short — be transferred into a restricted server, usually reserved for documents about covert operations.
___
BEFORE THE CALL
This call, as well as others Trump has had with foreign leaders, was unusual in other ways, too. In past administrations, top foreign policy officials routinely briefed a president in person right before a call and provided written materials as well.
A former U.S. ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul worked at the NSC during the Obama administration and helped write briefs to prepare for dozens of calls with Russian leaders, including Vladimir Putin.
“Judging from the content of the Trump-Zelenskiy call, Trump was not reading talking points,” McFaul said. “No one on our team ever would have prepared a call package prompting Obama to ask for a personal favor that would help him win reelection. I also doubt that Trump’s NSC staff would have written or cleared such a talking point for their boss.”
One individual with firsthand knowledge of how the Trump calls with foreign leaders are handled said the president “hates” such “pre-briefs” and frequently has refused to do them. Trump doesn’t like written background materials either, preferring to handle the calls himself, often in the morning from the residence. Occasionally, while on the phone with foreign heads of state, Trump has handed the receiver to his daughter, Ivanka Trump, so she can talk with the leader, according to this individual.
The person said a six-page pre-brief with attachments was once prepared for Trump before a call to a foreign leader. But that turned out to be too long, as did a single-page version. Preparing pre-brief note cards that offered about three talking points for Trump to make on a call was the norm, according to this person, who feared retribution for describing this process and spoke on condition of anonymity.
The individual said that when Trump is done with the note cards, he often rips them up and tosses them in a burn bag. Staff who handle records have had to retrieve the burn bags from the residence, put the papers out on a table and tape them back together to preserve them as official presidential records, this person said.
___
RUN OF THE MILL
Calls between a president and a foreign leader typically start with U.S. intelligence officers detailed to the White House gathering in the Situation Room, a process that has been in place for decades, according to two people familiar with the operation in the Trump White House and past administrations. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss how Trump’s calls with foreign heads of state are handled.
During the Ukraine call, several others listened in. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Keith Kellogg, national security adviser for Vice President Mike Pence, were on the call. It’s unclear if they were at the White House or listened in on “drop” lines, secure hookups top officials can use from outside the White House.
Others who typically would have listened in would have been the president’s national security adviser, John Bolton, or his deputy, Charles Kupperman, who have both left the White House; the NSC’s director of Russia and Europe, who currently is Tim Morrison; the NSC’s Ukraine expert; and possibly someone from White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney’s office.
Lawyers who handle NSC issues include John Eisenberg and his deputy, Michael Ellis. It’s unclear what, if any, role Ellis played, but the former counsel for the House Intelligence Committee has been in the spotlight before.
The New York Times reported in March 2017 that he allowed his former boss, the then-committee chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., to review classified material at the White House, seeking to bolster Trump’s claim that he was wiretapped during the 2016 campaign on the orders of the Obama administration. The intelligence reports consisted primarily of ambassadors and other foreign officials talking about trying to develop contacts in the inner circle of then President-elect Trump. The report was not confirmed by The Associated Press.
The NSC declined to confirm who was on the call.
Down in the Situation Room, several others would have been listening. One person monitors the call to make sure the line is not interrupted. Others are tasked with documenting what is said. No audio recordings are made. The memorandum of the call, the telcon, which the White House has released, is the closest thing to a word-for-word transcript that is produced and is the official presidential record of the conversation.
“When I got to the Situation Room and my predecessor explained this incredibly inefficient process that we use, I had a lot of questions,” said Larry Pfeiffer, a 30-year U.S. intelligence veteran who managed the Situation Room during the Obama years. “I said ‘Why don’t we just record the call and write a transcript based on that?’”
Pfeiffer said his predecessor told him that the White House stopped taping presidential calls in the 1970s when President Richard Nixon recorded 3,700 hours of conversations, transcripts of which were used by Watergate investigators and during impeachment hearings that followed.
