Connect with us

News

Kamala Harris Has Scrambled the California Governor’s Race Without Entering It

Published

on

Kamala Harris Has Scrambled the California Governor’s Race Without Entering It

In a different scenario, the governor’s race in California would already have taken shape. Aspiring candidates would have been making appearances around the state. Donors would have begun bankrolling their favorites, and organizations would have started to announce endorsements.

Instead, Kamala Harris came home.

The former vice president, after a stinging defeat in the presidential race last year, has shaken up the 2026 governor’s race by her mere presence in California. Speculation has grown each week since her return from Washington: Will she or won’t she enter the race?

After flying back to Los Angeles last month, Ms. Harris has stood with firefighters in Altadena, greeted evacuees at a Red Cross shelter and toured fire damage in Pacific Palisades. During her most recent stop, she did little to quell speculation.

“I am here, and would be here, regardless of the office I hold, because it is the right thing to do,” Ms. Harris said when reporters pressed her about whether she was running for governor.

Advertisement

The possibility has made it difficult for most other Democrats to move forward, realizing that any calculations they make now would be upended if Ms. Harris entered the race . The 2026 contest to replace Gov. Gavin Newsom, who cannot run again because of term limits, is currently populated by lesser-known aspirants, many of whom likely would step aside if Ms. Harris decided to run.

“She hasn’t frozen the field, but definitely made it icy enough to force everyone to slow down and watch their step,” said Dan Newman, a Democratic strategist who advised Mr. Newsom during his campaigns for governor.

Ms. Harris is weighing whether to run for governor next year, run for president in 2028 or pursue a role outside of elected office, according to a person with knowledge of her deliberations. She has put together an advisory team that includes former White House staff, veteran Democratic strategists, policy experts, a speechwriter and a fund-raiser.

Running for governor might seem to be a step down for someone who served four years as the vice president and was the Democratic nominee for president. But by doing so, Ms. Harris would avoid the competitive slog of a presidential primary and have a strong chance to lead the nation’s most populous state with the help of fellow Democrats who control the legislature. Ms. Harris has won in California every time she’s been on the statewide ballot — as a candidate for president, vice president, senator and attorney general.

By this point eight years ago, the last time California had an open governor’s seat, the major Democratic candidates had fully launched their campaigns and Mr. Newsom had emerged as the front-runner in polls. Though the primary election is still 16 months away, it takes longer in California than elsewhere for candidates to raise money and become known to voters across a vast state with expensive media markets.

Advertisement

So far, the declared Democratic candidates include the lieutenant governor, the schools superintendent, a former mayor of Los Angeles, a former state controller and a former legislative leader. Though they’ve begun to raise money and seek endorsements, they are little-known to voters, making the race an unpredictable free-for-all.

Eleni Kounalakis, the lieutenant governor, was the first to jump into the governor’s race when she declared her candidacy in April 2023. At the time, the possibility that Ms. Harris might enter the race was on few minds.

Because Ms. Kounalakis and Ms. Harris have been friends for more than two decades, it’s difficult to imagine them running against each other. Their friendship dates back to when Ms. Harris was the San Francisco district attorney and Ms. Kounalakis was running her family’s home-building company in the same city, “both young women, trying to navigate the halls of power,” Ms. Kounalakis said in a speech at the Democratic National Convention. Ms. Kounalakis was not available for comment.

While most Democrats are in wait-and-see mode, the prospect of Ms. Harris’s entry seems to have energized some Republicans. Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, launched his campaign on Monday. Republican Steve Hilton, a Fox News commentator and former adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron, who lives in Silicon Valley, is also weighing a run. And Richard Grenell, who has a home in Manhattan Beach, Calif., and is President Trump’s envoy for special missions, said last week that he would consider running for California governor — if Ms. Harris gets into the race.

Such candidates would face long odds in a state that has not elected a Republican to statewide office since 2006, when voters re-elected Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor. But Republicans believe competing against Ms. Harris, especially after her loss to President Trump, could energize their supporters and attract more donations.

