Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig rules out gubernatorial bid, seeks reelection in 2026
Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig announced Tuesday he will not pursue a gubernatorial election and will instead seek another term as agriculture secretary.
Naig was one of the many Republicans considered a potential candidate in the race to succeed Gov. Kim Reynolds after she announced she would not seek reelection in 2026. Naig had said in April he and his family were 'thoughtfully discussing that possibility.' But on Tuesday he said he had decided not to run, adding that there was 'still work to be done growing our state and economy as secretary of agriculture.'
Naig has held his current position since being appointed in March 2018 after serving as deputy agriculture secretary under Bill Northey, who was appointed undersecretary for farm production and conservation in the U.S. Department of Agriculture during President Donald Trump's first term in office. Naig won reelection in the 2018 and again in 2022 against Democratic challenger John Norwood.
He said he plans to officially launch his 2026 campaign for agriculture secretary at a later date.
'I'm incredibly grateful for the opportunity to serve the people of Iowa as we work to advance an Iowa First agenda that puts farmers, families, and freedom at the center of our future,' Naig said in a statement. 'We have made tremendous progress over the past few years, but there remains important work ahead and we're not done yet — building markets for Iowa products, defending our livestock industry, accelerating soil and water conservation efforts, and making sure rural Iowa thrives for future generations.'
Naig said he will continue to 'fight for the hard-working men and women who feed and fuel the world and keep Iowa as the greatest agricultural state in the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vox
9 minutes ago
- Vox
Why crime is still Trump's best issue
is a senior politics correspondent at Vox, covering the White House, elections, and political scandals and investigations. He's worked at Vox since the site's launch in 2014, and before that, he worked as a research assistant at the New Yorker's Washington, DC, bureau. President Donald Trump shows crime statistics as he delivers remarks during a press conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House August 11, 2025, in Washington, Trump's federal takeover of Washington, DC's police force — which looks like something between an authoritarian power grab and an empty stunt — doesn't look like a political winner at first glance. A poll from YouGov last week showed little support for Trump's move; 34 percent of respondents approved of the idea, and 47 percent disapproved. Yet the pushback from Democrats — which often focused on pointing out that DC crime was trending downward, or arguing it wasn't such a serious problem — shows why the larger crime issue remains perilous for them, and advantageous for Trump. Though Trump is unpopular, crime remains one of his strongest issues, and one of the Democratic Party's worst. That sticks in Democrats' craw. Trump's recitation of DC crime statistics was filled with blatant misrepresentations. Furthermore, Trump himself was indicted four times, and he notably pardoned even the violent rioters of January 6, 2025. How could they be losing the law and order issue to this guy? Yet the polling says very clearly that they are. Polls consistently show the public prefers Republicans to Democrats on crime In May, separate polls from both CNN and YouGov asked respondents about which party they trusted more on over a dozen different issues, and both found that crime was the Democrats' worst of all. (The GOP had a 13-point advantage in one poll, and a 12-point advantage in the other.) It hasn't always been this way. Even as recently as 2021, the two parties were about evenly matched in polling from Langer Research. But in 2022, the GOP's advantage on crime surged to its highest in decades of the firm's polling — and it hasn't gone away since. That's for a pretty straightforward reason: A large majority of the public became convinced, due to very real rising crime rates, that crime in cities had become a very serious problem and that tougher policies are necessary — but Democrats often don't seem like they feel the same way. The crime rates have since declined, but voter concerns haven't gone away. In last week's YouGov poll, a large majority — 67 percent — believed crime was a major problem in US cities, and only 23 percent thought it was a minor problem. And back in April 2024, the Pew Research Center asked registered voters whether they believed