Centrist Rep. Don Bacon is done with Congress — but open to a potential presidential bid
But Bacon, who spent 30 years in the Air Force and specialized in intelligence matters, said he's interested in serving in an executive role down the road, and wouldn't rule out running for Nebraska governor, or even president in 2028.
'I got asked the other day, 'You say you're interested in being an executive — is that governor or president?' I go, 'Yes,'' Bacon said in an interview in his office. 'If there's an opportunity and I can make a difference, a unique difference, I would like to keep serving. I just don't want to do two-year elections.'
Bacon, 61, acknowledged that it'd be incredibly difficult to run for the White House as a current or former House member — James Garfield was successful way back in 1880. And Bacon said he's not sure his brand of Republicanism — Reaganism and a muscular view of foreign policy — can ever make a full comeback in the party, though he said he will continue making the case for it.
'I don't think it would be very easily done,' he said. 'All I know is I have a heart to serve our country, and I have a vision.'
Defense secretary is another option 'if God opens up that door,' he said, though he's not sure a Republican president would nominate him. He said he would not run against incumbent Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, a fellow Republican and close friend who took office in 2023.
Bacon's retirement from Congress is notable because he is one of the few sitting Republicans on Capitol Hill who have been willing to publicly criticize President Donald Trump, who has a reputation for retaliating against his enemies and ending their political careers. Bacon's announcement came just a day after another Republican who's clashed with Trump, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, said he wouldn't seek re-election in 2026.
The pair of retirements came as both Tillis and Bacon were preparing to vote on Trump's mammoth domestic policy package — what the president calls his 'big, beautiful bill' — as both lawmakers expressed concerns about Medicaid cuts in the package. Tillis voted against it; Bacon voted for it.
But in the interview, Bacon insisted that neither the public feuds with Trump nor the violent threats he and his wife have faced had any impact on his decision to leave Congress.
First elected alongside Trump in 2016, Bacon represents a swing district that includes Omaha and rural areas to the west; in 2024, Democrat Kamala Harris beat Trump in the district by 4.6 percentage points, while Bacon prevailed over his Democratic challenger, Tony Vargas, 50.9% to 49.1%.
Bacon lamented that running in a tough battleground district every two years was an exhausting endeavor, and that he didn't have 'the fire in my belly' to win a sixth race.
'This job requires a 14-hour day during the week, Saturdays, parades and a variety of things, and Sunday sometimes. And do I want to do this for two more years? I just didn't have the hunger to want to work at that intensity level,' said Bacon, who has a large pig figurine sitting on his desk. 'And my wife has wanted me to come home. I'm gone to D.C. four days a week, and I have a chance to be home now seven days a week, and I have eight grandkids within 10 minutes of my house.'
Bacon said he thinks he could have won re-election had he run, even though the party that controls the White House typically loses House seats in a president's first midterm election. On top of that, Democrats are salivating at the chance to attack Republicans for voting for Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which slashes Medicaid benefits that are critical to districts like Bacon's.
A Nebraska rural hospital said Thursday it would close in the coming months due to looming Medicaid cuts. Bacon argued the legislation had not taken effect yet and that it included $50 billion for rural hospitals. He said he had to weigh the pros and cons in the bill; he decided that extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts and boosting military and border funding outweighed any negative impacts.
'There's some things I wish were better,' he said. 'But am I going to vote to raise taxes on middle-class Americans? I'm not.'
On the day of the interview, NBC News and other outlets reported that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had ordered a pause in sending a shipment of missiles and ammunition to Ukraine amid concerns about the U.S. military's stockpiles. Bacon, who has a photograph on the wall of him meeting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has consistently been critical of Trump's handling of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and his 'appeasement' of Putin.
Whoever ordered the weapons pause should be fired, Bacon said.
'If Ukraine falls, the world's a more dangerous place. I really don't understand why President Trump doesn't see that. And if Ukraine goes down, Moldova will definitely fall. I think Georgia is in trouble,' said Bacon, a retired brigadier general who did four tours of duty in Iraq and also spent time in Afghanistan.
