reelection

SAN FRANCISCO — Rep. Nancy Pelosi, a trailblazing San Francisco Democrat who leveraged decades of power in the U.S. House to become one of the most influential political leaders of her generation, will not run for reelection in 2026, she said Thursday.

The former House speaker, 85, who has been in Congress since 1987 and oversaw both of President Trump’s first-term impeachments, had been pushing off her 2026 decision until after Tuesday’s vote on Proposition 50, a ballot measure she backed and helped bankroll to redraw California’s congressional maps in her party’s favor.

With the measure’s resounding passage, Pelosi said it was time to start clearing the path for another Democrat to represent San Francisco — one of the nation’s most liberal bastions — in Congress, as some are already vying to do.

“With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a nearly six-minute video she posted online Thursday morning, in which she also recounted major achievements from her long career.

Pelosi did not immediately endorse a would-be successor, but challenged her constituents to stay engaged.

“As we go forward, my message to the city I love is this: San Francisco, know your power,” she said. “We have made history, we have made progress, we have always led the way — and now we must continue to do so by remaining full participants in our democracy, and fighting for the American ideals we hold dear.”

Pelosi’s announcement drew immediate reaction across the political world, with Democrats lauding her dedication and accomplishments and President Trump, a frequent target and critic of hers, ridiculing her as a “highly overrated politician.”

Pelosi has not faced a serious challenge for her seat since President Reagan was in office, and has won recent elections by wide margins. Just a year ago, she won reelection with 81% of the vote.

• Share via Close extra sharing options

However, Pelosi was facing two hard-to-ignore challengers from her own party in next year’s Democratic primary: state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), 55, a prolific and ambitious lawmaker with a strong base of support in the city, and Saikat Chakrabarti, 39, a Democratic political operative and tech millionaire who is infusing his campaign with personal cash.

Their challenges come amid a shifting tide against gerontocracy in Democratic politics more broadly, as many in the party’s base have increasingly questioned the ability of its longtime leaders — especially those in their 70s and 80s — to sustain an energetic and effective resistance to President Trump and his MAGA agenda.

In announcing his candidacy for Pelosi’s seat last month after years of deferring to her, Wiener said he simply couldn’t wait any longer. “The world is changing, the Democratic Party is changing, and it’s time,” he said.

Chakrabarti — who helped Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) topple another older Democratic incumbent with a message of generational change in 2018 — said voters in San Francisco “need a whole different approach” to governing after years of longtime party leaders failing to deliver.

In an interview Thursday, Wiener called Pelosi an “icon” who delivered for San Francisco in more ways than most people can comprehend, with whom he shared a “deep love” for the city. He also recounted, in particular, Pelosi’s early advocacy for AIDS treatment and care in the 1980s, and the impact it had on him personally.

“I remember vividly what it felt like as a closeted gay teenager, having a sense that the country had abandoned people like me, and that the country didn’t care if people like me died. I was 17, and that was my perception of my place in the world,” Wiener said. “Nancy Pelosi showed that that wasn’t true, that there were people in positions of power who gave a damn about gay men and LGBTQ people and people living with HIV and those of us at risk for HIV — and that was really powerful.”

Chakrabarti, in a statement Thursday, thanked Pelosi for her “decades of service that defined a generation of politics” and for “doing something truly rare in Washington: making room for the next one.”

While anticipated by many, Pelosi’s decision nonetheless reverberated through political circles, including as yet another major sign that a new political era is dawning for the political left — as also evidenced by the stunning rise of Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old democratic socialist elected Tuesday as New York City’s next mayor.

Known as a relentless and savvy party tactician, Pelosi had fought off concerns about her age in the past, including when she chose to run again last year. The first woman ever elected speaker in 2007, Pelosi has long cultivated and maintained a spry image belying her age by walking the halls of Congress in signature four-inch stilettos, and by keeping up a rigorous schedule of flying between work in Washington and constituent events in her home district.

However, that veneer has worn down in recent years, including when she broke her hip during a fall in Europe in December.

That occurred just after fellow octogenarian President Biden sparked intense speculation about his age and cognitive abilities with his disastrous debate performance against Trump in June of last year. The performance led to Biden being pushed to drop out of the race — in part by Pelosi — and to Vice President Kamala Harris moving to the top of the ticket and losing badly to Trump in November.

Democrats have also watched other older liberal leaders age and die in power in recent years, including the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, another San Francisco power player in Washington. When Ginsburg died in office at 87, it handed Trump a third Supreme Court appointment. When Feinstein died in office ill at 90, it was amid swirling questions about her competency to serve.

By bowing out of the 2026 race, Pelosi — who stepped down from party leadership in 2022 — diminished her own potential for an ungraceful last chapter in office. But she did not concede that her current effectiveness has diminished one bit.

Pelosi was one of the most vocal and early proponents of Proposition 50, which amends the state constitution to give state Democrats the power through 2030 to redraw California’s congressional districts in their favor.

The measure was in response to Republicans in red states such as Texas redrawing maps in their favor, at Trump’s direction. Pelosi championed it as critical to preserving Democrats’ chances of winning back the House next year and checking Trump through the second half of his second term, something she and others suggested will be vital for the survival of American democracy.

On Tuesday, California voters resoundingly approved Proposition 50.

In her video, Pelosi noted a litany of accomplishments during her time in office, crediting them not to herself but to her constituents, to labor groups, to nonprofits and private entrepreneurs, to the city’s vibrant diversity and flair for innovation.

She noted bringing federal resources to the city to recover after the Loma Prieta earthquake, and San Francisco’s leading role in tackling the devastating HIV/AIDS crisis through partnerships with UC San Francisco and San Francisco General, which “pioneered comprehensive community based care, prevention and research” still used today.

She mentioned passing the Ryan White CARE Act and the Affordable Care Act, building out various San Francisco and California public transportation systems, building affordable housing and protecting the environment — all using federal dollars her position helped her to secure.

“It seems prophetic now that the slogan of my very first campaign in 1987 was, ‘A voice that will be heard,’ and it was you who made those words come true. It was the faith that you had placed in me, and the latitude that you have given me, that enabled me to shatter the marble ceiling and be the first woman speaker of the House, whose voice would certainly be heard,” Pelosi said. “It was an historic moment for our country, and it was momentous for our community — empowering me to bring home billions of dollars for our city and our state.”

After her announcement, Trump ridiculed her, telling Fox News that her decision not to seek reelection was “a great thing for America” and calling her “evil, corrupt, and only focused on bad things for our country.”

“She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back,” Trump told the outlet, according to a segment shared by the White House. “I’m very honored she impeached me twice, and failed miserably twice.”

The House succeeded in impeaching Trump twice, but the Senate acquitted him both times.

Pelosi’s fellow Democrats, by contrast, heaped praise on her as a one-of-a-kind force in U.S. politics — a savvy tactician, a prolific legislator and a mentor to an entire generation of fellow Democrats.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a longtime Pelosi ally who helped her impeach Trump, called Pelosi “the greatest Speaker in American history” as a result of “her tenacity, intellect, strategic acumen and fierce advocacy.”

“She has been an indelible part of every major progressive accomplishment in the 21st Century — her work in Congress delivered affordable health care to millions, created countless jobs, raised families out of poverty, cleaned up pollution, brought LGBTQ+ rights into the mainstream, and pulled our economy back from the brink of destruction not once, but twice,” Schiff said.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said Pelosi “has inspired generations,” that her “courage and conviction to San Francisco, California, and our nation has set the standard for what public service should be,” and that her impact on the country was “unmatched.”

“Wishing you the best in this new chapter — you’ve more than earned it,” Newsom wrote above Pelosi’s online video.

In January, 1991, as America stood on the edge of its first war in a generation, a quiet, bespectacled man stood in the well of the U.S. Senate and forced the nation to hesitate and think. George J. Mitchell, a former federal judge who was then Senate majority leader, had successfully pressed the Bush Administration into something Presidents had ignored for half a century: allowing Congress its constitutional authority to vote on making war.

Mitchell’s maneuver was politically perilous. Anyone who opposed the Gulf War risked appearing disloyal to the country and its then enormously popular President. Yet what followed, people in both parties now recall, was one of the finest moments in Senate history, a high-minded and highly emotional debate of conscience by a nation about to send its young people to war.

During George Bush’s four years as President, it was only one of many incidents when Mitchell, an intellectual politician in the era of three-second attack politics, drew sharp lines between Congress and the Republican Administration. For a time, the stoic New Englander, who avoided flashy TV sound bites and had a strong commitment to lighthouses and waterfowl, was the most important Democrat in the country.

Mitchell had risen to majority leader with historic speed. He was in only his eighth year when the Senate picked him as its leader. The former political protege of legendary Maine Democrat Edmund S. Muskie, Mitchell had spent much of his time in the Senate fighting to pass two liberal bills, a Clean Air Act and a law to clean up oil spills. He struck colleagues as uniquely decent and fair, disciplined, unemotional and deeply intellectual.

Early in 1994, he stunned Washington by announcing he would not seek almost certain reelection for a third term. He then turned down a seat on the Supreme Court in the spring of 1994. Some speculated that he was holding out to become commissioner of baseball. Still others linked his court demurrer to the fact that the 61-year-old divorce would marry 37-year-old Heather MacLachlan, a manager of professional athletes.

He dedicated the rest of his Senate career to passing health-care reform, but by October, that effort had collapsed. Then, on Election Day, his chosen successor for the Senate lost, the seat going to Republican Olympia Snowe. His party had lost the Senate after six years in the majority and the House after 40. On election night, Mitchell says, he never saw it coming.

During his last week in Washington, Mitchell sat down a t the polished conference table in his elegant Senate office to reflect on his leaving. He was still busy, juggling plans for his marriage in December and managing the passage of GATT , always dressed in crisp white shirt and dark suit, even on Saturday. But over the course of three long sessions, his reserve began to ease and his hands to wave as he reflected on what is right and wrong with the U.S Congress, on President Clinton, the Republican and Democratic parties, and about why so many Americans feel the nation is in political crisis.

*

I was taken by surprise. I’d hoped that we would retain control of both the Senate and House, although I knew that we would suffer some losses. In off-year elections, the party of the President usually loses about four seats in the Senate. We lost eight.

In retrospect, if the Administration and the congressional leadership had decided to forgo health care for this year and concentrated on welfare reform, it might have produced a different result.

But I think the Democrats are also suffering the effects of larger cultural, political and economic upheaval. Whenever a society is in transition, there’s uncertainty, anxiety, even fear. Clearly, we are a society undergoing major transition now. For most American families, incomes have either declined or remained stagnant. People see now that it is not inevitable or likely that incomes will continue to rise. Whenever there is a major transition, there is a natural desire, even a longing, for a simple, easy answer–Why is this so? How can it be corrected? There is a nostalgia for the past, often an inaccurate glorification of the past. We’ve had in our history times when seemingly simplistic answers have been offered, which in retrospect look ridiculous. The Know-Nothing movement flourished in the mid-19th Century; the Ku Klux Klan flourished early in this century; we’ve had a lot of Red scares; we’ve had a lot of things we look back on and wonder now how they happened. But at the time, given the state of anxiety and fear, it’s understandable.

I want to make very clear that I do not equate what happened this year with the Ku Klux Klan or the Know-Nothings. I’m simply describing a phenomenon of a society in transition being (susceptible).

What the Republicans did was very skillful. They developed a clear and simple message–that if we can somehow stop this expansion of government authority, then family values will be restored. It has an appeal. It’s simple, it’s comprehensible, it appears to be logical. Of course, it isn’t going to restore those values. It certainly isn’t going to do the really essential thing of promoting economic growth. Indeed, they also labeled the Democrats as the party of high taxes. In fact, the President’s economic plan passed in 1993 raised income-tax rates only on the highest-earning 1.2% of all Americans and cut taxes for most lower- and middle-income families. Polls show people don’t know that. But the Republicans didn’t make up their argument out of whole cloth. Democrats helped them.

For too many in our party, government became a first resort rather than a last. There was an inability to distinguish between principle and programs–we became committed to programs. Democrats have succeeded when we have seen the difference and when we have been perceived as the party of economic growth. But in recent years, we’ve become increasingly perceived not as the party trying to make the economic pie grow but as the party trying to make sure that every single person gets an absolutely equal slice of the pie. That has coincided with a polarization of income concurrent with the polarization by race.

In Congress, meanwhile, the Republicans have been very skillful, cynical but skillful, in creating a gridlock from which they have benefited.

Perhaps the best example is the first item in the House Republicans’ contract with America, which would require that all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress. That’s a good idea, isn’t it? It’s so good, in fact, that we Democrats have promoted this legislation even longer than Republicans. That bill passed the House of Representatives when it was controlled by Democrats.

When I tried to bring it up in the Senate, Republican senators objected. They prevented the Senate from considering the legislation that their party said was No. 1 on its contract. That’s cynicism and, I’m sorry to say, successful cynicism. Now next year they’ll pass the legislation, and they’ll say, “Look here, we’re honoring our contract.”

*

Though they barely knew each other before Election Day in 1992, Mitchell was one of President Clinton’s closest allies during the past two years. He fought for Clinton’s deficit-cutting budget in 1993 and battled for health care reform in 1994 even when most Democrats thought the battle was lost. Since the Democratic defeat in November, many in Mitchell’s party have laid most of the blame on Clinton.

*

I think the problems the President has encountered are largely the result of too ambitious an agenda. If we had had just a few items, I think we’d have been a lot better off.

In retrospect, moreover, if I had known that health care would not be enacted, it would have made sense to discontinue the effort and to go on to welfare reform. But nine months ago, (passing health care) looked pretty good.

I didn’t know then-Gov. Clinton very well prior to the election, but I came to consider him extremely intelligent, very knowledgeable on issues, hard working, and the policy positions he has taken are mostly, not always, consistent with my own.

I recall one meeting last year, when he had a group of us to the White House for dinner to talk on health care, bipartisan, maybe 10 or 12 senators. Usually at these meetings, the members of Congress know all the details because the President speaks in general terms. It became evident quickly that the President knew much more about the details than did any of the members. It was a complete reversal in terms of knowledge of the subject.

I also disagree that the President is vacillating and indecisive. Historian Garry Wills has compared Clinton to Lincoln and said that the difference is Clinton does it all publicly in advance, and Lincoln did it all privately, behind the walls of the White House. I think one of the problems that has depicted this White House as vacillating is that they do their thinking out loud.

It is unfair, too, to have suggested that President Clinton has no bedrock principles on which he will not compromise. Look at the things he’s taken on. Why does he have political problems? In the South, they say it’s because of the policy on gays in the military. Is this a man without conviction? I don’t see how critics can have it both ways. On the one hand they say he pursued unpopular policies, on the other he doesn’t have convictions.

I have a theory, though it’s entirely subjective and personal, that economic matters are more important to the electorate in presidential elections than they are in off-term elections. I think if the economy stays strong, he’ll be in a much better position to gain reelection than he is now. Right now he’s being measured not against another person, but against each citizen’s individual subjective idealization of the presidency. When he runs, he’s going to be running against a person, (who will) have a personal life and a business background that will be relentlessly scrutinized. I’m convinced that Ross Perot will be running, and that will help President Clinton–even more than in ‘92, because the Perot supporters are much more Republican now. I think Bill Clinton will be reelected.

*

Mitchell said he began thinking about retiring the day of the 1994 State of the Union speech in January. There were many factors, but important among them was the realization that if he didn’t leave now, at 61, he would become too old to take up anything else–such as, for instance, baseball commissioner.

*

In 1993, when I turned 60, I decided to celebrate by climbing the highest mountain in my home state of Maine, Mt. Kitahdin. It’s one of the toughest non-technical climbs in the East, a mile high and about a 4,000-foot vertical climb.

There are two peaks on Mt. Kitahdin: Pamola Peak and the summit. The distance between them is a narrow ledge that stretches more than a mile, called the Knife’s Edge; I have a fear of heights.

Late that night, after we finished, I told my friends that the climb reminded me of Charles Darwin’s trip around the world, during which he first conceived the theory of evolution. It was a physically rough trip for him; he was sick for a large part of the time. He never made another such trip, and he spent the rest of his life talking about that one. That’s the way I felt about climbing Mt. Kitahdin.

That is also how I feel when I reflect on what it took to pass major legislation in the U.S. Senate, including one of my highest priorities, the Clean Air Act.

I had run for majority leader in 1988, in significant part so that we could pass some of the legislation that I had tried for six or seven years to make into law and failed. After I was majority leader, and we finally got the clean air bill onto the floor, it became obvious it couldn’t pass. I didn’t want it to die, so I decided we should negotiate. We spent over a month in my conference room–members of the Bush Administration and senators, groups of 10 or 12, sometimes 50 or 60. There were many 16- to 18-hour days. We went over every provision, negotiating in good faith, and we finally reached a consensus.

That’s what it takes to enact major legislation. And that is one of the few tools available now to the Senate majority leader: the ability to get people together, to get them to listen to each other. No longer can a leader order senators to follow. Lyndon B. Johnson centralized power in the majority leader. He was able to exert influence on his colleagues for three reasons. One was his personality. Second, he had the power to appoint all senators to committees and to remove them from committees. That can make or break a senator’s career. The other was that if you wanted a roll call vote, you had to get his approval. He used those powers very effectively, but in the minds of many of his colleagues, he abused them. When he left, those powers were taken away from the majority leader, so majority leaders since have had very little in the way of institutional tools to impose discipline (over their party or the institution).

I have advocated that some of these powers be restored. Bob Dole, the new majority leader, disagreed. I expect he may change his mind now. Of course, the Senate could make these changes simply by operating with a resumption of the self-restraint that existed among its members for most of our history but no longer does.

In the entire 19th Century there were 16 filibusters in the U.S. Senate–an average of one every 6 1/2 years. For most of this century, filibusters occurred fewer than once a year. In the 103rd Congress just concluded, there were 20 filibusters attempted and 72 motions to end them.

It is harder to govern now, I think, because of the tone in politics today, which debases public discussion. Distrust of Congress and elected officials is not new in our society, but I think several factors have contributed to the increase in negativism in politics.

First, the press has abandoned many of the traditional restraints it imposed on itself with regard to reporting on the personal life of public officials. Second, television. The viewer, the voter, hears candidate Tom say that his opponent Diane is a bum; Diane responds that Tom is a crook, and so the voters come to believe that they have a choice between a bum and a crook. A third factor, I believe, is partisan. Until Bill Clinton was elected, there seemed a nearly permanent state of affairs in which the presidency was held by Republicans and the Congress by Democrats. So for nearly two decades, Republicans bashed the Congress.

All of those things have combined to create a highly negative discussion in which issues are oversimplified and reduced to slogans.

*

In his own career, Mitchell was unusually fair and bipartisan when it came to dispensing the rules of the Senate. Among his first acts as majority leader was ending the practice of tactical surprise . Before that, both sides had to keep one senator on the floor at all times . But Mitchell could also be scorchingly partisan when it came to policy differences.

*

We Democrats bear responsibility for the failure to deal more effectively with the nation’s problems. But so do Republicans. Their policy in the Senate in 1994 was one of total obstruction. Let me give you an example.

