The U.S. Supreme Court’s skeptical questioning of former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs has fueled speculation that his trade measures may be struck down, potentially upending the already fragile trade landscape.
The case centers on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The law grants presidents broad authority to regulate trade during national emergencies but makes no mention of tariffs, raising constitutional questions about the limits of executive power.
During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices across the ideological spectrum except Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared doubtful that Trump had legal authority to levy such blanket global tariffs.
Trade experts now warn that if the court invalidates Trump’s tariff policy, it could trigger a new wave of economic uncertainty, as the administration is expected to pivot quickly to other trade laws to reimpose duties.
Why It Matters
The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. trade policy for years. Businesses have paid over $100 billion in IEEPA-related tariffs since 2025, and a ruling against Trump could open a complex refund battle or force the White House to seek alternative legal pathways for its protectionist agenda.
Corporate leaders, already weary of erratic trade shifts, say a ruling either way offers little stability. “Even if it goes against IEEPA, the uncertainty still continues,” said David Young of the Conference Board, who briefed dozens of CEOs after the hearing.
Trump Administration: Faces potential legal defeat but can pivot to Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) or Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), both of which allow temporary or national security-based tariffs.
U.S. Supreme Court: Balancing presidential powers with statutory limits on trade actions.
Businesses & Importers: Risk being caught in regulatory limbo over refunds and future duties.
Federal Reserve: Monitoring potential economic fallout from prolonged trade instability.
Refunds Could Get “Messy”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how refund claims would be handled if the tariffs are ruled illegal, calling it “a mess” for courts to manage. Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said only those firms would automatically receive refunds, while others must file administrative protests a process that could take up to a year.
Customs lawyer Joseph Spraragen added that if the court orders refunds, the Customs and Border Protection’s automated system could process them, but he warned, “The administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds.”
Economic and Policy Repercussions
Analysts expect the administration to rely on alternative statutes if IEEPA tariffs are overturned. However, implementing new duties under those laws could be slow and bureaucratic, potentially delaying trade certainty until 2026.
Natixis economist Christopher Hodge said such a ruling would be only a “temporary setback” for Trump’s trade agenda, predicting renewed tariff rounds or trade negotiations in the coming year.
Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran warned the uncertainty could act as a drag on economic growth, though it might also prompt looser monetary policy if trade instability dampens business confidence.
What’s Next
A Supreme Court ruling is expected in early 2026, leaving companies in limbo over the future of U.S. tariff policy. If Trump’s powers under IEEPA are curtailed, analysts expect a new wave of trade maneuvers potentially invoking national security provisions to maintain his “America First” economic approach, prolonging the climate of global trade unpredictability.
Netflix fans do not have long left to wait for a brand new season of Squid Game: The Challenge.
456 players will take part in Squid Game: The Challenge season two competing for a huge £4.56 million prize. (Image: NETFLIX)
Squid Game fans have just two days left until a brand new season of a high stakes reality game returns to Netflix screens.
Once again, 456 players will take on a series of brutal games in the hopes of winning a staggering $4.56 million cash prize for season two of Squid Game: The Challenge.
The hit Netflix reality show, based on the popular Korean thriller Squid Game, was a huge success when it first hit screens back in 2023. Another series was announced earlier this year, with it now being just days away.
Unlike the original phenomenon where players are killed if they lose, there will still be devastating impacts as contestant will miss out on winning the life-changing amount of money. Despite the full cast remaining under wraps, Netflix has already announced some huge names, including familiar faces from Selling Sunset and Big Brother.
Episode release schedule explained
Squid Game: The Challenge season 2 will return to screens on November 4. However, not all episodes will be released straight away.
Instead, fans will have to wait a week for different instalments for the three week run.
On November 4, fans will be treated to four episodes as a group of brand new players are introduced to the game.
November 11 will then see the next three episodes aired.
But fans will have to wait until November 18 for the remaining episodes in the huge season finale.
Squid Game The Challenge games
With subtle nods to various games, executive producer Nicola Brown told Tudum: “Those little Easter eggs are important for both the viewers at home and the players.
“The first thing they do when they walk into the dorm is look at the walls and try to figure out what the new games might be.”
Here are some games fans can look forward to:
The count – a brand new game that will determine how the competition continues
Six-Legged Pentathlon – teams race head to head, with legs tied together with mini games thrown in
Catch – a brand new game which games designer Ben Norman teases is not as simple as it sounds
Mingle – players on a carousel must gather in groups consisting of a number called out and walk into an adjoining room
Marbles – with the same rules as season 1 players again partner up and given a bag of marbles and 30 minutes
Slides and Ladders – a new game that turns the familiar board game into something high stakes and “oversized”
Circle of Trust – blindfolded at desks in a circle, the player who received a gift box must guess who gave it to them
Finale game – Remains a mystery for now
Is there a season 3?
With season 2 just days away, Netflix has already geared up for another season of the hit reality show. Anyone wishing to take part can apply online for a chance to compete.
However, according to Tudum, there is another way to get on the show. Tudum hints: “Player recruitment for Season 3 is also now taking place through Squid Game: The Experience inboth New York and London.
“Winners at the immersive, IRL experience will receive priority in the casting process, though this does not guarantee they will be selected to take part in Season 3.”
Squid Game: The Challenge season 2 premieres Tuesday, November 4 on Netflix.
Six years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld highly partisan state election maps in North Carolina and Maryland — ruling that federal courts cannot block states from drawing up maps that favor one party over the other — one of the court’s liberal justices issued a warning.
“If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent.
Kagan argued that Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland — the two examples before the court — had rigged elections in a way that “deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights,” “debased and dishonored our democracy” and turned “upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”
“Ask yourself,” Kagan said as she recounted what had happened in each state: “Is this how American democracy is supposed to work?”
That’s the question Californians are now weighing as they decide how, or whether, to vote on Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to scrap congressional maps drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission and replace them with maps drawn by legislators to favor Democrats through 2030.
Democrats don’t deny that the measure is a deliberate attempt to dilute GOP voting power.
From the start, they’ve argued that the point of redistricting is to weaken Republicans’ voting power in California — a move they justify on the grounds that it is a temporary fix to offset similar partisan gerrymandering by Texas Republicans. This summer, President Trump upped the ante, pressing Texas to rejigger maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority ahead of the 2026 election.
Experts say opponents of Proposition 50 have no viable federal legal challenge against the new maps on the basis that they disenfranchise a large chunk of California Republicans. Even since the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rucho vs. Common Cause, complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.
Already, Proposition 50 has survived challenges in state court and is unlikely to be successfully challenged if passed, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.
“If you’re a Republican in California, or you’re a Democrat in Texas, you’re about to get a lot less representation in Congress,” Hasen said. “I don’t think there’s anything you can do about that.”
If Californians vote in favor of the measure on Tuesday, the number of Republicans in the state’s House — nine of 52 total members — would likely be reduced by five. That could mean Republicans have less than 10% of California’s congressional representation even though Trump won 38% of the 2024 vote.
“All of this is unconstitutional, but the federal courts aren’t available to help,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School.
“Every time you redraw a district specifically to protect some candidates and punish others,” Levitt said, “what you’re basically saying is it shouldn’t be up to the voters to weigh in on whether they think the candidates are doing a good job or not.”
Possible legal avenues
But even if the issue of partisan gerrymandering is blocked in federal courts, there are other potential legal avenues to challenge California’s new legislative maps.
One route would be to claim that Proposition 50 violates the California Constitution.
David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law, said that if Proposition 50 passes, he expects a barrage of “see what sticks” lawsuits raising California constitutional claims. They stand little chance of success, he said.
“Voters created the redistricting commission,” he said. “What the voters created they can change or abolish.”
Attorneys might also bring racial discrimination claims in federal court alleging California lawmakers used partisan affiliation as a pretext for race in drawing the maps to disenfranchise one racial group or another, Carrillo said. Under current law, he said, such claims are very fact-dependent.
Attorneys are already poised to file complaints if the referendum passes.
Mark Meuser, a conservative attorney who filed a state complaint this summer seeking to block Proposition 50, said he is ready to file a federal lawsuit on the grounds that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“We’re saying that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines,” Meuser said. “When race is a predominant factor in drawing the lines without a compelling interest, strict scrutiny will mandate the maps be stricken.”
Some legal experts believe that would be a tricky case to prove.
“It sure seems like the new map was oriented predominantly around politics, not race,” Levitt argued. “And though they’d be saying that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines, that’s very, very, very different from proving it. That’s an uphill mountain to climb on these facts.”
Some experts think the new maps are unlikely to raise strong Voting Rights Act challenges.
Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California who specializes in elections, said the new districts appeared to have been carefully carved to preserve Latino- or Black-majority districts.
A successful challenge is possible, McGhee said, noting there are always novel legal arguments. “It’s just the big ones that you would think about that are the most obvious and the most traditional are pretty closed,” he said.
Supreme Court looms large
Ultimately, legal experts agree the fate of California maps — and other maps in Texas and across the nation — would depend on the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on a redistricting case from Louisiana.
Last month, conservative Supreme Court justices suggested in a hearing that they were considering reining in a key part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.
“Whatever happens with Proposition 50 — pass or fail — almost doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things,” Carrillo said, noting that the Supreme Court could use the Louisiana case to strike Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. “There’s a big litigation storm coming in almost any scenario.”
Levitt agreed that the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, which could come any time between now and June, could change current law. But he stressed it is impossible to predict how broad the ruling could be.
“Whether that leaves any of California’s districts vulnerable — either in the current map or in the map if Prop. 50 passes — depends entirely on what Scotus says,” Levitt argued. “There are only nine people who know what they’ll actually say, and there are a lot of possibilities, some of which might affect California’s map pretty substantially, and some of which are unlikely to affect California’s map at all.”
Will Congress intervene?
As the redistricting battle spreads across the country and Democratic and Republican states look to follow Texas and California, Democrats could ultimately end up at a disadvantage. If the overall tilt favors Republicans, Democrats would have to win more than 50% of the vote to get a majority of seats.
Congress has the power to block partisan gerrymandering in congressional map drawing. But attempts so far to pass redistricting reform have been unsuccessful.
In 2022, the House passed the Freedom to Vote Act, which would have prohibited mid-decade redistricting and blocked partisan gerrymandering of congressional maps. But Republicans were able to block the bill in the Senate, even though it had majority support, due to that chamber’s filibuster rules.
Another option is a narrower bill proposed this summer by Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, who represents parts of the Sacramento suburbs and Lake Tahoe and could lose his seat if Proposition 50 passes. Kiley’s bill, along with similar legislation introduced by California Democratic representatives, would ban mid-decade redistricting.
“That would be the cleanest way of addressing this particular scenario we’re in right now, because all of these new plans that have been drawn would become null and void,” McGhee said.
But in a heavily deadlocked Congress, Kiley’s bill has little prospect of moving.
“It may have to get worse before it gets better,” Hasen said.
If the redistricting war doesn’t get resolved, Hasen said, there will be a continued race to the bottom, particularly if the Supreme Court weakens or strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Another scenario, Hasen argued, is Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, overcome the filibuster rule and pass redistricting reform.
If that doesn’t happen, Levitt said, the ultimate power rests with the people.
“If we want to tell our representatives that we’re sick of this, we can,” Levitt said. “There’s a lot that’s competing for voters’ attention. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have agency here.”
“In a war zone where infrastructure is severely damaged, the identification process becomes slower.”
Soren Blau from the International Committee of Missing Persons discusses the challenges they face trying to locate and identify many of the deceased in Gaza.
When Elias Redlew was 14 years old and a freshman putting on football pads for the first time to try to impress his parents at home, he didn’t know what he was doing.
“I didn’t know how much range of movement I’d have or how it would affect my speed,” he said.
His father tried to help him.
“I walked outside and hit the door and he said, ‘You’re going to have to get used to the pads.’”
Redlew, 6 feet 2 and 185 pounds, has gotten as comfortable wearing pads as Superman wearing a red cape.
He has become a three-sport standout at San Pedro High with a 4.7 grade-point average. He was the City Section Open Division offensive player of the year as a junior receiver. This season, he has 60 catches for 1,150 yards and 13 touchdowns. He’s also a starting guard who dunks for the basketball team and is one of the favorites to win a City high jump championship after tying for second place last year.
He’ll be one of the players to watch when San Pedro plays host to Carson on Thursday night to decide the Marine League football championship.
“He never played football until high school,” coach Corey Walsh said. “His potential is super high. Each year, he’s continued to get better.”
Redlew’s intelligence combined with a personality that makes him unafraid to explore new experiences offers insights into an athlete not afraid to be uncomfortable at times.
“Experience brings you intellect,” he said. “If you step out of your comfort zone, it will build knowledge.”
San Pedro basketball coach John Bobich has known Redlew since he was 11. He was on a youth basketball team with his son.
“He is one the most humble and kindest athletes I’ve known,” Bobich said. “He definitely has the record for fist bumps as not a day goes by where Elias walks up with a fist bump and a smile saying, ‘Hello coach B!’”
Redlew has received one B in high school. He’s taking four advanced placement classes this semester.
“I’m down for the challenge,” he said. “In order to play sports, I had to hit the books. In middle school, I was always shy and thought I could do it on my own. I learned to ask for help. Teachers are never not going to help you.”
Redlew welcomes challenges on and off the field. He’s had several huge performances this season. He had six catches for 160 yards and two touchdowns against Wilmington Banning. He had 11 receptions for 217 yards and two touchdowns against unbeaten Laguna Beach. There were six catches for 212 yards and two touchdowns against Granada Hills Kennedy.
Receiver Elias Redlew of San Pedro has a 4.7 GPA.
(Jonathan Alcorn/For The Times)
Redlew said of playing receiver: “I really like how different it is. There’s so many unknown things you can do with the player guarding you . He doesn’t know your next move. You have the ability to affect the game as long as your team trusts you.”
San Pedro (5-4, 3-0) vs. Carson (6-3, 3-0) is always a big rivalry game. This one should be better than ever. Beside the league title being at stake, a Carson win might propel the Colts to the No. 1 seed in the City Section Open Division playoffs. Pairings will be revealed on Saturday. The atmosphere should be electric at San Pedro.
“I can’t wait for that game,” Redlew said. “Everybody will be there. Everybody knows that’s the biggest game of the year and is our senior night.”
If San Pedro wins, maybe he’ll do a dunk afterward in the gym or bring out the high-jump pit and try to clear his career-best 6-2.
Whatever happens, it’s OK to admire a teenager who gets A’s on his report card, plays three sports and has a desire to challenge his mind and body every day.
A federal judge Tuesday ruled that Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli is not lawfully serving in that role, but declined to dismiss criminal indictments that were challenged by defense attorneys.
Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright from the District of Hawaii was brought in to oversee the case after federal judges in Los Angeles recused themselves. In his ruling, Seabright said Essayli “unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney” but can remain in charge under a different title.
Seabright said Essayli “remains the First Assistant United States Attorney” and can “perform the functions and duties of that office.”
Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April.
The top prosecutors in charge of U.S. Attorney’s offices are supposed to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges, but the Trump administration has circumvented the normal process in order to allow Essayli and others to remain on the job without facing a vote.
Essayli’s temporary appointment was set to expire in late July, but the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term for an additional nine months.
Challenges to Essayli’s appointment have been brought in at least three criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges brought under his watch are invalid. The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions in the district.
The U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Seabright’s ruling comes amid similar challenges across the country to the Trump administration’s tactics for installing loyalists who wield the power to bring criminal charges and sue on the government’s behalf.
A federal judge in August determined Alina Habba has been illegally occupying the U.S. attorney post in New Jersey, although that order was put on hold pending appeal. Last month a federal judge disqualified Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, from several cases, concluding she “is not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.” Chattah’s disqualification also is paused while the Department of Justice appeals the decision.
James Comey, the former FBI director charged with lying to Congress, cited the Nevada and New Jersey cases in a recent filing and is now challenging the legality of Trump’s appointment of Lindsey Halligan as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan was appointed after his predecessor, also a Trump appointee, refused to seek charges against Comey.
Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued President Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language at news conferences. Essayli’s tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of career DOJ prosecutors quitting.
The judge’s ruling Tuesday conceded arguments from the Justice Department that Essayli would continue leading the U.S. Attorney’s office in L.A. regardless of how the judged decided on the challenge to his status.
Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said that because Essayli also has been designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, he would retain his authority even if stripped of the “acting” title.
Bondi in July also appointed him as a “special attorney.” Robbins told the judge that “there’s no developed challenge to Mr. Essayli’s appointment as a special attorney or his designation as a first assistant.”
The prosecutor told the judge the government believes Essayli’s term will end Feb. 24 and that afterward the role of acting U.S. attorney will remain vacant.
Robbins argued in a court filing that the court shouldn’t order Essayli “to remove the prosecutorial and supervisory hats that many others in this Office wear, sowing chaos and confusion into the internal workings of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the largest district in the country.”
When asked by a Times reporter last month about the motion to disqualify him, Essayli said “the president won the election.”
“The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office, and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president,” he said during a news conference.
SACRAMENTO — Jettisoning another apparently losing fight, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has abandoned his yearlong effort to relax rules mandating the number of nurses that hospitals must employ.
