A pregnant woman wandered the desert for days before Border Patrol detained her. Now with a newborn, she faces deportation
The woman, who attorneys identified only by her first name, Erika, had been wandering in the Arizona desert alone for two days while eight months pregnant before being detained by US Customs and Border Protection agents on Monday, her attorney Luis Campos told CNN.
She had crossed into the United States from Mexico between ports of entry near Tres Bellotas Ranch, about 74 miles southwest of Tucson, Arizona, according to a CBP spokesperson.
Erika then gave birth at Tucson Medical Center on Wednesday night, two days after she was taken into custody, with federal agents posted outside of her hospital room.
President Donald Trump launched a flurry of immigration policies when he took office in January, to make good on campaign promises to remove undocumented immigrants from the country and slow legal immigration. Those efforts have included targeting foreign students, undocumented workers and those crossing the Southern border.
Amid the immigration crackdown, the Trump administration also reversed a longstanding policy directing immigration agents to sensitive locations such as churches, schools and hospitals, and recently left mothers to be deported with their children who are US citizens.
Campos tells CNN he had not been able to speak with Erika for days and was denied access to the hospital, which he said violated her Fifth Amendment right to counsel. He said he also was not allowed to attain her signature on a G-28 form, which is used to notify immigration authorities when an attorney is representing a client in an immigration case, he said.
'There was no regard for due process,' Campos said.
Erika initially faced expedited removal – a process allowing federal agents to quickly deport individuals – before eventually being issued a Notice to Appear on Friday, allowing her to appear before an immigration judge, according to Campos.
He says the pressure on the federal authorities from the local community was immense.
'They shifted their position, and they did it under pressure,' Campos told CNN, who will be meeting his client, now free in Phoenix.
A Customs and Border Patrol spokesperson said the woman crossed into the US from Mexico illegally. Before she was issued a Notice to Appear, she had no statutory right to an attorney in immigration proceedings, the CBP spokesperson said. Once the notice was issued, she was given the opportunity to speak with her attorney, the spokesperson said.
'At all times, agents followed the law and adhered to CBP procedures,' the spokesperson said. 'No entitlements were denied.'
Tim Bentley, a spokesperson for Tucson Medical Center, said he had no comment on the situation as privacy laws prevent the hospital from sharing patient information. CNN has also reached out to the office of Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs for comment.
'The office is actively engaging with federal and local officials to gather further information,' Hobbs' office said in a statement to CNN affiliate KOLD. 'While she supports securing the border, Governor Hobbs has been clear in her opposition to inhumane immigration enforcement practices. The governor will continue fighting to protect the constitutional rights of every Arizonan and keep our communities safe.'
Custody of the woman was transferred to ICE on Saturday morning, according to the CBP spokesperson. 'The child remains with the mother,' the spokesperson said.
Still, Campos waited days to hear whether she would be released before hearing the news later that day and calling Ericka, who 'has confirmed that she and her baby are fine.' Campos said none of this would have happened 'if things had been done in a humane way from the very beginning.'
Campos said his client is seeking asylum in the US due to her fear of returning to violence in Guatemala. Local authorities were unwilling or unable to help her, so she had no option but to flee the country, he said. The next step in her case should be a credible fear interview, when she will be allowed to make her asylum case, he added.
'That's what we wanted from the very beginning … a simple opportunity to appear before an impartial decision maker, an immigration judge, where she's allowed to provide evidence to sustain her claim, provide testimony, particularly provide witnesses to also corroborate her version of the events, to have an attorney in those proceedings,' he said.
While immigration officials said it was Erika's choice whether she would bring her US citizen newborn with her to Guatemala, Campos said it is 'clearly no choice at all' because she does not have family or friends in the US.
'Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or CBP will place the children with someone the parent designates. DHS takes its responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to ensure that children are safe and protected,' a CBP spokesperson told CNN.
But Campos says the child could face dangerous conditions. 'Given that the terrible prospect of the violence she faced in the home country, we would be exposing a US citizen child newborn to that same kind of threat,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
33 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
To dodge federal rule, immigrants moved from Florida jails - and sometimes moved right back
ORLANDO, Fla. - Four Guatemalan siblings, detained as undocumented immigrants after a traffic stop, spent several days last month at the Orange County Jail before being picked up in a van and driven around for hours. Finally they reached their destination, their attorneys say: Right back at the Orange County Jail. This directionless odyssey - similar to what some other detainees across Florida have faced in recent months – happened because of rules limiting the number of days an undocumented immigrant can be held in a local facility before federal officials must take custody. With the Trump administration's push for "mass deportation" filling federal detention beds, detainees are being transferred from facility to facility because the switch restarts the clock and gives federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents more time to pick them up. Multiple immigration attorneys described the shuffle to the Orlando Sentinel, and law enforcement leaders in Orange and Pinellas County confirmed the practice. But the attorneys say it's a maddening tactic that often leaves them struggling to locate the immigrants, and denies detainees access to family members and due process. Even though his clients - three brothers and a sister - wound up in the same place they started from, Orlando-based immigration attorney Walker Smith said he couldn't find the siblings because their previous inmate numbers were changed upon their return, leaving him and their family unsure of their whereabouts. He said the two youngest siblings in the family, 26 and 18, had valid work permits. "If they're just holding people indefinitely, holding people by sending them from facility to facility, or worse, sending them out of one facility and back to the same one under a different number … It's gaming the system at its finest," Smith said. The youngest brother has since been moved again - this time to Alligator Alcatraz, the state's new detention center in the Everglades. The way a detained immigrant's custody clock works is complicated. Under the Intergovernmental Service Agreement, or IGSA, that governs the relationships between ICE and the handful of Florida jails like Orange County's that temporarily hold detainees, undocumented immigrants without criminal charges can be held up to 72 hours before ICE must come to pick them up. But if the immigrant is arrested for a separate criminal offense, the 72-hour clock may not start until the other offense is charged or dropped - for all arrestees, state law prescribes a two-day time limit for that - or bail is granted and paid. "After the 72-hour period is up, there's no more authority for whatever agency or jail or entity to continue to hold those people," Smith said. "So . . . they should be released." And prior to the Trump administration, immigrants with an ICE hold often were released if time expired with no action. Now, some of them are simply relocated, whether to a different jail, or for a brief ride. It remains unclear how often the scenario occurs. In a July 15 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, Orange Corrections Chief Louis Quiñones described a shuffle involving "a large amount of individuals" in early July. He was responding to questions from Commissioner Maribel Gomez Cordero, who had been told about the practice by advocates pressuring commissioners to terminate the IGSA with ICE. "Right around the [July 4] holiday, we had a large amount of individuals who were reaching the 72 hours and ICE had to come get those individuals and they were going to attempt to send them to another location," he said. "That did not go as they had planned, so they brought them back to Orange County Corrections." One reason the issue irks some county officials is that it costs about $145 per day to keep somebody in the jail, and the federal government only reimburses Orange County about $88 per day to house detainees. Shuffling people in and out of the jail prolongs their stay and runs up the bill. The county is in the midst of trying to renegotiate its agreement with ICE for a better reimbursement rate, but so far hasn't come to a deal. Quiñones didn't say how many people were impacted by the transfer, and the county didn't make him available for a requested interview with the Orlando Sentinel. But Smith said he was skeptical of Quiñones' description. "He tried to make it seem like it was a one-off," Smith said. "So I was very intrigued that the [Guatemalan] guy that I went to go talk to had also encountered the same situation." Danny Banks, the county's Public Safety Director, also said the shuffle has occurred only as "an isolated incident" so far. "Largely, ICE has been transporting their inmates within the 72-hour timeframe indicated in the IGSA agreement," he said in a text message. However, the Orlando Sentinel has been told of multiple other instances. One of the most elaborate involved Cuban native Michael Borrego Fernandez, who was transported to multiple different facilities before ending up at Alligator Alcatraz, where he has been since July 5. In June, Borrego Fernandez was arrested for violating his release terms after being charged with grand theft for bilking homeowners to pay for swimming pools up front but not finishing the work, which his mother Yaneisy Fernandez Silva said was because he "unwittingly" worked for a businessman operating the scam. Borrego Fernandez, who lived in South Florida, was taken to the Seminole County Jail to serve ten days in jail, she