We passed earlier this year in both houses the gift- and lobbying-disclosure legislation. The Republicans really didn’t want it, so when the bill came up for final passage in the House, Newt Gingrich concocted this argument that it will have some effect on grass-roots lobbying, and they got Christian organizations to come out against it. That same excuse was used in the Senate. So I offered to take that provision out and vote on the same bill that we had passed by a vote of 95 to 2 a few months earlier. Which, of course, all the Republicans had voted for. But they refused. When you prevent legislation that you’ve actually voted for, you’re engaged in a policy of total obstruction. But it worked. The Republican (complaint) was, well the darned place isn’t functioning. The Democrats are in charge, so let’s change the people in charge, and maybe we’ll get some action.

Now they are in a different position. I think the Republicans will soon learn that it’s easier to campaign against something than to govern. You actually are responsible for acting. I think we Democrats suffer the burden more because we believe that government can produce beneficial results and conditions in our society. But we didn’t do a very good job of making that case this year.

I don’t know Newt Gingrich very well. Most of my dealings have been with Bob Michel, who was the Republican leader in the House for all of the time that I was majority leader. Newt sort of took over during the latter stages of this Congress. My impression is that he’s very smart and appears to be committed to an ideology. But I wonder if he is smart enough to recognize that in order to be a successful Speaker, he will have to use an approach different from that which got him to be Speaker–basically the difference between campaigning and governing.

I believe people can change. In general terms, I think people grow in office. I think people become more responsible with increased responsibility, become more active with increased demands on them. But I have no way of knowing in his particular case.

*

For all his frustration, even anger, Mitchell wanted to assert that he does not feel jaundiced about politics and the future. He also remains, in the parlance of Washington, an unreconstructed liberal, though not without complaints .

*

For all this, the problems of the party and the historical forces the Republicans have capitalized on, I don’t share the view that the country is shifting ideologically. Nor do I fear that the Democratic Party is somehow marginalizing itself. I am, on the contrary, very optimistic.

I’ve written a lot of bills that have become law, and many of them are meaningful to me. I’m the author of something called the Lighthouse Preservation Program. It’s a very small bill, but I regard it as a great accomplishment.

It’s ironic that at this moment, when American ideals and culture are ascendant in the world, when the American economy is the most productive and efficient in the world, when unemployment in America is less than that in virtually every other developed industrial democracy of the world, that Americans should be so anxious and fearful, such easy prey for demagoguery and scapegoatism. I think the Democrats still are the party of opportunity and economic growth.

What we have to do is to narrow our focus to economic-growth policies as opposed to trying to solve every other problem. I can sum up my philosophy in a sentence: In America, no one shouldbe guaranteed success, but everyone should have a fair chance to go as far as talent, education and will can take them.

Tanzania’s incumbent president, Samia Suluhu Hassan, has been re-elected with 98 percent of the vote in an election denounced by the opposition as a sham.

The government has denied that hundreds of people have been killed in a police crackdown.

So, what’s behind this crisis, and what’s next?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests: 

Tito Magoti – independent human rights lawyer and activist

Nicodemus Minde – researcher with the East Africa Peace and Security Governance Program at the Institute for Security Studies in Nairobi

Fergus Kell – research fellow with the Africa Programme at London’s Chatham House

Barbara Boxer decided she was done. Entering her 70s, fresh off reelection to the U.S. Senate, she determined her fourth term would be her last.

“I just felt it was time,” Boxer said. “I wanted to do other things.”

Besides, she knew the Democratic bench was amply stocked with many bright prospects, including California’s then-attorney general, Kamala Harris, who succeeded Boxer in Washington en route to her selection as Joe Biden’s vice president.

When Boxer retired in 2017, after serving 24 years in the Senate, she walked away from one of the most powerful and privileged positions in American politics, a job many have clung to until their last, rattling breath.

(Boxer tried to gently nudge her fellow Democrat and former Senate colleague, Dianne Feinstein, whose mental and physical decline were widely chronicled during her final, difficult years in office. Ignoring calls to step aside, Feinstein died at age 90, hours after voting on a procedural matter on the Senate floor.)

Now an effort is underway among Democrats, from Hawaii to Massachusetts, to force other senior lawmakers to yield, as Boxer did, to a new and younger generation of leaders. The movement is driven by the usual roiling ambition, along with revulsion at Donald Trump and the existential angst that visits a political party every time it loses a dispiriting election like the one Democrats faced in 2024.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become the highest profile target.

Last week, she drew a second significant challenger to her reelection, state Sen. Scott Wiener, who jumped into the contest alongside tech millionaire Saikat Chakrabarti, who’s been campaigning against the incumbent for the better part of a year.

Pelosi — who is 85 and hasn’t faced a serious election fight in San Francisco since Ronald Reagan was in the White House — is expected to announce sometime after California’s Nov. 4 special election whether she’ll run again in 2026.

Boxer, who turns 85 next month, offered no counsel to Pelosi, though she pushed back against the notion that age necessarily equates with infirmity, or political obsolescence. She pointed to Ted Kennedy and John McCain, two of the senators she served with, who remained vital and influential in Congress well into their 70s.

On the other hand, Boxer said, “Some people don’t deserve to be there for five minutes, let alone five years … They’re 50. Does that make it good? No. There are people who are old and out of ideas at 60.”

