A retiring Democratic congressman from Maine has publicly urged New Yorkers to re-elect Republican Rep. Mike Lawler, a move that drew immediate fury from House Democratic leadership and the party's campaign arm.
Rep. Jared Golden, 44, published an op-ed Monday in The Journal News endorsing Lawler in one of the most competitive House races in the country. Golden, who announced last year he would not seek another term representing Maine's Second District, cited Lawler's work across party lines, particularly on legislation protecting New England's lobster industry, as his reason for backing a Republican over his own party's candidate.
The endorsement landed in a race where polls show Lawler running neck and neck against Democrat Cait Conley in New York's 17th Congressional District, which stretches across the Hudson Valley. A single seat could determine which party controls the narrowly divided House, making the district one of the most closely watched battlegrounds ahead of the midterms.
Golden built his endorsement around a specific piece of legislation: the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, which the House approved earlier this month. The bill delays until 2035 the implementation of new fishing regulations designed to protect whales, rules Golden warned would threaten roughly 18,000 fishing jobs in Maine. Lawler co-led the effort despite having no lobster boats in his district, a point Golden emphasized repeatedly.
In the op-ed, Golden framed the endorsement as a matter of governing philosophy, not party loyalty. As the New York Post reported, Golden wrote:
"Mike Lawler has been a true partner to me and a friend to fishing families he will never represent. I strongly back him. Wherever you live, find the members who pass laws with the other party, and keep them."
Golden also drew a parallel between his own district and Lawler's. He described Maine's Second District as "the most challenging district of any Democrat in the country" and noted that Lawler holds one of just three Republican seats that Kamala Harris carried in 2024. Both men, Golden argued, earned re-election by working for voters who disagreed with them.
Golden wrote that representing such districts "forces you to work for people who disagree with you, and it teaches you that those people are not your enemies. They are your neighbors." He added that "the country needs fewer members who treat the job as a stage and more who treat it as work."
Beyond the lobster bill, Golden cited at least three instances of bipartisan collaboration with Lawler over two years, including restoring collective bargaining rights for federal employees. That track record, Golden argued, is how Congress is supposed to function.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wasted no time dismissing the endorsement. He called Lawler "an unadulterated phony who has never shown bipartisan courage when it matters" and cast Golden's backing as a desperate stunt from a lawmaker on his way out the door.
Jeffries told reporters:
"In desperation, he is peddling an 11th hour endorsement from a retiring Congressmember who represents an out of town district more than 400 miles away."
He added that the endorsement was a "smoke and mirrors ploy" that would "do nothing to change the outcome of the race," insisting that "the election will be decided by the people of Westchester and the lower Hudson Valley." Jeffries's response carried a notable edge, less a policy rebuttal than a personal dismissal of both Golden and Lawler.
DCCC Executive Director Julie Merz struck a similar tone. She claimed Lawler had "dedicated his career to befriending DC reporters, partisan politics and voting with Trump 100% of the time," while praising Democratic challenger Conley as an "Army combat veteran" who "dedicated hers to serving our country with honor." Merz concluded flatly: "Mike Lawler is going to lose."
Merz's claim that Lawler voted with the president "100% of the time" sits uneasily alongside the record. Lawler publicly clashed with President Trump over the state and local tax deduction cap during negotiations on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the sweeping tax and spending package, pushing to secure a larger SALT cap hike than what was initially proposed. That is not the profile of a congressman who votes in lockstep with anyone.
The endorsement was not an isolated act. The day after the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act passed, Golden voted for a GOP procedural motion, known as a "rule", that keeps legislation moving to the floor. That vote defied House Democratic leadership directly. Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, a Democrat from Washington state, joined him. Together, the two prevented Republicans from having to send the House home early on their pre-midterm recess.
The procedural rebellion drew sharp reactions from Democratic leaders. Jeffries has faced growing questions about whether he can hold his caucus together, particularly as members from competitive or conservative-leaning districts show increasing willingness to side with Republicans on key votes.
Golden's pattern, bucking leadership on procedure, then endorsing a Republican outright, suggests a congressman who decided, with nothing left to lose electorally, to say plainly what he believes. Whether that reflects courage or irrelevance depends on which party you ask.
Lawler responded publicly, calling Golden "a servant leader, who has fought tirelessly for his district." He framed the endorsement in the same bipartisan terms Golden used, telling Just The News:
"We share a firm belief that what's best for the people should come before one's party, and that if more members on both sides of the aisle took that approach more often, the country would be better off for it."
The endorsement carries real weight in a district Harris carried in 2024. Lawler needs crossover voters to survive. A sitting Democrat, even a retiring one, publicly vouching for him gives his campaign a talking point that no amount of ad spending can replicate: a member of the opposing party looked at his record and said, on the record, that he deserves another term.
Cross-party endorsements remain rare in an era of rigid partisan discipline, though they are not without precedent. In recent months, a Republican secretary of state in South Dakota endorsed a Democrat to replace her, and a former aide to Sen. John Cornyn joined a Democratic campaign in Texas. The common thread is officeholders or staffers who conclude that party loyalty matters less than the individual on the ballot.
The Washington Examiner noted that Golden has "increasingly bucked his party in recent weeks," suggesting the endorsement was the culmination of a longer drift rather than a single dramatic gesture. Golden's willingness to break with Democrats on both substance and procedure sets him apart from most retiring members, who typically fade quietly.
The speed and ferocity of the Democratic response tells its own story. Jeffries did not engage Golden's argument, that Lawler works across party lines and delivers results. He attacked the messenger's geography and retirement status. Merz did not rebut the legislative record Golden cited. She asserted, without detail, that Lawler votes with Trump all the time, a claim that the SALT fight directly contradicts.
Neither Jeffries nor the DCCC addressed the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, the specific bill Golden built his endorsement around. Neither explained why bipartisan cooperation on fishing regulations should be dismissed. The rebuttal amounted to: Golden is leaving, he lives far away, and Lawler is a phony. That is not an argument. It is a press release.
For voters in the Hudson Valley, the question Golden posed is straightforward. Do you want a congressman who co-sponsors legislation with the other party and fights his own president on tax policy? Or do you want a replacement chosen by the same party leadership that responded to a bipartisan endorsement by attacking the endorser's zip code?
Golden gave his answer. The voters of Westchester and the Hudson Valley will give theirs. But when a Democrat looks across the aisle and says a Republican earned his support on the merits, the party that responds with nothing but insults has already lost the argument.
