
Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, won't seek reelection to a sixth term in 2026
Advertisement
Durbin, who's 80, was first elected to the U.S. House in 1982 and served seven terms before succeeding his mentor, Paul Simon, in the Senate in 1996. From that post, he helped shape the career of an up-and-comer, Barack Obama, who was only four years into his first term in the Senate when he was elected president.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Durbin is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and sits on the Appropriations and Agriculture committees. His caucus colleagues have chosen him as Democratic whip, the party's No. 2 position, biennially since 2005.
He has been consistently liberal in Congress. Govtrack's 2024 report card on Congress lists him as the Senate's 14th most liberal member — right behind Illinois' junior senator, Tammy Duckworth.
Advertisement
Among Durbin's more significant legislative achievements, he is largely credited with putting in motion the movement to ban indoor smoking. Having watched his 53-year-old father die of lung cancer when he was 14, Durbin won approval of legislation he sponsored in 1987 prohibiting smoking on short commercial flights and expanded it to nearly all domestic flights two years later.
'People started asking, 'If secondhand smoke wasn't safe on airplanes — why is it safe in public buildings, schools, hospitals or restaurants?' The answer is simple: It's not,' Durbin said on the 25th anniversary of the law.
In the early 2000s, he introduced the DREAM Act, which would give immigrants in the U.S. illegally who grew up in the country a pathway toward U.S. citizenship.
It's never become law, but in 2010, Durbin and Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, wrote Obama asking him to stop deporting so-called Dreamers. Obama responded with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which has covered about 830,000 immigrants, according to Durbin's office.
Durbin was instrumental in reversing a War on Drugs-era law that penalized crack cocaine in a 100-to-1 ratio to powder cocaine, a law that disproportionately hit Black defendants with long prison terms. The new law was made retroactive, reducing the sentences for those serving time for crack.
And with Republican and Democratic co-sponsors, Durbin pushed the First Step Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law in 2018. The criminal justice system revamp aimed to make sentencing laws fairer and provide programs to help people who are incarcerated transition in returning to society.
Richard Durbin was born in 1944 in East St. Louis. In 1966, after graduating from Georgetown University, he interned for Sen. Paul Douglas, whose seat he now holds. It was Douglas, who lost election to a fourth term in 1966, who once mistakenly called him 'Dick,' a nickname Durbin adopted.
Advertisement
Durbin earned a law degree from Georgetown and worked as legal counsel for Simon, who was lieutenant governor in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and then for the Legislature through the 1970s. In 1978, Durbin made an unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor, after which he maintained a private legal practice and co-owned a Springfield tavern.
A redrawn district, an economic recession and funding from pro-Israel forces were factors when in 1982 Durbin ousted 11-term Republican incumbent congressman Paul Findley, best known for his criticism of American policy toward Israel and support of Palestinians.
In 2000, Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore considered Durbin for the vice presidency, before Gore ultimately chose Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. But a few years later, Durbin influenced another presidential candidate when he served as a sounding board for and adviser to Obama.
