presidency

WASHINGTON — Gov. Gavin Newsom said he would not run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 if Kamala Harris does so, appearing to offer deference to the former vice president ahead of a race that could draw a historically crowded field of candidates.

“I wouldn’t run if she ran,” Newsom told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an interview posted Monday. “Why would I? I wouldn’t do that to her. … I wouldn’t do it to you, I wouldn’t waste everyone’s time.”

Newsom appeared to acknowledge a desire to avoid the possibly messy fight for California backers that could ensue if both were to run, saying there would be “pure crossover” between Harris’ supporters and his.

The governor’s effective yield to Harris diminishes the possibility of a showdown between two of California’s most powerful political figures in an election whose stakes are viewed by the Democratic Party as existential. The possibility of Harris making a second attempt at the presidency after her loss to President Trump in 2024 has hung as the biggest question over the potential Democratic field.

Both Newsom and Harris have acknowledged they are considering presidential bids in 2028, but Harris has closely held her intentions. She said last week that she had not decided whether to run, telling former soccer player Megan Rapinoe in a podcast interview that she was focused on working full time to help Democrats win the midterms.

A spokesperson for Harris declined to comment. Representatives for Newsom did not immediately respond to a request Monday afternoon.

Harris has appeared as the party front-runner in multiple polls about 2028, including one in July that showed her beating Newsom by double digits. But questions have continually circulated within the party about whether voters who are scarred from the party’s 2024 loss would be enthusiastic about a Harris run.

Several California donors told The Times in May that they did not plan to support Harris or did not want to discuss a possible bid by her; in a few corners, more enthusiasm came through for Newsom.

The dynamics around the 2028 Democratic primary continue to evolve as party hopefuls jockey for the spotlight, and they shifted notably with the selection of South Carolina as the party’s first primary state. That choice could give Harris a boost if South Carolina’s Black voters move in her favor.

Harris and Newsom came up in politics in the same era and have never before run in an election against each other, operating their political careers largely in parallel rather than in competition. In February, Newsom said on CNN that he had “never gotten in the way of her ambition” and he didn’t “imagine I would in the future,” saying “fate” would determine whether they ran against each other.

Newsom swung through South Carolina this month, the type of move generally interpreted as laying the groundwork for a presidential bid. In the CNN interview, Newsom noted that he did not know whether Harris would run and agreed it was a “pretty good case” to make when Tapper raised the argument that Harris had had her chance at the presidency and Newsom had not yet.

The governor suggested that a fight between him and Harris would split their supporters’ vote in a way that would be “a gift from God for everybody else” in the race, saying “it services no greater good” for both of them to run. He also nodded to their overlapping political circles.

“I know her base of supporters, I know her friends. The [Venn] diagram on that is just pure crossover,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do that.”

The interview was filmed in Montana, where Newsom’s in-laws own a ranch, as Newsom and Tapper fly-fished together. The full segment was set to air Tuesday.

Newsom said that in order to decide to run, a candidate needs to be able to “meet the moment.”

“You gotta be honest with yourself,” he said. “Do you represent the zeitgeist of the moment or are you wasting everybody’s time?”

Sept. 8, 2026 9:01 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Work on the White House North Portico appears to be nearing completion before Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the United States in late September.

Scaffolding was being taken down Tuesday after workers over Labor Day weekend removed a shroud that had obscured the work. The Executive Mansion’s front columns had been covered since July. The work, ordered by President Trump, began in June.

The portico was first completed in 1830 during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. Administration officials said previously that stonework and plaster on the structure were being refurbished because of routine damage from age and weather exposure.

Trump has said he noticed it was in “deplorable condition” before insisting on repairs. The work is part of the president’s sweeping overhaul of the White House and other federal property in the nation’s capital — with most of his more ambitious moves drawing lawsuits and criticism from preservationists.

Trump said last week that workers finished construction of a helipad on the South Lawn.

His signature project, a White House ballroom and underground bunker, continues as legal fights play out. Multiple lawsuits were filed after Trump demolished the East Wing before going through the usual regulatory steps for major work on historic federal buildings in Washington. The massive project will add more square footage than what the existing White House footprint comprises.

That means Trump must host Xi’s state dinner, scheduled for Sept. 24, in existing spaces and in a construction zone — a circumstance that will afford the president a new opportunity to extol his ballroom project.

Barrow and Martin write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

WASHINGTON — President Clinton was forced to retreat Monday in the face of Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole’s angry accusation that the White House had told “a $23-million lie” about a project in his state.

The White House said that Clinton “regrets” any misunderstandings caused by “hyperbole” in a barbed joke the President told that brought the house down Saturday at an annual black-tie dinner hosted by White House correspondents.

Clinton had said that the Republican lawmaker from Kansas was seeking $23 million from the federal government to convert a senior citizens’ center into a boathouse, at the same time that he was assailing Clinton for wasteful “pork barrel” spending.

Dole, who led the Republican battle that scuttled Clinton’s economic stimulus package, first challenged the accuracy of the statement in a television interview show Sunday but he seemed confused about the details. Monday, he flatly denied the claim and issued a belated blast.

“The White House lied,” Dole said, carefully avoiding a direct attack on the President himself. “There’s no $23-million boathouse, no deficit spending, no new money, no connection with the President’s deadbeat ‘stimulus’ bill and no truth coming from a White House staff that is ill-serving the President with these sophomoric attacks.”

Dole said that he had sought a federal waiver to clear the way for privately funded construction of a public boathouse in Wichita.

“If the White House wants to play hardball, I’m ready to suit up,” Dole concluded, sending an ominous signal that the issue could spill over into future relations with Senate Republicans.

George Stephanopoulos, the White House communications director, issued a statement late Monday afternoon.

“The President regrets the misunderstanding that may have been caused by any hyperbole in his jokes at Saturday’s White House dinner,” he said.

“While Sen. Dole did make the case that the Wichita boathouse is a legitimate Community Development Block Grant project, the potential cost to the taxpayer is not as high as stated in the President’s joke,” the statement concluded.

While the war of words may be forgotten, the harshly worded statement by Dole signaled that the lack of harmony between the Senate GOP leader and the Clinton White House could affect the future of the President’s programs in Congress.

Dole is in a key position as commander of 43 Republicans and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, where the defection from party ranks of a single Democratic senator could block Clinton’s proposed tax increases.

As Dole described the situation, Wichita received $500,000 from the federal government’s Community Development Block Grant program in 1980 to help the city buy a building for use as a senior citizen center.

The center, however, moved to a larger facility in 1992, and the building along the Arkansas River has been standing vacant since then.

Wichita officials, Dole continued, wanted to lease the building to a charitable foundation that intends to use private funds to transform it into a boathouse. To change the use of the building, however, the city was required to seek a waiver from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Dole and Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), who represents the area in the House, supported the city’s request for a waiver in letters to a HUD regional official. HUD had planned to tear the building down.

The Wichita Eagle Monday quoted an official of the charity, the Arkansas River Foundation, as saying that the boathouse project would cost $850,000 and the funds would come from donations and not the federal government.

“The White House really missed the boat on this one,” Dole said.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has frequently suggested he wants to seek a third term, posting about mounting another campaign, donning 2028 caps and discussing ways to make it happen — even as he’s acknowledged the Constitution prohibits it.

But lately, Trump has begun showing signs that even he doesn’t really believe another run will happen.

During recent speeches, the Republican president has begun describing life after the White House when his term ends in January 2029, predicting he’ll be at home and agonizing as his successor claims credit for his accomplishments.

“Your next president is going to say, ‘What a great job I did,’ ” Trump told an event on Long Island, N.Y., this month. “He’ll be sitting around, watching television. A real stiff. Unless you vote Republican, of course.”

A sitting president talking about becoming a former one is always politically fraught. But with midterm elections now just nine weeks away, Trump is approaching the point of his presidency where there will be more and more reminders that his power will soon wane.

Being willing to say he’s contemplating a White House without him marks a notable shift for Trump. Going back to his first term and from virtually the moment he won a second, he’s left the door open to staying put for more than eight years.

“He is all over the place,” said Brian Kalt, a Michigan State University constitutional law professor. “And what that does is, it allows him to point to his own words to support any number of mutually exclusive things.”

Trump can say, “ ’Oh, yeah, I made it clear that I wasn’t gonna run,’ ” Kalt said. “Or, if he decides that he will, he could say, ’Well, you know, I never said I wouldn’t.’ ”

Trump suggests his post-presidency may make him cry

The White House dismissed suggestions that Trump’s thoughts are increasingly turning to the clock running out on his presidency — and the legacy he’ll leave behind. Spokesperson Olivia Wales said he “is fighting every day” to deliver on promises to reduce violent crime, crack down on the U.S.-Mexico border and lower prescription drug prices.

“The only legacy President Trump is concerned with is making America greater than ever before,” Wales said.

Still, hinting at how he’ll be remembered is something Trump is suddenly talking about a lot.

During a recent Pennsylvania rally, he said, “Whoever the next president is, he’s going to be talking about what a brilliant president he is. And I’ll be home. And I’ll be saying, ’That son of a gun,’ because we did the job.”

A week later in Georgia, Trump was predicting that once his presidency was over, “I’ll be sitting home.”

“I may be crying,” the president added, arguing that Democrats could retake the Senate and scrap filibuster rules, making it easier to move their key legislation.

Then, in Michigan, Trump injected some doubt into whether he was ready to hand over the Oval Office and move back to Florida.

“In two and a half years, you may have a different president — may,” he said, emphasizing the “may.”

“I’ll be sitting home. I’ll be reading the papers. I’ll be watching television,” Trump said, before swiping at his predecessor, President Biden. “And I’ll be having some guy — like last time, a real idiot — stand up and say, ‘We are doing record business.’ ”

Mixed Trump signals are still most common

But even as he’s begun to suggest he’ll be leaving the presidency, Trump has also continued to tease a 2028 reelection run.

Addressing the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last month, Trump joked, “Just like my presidency, the second time is always better” and that “the third time will be better yet. I’m only kidding.” He later wore a 2028 campaign cap to finish the speech.

The Constitution’s 22nd Amendment says no one can be elected president more than twice. It was ratified in 1951, six years after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt died, months into his fourth term. Until Roosevelt, no other president had defied the tradition of stepping down after two terms that George Washington started.

Still, Trump had only been back in the White House for a couple of months when he told NBC News, “There are methods which you could” use to seek a third term.

He acknowledged that one method was to be the running mate to Vice President JD Vance in 2028 — then have Vance step aside if the pair won.

“There are others, too,” Trump said then, alluding to more options. He later told Time magazine, “There are some loopholes,” while also saying he didn’t believe in using them.

The president has since often used his social media posts to promote “Trump 2028” logos featuring his slogan “Make America Great Again.”

But Trump has also at times seemed definitive about the ban on him making another run, acknowledging recently to reporters: “I’d love to run, but the law is very strong.”

Kalt wrote about a two-term president possibly getting back to office by running for vice president in “constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.”

“People do tend to find, in Trump’s words, whatever it is that they want to hear,” he said.

Trump may be fighting the ‘lame duck’ factor

Second-term presidents typically see their power and influence wane during their last two years, particularly if their party suffers big midterm defeats. But Trump’s comments could also be a sign he’s thinking about cementing his legacy, a stage that many of his predecessors also reached.

“They all, particularly as they cross the midpoint of their second term, start thinking about legacy,” said Paul Begala, a former adviser to President Clinton.

“They all banish the word. I know Clinton and Bush, they said, ’Can’t use the L-word.’ But they do,” Begala said, referring to his old boss Clinton and to President George W. Bush. “They all think about it. And the staff thinks about it and the Cabinet thinks about it.”

In his last two years of office, Clinton threw himself into trying to broker a Middle East peace agreement. Bush used the slogan “sprint to the finish” during his presidency’s final year in 2008, and Biden adopted a “run through the tape” ethos after abandoning his reelection bid.

Trump has leaned into molding the White House and Greater Washington in his own image, harkening back to his days as a real estate developer in 1970s and 1980s New York.

He’s ordered up a towering arch near the Lincoln Memorial and restored city fountains, while constructing a Rose Garden patio area and helipad on the White House lawn and adding scores of gilded touches to the building’s stately interior and exterior.

And then, there’s the massive ballroom that Trump has crews rushing to finish in the face of legal challenges — a project the president says will only be completed late in 2028, shortly before he leaves office.

“It’s not for me, ‘cause I’m going to be here a very short period of time” when the work is finished, Trump recently told reporters in the Oval Office. “I’ll be there for four, five, six months. This is for future presidents.”

Weissert writes for the Associated Press.

Ten months after a coup, military leaders say the referendum is designed to stabilise future civilian governments.

Ballot counting is under way in a referendum in Guinea-Bissau that could significantly boost the presidency’s power.

Citizens of the West African nation took to the polls on Sunday to vote on a new constitution that would reform the country’s political system ahead of elections later this year.

Turnout “exceeded” 55 percent and the poll took place “without any incidents that would call into question the credibility of the vote”, Idrissa Djalo, executive secretary of the National Electoral Commission, told a news briefing on Sunday.

Results are expected on Tuesday.

The referendum comes less than 10 months after the military seized power in a coup.

The military government says it seeks to stabilise institutions before presidential and parliamentary elections, scheduled for December 6, designed to hand power back to a civilian government.

The new constitution, which citizens were asked to approve on Sunday, would switch Guinea-Bissau’s political system from a parliamentary to a presidential one.

It would abandon the system by which prime ministers came from the parliamentary majority, an approach that has led to uncomfortable power-sharing.

The new system would also allow the head of state to appoint and dismiss the prime minister and members of the government, and to dissolve parliament.

On Sunday, voters answered “yes” or “no” to the question: “Do you agree with the entry into force of the new constitution approved by the National Transitional Council?”

“What we want after this referendum is to allow whoever wins the elections to see out their mandate without hindrance,” military leader and transitional President General Horta Inta-A Na Man said.

Under the transitional charter he upholds, Inta-A Na Man is barred from running in elections.

The referendum follows years of political instability. In the November 2025 presidential election, both candidates declared victory and accused each other of electoral interference. The coup happened one day after.

Voters in Guinea-Bissau will decide on August 30 whether to approve a new constitution that would significantly strengthen the presidency and reshape the country’s electoral system.

The vote comes nine months after the military seized power and installed General Horta Inta-A Na Man as transitional president, and just more than three months before presidential and legislative elections scheduled for December 6.

Supporters of the reform say it would provide clearer lines of authority and help address years of political instability and disputes between state institutions. Critics argue that it would concentrate too much power in the presidency and have questioned the process through which the draft was produced.

The African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC), one of Guinea-Bissau’s main opposition parties, has rejected the referendum and called for a boycott.

The referendum will determine whether the constitution approved by the National Transitional Council (CNT) enters into force and provides the framework for the country’s return to elected government.

Why is Guinea-Bissau changing its constitution?

The process began after the November 26, 2025, military coup.

Presidential and legislative elections had been held three days earlier. The military seized power while the electoral process was still under way, one day before the electoral commission was due to announce the presidential results.

Horta, then army chief of staff, became transitional president.

The transition charter established a National Transitional Council (CNT), which was given legislative powers during the transition. The council approved the proposed constitutional text on January 13, 2026.

Guinea-Bissau is a small Portuguese-speaking country on the West African coast, bordered by Senegal to the north and Guinea to the east and south. It gained independence from Portugal in 1974 and has experienced repeated coups and political crises since independence.

Under the existing constitution, Guinea-Bissau operates a semi-presidential system in which executive authority is shared between the president and prime minister.

The proposed constitution would substantially alter Guinea-Bissau’s existing semi-presidential system, giving the president significantly greater executive authority and reducing the prime minister’s role in government.

What would change?

Under the proposed constitution, the president would have greater control over the government, including the appointment and dismissal of the prime minister and members of the government.

The president would also chair the Council of Ministers and have the power to create or abolish ministries.

The proposed constitution would reduce parliament from 102 seats to 65 and cut the number of electoral constituencies from 29 to 12.

It would also introduce new requirements for presidential candidates.

Candidates would have to have lived permanently in Guinea-Bissau for the five years preceding an election. They would also have to pay a 50 million West African CFA franc deposit, or approximately $90,000.

Political parties sponsoring presidential candidates would need at least 5,000 members, including at least 300 in each region.

The proposed constitution would also establish a Constitutional Court.

Why is a stronger presidency controversial?

Guinea-Bissau’s political system has repeatedly been marked by disputes between presidents, prime ministers and parliament.

Supporters of the reform argue that giving the president clearer authority over the government could reduce institutional conflicts and make decision-making more effective.

Critics fear that concentrating executive authority in the presidency would weaken parliament and other checks on government, significantly altering the balance between the executive and legislature.

Critics have also raised concerns about the proposed reduction in the number of electoral constituencies, arguing that it could affect political representation and weaken parties that rely on strong local support.

The new financial and membership requirements have likewise drawn criticism from those who argue that they could make it harder for smaller political movements to contest presidential elections.

There is a separate dispute over how the constitution was produced.

The draft was prepared during a military-led transition rather than by a restored elected parliament. Opposition parties and civil society groups have criticised the process and questioned whether the drafting process was sufficiently inclusive.

Is the referendum about Horta Inta-A Na Man?

Horta has led the transition since the coup, but the referendum is not simply a vote on his political future.

The transition framework bars the transitional president and prime minister from running in the elections at the end of the transition.

The immediate issue is therefore what powers the next elected president will have.

If the constitution passes, the president elected in December would have considerably greater authority over the government than under the existing constitutional system.

Why does the timing matter?

The referendum comes before the presidential and legislative elections scheduled for December 6.

Voters will therefore decide the proposed constitutional framework before choosing the leaders who are expected to govern under it.

That means the next president and parliament could take office under rules drawn up during the military-led transition.

For the transitional authorities, the referendum is part of the process leading to a return to elected government.

For opponents, the timing raises the question of whether a military-led authority should determine fundamental political rules before elected institutions are restored.

What would a yes or no vote mean?

A yes vote would bring the proposed constitution into force, including stronger presidential powers, a smaller parliament, fewer electoral constituencies and new requirements for presidential candidates.

A no vote would reject the proposed constitution, leaving the question of constitutional reform unresolved.

At stake is not simply whether Guinea-Bissau adopts a new constitution, but how much power the presidency should hold when the country returns to elected government.