Don Bacon won't seek reelection in competitive Nebraska district
'After consultation with my family and much prayer, I have decided not to seek reelection in 2026 and will fulfill my term in the 119th Congress through January 2, 2027,' the 61-year-old Bacon said in a statement.
'After three decades in the Air Force and now going on one decade in Congress, I look forward to coming home in the evenings and being with my wife and seeing more of our adult children and eight grandchildren, who all live near my home. I've been married for 41 years, and I'd like to dedicate more time to my family, my church, and the Omaha community,' he continued. 'I also want to continue advocating for a strong national security strategy and a strong alliance system with countries that share our love of democracy, free markets and the rule of law.'
The announcement comes days after a source familiar confirmed to The Hill that Bacon would not seek reelection next year.
Bacon's decision to retire creates an open seat in one of the most competitive congressional districts in the country.
Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, was won by former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and presents an opportunity for Democrats to pick up the 'blue dot' district Bacon has held since winning it in 2016.
Live updates: Senate debates 'big, beautiful bill'
'The writing has been on the wall for months. Nebraskans are tired of the false promises that Republicans are trying to sell and they want real results,' said Madison Andrus, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. 'Don Bacon's decision to not seek reelection in 2026 is the latest vote of no-confidence for House Republicans and their electoral prospects. Next November, Nebraskans are going to elect a Democrat who will actually deliver for them.'
The House Republican campaign arm emphasized it continues to feel confident that Republicans will maintain their hold on Bacon's seat.
'Don Bacon has served our country with honor after nearly 30 years in uniform and nearly a decade in Congress. Thanks to his steadfast commitment to duty and principled leadership, both Nebraska and our nation are stronger today,' said Zach Bannon, a spokesperson at the National Republican Congressional Committee.
'As we look ahead, Republicans are confident in keeping Nebraska's 2nd District red as we maintain and expand our majority in the House,' he added.
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
NBC News
25 minutes ago
- NBC News
As Texas plows ahead with new maps, governors grapple with the prospect of mid-decade redistricting
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — As Texas Republicans plow ahead with a plan to redraw congressional maps ahead of schedule, many governors are increasingly grappling with an issue that they didn't think they'd have to confront until the end of the decade. Texas' unscheduled redistricting effort — which Republicans hope could help protect their narrow House majority during next year's midterm elections — has had a ripple effect, with governors across the country floating the possibility of following suit to either add to or counter or the plan, depending on their party affiliation. At the summer meeting of the bipartisan National Governors Association in Colorado Springs, Democrats largely condemned the efforts in Texas while cheering on efforts by members of their own party in other states. 'It's deplorable,' New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, said in an interview on the sidelines of the summit, referring to Texas Republicans' attempt. When it came to threats by Democratic Govs. Gavin Newsom of California and Kathy Hochul of New York to forge ahead with plans to redraw congressional lines in their states, Murphy added, 'I don't think we have a choice.' 'If they're going to play these games, we're going to have to be just as aggressive,' Murphy said, adding that 'we can't bring a knife to a gunfight.' Asked if he'd condone a redistricting effort in New Jersey, Murphy said 'all options are on the table in New Jersey,' though he acknowledged that there were major obstacles to doing so. 'I fear there are significant constitutional constraints here in our own [state] constitution,' he said. In New Jersey, like in many other states, an independent commission oversees redistricting. 'But we are looking at all options — and we have to, as Democrats. If this is the way the other guys are going to go, we have to respond forcefully,' Murphy said. 'We have no choice.' Hawaii's Democratic Gov. Josh Green called the actions by Texas Republicans 'really sinister,' 'unconscionable' and 'completely unethical,' and called on his fellow Democratic governors to 'fight fire with fire.' 'It's an obvious attempt to steal elections,' Green said, though he also said that 'the Democratic Party can't stand by and watch it happen.' 'It's very unfortunate, because two wrongs don't make a right. But we can't allow one party to break the rules and then consistently in the future break more rules,' he added. 'It's turning into a knife fight,' Green said. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott kicked off a special legislative session on Monday, with congressional redistricting one of the topics on lawmakers' to-do list. The New York Times reported last month that members of Trump's political operation had privately urged Texas Republicans to redraw their maps ahead of the 2026 midterms. And Trump himself has publicly praised the efforts, urging Texas lawmakers to take actions that would help the GOP gain five House seats. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas' 38 congressional districts. The redistricting process typically occurs at the start of each new decade, when new census data is available. Texas' current maps were drawn in 2021, following the 2020 census, though they are still being fought over in court. The Republican effort in Texas has prompted some Democrats to fight back by threatening their own mid-decade redistricting schemes. Most prominently, Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has raised the idea of redrawing California's maps. But that effort would come with major obstacles: An independent commission controls the redistricting process in California, not the governor. On Thursday, Hochul entered the fray as well, responding to a question about redistricting in New York by saying: 'All's fair in love and war,' according to Politico. While not promising action, she added that she'd 'look at it closely with' House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. Elsewhere, Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker responded to a question about whether his state should pursue redistricting to counterbalance Texas' push by accusing Republicans of trying to 'cheat' ahead of the midterms. And a spokesman for Maryland's Democratic Gov. Wes Moore told The New York Times this week he will 'continue to evaluate all options.' On the other side of the aisle, just days after the state Supreme Court upheld the state's newest congressional map, Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said that 'there may be more defects that need to be remedied.' He added that population shifts in the state since the census has led him to believe the state is 'malapportioned' and that it 'would be appropriate to do a redistricting here in the mid-decade.' And in Ohio, state lawmakers are required to draw new congressional maps before 2026 because their current lines passed without bipartisan support. Republicans control 10 of Ohio's 15 House seats. Other Democratic leaders at the NGA did not urge their party's fellow governors to move forward with their own redistricting plans. 'I would really call upon Texas Republicans to not yield to the temptation and to stick with the map that they themselves drew that benefits Republicans in the Texas delegation and continue with that until the normal redistricting period occurs at the end of the decade,' Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in an interview. In Colorado, like in California, redistricting efforts are overseen by an independent commission. Meanwhile, some Republicans at the NGA expressed displeasure with the redistricting threats from both parties. 'I'll be perfectly honest. I only think about it once every 10 years,' Utah GOP Gov. Spencer Cox said in an interview. 'Obviously, there's concerns about gerrymandering, and both sides are doing it — you know, nobody has clean hands.' 'I don't love it. I wish there was a better way. I wish there was a nonpartisan way. Lots of states have tried,' Cox added. Former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, said he'd refuse to condemn Texas' efforts, even though he himself helped Colorado advance its own independent redistricting commission. 'So long as so many Democratic states still redistrict the old-fashioned way, so will Republican states. So I have no criticism for Texas, given that they're working within the same rules that have governed so many states — Democrats and Republicans — in the past,' Owens said. He added that his own approach, if he were still governor, 'would be to try to do redistricting in a bipartisan fashion.'
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Alina Habba Defies Judges' Ouster: 'Broken'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Alina Habba, former personal defense lawyer to President Donald Trump, is pushing back forcefully against efforts to remove her from her post as U.S. Attorney for New Jersey—vowing to fight what she describes as a politically motivated campaign to oust her. "To put it in really simple terms, it's a complicated mechanism—what's happening—and it's, frankly, I think, a broken one," she said during an interview with political commentator Benny Johnson. Why It Matters It comes after a panel of federal judges in New Jersey declined to extend Habba's term as the state's interim top prosecutor. Trump tapped Habba to serve as interim U.S. attorney in late March and nominated her on July 1 to be the U.S. attorney in a permanent capacity, which would have removed her interim status by the end of this week. But a DOJ spokesperson told The New York Times on Thursday that the president has withdrawn her nomination, which will allow her to continue serving in a temporary capacity. Alina Habba speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Allentown, Pa., Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2024. Alina Habba speaks before Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Allentown, Pa., Tuesday, Oct. 29, 2024. Matt Rourke/AP What To Know During the interview, Habba said the Senate's blue slip courtesy—a nonbinding tradition—is being used to block presidential appointments of U.S. attorneys, which she says effectively amounts to stalling or undermining the president's authority. The blue slip tradition is a Senate custom that gives home-state senators significant influence over federal judicial and U.S. attorney nominations in their state. It allows a senator to approve or block a nominee by returning or withholding a blue-colored form, known as the "blue slip," to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In Habba's case, both of New Jersey's Democratic senators, Cory Booker and Andy Kim, withheld their blue slips, signaling formal opposition and preventing her nomination from moving forward through the Senate Judiciary