How JB Pritzker's decision to run for reelection could impact his 2028 aspirations: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail.
In today's edition, Lawrence Hurley previews a major Supreme Court decision day. Plus, Natasha Korecki explores the 2028 implications of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker's decision to seek a third term.
— Adam Wollner
How JB Pritzker's decision to run for re-election could impact his 2028 aspirations
Analysis by Natasha Korecki
From Chicago's South Side, JB Pritzker, who has emerged as a prominent national voice of resistance to President Donald Trump, announced today he was running — for a third term as governor of Illinois.
It's no secret Pritzker has White House ambitions, with his frequent cable news interviews, political investments in national battlegrounds and visits to states likely to be early on a presidential primary calendar.
Appearing on the ballot in November 2026 doesn't preclude him from running for president. But it does push Pritzker into a potentially precarious position as other Democrats begin dipping their toes into the 2028 waters.
As the sure-to-be-packed field ramps up, Pritzker will be stumping in one of the bluest states in the nation. As he does, he will have to answer if he plans to stick around for all four years of his state job. If he's re-elected, he'll have to wait a requisite amount of time before shifting into White House mode. By then, will a newcomer capture the Democratic energy? Will potential opponents get a leg up on out-organizing and defining him?
GOP Gov. Ron DeSantis found himself in this predicament when he first sought re-election in Florida in 2022 before announcing a 2024 bid. By the time DeSantis entered the race, Trump had already established a foothold in the contest.
Of course, Democrats' dynamic heading into 2028 is markedly different from that of the GOP primary that featured a former president who led one of the biggest movements in modern politics.
But already, former Chicago mayor and ex-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel — who hails from Pritzker's state — is openly exploring a presidential bid. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has spent months drawing progressive crowds on the road with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Democratic governors like Gavin Newsom and Gretchen Whitmer, who are bound by term limits and will be out of office come early 2027, will be free to begin building organizations and raising money for potential White House bids.
Pritzker would be far from the first politician who held office while running for president. And as a billionaire who has bankrolled his own campaigns, he is uniquely situated to shift into a national posture.
A veteran Illinois political operative and Pritzker ally said running for a national post while holding state office could be an asset.
'I see it completely opposite. You're better off running with the platform as Illinois governor,' this person said. 'This is his third term, and so he can walk and chew gum. He can do events as Illinois governor. And we know that 50% of JB will make a better governor than anybody else out there. I don't see it as remotely problematic or complicated at all.'
But as another Democratic strategist put it to us earlier this week: 'The minute JB announces he's running, JB would have taken himself out of the presidential conversation from June 2025 to November 2026. Do you really want to cede the field for a year and five months?'
Tomorrow is shaping up to be a big day at the Supreme Court
By Lawrence Hurley
The Supreme Court is set to conclude its nine-month term tomorrow with a flurry of rulings. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has six cases left to decide of those in which it heard oral arguments in the current term.
The one that has attracted the most attention is President Donald Trump's attempt to end automatic birthright citizenship. The case focuses not on the lawfulness of the proposal itself but whether federal judges had the power to block it nationwide while litigation continues.
What the court says about so-called nationwide injunctions could have wide-ranging impacts, with judges frequently ruling against Trump on his broad use of executive power. The court also has the option of sidestepping a decision on that issue and instead taking up the merits of the plan.
Birthright citizenship is conferred under the Constitution's 14th Amendment. The long-standing interpretation of the provision as understood by generations of Americans, including legal scholars on the left and right, is that anyone born on U.S. soil is an American citizen with a few minor exceptions, including people who are the children of diplomats.
Along with birthright citizenship, the other five cases the court has to decide concern:
Whether conservative religious parents can opt their elementary school-age children out of LGBTQ-themed books in class.
Long-running litigation over whether congressional districts in Louisiana are lawful.
A law enacted in Texas that imposes age restrictions for using adult websites.
A challenge to the Affordable Care Act's preventive care task force.
