Pete Buttigieg hammers Trump at Iowa town hall amid 2028 presidential speculation
Buttigieg opened his remarks at the event, hosted in Cedar Rapids by the progressive group VoteVets Action Fund, by saying that progressives, conservatives, and libertarians should be able to unite around the an understanding that freedom "means freedom from overbearing government."
"At a moment when the president of the United States thinks he could send you to another country, or shut down the broadcast license of a TV station, if he doesn't like what it has to say — that is not freedom," Buttigieg said.
During a Q&A session with attendees, Buttigieg fielded questions on subjects including the Trump administration threatening to suspend habeas corpus, contending that lawmakers who have been silent figure they "have more to fear from the president of the United States than the people of the United States.'
"I am convinced that members of Congress and the president's party know that this is wrong," Buttigieg said, while urging audience members to grab lawmakers' attention in peaceful ways, as many Republicans shy away from holding town halls.
Responding to a question about due process, Buttigieg criticized the Trump administration over its failure to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador in March.
"One person, least of all, no one politician, gets to decide that you're a criminal," Buttigieg said.
President Donald Trump has said he 'could' arrange for Abrego Garcia's return with a phone call, contrasting claims his administration has made in court that it cannot get him back.
Buttigieg also offered some criticism to Democrats mounting a "hang back" approach to dealing with some of Trump's policies, when asked about the prospects for Democrats pushing back on the president and his allies.
"There's this theory out there that if we just kind of hang back, don't do much, then the people in charge today will screw it up, and then they'll get blamed for it and then we'll win," Buttigieg said. "I disagree. First of all, while I agree that they will screw it up, I disagree that we should let them. And I also disagree that they will be blamed for it. They may not be good at governing but they are really good at allocating blame."
Iowa bears significance for Buttigieg, a former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg won the most delegates in the Iowa caucuses in the 2020 Democratic presidential nominating contest, part of a rapid rise before he eventually dropped out of the race and endorsed Joe Biden. In 2021, he became the first openly gay person to be confirmed as a Cabinet secretary, in then-President Biden's administration.
Buttigieg in March passed on a run for governor or the U.S. Senate next year in Michigan, where he now lives with his family.
A source familiar with Buttigieg's thinking previously told NBC News that foregoing a bid for Senate or governor poised Buttigieg to best position himself for a presidential campaign 2028.
Buttigieg said during a Substack interview earlier on Tuesday that 'any kind of decision process there is a long way off,' when asked about a potential presidential bid. He also noted that in past decisions to run he's made a point to 'assess the office and what it calls for,' and 'assess what I bring to the table,' before mounting a campaign.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump pushes for a peace deal, invites Zelenskyy to White House after Putin summit
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will visit the White House to discuss a possible peace agreement with Donald Trump following the U.S. president's Putin summit WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is abandoning his pursuit of a ceasefire in Russia's war against Ukraine and pushing for a peace deal after an Alaskan summit with Vladimir Putin failed to produce an immediate agreement. Trump said in an early morning Truth Social post that after speaking with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and European leaders by phone "it was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up." Trump said Zelenskyy would be coming to Washington on Aug. 18 for an Oval Office meeting with both leaders after a contentious Feb. 28 clash, when Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelenskyy and accused him of being ungrateful. More: 'No deal': Takeaways from Trump's Alaska summit with Putin The Trump administration paused intelligence sharing and weapons shipments to Ukraine after the incident. Zelenskyy declined to apologize for his part in the spat in the immediate aftermath. But he sent Trump a conciliatory letter that helped put the relationship back on track several days later. Trump started to turn away from Putin and toward Zelenskyy in late April after Russia bombarded Kyiv with missiles. He said he'd allow Europe to purchase weapons from the United States for Ukraine in mid-July and threatened to hit Russia and its trading partners with sanctions and tariffs if Putin did not agree a peace deal in short order. The resulting summit with Putin in Alaska was lauded by both presidents as productive but ended without a concrete agreement and no mention of a ceasefire. Trump said in an interview with Fox News that would be up to Zelenskyy to accept an unspecified deal that Putin forward during nearly three hours of closed door talks. He said the next step in the process would be for Zelenskyy and Putin to meet in person at a summit of their own that he offered to mediate. Zelenskyy was the first to reveal his plans to visit Washington next week in an overnight post on X. He said he and Trump spoke by phone during the U.S. president's flight home. They talked for for roughly and hour and a half and were joined by European leaders during the latter part of the call, he said. "In my conversation with President Trump, I said that sanctions should be strengthened if there is no trilateral meeting or if Russia tries to evade an honest end to the war. Sanctions are an effective tool," he said. "Security must be guaranteed reliably and in the long term, with the involvement of both Europe and the U.S. All issues important to Ukraine must be discussed with Ukraine's participation, and no issue, particularly territorial ones, can be decided without Ukraine." In a statement of their own European leaders threw their support behind a Putin-Zelenskyy summit with Trump and pushed for U.S.-backed security guarantees for Ukraine. "It will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory," the leaders said. "International borders must not be changed by force."
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump backs security deal for Ukraine following high-stakes summit with Vladimir Putin
WASHINGTON — President Trump has committed in principle to providing 'security guarantees' to Ukraine to safeguard its frontier from Russia following a possible peace deal, The Post has confirmed. The precise contours of those security guarantees, which were discussed by Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Anchorage on Friday, remain unclear, however. Trump has not committed to sending US troops and previously ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine. The security may amount to a European-led initiative with America's support, a source familiar with the talks said. French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer offered to send peacekeeping troops to Ukraine earlier this year, which would place on their nations' shoulders the human and financial cost of shielding Kyiv after the US has already spent $200 billion since Moscow's invasion began in 2022. The US has a mutual defense agreement with the UK and France, meaning that their presence on the frontlines would offer a form of protection to Ukraine resembling NATO membership — Trump has adamantly rejected formal admission of Kyiv to the military alliance — which Putin vehemently opposes. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization maintains that if one NATO is attacked, it would be considered an attack on all 32 members of the group. Ukraine would, as part of the hypothetical peace deal, cede land currently occupied by Russia. 3 President Trump discussed the possibility of giving Ukraine a 'mutual defense' deal. AP 3 The arrangement came after a series of calls between Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders, Ukrainian Presidential Press Off/UPI/Shutterstock Such an agreement would obligate Ukraine's European allies to respond to any future attacks on the country, The Telegraph reported Saturday. Putin allegedly agreed to the arrangement, according to The Telegraph. But European leaders were trying to clarify what role the US would play under such an agreement, sources told The Economic Times. The arrangement came after a series of calls between Trump, Zelensky and European leaders, the Agence France Press reported. 'As one of the security guarantees for Ukraine, the American side proposed a non-NATO Article 5 type guarantee, supposedly agreed with [Russian leader Vladimir] Putin,' a source told the AFP. 3 Putin invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Getty Images Word of the potential security guarantee came as it emerged that Zelensky will head to Washington, DC, to meet with Trump in the Oval Office on Monday.
Chicago Tribune
28 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Redistricting in Indiana: Republicans raise questions, Democrats have limited options if special session called
As Texas Democrats eye an end to their nearly two-week walkout to block Republican efforts there to redistrict, a growing number of Indiana Republicans have been voicing questions and concerns about redistricting in Indiana. The Texas Democrats announced Thursday they will return provided that Texas Republicans end a special session and California releases its own redrawn map proposal, both of which were expected to happen Friday. Democrats did not say what day they might return. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott still intends to push through new maps that would give the GOP five more winnable seats before next year's midterm elections. Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows has said that if Democrats don't return the next time lawmakers reconvene on Friday, the session will end and the governor will immediately benign another one. Abbott put redistricting on the agenda at the urging of President Donald Trump, who wants to shore up Republicans' narrow House majority and avoid a repeat of his first presidency, when the 2018 midterms restored Democrats to a House majority that blocked his agenda and twice impeached him. It is unusual for redistricting to take place in the middle of the decade and typically occurs once at the beginning of each decade to coincide with the census. Last week, Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to meet with Gov. Mike Braun and other state Republican leaders to discuss redistricting Indiana's nine congressional districts. Braun told the Indiana Capital Chronicle Tuesday that he hasn't yet decided if he'll call a special session for redistricting, but said he and state leaders are 'considering it seriously' as they wait to see what comes out of Texas. 'I think mostly what happens here is going to depend on where Texas goes, because I think they've got five seats in play,' Braun said. The Indianapolis Star reported Friday that Trump invited Indiana Republican lawmakers to the White House for an Aug. 26 meeting. Molly Swigart, a spokeswoman for Senate Republicans, said the meeting was scheduled 'to discuss President Trump's agenda.' Indiana University Professor Emeritus of Political Science Marjorie Hershey said the effort to redistrict is 'a power politics move' because the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is 'as narrow as it could be.' In the last 100 years, there have been two midterm elections where the party that holds the White House hasn't lost seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, Hershey said. If Republicans lose a handful of seats, they would lose control of the House, she said. 'That would essentially mean the end of President Trump's dominance of the political agenda. He's gotten where he has as a result of having complete control of the Congress,' Hershey said. 