the US criminal justice system was generally too tough on criminals, or not tough enough. It wasn't even close. A mere 13 percent chose 'too tough,' while 61 percent said 'not tough enough.' Notably, even a plurality of Biden supporters (40 percent of them) believed the system was 'not tough enough,' while just 21 percent of them thought it was too tough. Among the public, the belief that the criminal justice system is overly harsh on criminals is a fringe view. But among progressive activists, it's a core belief. Democrats have a crime problem For the past decade, the intellectual and organizing energy among progressive criminal justice activists has been around preventing police violence and making sentencing of criminals more lenient. In these circles, distrust of police and law enforcement and disdain for mass incarceration were widespread, and concern about crime in cities became viewed as racially coded. Responding to these pressures, Democratic politicians struck an increasingly awkward balance on crime issues. They've tried to disavow 'defund the police,' and big city mayors who have crime-concerned constituents have tried to get tough. But it hasn't been enough to change the party's brand. Why not? Another YouGov poll — taken in September 2024 — asked respondents about several of then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris's criminal justice policy proposals and Trump's. Harris's specific proposals were generally more popular. But on the question of who would do a better job handling crime? Trump had an 8-point advantage. That's because voters don't make up their minds by tallying a policy laundry list. They look for signals about 'whose side are you on?' And Trump has signaled in many ways that he's on the 'tough on crime' side. Democrats' signals have been more mixed. So when Democrats are tempted to say anyone worried about DC's crime level is ignorant, a scaredy-cat, or a demagogue, they should be aware they're going out on a limb. While voters may think Trump is going too far or mishandling certain cases, the broader crime issue remains favorable to him. It will take some serious work for Democrats to change that perception. Crime remains one of the party's most glaring political weaknesses.
Chicago Tribune
9 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Chicago Bears face a long drive to get passage of stadium legislation in the fall
SPRINGFIELD — The Chicago Bears' playbook for constructing a new domed stadium and football entertainment complex in Arlington Heights calls for state lawmakers to act in October to approve property tax break legislation that would allow them to break ground this year. But it is the Bears' pocketbook that may be more important in getting legislators' votes, particularly those from Chicago, to ease the way for one of the NFL's founding franchises to leave the city it has called home for 104 years, since George Halas moved the Staleys from Decatur. Already, there is $525 million in outstanding public debt from the controversial 2003 Soldier Field renovation, a tab currently covered by city hotel taxes and, when that falls short, by Chicago's share of state income taxes. The Bears' lease at Soldier Field expires in 2033, but it can be broken early with a penalty, and the team says it will take three years to build its new stadium. But even if the Bears were forced to pay off the outstanding debt, that alone is unlikely to be enough to satisfy city lawmakers who are key in providing the necessary votes to advance any legislation to help the team. Instead, the Bears' hole may have grown deeper, with legislators from the city potentially seeking additional funding from the team, ranging from help to maintain the Soldier Field lakefront campus to programming funds for the city's public schools to even assistance related to funding for a public transit system that's facing a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars. And if votes of downstate lawmakers, largely Republicans, are needed in the Democratic-led legislature, they are likely to make their own demands that the team help fund some of their local initiatives. Bears President Kevin Warren set the stage for negotiations when he said virtually a week ago that 'the goal would still be to be in a position to move dirt this year' on the new stadium complex at the former Arlington International Racetrack and have its formal groundbreaking next year. 'These things take time,' Bears owner George McCaskey told reporters on Aug. 8. 