said. Following the completion of his sentence, he was taken to Orange County Jail on an ICE hold, then three days later shuttled to Pinellas County Jail. Three days after that, he was again transported back to Orange County Jail, his mother said. Roughly four days later he called his mother saying he had reached Alligator Alcatraz. Only his calls offered clues that let Fernandez Silva search for her son in jail databases, she said. "It's clear what the counties are doing, they're trying to create a legal loophole to a constitutional obligation to not hold people for more than the 72 hours," said Mich Gonzalez, a South Florida-based immigration attorney who called the transfers "alarming." Gonzalez said conditions for inmates who move around are different than for those housed in a single jail. "They're shackled, they're handcuffed, sometimes they're also waist-chained," Gonzalez said. "They're not provided proper food like when they're in custody at a county jail, where there are … general rules that you're going to get three meals a day and access to water. But when you're being transported and transferred, that goes out the window." In June, a Mexican man was arrested while his boss, a U.S. citizen, was driving him and his brother to a construction site. Both were passengers in the car and both had permits to work in the U.S., said the wife of one of the brothers. She spoke with the Sentinel on the condition of anonymity as she worries her comments could make her a target of immigration authorities. For weeks after her husband's arrest she did not know where he was. He would call from an Orange County number but he did not appear in the correction system's database. He told his wife he was put into a van and taken somewhere, but returned the next day to Orange County Jail. "I didn't hear from him for three days … I was so scared," She said in Spanish. "He spent so much time in Orange County Jail that when he returned he knew it was the same place." Advocates for the family met with officials at Orange County Corrections in early July to help find him. Six hours later, he was finally located in a county jail cell, they said. He had been given a different inmate number upon his return, which contributed to the confusion. Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri confirmed there has been some shuffling involving his facility but defended it, saying it stems from "a capacity issue" that can prevent detention centers from accepting detainees when their 72-hour clock ticks down. "If the transportation system is overloaded or there's no room at Krome … that's when it backs up and they have to put them into the IGSA jails" such as Orange, Gualtieri said. Gualtieri serves on Florida's Immigration Enforcement Council, which has sounded an alarm that federal detention space can't keep up with the pace at which Florida law enforcement agencies are arresting undocumented immigrants. The board has called on the federal government to allow more local jails to house detainees, rather than send them to the seven jails in Florida with IGSA agreements while they await ICE detention. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: Republicans are (quietly) making 2028 moves
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. It seems too early, but it's not. Just as Democrats are plotting how to win the next presidential election, Republican candidates are too. But while Democrats will try to outdo themselves in their opposition to President Donald Trump, Republicans will have to navigate a party that Trump has rebuilt around his own political instincts. I talked to CNN's Eric Bradner about which Republicans are likely to run for president in 2028 and how they will balance making their own name with paying homage to their current leader, who likes to joke about not leaving office no matter what the Constitution says. Our conversation, conducted by phone and edited for length, is below. WOLF: Will Trump try to run for a third term despite what's in the Constitution? Because it's something that he's teased, right? BRADNER: There is no constitutional path for him to seek a third term. But that doesn't mean ambitious Republicans who want to be a successor can flout Trump. They can't be seen as at odds with him. They're trying to stand out in their own ways, but they can't be seen as going against Trump and suggesting that he is ineligible for a third term, even though the Constitution makes that crystal clear to be problematic. WOLF: He likes to joke about running, but has also said he will not run. So let's assume, for the moment, that he doesn't try to do something that would violate the Constitution. How do potential Republican candidates plot a campaign for voters while still staying in his good graces? BRADNER: You have to do it carefully. Part of it is, while Trump is still so popular with the Republican base, demonstrating that you are supportive of his agenda. That can look different depending on whether you are the vice president, in the Senate, in a governor's office. So far, we're seeing ambitious Republicans traveling to some of the early voting primary states and using their speeches to highlight their support for Trump's agenda and looking for ways to cast themselves as the successor to that agenda. It's made much more difficult by the fact that Vice President JD Vance is obviously positioned as Trump's understudy. But they're looking for ways to show that they are, at least in some ways, ideologically aligned with Trump and are taking substantive actions to support his agenda, while sort of pitching some of their own accomplishments and their own differences in terms of approach. But it's clear that most Republicans that are already hitting the 2028 travel circuit are looking for ways to align themselves. WOLF: The Democrats are trying to change the early primary map and de-emphasize Iowa and maybe even New Hampshire. Is the Republican calendar going to be what it has been in recent decades where we go: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. Or is that going to change? BRADNER: It won't be official for a while, but Republicans appear to be on track to keep the same calendar. I talked to Jeff Kaufmann, the longtime Iowa Republican Party chairman, recently, and he said he had already made his case to the White House to keep Iowa's caucuses first, and said they were very receptive. Republicans didn't have the kind of disaster that Democrats had in Iowa in 2020 and have shown no real inclination to shake up their primary… WOLF: But Republicans did have a disaster in 2012 — just ask Rick Santorum. BRADNER: They did. But 2012 at this point will have been 16 years ago, and they have passed on opportunities to change the calendar since then, and there doesn't seem to be any momentum to do so now. WOLF: Who are the Republicans who are flirting with a campaign at the moment and are actively in those states? BRADNER: Even within the last couple of months, we've seen a number of Republicans visiting the early states. Look at Iowa alone. This month, Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia governor, visited Iowa to headline the state Republican Party's annual Clinton dinner. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was there for an event hosted by The Family Leader, a conservative Christian group led by Bob Vander Plaats, a well-known activist there. Recently, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was in Iowa, where he got a little bit of a chilly reception at times because he was making the case for changes to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' And Florida Sen. Rick Scott was there also touting his support for further reductions in spending that the bill included. He also got a bit of a frosty reception from some of the attendees at the fundraiser that I talked to afterward who really wanted to hear more support for Trump's agenda from him and less about their defenses. WOLF: The most obvious heir to Trump would be Vance. What is the thinking among Republicans? Do they believe the nomination is his to lose, or will he really have to work for it? BRADNER: He clearly starts in the pole position. But I was a little surprised during a recent visit to Iowa how frequently the name of Secretary of State Marco Rubio came up, often in the same breath as JD Vance. Both of them, despite their own very public criticism of Trump in the past, now seem to be viewed as team players; as closely aligned with Trump and with his current administration, obviously, as leading members of it. There's interest in Rubio in part because he has run for president before, unlike Vance. A lot of people in the early voting states remember Rubio visiting them in 2016, when he finished third in Iowa in what were pretty competitive caucuses. So a lot of these early-state Republican voters have met Rubio before. They've already formed opinions of him. They like Vance, but they don't know him yet. They haven't had a chance to go through the usual process with him. He obviously starts with an advantage as Trump's legacy, but based on the conversations I've had, it doesn't appear to be a lock. I think a lot of Republican voters are going to want to at least meet and hear from a broader range of candidates. WOLF: That 2016 Iowa race you mentioned, Rubio came in third. Trump came in second. The winner was Sen. Ted Cruz. Is he going to run again? And would he do better this time? BRADNER: He certainly has never stopped acting like someone who wants to be president, right? He has obviously remained in the public eye and has been supportive of Trump, including in that contentious interview with Tucker Carlson, for which Cruz faced a bit of online backlash. He's built a fundraising network. He is someone who has clearly already been a runner-up in that 2016 primary, and probably would enter 2028 with vast name recognition. So he has a number of potential things going for him if he, if he does want to run. WOLF: The party has changed around Trump, who doesn't really have a political ideology so much as political instincts. Now Republican candidates will have to adjust to Trump's populism. Will a person like Sen. Josh Hawley, who sounds very populist, do better than a more traditional Republican like, say, Youngkin? BRADNER: It certainly seems like that lane could be open, although I would say as of right now, Vance probably starts in the pole position there. He has populist instincts that he displayed for quite some time before he became Trump's vice president. You're right about Trump having political instincts that these potential candidates are going to have to react to and adjust to on the fly. Being nimble in interviews and messaging is always important, but it's going to be especially important in a landscape where Trump is the dominant figure in the party. While he won't be on the ballot, he is very likely to have interest in steering things. WOLF: How do you group the potential field? There are senators, there are governors, there are people in the administration. BRADNER: I think that's the right starting point. People in the administration, which you can kind of divide into two groups, right? Vance and Rubio are by far the best known and are the ones that I have heard from Republican voters about the most clearly. There are some other folks, like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and potentially others who are former governors, are Trump allies and have their own ambitions, but don't carry the sorts of advantages that Vance and Rubio have. Then there's a group of governors, and to me, this is potentially the most interesting group, because they have their own agendas outside of Washington and are less tied to whatever's going on in the White House or on Capitol Hill on any given