Pritzker expected to announce campaign for third term as Illinois Governor on Thursday
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (NEXSTAR) — Governor JB Pritzker is expected to announce his campaign for a third term as Illinois Governor on Thursday.
Multiple sources told WGN and the Nexstar Capitol Bureau that Pritzker has campaign announcement events scheduled for different parts of the state on Thursday. Pritzker has largely been noncommittal when talking about his political future.
If he wins, he will be the first Illinois Democratic Governor to ever serve more than two terms. Former Republican Governor Jim Thompson previously served three terms.
Pritzker defends Illinois' immigration laws to congressional committee
Close allies of the Governor would not say whether he was definitively running or not, but they said they hope he does.
'The governor turned around a state that had a bond rating just barely above junk status, thanks to former Governor Rauner, who ran the state into the ground, didn't pay her bills, and has delivered several balanced budgets since he's been in office and raised our rating a bond rating significantly,' U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth said in an interview Tuesday. 'I am, like everyone else is, waiting to see if he decides to run for reelection. And if he does, I will support him.'
More recently, Pritzker has faced criticism on two fronts — the state's immigration policies and the increases in state spending that has happened under his watch.
The state's budget climbed above $55 billion this year. Republicans roundly criticized it for being almost a $14 billion increase in the budget since before Pritzker took office. Pritzker's office defends that increase by attributing it to a combination of inflation and increases in mandated spending, like on education, pensions and other essential programs.
State audit finds IL massively overspent on undocumented immigrant health care program
Pritzker's national profile has exploded in recent years, as he has become a top critic of President Donald Trump. The Illinois Governor was viewed as a potential replacement candidate for Democrats when Former President Joe Biden dropped out of the race in 2024, and he has only continued to fuel speculation about his presidential ambitions since. Pritzker has spoken at numerous Democratic party events in other states, continued to be a vocal critic of the Trump administration and overall just tried to expand his image beyond Illinois.
Pritzker's partner on the campaign trail the past two cycles, Lt. Governor Julianna Stratton, is on her own campaign now. She is running to replace Senator Dick Durbin in the U.S. Senate.
Gov. Pritzker endorses Stratton's run for Senate
'Whatever he decides to announce, I'll leave that up to him,' Stratton said. 'But all I can speak to is our partnership which was, and continues to be, a partnership of deep mutual respect. I love working alongside of him and I can say he's the best governor in the United States.'
Seeing that Stratton won't be joining him on the ticket, Pritzker needs to pick a new running mate. That choice would be important if he does move on to a different office, since they would be first in line to take over governing Illinois.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
40 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Carney government's ‘nation-building' bill becomes law despite Senate criticism
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Mark Carney's controversial legislation to fast-track 'nation-building' development projects received royal assent and became law after the rushed passage of Bill C-5 through the Senate on Thursday. But the legislative accomplishment — the first government bill to pass in both chambers under the minority Liberal administration elected April 28 — was marred by expressions of outrage from some senators, who criticized the legislation's creation of 'so-called Henry VIII' powers that allow the federal cabinet to override laws and regulations to approve development projects. Some also condemned what they saw as the bill's lack of consultation and requirements to respect Indigenous rights, suggesting the new process could get bogged down in the very opposition and delay that it is designed to avoid. 'Bill C-5 is not reconciliation. It's a betrayal of it,' said Sen. Paul Prosper, a Mi'kmaq lawyer from Nova Scotia, who told the red chamber his office received a deluge of 'racist vitriol' after he spoke about his desire to slow down the legislation that sped through the House of Commons last week with the support of opposition Conservatives. Yet some in that party still had concerns about the legislation. Mary Jane McCallum, a Conservative senator from Manitoba, argued Thursday that the bill gives too much power to the federal cabinet to choose projects, and to decide which laws and regulations are relevant to how they are approved. 'Canada is not a dictatorship, yet the so-called Henry VIII clauses in Bill C-5 bring us dangerously close to the precipice,' she said. After two days of debate, the Senate voted down several amendments that would have sent the legislation back to the House, and passed it as written without a recorded vote Thursday afternoon. It received Royal Assent from Gov. Gen. Mary Simon a short time later. Since introducing and pushing to pass the bill before Canada Day, the Carney government has defended the legislation as a necessary framework to boost economic growth and reduce reliance on the United States that has imposed steep tariffs that Ottawa deems illegal and unjustified. Last week, Carney also promised to host summits with Indigenous leaders in July to ensure there is participation on which proposed projects — from pipelines to ports and mines — are chosen for the fast-track process under C-5. The legislation gives the cabinet wide latitude to fast-track a development project based on 'any factor' it deems relevant. Although it's not written in the legislation, the government has pledged to finish the approval of fast-tracked projects so construction can begin within two years, while the special powers the bill creates are set to expire after five years. On Thursday, Sen. Hassan Yusseff, a former labour leader who advocated for the bill in the upper chamber, echoed the government's rationale that the special process to fast-track major projects — and a separate, less contentious part of the bill to lift federal barriers to trade and labour mobility inside Canada — are necessary because of U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war. His voice breaking with emotion, Yusseff made the case that the legislation is needed quickly to bolster the Canadian economy and help workers in the industries targeted by Trump's tariffs, from steel and aluminum to the auto sector. 