Centrist Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska won't seek reelection
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, a centrist Republican who represents Nebraska's second district with its so-called 'blue dot' that includes many progressive voters around Omaha, will not seek reelection.
That's according to a person familiar with his plans and granted anonymity to discuss them Friday.
Bacon is known as an independent-minded Air Force veteran who serves on the House Armed Services Committee and has been at the center of many debates in Congress. He has also been chairman of the conservative-centrist Republican Main Street Caucus in the House.
First elected in 2016, he won reelection in 2024, is expected to finish his term.
Punchbowl News was first to report Bacon's expected decision.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
New Jersey lawmaker, inspired by Trump's Gulf of America, suggests new name for Delaware Bay
The Garden State should rename its historic Delaware Bay to 'The Bay of New Jersey,' a state lawmaker inspired by President Trump renaming the Gulf of America proposed in new legislation this week. The bill, introduced by Republican state Sen. Michael Testa Thursday, would direct state agencies to use the term 'The Bay of New Jersey' in 'publications, signage, websites, and materials to reflect the new designation and notify relevant federal entities,' reported. 3 State Sen. Michael Testa wants to rename the Delaware Bay. Jared Larson / NY Post Design 'I look at the robust fishing industry — commercial fishing industry and recreational industry of the State of New Jersey,' Testa told the outlet. 'I think that the fact that we have to call the bay that we fish in the Delaware Bay – they've had a claim to that long enough.' 3 Republican state Sen. Michael Testa introduced a bill this week that would direct state agencies to use the term 'The Bay of New Jersey' instead of Delaware Bay if passed. ccrrogop The bay – a vital body of water for New Jersey tourism, commerce and travel – has had the name of its southern neighbor since 1610, when it was named after the third baron de la Warr, Thomas West, who governed the Virginia colony, according to the Delaware government's website. 'Make New Jersey Great Again!' Testa, a longtime supporter of President Donald Trump, wrote in an X post touting the bill Friday. The proposal comes about six months after Trump famously renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America – a move that led Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont to jokingly suggest that the Long Island Sound be recognized as the 'Connecticut Sound.' 3 The bay – a vital body of water for New Jersey tourism, commerce and travel – has had the name of its southern neighbor since 1610. Rose Guinther – 'While the maps are changing, here's an idea,' Lamont posted on X with a map of the sound renamed, and tagged New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. In a second bill introduced this week, Testa suggested that the Garden State should reclaim a slice of land located on Salem County's shoreline, which was deemed part of Delaware in a decades-old border agreement.
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Tillis becomes third GOP senator to oppose Trump' s big, beautiful bill
North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis (R) announced after a meeting with Senate GOP leaders and colleagues Saturday afternoon that he will vote 'no' on both the motion to proceed and final passage of the Republican megabill to implement President Trump's agenda because of deep cuts to federal Medicaid funding. Tillis said he wants Senate Republican leaders to drop their plan to lower the cap on healthcare provider taxes and instead embrace the Medicaid language passed by the House last month, which would cut much less federal funding in the program. 'Oh no. The data hasn't changed so I got to vote no,' he said. The North Carolina Republican said Senate leaders should return to 'starting with the House baseline.' 'I'm going to vote no on motion to proceed and on final passage,' he said. Tillis's strong opposition to the bill is a significant development because two other Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ron Johnson (Wis.), have already said they will vote 'no.' That gives substantially more leverage to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and other swing-vote senators to demand changes to the bill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) can only afford three defections from his conference and still pass the bill with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Vance given their 53-seat majority. Collins said she will vote Saturday to begin debate on the megabill but she says she wants to make several changes to it and is not guaranteed to vote 'yes' on final passage. 'I am planning to vote for the motion to proceed. Generally, I give deference to the majority leader's power to bring bills to the Senate floor. Does not in any way predict how I'm going to vote on final passage,' Collins told reporters Saturday. Tillis said he would help House Republican colleagues by 'defending their bill,' which would prohibit states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act from increasing health care provider taxes and barring states that did not expand the program from establishing new provider taxes. The Senate bill would cut more deeply into federal Medicaid funding for states by reducing the 6 percent cap on health care provider taxes by half a percentage point a year starting in 2028, reducing the cap down to 3.5 percent in 2032. States use healthcare provider taxes to collect more federal Medicaid funding, as the federal government matches what states collect in those taxes. Johnson, the Wisconsin senator, said in an interview with 'Fox & Friends Weekend' that he will vote against the motion to proceed to the bill on Saturday. 'I'm not going to vote for motion to proceed today. We just got the bill. I got my first copy about 1:23 in the morning, this morning,' he said. He said lawmakers have preliminary budget scores on less than half of the legislation. 'We don't even have the scores,' he said. 'We shouldn't take the [Rep.] Nancy Pelosi [(D-Calif.)] approach and pass this bill to find out what's in it,' he warned. 'We need to have a debate.' Paul, the Kentucky senator and other 'no' vote, has repeatedly said he will oppose the bill because it includes language to raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion.
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
What's next for birthright citizenship after the Supreme Court's ruling
WASHINGTON — The legal battle over President Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite his major Supreme Court victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with a more than century-old constitutional precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of Trump's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in part to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved Americans, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused reentry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the United States, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a few exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump signed an executive order upon assuming office in January that seeks to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The order is part of the president's hard-line anti-immigration agenda, and he has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which they contend means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Md., a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued are usurping the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities on immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review' in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of policies across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century,' said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and chief executive of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.' Sullivan and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman and Lindsay Whitehurst in Washington and Mike Catalini in Trenton, N.J., contributed to this report.
