Key House GOP centrist will not seek reelection, opening up major swing seat battle
GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents one of House Republicans' toughest battleground districts, has decided not to run for reelection next year, according to three people familiar with his plans – opening up a critical seat in Nebraska for Democrats in the 2026 midterms.
Bacon will formally make the announcement next week, likely on Monday, those people said. Bacon did not return a immediate request for comment from CNN.
The departure of the centrist Republican will be a major loss for House GOP leaders, who will need to hang onto every GOP seat to maintain their narrow majority in the upcoming midterms.
But his decision does not come as a shock to many House Republicans, who believe the retired Air Force officer has been telegraphing his plans to leave Congress, including through his voting record.
Bacon, who was first elected in 2016, has long been weighing whether to seek reelection, making little secret of his frustration with Washington. His victory last fall was seen as one of the biggest Republican surprises in the country, given that he outperformed Donald Trump and overcame stiff Republican headwinds in his Omaha-area district.
The outspoken Nebraskan has been one of the few Republicans willing to challenge Trump on key decisions in his second term, particularly on foreign policy issues like Ukraine. Some privately believe he could seek a run for the presidency in 2028.
House Democrats were already feeling upbeat about their chances of retaking the majority, which would only require flipping a handful of seats next November. The party's campaign officials point to the long-time historical trends that show new presidential administrations enduring steep losses in their first midterm – as Trump did during his first term in the 2018 wave.
Some Republicans, too, privately fear a blue wave, but they also point to key factors in their favor, including redistricting battles in red states like Ohio that will easily favor the GOP. They also believe Trump's personal involvement in 2026 – including his fundraising – will be crucial to turning out his voters that largely sat out the 2018 midterm.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mamdani's New York mayoral primary win exposes Democratic divide
Just hours after Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani declared victory in New York's mayoral primary on Wednesday, a small group of business leaders convened with Mayor Eric Adams, who bypassed the Democratic primary and is instead running in the general election as an independent. Attendees were focused on strategizing how to prevent Mamdani, a 33-year-old state assemblymember, from winning the mayoralty -- and assessing whether Adams was the strongest contender to oppose him in November. Among those present was former NYC mayoral candidate and former hedge fund executive Whitney Tilson, who recently shared a debate stage with Mamdani. Tilson described Mamdani as 'very charming and charismatic,' but added he sharply disagrees with Mamdani's policies and '[About] 5% of New York City voters picked him… It's a totally rigged closed primary.' Tilson told ABC News when it became clear the race was between two people, he had hoped former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo would win. He said he would '...continue for the next 130 days what I began in earnest 45 days ago -- to make sure Zohran Mamdani, an unqualified radical socialist, does not become mayor of our city.' Several other vexed moderate-minded Democrats, beyond the handful in the meeting with Adams, are making similar schemes, a Democratic source with knowledge of the conversations confirmed to ABC. MORE: Zohran Mamdani's upset in New York primary reignites Democratic identity debate: Analysis That source suggested that some are mulling over boosting centrist lawyer Jim Walden, who is running as an independent, as a potential spoiler. And billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman (who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election) pledged to bankroll whichever viable challenger vows to take on Mamdani in November. Linda Yaccarino, CEO of X, wrote that Mamdani's win was "disastrous" and that she, Ackman, and others must 'figure out a way to save New York' in response to his promise. However, former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said he's not aware of any progressives who are 'quaking in their boots about a particular scenario' and that serious Mamdani supporters' worries come not from threats, but 'because we should be worried of the unknown, and no one should take this general election lightly.' 'It's more than ironic that Ackman thinks he has anything left to say to anybody in the Democratic Party after his activities last few months,' de Blasio told ABC News. 'As some of these people are flailing about, they are only reminding people that Zohran's positions are going to be the majority positions in this town.' The former mayor, whom Mamdani said was the best in his lifetime, said he doesn't believe the accusations of radicalism or extremism will stick, pointing to Mamdani's strong margins from Tuesday night. 'I think the magnitude of the victory has woken up a lot of people who were buying into stereotypes -- unfair stereotypes -- of Zohran,' de Blasio said. 'You can't be extreme if such a clear majority want you. To use a New York City phrase: he's instantly been koshered." Mamdani isn't shielding himself from the incoming, either. MORE: Zohran Mamdani tells ABC News he plans to win over moderate Dems, other voters Longtime New York powerbroker Kathryn Wylde told ABC News Mamdani called her Thursday evening, and expressed interest in meeting with the CEOs whom Wylde said were 'extremely concerned' with his economic and fiscal policies. Wylde agreed -- and plans to host a meeting between Mamdani and any of the interested 300 plus executives who are members of Partnership for the City, where she serves as CEO, during the third week in July. 'The business community will not determine who is mayor. But we want whomever is mayor to have relationships and understand the issues that will keep our city strong,' Wylde said. His campaign told ABC News he's committed to meeting 'with anyone and everyone.' 'As Zohran has said throughout this campaign, he'll meet with anyone and everyone to move our city forward. Zohran's committed to delivering an administration of excellence that delivers an affordable and safe city for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected,' Mamdani campaign spokesperson Lekha Sunder said in a statement. Mark Gorton, founder of LimeWire and chairman of Tower Research Capital hedge fund, said he donated $250,000 to Cuomo's super PAC, Fix the City, after it became clear that his preferred candidate, Brad Lander, would not win the primary. However, Gorton acknowledged to ABC News he did so reluctantly. 'I was like, 'I'm tired of being on the outside -- I want to be on the inside,' he said. Still, he knew his top concerns -- support for cyclists, reducing car traffic and expanding bus service -- were not priorities for Cuomo. 'Cuomo was a disaster,' the activist, who started a non-profit focused on New York's streets nearly three decades ago, said. 'He didn't even show up at the candidate forum and drives around in a Dodge Charger.' Gorton said he felt relieved when Cuomo lost, noting that both Mamdani and Lander are strong on the issues he cares about. If November's election were held today, he said, he would vote for Mamdani. When asked whether he would contribute to Mamdani's campaign, Gorton hesitated. 'He doesn't need my money. Money doesn't always make a difference," he said. MORE: Mamdani declares victory, Cuomo concedes before ranked choice votes are counted Some Democrats in New York's Congressional delegation are distancing themselves from Mamdani. Speaking on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show" on Thursday Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand declined to say who she would endorse. When pressed, she said: 'I vote in Albany,' and will leave the decision to New York City voters. Rep. Tom Suozzi, who represents a Long Island swing-district that includes some parts of Queens, posted on X that he continues to have 'serious concerns' about Mamdani. Yet some of the highest ranking of the delegation seem open to Mamdani. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, praised Mamdani after his apparent primary win. Showing particular support for his campaign's focus on affordability, both vowed to meet with him. Rep. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY), also told ABC News he was looking to speak with the presumptive nominee. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the most senior Jewish member of the House of Representatives, went even further. After backing one of Mamdani's challengers during the primary, Nadler has since endorsed Mamdani's general election bid. And former president Bill Clinton, who backed Cuomo, wrote on X that he is 'wishing [Mamdani] much success in November and beyond as you look to bring New Yorkers together.' Veteran Democratic strategist Lis Smith, who once worked for Cuomo and is now a critic, told ABC News centrist Democrats are partially to blame for the former governor's loss and suggested they look in the mirror. 'It is baffling that they decided to cast their lot with a disgraced former governor who was run out of office and had no new ideas or inspirational message to offer New Yorkers. Spare us the freak out,' said Smith. 'This just seems like the last gasp of the establishment and the affiliated billionaires trying to stop a grassroots moment that, frankly, they helped fuel.'