'It's on us to convince the governor and the state legislators that this is a good idea for the people of Illinois and we need to do a better job at that.' But the fall veto session, which runs Oct. 14 to 30, leaves little time to build consensus in Springfield. And the Bears have so far had few discussions with state lawmakers to lay the groundwork for getting the legislation they need passed during that two-week sprint. Other avenues appear closed to the team. Foremost, any direct state subsidy for a new stadium is off the table. Gov. JB Pritzker and top legislative leaders repeatedly declared as much, leading the Bears to scuttle a proposed costly renovation plan for Soldier Field and put the 326-acre Arlington Heights property it purchased for $197.2 million in February 2023 as the team's primary focus. The Bears would likely get direct state infrastructure assistance, such as road and water improvements, as has been done with the United Center as well as any large private business development, 'but we're not going to go take taxpayer dollars and prop up a billionaire-owned sports team when we just saw they were able to sell a piece of their business' in which the team was valued at $8.8 billion, Pritzker said Wednesday. That puts the Bears' focus on so-called megaproject legislation that would freeze property taxes on the Arlington Heights land and allow the team to negotiate with local government and schools to pay a fee in lieu of real estate taxes. That is the bill the Bears want approved and it would apply to other large-scale private developments. 'It is very, very important that it passes because without that legislation, we are not able to proceed forward,' Warren said. 'We stand ready. The stadium is designed.' 'So, if that bill passes in October there are items we have to work on and, obviously, there is a process you have to follow with the village of Arlington Heights from an approval process,' Warren said. 'But obviously they are committed.' A sampling of lawmakers at last week's political days at the Illinois State Fair made clear one thing: The existing Soldier Field debt must be repaid for those lawmakers to give the Bears any consideration. State Rep. Angelica Guerrero-Cuellar, a Southwest Side Democrat, said her constituents want 'no debt left to the city.' 'If that's settled, then we can have the conversations about what do we want to do to the Bears, right? Do we put some maintenance in Soldier Field?' she asked. Chicago Democratic state Rep. Kam Buckner said he wants a conversation with McCaskey because 'the Bears have been very squirrelly about where they are, what they're doing, what they intend.' 'What I would hope that they would be leaning towards is looking at some of Chicago's problems, right? We're trying to work on transit right now. We'll be talking about public schools very soon. How can they be helpful in those conversations?' Buckner asked. 'I think the Bears have not been as present as a neighbor as they should be for the people of Chicago,' Buckner said. 'There's no quid pro quo here. It's not 'Pay this and you get a chance to leave.' But like, what's a smart, logical, robust kind of answer where everybody is in this conversation?' Democratic state Rep. Will Davis of south suburban Homewood said the Bears should also show some consideration to lawmakers outside the city. 'It'd be nice if the Bears treated everybody with respect and said, 'Hey, suburban people, what do you think about what we're trying to do?'' Davis said. He said a suburban mayor had encouraged the team to look at some land in southern Cook County, but the team never responded. 'There seems to be a little arrogance there that I wish they would just tone down,' he said. Though Democrats hold supermajorities in both the House and Senate and no legislation for the Bears could advance without them, Republicans in the minority say they haven't heard anything from the team in about a year in seeking support. 'This has not been top of the list at all,' said state Sen. John Curran of Downers Grove, who leads the GOP minority in the chamber. 'We're engaged with our Democratic colleagues on a lot of issues. This has not been one (of them).' The lack of effective clock management was one of the downfalls of the Bears' last coach, Matt Eberflus. But it is an important part of the legislative process — though the Bears have appeared mostly unengaged in Springfield. 'I haven't talked to a single member about the Bears,' House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside said about the stadium issue. 'People are so focused on talking to their neighbors and getting (candidacy) petitions signed, and what they're hearing at the doors is property taxes, grocery prices, gas prices — they're talking about things around the kitchen table,' he said. 'You know what they're not talking about? The Chicago Bears.'
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
Republican civil war erupts over earmarks in funding bills
The return of earmarks to the annual appropriations bills has sparked a battle among Republicans on Capitol Hill, pitting fiscal hawks against members of the Appropriations Committees and their allies. It's a serious battle and one that could scuttle the chances of passing appropriations bills ahead of the Sept. 30 government funding deadline. Republican responsibility for the huge federal deficit has become a hot political issue after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade, into law. Conservatives are deeply disappointed that Trump's bill did not make deeper cuts to federal spending, and they want to make a statement with significant reductions in the annual appropriations bills for fiscal 2026. Adding to the frustrations of fiscal hawks, those bills are already loaded with earmarks directing the Trump administration how to spend funds. Conservatives view the return of earmarks as a return to the days of pork-barrel spending and a bad look for Republicans when the party is taking fire from Democrats for exploding future deficits. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a leading conservative, argued that earmarks are still prohibited by Senate Republican conference rules, even though some members of the conference choose not to follow them. 'It's still prohibited by conference policy, and I think we need to stick to that,' Lee told The Hill. Lee said the proliferation of earmarks in the spending bills are 'incompatible with our approach as Republicans, and it's also incompatible with having $37 trillion in debt.' Some conservatives are pushing for Congress to pass a yearlong stop-gap spending measure that would freeze federal funding levels as a strategy to keep spending in check and the next wave of earmarks in limbo. Senate Republicans voted for a 'permanent ban' on earmarks in May 2019, when the proposal passed by a 28-12 vote after a heated debate behind closed doors. But earmarks have since made a big comeback. The House, then controlled by Democrats, voted in March 2021 to reverse an internal ban on earmarks. Senate Republicans, who were in the minority at the time, decided in April 2021 to stick with their conference pro forma ban on earmarks but left open a big loophole by allowing individual GOP senators to request money for home-state projects. That decision still rankles some Republicans years later. They believe they're in a position to change the rising tide of earmarks now that their party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) called the earmarks buried in the spending bills 'offensive.' 'It is offensive that I don't know what they are yet,' he said of earmarks. 'I'm asking my staff and we don't have the specifics on this. 'That's the problem. This stuff is all secret until you're ready to vote on it,' he added. Johnson has a proposal that would automatically rescind earmarks if lawmakers 'brag' about the millions of dollars in federal funding they're steering to projects back home in any kind of political context. Under his proposal, 'the only time members can talk about the earmarks, their congressionally directed spending, is as part of official Senate business — a hearing, a subcommittee hearing and on the floor,' he said. 'They can't then go out and brag about it in the media … if they do that, if they issue a press release, if they put it in a campaign ad, that spending gets automatically rescinded,' Johnson explained. Twenty-one Republican senators voted for Johnson's amendment when he offered it to the appropriations bill funding military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs, a bill that was expanded to fund the Department of Agriculture and the legislative branch. Senate Finance Committee Chair Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lee were among the Republicans who voted for Johnson's proposal. The conservatives' backlash against earmarks in the package came after Punchbowl News reported that Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) loaded more than $810 million in earmarks and directed spending for Maine in the fiscal 2026 spending bills crafted by her committee. Collins, who faces a tough reelection battle next year, argues she has a better sense of her state's funding needs than unelected bureaucrats in Washington who otherwise would get to decide how to dole out federal funds without congressional guidance. Other Republicans are working hard behind the scenes to steer more money to their home states. More Republican senators have requested congressionally directed spending, aka earmarks, for the fiscal 2026 spending bills compared to last year. And earmarks have exploded in the Republican-controlled House. One Republican source familiar with the details of the spending bills noted House Republicans are also requesting more earmarks than they did last year and pointed out that Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Md.), an outspoken House conservative, has requested more than $55 million for his district. An analysis by Roll Call found House Republicans have packed the appropriations bills for next year with nearly $8 billion in earmarks. Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) — the chair of the Senate Steering Committee who voted for Johnson's proposal to rescind earmarks if senators use them to score political points — said conservatives will make additional efforts to pull earmarks out of the spending bills and find other ways to reduce federal spending. 'Hopefully we have time to review the bills [and] not get rushed into votes on these things,' he said. 'We've got to understand we have a $2 trillion [annual] deficit, so we've got to get spending under control. That's what I'm going to try to do, and there are a lot of people in the same camp that I am.' Scott indicated he sees the battle against earmarks as part of a broader effort to curb federal spending after conservatives failed to include bigger spending reforms in Trump's megabill. 'People are doing everything they can to try to get spending under control,' he said. Lee, Johnson and Scott pushed an amendment to Trump's bill in June to reduce Medicaid spending by another $313 billion by preventing new enrollees in Medicaid expansion states from receiving the 9-to-1 enhanced Federal Medical Assistance Percentage if they are not disabled or don't have dependent children. They delayed a key procedural vote to advance the bill in hopes of gaining Republican support for the proposal, but despite assurances of help from Senate GOP leaders and Vice President Vance, the amendment didn't receive a vote.
