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
an hour ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___
an hour ago
Arizona governor approves up to $500M in taxpayer funds to upgrade home of Diamondbacks
PHOENIX -- Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed legislation Friday that funds up to $500 million in renovations to Chase Field, home of the Arizona Diamondbacks. The bill, which won bipartisan support in both of the state's GOP-controlled chambers, will use sales tax revenue from the stadium and nearby buildings for infrastructure upgrades over the next 30 years, including improvements to air conditioning systems and the stadium's retractable roof. The team said it will also contribute $250 million for the renovations at the stadium, which is located in downtown Phoenix and is surrounded by small businesses and restaurants that see a boost of activity during the baseball season. The legislation is one of a handful of bipartisan deals that Hobbs, a Democrat, prioritized negotiating during the session. She says the funding is a responsible use of taxpayer dollars, will provide good-paying jobs and ensure the Diamondbacks do not leave Phoenix. Attendance at games has increased since the team's 2023 run to the World Series, where the Diamondbacks lost to the Texas Rangers. This season they are averaging 31,420 fans per game — the highest in two decades. 'I'm not going to let Arizona lose the Diamondbacks,' Hobbs said Friday on the social platform X. Derrick Hall, president and CEO of the Diamondbacks, praised the governor and said the team will now turn its attention to extending its lease with Maricopa County. The bill cleared the Legislature June 23 after months of debate that included the question of whether the Diamondbacks could potentially leave unless a public funding deal was reached. Other MLB teams have threatened to leave host cities if they did not get public financing. The Oakland A's, for example, complained for years about the Oakland Coliseum and an inability to gain government assistance for a new ballpark. Now the team is bound for Las Vegas, where a groundbreaking ceremony was held this month for a $1.75 billion ballpark that is expected to be completed in time for the 2028 season. Nevada and Clark County approved up to $380 million in public funds for the project. And last year voters in Jackson County, Missouri, rejected an attempt to extend a sales tax that would have helped fund a ballpark for the Kansas City Royals and stadium renovations for the Kansas City Chiefs. Lawmakers in Kansas are trying to lure the teams with government subsidies, and Missouri is trying to keep them with its own financial incentives. The Diamondbacks have spent nearly three decades in their downtown ballpark, which is owned by the Maricopa County Stadium District. In 2017, the team sued the district over funding for repairs and sought to remove a contractual clause preventing the team from looking into other stadium options. A perennial problem has been the park's air conditioning system and its ability to keep it cool in triple-digit summer heat, Hall said. Fans of country music star Morgan Wallen bemoaned the heat at a concert there last July, despite the retractable roof being closed. Concession stands ran out of water, and some people simply left. Chase Field was one of the first MLB stadiums to have a retractable roof. Now seven out of the 30 teams play under one, including the Brewers, Blue Jays, Rangers, Marlins, Astros and Mariners. Chase Field also has a small swimming pool in right field, one of its most recognizable features. The funding from the Legislature will not mean upgrades to the pool or to stadium suites, the latter of which was a sticking point for Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego. She got on board after the bill was updated to prevent funds from being used for suites and a cap was placed on how much money the city would contribute for a land deal should the Diamondbacks break from the Stadium District, according to Gallego chief of staff Seth Scott. Hobbs is running for reelection, and while it's too early to say whether the Diamondbacks funding will be part of her campaign messaging, it's another bipartisan win, her communications director Michael Beyer said. Democratic state Sen. Mitzi Epstein, who voted against the funding, said Hobbs' support for the bill was wrong and hurtful for Arizonans. She said she was disappointed that amendments to create public benefits such as free streaming of games failed.
an hour ago
Judge rejects another Trump executive order targeting the legal community
WASHINGTON -- A federal judge on Friday struck down another of President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms. U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan ruled that the order against the firm of Susman Godfrey was unconstitutional and must be permanently blocked. The order was the latest ruling to reject Trump's efforts to punish law firms for legal work he does not like and for employing attorneys he perceives as his adversaries. Susman Godfrey suggested that it had drawn Trump's ire at least in part because it represented Dominion Voting Systems in the voting machine company's defamation lawsuit against Fox News over false claims surrounding the 2020 presidential election. The suit ended in a massive settlement. Other judges in recent weeks have blocked similar orders against the firms of Jenner & Block, Perkins Coie and WilmerHale. The orders have sought to impose similar sanctions, including the suspension of security clearances of attorneys and the restriction of access to federal buildings. 'The order was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed. In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. 'Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined.' In a statement, the firm called the ruling 'a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation.' 'We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional. Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day,' the statement said. Other major firms have sought to avert orders by preemptively reaching settlements that require them, among other things, to collectively dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars in free legal services in support of causes the Trump administration says it supports.