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In chaotic, shameful scene, Miami-Dade commissioners watch public speaker dragged out
The chaotic scene that broke out Thursday at the Miami-Dade commission meeting should concern everyone who still believes in open government. A local resident identified as Camila Ramos, 36, was forcibly dragged from the meeting by Miami-Dade sheriff's deputies after attempting to ask a question about the immigration enforcement agreement between Miami-Dade and ICE, a volatile topic, especially in South Florida. It was a shocking moment: scuffles, pleas to be allowed to speak, the crowd chanting 'Let her speak' as Ramos was dragged along the floor of the chamber and out the door by multiple law enforcement officers. Many members of the public held up their phones to video the appalling spectacle. It's also a flashing red warning light. Miami-Dade and other Florida elected officials are acting increasingly inaccessible. Public input, which should be at the heart of our government, seems to be eyed with increasing suspicion or outright hostility. Ramos wasn't threatening anyone. Yes, she was an opponent of the agreement. But she merely asked a question about her right to speak after Commission Chair Anthony Rodriguez said he would end future public comment if anyone spoke. How does that warrant dragging her out of the room? 'I just asked a question!' Ramos pleaded, as she was grabbed and hustled out. 'I have a right to understand this process,' she pleaded. She's right. We'd like to understand it, too. Some commissioners wanted the speakers to be heard. Others explained that the agreement with ICE — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — wasn't on the agenda, or at least they didn't think so. The confusion helped increase the temperature in the room. But clamping down on public speech with violence is a serious and dangerous thing to do. It wasn't just Ramos being taken from that room — it was the public's right to participate. Thursday's episode is part of a broader and deeply troubling pattern: Politicians in Miami and in Florida seem to be making it harder for constituents to come in front of them to be heard. Public town halls and open forums are dwindling. Comment times in public meetings are short. The shift reflects a fear of confrontation — but in dodging conflict, our leaders are also dodging accountability. We've seen Miami city commissioners sit through public hearings with little interest in what is being said by the public. The hearings usually end with a vote where elected officials do exactly what they were going to do before the public spoke. Public comments are treated as little more than a show — and constituents know it. What happened Thursday wasn't just a breakdown in communication. It was a silencing of debate. The commission had already moved to defer a vote on a new ICE jail agreement, a cooperation agreement that Miami-Dade Mayor Daniella Levine Cava had signed. (It is now mandated by state law.) Rodriguez told those who signed up to speak on the topic that they could — but this time only. If the matter ever returned for a vote, Rodriguez said there would be no further public comment. That's confusing — none at all, ever? — and seems strangely punitive. Ramos was, understandably, seeking clarification. And that's when she was dragged out. The item on the agenda Thursday was a modification of county-ICE agreement that included reimbursement provisions for inmates held at Miami-Dade jails when they are sought for deportation. The agreement raises concerns about due process, public records and the potential for people to disappear into an immigration abyss. Yet instead of listening, the Miami-Dade commission met simple questioning with brute authority. And we didn't see or hear anyone from the dais calling for calmer heads to prevail. For the average citizen, standing at a microphone during public comment may be their only shot at being heard. But, on Thursday, that right was denied and punished. The Miami-Dade commission may think it enforced its control on the chamber, but what it really did was show the public just how far removed it has become from the people it claims to serve. Click here to send the letter.
CNN
37 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Final battle damage assessment of US strikes on Iran will be key in US push for Iran nuclear deal
As the Trump administration looks to quickly pivot from military strikes to a diplomatic deal on Iran's nuclear program, the final military and intelligence assessment on the recent US strikes will be critical in informing what the Trump administration needs to accomplish in future Iran negotiations. Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff will need to use that final battle damage assessment – including a detailed summary of the facilities' damage and the locale of the nuclear material – to help formulate the US strategy for diplomatic efforts to completely halt the regime's ability to develop a nuclear weapon in the future, current and former US officials explained. 'You're not going to the negotiation assuming that the other side is going to tell you everything you need to know about the state of their program,' explained Pranay Vaddi, a former senior official for nonproliferation at the National Security Council. 'We need to have a baseline that is established by the US intelligence community before that,' Vaddi added. 'If the Trump administration is committed to some kind of deal still – which it makes statements on – they need to know what they were able to get through military action, compared to what they need to get through the diplomatic process.' President Donald Trump continues to claim that Iran's nuclear program has been 'fully obliterated,' which does not mirror an early assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency, finding that the attack did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear program. The early assessment has split lawmakers on the effectiveness of the strikes. And Trump's absolutist pronouncements could also complicate Witkoff's job, officials said. Even if the facilities themselves have been badly damaged, it does not mean that the nuclear program itself has been wholly destroyed. Prior to the US strikes, experts and former officials had expressed skepticism about the idea that the nuclear program could be militarily destroyed, noting that there would still be people with the knowledge to support it. 'The basic problem is that the equivalency between the success of the bombing and the success of ending the nuclear program is putting pressure on having this narrative that there isn't a threat,' said Beth Sanner, former deputy director for national intelligence. 'If you think that you've eliminated the nuclear program then you are not dealing with the fact that there is some residual of that program.' And while the final battle damage assessment will be important to take into account, future negotiations with Iran should prioritize getting the UN's nuclear watchdog back on the ground in Iran, said former officials who worked on previous Iran negotiations. 'I don't know that there will be any assessment that I think is fully viable until there are inspectors on the ground,' said a former senior US official who worked on past Iran negotiations. 'We must recreate the kind of intrusive verification and monitoring that was in the 2015 deal.' The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had a presence in Iran before the 2015 nuclear deal signed during the Obama administration – a deal which Trump pulled the US out of during his first term – but the presence of IAEA inspectors in the country drastically increased as a result of that deal. 'The deal meant there were inspectors on the ground 24/7, there was electronic monitoring, there was a process by which – that didn't exist anywhere else in the world – that if there was intelligence about a suspected site, if Iran, over a period of some days, couldn't satisfy the IAEA that there was a reason the IAEA could go and inspect,' the official explained, citing some benefits of the IAEA inspection efforts. But this week the Iranian parliament this week suspended its work with the IAEA, because of the 'regrettable role' played by the agency's chief Rafael Grossi, Iran's foreign minister said. Iran accused Grossi of facilitating the US and Israeli strikes in Iran, citing an IAEA report a day prior to the Israeli strike, which declared Iran was violating its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. This move follows years of Iran making moves to restrict the agency's oversight of it's program. For example, in 2022 Iran responded by removing surveillance cameras from key sites after IAEA censured Iran over uranium particles found at the undeclared sites. The steps that would need to be taken as part of any verifiable deal on Iran's nuclear program would likely include: destroying elements of the program that still exist, monitoring any further activity, blending highly enriched uranium, and declaring parts of the program that are in use. In order to prepare to take those steps, inspectors on the ground would be essential, former officials pressed. 'I think it's been a long time since the US intelligence assessments have been accepted globally as authoritative when it comes to Iran's nuclear program. They would certainly be challenged by Iran. In order to have a successful negotiation everybody needs to at least agree on the source of facts,' said Laura Holgate, the former US Ambassador to the United Nations International Organizations in Vienna. 'The IAEA will be needed to develop a new baseline of what exactly Iran has, where it is, and what its condition is in, and that's going to take time, and it will be based on Iran's cooperation,' Holgate added. With the IAEA access being diminished over the years and virtually nonexistent at this moment, the world now has large gaps in its knowledge of Iran's nuclear inventory. That is particularly true when it comes to the locale of Iran's enriched uranium. Trump administration officials have said in recent days that the stockpile was not moved ahead of the US strikes but the IAEA said Iran may have moved some of the enriched uranium out of the sites before they were attacked. Vice President JD Vance said the day after the strikes that working on what to do about that fuel would be a priority for the US. 'We're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel. And that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about,' Vance said. Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, cited the importance of having 'a full accounting' following an all-member classified briefing on Capitol Hill earlier this week. 'There is enriched uranium in the facilities that moves around, but that was not the intent or the mission,' McCaul said. 'We need a full accounting. That's why Iran has to come to the table directly with us, so the IAEA can account for every ounce of enriched uranium that's there, I don't think it's going out of the country, I think it's at the facilities.' The final US military 'battle damage assessment could take days or even weeks to complete,' multiple sources familiar with the Pentagon's process told CNN. CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Wednesday said the agency underscored that a broad intelligence community effort is ongoing to determine the impact of the US strikes on three of the country's nuclear sites on Saturday. The Trump administration was already working on possible terms to offer Iran to bring them back to the able for nuclear deal talks before the US military strikes occurred. But if they are able to pull Iran back to the table, they will have to then enter into much more technical talks to put a legitimate and verifiable deal into place. 'I think that you want to strike while the iron is hot, to try and get them to the table while they're feeling weak,' Sanner said. 'One of the key requirements for the negotiation is setting mechanisms for cataloging Iran's residual capabilities in order to have that conversation and ultimately a deal that is worth the paper it is written on.'