'The men and women who build this country of ours are watching very closely,' Yusseff said. Throughout the day, senators debated the merits of the bill, with some arguing it forces Indigenous groups and environmentalists to trust the government to respect rights and standards, rather than force the government to do so. Some senators, however, said the bill's references to Indigenous rights in the Constitution, as well as the government's insistence it won't fast-track projects without provincial buy-in and Indigenous consultation, mean these concerns can't be addressed through amending the legislation. 'There's no bill we can pass that will guarantee the honour of the Crown,' said Alberta Sen. Patti LaBoucane-Benson. 'I don't think there's anything more we can do to the text of the bill to protect Indigenous rights.' Others, like Ontario Sen. Bernadette Clement, argued Parliament should take more time to improve the legislation and address concerns raised by environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and organizations like the Assembly of First Nations. 'Growing our economy, nation-building — yeah, that's urgent. It requires a timely an efficient response. But it doesn't require the trampling of Indigenous rights and our environmental protections,' Clement said. Marilou McPhedran, a senator from Manitoba, expressed shock that Conservatives and Liberals in the House voted en masse to surrender 'parliamentary sovereignty' to the cabinet under the bill. 'As we watch the results of the C-5 juggernaut roll out and roll over Canada, please remember this key question: are the constitutionally guaranteed rights to equality, to Aboriginal and treaty rights, the first to go with Bill C-5?' she said. The House of Commons made several amendments to the bill that some senators welcomed, including new reporting requirements on how projects are selected, and the creation of a parliamentary committee to oversee how the legislation is being used. The House also added a requirement to publish details of a project at least 30 days before it is named in the 'national interest,' and introduced limits so no projects can be added to the new process while Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. The legislation also requires the minister responsible for the law — currently Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc — to consult with provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples whose rights 'may be adversely affected' by a project. The Commons inserted a clause that requires the government to get 'written consent' from a province or territory — but not an Indigenous community — if a project falls within an area of its 'exclusive' jurisdiction. Sen. Marc Gold, the government representative in the chamber, said the bill is 'fundamentally about trust' that all groups — including the government — will act in the best interests of Canadians during a time of crisis after an election he said gave the Liberal minority government a clear mandate to pursue rapid economic growth. 'C-5 is indeed extraordinary, and indeed it entails unprecedented trust,' Gold said. 'This is not about any partisan interest, but in the interest of our country.'
an hour ago
Protesters gather in Bangkok to demand Thai prime minister's resignation over leaked Cambodia call
BANGKOK -- Hundreds of protesters gathered in Thailand's capital on Saturday to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, part of the brewing political turmoil set off by a leaked phone call with former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Paetongtarn faces growing dissatisfaction over her handling of a recent border dispute with Cambodia involving an armed confrontation May 28. One Cambodian soldier was killed in a relatively small, contested area. The clash set off a string of investigations that could lead to her removal. Protesters held national flags and signs as they occupied parts of the streets around the Victory Monument in central Bangkok. A huge stage was set up at the foot of the monument as participants sat and listened to speakers who said they gathered to express their love of the country following the intensified border row. Many of the leading figures in the protest were familiar faces who were part of a group popularly known as Yellow Shirts, whose clothing color indicates loyalty to the Thai monarchy. They are longtime foes of Paetongtarn's father, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Their rallies at times turned violent and led to military coups in 2006 and 2014, which respectively ousted the elected governments of Thaksin and Paetongtarn's aunt, former Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Outrage over the recorded phone call mostly revolved around Paetongtarn telling Hun Sen, the current Cambodian Senate president and a longtime friend of her father, not to listen to 'an opponent' in Thailand. It's believed to be a reference to the regional Thai army commander in charge of the area where the clash happened, who publicly criticized Cambodia over the border dispute. Hun Sen on Saturday vowed to protect his country's territory from foreign invaders and condemned what he called an attack by Thai forces last month. At a 74th anniversary celebration of the foundation of his long-ruling Cambodian People's Party, Hun Sen claimed the action by the Thai army was illegal when it engaged Cambodian forces. He said the skirmish inside Cambodian territory was a serious violation of country's sovereignty and territorial integrity, despite Cambodia's good will in attempting to resolve the border issue. 