Pfeiffer said White House lawyers finally approved the idea of having a duty officer, wearing a headset, sit in a separate room, and repeat what was said on the call into voice-to-text software — again without creating any audio recording.
Individuals familiar with Trump White House procedure say one Situation Room staffer, using voice-to-text software, repeats each word the president says and another listens and repeats what the foreign leader says. The software turns the words they repeat into text and a rough draft of the telcon is produced.
That draft is given to subject matter specialists on the NSC, who edit the draft for accuracy. Each draft is separately preserved. After it’s finalized, it’s turned over to the national security adviser — Bolton, at the time — or the deputy, who was Kupperman, for their approval. White House lawyers also play a role in approving NSC documents.
After that, the telcon is given back to staffers tasked with preserving the document as a presidential record.
___
WHISTLEBLOWER SOUNDS OFF
Somewhere during this sequence, people privy to the call questioned whether Trump was pressuring the Ukrainian leader to investigate the Bidens. Trump has denied that he did and publicly released the telcon recounting what was said on the call.
He released it after a whistleblower, a CIA officer, filed a complaint about the call with the intelligence community’s inspector general. “In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S. officials that senior White House officials had intervened to lock down” all records of the phone call, the whistleblower wrote. “This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”
The unidentified whistleblower — one of two who have come forward — said White House lawyers directed that the telcon be taken off a computer server where classified documents on foreign leader calls are normally kept. They directed it be transferred to a computer network with restricted access for documents about covert operations or other highly sensitive information. The telcon, which was classified as secret, did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.
One of the two people familiar with how foreign leader calls are handled in the Trump White House said putting a document classified only as “secret” into a server holding very highly classified information is not against any rule, but is a means of “leak prevention.”
That person also said it wasn’t common practice to put telcons into the more restrictive server, but that around the same time Bolton became national security adviser in the spring of 2018, it became standard not to share the telcons with the State Department, the national intelligence director and the Pentagon.
Those officials were told that if they wanted to see them, they could read them the next time they were at the White House, the individual said.
You may like
Florida
Republicans for Jolly Launches as GOP Supporters Back Democrat David Jolly for Florida Governor
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 15, 2026
Former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Williams joins GOP officials and voters supporting Jolly as the Democratic nominee seeks crossover support ahead of November
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (FNN)— A coalition of Florida Republicans supporting Democratic gubernatorial nominee David Jolly launched “Republicans for Jolly” on Monday in St. Petersburg, with former Republican gubernatorial candidate Bobby Williams among those publicly backing Jolly in the 2026 governor’s race.
According to the Jolly campaign, the coalition will work with the Jolly-Graham campaign to organize events, conduct outreach and engage Republicans and independent voters who are willing to cross party lines in the Nov. 3 general election.
The campaign launched the effort under the message “Principles Over Party,” arguing that voters should place governing principles ahead of party affiliation. The coalition has also launched an online organizing effort through the Republicans for Jolly campaign page.
Bobby Williams Backs Jolly
Williams, who sought the Republican nomination for governor earlier this year, appeared at the St. Petersburg announcement and said his support for Jolly was based on the candidate rather than party affiliation.
“My message hasn’t changed; it’s back to ‘We the People’ instead of ‘We the Lobbyists’ and ‘We the Big Corporations,’” Williams said, according to the campaign. “It’s person over party.”
Williams added: “What person is going to best represent Floridians? … We want someone who is going to fight for Floridians.”
The event was held at Williams Park, where Ronald Reagan campaigned during his successful 1980 presidential campaign.
Republican Leaders Join Coalition
The organization is co-chaired by Greg Wilson, who served as a deputy assistant secretary in the U.S. Treasury Department during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and George Kruse, a Republican Manatee County commissioner.
“David is a man of character, competency, and ethical values,” Wilson said in the campaign release. “His policy positions pass a common-sense test and are achievable even in a divided state government.”
Kruse said the coalition believes Republicans should consider candidates based on their governing principles rather than solely their party registration.
“In this election, we believe that tested and trusted principles, rooted in local control, affordability, and basic common sense, are on the ballot in Florida,” Kruse said.
Those assessments represent the views of Wilson, Kruse and the coalition supporting Jolly.
Jolly Courts Republicans and Independents
Jolly represented Florida in Congress as a Republican before leaving the GOP and becoming an independent. He later joined the Democratic Party and is now the party’s 2026 nominee for governor.
His previous Republican affiliation has become part of his campaign’s effort to attract voters outside the Democratic Party.
“This campaign has room for all Floridians, regardless of their political background,” Jolly said. “If you want a candidate who will work hard to improve housing, healthcare, and education, and stop data centers, I’d be honored to earn your vote.”
According to Jolly’s campaign, his “principles over party” platform emphasizes local control, private-sector leadership, personal freedom and government intervention in areas where he believes markets are failing to produce adequate results. The campaign identifies housing, property insurance, health care, education and affordability among its major policy areas.
Jolly has described his approach as accepting policy ideas from either side of the political spectrum based on whether he believes they will work, rather than their partisan origins.
Republicans Respond to Jolly’s Crossover Effort
The effort comes as Jolly faces Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds in the general election.
Republicans have disputed Jolly’s characterization of himself and his agenda. Following the coalition announcement, Donalds campaign communications director Gates McGavick criticized Jolly’s policy positions and characterized his agenda as liberal.
Jolly, meanwhile, rejected several claims being made about his positions by the Donalds campaign during questions following the St. Petersburg announcement.
The competing statements underscore the broader campaign fight over Jolly’s political identity: his campaign is highlighting his Republican background and crossover supporters, while Republican opponents are emphasizing his current affiliation and positions as the Democratic nominee.
Cross-Party Support Emerges on Both Sides
The Republicans for Jolly announcement also comes amid crossover endorsements elsewhere in the governor’s race.
Independent reporting noted that the announcement followed Gainesville City Commissioner Cynthia Chestnut, a Democrat, publicly supporting Donalds, providing an example of cross-party support moving in the opposite direction.
For Jolly, the new coalition creates an organized vehicle for Republican supporters to participate directly in his campaign through voter outreach, events and public testimonials.
“We’re just building a bigger table,” Jolly said during the St. Petersburg event, according to reporting on the announcement.
Florida
FNN ANALYSIS: After 2024 Defections, Florida Democrats Face 2026 Election Test: Can They Rebuild as Republicans Expand Their Advantage?
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 12, 2026
Republicans built a legislative supermajority through elections before two House Democrats switched parties and the Senate Democratic leader became unaffiliated. Now Democrats are trying to rebuild amid a GOP voter-registration advantage exceeding 1.54 million — and signs that some Republican-held districts remain competitive.
By Florida National News
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (FNN) — Six years ago, Florida Democrats held enough seats in the state House to prevent Republicans from reaching a two-thirds supermajority.
Today, the political landscape looks dramatically different.
Republicans emerged from the 2020 election with 78 of the Florida House’s 120 seats, two short of the 80 required for a two-thirds majority. Democrats held 42.
By the end of the 2024 election, Republicans had 85 seats and Democrats 35. Then two newly reelected Democratic representatives — Susan Valdés of Tampa and Hillary Cassel of Broward County — switched to the Republican Party, expanding the GOP advantage to 87-33.
Four months later, another high-profile departure came in the Senate. Democratic Leader Jason Pizzo left his party and became unaffiliated.
Those defections attracted significant attention, but they can obscure the larger story of Florida’s political transformation.
Party switching did not create Republican control of Tallahassee. Elections did.
The subsequent defections widened an advantage Republicans had already established at the ballot box.
Now, with the Nov. 3, 2026, general election approaching, Democrats face a more complicated test than simply winning several competitive races. They are attempting to rebuild legislative representation while confronting a Republican voter-registration advantage of more than 1.54 million active voters.
At the same time, Democratic victories in several 2026 legislative contests suggest the statewide numbers do not necessarily determine what happens district by district.
That creates three questions heading into November: Can Democrats win back legislative seats? Can Republicans protect the districts underlying their supermajority? And can both parties retain the lawmakers voters elect under their banners?
From 42 House Democrats to Republican Supermajority
The clearest starting point is 2020.
Republicans won 78 House seats, compared with 42 for Democrats. With 80 seats needed for a two-thirds majority, Democrats retained enough representation to keep Republicans below that threshold.
Former Democratic Reps. Daisy Morales of Orange County and James Bush III of Miami-Dade County were among the lawmakers elected as part of that 42-member Democratic delegation.
The balance changed decisively two years later.
Republicans expanded their House majority to 85 seats in the 2022 election, crossing the two-thirds threshold. The 2024 election again produced an 85-35 Republican advantage.
That chronology is important because it separates two different political developments.
Republicans gained the supermajority through elections. The Democratic defections came afterward.
The distinction also provides a clearer measurement of Democratic decline: from 42 House seats after the 2020 election to 35 after the 2024 election — a net reduction of seven seats before either Valdés or Cassel changed parties.
Two House Democrats Switch Parties
The first post-election departure came quickly.
On Dec. 9, 2024, Valdés announced she was leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party, just weeks after voters reelected her as a Democrat.
Her switch moved the House from 85 Republicans and 35 Democrats to 86-34.
Less than three weeks later, Cassel followed.
On Dec. 27, Cassel announced she also was leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP.
The House moved to 87 Republicans and 33 Democrats.
Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried criticized Cassel’s decision at the time while acknowledging the difficult political environment facing Democrats.
The significance went beyond losing two caucus members.
A direct switch from Democrat to Republican changes the partisan margin by two: Democrats lose one seat while Republicans simultaneously gain one.
The two defections therefore transformed an 85-35 House into an 87-33 chamber without another general election being held.
Senate Democratic Leader Becomes Unaffiliated
The next departure was politically significant but fundamentally different.
On April 24, 2025, Pizzo announced he was leaving the Democratic Party while serving as Senate Democratic leader. His voter registration became No Party Affiliation the following day.
He did not become a Republican.
That distinction matters when measuring party switching. Valdés and Cassel directly increased the Republican House caucus. Pizzo’s departure did not add a Republican senator.
It nevertheless cost Democrats a sitting senator and their caucus leader. Sen. Lori Berman subsequently became Senate Democratic leader.
An FNN review of these high-profile departures from 2020 through 2026 therefore identifies three sitting Democratic state lawmakers leaving the party:
Valdés: Democrat → Republican
Cassel: Democrat → Republican
Pizzo: Democrat → No Party Affiliation
FNN’s review did not identify a comparable sitting Republican Florida legislator who switched directly to the Democratic Party during the same period.
But the numbers reinforce the larger point: the movement of individual lawmakers accelerated a political shift that had already occurred through elections.
The Bigger Transformation Is Outside the Capitol
The change in Florida’s voter-registration balance has been even more dramatic than the movement inside the Legislature.
In 2020, Florida reported 5,315,954 active registered Democrats and 5,218,739 Republicans.
Democrats held an advantage of 97,215 voters.
As of July 31, 2026, Florida reported:
| Party affiliation | Active voters |
|---|---|
| Republican | 5,607,836 |
| Democratic | 4,066,503 |
| No Party Affiliation | 3,327,656 |
| Minor parties | 497,679 |
| Total | 13,499,674 |
Republicans now lead Democrats by 1,541,333 active registered voters, according to the Florida Division of Elections.
Measured from the Democratic advantage in 2020 to the Republican advantage in July 2026, the Republican-Democratic registration margin shifted by approximately 1.64 million voters.
That is one of the most important numbers for understanding Florida politics entering the 2026 general election.
But it also requires careful interpretation.
A decline in active Democratic registration cannot automatically be described as more than a million Democrats becoming Republicans.
Voter rolls change for multiple reasons, including deaths, people moving into or out of Florida, new registrations, inactive classifications, list maintenance and voters changing party affiliation.
The more defensible conclusion is narrower but still consequential:
Florida moved from a slight Democratic registration advantage in 2020 to a Republican advantage exceeding 1.5 million active voters by mid-2026.
That is a structural change extending far beyond a handful of lawmakers changing parties.
More Than 3.3 Million Voters Belong to Neither Major Party
There is another number that complicates any attempt to translate registration totals directly into election outcomes.
Florida had more than 3.32 million active voters registered with no party affiliation as of July 31.
That electorate is larger than the population of many states.
Those voters do not form a single ideological bloc, and their existence does not erase the GOP registration advantage. But they reinforce why statewide party registration alone cannot determine the outcome of individual legislative races.
Florida legislative elections are decided district by district.
Candidate quality, fundraising, turnout, district boundaries, local demographics, campaign organization and voter enthusiasm can produce outcomes that differ from statewide trends.
That distinction has become especially relevant in 2026.
Democrats Have Shown They Can Still Flip Republican-Held Seats
For Democrats, the strongest counterargument to the state’s broader Republican trend has come from actual election results.
Democrat Emily Gregory flipped House District 87 in a March 2026 special election, defeating Republican Jon Maples.
The result drew attention because Republican Mike Caruso had carried the district by roughly 19 percentage points in 2024.
Democrat Brian Nathan also flipped Senate District 14, defeating Republican Josie Tomkow by just over 400 votes.
Those results demonstrated that at least some Republican-held legislative districts remain competitive under the right electoral conditions.
Florida Democrats have also expanded year-round organizing and made breaking the Republican legislative supermajority a central objective of the 2026 cycle.
But special elections come with an important warning.
They typically involve smaller and sometimes substantially different electorates than November general elections.
Republicans have pointed to House District 35 as evidence of that difference. Democrat Tom Keen won the Orlando-area seat in a January 2024 special election, only for Republicans to reclaim it during the November general election.
The 2026 Democratic flips therefore provide evidence of competitiveness, not proof of a statewide reversal.
November will provide the larger test.
Republicans Have a Structural Advantage — But Still Must Defend It
The challenge facing Republicans is different.
They do not need to rebuild a legislative majority. They already possess one.
They enter the election with a House supermajority and a statewide registration advantage that would have been difficult to envision when Democrats still led voter registration in 2020.
The question is whether those structural advantages continue translating into legislative victories across Florida.
A statewide registration lead does not make every Republican-held district equally secure.
The Gregory and Nathan victories demonstrate that Democrats can still win Republican-held territory, particularly when turnout, candidate performance and district conditions align.
For Republicans, November therefore becomes a test of durability.
Can the party maintain the legislative gains it accumulated over multiple election cycles while defending districts Democrats now view as opportunities?
The Democratic Challenge Is Now Twofold: Win Seats and Keep Them
For Democrats, the experience following the 2024 election introduces another issue that cannot be measured solely on election night.
Political parties invest substantial resources recruiting candidates, raising money, organizing voters and winning legislative seats.
But caucus strength ultimately depends on keeping those lawmakers after they take office.
The Valdés and Cassel switches demonstrated how quickly that calculation can change.
Democrats won 35 House seats in November 2024. Weeks later, they had 33 members because two lawmakers elected as Democrats joined Republicans.
Pizzo’s departure presented a different version of the same organizational problem: Democrats lost their Senate leader even though he did not join the Republican Party.
That creates two separate measurements for Democratic rebuilding:
Electoral growth: Can Democrats increase the number of legislative seats they win?
Caucus stability: Can they retain the lawmakers elected as Democrats?
Winning without retention can limit rebuilding. Retention without winning additional districts leaves the party’s minority position largely unchanged.
Democrats need both if their objective is to reduce Republican legislative dominance.
Former Lawmakers Add Another Dimension to the Rebuilding Debate
The 2026 cycle also raises questions about how a minority party decides where to invest limited political resources.
Morales and Bush were members of the 42-seat Democratic House delegation elected in 2020. Both later left the Legislature and subsequently sought returns through Democratic primaries.
Their races, districts and political circumstances are different and should be evaluated separately.
But their candidacies illustrate a broader strategic issue facing any party attempting to rebuild:
How should resources be divided among defending incumbents, supporting challengers in opposition-held districts, recruiting newcomers and considering former lawmakers seeking a return to office?
There is no single formula.
A former legislator may bring name recognition, fundraising relationships and legislative experience. A newcomer may offer stronger district appeal or represent a changing electorate. An incumbent may require significant resources simply to prevent the party from losing another seat.
The effectiveness of those decisions ultimately can be measured by outcomes.
Does the party gain seats?
Does it protect vulnerable seats?
Does it expand into territory previously controlled by the opposition?
And does it retain the lawmakers it helped elect?
Those questions become particularly important when one party is operating from a substantial numerical disadvantage.
What Has Actually Changed Since 2024?
For Democrats, there are identifiable changes since the immediate aftermath of the 2024 election.
The Florida Democratic Party retained Nikki Fried as chair in 2025, expanded its year-round organizing operation and increased regional staffing ahead of the 2026 cycle.
The party has continued its Take Back Local initiative aimed at municipal and local races while placing greater emphasis on legislative contests.
And Democrats have produced tangible 2026 victories, including Republican-held legislative seats.
Those developments provide evidence of organizational activity and some electoral progress.
They have not, however, erased the larger structural imbalance.
Republicans still hold the legislative supermajority.
Republicans still lead statewide active voter registration by more than 1.54 million.
Democrats still must gain substantially more legislative ground before control of either chamber becomes competitive.
The most accurate description of the Democratic position heading toward November is therefore neither collapse nor comeback.
It is a rebuilding test whose results remain unresolved.
Why It Matters to Florida Voters
The significance extends beyond the internal fortunes of either political party.
A legislative supermajority can affect the balance of power in Tallahassee because it gives the majority party sufficient numbers to take actions that require more than a simple majority.
The size of the minority caucus also affects committee representation, legislative negotiations, the ability to sustain or challenge certain procedural actions and the overall political leverage available to the opposition.
That makes legislative competition relevant even when control of a chamber is not immediately in doubt.
For Democratic voters, 2026 provides a measurable test of whether the party can translate organizing and special-election victories into broader legislative gains.
For Republican voters, it tests whether the political coalition that produced the GOP’s current advantage remains durable in a general election.
For NPA and minor-party voters, it underscores the potential importance of voters outside either major party in competitive districts.
And for Florida voters generally, it provides a way to distinguish political narratives from measurable results.
The Numbers to Watch on Nov. 3
The 2026 general election is scheduled for Nov. 3. Florida’s voter-registration deadline is Oct. 5, with mandatory statewide early voting scheduled for Oct. 24-31.
Rather than judging Florida’s political direction from one race, three measurements will provide a clearer picture.
First: Legislative seats.
Do Democrats finish the election with more House and Senate seats than they entered with, or do Republicans maintain or expand their advantage?
Second: Republican registration advantage versus district results.
Does the GOP’s statewide registration lead translate consistently into legislative victories, or do Democrats continue outperforming the statewide environment in selected districts?
Third: Caucus stability.
After voters choose their lawmakers, do the members remain with the parties under whose banners they were elected?
Together, those measurements will provide a better indication of Florida’s direction than any isolated special election, party switch or registration statistic.
A Six-Year Transformation
The numbers tell the story clearly.
In 2020, Democrats held 42 Florida House seats, and Republicans were two seats short of a supermajority.
Democrats also held a 97,215-voter statewide registration advantage.
By 2024, Republicans had won 85 House seats, already exceeding the supermajority threshold.
Two Democratic defections subsequently increased the Republican House caucus to 87 while reducing Democrats to 33.
And by July 2026, Republicans held a statewide registration advantage of 1,541,333 active voters.
Those developments represent a profound shift in Florida politics.
But elections are snapshots, not permanent guarantees.
Democrats’ 2026 legislative flips show that Republican-held districts can still change hands. Republicans’ statewide numbers show the scale of the challenge Democrats face in turning isolated victories into sustained gains.
That is why Nov. 3 matters.
The central question is no longer simply whether Florida has moved toward Republicans. The electoral and registration numbers already establish that Republicans have gained substantial ground since 2020.
The unanswered question is whether that movement has reached a durable plateau — or whether Democrats have begun rebuilding enough support to reverse some of those losses.
The first meaningful statewide answer comes in November.
NEXT FNN ANALYSIS: Where Is the Money Going?
Election results are only one measure of rebuilding. Political investment is another.
FNN’s next examination should follow the money behind Florida House races: where Democratic political organizations are spending, which candidates receive institutional support, how much is directed toward Democratic primaries and how those expenditures compare with resources devoted to defending Democratic seats or challenging Republican-held districts.
That examination can include the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, campaign committees and related political spending while carefully distinguishing verified campaign-finance transactions from allegations or disputed claims involving individual campaigns.
The central question is measurable:
At a time when Democrats say they are trying to break the Republican supermajority, are Democratic political resources being deployed in ways that expand, protect or reduce the party’s representation in the Florida House?
That is a separate story — and one best answered through campaign-finance records rather than political rhetoric.
Politics
Jim Boyd, Jay Trumbull Endorse Alex Rizo for Florida Senate District 39
Published
2 weeks agoon
September 12, 2026
Republican legislative leaders back Rizo as race develops to replace former Sen. Bryan Avila in Miami-Dade County
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Fla. (FNN)— Florida Senate President-Designate Jim Boyd and Sen. Jay Trumbull have endorsed state Rep. Alex Rizo in the developing race for Florida Senate District 39, according to a press release announcing their support.
The endorsements add two prominent Republican senators to Rizo’s campaign as candidates position themselves to succeed former state Sen. Bryan Avila, who resigned from the Senate in August.
Florida Senate records show Avila, a Republican, resigned from District 39 on Aug. 25, leaving the Miami-Dade County seat vacant.
Boyd, Trumbull Praise Rizo’s Legislative Record
In a joint statement provided in the press release, Boyd and Trumbull pointed to Rizo’s record on education, taxes, public safety and parental rights as reasons for their endorsement.
“Alex Rizo is a leader who has championed parental rights, historic school choice expansion, tax cuts for hard working Floridians and business owners, increased funding for public schools and teacher pay, workforce and technical education, public safety, and efforts to educate future generations about the horrors and failures of communism,” Boyd and Trumbull said.
The senators said they believe Rizo would work alongside them in the Florida Senate on their shared policy priorities.
“We are proud to endorse Alex Rizo for Senate District 39 because we know he will stand with us to protect freedom and deliver common sense solutions for hard working Floridians,” they said.
Rizo Running for Open Senate Seat
Rizo, a Republican from Hialeah, announced his candidacy for the open Senate seat following Avila’s resignation. Rizo has served in the Florida House since 2020 and has represented House District 112 during the current legislative term.
The Senate District 39 race is developing following Avila’s departure from the Legislature to run for lieutenant governor.
District 39 is located in Miami-Dade County and includes heavily Hispanic communities in the northwestern portion of the county.
Special Election Date Still to Be Formally Set
Florida’s 2026 general election is scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026. However, as of Sept. 11, the Florida Division of Elections had not listed a Senate District 39 special election among its scheduled 2026 special elections.
Under Florida law, a vacancy in the state Senate may require a special election. The governor, after consulting with the secretary of state, issues the order establishing the election date.
The timing of the District 39 election therefore remains subject to an official special-election order.
