Kamala Harris announces she will not run for California governor in 2026
"Over the past six months, I have spent time reflecting on this moment in our nation's history and the best way for me to continue fighting for the American people and advancing the values and ideals I hold dear," Ms Harris said in a statement.
"I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their governor.
Ms Harris's decision extends a guessing game about her political future that started after she lost last year's presidential election to Donald Trump.
Ms Harris spent months privately considering whether to run for governor, stage another run for the White House or step away from electoral politics altogether after her bruising defeat by Mr Trump.
She has not ruled out another run for president, after unsuccessful bids in 2020 and 2024. It is not known when she will make that decision.
Ms Harris didn't mention Mr Trump directly in her statement, but said "our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis."
Ms Harris said at the moment, her style and public service "will not be in elected office".
"In the United States of America, power must lie with the people. And We, the People must use our power to fight for freedom, opportunity, fairness and the dignity of all," she said.
"I will remain in that fight."
Ms Harris would have entered the crowded contest to replace term-limited Governor Gavin Newsom as a front-runner given her widespread name recognition, fundraising prowess and track record of winning statewide elections.
Before serving as US senator and vice president, she was elected state attorney general and district attorney in San Francisco.
But after years in Washington on the national and international stage, it was never clear if Harris was interested in returning to the less-glamorous world of statehouse politics in Sacramento.
Democratic strategist Sean Clegg, a longtime Harris adviser, said the former vice president was tempted to make a gubernatorial run but decided to explore other options.
Among the possibilities she has considered: starting a nonprofit to engage younger voters.
"She's been in elective office for 22 straight years, she's been in public service since she got out of law school," Mr Clegg said.
"Having spent her entire life inside the system, she's more motivated, more excited by the opportunity to make change outside of the system."
"Her decision, at the end of the day, it was just a gut decision," Mr Clegg added.
Outside California, Ms Harris' political career has been marked by historic firsts but also disappointments.
Ms Harris sought the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, but dropped out of the race before the lead-off Iowa caucuses — the first defeat of her political career.
After Joe Biden chose her as his running mate, she made history as the first woman, Black person or person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president.
In 2024, Mr Harris became the Democratic presidential nominee after Biden left the race months before Election Day and endorsed her.
She lost that race to Mr Trump, who won every swing state.
Ms Harris faces some uncertainty if she chooses to make another White House run.
She would have to convince national Democrats that she's the face of the party's future, despite losing to Trump last fall.
She also carries the baggage of being tied to Mr Biden, whom Democrats have increasingly criticised for seeking a second term rather than stepping aside.
Mr Biden's legacy was tarnished as he left office, and since then new questions have swirled about his physical and mental abilities as his term ended.
The 2028 presidential contest is expected to attract a large field, which could potentially include Newsom.
Any candidate will have to unify a fractious Democratic Party with low approval ratings that is struggling to slow Trump's agenda in Washington.
In her most extensive public remarks since leaving office in January, Harris said in a San Francisco speech that Trump's leadership represented a " wholesale abandonment " of American ideals.
Ms Harris's decision not to seek the governorship keeps the contest to replace Newsom wide open.
The Democratic field includes former US Representative Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former Biden administration health secretary Xavier Becerra and a handful of state officeholders.
In a statement, Mr Villaraigosa speculated that Ms Harris's political career was not over.
Her decision, he said, "reflects her continued commitment to serving at the highest levels of government".
AP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
‘Pure evil': Epstein survivors and their families horrified as co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell suddenly framed as a ‘victim'
Multiple victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have expressed their disgust at suggestions she could receive 'preferential treatment' from the government, or perhaps even a presidential pardon. They are increasingly, palpably worried that Maxwell's monstrous crimes, particularly those committed against underage girls, are being forgotten. Maxwell, who has never admitted to her role in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, was the person chiefly responsible for procuring minors for him to abuse. She enticed them into his orbit, groomed them, and used various methods to keep them trapped. The victims have long alleged that Maxwell also participated in the sexual abuse. Last month, as the Trump administration struggled to neutralise a public backlash against its handling of the Epstein files, the man Donald Trump had appointed Deputy Attorney-General – his own former defence lawyer, Todd Blanche – went to visit Maxwell. Mr Blanche spoke to Epstein's partner and chief co-conspirator for two days. Lawyers representing Maxwell, who are currently trying to get the Supreme Court to throw out her convictions on child sex trafficking charges, later said she had discussed about a hundred people connected to the Epstein case. Obvious fears arose among Maxwell's victims. Did the government intend to seek a shortening of her 20-year prison sentence in exchange for her co-operation? Was President Trump open to pardoning her, which would set her free immediately? And how would the obvious conflicts of interest be navigated? Mr Trump, who was friends with Epstein and Maxwell for about 15 years and whose name reportedly appears 'multiple times' in the Epstein files, wants to be absolved of any suggestion he was involved in their crimes (and, we should note, there is at the moment no evidence he was). Maxwell, obviously, wants to get out of jail, something she almost certainly cannot achieve without Mr Trump's grace. Every incentive compels her to be, ahem, helpful to the President. And this is someone with a long record of lying, including while under oath. Perhaps nothing is amiss, but the ingredients for a potentially corrupt quid pro quo are there. You can understand why Epstein's survivors are suspicious. Two other elements have fed into their building unease. First, on the fringes of America's right-wing media, some bloviaters have started to speak of Maxwell as a 'victim'. 'I think this is great,' Newsmax anchor Greg Kelly said last week, for example, referring to the government's overtures towards her. 'I do have a feeling that she just might be a victim. She just might be. There was a rush to judgment, there was a lot of chaos there for a while. 'Granted, she hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know that's apparently not good.' Apparently! (Oh, and Maxwell did much more than merely 'hang out' with Epstein, as we shall explore in a moment. Apparently some folks need to be reminded.) Second, today we learned that the government had quietly moved Maxwell from her jail in Florida to a lower security one in Texas, which houses several female celebrity inmates. The fraudster Elizabeth Holmes is there, for example. Why move Maxwell? That has not been explained. Hence an angry statement released today, co-signed by Annie and Maria Farmer, both of whom were victims of Epstein and Maxwell, plus the family of Virginia Giuffre, who did so much to expose the pair's crimes before taking her own life earlier this year. 'It is with horror and outrage that we object to the preferential treatment convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has received,' the statement reads. 'Ghislaine Maxwell is a sexual predator who physically assaulted minor children on multiple occasions, and she should never be shown any leniency. 'Yet, without any notification to the Maxwell victims, the government overnight has moved Maxwell to a minimum security prison. This is the justice system failing victims right before our eyes. 'The American public should be enraged by the preferential treatment being given to a pedophile and a criminally charged child sex offender. 'The Trump administration should not credit a word Maxwell says, as the government itself sought charges against her for being a serial liar. 'This move smacks of a cover-up. The victims deserve better.' Some other remarks worth mentioning, here. 'My little sister is one of her victims, and so am I,' Maria Farmer told MSNBC, slamming politicians who 'want to entertain Ghislaine Maxwell' and 'act like we victims should not be heard from'. Her sister Annie told The Daily Mail any deal between the government and Maxwell would 'be devastating' and 'feel like a slap in the face'. 'It doesn't sit well that this is all happening without any involvement from the people they asked to testify in her case, or other victims,' she said. 'It's hard not to be anxious.' Theresa Helm said any leniency shown towards Maxwell 'would mean the complete crumbling of this justice system'. 'We all deserve a pathway to justice. We don't deserve to have it, yet again, robbed from us,' she told MSNBC. 'It truly does seem like an upside down world.' During an interview about Maxwell's case in 2021, which feels relevant in this discussion, Sarah Ransome described Maxwell as 'the chief orchestrator' who had 'forced' her into the room where Epstein raped her. 'It actually makes me sick that she is claiming to be a victim, or have any form of innocence' said Ms Ransome. 'This is the same woman that grabbed my arm and forced me into a room to be raped by Jeffrey. It was brutal. 'And I remember limping from Jeffrey's bedroom. I remember looking at Ghislaine, and she had this evil smirk on her face. She knew I was there to be raped, and she enjoyed it.' Speaking to CNN this week Ms Giuffre's brother, Sky Roberts, said Maxwell 'deserves to rot in prison, where she belongs'. 'Because of what she's done to my sister, and so many other women. It's absolutely a pure sense of evil,' Mr Roberts said. 'She wasn't stolen. She was preyed upon,' he added, alluding to Mr Trump's complaint this week that Epstein 'stole' staff from his Mar-a-Lago resort, including Ms Giuffre. '(Maxwell) wasn't just a recruiter. She participated, and viciously participated, with these girls, abusing them.' He said his sister described Maxwell as a 'monster' from 'a nightmare'. Journalist Tara Palmeri, who has reported extensively on the Epstein case and knows multiple victims, described recent events as 'infuriating'. 'Because I know so much about her. I know the damage she did to these girls,' Ms Palmeri said on her YouTube channel. 'So many of them are more angry with her, for the abuse, than Epstein. She was the one that violated them. She was the one that called Annie Farmer's mother and said, 'Don't worry, I'll take care of her, you can let her go to the ranch.' That was where Ghislaine Maxwell was the first one to touch Annie, and then Epstein jumped in. 'She was involved in the actual molestation of these girls. She didn't just bring them to Jeffrey Epstein.' All these comments are worth remembering, going forward. Ghislaine Maxwell was not Epstein's sidekick, she was his partner, and is no less culpable. She wasn't pulled into the web of his sex trafficking scheme – if anything, she was chiefly responsible for weaving it. She should not be pitied. Or trusted.
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
US appeals court keeps ban on LA immigration arrests
A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement.
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
US appeals court keeps ban on LA immigration arrests
A federal appeals court has affirmed a lower court's decision temporarily barring US government agents from making immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause. Rejecting the Trump administration's request to pause the lower court's order, the three-judge appeals panel ruled the plaintiffs would likely be able to prove that federal agents had carried out arrests based on people's appearance, language and where they lived or worked. President Donald Trump called National Guard troops and US Marines into Los Angeles in June in response to protests against the immigration raids, marking an extraordinary use of military force to support civilian police operations within the United States. The city of Los Angeles and other Southern California municipalities joined a lawsuit filed in June by the American Civil Liberties Union, accusing federal agents of using unlawful police tactics such as racial profiling to meet immigration arrest quotas set by the administration. A California judge in July blocked the Trump administration from racially profiling immigrants as it seeks deportation targets and from denying immigrants' right to access to lawyers during their detention. In Friday's unsigned decision, the judges of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely rejected the administration's appeal of the temporary restraining order. The judges agreed with the lower court in blocking federal officials from detaining people based solely on "apparent race or ethnicity", speaking Spanish or accented English, or being at locations such as a "bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day labourer pick up site, agricultural site, etc". The Department of Homeland Security and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not immediately respond to requests for comment outside business hours. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the order a victory for the city. "The Temporary Restraining Order that has been protecting our communities from immigration agents using racial profiling and other illegal tactics when conducting their cruel and aggressive enforcement raids and sweeps will remain in place for now," she said in a statement. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff lawyer at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, also welcomed the ruling. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," he said in a statement.