Committee. Booker and Kim allege that she has pursued politically motivated prosecutions against Democratic lawmakers to serve Trump's agenda. During Habba's tenure as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka of Newark was charged with trespassing following a congressional visit to an immigration detention facility. The case was dropped days later, and a federal judge condemned the arrest as a "worrisome misstep," warning it should not be used as a political tool. Meanwhile, Representative LaMonica McIver was charged with assaulting federal agents during the same protest. McIver and critics called the prosecution politically motivated, especially given her congressional oversight role. Legal experts observed the case appeared "spectacularly inappropriate," claiming Habba bypassed required DOJ supervisory approval for charges against elected officials. Habba also launched investigations into Democratic Governor Phil Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin, focused on New Jersey's decision to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—a move viewed by critics as aligned with Trump's political priorities. But Habba said the decision to remove her from her post was an attempt to thwart President Trump's powers. "What we're seeing is a systemic problem, where they are using the blue slip courtesy—it's not a law—as a mechanism to block the appointment of U.S. attorneys by the president, per the Department of Justice," Habba said. "That puts those U.S. attorneys in a position where they're kind of stuck. You're in this freeze, and you can't get out. Then they'll run the clock on you, and basically, what ends up happening is they're attempting to thwart the president's powers. "What we saw in my situation, the Senate minority leader sent direct instructions on Twitter telling the judges to vote and block me. Once it's out of Senate ownership, the judges can vote to keep you. I stepped down as interim and am now the acting attorney.. You have 120 days in the interim, I stepped down the day before." Trump has the power to remove U.S. attorneys who have been appointed by judges. A panel of federal judges in New Jersey ruled on Tuesday to replace Habba with her handpicked top deputy in the U.S. attorney's office, Desiree Leigh Grace, after her 120 day term was up. Soon after the court's decision, the Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, fired Grace and accused the judges of political bias meant to curb the president's authority. In response, Trump's team withdrew Habba's nomination for the permanent role—allowing her to resign as interim U.S. Attorney, then be appointed First Assistant U.S. Attorney, and automatically ascend to the role of acting U.S. Attorney under relevant vacancy laws, extending her tenure for another 210 days. What People Are Saying Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek in a statement: "President Trump has full confidence in Alina Habba, whose work as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey has made the Garden State and the nation safer. The Trump Administration looks forward to her final confirmation in the U.S. Senate and will work tirelessly to ensure the people of New Jersey are well represented." What Happens Next Habba will remain in her role as interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey for at least the next 210 days.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Trump notches winning streak in Supreme Court emergency docket deluge
President Trump is on a winning streak at the Supreme Court with conservative-majority justices giving the green light for the president to resume his sweeping agenda. Their recent blessing of his firings of more independent agency leaders is the latest example of the court going the administration's way. This White House in six months has already brought more emergency appeals to the high court than former President Biden did during his four years in office, making it an increasingly dominant part of the Supreme Court's work. But as the court issues more and more emergency decisions, the practice has sometimes come under criticism — even by other justices. Trump prompts staggering activity Trump's Justice Department filed its 21 st emergency application on Thursday, surpassing the 19 that the Biden administration filed during his entire four-year term. The court has long dealt with requests to delay executions on its emergency docket, but the number of politically charged requests from the sitting administration has jumped in recent years, further skyrocketing under Trump. 'The numbers are startling,' said Kannon Shanmugam, who leads Paul, Weiss' Supreme Court practice, at a Federalist Society event Thursday. Trump's Justice Department asserts the burst reflects how 'activist' federal district judges have improperly blocked the president's agenda. Trump's critics say it shows how the president himself is acting lawlessly. But some legal experts blame Congress for being missing in action. 