Advertisement

“She would be a very enticing opponent to Republicans,” said Matt Shupe, a campaign strategist who is advising Mr. Hilton.

If Ms. Harris does run, it would be a rare move for someone who came so close to the presidency. Only four vice presidents have run for governor, and one dropped out to support another candidate, according to Joel Goldstein, an emeritus law professor at Saint Louis University who has studied the history of vice presidents.

In 1804, Aaron Burr lost his race for governor of New York, an outcome that he blamed on Alexander Hamilton before he shot Mr. Hamilton dead in their famous duel. In 1894, Levi Morton, the vice president under President Benjamin Harrison, won the New York governor’s race.

The most direct parallel, however, was Richard Nixon. In 1960, Mr. Nixon, then the Republican vice president, lost the presidential race to John F. Kennedy. He returned home to Southern California and ran for governor in 1962.

Mr. Nixon adjusted to the parochial nature of a governor’s race and pledged to visit every county in the state, according to news accounts. He signed autographs in the rain in the Sierra Nevada foothills, posed for photos with “coonskin capped” mountain men and played piano for potato farmers near the Oregon border, The Los Angeles Times reported in February 1962.

Advertisement

In the 2026 governor’s race, some prominent Democrats have yet to announce their intentions as Ms. Harris weighs her decision.

Katie Porter, the former congresswoman known for viral moments in which she grilled executives with her whiteboard on Capitol Hill, has made several trips to Sacramento in recent weeks to meet with labor leaders and others who are influential in Democratic politics — indications that she has been laying the groundwork to get in the race. But she also has suggested that she and others would be unlikely to take on Ms. Harris.

“If Vice President Harris were to choose to run, I am certain that that would have a near field-clearing effect on the Democratic side,” Ms. Porter said at a post-election discussion in December.

Another Democratic leader has decided to forego the governor’s race. Rob Bonta, California’s attorney general, had been considering a run but announced this month that he will instead seek re-election as the state’s top lawyer and will support Ms. Harris if she runs for governor.

Not every Democrat would scatter. Two candidates who are positioning themselves as business-friendly moderates said that they will stay in the race even if Ms. Harris jumps in. Antonio Villaraigosa, a former Los Angeles mayor who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2018 and now works for the cryptocurrency company Coinbase, said that he’s running again because too many Californians are struggling with the cost of living.

Advertisement

“Because nothing has changed for them, nothing has changed for me,” Mr. Villaraigosa said.

Stephen Cloobeck, a real estate developer who has given his campaign $3 million, said Ms. Harris’s time in Washington has left her disconnected from California voters.“I welcome her entering the race if she decides to do that,” he said.

It is not clear when Ms. Harris might make a decision.

Lorena Gonzalez, the president of the California Labor Federation and a former Democratic state lawmaker, said that the prospect of Ms. Harris’s entry has “slowed everything down.”

The labor federation has invited candidates for governor to speak to union members at an event in May to begin considering an endorsement.

Advertisement

“We never thought that would look too early,” Gonzalez said. “But now it seems like it might be.”

In 1962, the last time a vice president came home to run for governor, Mr. Nixon lost to Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, the Democratic incumbent.

It was that defeat that led Mr. Nixon to tell reporters, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”

Six years later, he was elected president.

Orlando Mayorquín and Jesus Jiménez contributed reporting. Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

Advertisement

News

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

Published

on

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.

The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.

The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”

“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.

Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”

Advertisement

 White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.

The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.

The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.

The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.

“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”

Advertisement

Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.

“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.

In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Published

on

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

new video loaded: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. Our reporter Jodi Kantor explains what these documents reveal about the court.

By Jodi Kantor, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, June Kim and Luke Piotrowski

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

News

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

Published

on

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images

Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.

Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.

“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”

Advertisement

The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.

Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

Pool/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Pool/AFP via Getty Images

In 2015, patience led to a deal

The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement

“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.

“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”

Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.

“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”

Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”

Advertisement

Distrust but verify

Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.

“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.

“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.

Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”

Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.

Advertisement

Negotiations have a leveling effect

Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.

Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.

In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending