18 months out, these are the 10 most vulnerable House members of 2026
WASHINGTON - In the world of finance, the adage "past performance is not indicative of future results" serves as a warning for investors. But in politics, past performance can provide a handy measure to assess the vulnerability of members of Congress, especially early in an election cycle.
And 18 months from the 2026 midterms, the first half of our list of the 10 most vulnerable House incumbents is dominated by battleground district members who each won their seats last fall by a percentage point or less. Freshmen are also heavily represented in the Top Five.
The incumbents who occupy the second half of our list are more seasoned and had slightly more comfortable margins of victory last year – with the exception of Rep. Jared Golden. The Maine Democrat secured a fourth term by less than a point in a district that President Donald Trump carried by 9 points. But Golden, along with Nebraska Republican Don Bacon, New York Republican Mike Lawler and Washington Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez, have repeatedly won reelection through the strength of their unique brands, which has helped them overcome the unfriendly political headwinds in their districts.
In addition to examining past performance to identify the at-risk incumbents, CQ Roll Call's campaign team relied on interviews with party insiders, district dynamics, candidates' campaign finances, race ratings by Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales and district-level presidential performance, as calculated by elections analyst Drew Savicki. We only look at incumbents and not at open seats, which could also flip and affect party control.
Our list will surely change over the next year and a half. At this early stage, though, races in several key districts have yet to be set, and several vulnerable members don't have opponents.
Other factors will also come into play. Our list does not include members from Ohio, where a new map, expected later this cycle, could endanger Democratic Reps. Marcy Kaptur and Emilia Sykes, potentially providing the GOP with a pair of prime pick-up opportunities.
And demographic shifts could also shape the list. Republicans are hopeful that their path to holding the majority will run through two predominantly Latino border districts in South Texas that have grown more GOP-friendly in recent elections. Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez have managed to navigate the political currents before, but 2026 will test them yet again. Cuellar faces an additional challenge: He was indicted last year over two schemes involving unlawful foreign influence, bribery and money laundering. He has maintained his innocence and is awaiting a criminal trial.
Historically, the party that controls the White House loses seats in the first midterm election after the president's victory, though that statistic comes with an asterisk this time as it's technically Trump's second term. But Democrats express optimism that Trump's economic policies and what they say is his administration's chaotic approach to cost-cutting could hurt House Republicans' chances of maintaining their majority.
Our inaugural 2026 list includes five Republicans and five Democrats, reflecting what is expected to be a close battle for control of the House.
Gray, a freshman and former state legislator, unseated Republican Rep. John Duarte by less than 200 votes in 2024. It was the closest House race in the nation, but voters in the working-class Latino-majority district in the San Joaquin Valley are used to close contests: Gray lost to Duarte by fewer than 600 votes in 2022. A member of the Blue Dog Coalition, Gray was the only Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee to vote for the panel's portion of the GOP budget reconciliation bill. He's already drawn a challenge from Republican Javier Lopez, the mayor of Ceres who has Duarte's support. Gray raised about $400,000 in the first quarter of 2025. Lopez launched his campaign after the filing deadline.
A former police officer, Evans is a top target of Democrats seeking to flip the state's most competitive district. But before doing battle with the Republican freshman, Democrats face a potentially testy primary to determine their nominee. Former Rep. Yadira Caraveo, who has spoken of her mental health struggles while serving in Congress, and state Rep. Manny Rutinel have declared bids, and the field could grow more crowded. Rutinel reported raising $1.2 million in the first quarter, while Evans brought in about $811,000. (Caraveo entered the race after the filing deadline.) The district, located in a fast-growing region north of Denver, has a large Latino population, and all three candidates have highlighted their Hispanic heritage.
After flipping a seat last fall to help Republicans win the majority, Mackenzie will have to turn out swing voters in the Lehigh Valley-area district to win a second term. Like others on this list, the district has a large Hispanic population, and their support could be critical in this race. A Democratic primary is taking shape between Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure and former utility company executive Carol Obando-Derstine, a onetime aide to former Sen. Bob Casey who has the backing of former Rep. Susan Wild. Mackenzie raised $673,000 during the first quarter, while McClure, who entered the race in February, brought in $142,000. Obando-Derstine declared her bid after the filing deadline.
