Youngkin visits Iowa and S.C. as 2028 presidential race looms
Why it matters: President Trump, who's dominated GOP politics for a decade, can't legally run again, leaving the door open for ambitious Republicans to offer themselves to primary voters and donors as the future of the party.
State of play: Youngkin, who's term-limited in Virginia, is headed to Iowa to be the keynote speaker at the Republican Party of Iowa's annual Lincoln Dinner on Thursday.
Next month, he'll be in South Carolina headlining the Silver Elephant Gala, the state GOP's biggest fundraiser of the year.
Both events are in early primary states and considered must-stops for GOP presidential candidates to establish relationships with major donors.
Plus, during the past year, he's appeared at state party functions in California, New York and North Carolina.
Reality check: This isn't the first time presidential run rumors have swirled around Youngkin.
Speculation started almost immediately after he won his bid for Virginia governor in 2021, before he'd even been sworn in for his first-ever elective office.
Between the lines: Jumping into the 2028 conversation isn't just about seeking the White House.
It's also about raising a prospect's profile and injecting them into the mix for VP consideration or a possible Cabinet post in 2029, Isenstadt notes.
What they're saying: "Governor Youngkin is squarely focused on governing Virginia and helping our entire ticket win in November," Becca Glover, executive director of his Spirit of Virginia PAC, tells Axios.
By the numbers: Spirit of Virginia has raised nearly $2.5 million this year as of May, according to the latest data from VPAP.
That includes another $1 million donation from billionaire Republican megadonor Thomas Peterffy, whom Semafor called"the donor determined to make Glenn Youngkin president."
It's Peterffy's fourth million-dollar gift to Youngkin since 2023.
What we're watching: Preparations for the 2028 primary will accelerate next year, when aspirants hit the trail for midterm candidates with an eye toward establishing alliances and earning chits, GOP strategists tell Axios.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
What's known and not yet known about the Justice Department's scrutiny of Trump-Russia probe origins
Perhaps no issue continues to aggravate President Donald Trump more than the assessment by intelligence officials that Russia interfered in the 2016 election on his behalf and the investigation by law enforcement into whether his campaign colluded with Moscow to tip the outcome of the contest. Robert Mueller, the former FBI director tapped as special counsel by Trump's first Justice Department to investigate, found that Russia had waged a multi-prong operation in Trump's favor and that the Republican president's campaign welcomed the aid. But Mueller did not find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up As president for a second time, Trump has made no secret of his desire to use the Justice Department as a weapon of retribution against perceived political adversaries he sees as having smeared him, including by calling for Obama-era officials to be jailed. Advertisement And his administration, now more broadly and across multiple agencies, has been engaged in a effort to reopen the long-accepted conclusion — including among prominent Republicans — of Russian interference and to scrutinize the officials involved in reaching that assessment. A Bondi grand jury directive Bondi, a Trump loyalist, has directed Justice Department prosecutors to present evidence related to the Russia inquiry to a grand jury. Grand juries are tools used by prosecutors to issue subpoenas for records and prosecutors and to produce indictments based on the evidence they receive. Advertisement The bar is low for an indictment given that the presentation of evidence by prosecutors is one-sided, though grand juries do have the option to decline to indict and have done so in the past. A person familiar with the matter confirmed Bondi's directive to The Associated Press but key questions remain. It was not disclosed, for instance, which prosecutors are pursuing the investigation, where the grand jury that might hear evidence is located and whether and when law enforcement officials might seek to bring criminal charges. The Justice Department, in an unusual statement last month, appeared to confirm the existence of an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director James Brennan but provided no details or specifics. Potential targets of probe remain unclear It's not clear who might be targeted in the investigation, but the Trump administration has been aggressively challenging intelligence community conclusions about Russia's actions and intentions that had long ago seemed settled. It's been a welcome diversion for the administration as it confronts a wave of criticism from Trump's base and conservative influencers over the handling of records from the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation. In the last month, Trump administration officials and allies have released a series of documents aimed at casting doubt on the extent of interference and at portraying the original Russia investigation as an Obama administration frame-job. The documents have been hailed as incontrovertible proof of a conspiracy, but a close inspection of the records shows they fall well short of that. Among the documents released by Tulsi Gabbard, the administration's director of national intelligence, are emails from 2016 showing that Obama administration officials recognized in 2016 that Russians had not hacked state election systems to manipulate votes in favor of Trump. Advertisement But the absence of evidence that votes were switched — something the Obama administration never alleged — has no bearing on the ample evidence of other forms of Russia interference, including a hack-and-leak operation involving Democratic emails and a covert social media campaign aimed at sowing discord and spreading disinformation. Last week, Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a previously classified annex of a 2023 report by John Durham, the special counsel appointed by the first Trump administration to hunt for government misconduct in the Russia probe. The annex included a series of emails, including one from July 2016 that was purportedly sent by a senior staffer at a philanthropic organization founded by billionaire investor George Soros, that referred to a plan approved by then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to falsely link Trump to Russia. But Durham's own report took pain to note that investigators had not corroborated the communications as authentic and said the best assessment was that the message was 'a composites of several emails' the Russians had obtained from hacking — raising the likelihood that it was a product of Russian disinformation. Fresh scrutiny has also centered around the intelligence community assessment on Russian election interference, which was published in January 2017. An annex in a classified version of the assessment contained a summary of the so-called Steele dossier — a compilation of opposition research that included uncorroborated rumors and salacious gossip about Trump and Russia. Advertisement The latest in a series of investigations Just as Russian interference has been heavily scrutinized, so too has the U.S. government's response to it. Multiple government reports, including not only from Mueller but also a Republican-led Senate intelligence committee that included current Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have documented Russia's activities in sweeping details. To be sure, reports from the Justice Department inspector general and Durham also identified significant flaws in the FBI's Russia investigation, including errors and omissions in applications the Justice Department submitted to a secretive surveillance court to eavesdrop on a national security adviser to the 2016 Trump campaign. But Durham found no criminal wrongdoing among government officials, bringing three criminal cases — two against private citizens that resulted in acquittals at trial and a third against a little-known FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email. It is unclear if there is any criminal wrongdoing that exists that Durham, who launched his investigation in 2019 and concluded it four years later, somehow missed during his sprawling inquiry.