day. Youngkin, the Virginia governor, ran an impressive campaign in 2021, and because Virginia does not allow governors to run for second terms, he is just a few months away from leaving office, which means he will be a popular Republican elected in a Democratic-leaning state who now is out of a job and has all day to campaign. A couple other Republican governors who are in that basket would include Sanders, who obviously is forever aligned with Trump due to her time as his White House press secretary, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, which gets him a way to build connections with donors all over the country. Kemp is among the Republicans who have had the biggest differences with Trump on the list of prospective 2028 candidates because he didn't support Trump's claims that Georgia was stolen from him in 2020. But the two of them seem to have played nice in more recent years and Kemp is conservative. He does have his own record in Georgia that he can talk about. Then finally there are the senators. Tim Scott is one who ran for president in 2024 and did appear to end that race with a closer relationship with Trump than when he started it, which was a really tricky thing to (do). The problem Scott faces is one that Trump laid out in 2024, which is that he's a better salesman for Trump and his agenda than he is for himself. There are other senators, Rand Paul (Kentucky), Rick Scott (Florida), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), who I think everyone will be keeping an eye on. But it's going to take some lucky breaks for them to make a ton of headway in a potentially crowded field, especially when they'll be having to spend so much of their time participating in and reacting to what's happening in Washington. They don't have the kind of freedom that governors have at this stage. WOLF: There are also two governors that are closely aligned with Trump's policies in Texas and Florida, which are the two biggest red states in terms of electoral votes. What about Ron DeSantis (Florida) and Greg Abbott (Texas)? BRADNER: Both are clearly aligning themselves with Trump's most popular policies, which is strict immigration enforcement, border security and ramping up deportations. For DeSantis, building 'Alligator Alcatraz' was a clear example of political maneuvering to be seen publicly as having Trump's back. Both of them are absolutely on the 2028 landscape, and DeSantis, in particular, appears to have smoothed over the tensions that remain from his 2024 run. DeSantis is one to watch because he has already built a fundraising network. He has already traveled the early states and made those inroads, so launching a presidential campaign, perhaps earlier and perhaps without some of the mistakes that hampered his 2024 effort, would certainly be possible. WOLF: What about someone from Trump's new coalition? Robert F. Kennedy ran as a Democrat and an Independent in 2024; why not a Republican in 2028? BRADNER: If Kennedy runs in 2028, it'll be a fascinating test of how durable parts of Trump's winning 2024 coalition are once Trump is off the ballot. How big is the so-called MAHA movement that was merged into Trump's MAGA movement? Does party loyalty still matter at all in Republican primaries and caucuses? Or are figures who weren't even Republicans — like Kennedy and potentially former Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, who grabbed headlines recently with wild accusations that former President Barack Obama committed treason — received with open arms? Have cultural issues like abortion, where they've long staked out positions at odds with the GOP base, lost some sway? WOLF: Vance would run from within the administration. Rubio would have to leave the administration. Extricating yourself from Trump's orbit without drawing his ire would be kind of an incredible feat. What would be the timeline to do something like that? When should we start to expect to see would-be presidential candidates leave the Trump administration? BRADNER: The traditional answer would be shortly after the midterms, but it also depends on, obviously, the point you raised about Trump and a third term, and whether that sort of freezes the start of the 2028 primary and stops candidates from campaigning openly. It depends on what Vance does. I think people who are in the administration will have to react to the speed at which the field appears to be developing. I can tell you that in the early states, party leaders, activists, donors, party faithful are already eager to hear from these 2028 prospects and I doubt there will be much room to wait long past the midterms. So potentially late 2026, early 2027 is when anybody in the administration that wants to run for president would probably need to be in motion. WOLF: A lot of what happens will depend on how popular Trump remains with Republicans and how successful his second term is. Is there a lane for a Nikki Haley or somebody who has been critical of Trump, or should we assume that everybody who tries to run will just be swearing fealty to him? BRADNER: Only time will tell. Right now, none of these major Republican figures are publicly distancing themselves from Trump, but if Republicans are shellacked in the midterms, if they lose the House or — much, much longer shot — if they lose the Senate, that could change the landscape significantly. Primary voters want to win, and they're loyal to Trump, but if his popularity nosedives; if the party performs poorly in the midterms; if his tariffs wind up damaging the economy; if the roiling controversy over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files continues — all these sorts of things could wind up becoming political time bombs that could change the landscape and lead Republicans, even if they aren't publicly criticizing Trump, to do more to show their differences and to pitch themselves as their own person.
CNN
2 hours ago
- CNN
Analysis: Republicans are (quietly) making 2028 moves
A version of this story appeared in CNN's What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here. It seems too early, but it's not. Just as Democrats are plotting how to win the next presidential election, Republican candidates are too. But while Democrats will try to outdo themselves in their opposition to President Donald Trump, Republicans will have to navigate a party that Trump has rebuilt around his own political instincts. I talked to CNN's Eric Bradner about which Republicans are likely to run for president in 2028 and how they will balance making their own name with paying homage to their current leader, who likes to joke about not leaving office no matter what the Constitution says. Our conversation, conducted by phone and edited for length, is below. WOLF: Will Trump try to run for a third term despite what's in the Constitution? Because it's something that he's teased, right? BRADNER: There is no constitutional path for him to seek a third term. But that doesn't mean ambitious Republicans who want to be a successor can flout Trump. They can't be seen as at odds with him. They're trying to stand out in their own ways, but they can't be seen as going against Trump and suggesting that he is ineligible for a third term, even though the Constitution makes that crystal clear to be problematic. WOLF: He likes to joke about running, but has also said he will not run. So let's assume, for the moment, that he doesn't try to do something that would violate the Constitution. How do potential Republican candidates plot a campaign for voters while still staying in his good graces? BRADNER: You have to do it carefully. Part of it is, while Trump is still so popular with the Republican base, demonstrating that you are supportive of his agenda. That can look different depending on whether you are the vice president, in the Senate, in a governor's office. So far, we're seeing ambitious Republicans traveling to some of the early voting primary states and using their speeches to highlight their support for Trump's agenda and looking for ways to cast themselves as the successor to that agenda. It's made much more difficult by the fact that Vice President JD Vance is obviously positioned as Trump's understudy. But they're looking for ways to show that they are, at least in some ways, ideologically aligned with Trump and are taking substantive actions to support his agenda, while sort of pitching some of their own accomplishments and their own differences in terms of approach. But it's clear that most Republicans that are already hitting the 2028 travel circuit are looking for ways to align themselves. WOLF: The Democrats are trying to change the early primary map and de-emphasize Iowa and maybe even New Hampshire. Is the Republican calendar going to be what it has been in recent decades where we go: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada. Or is that going to change? BRADNER: It won't be official for a while, but Republicans appear to be on track to keep the same calendar. I talked to Jeff Kaufmann, the longtime Iowa Republican Party chairman, recently, and he said he had already made his case to the White House to keep Iowa's caucuses first, and said they were very receptive. Republicans didn't have the kind of disaster that Democrats had in Iowa in 2020 and have shown no real inclination to shake up their primary… WOLF: But Republicans did have a disaster in 2012 — just ask Rick Santorum. BRADNER: They did. But 2012 at this point will have been 16 years ago, and they have passed on opportunities to change the calendar since then, and there doesn't seem to be any momentum to do so now. WOLF: Who are the Republicans who are flirting with a campaign at the moment and are actively in those states? BRADNER: Even within the last couple of months, we've seen a number of Republicans visiting the early states. Look at Iowa alone. This month, Glenn Youngkin, the Virginia governor, visited Iowa to headline the state Republican Party's annual Clinton dinner. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was there for an event hosted by The Family Leader, a conservative Christian group led by Bob Vander Plaats, a well-known activist there. Recently, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was in Iowa, where he got a little bit of a chilly reception at times because he was making the case for changes to Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' And Florida Sen. Rick Scott was there also touting his support for further reductions in spending that the bill included. He also got a bit of a frosty reception from some of the attendees at the fundraiser that I talked to afterward who really wanted to hear more support for Trump's agenda from him and less about their defenses. WOLF: The most obvious heir to Trump would be Vance. What is the thinking among Republicans? Do they believe the nomination is his to lose, or will he really have to work for it? BRADNER: He clearly starts in the pole position. But I was a little surprised during a recent visit to Iowa how frequently the name of Secretary of State Marco Rubio came up, often in the same breath as JD Vance. Both of them, despite their own very public criticism of Trump in the past, now seem to be viewed as team players; as closely aligned with Trump and with his current administration, obviously, as leading members of it. There's interest in Rubio in part because he has run for president before, unlike Vance. A lot of people in the early voting states remember Rubio visiting them in 2016, when he finished third in Iowa in what were pretty competitive caucuses. So a lot of these early-state Republican voters have met Rubio before. They've already formed opinions of him. They like Vance, but they don't know him yet. They haven't had a chance to go through the usual process with him. He obviously starts with an advantage as Trump's legacy, but based on the conversations I've had, it doesn't appear to be a lock. I think a lot of Republican voters are going to want to at least meet and hear from a broader range of candidates. WOLF: That 2016 Iowa race you mentioned, Rubio came in third. Trump came in second. The winner was Sen. Ted Cruz. Is he going to run again? And would he do better this time? BRADNER: He certainly has never stopped acting like someone who wants to be president, right? He has obviously remained in the public eye and has been supportive of Trump, including in that contentious interview with Tucker Carlson, for which Cruz faced a bit of online backlash. He's built a fundraising network. He is someone who has clearly already been a runner-up in that 2016 primary, and probably would enter 2028 with vast name recognition. So he has a number of potential things going for him if he, if he does want to run. WOLF: The party has changed around Trump, who doesn't really have a political ideology so much as political instincts. Now Republican candidates will have to adjust to Trump's populism. Will a person like Sen. Josh Hawley, who sounds very populist, do better than a more traditional Republican like, say, Youngkin? BRADNER: It certainly seems like that lane could be open, although I would say as of right now, Vance probably starts in the pole position there. He has populist instincts that he displayed for quite some time before he became Trump's vice president. You're right about Trump having political instincts that these potential candidates are going to have to react to and adjust to on the fly. Being nimble in interviews and messaging is always important, but it's going to be especially important in a landscape where Trump is the dominant figure in the party. While he won't be on the ballot, he is very likely to have interest in steering things. WOLF: How do you group the potential field? There are senators, there are governors, there are people in the administration. BRADNER: I think that's the right starting point. People in the administration, which you can kind of divide into two groups, right? Vance and Rubio are by far the best known and are the ones that I have heard from Republican voters about the most clearly. There are some other folks, like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and potentially others who are former governors, are Trump allies and have their own ambitions, but don't carry the sorts of advantages that Vance and Rubio have. Then there's a group of governors, and to me, this is potentially the most interesting group, because they have their own agendas outside of Washington and are less tied to whatever's going on in the White House or on Capitol Hill on any given day. Youngkin, the Virginia governor, ran an impressive campaign in 2021, and because Virginia does not allow governors to run for second terms, he is just a few months away from leaving office, which means he will be a popular Republican elected in a Democratic-leaning state who now is out of a job and has all day to campaign. A couple other Republican governors who are in that basket would include Sanders, who obviously is forever aligned with Trump due to her time as his White House press secretary, and Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who is chairman of the Republican Governors Association, which gets him a way to build connections with donors all over the country. Kemp is among the Republicans who have had the biggest differences with Trump on the list of prospective 2028 candidates because he didn't support Trump's claims that Georgia was stolen from him in 2020. But the two of them seem to have played nice in more recent years and Kemp is conservative. He does have his own record in Georgia that he can talk about. Then finally there are the senators. Tim Scott