There is, Boxer said, “no one-size-fits-all” measure of when a lawmaker has passed his or her expiration date. Better, she suggested, for voters to look at what’s motivating someone to stay in office. Are they driven by purpose — and still capable of doing the job — “or is it a personal ego thing or psychological thing?”

“My last six years were my most prolific,” said Boxer, who opposes both term limits and a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress. “And if they’d said 65 and out, I wouldn’t have been there.”

Art Agnos didn’t choose to leave office.

He was 53 — in the blush of youth, compared to some of today’s Democratic elders — when he lost his reelection bid after a single term as San Francisco mayor.

“I was in the middle of my prime, which is why I ran for reelection,” he said. “And, frankly,” he added with a laugh, “I still feel like I’m in my prime at 87.”

A friend and longtime Pelosi ally, Agnos bristled at the ageism he sees aimed at lawmakers of a certain vintage. Why, he asked, is that acceptable in politics when it’s deplored in just about every other field of endeavor?

“What profession do we say we want bright young people who have never done this before to take over because they’re bright, young and say the right things?” Agnos asked rhetorically. “Would you go and say, ‘Let me find a brain surgeon who’s never done this before, but he’s bright and young and has great promise.’ We don’t do that. Do we?

“Give me somebody who’s got experience, “ Agnos said, “who’s been through this and knows how to handle a crisis, or a particular issue.”

Pete Wilson also left office sooner than he would have like, but that’s because term limits pushed him out after eight years as California governor. (Before that, he served eight years in the Senate and 11 as San Diego mayor.)

“I thought that I had done a good job … and a number of people said, ‘Gee, it’s a pity that you can’t run for a third term,’ ” Wilson said as he headed to New Haven, Conn., for his college reunion, Yale class of ’55. “As a matter of fact, I agreed with them.”

Still, unlike Boxer, Wilson supports term limits, as a way to infuse fresh blood into the political system and prevent too many over-the-hill incumbents from heedlessly overstaying their time in office.

Not that he’s blind to the impetus to hang on. The power. The perks. And, perhaps above all, the desire to get things done.

At age 92, Wilson maintains an active law practice in Century City and didn’t hesitate — “Yes!” he exclaimed — when asked if he considered himself capable of serving today as governor, even as he wends his way through a tenth decade on Earth.

His wife, Gayle, could be heard chuckling in the background.

“She’s laughing,” Wilson said dryly, “because she knows she’s not in any danger of my doing so.”

SAO PAULO — Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said Thursday he will run for reelection next year, seeking a fourth nonconsecutive term.

“I’m turning 80, but you can be sure I have the same energy I had when I was 30. And I’m going to run for a fourth term in Brazil,” Lula told reporters during his official visit to Indonesia.

The Brazilian leader is traveling across Asia. After his visit to Indonesia, where he met with President Prabowo Subianto, Lula will head to Malaysia to attend the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit.

Brazilian media reported that he is expected to meet for the first time with President Trump in Malaysia on Sunday, following a conciliatory phone call earlier this month. The two leaders are expected to discuss the 50% trade tariff Trump imposed on Brazil.

Brazil’s constitution allows presidents to serve only two consecutive terms. Lula returned to office in 2023 after 13 years out of power and remains eligible to run again.

Before defeating Jair Bolsonaro in 2022 to win a third nonconsecutive term, Lula had said that would be his final campaign both because of his age and because he believed the country needed political renewal. But early in his current term, he began hinting that he might run again.

In February 2023, the president said he could seek reelection in 2026, adding that his decision would depend on the country’s political context and his health.

A dominant figure on Brazil’s left, Lula is the country’s longest-serving president since its return to democracy 40 years ago.

Some Brazilian politicians have expressed concern about Lula’s age and recent health issues. He underwent emergency surgery to treat a brain bleed late last year after a fall in the bathroom. Still, Lula frequently insists he remains healthy and energetic, often sharing workout videos on social media.

Lula currently leads all polls for the 2026 election, though roughly half of voters say they disapprove of him. Trump’s tariffs reenergized the Brazilian leader and pushed his popularity up.

His main political rival, Bolsonaro, has been barred from running for office and sentenced to 27 years in prison for attempting a coup. While no strong opposition candidate has yet emerged, analysts say a viable contender is likely to depend on Bolsonaro’s backing as he serves his sentence under house arrest.

Pessoa writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Former President Biden is receiving radiation and hormone therapy as part of a new phase of treating the aggressive form of prostate cancer he was diagnosed with after leaving office, a spokesperson said Saturday.

“As part of a treatment plan for prostate cancer, President Biden is currently undergoing radiation therapy and hormone treatment,” Biden aide Kelly Scully said.

Biden, 82, left office in January after he had dropped his bid for reelection six months earlier following a disastrous debate against Republican Donald Trump amid concerns about Biden’s age, health and mental fitness. Trump, despite similar questions during the campaign about his age and mental fitness, defeated Democrat Kamala Harris, who was Biden’s vice president.