'President Trump has done worse than Biden [on Ukraine], and I'm embarrassed to say that,' he continued. 'I don't like it. He seems to have a blind spot with Putin. I don't know what purpose it serves to withhold weapons to Ukraine and not see that Putin is the invader.'
'I do believe that if I was the president,' Bacon said, 'I'd be trying to provide Ukraine with every weapon they needed to convince Putin he has no chance to win.'
Bacon said he was a big fan of former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley when she ran for president in 2024, and he likes Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential candidates in 2028.
Asked about JD Vance, who famously dressed down Zelenskyy at a White House meeting in February, Bacon suggested the vice president needed to take a tougher stance toward Moscow.
'He's a contender. I like him personally, but I wish he saw the Russian threat a little better,' Bacon said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Wall Street Journal
a minute ago
- Wall Street Journal
Judges Continue to Block Trump Policies Following Supreme Court Ruling
WASHINGTON—When the Supreme Court issued a blockbuster decision in June limiting the authority of federal judges to halt Trump administration policies nationwide, the president was quick to pronounce the universal injunction all but dead. One month later, states, organizations and individuals challenging government actions are finding a number of ways to notch wins against the White House, with judges in a growing list of cases making clear that sweeping relief remains available when they find the government has overstepped its authority.


Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
Could Senator Adam Schiff really go to jail over alleged mortgage fraud?
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte sent a criminal referral to Attorney General Pam Bondi in May alleging that California Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff "has, in multiple instances, falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, impacting payments from 2003-2019 for a Potomac, Maryland-based property." What is the gist of the complaint? That Schiff, while representing a California district in the House of Representatives, falsely listed his posh Maryland home as his primary residence in order to get more favorable loan terms when, in truth and in fact, his California condo, which he designated as his primary residence in order to qualify for a California homeowner's tax exemption, was his real primary residence. Even worse, according to the referral, Schiff claimed his Burbank condo as his primary/principal residence in California tax filings during the same years he listed his Maryland home as his primary/principal residence on loan applications to finance that home. Schiff's response to the criminal referral and to subsequent Truth Social posts by President Donald Trump was one we often see in white collar cases. Per the senator's office, "the lenders who provided the mortgages for both homes were well aware of then-Representative Schiff's Congressional service and of his intended year-round use of both homes, neither of which were vacation homes." That's not much of a denial, senator. The question is whether you lied on these forms or not. Were your answers accurate or not, and if they were inaccurate, were the answers a mistake or intentional? The devil is always in the details in white-collar cases like this. Which representatives of which particular lenders "were well aware" that Schiff intended to use both homes year-round, and why does that matter? The issue is whether Schiff intentionally lied on federal or state forms to gain a financial advantage. If he falsely listed his Maryland home as his primary residence in order to get a lower interest rate, that matters too. (After all, similar alleged falsehoods by Donald Trump were used by New York Attorney General Letitia James to go after Trump in her massive New York state civil action.) Did Schiff lie on California tax forms to gain an exemption he was not entitled to, and, if so, does it implicate any federal criminal statutes? This is what inquiring minds want to know, and we just don't have enough information at this stage to know all the answers. Based on what we do know, how likely is it that Schiff will be indicted for violating one of several federal bank fraud statutes that potentially cover his conduct? Not very likely. Here are several reasons why: The devil is always in the details in white-collar cases like this. Which representatives of which particular lenders "were well aware" that Schiff intended to use both homes year-round, and why does that matter? This leaves open the possibility of a state of California prosecution for filing false tax returns. Would you care to place any bets on that happening? The bottom line is this: Schiff's alleged conduct may be sleazy and his explanation shifty, but a criminal charge at the federal or state level does not seem to be in the offing.