'This poor Cambodia has suffered from foreign invasion, war, and genocide, been surrounded and isolated and insulted in the past but now Cambodia has risen on an equal face with other countries. We need peace, friendship, cooperation, and development the most, and we have no politics and no unfriendly stance with any nation,' Hun Sen said in front of cheerful thousands of party members at the event in the Cambodian capital, Phnom Penh. There is a long history of territorial disputes between the countries. Thailand is still rattled by a 1962 International Court of Justice ruling that awarded Cambodia the disputed territory where the historic Preah Vihear temple stands. There were sporadic though serious clashes there in 2011. The ruling from the U.N. court was reaffirmed in 2013, when Yingluck was prime minister. The scandal has broken Paetongtarn's fragile coalition government, costing her Pheu Thai Party the loss of its biggest partner, Bhumjaithai Party. There already was a rift between Bhumjaithai and Pheu Thai Party over reports Bhumjaithai would be shuffled out of the powerful Interior Ministry. Several Bhumjaithai leaders also are under investigation over an alleged rigging of last year's Senate election in which many figures who are reportedly close to the party claimed a majority of seats. The departure of Bhumjaithai left the 10-party coalition with 255 seats, just above the majority of the 500-seat house. Paetongtarn also faces investigations by the Constitutional Court and the national anti-corruption agency. Their decisions could lead to her removal from office. Sarote Phuengrampan, secretary-general of the Office of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, said Wednesday that his agency is investigating Paetongtarn for a serious breach of ethics over the phone call with Hun Sen. He did not give a possible timeline for a decision. Reports said the Constitutional Court can suspend Paetongtarn from duty pending the investigation and could decide as early as next week whether it will take the case. The prime minister said Tuesday she is not worried and is ready to give evidence to support her case. 'It was clear from the phone call that I had nothing to gain from it, and I also didn't cause any damage to the country,' she said. The court last year removed her predecessor from Pheu Thai over a breach of ethics. Thailand's courts, especially the Constitutional Court, are considered a bulwark of the country's royalist establishment, which has used them and nominally independent state agencies such as the Election Commission to cripple or sink political opponents.
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too.
While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. Almost three years to the day since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the justices have once again made a decision that will limit access to reproductive care. This time, they're explicitly coming after Planned Parenthood. On Thursday, June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that could allow states to keep Medicaid dollars from the organization. In the 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that individuals could not sue to choose their health care provider after a patient sued South Carolina to receive reproductive care from Planned Parenthood. By making this decision, the courts are potentially shutting Planned Parenthood out of millions of dollars that would go to necessary health care options like birth control, cancer screenings and testing for sexually transmitted infections. It's a ruling that, like Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in her dissent, is going to harm people who rely on Planned Parenthood for their care. The plan was always to end abortion in every state It's just another instance of conservatives ignoring the realities of women's health care in favor of their beliefs, and a reminder that abortion continues to be a Republican target. It's also a reminder that we'll be living in this dystopian health care nightmare for a very, very long time. While Democrats have shied away from talking about abortion since the 2024 presidential election, it is still an issue Republicans are rallying around. They were never going to be satisfied with simply returning abortion rights back to the states, the plan was always to eradicate the health care procedure nationwide. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. In May, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ordered the Food and Drug Administration to review mifepristone, an abortion medication, because of a study from a conservative think tank that relies on flawed data. The majority of abortions in 2023 were medication abortions. If mifepristone were suddenly taken off the market, it would have huge ramifications for patients across the country. Planned Parenthood was also already struggling after President Donald Trump froze federal funding to more than 100 clinics earlier this year. It has led clinics across the country to shut down. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act also would block Medicaid patients from seeking care at Planned Parenthood, which could lead to more closures. None of this is happening in a vacuum. All of these Republican attacks amount to a nationwide assault on abortion rights, no matter where one is located in the country. Millions of people could soon lose access to the care they need because of the Republican agenda. Abortion bans aren't working. Defunding Planned Parenthood won't change that. Despite these targeted attacks on abortion, the procedure hasn't become less popular in the years following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision. In 2024, there was actually an increase in abortions, with a quarter of those procedures occurring via telehealth for medication. Public opinion on abortion has remained steady, with Pew Research Center reporting that 63% of Americans supported abortion in all or most cases in 2024. Opinion: Democrats don't need to move to the center. Mamdani proves progressives can win. Clearly, Republican leaders are only listening to a small subset of their constituency when they decide to go after Planned Parenthood. They do not listen to the millions of people who have benefited from the wide range of services that the organization provides. Instead, they would rather spread falsehoods about abortion and how it is funded. They will not be happy until abortions are nearly impossible to obtain, even when someone's life is at risk. The Supreme Court's latest cruel decision shows that we are still living with the long-term repercussions of having Trump nominate three justices to the bench. And this is just the beginning. It's clear nothing is going to stop Republicans from attacking Planned Parenthood until it's unable to function because of a lack of government funding. It's shameful that they continue to put a political agenda ahead of the health care needs of women. It's also not changing anytime soon. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno
