Connect with us

Politics

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Democrat, Won’t Run Again in 2026

Published

on

Senator Jeanne Shaheen, New Hampshire Democrat, Won’t Run Again in 2026

Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire will not run for re-election in 2026, bringing an end to a long and singular political career and further complicating Democrats’ efforts to regain a majority in the Senate.

Her decision not to seek a fourth term will immediately set off a high-stakes race in a state whose voters are famously fickle. Last fall, New Hampshire voters supported former Vice President Kamala Harris for president and elected Democrats to Congress, but they also voted for a Republican governor and expanded Republican majorities in the state legislature.

“It was a difficult decision, made more difficult by the current environment in the country — by President Trump and what he’s doing right now,” Ms. Shaheen, 78, said in an interview with The New York Times. She specifically criticized the president’s focus on political retribution, his drastic cuts to the federal budget and his antagonism toward Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia’s invasion.

Ms. Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was the first woman to be elected governor of New Hampshire and the first woman in the country to serve as both a governor and a U.S. senator. She noted in the interview that she will have served for 30 years in elected office and spent 50 years in politics.

“It’s important for New Hampshire and the country to have a new generation of leadership,” she said.

Advertisement

Among the Republicans already considering a run for Senate from New Hampshire next year is former Senator Scott Brown, who represented Massachusetts for one term and later relocated to New Hampshire. He came close to beating Ms. Shaheen in 2014 and went on to become ambassador to New Zealand in Mr. Trump’s first term.

The state’s popular former governor, Chris Sununu, a Republican, has said that he will not run.

In the Senate, where Republicans hold a 53-to-47 majority, Ms. Shaheen is the third Democrat, after Senator Gary Peters of Michigan and Senator Tina Smith of Minnesota, to announce plans to retire, making the party’s path to a majority even more difficult. Democrats have few pickup opportunities and must now defend several open seats, though they are hopeful of a friendlier political environment given that the party out of power usually has a strong midterm election.

Even before Ms. Shaheen’s decision, Republicans saw an opportunity to flip the New Hampshire Senate seat in 2026. The National Republican Senatorial Committee recently created an ad criticizing her defense of foreign aid programs.

Ms. Shaheen, who was first elected to the Senate in 2008, a few years after serving three terms as governor, has played a starring role in the political life of New Hampshire for decades.

Advertisement

She was a county organizer on Jimmy Carter’s first presidential campaign, helping to catapult him from obscurity to the White House and demonstrating the significance of her tiny state’s early presidential primary election. Four years later, she was Mr. Carter’s state director in New Hampshire as he fended off a primary challenge from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. In 1984, she ran Gary Hart’s presidential campaign in the state, engineering a surprise victory there over former Vice President Walter Mondale.

Ms. Shaheen is also credited with helping revive the fortunes of the Democratic Party in a state that was once overwhelmingly Republican.

Her election to the Senate was the first for a New Hampshire Democrat since 1975. But even before that, her tenure as governor helped modernize the party’s election machinery and created a blueprint for a generation of moderate New Hampshire Democrats who followed her as governor and in Congress. In her first run for governor, she neutralized Republicans’ longtime characterization of Democrats as big taxers by taking the state’s pledge against broad-based sales or income taxes.

All of that experience has given her perspective on her party’s current state, as it searches for a sharper response to Mr. Trump.

“I think people thought they were voting for someone who would address inflation, lower grocery prices, energy costs, housing,” she said. “They haven’t gotten any of those things.”

Advertisement

Democrats, she said, need to promote specific policies to improve Americans’ daily lives, including in education and health care.

Ms. Shaheen’s brand of low-drama leadership has none of the bombast and swagger currently in vogue, and perhaps would not have succeeded in other corners of the country. Critics have sometimes derided her as “Betty Crocker,” and she never became a well-known presence on national political talk shows. But in New Hampshire, where registered Republicans and undeclared voters outnumber Democrats, her no-nonsense style and cautious, long-game politics won her far more elections than she lost.

In the Senate, she mastered the art of patience and persistence, working for instance with a Republican colleague on a measure to promote energy efficiency over many years before seeing it become law.

Ms. Shaheen has been part of the New Hampshire political scene for so long that it is difficult to remember how controversial some of her signature efforts were in their day. As governor, she expanded access to public kindergarten and made New Hampshire the final state to adopt the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday as a state holiday — ideas that the rest of the country had largely accepted years earlier but that New Hampshire lawmakers had long resisted.

In Washington, where she also sits on the Senate Armed Services, Small Business and Appropriations committees, she points to her recent work on infrastructure legislation and a program to help small businesses during the coronavirus pandemic as career highlights. Both were bipartisan partnerships, a strategy she says she learned from her early days in politics, when New Hampshire was “a one-party state, essentially.”

Advertisement

She worked with Senator John McCain of Arizona, who died in 2018, on a plan to provide visas for Afghans who helped the U.S. military during the war in their country.

And in both Washington and New Hampshire, she has worked on issues of reproductive rights. In 1997, she notably signed the repeal of a 19th-century state law that had made abortion a felony, decades before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

Ms. Shaheen has also been a booster of New Hampshire’s “first-in-the-nation” presidential primary — a designation that has been under attack by national Democrats who argue that the state, less racially diverse than much of the country, does not deserve its spot at the front of the line. In 2024, President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did not officially participate in the New Hampshire contest, although his supporters there waged a successful write-in campaign on his behalf.

To Ms. Shaheen and other proponents of New Hampshire’s nominating contest, the state’s small size and engaged electorate make it a good stage for candidates to hone their messages and hear directly from voters. She remains optimistic about its staying power. Already, she said, potential Democratic presidential candidates for 2028 are talking about making trips to the state.

For her part, Ms. Shaheen is imagining a new life with a less challenging schedule. “It will be nice to have a little more time to engage in some other things,” she said.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending