Kamala Harris will not run for California governor
Ms Harris's decision not to run could leave the door open for a third run for the presidency in 2028.
'Over the past six months, I have spent time reflecting on this moment in our nation's history and the best way for me to continue fighting for the American people and advancing the values and ideals I hold dear,' she said in a statement.
'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.'
Ms Harris has spent months privately considering whether to run for governor, stage another run for the White House or step away from electoral politics altogether after her bruising loss to Donald Trump last year.
She has not ruled out another run for president, after unsuccessful campaigns in 2020 and 2024.
In her statement, although she did not mention Mr Trump directly, Ms Harris said: 'Our politics, our government, and our institutions have too often failed the American people, culminating in this moment of crisis.
'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,' she added.
Ms Harris would have entered the contest to replace term-limited Gavin Newsom as a front-runner given her widespread name recognition, fundraising prowess, and track record of winning statewide elections.
Before serving as a Senator and vice-president, she was elected California state attorney general and district attorney in San Francisco.
Ms Harris's decision not to seek the governorship leaves the contest to replace Mr Newsom wide open.
The Democratic field includes Katie Porter, a former congresswoman, Antonio Villaraigosa, a former Los Angeles Mayor, and Xavier Becerra, a former Biden administration health secretary, among others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, is transferred to a prison camp in Texas
Jeffrey Epstein 's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been moved from a federal prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas as her criminal case generates renewed public attention. The federal Bureau of Prisons said Friday that Maxwell had been transferred to Bryan, Texas, but did not explain the circumstances. Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, also confirmed the move but declined to discuss the reasons for it. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by the disgraced financier, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. She had been held at a low-security prison in Tallahassee, Florida, until her transfer to the prison camp in Texas, where other inmates include Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and Jen Shah of 'The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City.' Minimum-security federal prison camps house inmates the Bureau of Prisons considers to be the lowest security risk. Some don't even have fences. The prison camps were originally designed with low security to make operations easier and to allow inmates tasked with performing work at the prison, like landscaping and maintenance, to avoid repeatedly checking in and out of a main prison facility. Prosecutors have said Epstein's sex crimes could not have been done without Maxwell, but her lawyers have maintained that she was wrongly prosecuted and denied a fair trial, and have floated the idea of a pardon from President Donald Trump. They have also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case. Trump said Friday night that no one has asked him about a clemency for Maxwell. 'I'm allowed to do it but nobody's asked me to do it," he told Newsmax in an interview broadcast Friday night. "I know nothing about it. I don't know anything about the case, but I know I have the right to do it. I have the right to give pardons, I've given pardons to people before, but nobody's even asked me to do it.' Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. Maxwell, meanwhile, was interviewed at a Florida courthouse over two days last week by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said this week that they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In the Newsmax interview, Trump said he did not know when Blanche would disclose to the public what he and Maxwell discussed during the interviews. 'I think he just wants to make sure that innocent people aren't hurt, but you'd have to speak to him about it,' Trump said. In a letter Friday to Maxwell's lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team. ___ Associated Press writers Michael Balsamo, Matt Brown and Darlene Superville contributed to this report.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
India to defy Trump's threats and keep buying Russian oil, government sources say
India will keep purchasing oil from Russia, despite President Donald Trump threatening to impose penalties for doing so, two Indian officials said on Saturday Officials in India, the most populous country on Earth, told Reuters and That contradicted a statement from Trump, who on Friday told reporters his understanding was that India would 'no longer' be buying oil from Russia. "These are long-term oil contracts," an unnamed Indian official told Reuters. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight.' Last week, Trump said India would face unspecified penalties for buying Russian oil in addition to a 25 percent tariff on goods. However, China and Turkey, two countries that also purchase large amounts of Russian oil, have not faced similar penalty threats. India drastically increased its import of Russian oil after the Kremlin invaded Ukraine in 2022, while many other countries began to cut back it's imports. The cheap availability of Russian oil allowed India to reduce its reliance on other countries, such as Saudi Arabia or Iraq, who typically sell to Asian countries at a higher price. While India faced criticisms for doing so, the general consensus around India's increase in imports has been that it helps avoid a global surge in oil prices. It's unclear why exactly Trump has targeted India in reducing its import of Russian oil. The president has recently expressed frustrations with Russian President Vladimir Putin for failing to come to the peace talks table to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine. On Friday, India's external affairs spokesperson Randdhir Jaiswal said India and Russia had a 'time-tested partnership' and that India was analyzing its energy sourcing. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," Jaiswal said, according to Reuters. India heavily relies on energy imports to sustain the needs of it's more than one billion population. It imports more than one million barrels per day.
Daily Mail
15 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
TOBIAS ELLWOOD: Schoolyard threats between Russia and US with apocalyptic high stakes
This is classic gunboat diplomacy – a demonstration of brute American force to make Russia think twice about making idle threats. President Trump's public announcement that he was redeploying two nuclear submarines is obviously designed to avoid – not incite – all-out war with Moscow. But it's also a potentially dangerous escalation between two nations armed to the teeth with weapons capable of extinguishing life on this planet. And it underscores how sour the US-Russia relationship is becoming. At its heart is the rude awakening that Mr Trump has had to experience since he took office. Remember how, before he re-entered the White House, he promised that he could end the Ukraine war in 24 hours? Once re-installed in the White House, he even sided with Putin over Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in pursuit of such a peace deal. But Mr Trump's assumption he could do business with Putin has since come crashing down. Every time the West flinched at Putin's nuclear threats during discussions about arming Ukraine, it emboldened him. Once you're spooked, Putin has you over a barrel. Secondly, what does this say about the backchannels between the West and Moscow? After the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, there were big red phones on both presidents' desks, reminding them 24/7 that in a nuclear conflict there are no winners. But now, over 60 years on, these two nuclear superpowers are arguing on social media. At its heart is the rude awakening that Mr Trump has had to experience since he took office. Once re-installed in the White House, he even sided with Putin over Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky (pictured) in pursuit of such a peace deal To keep this in perspective, this wasn't a formal White House response to satellite images showing missile launchers on the move in the US's backyard. Nor was it triggered by a declaration of military intent from Putin. It came from Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council – a man known for stirring up mischief on social media. Last week he sought to tweak Mr Trump's tail by warning that each new US ultimatum over the conflict in Ukraine was 'a threat and a step towards war'. Tough words, but hardly reason for the US President publicly to redeploy two nuclear submarines? This episode shines a spotlight on Mr Trump's strategic misstep. After going out on a limb to find a deal on Ukraine, he's been humiliated. And now his response feels like an overreaction to comments that, when analysed, didn't warrant the attention they received. Ultimately, this should serve as a steep learning curve – one that shows Mr Trump just how flawed that Russia-friendly stance really was and how essential backchannels are. It also shows how alarmingly close we may be to sliding toward open conflict. Donald, this isn't statecraft. It's schoolyard brinkmanship with apocalyptic stakes.