His endeavor helped spark the public employee union rebellion that led to the defeat of his special election agenda Tuesday.
Schwarzenegger last November had set aside rules that required hospitals to employ in some wards one nurse for every five patients instead of every six. His administration said it was concerned hospitals could not handle the financial costs involved in hiring more nurses.
But a Sacramento County Superior Court judge rejected the administration’s effort in March, and the ruling was upheld by an appellate court. While the administration continued to try to overturn it, hospitals had to follow the new rules and discovered they were not as burdensome as they had feared.
On Thursday, the same day Schwarzenegger publicly pledged to be less combative with those who had opposed his special election, the administration dropped its appeal. “We had 10 months of experience with the court-mandated ratios and there seems to be no negative impact on the healthcare system,” Sabrina Demayo Lockhart, a spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services Agency, said Friday.
“Our data shows that hospitals have been able to meet the lower ratios,” she said, “and some hospitals have even signed it into their labor contracts.”
Leaders of the California Nurses Assn., which persuaded a judge to reinstate the rules in March, said they viewed Schwarzenegger’s action as both a “strategic retreat” from a court case that could not be won and an effort to mend relations with those who had defeated the four initiatives he backed on the Nov. 8 ballot.
“The governor did extend the olive branch and we don’t want to be ungracious,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, the union’s executive director. “But as he extends this branch, we will never take our eye off the tree. What we are focused on is that this governor takes his direction from corporations.”
The nurses declared it as a victory in a campaign that saw them hound Schwarzenegger at appearances throughout California, holding 107 protests. At one of the earliest, in December, Schwarzenegger told his audience those “special interests” were angry because he was “always kicking their butts.”
The rest of the public employee unions turned against Schwarzenegger in January, when he also proposed altering the state’s pension system to save money for the state and local governments. Schwarzenegger decided to drop that from his slate of ballot measures after unions discovered it might eliminate death and disability benefits for firefighters and police.
Jim Lott, executive vice president at the Hospital Assn. of Southern California, said the governor’s action in ending his appeal of the staffing rules “will have no impact on what hospitals do because they are already attempting to staff at the more stringent levels.”
Last March, Lott had warned that the rules might lead to the closure of hospitals “on the cusp of closing because of financial burdens.”
Kaiser Permanente and University of California hospitals have stated they have adopted the new ratios. Lockhart said Catholic Healthcare West, the state’s largest nonprofit chain, recently agreed to comply.
At a news conference at its Oakland headquarters Friday, the nurses union said the timing of both the initial challenge to the nursing ratios and the decision to abandon the fight appeared to have political links.
The union said Schwarzenegger decided to challenge the ratios two days after the reelection of President Bush, for whom Schwarzenegger had campaigned. He abandoned the legal case two days after his special election defeat, with his popularity having fallen from its great heights the previous year.
“He has to run for reelection,” said Deborah Burger, the union’s president. “He doesn’t have a choice. It’s like the bully taking away the kids’ lunch money and then expecting the kid to be happy because he invites him to have lunch with him.”
The governor’s office declined to discuss the politics of the decision, but a senior aide said it had been made a month ago.
The nurse-patient ratios were signed into law by former Gov. Gray Davis in 1999 and took effect in January 2004, requiring one nurse for every six patients. This year, the ratio tightened to one nurse for every five patients.
Superior Court Judge Judy Holzer ruled in March that the administration had failed to provide evidence to back up its assertions that the new rules would create problems for hospitals.
The fight with Schwarzenegger has politicized the 65,000-member nurses union, which previously had not been one of Sacramento’s major players. The nurses said they plan to continue to pressure the state’s leaders by lobbying next year for a single-payer healthcare system that would abolish private insurers and for comprehensive campaign finance reform.
SAN FRANCISCO — State Sen. Scott Wiener couldn’t wait any longer. The once-in-a-generation political opening he’d eyed for years had arrived, he decided — whether the grand dame of San Francisco politics agreed or not.
On Wednesday, Wiener, 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker, formally announced his candidacy for the San Francisco congressional seat held for nearly four decades by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, 85, who remains one of the party’s most powerful leaders and has yet to reveal her own intentions for the 2026 race.
“The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” Wiener said in an interview with The Times. “I know San Francisco, I have worked tirelessly to represent this community — delivering housing, health care, clean energy, LGBTQ and immigrant rights — and I have a fortitude and backbone to be able to deliver for San Francisco in Congress.”
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) announced Wednesdat that he will run for the congressional seat currently held by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
(Josh Edelson/For The Times)
Wiener’s announcement — which leaked in part last week — caught some political observers off guard, given Wiener had for years seemed resigned to run for Pelosi’s seat only once she stepped aside. But it stunned few, given how squarely it fit within the broader political moment facing the Democratic Party.
In recent years, a long-simmering reckoning over generational power has exploded into the political forefront as members of the party’s old guard have increasingly been accused of holding on too long, and to their party’s detriment.
Long-serving liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ruffled many Democratic feathers by declining to step down during Barack Obama’s presidency despite being in her 80s. She subsequently died while still on the court at the age of 87 in 2020, handing President Trump his third appointment to the high court.
Visitors walk past a bust of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein at San Francisco City Hall. The former mayor of San Francisco served in the Senate until she died in 2023 at age 90.
(Stephen Lam/San Francisco Chronicle via Getty Images)
As a result, age has become an unavoidable tension point for Democrats heading into next year’s midterm elections.
It has also been an issue for Republicans, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), 83, the former Senate majority leader who has faced health issues in recent years and is retiring in 2026 after more than 40 years in the Senate. Other older Republicans are facing primary challenges for being perceived as too traditional or insufficiently loyal to Trump or the MAGA movement — including Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), 73 and in office since 2002, and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), 68 and in the Senate since 2015.