Fox News
a minute ago
- Fox News
America must win the AI race — and prepare for the worst
Artificial intelligence is no longer a niche tool for tech labs or science-fiction thrillers. It's now the battleground where the future of American power, prosperity, and freedom will be decided. With the release of "Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan," the Trump administration is rightfully treating this moment as the 21st-century equivalent of the space race or the nuclear age. This bold strategy outlines over 90 policy actions that span three key pillars: Accelerating Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security. Each of these pillars sends a clear message to the world: America intends to lead – not follow – on artificial intelligence. And we must. This is a race we can't afford to lose. The Trump administration's plan does what Washington too often fails to do: it combines vision with action. From fast-tracking permits for critical data centers and chip fabrication plants, to expanding the skilled trades workforce needed to maintain those facilities, the plan hits both high-tech and firsthand realities. Crucially, the plan calls for exporting secure, full-stack American AI packages – hardware, software, models, applications and standards – to trusted allies. That's smart policy. In a world where China exports authoritarian surveillance technology, America must counter with liberty-based alternatives. And most refreshingly, the plan defends free speech. It mandates that federal procurement contracts only go to developers of large language models that are free from ideological censorship. That's a huge win for constitutional values in a time when Big Tech algorithms increasingly silence dissent. The optimism in this action plan is well-founded – but incomplete. As foreign policy analysts Matan Chorev and Joel Predd recently warned in their Foreign Policy article, the U.S. must also assume the worst about artificial intelligence – especially artificial general intelligence (AGI). That's the version of AI that can perform at or above human levels across a wide range of tasks. Unlike nuclear weapons, AGI won't announce itself with a mushroom cloud. It may slip quietly into our systems, our economy and even our military decision-making – without a clear warning shot. The nightmare scenario? A rogue AI, either built by an enemy nation or evolving beyond human control, triggering economic collapse or catastrophic warfare. That's why the U.S. must not only pursue victory in AI, but vigilance. Planning for worst-case scenarios isn't fearmongering – it's common sense. The COVID-19 pandemic taught us what happens when leaders fail to prepare for known risks. With AI, we may not get a second chance. What happens if a U.S. company suddenly claims to have developed AGI and asks for national security protections – access to classified data, regulatory exemptions and federal backing? What if China gets there first? The Biden-era playbook of strategic ambiguity and global appeasement won't cut it. America needs break-glass protocols: clear, tested plans to respond to AI emergencies – whether cyberattacks, misinformation campaigns or autonomous systems going rogue. This requires massive coordination across the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, our intelligence community and private industry. The federal government must build the analytical muscle to separate hype from real breakthroughs – and act fast when a threat emerges. Advanced AI attacks may not come with a digital return address. Whether an attack comes from Beijing, a terrorist network or a self-replicating algorithm, our cyber defenses must be able to detect, contain and recover without waiting for attribution. That means hardening critical infrastructure, isolating vulnerable data centers and ensuring military continuity of operations in a high-tech crisis. These aren't science-fiction concerns – they're strategic imperatives. The Trump administration's emphasis on exporting U.S. technology to allies is critical – but we must also export American values. Freedom. Accountability. Innovation with restraint. Our allies want alternatives to China's surveillance-driven tech regime. America can lead that coalition – but only if we speak as clearly about ethics as we do about engineering. David Sacks, the White House's AI and crypto czar, put it plainly: "To win the AI race, the U.S. must lead in innovation, infrastructure, and global partnerships. At the same time, we must center American workers and avoid Orwellian uses of AI." He's right. Victory in AI is not just about lines of code – it's about preserving what it means to be human in an age of machines. Winning the AI Race is a historic first step. It champions free markets, American jobs, national strength and liberty-based governance in the AI era. But we must not mistake ambition for immunity. America needs a dual-track strategy: drive innovation with urgency – and prepare for disaster with equal urgency. Our adversaries won't wait. Neither will the technology. We can – and must – lead the world into the AI future. But let's do it with eyes wide open, grounded in our values and ready for anything.