A Federal Communications Commission program that subsidizes phone and internet services in underserved areas.
More from SCOTUS: The Supreme Court ruled today for South Carolina in its effort to defund Planned Parenthood, concluding that individual Medicaid patients cannot sue to enforce their right to pick a medical provider.
🎙️ Here's the Scoop
This week, NBC News launched ' Here's the Scoop,' a new evening podcast that brings you a fresh take on the day's top stories in 15 minutes or less.
In today's episode, host Morgan Chesky discusses the newest recommendations out of the CDC's vaccine advisory panel with NBC News medical contributor Dr. John Torres.
Listen to the episode here →
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Detroit's mayor tries to capitalize on voter disdain for both parties with independent run for governor
With well over a year until the 2026 midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans are already gearing up for expensive fights in House, Senate and governor's races across the country. Enter Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan, who is betting that there is a path to becoming Michigan's next governor without embracing either of those party labels. Duggan, a longtime Democrat who has served for over a decade as Detroit's mayor, announced in December that he would run an independent campaign to succeed Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, who cannot run for a third term next year. It's an audacious bet, in one of the nation's most tightly divided swing states, that voters who say they are fed up with both parties are ready to back another choice. But while some of the political conditions seem ripe, recent independents running in three-way elections haven't been able to push that sentiment to victory. 'Every place I go, the depth of anger at the two parties runs deep,' Duggan told NBC News in an interview. He said he decided to run as an independent to escape the political expectations that come with serving one party or the other in Lansing, describing the current environment in the state capital as 'toxic.' Michigan currently has a divided state Legislature, with Democrats narrowly controlling the state Senate (and the governorship) while Republicans control the state House after wresting it back from Democrats in 2024. 'Every single conversation in Lansing was, 'Will this bill help me keep the majority?' 'Will this bill help me get the majority?' And nobody was solving any problems,' Duggan said. 'They wanted to create a moment that they could [use to] send out fundraising appeals off of some type of conflict.' Opportunity — and an uphill climb — for independent candidates Across the country, the appetite for third-party candidates is growing. A recent NBC News analysis found that Americans are increasingly registering to vote as unaffiliated voters, opting not to identify with a political party. Voters hold negative views of both parties, and the Democratic Party earlier this year notched its lowest ratings in 35 years of NBC News polling. Some prominent political figures have sought out a third option, away from both major parties. In the past three years, two former senators — Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — left the Democratic Party and registered as independents. More recently, Elon Musk, a tech mogul and former adviser to President Donald Trump who spent more than a quarter-billion dollars to help him in 2024, posted on X amid a feud with Trump about the appetite for 'a new political party in America that actually represents the 80% in the middle,' though it's unclear how serious Musk was. (Duggan wrote in response to the Tesla and SpaceX CEO, 'Now you've got my attention…' alongside a smiley emoji.) That sentiment aside, turning the broad idea of unhappiness with the two parties into actual statewide victory for an independent candidate is difficult, as recent years of elections show. In Oregon, former state Sen. Betsy Johnson mounted a well-funded independent campaign for governor in 2022, at times receiving almost 20% of voters' support in public polling. But on Election Day, Johnson received under 9% of the vote, with Democrat Tina Kotek winning the race. Last year in Nebraska, Navy veteran Dan Osborn ran an independent campaign for Senate that gained national attention. Democrats didn't field a candidate in the race and Osborn lost to incumbent Sen. Deb Fischer, a Republican, by over 6 points, though he held Fischer well below Trump's margin in the state. In Michigan, Duggan insists that he's received support from voters on both sides of the aisle, saying he's simply offering them a choice outside of the traditional two-party binary. 'This whole evenly divided, Republican and Democrat 'attack each other every two years in an election cycle' isn't working for Michigan, and maybe I give the voters a different choice,' Duggan said. A big race in a key state Duggan's presence adds another layer of complexity as both parties gear up for a competitive race. Though Whitmer won her second term by more than 10 points, Michigan is typically a tightly balanced battleground. In 2024, the state backed Trump for president by less than 2 points and Democrat Elissa Slotkin for Senate by an even slimmer margin. Four years earlier, Biden defeated Trump in the Great Lakes State by nearly 3 points. But Democrats and Republicans still have to sort out who their nominees for governor will be, and voters don't head to the polls in the state's primary until August of next year. On the Democratic side, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist and Genesee County Sheriff Chris Swanson have launched campaigns to succeed Whitmer. Republican Rep. John James, state Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, former state House Speaker Tom Leonard and former state Attorney General Mike Cox have all jumped into the GOP primary. '[Duggan] announced right at the beginning of the year, which gives him a full two years with no primary to get around the state and tell his story,' Jason Roe, a Republican strategist in Michigan who is not currently working for any gubernatorial candidate, told NBC News. With Democrats and Republicans focused on their own primaries, 'there's really no reward to any of those candidates to attack him,' Roe said, adding: 'And so I think he gets to go around, you know, talking about rainbows and unicorns' without getting attacked. Democrats have targeted Duggan recently, if not in a way many voters would have seen, accusing him of corruption in one digital ad funded by the Democratic Governors Association's Victory Fund in May. 'Duggan is running a self-serving campaign that has no path to victory,' DGA communications director Sam Newton told NBC News in a statement, adding: 'The DGA has beaten attention-grabbing third-party candidates before — and we're confident that we'll do it again in Michigan in 2026.' Michigan Democratic Party Chair Curtis Hertel also slammed Duggan, telling NBC News that the mayor is only running as an independent because he didn't want to run in the Democratic primary. 'I think most of this is about Mike's ego. It was bruised by the fact that he couldn't actually win a Democratic primary,' Hertel said. 'He has very thin skin.' On the other side of the aisle, Republicans haven't yet engaged in formal campaigning against Duggan. But one national Republican strategist noted that the Michigan race is going to be competitive — and expensive — next fall whether Duggan is drawing significant support or not. Roe noted Duggan's popularity in and around Detroit, adding that he's well-liked by Michigan's business leaders. 'People see the business community, the organized business community, migrating to him,' he said. Roe, who lives in the suburban Detroit area, said that Republicans in his area seem particularly attracted to Duggan's campaign as well. But he cautioned against drawing conclusions about Duggan's popularity among partisans until after next year's primary. 'There's a big but here. They don't have a binary choice. They don't know who the Republicans are. They don't know who Democrats are,' he said. Hertel compared Duggan's support now to that of early support for previous independent candidates elsewhere. 'What we've seen, a lot of times, with these independent candidates, is, you know, they get a lot of attention at first, but when we get closer to election time, people make different decisions,' Hertel said. 'Right now it's, 'Well, I know Duggan, and I feel Duggan has done some great stuff in Detroit. No clue about these other people,' right?' Roe said. 'Once there's nominees, and you have three people to choose from, that will likely change.'
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
California leaders approve budget to close $12bn deficit in blow to progressive causes
California lawmakers on Friday approved a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark healthcare expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12bn deficit. It is the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. This year's $321bn spending plan was negotiated by legislative leaders and the Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. Newsom is expected to sign the budget. But it will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. California also faces potential federal cuts to healthcare programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies – including on tariffs and immigration enforcement – could reduce state tax revenue by $16bn. 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Mike McGuire, the senate president pro tempore, said on Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17bn to $24bn annually. 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending,' said Tony Strickland, a Republican state senator, before the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded healthcare program for low-income people starting in 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium in July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it is a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal healthcare. A Democratic state senator, María Elena Durazo, broke with her party and voted 'no' on the healthcare changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78m in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian'. The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1bn from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1bn would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. The budget does not make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1bn annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10m to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. The budget agreement will provide $80m to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50m, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15m for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20m to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure – including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers – said that was not enough money. Some have estimated it would take about $400m for the first year of the program. Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330m to $750m annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10m to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties will not see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also does not act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a vast underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