'There are a lot of reasons for this growth, but I think the biggest reason, in some sense, is the disappearance of Congress from the scene,' Shanmugam said. In his second term, Trump has almost always emerged victorious at the Supreme Court. The administration successfully halted lower judges' orders in all but two of the decided emergency appeals, and a third where they only partially won. On immigration, the justices allowed the administration to revoke temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants and swiftly deport people to countries where they have no ties while separately rebuffing a judge who ruled for migrants deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. Other cases involve efforts to reshape the federal bureaucracy and spending. The Supreme Court allowed the administration to freeze $65 million in teacher grants, provide Department of Government Efficiency personnel with access to sensitive Social Security data, proceed with mass firings of probationary employees and broader reorganizations and dismantle the Education Department. Last month, Trump got perhaps his biggest win yet, when the Supreme Court clawed back federal judges' ability to issue universal injunctions. The most recent decision, meanwhile, concerned Trump's bid to expand presidential power by eviscerating independent agency leaders' removal protections. The justices on Wednesday enabled Trump to fire three members on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Decisions often contain no explanation Unlike normal Supreme Court cases that take months to resolve, emergency cases follow a truncated schedule. The justices usually resolve the appeals in a matter of days after a singular round of written briefing and no oral argument. And oftentimes, the court acts without explanation. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, two of Trump's three appointees, have long defended the practice. Last year, the duo cautioned that explaining their preliminary thinking may 'create a lock-in effect' as a case progresses. At the Federalist Society event, Shanmugam suggested the court might have more energy for its emergency cases if the justices less frequently wrote separately on the merits docket — a dig at the many dissents and concurrences issued this term. But the real challenge, he said, is the speed at which the cases must be decided. 'It takes time to get members of the court to agree on reasoning, and sometimes I think it's therefore more expedient for the court to issue these orders without reasoning,' he said. 'Even though I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, it would be better for the court to provide more of that.' The frequent lack of explanation has at times left wiggle room and uncertainty. A month ago, the Supreme Court lifted a judge's injunction requiring the Trump administration to provide migrants with certain due process before deporting them to a country where they have no ties. With no explanation from the majority — only the liberal justices in dissent — the judge believed he could still enforce his subsequent ruling, which limited plans to deport a group of violent criminals to the war-torn country of South Sudan. The Trump administration accused him of defying the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the justices rebuked the judge, with even liberal Justice Elena Kagan agreeing. The Supreme Court's emergency interventions have also left lower judges to grapple with their precedential weight in separate cases. After the high court in May greenlit Trump's firings at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the administration began asserting lower courts still weren't getting the message. The emergency decision led many court watchers to believe the justices are poised to overturn their 90-year-old precedent protecting independent agency leaders from termination without cause. But several judges have since continued to block Trump's firings at other independent agencies, since the precedent still technically remains on the books. The tensions came to a head after a judge reinstated fired CPSC members. The Supreme Court said the earlier case decides how the later case must be interpreted, providing arguably their most succinct guidance yet for how their emergency rulings should be interpreted. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the unsigned ruling reads. Liberals object to emergency docket practices The lack of explanation in many of the court's emergency decisions has frustrated court watchers and judges alike, leading critics to call it the 'shadow docket.' Those critics include the Supreme Court's own liberal justices. 'Courts are supposed to explain things. That's what courts do,' Kagan said while speaking at a judicial conference Thursday. Kagan pointed to the court's decision last week greenlighting Trump's mass layoffs at the Education Department. She noted a casual observer might think the president is legally authorized to dismantle the agency, but the government didn't present that argument. Her fellow liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and, particularly, Ketanji Brown Jackson, have made more forceful criticisms. Jackson increasingly accuses her colleagues of threatening the rule of law. She called one recent emergency decision 'hubristic and senseless' and warned another was 'unleashing devastation.' Late last month, Jackson wrote that her colleagues had 'put both our legal system, and our system of government, in grave jeopardy.' But in Wednesday's decision letting the CPSC firings move forward, the trio were united. Kagan accused the majority of having 'effectively expunged' the Supreme Court precedent protecting independent agency leaders, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, from its records. 'And it has accomplished those ends with the scantiest of explanations,' she wrote. Kagan noted that the 'sole professed basis' for the stay order was its prior stay order in another case involving Trump's firing of independent agency heads. That decision — which cleared the way for Trump to fire NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox and MSPB member Cathy Harris — was also 'minimally (and, as I have previously shown, poorly) explained,' she said. 'So only another under-reasoned emergency order undergirds today's,' Kagan wrote. 'Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under reasoned) orders to cite.'
