Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Democrat, not running for Senate reelection in 2026
Local News
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, of New Hampshire, announced Wednesday that she will not be running for reelection to the U.S. Senate in 2026.
"Today, after careful consideration, I am announcing that I have made the difficult decision not to seek reelection to the Senate in 2026," Shaheen said in a social media video. "It's just time."
Shaheen, a 78-year-old Democrat, was first elected to the Senate in 2006. She previously served as the first woman to be elected governor of New Hampshire.
© 2025 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump and Musk can both hurt each other in their feud. Here's how.
An explosive breakdown in the relationship between President Donald Trump and his biggest political donor turned part-time employee, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has been foreshadowed since their alliance first took shape. When Trump brought Musk along for the ride as he moved back into the White House, the looming question was always how long the two could possibly stay in sync. After all, neither the most powerful person in the world nor the richest person on Earth is known for keeping his ego in check. The main thrust of the Trump-Musk feud boils down to who can assert dominance over the other. In the intense back-and-forth that had everyone glued to their screens Thursday, we saw bullies used to getting their way desperately trying to find leverage over each other. But unlike the flame wars of old, where internet trolls would hurl insults at each other across message board forums, Trump and Musk can do serious damage to each other in the real world — and to the rest of us in the process. Musk first gained access to Trump through his vast fortune; he donated almost $300 million during last year's election and hasn't been afraid to throw his money around in races this year. Though he said in May he would be 'spending a lot less' on funding political races, he has also been quick to threaten pumping money into the midterms should lawmakers back the massive budget bill currently working its way through the Senate. And Musk has made clear that he expects a return on his investments, having already snidely claimed on his X platform that Trump would have lost and Democrats would have taken Congress without his backing. Trump is reportedly more focused on the midterms than he was during his first term, worried that a new Democratic majority would lead to more investigations and/or a third impeachment. While he's already sitting on $600 million to help hold on to a GOP majority, Musk's money could throw a spanner in the works, especially if he follows through on his public musing about bankrolling a third party to 'represent the 80% of Americans in the middle.' Though Trump has his own social media platform, Truth Social, X remains a much louder microphone to amplify Musk's messaging to the right, including his supposed 'bombshell' about Trump's presence in the Jeffrey Epstein files. (Musk provided no evidence for the claim and Trump has previously denied any involvement with Epstein's criminal behavior.) Trump, in turn, has threatened Musk's lucrative government contracts, which would include billions of dollars funneled toward his SpaceX company, as well as the subsidies that Tesla receives for its electric car production. Musk responded by warning about cutting off access to SpaceX launches, which would potentially cripple NASA and the Defense Department's ability to deploy satellites. But that would prove a double-edged sword for Musk, given how large a revenue stream those contracts have become. By Thursday evening, Musk had already backed down from his saber-rattling about restricting access to the Dragon space capsule, but he could change his mind again. That he made the threat in the first place has raised major alarm bells among national security officials. The Washington Post reported Saturday that NASA and the Pentagon have begun "urging [Musk's competitors] to more quickly develop alternative rockets and spacecraft" to lessen his chokehold on the industry. Notably, Trump isn't alone in his fight against Musk, though as ever those wading into the brawl have their own motives. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon took the opportunity to launch a broadside against Musk. 'People including myself are recommending to the president that he pull every contract associated with Elon Musk,' Bannon told NBC News on Thursday night. Bannon requested that 'major investigations start immediately' into, among other things, Musk's 'immigration status, his security clearance and his history of drug abuse.' There are already several federal investigations of Musk's companies that have been underway for years, which critics had previously worried might be stonewalled due to his influence with Trump. While the extremely public breakup makes for high drama and more than a little schadenfreude, the pettiness masks a deeper issue. The battle Musk and Trump are waging is predicated on both wielding a horrifying amount of unchecked power. In a healthy system of government, their ability to inflict pain on each other wouldn't exist, or at least such an ability would be severely blunted. Musk being able to funnel nearly unlimited amounts of spending into dark money super PACs is an oligarchical nightmare. Trump using the power of the presidency to overturn contracts and launch investigations at a whim is blatant authoritarianism in action. In theory, there are still checks to rein each of them in before things escalate much further. Musk's shareholders have been unhappy with his rocky time in