In May, Biden’s postpresidential office announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and that it had spread to his bone. The discovery came after he reported urinary symptoms.

Prostate cancers are graded for aggressiveness using what is known as a Gleason score. The scores range from 6 to 10, with 8, 9 and 10 prostate cancers behaving more aggressively. Biden’s office said his score was 9, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive.

Last month, Biden had surgery to remove skin cancer lesions from his forehead.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Sept. 28 (UPI) — New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Sunday that he will abandon his re-election bid just five weeks before the election after a federal bribery indictment and the Campaign Finance Board’s decision to withhold millions in public matching funds.

Adams made the announcement with a nearly nine-minute video posted to social media that began with Frank Sinatra‘s “My Way.” He did not make any endorsements in the video.

His name will remain on the ballot in November, but his departure leaves the election to three main challengers, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani, perennial Republican candidate Curtis Sliwa and Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat running independently after allegations of sexual misconduct led to his 2021 resignation as governor.

“Despite all we’ve achieved, I cannot continue my re-election campaign,” Adams said. “The constant media speculation about my future and the campaign finance board’s decision to withhold millions of dollars have undermined my ability to raise the funds needed for a serious campaign.”

The announcement caps a dramatic fall for Adams, a former NYPD captain and Brooklyn borough president who won City Hall in 2021, promising to restore order after the pandemic. His tenure was quickly overshadowed by controversies over homelessness, migrant housing and public safety, and he never recovered politically after federal prosecutors began probing his fundraising.

The indictment, unsealed earlier this year, accused Adams and aides of soliciting and accepting illegal foreign donations during his 2021 campaign, including money allegedly funneled from Turkish interests. Adams, who was indicted and pleaded not guilty, saw the case later dropped.

The video largely followed prepared remarks that were shared with The New York Times ahead of its release. That draft included criticism of Cuomo, calling him power-hungry and untrustworthy, which did not appear in the final version — fueling speculation Adams may ultimately endorse the former governor, who is viewed as Mamdani’s strongest challenger.

Mamdani, an Astoria, Queens, assemblyman, has surged in polls with support from younger voters and progressive activists, reflecting a broader leftward shift in city politics.

“The choice Eric Adams made today was not an easy one, but I believe he is sincere in putting the well-being of New York City ahead of personal ambition,” Cuomo said in a statement. “We face destructive extremist forces that would devastate our city through incompetence or ignorance, but it is not too late to stop them.”

Cuomo’s statement reads similarly to comments by Adams in his video, who appeared to warn voters against choosing Mamdani. Without naming Mamdani, Adams criticized “insidious forces” for pushing “divisive agendas” that seek to “destroy the very system we built together over generations.”

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Sunday that he is ending his campaign for reelection.

In a video released on social media, Adams spoke with pride about his achievements as mayor, including a drop in violent crime. But he said that “constant media speculation” about his future and a decision by the city’s campaign finance board to withhold public funding from his reelection effort made it impossible to stay in the race.

“Despite all we’ve achieved, I cannot continue my reelection campaign,” Adams said.

The one-term Democrat’s decision to quit the race comes days after he repeatedly insisted he would stay in the contest, saying everyday New Yorkers don’t “surrender.”

But speculation that he wouldn’t make it to election day has been rampant for a year. Adams’ campaign was severely wounded by his federal bribery case — since dismissed by the Justice Department after he agreed to cooperate with President Trump’s immigration crackdown — and liberal anger over his warm relationship with Trump. He skipped the Democratic primary and got on the ballot as an independent.

In the video, Adams did not directly mention or endorse any of the remaining candidates in the race. He also warned that “extremism is growing in our politics.”

“Major change is welcome and necessary, but beware of those who claim the answer [is] to destroy the very system we built over generations,” he said. “That is not change, that is chaos. Instead, I urge leaders to choose leaders not by what they promise, but by what they have delivered.”

Adams’ exit could potentially provide a lift to the campaign of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a fellow Democratic centrist running as an independent, who has portrayed himself as the only candidate able to beat the Democratic Party’s nominee, state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani.

It was unclear, though, whether enough Adams supporters would shift their allegiance to Cuomo to make a difference.

Mamdani, who, at age 33, would be the city’s youngest and most liberal mayor in generations if elected, beat Cuomo decisively in the Democratic primary by campaigning on a promise to try to lower the cost of living in one of the world’s most expensive cities.

Republican Curtis Sliwa also remains in the race, though his candidacy has been undercut from within his own party. Trump in a recent interview called him “not exactly prime time.”

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has endorsed Mamdani, said in a statement after the mayor’s announcement that she has been proud to have worked with Adams for the last four years, and that he leaves the city “better than he inherited it.”

Offenhartz and Izaguirre write for the Associated Press.

DES MOINES, Iowa — U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst said Tuesday that she will not seek reelection next year, confirming in a video post on social media that she will retire after months of speculation about her plans.

