Iowa Didn’t Quite Work Out the Way Trump Wanted

This is your TPM evening briefing.

Jun 03, 2026

It Turns Out Trump Endorsed a Loser in Iowa

President Trump’s eleventh-hour endorsement not only didn’t propel Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-IA) to a win in the primary for Iowa governor, it didn’t even push him into a runoff.

Zach Lahn, a MAHA-aligned businessman who entered the race as a complete unknown, beat Feenstra outright with 38 percent of the vote.

To be fair to Trump, that endorsement had to carry a lot of dead weight; Feenstra skipped all of the debates and barely even bothered to hold in-person events.

Lahn will face Rob Sand, the popular, Democratic state auditor, in the general election. Following last night’s results, The Center for Politics at the University of Virginia shifted the governors’ race from “leans Republican” to “toss-up.” Cook Political Report, another major election prognosticator, already ranked that race as a toss up.

— Kate Riga

Not Out of the Woods in the Jungle Primary

California’s jungle primary, where the top two vote-getters in either party advance to the general, has caused significant Democratic angst this cycle as it’s threatened to lock the party out of major races, leaving voters in the very blue state to choose between Republicans in November.

While the risk in the governor’s race seems averted now (it has yet to be officially called), there was a time when two Republicans were polling first and second in the California governor’s race. Trump’s strategically idiotic endorsement of Steve Hilton helped put an end to that, and at least one Democrat is all but certain to advance.

The same dynamic has added tension to a couple of House races, one of which — the race for Rep. Kevin Kiley’s seat (I-CA) — is still playing out.

While there are certainly benefits to the system — a think tank that studies polarization suggests that it lessens extremism and boosts primary turnout — these races underscore its weaknesses. Voters in such a Democratic state shouldn’t have to choose one of two Republican candidates simply because there were more candidates running on the left and splitting the vote.

But on that note — Democrats, get it together! We don’t need 8 trillion people running if it means risking a Democratic lockout.

— Kate Riga

The Emptiness of the Administration’s Pro-Natalist Propaganda

Crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs — which are truly religious anti-abortion organizations, poorly disguised as healthcare clinics — target the most vulnerable.

Now, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is helping to funnel people towards them.

On Mother’s Day, the HHS launched Moms.gov, describing the website as “groundbreaking.” To be clear, the website does not offer any new resources for expectant parents. It’s a glorified Linktree for information that any chump with an internet connection could find.

Featuring images like a headless, pregnant belly in a golden field of wheat, pink and blue baby footprints, and simple illustrations of only the wholest of foods, the messaging is clear: Make America Barefoot Again.

Dr. Oz underlined this theme when Moms.gov was announced, explaining that “one in three Americans are under-babied,” which was not a term I learned in public health school.

The first resource Moms.gov shares is a link to Option Line, an online directory of pregnancy crisis centers funded by the religious right. The CPC Map has identified over 2,600 CPCs in the U.S. Their use of manipulative tactics and medically inaccurate disinformation has been well-documented by journalists, late-night news satire talk shows, and even The L Word.

One study of hundreds of CPCs found that only 5% offered prenatal care, only 40% provided referrals for prenatal care, and only 26% and 16% of CPCs have a registered nurse or doctor, respectively — all the while using language and imagery that implies visitors can receive medical care onsite.

Moms.gov doesn’t stop with CPCs, also pointing visitors towards Trump Accounts for their unborn children, and TrumpRx for fertility medication. You can find links to a Focus on the Family page about adoption, tons of breastfeeding resources, and the USDA’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

To be clear, these are real concerns many people deal with. And, to be fair, Moms.gov was launched alongside the bipartisan Health Moms Health Babies America campaign, which addresses critical issues like reducing maternal mortality and expanding paid family leave. But it is hard to square these initiatives with the influx of federal and state dollars to CPCs, which may actually serve to increase the risk of maternal mortality and morbidity by causing visitors to delay critical prenatal screening and care. At the same time, funding for Title X — the Nixon-era family planning program for low-income families — has remained flat, and its services are being chipped away along with its administrative staff.

In reality, the administration’s pro-natalist propaganda and its actual policies are a web of contradictions. Abortion bans are associated with increased likelihood of sepsis, infant death, and pregnancy-related death, because those bans create legal uncertainty that leads to inconsistent care for high-risk pregnancies. But the biggest hit of all to pregnancy-related health may have been the 2025 budget reconciliation, or the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed the single largest payer of births in the U.S.: Medicaid. By 2034, 14 million more people are expected to become uninsured, a status which is associated with poorer outcomes during pregnancy.

Pregnancy is encouraged, but only for those who can afford it and its associated risks. The rest of us are on our own.

— Farrell Brenner