Don Bacon, House Republican Who Often Criticized Trump, Won't Seek Re-election
Representative Don Bacon, the five-term Nebraska Republican who represents a centrist district in a deeply red state, will not seek re-election, according to a person familiar with his plans, handing Democrats a prime opportunity to pick up a seat in the closely divided House.
Mr. Bacon's official announcement is expected on Monday, and his departure is not unexpected. His willingness to publicly disagree with President Trump has made him an anomaly in the tribal House Republican Conference, where members tend to fall in line behind the president's agenda and rarely criticize him in the open. Democrats and Republicans alike had suspected that Mr. Bacon was heading for the exits.
But the upcoming announcement, which was reported earlier by Punchbowl News, marked a major break for Democrats hoping to win control of the House next year, and with it a foothold for pushing back against Mr. Trump. Republicans control the House with a slim three-vote majority.
The political terrain in Mr. Bacon's district has been trending to the left, making a re-election more difficult even for a Republican who managed to win a district that both former President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and former Vice President Kamala Harris won by more than four points. Democrats are hoping it will be impossible for a Republican newcomer without Mr. Bacon's reputation and unique electoral strength in his district.
In May, a Democrat unseated a three-term Republican in the Omaha mayor's race. The morning after that race was called, Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, told the House Democratic Caucus that it was officially on 'Don Bacon retirement watch,' a statement that was greeted with cheers.
A mild-mannered Midwesterner with friends and defenders on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Bacon is an old-school conservative who despite his criticisms of Mr. Trump generally votes with his party. But he has become more disillusioned with his life in Congress over the past few years.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
33 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Biden to attend funeral for former Minnesota House Speaker Hortman, who was killed in shooting
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris will join the mourners Saturday at the funeral for former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman, who was killed in a pair of attacks that authorities have called an assassination and that also left her husband dead and a state senator and his wife seriously wounded. Biden also paid his respects Friday as Hortman, her husband, Mark, and their golden retriever, Gilbert, lay in state in the Minnesota Capitol rotunda in St. Paul, a few hours after the man charged with killing them while disguised as a police officer June 14 made a brief court appearance in a suicide prevention suit. The service The couple's private funeral, at the Basilica of Saint Mary in Minneapolis, is set for 10:30 a.m. Saturday. It will be livestreamed on the Department of Public Safety's YouTube channel . Neither Biden nor Harris is expected to speak. Harris expressed her condolences earlier this week to Hortman's adult children, and spoke with Gov. Tim Walz , her running mate on the 2024 Democratic presidential ticket, who extended an invitation on behalf of the Hortman family, her office said. The scene at the Capitol Hortman, a Democrat , was the first woman and one of fewer than 20 Minnesotans to lay in state at the Capitol . It was the first time a couple has been accorded the honor, and the first for a dog. Gilbert was seriously wounded in the attack and had to be euthanized. The Hortmans' caskets and the dog's urn were arranged in the center of the rotunda, under the Capitol dome, with law enforcement officers keeping watch as thousands of people filed by. Many fought back tears as they left. Among the first to pay their respects were Walz, who has called Hortman his closest political ally , and his wife, Gwen. Biden, a Catholic, visited later in the afternoon, walking up to the velvet rope in front of the caskets, making the sign of the cross and spending a few moments by himself in silence. He then took a knee briefly, got up, made the sign of the cross again and walked off to greet people waiting in the wings of the rotunda. Lisa Greene, who lives in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park like Hortman did, but in a different House district, said she came to the Capitol because she had so much respect for the former speaker. 'She was just amazing. Amazing woman. And I was just so proud that she represented the city that I lived in,' Greene said in a voice choked with emotion. 'She was such a leader. She could bring people together. She was so accessible. I mean, she was friendly, you could talk to her.' But, she went on to say admiringly, Hortman was also 'a boss.' 'She just knew what she was doing and she could just make things happen,' she said. A hearing takes a twist The man accused of killing the Hortmans at their home and wounding Democratic state Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, at their home in nearby Champlin, made a short court appearance Friday for what the acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Joseph Thompson, has called 'a political assassination.' Vance Boelter, 57, of Green Isle, surrendered near his home the night of June 15 after what authorities called the largest search in Minnesota history . An unshaven Boelter was brought in wearing just a green padded suicide prevention suit and orange slippers. Federal defender Manny Atwal asked Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko to continue the hearing until Thursday. He agreed. She said Boelter has been sleep deprived while on suicide watch in the Sherburne County Jail, and that it has been difficult to communicate with him as a result. 'Your honor, I haven't really slept in about 12 to 14 days,' Boelter told the judge. And he denied being suicidal. 'I've never been suicidal and I am not suicidal now.' Atwal told the court that Boelter had been in what's known as a 'Gumby suit,' without undergarments, ever since his transfer to the jail after his first court appearance on June 16. She said the lights are on in his area 24 hours a day, doors slam frequently, the inmate in the next cell spreads feces on the walls and the smell drifts to Boelter's cell. The attorney said transferring him to segregation instead, and giving him a normal jail uniform, would let him get some sleep, restore some dignity and let him communicate better. The case continues Boelter did not enter a plea. Prosecutors need to secure a grand jury indictment first. According to the federal complaint, police video shows Boelter outside the Hortmans' home and captures the sound of gunfire. And it says security video shows Boelter approaching the front doors of two other lawmakers' homes. His lawyers have declined to comment on the charges, which could carry the federal death penalty. Thompson said last week that no decision has been made. Minnesota abolished its death penalty in 1911. Boelter also faces separate murder and attempted murder charges in state court that could carry life without parole. Friends have described Boelter as an evangelical Christian with politically conservative views . But prosecutors have declined so far to speculate on a motive. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
an hour ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___
an hour ago
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. Susman Godfrey suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' In a statement, the firm called the ruling 'a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.' 'We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day,' the statement said. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