government, and the war of words with Trump sent Tesla's stock price tumbling once more. Trump needs to get his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed into law and — next year — ensure Congress doesn't fall into Democrats' hands. Trump and Musk have incentives, then, to stay in each other's good graces despite their wounded pride. Trump made clear to NBC News in an interview Saturday that he has no real interest in patching things up with Musk, warning that there will be "very serious consequences" if his one-time ally funds Democratic campaigns. Even if the two eventually reach a détente, it's unlikely to be a lasting peace, not so long as one feels his authority is challenged by the other. The zero-sum view of the world that Trump and Musk share, one where social Darwinism and superior genetics shape humanity, doesn't allow for long-term cooperative relationships. Instead, at best they will return to a purely transactional situationship, but one where the knives will gleefully come back out the second a new opening is given. Most importantly, there is no protagonist when it comes to the inciting incident in this duel, as a total victory won't benefit the American people writ large. Trump wants Congress to pass his bill to grant him more funding for deportations and to preserve his chances of staying in power. Musk wants a more painful bill that will slash the social safety net for millions. No matter what the outcome is as they battle for supremacy over each other, we're the ones who risk being trampled. This article was originally published on
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
What a ‘revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investors
As the Senate weighs President Donald Trump's multi-trillion-dollar spending package, a lesser-known provision tucked into the House-approved bill has pushback from Wall Street. The House measure, known as Section 899, would allow the U.S. to add a new tax of up to 20% on foreigners with U.S. investments, including multinational companies operating in the U.S. Some analysts call the provision a "revenge tax" due to its wording. It would apply to foreign entities if their home country imposes "unfair foreign taxes" against U.S. companies, according to the bill. "Wall Street investors are shocked by [Section] 899 and apparently did not see it coming," James Lucier, Capital Alpha Partners managing director, wrote in a June 5 analysis. More from Personal Finance:The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high. See if you're on trackOn-time debt payments aren't a magic fix for your credit score. Here's whyWith 'above normal' hurricane forecasts, check your home insurance policy If enacted as written, the provision could have "significant implications for the asset management industry," including cross-border income earned by hedge funds, private equity funds and other entities, Ernst & Young wrote on June 2. Passive investment income could be subject to a higher U.S. withholding tax, as high as 50% in some cases, the company noted. Some analysts worry that could impact future investment. The Investment Company Institute, which represents the asset management industry serving individual investors, warned in a May 30 statement that the provision is "written in a manner that could limit foreign investment to the U.S." But with details pending as the Senate assesses the bill, many experts are still weighing the potential impact — including who could be affected. Here's what investors need to know about Section 899. As drafted, Section 899 would allow the U.S. to hike existing levies for countries with "unfair foreign taxes" by 5% per year, capped at 20%. Several kinds of tax fall under "unfair foreign taxes," according to the provision. Those include the undertaxed profits rule, which is associated with part of the global minimum tax negotiated by the Biden administration. The term would also apply to digital services taxes and diverted profits taxes, along with new levies that could arise, according to the bill. The second part of the measure would expand the so-called base erosion and anti-abuse tax, or BEAT, which aims to prevent corporations from shifting profits abroad to avoid taxes. "Basically, all businesses that are operating in the U.S. from a foreign headquarters will face that," said Daniel Bunn, president and CEO of the Tax Foundation. "It's pretty expansive." The retaliatory measures would apply to most wealthy countries from which the U.S. receives direct foreign investment, which could threaten or harm the U.S. economy, according to Bunn's analysis. Notably, the proposed taxes don't apply to U.S. Treasuries or portfolio interest, according to the bill. Section 899 still needs Senate approval, and it's unclear how the provision could change amid alarm from Wall Street. But the measure has "strong support" from others in the business community, and it's a "strong priority" for Republican House Ways and Means Committee members, Capital Alpha Partners' Lucier wrote. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo., first floated the idea in a May 2023 bill, and has been outspoken, along with other Republicans, against the global minimum tax. If enacted as drafted, Section 899 could raise an estimated $116 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That could help fund other priorities in Trump's mega-bill, and if removed, lawmakers may need to find the revenue elsewhere, Bunn said. However, House Ways and Means Republicans may ultimately want foreign countries to adjust their tax policies before the new tax is imposed. "If these countries withdraw these taxes and decide to behave, we will have achieved our goal," Smith said in a June 4 statement.