Ernst’s departure opens up a Senate seat in the state known for its long-serving incumbents. Ernst was first elected in 2014 to the open seat previously held by Tom Harkin, a Democrat who served for 30 years. Republican Chuck Grassley, Iowa’s senior U.S. senator, was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

Her announcement Tuesday followed reports last week that she was expected to announce her retirement in September.

It is the second unexpected retirement for Senate Republicans as they work to maintain their majority in the chamber, with Ernst joining Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who turned down a reelection bid after clashing with President Trump.

It also could have ripple effects down the ballot if third-term Rep. Ashley Hinson from the Cedar Rapids area in eastern Iowa jumps into the race, as is widely expected. Hinson’s decision could also complicate House Republicans’ efforts to keep control as Democrats look for opportunities to flip seats in once-competitive Iowa, where two of Iowa’s four congressional districts have been among the country’s most competitive in recent elections.

Several Democrats are seeking the party’s nomination for the seat, including state Sen. Zach Wahls; state Rep. Josh Turek; Jackie Norris, chair of the Des Moines School Board; and Nathan Sage, a former chamber of commerce president.

Two Republicans — former state Sen. Jim Carlin and veteran Joshua Smith — had already entered the primary to challenge Ernst.

Ernst, Iowa’s first woman elected to Congress, is an Iraq War combat veteran and retired from the Army National Guard as a lieutenant colonel. She served for several years in Senate GOP leadership and was considered a vice presidential contender for Trump’s first White House run.

But Ernst has faced pressure from all sides in the last year. She took heat after signaling a hesitance to support one of Trump’s Cabinet picks. She’s also been one of the faces of Democrats’ campaign against the sprawling tax and spending package after she made a retort about Medicaid cuts at a town hall.

Fingerhut writes for the Associated Press.

DES MOINES, Iowa — U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iraq War combat veteran and Iowa’s first woman elected to Congress, is expected to announce next month she will not seek reelection, leaving another vacancy in an Iowa seat that could have ripple effects down the ballot as Democrats look to the state for pickup opportunities.

As Senate Republicans work to maintain their majority in the chamber, Ernst is joining a wave of her peers making headaches for the party. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina turned down a reelection bid after clashing with President Trump.

Ernst plans to announce in September that she will opt out of the race for a third term, according to three people familiar with her plans who spoke Friday on the condition of anonymity to preview the announcement.

Ernst, a former Army National Guard member and a retired lieutenant colonel, was first elected to an open Senate seat in 2014. She served for several years in the No. 3 spot in the Senate GOP leadership and was considered a vice presidential contender for Trump’s first White House run.

Her decision comes after Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, the state’s first female governor, said she would not run for reelection. It prompted the state’s many Republican elected officials to consider the open opportunity to run for higher office, a process that may begin again with Ernst’s departure.

Democrats have been looking for an opportunity to mount a political comeback in the once-competitive state, an uphill battle even in the potentially favorable midterm year. Ernst drew backlash after a retort about Medicaid cuts at a town hall. As Ernst explained that the legislation protects Medicaid for those who need it most, someone in the crowd yelled that people will die without coverage, and Ernst responded: “People are not … well, we all are going to die.”

The crowded primary field of Democratic candidates for the Senate have capitalized on that moment and Ernst’s Senate votes for early messaging. They’ll have to pivot once other Republicans enter the fray.

The election will be without an incumbent for the first time since 2014, when Ernst was elected in the first open Senate race in decades. Chuck Grassley, Iowa’s senior U.S. senator, has held his seat for 45 years.

Ernst emerged among a field of lesser-known candidates seeking the Republican nomination in 2014, rising to national recognition with advertisements that spoke of her experience slinging guns and castrating hogs. She won reelection in 2020 by more than six percentage points, coming in with just shy of 52% of voters.

Among Trump supporters, Ernst made waves earlier this year after signaling a hesitance to support his pick for the secretary of the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth. Hegseth has said in the past that he did not think women should serve in combat roles, and he was accused of a sexual assault that he denies.

But Ernst, who is herself a survivor of sexual assault and has worked to improve how the military handles claims of misconduct, made clear she wanted to hear him respond to those points. It provoked a pressure campaign that underscored Trump’s power on Capitol Hill and included threats of a bruising primary.

It wasn’t the first time Ernst went toe to toe with Trump supporters. She also faced condemnation for her 2022 vote to protect same-sex marriage.

Still, Ernst would have benefited from nearly 200,000 more active voters registered as Republicans than Democrats, a significant shift from even a few years ago. Ernst announced a campaign manager in June, an October date for her annual fundraiser and had raised just shy of $1.8 million in the first half of the year.

Several Democrats are seeking the party’s nomination for the seat, including state Sen. Zach Wahls; state Rep. Josh Turek; Jackie Norris, chair of the Des Moines School Board; and Nathan Sage, a former chamber of commerce president.

Two Republicans — former state Sen. Jim Carlin and veteran Joshua Smith — had already entered the primary to challenge Ernst.

Kim, Fingerhut and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press. Kim and Cappelletti reported from Washington.