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump administration dismisses most on a federal board overseeing Puerto Rico's finances
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The Trump administration has dismissed five out of seven members on Puerto Rico's federal control board that oversees the U.S. territory's finances, sparking concern about the future of the island's fragile economy. The five fired are all Democrats. A White House official told the Associated Press on Tuesday that the board 'has been run inefficiently and ineffectively by its governing members for far too long and it's time to restore common sense leadership.' Those fired are board Chair Arthur Gonzalez, along with Cameron McKenzie, Betty Rosa, Juan Sabater and Luis Ubiñas. The board's two remaining members — Andrew G. Biggs and John E. Nixon — are Republicans. Sylvette Santiago, a spokesperson for the board, said they are in touch with the White House. The board was created in 2016 under the Obama administration, a year after Puerto Rico's government declared it was unable to pay its more than $70-billion public debt load and later filed for the biggest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history. In remarks to the AP, the White House official claimed the board had operated ineffectively and in secret and said it 'shelled out huge sums to law, consulting and lobbying firms.' The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the subject, also accused the board's staff of receiving 'exorbitant salaries.' Puerto Rico is struggling to restructure more than $9 billion in debt held by the state's Electric Power Authority, with officials holding bitter mediations with creditors demanding full payment. It's the only Puerto Rico government debt pending a restructuring, with the White House official accusing the board of preferring to 'extend the bankruptcy.' In February, the board's executive director, Robert Mujica Jr., said it was 'impossible' for Puerto Rico to pay the $8.5 billion that bondholders are demanding. He instead unveiled a new fiscal plan that proposed a $2.6-billion payment for creditors. The plan does not call for any rate increases for an island that has one of the highest power bills in any U.S. jurisdiction as chronic power outages persist, given the grid's weak infrastructure. Alvin Velázquez, a bankruptcy law professor at Indiana University, said he worries the dismissal of the board members could spark another crisis in Puerto Rico. 'This is really about getting a deal out of [the power company] that is not sustainable for the rate payers of Puerto Rico,' he said. Velázquez, who was chair of the unsecured creditors committee during the bankruptcy proceedings, also questioned whether the dismissals are legal, since board members can only be removed for just cause. 'What's the cause?' he said. 'What you're going to see is another instance in which the Trump administration is taking on and testing the courts.' The dismissals were first reported by the Breitbart News Network, a conservative news site. Coto writes for the Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Death row inmates challenge new Arkansas law allowing executions by nitrogen gas
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Several Arkansas death row inmates sued the state Tuesday to block a new law allowing executions by nitrogen gas, saying the measure gives prison officials unconstitutionally broad authority to decide how they should die. Ten inmates filed the lawsuit in state court challenging the law signed this year by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Supporters have promoted the law as a way to carry out executions for the first time in eight years. Arkansas has 23 people on death row. Arkansas hasn't executed an inmate since 2017, when the state put four men to death before a drug used in its lethal injection process expired. The state has been unable to purchase more lethal injection drugs since because of manufacturers' opposition to their use in executions, the attorney general's office has said. Attorneys for the inmates argue the law violates Arkansas' constitution by giving the Division of Correction authority to decide whether to use lethal injection or nitrogen gas for an execution. The law is also unclear on details surrounding the use of nitrogen gas, the suit says. 'This leaves only questions,' including how the gas would be obtained and how it would be administered, the lawsuit said. Attorney General Tim Griffin said in a statement that his office was aware of the lawsuit and was ready to 'vigorously defend' the new law. Under the nitrogen hypoxia execution method, an inmate is forced to breathe the gas and deprived of the oxygen needed to stay alive. Opponents say the method increases suffering, citing accounts from witnesses to Alabama executions who said inmates gasped and shook during executions. State officials say those are involuntary movements associated with oxygen deprivation. Arkansas is the fifth state to approve nitrogen gas executions. Alabama, the first state to use nitrogen gas, has carried out five executions using the method since it began last year. Louisiana staged its first in March, putting to death a man convicted of killing a woman in 1996. Two other states — Mississippi and Oklahoma — have laws allowing the method but have not used it so far. Alabama's law is being challenged in federal court. The Arkansas inmates also argue that the law cannot be applied retroactively to them, since they were sentenced to die by lethal injection. Attorneys for the inmates said the lack of details on how the state would carry out nitrogen executions raises the risk of a "gruesome and torturous execution." 'Arkansas juries explicitly sentenced our clients to execution by lethal injection – not gas – and the General Assembly cannot rewrite those verdicts to impose death by this very different and highly problematic method,' Heather Fraley, an attorney for the inmates, said in a statement.