For decades, many conservatives have called for congressional term limits in opposition to “career politicians” who cling to power for too long. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, and David Trone, a Maryland Democrat, renewed those calls on Wednesday, announcing in an op-ed published in the New York Times that they would co-chair a national campaign to push for term limits.
However, perhaps because they are in power, the calls for a generational shake-up in 2026 have not been nearly as loud on the Republican side.
Democratic Party activists have sounded the alarm about a quickening slide into gerontocracy on the political left, blamed it for their party’s inability to mount an energetic and effective response to Trump and his MAGA movement, and called for younger candidates to take the reins — while congressional leaders in their 70s and 80s have increasingly begun weighing their options in the face of primary challenges.
“It’s fair to say the political appetite for octogenarians is not high,” said Eric Jaye, a veteran Democratic strategist in San Francisco.
“The choice in front of people is not just age,” said Saikat Chakrabarti, a 39-year-old tech millionaire and Democratic political operative who is also running for Pelosi’s seat. “We need a whole different approach and different candidates.”
“There’s like this unspoken rule that you don’t do what we’re doing in this moment. You sit out and wait your turn,” said Sacramento City Councilmember Mai Vang, 40, who has launched a primary challenge to Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento), who is 81 and has been in Congress since 2005. “But I’m not going to wait on the sidelines, because there is an urgency of now.”
A national trend
The generational shift promises to reshape Congress by replacing Democrats across the country, including some who are leaving without a fight.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, 78 and a senator representing New Hampshire since 2009, said in March that it was “time” to step aside.
In Illinois, Sen. Richard Durbin, 80 and a senator since 1997, and Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 81 and in the House since 1999, both announced in May that they would not run again. Durbin said it was time “to pass the torch,” while Schakowsky praised younger “voices” in the party as “so sharp.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, 78 and in the House since 1992, announced his retirement last month, saying that “watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party.”
New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani speaks at a news conference.
(Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Other older Democrats, meanwhile, have shown no intention of stepping aside, or are seeking out new roles in power.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills, 77, recently announced she is running to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is 72 and has been in the Senate since 1997. Mills has tried to soften concerns about her age by promising to serve just one term if elected.
Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, 79 and in the Senate since 2013, has stiffly rebuffed a primary challenge from Rep. Seth Moulton, 46, accusing Moulton of springing a challenge on him amid a shutdown and while he is busy resisting Trump’s agenda.
In Connecticut, Rep. John Larson, 77, who has been in office since 1999 and suffered a complex partial seizure on the House floor in February, has mocked his primary challengers’ message of generational change, telling Axios, “Generational change is fine, but you’ve got to earn it.”
David Hogg, a survivor of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., speaks at the 2022 March for Our Lives.
(Leigh Vogel / Getty Images for March For Our Lives)
David Hogg, a 25-year-old liberal activist who was thrust into politics by the 2018 mass shooting at his Parkland, Fla., high school, is among the party’s younger leaders pushing for new blood. He recently declined to seek reelection as the co-vice chair of the Democratic National Committee to bring primary challenges to older Democratic incumbents with his group Leaders We Deserve.
When he announced that decision in June, Hogg called the idea that Democratic leaders can stay in power until they die even if they don’t do a good job an “existential threat to the future of this party and nation.” His group fundraises and disperses money to young candidates it backs.
When asked by The Times about Pelosi and her primary challengers, however, Hogg was circumspect, calling Pelosi “one of the most effective and consequential leaders in the history of the Democratic Party.”
A shift in California
Pelosi is not the only older California incumbent facing a primary challenge. In addition to Matsui, the list also includes Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Porter Ranch), who is 70 and has been in office since 1997, and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena), who is 74 and has been in office since 1999.
But Pelosi’s challenges have attracted more attention, perhaps in part because her departure from Congress would be the clearest sign yet that the generational shift sought by younger party activists is fully underway.
Nancy Pelosi is sworn in as House speaker in 2007, surrounded by her grandchildren and children of other members of Congress.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
A trailblazer as the first female speaker of the House, Pelosi presided over two Trump impeachments. While no longer in leadership, she remains incredibly influential as an arm-twister and strategist.
She played a central role in sidelining Biden after his debate meltdown, and for the last couple months has been raising big money — a special skill of hers — in support of California’s Proposition 50. The measure seeks voter approval to redraw California’s congressional districts to better favor Democrats in response to Trump’s pressure campaign on Texas and other red states to redraw their lines in favor of Republicans.
Pelosi has used Prop. 50 in recent days to deflect questions about her primary challengers and her plans for 2026, with her spokesman Ian Krager saying she “is fully focused” on the Prop 50 fight and will be through Nov. 4.
Chakrabarti, who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unseat a longtime Democratic incumbent in 2019, said he sees even more “appetite for change” among the party’s base today — as evidenced by “mainstream Democrats who have voted for Nancy Pelosi their whole life” showing up to his events.
And it makes sense, he said.
For decades, Americans have watched the cost of essentials skyrocket while their wages have remained relatively flat, Chakrabarti said, and that has made them desperate to support messages of “bold, sweeping economic change” — whether from Obama or Trump — even as long-serving, mainstream Democrats backed by corporate money have worked to maintain the status quo.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leaves a news conference at the Capitol in 2019. At left is Saikat Chakrabarti, who was her chief of staff and is now a candidate for the congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag)
He said it is time for Democrats to once again push bold, big ideas, which he plans to do — including Medicare for all, universal child care, free college tuition, millions of new units of affordable housing, a new economy built around climate action, and higher taxes on billionaires and mega-millionaires like him.
Wiener, who also backs Prop. 50 and would be the first out gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress, said he cannot speak to Pelosi’s thinking — or to Politico reporting Wednesday that Pelosi is considering dropping out and backing San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan in the race — but is confident in his readiness for the role.
Wiener agreed with Chakrabarti that big ideas are needed from Democrats to win back voters and make progress. He also said that his track record in the state Legislature shows that he has “been willing to take on very, very big fights to make significant progressive change.”