Miller-Meeks has survived two close elections, including a six-vote win in 2020. Last year, she defeated Democrat Christina Bohannan by 798 votes. Bohannan has signaled she may run a third time against Miller-Meeks, who herself came up short in three House runs before winning in 2020. Trump significantly overperformed the congresswoman in the southeast Iowa district last year, underscoring Miller-Meeks' potential weakness with the Republican base. She once again faces a challenge from her right from David Pautsch, a Gold Star father who took 44% of the vote in their 2024 primary. Miller-Meeks reported raising more than $1 million in the first quarter.
Attorney and Army veteran Derek Tran became the first Vietnamese American to represent Orange County's Little Saigon after defeating Republican Rep. Michelle Steel by just over 650 votes in 2024. The Democratic freshman does not have a high-profile GOP opponent as yet, though Steel has signaled that she is considering a run. The district, which has an Asian American plurality, is located in one of the nation's most expensive media markets. Tran raised $460,000 through the end of March, entering the second quarter with $567,000 banked. Steel had $943,000 in her coffers as of March 31.
The 2026 election will test whether Gluesenkamp Pérez can prevail over an opponent who isn't Joe Kent, the Trump-backed Republican she beat in 2022 and 2024. Trump has tapped Kent as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, leaving him unlikely to make a third bid for the southwest Washington district. Gluesenkamp Pérez has emphasized her working-class connections and has sided with the GOP on some issues, including a measure that would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections. That's made her a target of some progressives, but at this point, she does not have a Democratic (or Republican) challenger in the all-party primary. Gluesenkamp Pérez reported raising $608,000 in the first quarter of the year.
One of three Republicans representing seats carried by Kamala Harris in last year's presidential election, Lawler can once again expect another tough race. But his moderate brand has found appeal with voters in his Hudson Valley district. He's likely to face a new opponent next year after running against former Rep. Mondaire Jones in 2024. So far, five Democrats have already announced campaigns against him. He reported raising $1.5 million in the first quarter and entered April with $1.3 million in the bank. Lawler has been considering a gubernatorial run, although Trump endorsed him for reelection this week.
First elected in 2016, Bacon has consistently defied the political underpinnings of his Omaha-centered district. Democrats are hopeful Bacon's fortunes will turn in 2026. Former state Sen. Tony Vargas isn't planning a third run for the seat, but business owner Denise Powell and ophthalmologist Mark Johnston have launched campaigns for the Democratic nomination and state Sen. John Cavanaugh told the Nebraska Examiner he is considering a bid. Bacon, who has been critical of Trump's tariff policies and suggested the president should fire Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, said he's thinking about retiring, though he raised $910,000 during the first quarter.
Golden's propensity to buck his own party has helped him continue to get elected in a rural district where Trump increased his support from 2020 to 2024. Still, the nature of the district, which encompasses much of Maine outside the Portland and Augusta areas, makes Golden a top target, and he'll have to keep counting on drawing crossover support from Trump voters. Former Republican Gov. Paul LePage, who left office as Golden began his House tenure in 2019, announced a campaign this week. Golden is also considered a potential candidate for higher office next year, with an open race for governor and a Senate seat on the ballot in 2026.
Davis held on to his seat last year despite the district swinging in Trump's favor and the congressman's own winning margin narrowing from two years earlier. The Air Force veteran and former state senator did face a stronger GOP opponent in 2024, although Democrats sought to tie her to her party's flawed gubernatorial nominee. Davis was the only Democrat to vote "present" this year on a bill that would restrict transgender students from competing on women's sports teams. Rocky Mount Mayor Sandy Roberson entered the race last month, his second bid for the seat after placing second in the 2022 GOP primary, and more Republicans could follow. Davis raised $328,000 during the first quarter and ended March with $528,000 on hand.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation
A journalist covering the protests in Los Angeles was blasted by a rubber bullet during her report, prompting allegations that she was purposely targeted by an LAPD officer. (Watch the video below.) As demonstrations against the Trump administration's ICE raids and deployment of the National Guard intensified, 9 News Australia reporter Lauren Tomasi said, 'This situation has now rapidly deteriorated. The LAPD moving in on horseback firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of L.A.' She is then hit by an apparent rubber bullet in the leg, screaming 'whaa!' as he jumps in pain. Video showed an officer taking aim in her direction, and Australian politicians alleged the attack was deliberate. 'The first thing he [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese] must tell [President Donald Trump] is to stop shooting at our journalists,' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, per the Guardian. 'Freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of a strong, functioning democracy.' Senator Matt Canavan told the outlet 'it looks like there was a targeting there' but didn't want to jump to conclusions. U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 Reporting that Tomasi was indeed struck by a rubber bullet, News 9 said in a statement to the Daily Beast: 'Lauren and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information.' The LAPD told the Daily Beast it was not aware of the incident. The BBC reported that British photographer Nick Stern sustained a leg wound from a rubber bullet amid the protests. He required emergency surgery to remove the projectile. Protests Intensify In Los Angeles After Trump Deploys Hundreds Of National Guard Troops Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests National Guard Troops Ordered To Los Angeles By Trump Find Quiet Streets And Few Protests
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: A timely courtroom rebuke for dirty campaigning
Unflattering attacks are common in politics — but a court just ruled that one campaign went too far. Cook County Commissioner Toni Preckwinkle's 4th Ward Democratic Organization and Lamont Robinson's aldermanic campaign have been ordered to pay $1.475 million in punitive damages over a series of attack ads sent during Robinson's 2023 race against Ebony Lucas for the City Council. (In a statement, the 4th Ward Democratic Organization and the Lamont Robinson for Alderman Corp called the verdict an 'unprecedented misapplication of the law' and said they are confident it will be reversed on appeal.) Among other smears, the mailers labeled Lucas a 'bad landlord' who 'can't manage her own business' — a collection of accusations a jury deemed defamatory. The mailers also claimed Lucas 'doesn't care about doing the right thing,' a particularly broad and insulting claim. Preckwinkle previously defended the mailers, saying, 'They were carefully footnoted, so lots of luck to her.' In campaign mailers, the bold print does the damage — not the fine print. Any political operative knows that. Voters see the headlines, not the citations. We empathize with Lucas and all candidates who face baseless, harmful personal attacks as a consequence of running for office. As Lucas told the Tribune, she is a wife and mom of three. Her kids saw these mailers. Their friends and neighbors and teachers saw these mailers. Perhaps this can be a turning point, because our political culture certainly needs one. Political ads that spread hateful, demeaning rhetoric attack people's humanity and do nothing but fuel people's worst impulses when it comes to how they view anyone with whom they disagree. You can have a different point of view from someone on public policy and still treat them with respect. It's unfortunate we even need to point that out. Partisanship has become so toxic that people are cutting off family members, shunning neighbors, and labeling political opponents as either stupid or evil. We've seen that ugliness on the national level — and it's infecting local elections, too. We all felt it leading up to November 2024's presidential election. During that cycle, mailers for the Chicago school board races went negative, with candidates not backed by the Chicago Teachers Union hit with ads calling them 'right wing' and 'MAGA,' inaccurately tying many candidates to political beliefs and causes they in no way espouse. Board member Ellen Rosenfeld was one of the candidates who dealt with those ads. She's a Democrat and her husband is the 47th Ward Democratic committeeman. But this animosity and culture of distrust and disrespect lingered into 2025. We wrote about this phenomenon during endorsement season for local elections, as exemplified in a bitter mayoral race in Orland Park between two former neighbors. Because of the personal nature of local politics, it usually breeds a healthy dose of decorum and respect. Not so in this race, during which former Mayor Keith Pekau was attacked with ads calling him and his wife racist. 'Dirty politics makes bad policy,' Lucas wrote in a Facebook post after the ruling. 'When voters are inundated with false information about candidates, we lose out on electing the best and most qualified.' We agree. In addition to spreading falsehoods and increasing vitriol, hateful campaigning is one of the reasons people check out of politics altogether, a problem that weakens our political system. We hope the Lucas decision has a chilling effect on the kind of nasty, ad hominem attack ads that all too often end up in our mailboxes and on our TVs, finding their way into our kids' hands and ruining our enthusiasm for our representative democracy. Voters deserve campaigns that respect truth and dignity, not ones that poison the well of public trust. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
