Kamala Harris says she will not run for California governor
Former Vice President Kamala Harris has confirmed she will not run for Governor of California.
This decision comes after widespread speculation about her potential entry into the 2026 gubernatorial race.
Harris recently lost the November presidential election and has not held elected office since 2004.
LOS ANGELES - Former Vice President Kamala Harris will not run for Governor of California, she confirmed exclusively to FOX 11's Elex Michaelson on Wednesday.
She issued a statement saying "In recent months, I have given serious thought to asking the people of California for the privilege to serve as their Governor. I love this state, its people, and its promise. It is my home. But after deep reflection, I've decided that I will not run for Governor in this election."
"For now, my leadership—and public service—will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people, helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly, and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans," the statement read.
The backstory
Speculation over Harris' possible run for governor began earlier this year. Politico first reported the news, saying that Harris plans to decide by the end of the summer whether to enter the 2026 governor's race.
Harris lost in the November presidential election to President Donald Trump, after she was thrust into an unprecedented situation when President Joe Biden ended his reelection bid and endorsed her as his successor.
This is the first time since 2004, when she became San Francisco's district attorney, that she hasn't held an elected position.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Kamala Harris reportedly considering run for California governor
Speculation about her political future has grown, especially after she signed a deal with Creative Artists Agency and reports that she may write a book.
Harris made history as the first woman, Black person and person of South Asian descent to serve as vice president.
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: Kamala Harris sees support for potential CA governor run in new poll
In Nov. 2024, a poll conducted by Berkeley IGS found that 1 in 3 voters surveyed said they would be very likely to support Harris if she ran for governor. Another 13% said they would be "somewhat likely" to support her.
If she had run, she would seek to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom, who will be term-limited.
Race for Governor
Several candidates have announced their run for governor.
Three Republicans, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, former Fox News host Steve Hilton, and businessman Leo Zacky, have already announced their campaign.
RELATED:CA Governor Race: Who is running to replace Newsom
A host of Democrats have also joined the race -- former congressman and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, state schools chief Tony Thurmond, former Controller Betty Yee, former state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins and entrepreneur Stephen Cloobeck.
The Source
Information for this story is from Fox News Digital and a report from Politico.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
23 minutes ago
- Time Business News
India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination: MEA Bold Response to White House Peace Claims
Source – LegalPress New Delhi – The official India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination response emerged on Friday when the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) diplomatically sidestepped questions regarding the White House's aggressive campaign for President Donald Trump to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This measured diplomatic response reflects India's careful approach to addressing American claims about conflict resolution. During a press briefing, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal was directly questioned about the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue, specifically regarding White House assertions that Trump had ended several global conflicts, including the dispute between India and Pakistan. The spokesperson's response demonstrated India's preference for avoiding direct engagement with controversial American political narratives. Diplomatic Deflection Strategy The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination query received a characteristically diplomatic response from Jaiswal, who stated, 'It is better to take this question to the White House.' This carefully crafted deflection avoids both endorsement and criticism of American claims while maintaining India's traditional non-interference stance in foreign political processes. This approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects New Delhi's broader strategy of avoiding entanglement in American domestic political debates, particularly those involving disputed claims about international diplomatic achievements. The MEA's response maintains diplomatic neutrality while neither validating nor challenging White House assertions. White House Claims and International Conflict Resolution The context surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination stems from White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's comprehensive advocacy for Trump's Nobel Peace Prize candidacy. Leavitt claimed that Trump had 'ended conflicts between Thailand and Cambodia, Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo and Egypt and Ethiopia.' The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign specifically highlights alleged American mediation in the India-Pakistan conflict as evidence of Trump's peace-making credentials. According to White House calculations, Trump brokered approximately one peace deal monthly during his six months in office, making him deserving of international recognition. Leavitt's statement that 'It's well past time that President Trump was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize' directly incorporates the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative as supporting evidence for this assertion. This claim positions the alleged India-Pakistan ceasefire as a significant diplomatic achievement worthy of Nobel recognition. India's Historical Position on Bilateral Negotiations The India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue highlights a fundamental disagreement between New Delhi and Washington regarding the nature of India-Pakistan conflict resolution. India has consistently maintained that the cessation of hostilities between the two nations was achieved through bilateral negotiations rather than external mediation. New Delhi's rejection of Trump's mediation claims creates complications for the India On Trump Nobel Prize Nomination narrative promoted by the White House. This disagreement represents a significant diplomatic challenge, as India's official position directly contradicts the foundation of American Nobel Prize advocacy. Despite repeated assertions from Trump linking trade deals to conflict resolution, India's stance on the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination remains unchanged. The government continues to emphasize bilateral diplomatic processes rather than acknowledging American intervention in regional peace initiatives. Pakistan's Contrasting Position While India maintains diplomatic distance from the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign, Pakistan has embraced and actively supported Trump's candidacy. Islamabad has publicly thanked Trump for allegedly brokering the India-Pakistan deal, creating a stark contrast with India's position. In June, Pakistan formally nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, specifically citing his 'diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership' during the India-Pakistan crisis. This Pakistani endorsement adds complexity to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination debate by providing official support from one of the alleged beneficiaries. The Pakistani government's statement declared: 'Government of Pakistan Recommends President Donald J. Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize. The Government of Pakistan has decided to formally recommend President Donald J. Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership during the recent India-Pakistan crisis.' International Recognition and Norwegian Nobel Committee The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign faces the ultimate test of international legitimacy through the Norwegian Nobel Committee's evaluation process. Despite various endorsements and advocacy efforts, the Committee has maintained its traditional silence regarding Trump's candidacy. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's approach to the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects their standard practice of avoiding public commentary on potential candidates. This institutional discretion means that public advocacy campaigns, regardless of their intensity or political backing, do not necessarily influence final selection decisions. Geopolitical Implications and Diplomatic Complexities The India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination issue illustrates broader challenges in contemporary international diplomacy, where domestic political narratives intersect with complex international relationships. India's careful response demonstrates the delicate balance required when addressing claims that involve multiple stakeholders with differing perspectives. The ongoing debate surrounding the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination reflects deeper questions about conflict resolution attribution, the role of external mediation in bilateral disputes, and the intersection of international recognition with domestic political objectives. Future Diplomatic Considerations As the India on Trump Nobel Prize Nomination campaign continues, India's diplomatic strategy will likely maintain its current trajectory of non-engagement with American political narratives while preserving bilateral relationship stability. This approach allows India to protect its sovereignty over conflict resolution narratives while avoiding unnecessary diplomatic friction with the United States. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Los Angeles Times
23 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘They roll right over': Many Democratic voters call their party weak and ineffective, poll finds
WASHINGTON — Many Democrats see their political party as 'weak' or 'ineffective,' while Republicans are more complimentary of their party, although a small but significant share describe the GOP as 'greedy' or say it is generally 'bad,' according to a new poll. The poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research in July reveals warning signs for both major U.S. parties as the political focus shifts to elections in New Jersey and Virginia this fall and the midterm contests next year. Respondents were asked to share the first word or phrase that came to mind when they thought of the Republican and Democratic parties. Answers were then sorted into broad categories, including negative and positive attributes. Overall, U.S. adults held a dim view of both parties, with about 4 in 10 using negative attributes, including words such as 'dishonest' or 'stupid.' But nearly nine months after Republican Donald Trump won a second presidential term, Democrats appear to be harboring more resentment about the state of their party than do Republicans. Democrats were likelier to describe their own party negatively than Republicans. Republicans were about twice as likely to describe their own party positively. 'They're spineless,' Cathia Krehbiel, a 48-year-old Democrat from Indianola, Iowa, said of her party. She believes the party's response to the Trump administration has been 'scattershot.' 'I just feel like there's so much recently that's just going abhorrently wrong,' Krehbiel said. 'And they speak up a little bit and they roll right over.' Overall, roughly one-third of Democrats described their party negatively in the open-ended question. About 15% described the Democratic Party using such words as 'weak' or 'apathetic,' while an additional 10% believe it is broadly 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Only about 2 in 10 Democrats described their party positively, with roughly 1 in 10 saying it is 'empathetic' or 'inclusive.' An additional 1 in 10 used more general positive descriptors. It is unclear what effect the Democrats' unease may have on upcoming elections or the political debate in Washington, but no political organization wants to be plagued by internal divisions. Still, the Democrats' frustration appears to reflect their concern that party leaders are not doing enough to stop Trump's GOP, which controls Washington. There is little sign that such voters would abandon their party in favor of Trump's allies in upcoming elections, and the vast majority of Democrats described the GOP negatively. But disaffected Democrats might decide not to vote at all. That could undermine their party's push to reclaim at least one chamber of Congress in 2026. Jim Williams, a 78-year-old retiree from Harper Woods, Mich., is a self-described political independent who said he typically supports Democrats, but he is 'disappointed' with the party and its murky message. He views the Republican Party as much worse, saying it 'has lost it' under Trump's leadership. 'All he does is bully and call names. They've got no morals, no ethics. And the more they back him, the less I like them,' he said of Trump. Republicans are about twice as likely as Democrats to describe their party positively, with many also using straightforward ideological descriptors like 'conservative.' About 4 in 10 Republicans used positive attributes to characterize the GOP, making general mentions of words such as 'patriotic' or 'hardworking,' or offering associations with the word 'freedom.' Samuel Washington, 65, of Chicago, said he typically votes Republican. He praised Trump's leadership, even while acknowledging that the president's policies on trade and spending might be creating short-term economic hardship. 'There's a lot of pain, but the pain is the result of 12 years of misuse and misguided leadership from the Democratic Party,' he said. 'I'm feeling really good about Republicans and the direction that they're going.' But views were not uniformly good. About 2 in 10 Republicans said something negative about the party, including phrases such as 'greedy,' 'for the rich' or 'corrupt.' Republican Dick Grayson, an 83-year-old veteran from Trade, Tenn., said he is 'disappointed' by his party's fealty to Trump. Among other things, he pointed to the price tag of Trump's tax-and-spend package, which will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the nation's debt over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. 