Chicago Tribune
38 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: Big, beautiful bromance breaks up — live on social media
For those who think government should be run like a business, the messy social media spat that played out last week between President Donald Trump and billionaire CEO Elon Musk suggested that business could be doing a lot better. That may help to explain why shares of Musk's company Tesla dropped 14% Thursday, falling for the second straight day as the spat between the richest man in the world and the most powerful man in the world oozed into a meltdown. Ironically, the fight played out on the social media platforms Truth Social, majority-owned by the president, and X, formerly Twitter, which Musk bought and renamed in 2023 and subsequently turned into a megaphone for far-right politics and Trumpism. To many observers, the breakup of this bromance seemed inevitable, less because of the bros' differences than the great deal they share in common. 'Like 'Alien v. Predator' for political nerds,' The Guardian ballyhooed — and, as a dedicated political nerd, I agree. What else can we expect from two megalomaniacs dedicated to fame, money and far-right politics and experienced with messy divorces? 'I suppose it was in the stars,' Rep. Jamie Raskin, of Maryland and top Democrat on the House judiciary committee, told reporters on Capitol Hill. 'Everybody was predicting it when it first began. You've got two gentlemen with gargantuan egos and both appearing to suffer from malignant narcissistic personality disorder.' Ah, how far the oligarchic dream team has tumbled since Trump and Musk joined forces to wage war against what Musk branded 'the woke mind virus' — and of course to pursue riches through tribute (Trump) and government contracts (Musk). The table for the breakup was set in late May when the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a domestic policy spending bill, which among other things would eliminate subsidies for electric vehicles such as those Tesla makes. Musk began grousing about the bill early last week, but he mostly confined his criticism to the amount by which the bill would increase the deficit. Trouble began in earnest Thursday, while Trump was meeting in the Oval Office with Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany. A reporter asked Trump about Musk's criticism of the bill. Trump pointedly referred to the relationship in the past tense and cast doubts on its happy future. Musk later slipped in a jab, suggesting that Trump and the Republicans could never have prevailed in last year's elections without the $288 million that Musk spent to put them over the top. 'Such ingratitude,' he huffed. The exchange became more heated as Musk lashed the legislation as a 'disgusting abomination' that would bankrupt the country. He then rallied his online followers to 'Kill the Bill' and things only got nastier. Among the highlights — and lowlights — Musk accused Trump of keeping the company of a pedophile. 'Time to drop the really big bomb,' Musk tweeted. '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That's the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' The reference is to the late registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who can be seen in widely circulated video partying with Trump. Musk later replied 'Yes' to a post that suggested Trump should be impeached and replaced with Vice President JD Vance. By Thursday afternoon, White House staff were calling the fracas 'the one big, beautiful breakup,' a reference to the legislation that ignited Musk's fury. That led to more speculation and debate as to where the feud would go next. Would it disrupt serious legislation? Who was winning the public relations battle on an ever-shifting playing field? A poll taken by YouGov asked respondents whose side they were on in the feud and found 52% said, perhaps sensibly, neither one. Only 28% picked Trump and a meager 8%, perhaps tech bros, picked Musk. Frankly, in a country loaded with people who have serious concerns about government and feel weary over such shenanigans, I hear a message in the polls: Make it stop! What happened to all the people who say government should be run like a business? The answer I hear is another question: Whose business?
