Kamala Harris leaves door open for potential 2028 presidential run
The two-time Democratic presidential candidate, who abruptly took over as her party's nominee in the 2024 general election, said in a surprise announcement on July 30 that she would not compete in next year's gubernatorial race.
What Harris, who currently lives in Southern California with her husband Doug Emhoff, did not say was whether she'd decided about running for president in 2028.
'For now, my leadership – and public service – will not be in elected office,' she said. '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.'
A source familiar with her thinking said Harris, 60, did not pass on a gubernatorial campaign in order to clear a path to run for president in 2028.
But the person noted that Harris also did not close the door on running for president. And it would have been politically impossible for her to seek both elected offices.
The next governor of California will take office at the beginning of 2027, around the same time that Harris would need to be gearing up for a presidential bid were she to compete again.
Another factor: Harris is currently writing a book, two people with knowledge of her plans said, and is expected to go on tour.
More: Burdened by what had been: Kamala Harris couldn't convince voters
"She can do anything she wants to do, but she owes us nothing. And I hope she spends some time with the kids and Dougie, maybe teaches. I'm ready to go read the book,' longtime Harris ally Bakari Sellers said. 'She's a talent and 2028 could be it. Or 2032. Whatever she decides. She's young."
The announcement adds an additional wrinkle to the decision-making process for Democrats with national ambitions who were forced to take a back seat to Harris last year, when former President Joe Biden quit his reelection campaign and endorsed his sitting vice president as his replacement.
Harris lost in a landslide to President Donald Trump, whom she characterized on the trail as an acute threat to democracy in the face of robust evidence that the electorate was primarily concerned about inflation and the economy.
She also came under criticism in the abbreviated campaign for refusing to distance herself from Biden, whose mental fitness and age have faced even greater scrutiny since he left office.
In her statement on the California governor's race, Harris said the country is in a 'moment of crisis' because the nation's politics, government and institutions have frequently failed the American people.
'As we look ahead, we must be willing to pursue change through new methods and fresh thinking – committed to our same values and principles, but not bound by the same playbook,' Harris said.
'She could still drop the hammer'
The announcement took even some of her closest political allies by surprise.
'I was anticipating an announcement for governor, because she would be good at it, and I thought she still wanted to get back in that fryer right now,' said Sellers, a co-chair of Harris' first presidential campaign.
Harris allies said they do not know which way Harris would come down on a 2028 presidential bid, but they were glad to see her commit to remaining politically active.
'I think we'll all be waiting with bated breath to see what her next steps are,' former Biden and Harris campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said.
Chavez Rodriguez worked for Harris in her Senate office and on her bid for the 2020 presidential nomination before joining Biden's team. She worked as a senior aide at the White House and ran his reelection campaign.
She said she believes Harris is focused on 'figuring out what she can do in the moment…given the challenges that we're facing in the immediate, and what I know will be even more challenges coming up.'
Glynda Carr, president of Higher Heights, which works to expand Black women's political power and backed Harris' 2020 presidential bid, said her campaign had inspired other women to run.
'I am on team Kamala Harris in whatever she decides to do,'' Carr said, noting that Harris can lead outside of having an elected office. 'I'm on team 'Kamala, private citizen,' team 'Kamala, candidate.''
Jaime Harrison, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee, said he would like to see Harris campaign for Democrats running for office in 2026, especially in the South.
He encouraged his party to stay focused on overturning Republicans' narrow majorities in the U.S. House and Senate and winning governorships.
'It's good to have her out there, and I'm sure, as she goes around the country, she'll make up her mind about what she wants to do about 2028. But we can't think about 2028 until we get to 2026,' Harrison said.
As for what it all means for possible candidates such as former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the answer is simple, Sellers said.
'Nothing, because she could still drop the hammer on all of them if she wants to run for president,' the Harris ally said. 'She'll beat all of them if she decides.'
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Kamala Harris leaves open door for 2028 presidential campaign
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Appeals Court Allows Trump Order That Ends Union Protections for Federal Workers
A federal appeals court on Friday allowed President Trump to move forward with an order instructing a broad swath of government agencies to end collective bargaining with federal unions. The ruling authorizes a component of Mr. Trump's sweeping effort to assert more control over the federal work force to move forward, for now, while the case plays out in court. It is unclear what immediate effect the ruling will have: The appeals court noted that the affected agencies had been directed to refrain from ending any collective bargaining agreement until 'litigation has concluded,' but also noted that Mr. Trump was now free to follow through with the order at his discretion. Mr. Trump had framed his order stripping workers of labor protections as critical to protect national security. But the plaintiffs — a group of affected unions representing over a million federal workers — argued in a lawsuit that the order was a form of retaliation against those unions that have participated in a barrage of lawsuits opposing Mr. Trump's policies. The unions pointed to statements from the White House justifying the order that said 'certain federal unions have declared war on President Trump's agenda' and that the president 'will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions.' But a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a famously liberal jurisdiction, ruled in Mr. Trump's favor, writing that 'the government has shown that the president would have taken the same action even in the absence' of the union lawsuits. Even if some of the White House's statements 'reflect a degree of retaliatory animus,' they wrote, those statements, taken as a whole, also demonstrate 'the president's focus on national security.' The unions had also argued that the order broadly targeted agencies across the government, some of which had no obvious national security portfolio — including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency — using national security as a pretext to strip the unions of their power. The panel sidestepped that claim, writing in the 15-page ruling that 'we question whether we can take up such arguments, which invite us to assess whether the president's stated reasons for exercising national security authority — clearly conferred to him by statute — were pretextual.' The order, they continued, 'conveys the president's determination that the excluded agencies have primary functions implicating national security.'
Fox News
2 minutes ago
- Fox News
Political analyst offers an answer to who is the leader of the Democratic Party
Panelists Matt Towery and Dan Turrentine discuss former Vice President Kamala Harris' interview with Stephen Colbert on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
New York Times
2 minutes ago
- New York Times
Senate Passes Its First Spending Bills, but Battles Lie Ahead
The Senate on Friday overwhelmingly passed the first of its spending bills for the coming year, with bipartisan approval of measures to fund military construction projects, veterans and agriculture programs and legislative branch agencies. But the broad agreement over the $506 billion package of bills, typically the least controversial of the annual federal spending measures, masked a bitter fight in Congress over how to fund the government past a Sept. 30 shutdown deadline. Senators pushed through the legislation after several intense days of haggling as part of an agreement to allow the chamber to make progress on funding the government before senators leave Washington for a monthlong summer recess. 'We are on the verge of an accomplishment that we have not done since 2018 — and that is pass appropriation bills across the Senate floor prior to the August recess,' Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, said on the floor. Still, debate over the package hinted at the bigger spending challenges that lie ahead. Democrats, furious about the White House's efforts to subvert Congress's power in the purse, are wary of striking spending deals with Republicans when President Trump and his team have signaled they intend to continue ignoring or defying lawmakers' spending dictates, even those enacted into law. And Republicans are fighting among themselves over how closely to hew to the Trump administration's spending targets. The package approved on Friday night would provide $452 billion for veterans programs, $300 billion of it mandatory spending to fund veterans benefits; $19.8 billion for military construction and family housing projects; $27.1 billion for agricultural programs; and $7.1 billion for the operations of Congress and legislative agencies. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