'I've always been a Republican, but I'm disillusioned about both parties,' Grayson said. Among all Americans, the poll finds that the Republican Party is viewed slightly more negatively than the Democratic Party. The different is not large: 43% used negative words to describe the Republicans, compared with 39% for the Democrats. Much of the negativity is driven by the opposing party — and nonaligned voters' distaste for both. So-called political independents are much likelier to describe both parties with negative attributes rather than positive descriptors, though a significant share did not offer an opinion. Curtis Musser, a 60-year-old unaffiliated voter from Beverly Hills, Fla., said both parties have shifted too far toward the extreme for his liking. He said he is ready for a serious third party to emerge before the next presidential election, pointing to Elon Musk's new America Party, which has been slow to launch. 'Maybe he would get us headed in the right direction,' the retired schoolteacher said. The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. Peoples, Sanders and Yoo write for the Associated Press. Peoples reported from New York, Sanders and Yoo from Washington.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump is undermining his own law that prevents mass atrocities
The Elie Wiesel Genocide and Atrocities Prevention Act of 2018, which overwhelmingly passed across party lines in the House and Senate, institutionalizes atrocity prevention in the U.S. government. This includes legally mandating an interagency atrocity prevention coordination body, requiring training for foreign service officers on the prevention of atrocities, requiring an atrocity prevention strategy and, critically, annual reporting to Congress on the government's efforts. But this law is being ignored, to America's detriment. Democratic and Republican administrations have agreed for almost two decades that preventing mass atrocities around the world is a central foreign policy interest of the United States. In 2011, President Obama declared mass atrocities prevention a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. In 2019, the Trump administration stated that it 'has made a steadfast commitment to prevent, mitigate and respond to mass atrocities, and has set up a whole-of-government interagency structure to support this commitment.' In 2021, President Biden said, 'I recommit to the simple truth that preventing future genocides remains both our moral duty and a matter of national and global importance.' Preventing genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing is so central to America's own values, interests and security that in 2018, Trump signed the Elie Wiesel Act with strong bipartisan support. This law was groundbreaking, making the U.S. the first country in the world to enshrine the objective of presenting mass atrocities globally into national law. Yet today, this law and the work it advanced are under dire threat. What will Congress do about it? Mass atrocities are an anathema to American interests. Large scale, deliberate attacks on civilians shock the conscience. They undermine U.S moral, diplomatic, development and security interests. Preventing mass atrocities not only advances American interests, but it also strengthens our international cooperation and global leadership while advancing a peaceful and more just world. Most importantly, America should help prevent mass atrocities because it can. It has the tools and capabilities to help protect civilians and prevent the worst forms of human rights violations. It cannot do this alone, as there are many reasons why atrocities take place, but it can have an impact. And in today's world, this work is more important than ever. While the nation's atrocity prevention systems aren't perfect and there are certainly failures to point to, there has also been important progress and successes that risk being erased, making it even less likely that the U.S. will succeed at its commitment to protect civilians and prevent atrocities. The Trump administration should have submitted its Elie Wiesel Act annual report to Congress by July 15 — this didn't happen. The report is a critical tool for communicating to Congress and the American people what the U.S. is doing to advance this work. It is a mile marker for what has been done and what the needs are. It creates an opportunity for experts outside of government to weigh in. And it allows Congress to conduct oversight over the implementation of its law. But not only was the report not submitted by the normal deadline, nearly all of the U.S. government's atrocity experts have been subjected to reductions in force, forced to accept reassignment or retirement or placed on administrative leave. Key offices in USAID, the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the Intelligence Community and more have been eliminated or hollowed out. Without these experts and the offices that employed them, the U.S. lacks the expertise and systems to, at a minimum, fulfill its legal mandate under the law, let alone to effectively prevent, respond to and help countries recover from mass atrocities. In response to this glaring violation of U.S. law, a group of former civil servants who served as the experts on atrocity prevention in the U.S. interagency wrote a shadow Elie Wiesel Act report, which was presented to congressional staff in a briefing last month. These are the people who served in the Atrocity Prevention Task Force and who, under normal circumstances, would have written the annual Elie Wiesel Act Report. Civil society also would have made key contributions, both during the writing and roll-out of the report. None of that is possible now. But the work and imperative to prevent atrocities is still critical. When it enacted the Elie Wiesel Act, Congress knew that 'never again' doesn't happen simply because good people serve in government. True atrocity prevention requires institutionalization and incentivization in our governance system in order to compete with other, very legitimate foreign policy objectives. So why isn't Congress acting when this administration has completely destroyed the ability to address these core national security issues? We hope lawmakers will read this shadow report and critically engage with the questions that it raises. Why has the U.S. government's ability to prevent mass atrocities been attacked? How does this breakdown affect U.S. interests? What does this mean for countries around the world? What can be done to protect what's left and rebuild? And what is Congress willing to do about it, in defense of the law it passed and in line with its oversight duties? To do any less is to abdicate the promise of 'never again.' The world deserves better. And so do the American people. Kim Hart was the global Human Rights team lead at USAID and part of USAID's Atrocity Prevention Core Team. D. Wes Rist was an Atrocity Prevention policy advisor in the Department of State's Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations. Both were government employees until April and served in both the Trump and Biden administrations.