“No one has ever accused me of thinking small,” he said — citing his success in passing bills to create more affordable housing, reform health insurance and drug pricing, tackle net neutrality, challenge telecommunications and cable companies and protect LGBTQ+ and other minority communities and immigrants.
“In addition to having the desire to make big progressive change, in addition to talking about big progressive change, you have to be able to put together the coalitions to deliver on that change, because words are not enough,” Wiener said. “I’ve shown over and over again that I know how to do it, and that I can deliver.”
Political analysts said a message of big ideas will clearly resonate with some voters. But they also said that Pelosi, if she stays in the race, will be hard to beat. She will also face more serious questions than ever about her age and “her ability to function at the extraordinarily high level” she has worked at in years past, Jaye said, and will “have to answer those questions.”
If Pelosi decides not to run, Chakrabarti has the benefit of self-funding and of the current party enthusiasm for fresh faces, they said, and anyone — Chan or otherwise — would benefit from a Pelosi endorsement. But Wiener already has a strong base in the district, a track record for getting legislation passed and, as several observers pointed out, a seemingly endless battery.
“Scott Wiener is an animal. The notion of work-life balance is not a concept he has ever had. He is just like a robotic working machine,” said Aaron Peskin, who served 18 years on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, some alongside Wiener.
Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland) speaks to reporters at the Capitol in September.
(Kayla Bartkowski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Amanda Litman, the president of Run for Something, which supports young progressive candidates, said there is pent-up demand for a new generation of leaders, and “older Democrats, especially those in Congress, need to ask themselves, ‘Am I the best person to lead this party forward right now?’”
Rep. Lateefah Simon (D-Oakland), 48, won her seat in 2024 after longtime Rep. Barbara Lee, 79, who had been in the seat since 1998, decided to run for Oakland mayor. Simon said that to her, “it’s not necessarily about birthdays” but who can do the job — “who can govern, who can mentor and who can hold this administration accountable.”
As a longtime community activist who worked with youth, Simon said she is “extremely excited” by all the energy of young Democratic office seekers. But as a freshman in Congress who has leaned on Lee, Pelosi and other mentors to help her learn the ropes, she said it’s also clear Democrats need to “have some generals who are really, really tried and tested.”
“What is not helpful to me in this moment,” Simon said, “is for the Democrats to be a circular firing squad.”
UK court to hear challenge to the pro-Palestine group’s ban under ‘anti-terrorism’ laws after government loses appeal.
The United Kingdom government cannot block the cofounder of pro-Palestinian campaign group Palestine Action from bringing a legal challenge over the banning of the group under “anti-terrorism” laws, a court has said.
Huda Ammori, who helped found Palestine Action in 2020, was on Friday given permission to challenge the group’s proscription on the grounds that the ban is a disproportionate interference with free speech rights, with her case due to be heard next month.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Britain’s Home Office, the interior ministry, then asked the Court of Appeal to overturn that decision and rule that any challenge to the ban should be heard by a specialist tribunal.
Judge Sue Carr rejected the Home Office’s appeal, saying challenging the proscription in the High Court was quicker, particularly where people have been charged and are facing trial for expressing support for Palestine Action.
The court also ruled that Ammori could challenge the ban in the High Court on additional grounds, which Ammori said was a significant victory.
BREAKING: The government LOST their appeal and failed to stop the legal challenge of the Palestine Action ban.
That means the Judicial Review will go ahead on November 25-27th.
Not only that, but we won TWO MORE grounds to argue the illegality of the ban.
“It’s time for the government to listen to the overwhelming and mounting backlash … and lift this widely condemned, utterly Orwellian ban,” she said in a statement.
“The Judicial Review will go ahead on November 25-27th,” Ammori said in a post on X later on Friday.
She hailed the group’s win to challenge “two more grounds to argue the illegality of the ban”.
“Huge victory,” she added.
Disrupting the ‘arms industry’
Palestine Action was proscribed as a “terrorist” organisation by the government in July, making membership a crime which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison.
More than 2,000 people have since been arrested for holding signs in support of the group, with at least 100 charged.
Before the ban, Palestine Action had increasingly targeted Israel-linked companies in Britain, sometimes spraying red paint, blocking entrances or damaging equipment.
It accused the UK government of complicity in Israeli war crimes in Gaza. Israel has repeatedly denied committing war crimes in its two-year genocidal campaign, which has killed more than 67,000 Palestinians. Rights groups have accused Israel of repeatedly committing abuses in its war in Gaza, which began on October 7, 2023.
Israel and Hamas agreed on a ceasefire last week.
Palestine Action particularly focused on Israeli defence firm Elbit Systems, and Britain’s government cited a raid by activists at an Elbit site last year when it decided to outlaw the group.
The group was banned a month after some of its members broke into the RAF Brize Norton air base and damaged two planes, for which four members have been charged.
Palestine Action describes itself as “a pro-Palestinian organisation which disrupts the arms industry in the United Kingdom with direct action”. It says it is “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.
Critics of the ban – including United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk and civil liberties groups – argue that damaging property does not amount to terrorism.
However, Britain’s former interior minister Yvette Cooper, who is now foreign minister, previously said violence and criminal damage have no place in legitimate protest.
MELBOURNE, Australia — Australia’s highest court on Wednesday rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens ’ bid to overturn an Australian government decision barring her from visiting the country.
Three High Court judges unanimously rejected Owens’ challenge to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s decision in 2024 to refuse her a visa on character grounds.
Owens had planned to begin a speaking tour in Australia last November and also visit neighboring New Zealand.
Burke used his powers under the Migration Act last October to refuse her a visa because she failed the so-called “character test,” court documents said.
Burke found there was a risk Owens would “incite discord in the Australian community” and that refusing her a visa was in the national interest.
Burke found that as a political commentator, author and activist, Owens was “known for her controversial and conspiratorial views.”