'In order to maintain his edge in the House of Representatives in 2026, Trump wants a cushion for Republican House members because he's afraid that otherwise he's almost guaranteed to lose the House.' Historically, redistricting has occasionally occurred between censuses, Hershey said, but it goes against precedent. 'This is not normal in American politics,' Hershey. 'It's not the way that the constitution was written. It's not the way the supreme court has structured election law over time.' Indiana Republican response Indiana was last redistricted in 2021, which left Congressional Republicans with seven seats and Democrats two seats. 'It's not as though Indiana isn't already redistricted in a highly partisan way to favor Republicans, it is,' Hershey said. 'Even squeezing out one more Republican district in Texas or in Indiana might save President Trump from becoming as much of a lame duck as he otherwise would in 2026.' Indiana's First District, held by Democrat U.S. Rep. Frank Mrvan, D-Highland, would be the most under threat for redistricting because it's become more Republican over time — though still Democratically held, Hershey said. The First Congressional District remains Indiana's most competitive seat. In 2022, Mrvan won nearly 53% of the vote against Republican Jennifer-Ruth Green. In 2024, Mrvan saw a small increase in the number of votes to just over 53% when he won against Republican Randy Niemeyer. The problem for Republicans with redistricting the First District, Hershey said, would be Democrats from the First District would be moved into other districts, which could make the other districts more competitive for Democratic candidates. 'Sometimes the majority party in a state gets a little too greedy and thinks, 'we might have a shot at this one additional seat,' and then they end up losing the seat next door and not winning the seat that they had hoped to gain,' Hershey said. Aaron Dusso, an associate professor of political science at Indiana University Indianapolis, said he hasn't seen an appetite from Indiana Republicans to redistrict because of the risk that it will make safe Republican congressional districts more competitive. State Rep. Ed Soliday, R-Valparaiso, said party leadership has reached out to him to gauge his thoughts on redistricting Indiana. Soliday said he told the leadership 'show me the facts, tell me the unintended consequences, then I'll tell you how I'll vote.' 'I haven't seen anyone show me about how this would work,' Soliday said. 'I have a lot of questions before I jump on board with this.' Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, said he's discussed redistricting with his colleagues but he's still thinking about his position on redistricting. 'I'm not committing one way or the other,' Niemeyer said. 'We're looking at it and have not made a decision yet. That's where I'm at.' State Rep. Mike Aylesworth, R-Hebron, said the state legislature 'did a good job' redistricting in 2021, but he's waiting to see what the leadership decides about a special session for redistricting. 'I don't think it's necessary, but we'll wait and see what the caucus says,' Aylesworth said. 'I'm hesitant to change things, but we'll see what leadership says.' State Sen. Dan Dernulc, R-Highland, said he's spoken with leadership about redistricting, but that he needs more facts and the 'why' of redistricting. 'I don't see a need for it. I don't want to say yes or no, we're a work in progress on it,' Dernulc said. Indiana Democratic redistricting maneuvers In the Indiana House and Senate, two-thirds of members — or 67 House members and 34 senators – have to be present to call a quorum, according to each chamber's rules. In the House, Republicans hold 70 seats to Democrats 30. In the Senate, Republicans hold 40 seats to the Democrats' 10 seats. Indiana Republicans have enough members to call a quorum. Indiana Democrats 'wouldn't have a lot of options,' Dusso said, other than short-term delay tactics, like requiring readings of the whole redistricting bill or talking for long periods of time on the floor. Democrats can talk about the issue publicly to try to rally support from voters to put pressure on Republicans to not hold a special session on redistricting. 'It doesn't really stop anything from happening, it just slows it down,' Dusso said. The best move, Dusso said, would be for Democrats and lobbyists to talk with Braun now to persuade him not to call a special session. 'I think that's where they can win. Once it's called, I don't think they have a chance,' Dusso said. 'If you can get Braun to relent, I think that's where they're going to have their success.' If redistricting were to occur in Indiana, Hershey said it's likely that lawsuits would be filed. 'I'm sure that the Democrats will fight as hard as they can because there's a point at which the party that's trying to take this unfair advantage just starts to look bad,' Hershey said. 'It's a game of chicken, and we'll have to see who it is who veers away first.' State Sen. Rodney Pol Jr., D-Chesteron, said it's 'problematic' that President Trump has been pressuring Republican states to redistrict in the middle of a census. Trump's decision to do so shows he's scared to face the voters given the policies he's passed. 'He's afraid of his own base,' Pol said. 'It's not how our democracy works.' Given Indiana's Republican supermajority, Pol said Indiana Democrats couldn't leave the state to delay the vote. If a special session were called, Pol said the Democrats would attend and voice their opposition from the House and Senate floors. 'The only thing that we have is our voice,' Pol said. 'We're going to have to show up.'