is one who ran for president in 2024 and did appear to end that race with a closer relationship with Trump than when he started it, which was a really tricky thing to (do). The problem Scott faces is one that Trump laid out in 2024, which is that he's a better salesman for Trump and his agenda than he is for himself. There are other senators, Rand Paul (Kentucky), Rick Scott (Florida), Josh Hawley (Missouri), Tom Cotton (Arkansas), who I think everyone will be keeping an eye on. But it's going to take some lucky breaks for them to make a ton of headway in a potentially crowded field, especially when they'll be having to spend so much of their time participating in and reacting to what's happening in Washington. They don't have the kind of freedom that governors have at this stage. WOLF: There are also two governors that are closely aligned with Trump's policies in Texas and Florida, which are the two biggest red states in terms of electoral votes. What about Ron DeSantis (Florida) and Greg Abbott (Texas)? BRADNER: Both are clearly aligning themselves with Trump's most popular policies, which is strict immigration enforcement, border security and ramping up deportations. For DeSantis, building 'Alligator Alcatraz' was a clear example of political maneuvering to be seen publicly as having Trump's back. Both of them are absolutely on the 2028 landscape, and DeSantis, in particular, appears to have smoothed over the tensions that remain from his 2024 run. DeSantis is one to watch because he has already built a fundraising network. He has already traveled the early states and made those inroads, so launching a presidential campaign, perhaps earlier and perhaps without some of the mistakes that hampered his 2024 effort, would certainly be possible. WOLF: What about someone from Trump's new coalition? Robert F. Kennedy ran as a Democrat and an Independent in 2024; why not a Republican in 2028? BRADNER: If Kennedy runs in 2028, it'll be a fascinating test of how durable parts of Trump's winning 2024 coalition are once Trump is off the ballot. How big is the so-called MAHA movement that was merged into Trump's MAGA movement? Does party loyalty still matter at all in Republican primaries and caucuses? Or are figures who weren't even Republicans — like Kennedy and potentially former Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's director of national intelligence, who grabbed headlines recently with wild accusations that former President Barack Obama committed treason — received with open arms? Have cultural issues like abortion, where they've long staked out positions at odds with the GOP base, lost some sway? WOLF: Vance would run from within the administration. Rubio would have to leave the administration. Extricating yourself from Trump's orbit without drawing his ire would be kind of an incredible feat. What would be the timeline to do something like that? When should we start to expect to see would-be presidential candidates leave the Trump administration? BRADNER: The traditional answer would be shortly after the midterms, but it also depends on, obviously, the point you raised about Trump and a third term, and whether that sort of freezes the start of the 2028 primary and stops candidates from campaigning openly. It depends on what Vance does. I think people who are in the administration will have to react to the speed at which the field appears to be developing. I can tell you that in the early states, party leaders, activists, donors, party faithful are already eager to hear from these 2028 prospects and I doubt there will be much room to wait long past the midterms. So potentially late 2026, early 2027 is when anybody in the administration that wants to run for president would probably need to be in motion. WOLF: A lot of what happens will depend on how popular Trump remains with Republicans and how successful his second term is. Is there a lane for a Nikki Haley or somebody who has been critical of Trump, or should we assume that everybody who tries to run will just be swearing fealty to him? BRADNER: Only time will tell. Right now, none of these major Republican figures are publicly distancing themselves from Trump, but if Republicans are shellacked in the midterms, if they lose the House or — much, much longer shot — if they lose the Senate, that could change the landscape significantly. Primary voters want to win, and they're loyal to Trump, but if his popularity nosedives; if the party performs poorly in the midterms; if his tariffs wind up damaging the economy; if the roiling controversy over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files continues — all these sorts of things could wind up becoming political time bombs that could change the landscape and lead Republicans, even if they aren't publicly criticizing Trump, to do more to show their differences and to pitch themselves as their own person.