She had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred,” Burke said in court documents.
Owens’ lawyers had argued the Migrant Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communications.
Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment that states a right to free speech. But because Australia is a democracy, the High Court has decided that the constitution implies free speech limited to governmental and political matters.
Owens’ lawyers had argued that if the Migration Act was constitutional, then Burke had misconstrued his powers under that law in refusing her a visa.
The judges rejected both arguments and ordered Owens to pay the government’s court costs.
Burke described the ruling as a “win for social cohesion.”
“Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke said in statement.
Owens’ spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Wednesday Owens would comment on the court decision later on social media.
Burke had told the court that while Owens already had an ability to incite discord through her 18 million followers across social media platforms, her presence in Australia would amplify that potential.
He noted that when Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated from “possible” to “probable” last year, the national domestic spy agency reported an “increase in extremism.”
Australia has long used a wide discretion under the character test to refuse foreigners temporary visas.
Burke stripped Ye, the U.S. rapper formerly known as Kanye West, of an Australian visa after he released his single “Heil Hitler” in May this year.
Ye had been traveling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born.
Burke’s decision to ban Owens prompted neighboring New Zealand to refuse her a visa in November on the grounds that she had been rejected by Australia.
But a New Zealand immigration official overturned that refusal in December, citing “the importance of free speech.”
Owens’ spokeswoman on Wednesday had no information about plans to visit New Zealand.
A federal judge heard arguments Tuesday to decide whether maneuvers used by the Trump administration to install Bill Essayli as acting United States attorney in Los Angeles are improper — and, if so, what should be done about it.
During a Tuesday hearing in downtown L.A., Senior Judge J. Michael Seabright — who flew in from Hawaii for the proceeding — wondered how to proceed after defense attorneys sought to dismiss indictments against three clients and to disqualify Essayli “from participating in criminal prosecutions in this district.”
Essayli, a former Riverside County assemblyman, was appointed as the region’s interim top federal prosecutor by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in April.
His term was set to expire in late July unless he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate or a panel of federal judges. But the White House never moved to nominate him to a permanent role, instead opting to use an unprecedented legal maneuver to shift his title to “acting,” extending his term for an additional nine months without any confirmation process.
Seabright was selected from the District of Hawaii after L.A.’s federal judges recused themselves from the proceedings. He questioned the consequences of dismissing any charges over Essayli’s title.
“If I did this for your client, I’ll have to do it for every single defendant who was indicted when Mr. Essayli was acting under the rubric of acting U.S. attorney, correct?” Seabright said to a deputy federal public defender.
“I don’t think you will,” replied James A. Flynn. “This is a time-specific, case-specific analysis and the court doesn’t need to go so far as to decide that a dismissal would be appropriate in all cases.”
“Why not? You’re asking for a really draconian remedy here,” Seabright said, before questioning how many indictments had been made since Essayli was designated acting U.S. attorney at the end of July.
“203, your honor,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins responded.
In a court filing ahead of the hearing Tuesday, lawyers bringing the challenge against Essayli called the government’s defense of his status a handbook for circumventing the protections that the Constitution and Congress built against the limitless, unaccountable handpicking of temporary officials.”
During the nearly two-hour hearing, Flynn cited similar legal challenges that have played out elsewhere. A federal judge ruled in August that Alina Habba has been illegally occupying the U.S. attorney post in New Jersey, although that order was put on hold pending appeal. Last month, a federal judge disqualified Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, from several cases, concluding she “is not validly serving as acting U.S. attorney.”
The judges who ruled on the Nevada and New Jersey cases did not dismiss the charges against defendants, instead ordering that those cases not be supervised by Habba or Chattah.
Flynn argued that the remedies in other states “have not been effective to deter the conduct.”
“This court has the benefit of additional weeks and has seen the government’s response to that determination that their appointments were illegal and I submit the government hasn’t gotten the message,” Flynn said.
Flynn said another option could be a dismissal without prejudice, which means the government could bring the case against their clients again. He called it a “weaker medicine” than dismissal with prejudice, “but would be a stronger one than offered in New Jersey and Nevada.”
The hearing grew testy at times, with Seabright demanding that Assistant U.S. Atty. Robbins tell him when Essayli’s term will end. Robbins told the judge the government believes it will end on Feb. 24 and that afterward the role of acting U.S. attorney will remain vacant.
Robbins noted that Essayli has also been designated as first assistant U.S. attorney, essentially allowing him to remain in charge of the office if he loses the “acting” title.
Bondi in July also appointed him as a “special attorney.” Robbins told the judge that “there’s no developed challenge to Mr. Essayli’s appointment as a special attorney or his designation as a first assistant.”
“The defense challenge here, the stated interest that they have, is Bill Essayli cannot be acting,” Robbins said. “But they don’t have a compelling or strong response to Bill Essayli is legitimately in the office and he can be the first assistant … he can supervise other people in the office.”
Seabright asked both sides to brief him by Thursday on “whatever hats you believe [Essayli’s] wearing now” and “whether I were to say he wasn’t legitimately made acting U.S. attorney … what hats does he continue to wear.”
“If I understand the government’s proposed remedy correctly … it would essentially be no remedy at all, because they would be re-creating Mr. Essayli as the acting United States attorney, he’d just be wearing a first assistant hat,” Flynn said.
A spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
When asked by a Times reporter last month about the motion to disqualify him, Essayli said “the president won the election.”
“The American people provided him a mandate to run the executive branch, including the U.S. attorney’s office and I look forward to serving at the pleasure of the president,” he said during a news conference.
Since taking office, Essayli has doggedly pursued Trump’s agenda, championing hard-line immigration enforcement in Southern California, often using the president’s language verbatim at news conferences. His tenure has sparked discord in the office, with dozens of prosecutors quitting.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.
“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”
The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.
Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.
“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”
Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.
Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.
Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.
Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.
Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”
Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.
“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”
Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.
“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”
Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.
Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.
“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”
Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.
“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”
Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.
1 of 3 | Maine Gov. Janet Mills, pictured at a meeting of the northeastern Governors and Canadian Premiers at the Massachusetts State House to discuss the impacts of President Trump’s tariffs in Boston, is expected to launch a campaign to unseat U.S. Sen. Susan Collins in 2026. Photo by CJ Gunther/EPA
Oct. 11 (UPI) — Maine Gov. Janet Mills is expected to launch a campaign on Tuesday to unseat longtime U.S. Susan Collins, R-ME, according to internal campaign documents and a now-deleted social media post.
According to a campaign document first reported by Axios and since confirmed by several other news organizations, Mills plans to join the Democrat primary field for Collins’ seat next year, as she is term-limited and cannot run for re-election as governor.
Democrats have been recruiting Mills to run against the five-term Sen. Collins, who is thought by party leaders to be vulnerable based on her low approval ratings, the Portland Press Herald reported.
A video launching the campaign was also briefly posted to Mills’ X account, which directed viewers to an ActBlue web page for donations, Fox News reported on Friday evening.
According to Fox, Mills said she is “running to flip Maine’s seat blue” because Collins has “sold out Maine and bowed down to special interests and to Donald Trump, but that ends now.”
Mills has gained national attention after breaking publicly with President Donald Trump at a White House event when he pushed to exclude transgender women and girls from female sports.
Although the five-term incumbent Collins is regarded as a moderate and has broken with Trump, as well as her party, in the past, the Democratic Senatorial Committee has made the Maine seat a priority, CBS News reported, and Fox noted that Mills is favored for the seat by Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY.
Collins in 2020 beat Democrat nominee Sara Gideon by nearly 9 points even though Gideon spent nearly twice on her campaign as Collins, $62.9 million compared with $29.6 million.
Before Mills can face off with Collins, however, she will have to wade through the Democratic primary, which already features the Sen. Bernie Sanders-endorsed progressive oyster farmer Graham Platner, former End Citizens United vice president Jordan Wood and brewery owner Dan Kleban.
President Donald Trump meets with Finnish President Alexander Stubb in the Oval Office of the White House on Thursday. Stubb signed a deal to sell four icebreakers to the United States and build seven more at U.S. shipyards. Photo by Samuel Corum/UPI | License Photo
PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s two-term Democratic Gov. Janet Mills will run for the U.S. Senate seat held by veteran Republican Sen. Susan Collins next year, two people familiar with Mills’ plans said Friday.
The development sets up a potential showdown between the parties’ best-known figures in a state where Democrats see a chance to gain a seat in their uphill quest for the Senate majority.
Mills is tentatively expected to announce her candidacy Tuesday, according to the people, who insisted on anonymity to discuss plans they were not authorized to share publicly.
Mills was the top choice of national Democrats who have long tried to unseat Collins, who has held the seat since 1997. She was urged to run by party leaders including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader. And though she met only once with Schumer to discuss the race early this year, her decision is viewed as a recruiting win for Democrats, who also have well-known figures with statewide experience running for seats held by Republicans in North Carolina and Ohio.
Democrats see the Maine seat as especially important, considering it is the only one on the 2026 Senate election calendar where Republicans are defending an incumbent in a state carried last year by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.
Still, a Democratic majority in the 100-member Senate remains a difficult proposition.
The party would need to gain a net of four seats, while most of the states with Senate elections next year are places where Republican Donald Trump beat Harris. Maine is an exception, while in North Carolina, where Trump narrowly won, Democratic former Gov. Roy Cooper is viewed as a contender, and Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown is running in Ohio, where Trump won comfortably and Brown was defeated in November.
Mills gained national attention in February during a White House meeting of governors with Trump when she announced to him, “We’ll see you in court,” over her opposition to his call for denying states federal funding over transgender rights.
In April, Maine officials sued the Trump administration in an effort to stop the federal government from freezing federal funding to the state in light of its decision to defy a federal ban on allowing transgender students to participate in sports.
Mills stoked Democratic enthusiasm in April when she said of the lawsuit, “I’ve spent the better part of my career listening to loud men talk tough to disguise their weaknesses.”
Mills, 77, is a former state attorney general who won the governorship in 2018 and again in 2022. Maine governors are barred from seeking a third term and, while Mills early this year seemed to dismiss a Senate campaign, she said she had rethought the notion and was “seriously considering” running.
She had set a November deadline for making a decision, though as of mid-September, she was interviewing prospective senior campaign staffers.
A campaign against Collins would pit her against a senator who has built a reputation as a moderate but who was a key supporter of Trump’s Cabinet and judicial nominations. A spokesperson for Collins declined to comment on the expected upcoming Mills announcement.
Collins, 72, has won all of her four reelection campaigns by double-digit percentages, except in 2020.
That year, Collins defeated Democratic challenger Sara Gideon, the former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, by more than 8 percentage points in a race Democrats felt confident could help them gain a seat in the Senate. Collins won in a year Democrats gained a net of three seats in the chamber. She won despite Trump losing Maine to Democrat Joe Biden by 9 percentage points.
Like Collins, Mills was born in rural Maine. She became Maine’s first female criminal prosecutor in the mid-1970s, and she would later become the state’s first elected female district attorney as well as its first female attorney general and governor. She served as attorney general twice, from 2009 to 2011 and from 2013 to 2019.
A few other challengers have declared candidacies for the Democratic nomination, including oyster farmer Graham Platner, who has launched an aggressive social media campaign. Platner has the backing of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who posted on social media on Thursday that Platner is “a great working class candidate for Senate in Maine who will defeat Susan Collins” and that it’s “disappointing that some Democratic leaders are urging Gov. Mills to run.”
Whittle and Beaumont write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Des Moines, respectively. AP writer Seung Min Kim in Washington contributed to this report.