Jalonick reported from Washington.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NCLA Asks Sixth Circuit to Revive Suit Over Dept. of Education's Illegal Student Loan Payment Pause
Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. U.S. Department of Education; Sec'y of Education Linda McMahon, in her official capacity; and James Bergeron, Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid, in his official capacity Washington, DC, June 06, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed an opening brief today asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse a district court's dismissal, for lack of standing, of our Mackinac Center for Public Policy v. Dept. of Education lawsuit against the Department's unlawfully forgiving 35 months of interest on student loans. Without any statutory authority, the Department extended Congress's original six-month interest forgiveness and payment suspension for nearly three more years, cancelling debt in violation of the Constitution's Appropriations Clause at a cost of at least $175 billion to taxpayers, harming the Mackinac Center in the process. This scheme injures public-service employers like Mackinac by reducing the financial incentives for (potential) employees to participate in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The Sixth Circuit should decide Mackinac does have standing and require the district court to hear the case on the merits against the Department's unlawful policy. Established by Congress, the PSLF program allows employees to have their student-loan debt forgiven after ten years of work with one or more public-service employers. When the Department excused debtors from paying interest on their loans, it decreased—dollar for dollar—the wage subsidy the program promised to public-service employers like the Mackinac Center, making it more expensive for them to keep compensating their PSLF employees at the same level. The economic harm caused by the Department's unlawfully excusing student-loan debtors from honoring their obligations is enough, on its own, to require the government to answer for its actions in court. But in addition to that, the Department's lawless decisions also skewed the labor market in a way that frustrates the congressionally-designed PSLF program, increases the cost for the Mackinac Center to compete for college-educated employees, and costs taxpayers billions. The Department caused these injuries, and now the Court of Appeals should make sure it must answer for them. NCLA released the following statements: 'Governmental agencies cannot blithely ignore the law without expecting to answer for the harm their unlawful actions cause organizations like the Mackinac Center. We trust the Court of Appeals will make that clear to the Department of Education.'— Daniel Kelly, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA 'The Department of Education under Secretary McMahon should settle this case. What possible reason does it have to keep defending the lawless regime instituted by former Secretary Miguel Cardona and Richard Cordray to forgive student-loan debt—or in this case interest on that debt—without authority from Congress?'— Mark Chenoweth, President, NCLA For more information visit the case page here. ABOUT NCLA NCLA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit civil rights group founded by prominent legal scholar Philip Hamburger to protect constitutional freedoms from violations by the Administrative State. NCLA's public-interest litigation and other pro bono advocacy strive to tame the unlawful power of state and federal agencies and to foster a new civil liberties movement that will help restore Americans' fundamental rights. ### CONTACT: Joe Martyak New Civil Liberties Alliance 703-403-1111 in to access your portfolio

Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans revise ban on state AI regulations in bid to preserve controversial provision
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans have made changes to their party's sweeping tax bill in hopes of preserving a new policy that would prevent states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade. In legislative text unveiled Thursday night, Senate Republicans proposed denying states federal funding for broadband projects if they regulate AI. That's a change from a provision in the House-passed version of the tax overhaul that simply banned any current or future AI regulations by the states for 10 years. 'These provisions fulfill the mandate given to President Trump and Congressional Republicans by the voters: to unleash America's full economic potential and keep her safe from enemies,' Sen. Ted Cruz, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said in a statement announcing the changes. The proposed ban has angered state lawmakers in Democratic and Republican-led states and alarmed some digital safety advocates concerned about how AI will develop as the technology rapidly advances. But leading AI executives, including OpenAI's Sam Altman, have made the case to senators that a 'patchwork' of state AI regulations would cripple innovation. Some House Republicans are also uneasy with the provision. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., came out against the AI regulatory moratorium in the House bill after voting for it. She said she had not read that section of the bill. 'We should be reducing federal power and preserving state power. Not the other way around,' Greene wrote on social media. Senate Republicans made their change in an attempt to follow the special process being used to pass the tax bill with a simple majority vote. To comply with those rules, any provision needs to deal primarily with the federal budget and not government policy. Republican leaders argue, essentially, that by setting conditions for states to receive certain federal appropriations — in this instance, funding for broadband internet infrastructure — they would meet the Senate's standard for using a majority vote. Cruz told reporters Thursday that he will make his case next week to Senate parliamentarian on why the revised ban satisfies the rules. The parliamentarian is the chamber's advisor on its proper rules and procedures. While the parliamentarian's ruling are not binding, senators of both parties have adhered to their findings in the past. Senators generally argue that Congress should take the lead on regulating AI but so far the two parties have been unable to broker a deal that is acceptable to Republicans' and Democrats' divergent concerns. The GOP legislation also includes significant changes to how the federal government auctions commercial spectrum ranges. Those new provisions expand the range of spectrum available for commercial use, an issue that has divided lawmakers over how to balance questions of national security alongside providing telecommunications firms access to more frequencies for commercial wireless use. Senators are aiming to pass the tax package, which extends the 2017 rate cuts and other breaks from President Donald Trump's first term along with new tax breaks and steep cuts to social programs, later this month. Matt Brown, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Time Magazine
33 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Where Things Stand With the Epstein Files Following Musk's Allegation Against Trump
The breakdown in relations between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally Elon Musk has played out over social media in spectacular fashion, with the two engaging in a tit-for-tat spat. The row initially started over politics. Musk expressed his vehement disapproval of Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination' and encouraging people to 'kill the bill.' Meanwhile, Trump maintained that the fall-out was prompted by Musk being upset over the removal of electric vehicle subsidies —a provision that made Tesla vehicles more affordable. But the fight has since taken a far more personal turn, bolstered by Musk's allegation that Trump is listed in the files related to the late financier and alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk said in a post shared via his social media platform, X. He did not provide evidence pertaining to this. The accusation has spurred Democrats to chase the full unsealing of the Epstein files. California Rep. Robert Garcia and Massachusetts Rep. Stephen F. Lynch—Democratic members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—sent a letter on June 5 to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Kash Patel. 'We write with profound alarm at allegations that files relating to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein have not been declassified and released to the American public because they personally implicate President Trump,' read the letter titled 'Is Trump Suppressing The Epstein Files?' The White House responded, saying that the move by the Oversight Committee members was 'another baseless stunt that bears no weight in fact or reality.' Here's what to know about the Epstein files and the renewed push to declassify them following Musk's allegation. What do we know about the Epstein files so far? On Feb. 27, Bondi released more than 100 pages of declassified documents related to Epstein—as part of the Trump Administration's vow to be more transparent regarding the high-profile case. During the presidential election, Trump promised to appease the clamoring for the alleged 'client list' of Epstein's since his arrest and subsequent death by suicide in 2019. Though Bondi called this the 'first phase' of declassified files, people were underwhelmed by the published pages, as much of the text had been redacted. Bondi's release included Epstein's 'black book,' which had previously been published. It featured names like Trump and former President Bill Clinton, but as the New York Times reported, there were people in the book with whom Epstein had never even met, and thus listed names are not necessarily connected to Epstein's activities. One of the only never-before-seen documents included in the release was an 'Evidence List' of catalogued evidence obtained by investigators. Bondi blamed the FBI for the fact that the report was incomplete, suggesting in a published letter to Patel that the FBI had more information related to Epstein. Bondi ordered Patel to deliver the rest of the investigation documents and 'conduct an immediate investigation' to understand why she had only received parts of the files. There is much discussion as to whether a fully-fledged 'Epstein client list' even exists. Jacob Shamsian, Business Insider's legal correspondent who has covered the Epstein case for years, said via social media on Feb. 27: 'I should also point out that the 'Jeffrey Epstein client list' does not exist and makes no sense on multiple levels (you think he made a list???). But if Pam Bondi wants to prove me wrong, I welcome it.' Will the Musk allegations prompt the release of further Epstein files? Musks' allegations have brought the Epstein files back into the spotlight, but there were already calls for them to be published in full. In April, Trump was asked by a reporter about when the next phase of the files are due to be released, to which he responded: 'I don't know. I'll speak to the Attorney General about that. I really don't know.' Since then, Democrats have continued to push for more documents to be released. Democratic Rep. Dan Goldman of New York released a statement in May, 'demanding that [Bondi] promptly release the Jeffrey Epstein Files in full.' Spurred by Musk's allegation, Democrats including Garcia, Goldman, and Lynch are now renewing these calls for more transparency. But it remains to be seen whether or not the pressure will be enough for Bondi, Patel, or Trump to provide more answers. What do we know about Trump's relationship with Epstein? Trump's connection to Epstein dates back decades. In a 2002 interview with New York magazine, he famously said that Epstein was 'a lot of fun to be with.' 'It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side,' Trump told the reporter. In July 2019, NBC News' TODAY released unearthed video footage believed to be from 1992, which showed Trump greeting Epstein at his Mar-a-Lago estate. The two men could be seen laughing as they engaged in conversation. After Epstein's 2019 arrest on federal sex trafficking charges, Trump made strides to distance himself. Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in 2019, Trump said: 'I had a falling out with him [Epstein]. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you.'