Rep. Jerry Nadler, the longest-serving member of New York’s congressional delegation and a fixture of Democratic politics for more than three decades, is stepping down—and he says that it’s time for a new generation to lead.
The 78-year-old told The New York Times on Monday that he will not seek reelection in 2026, citing growing calls within the party for new leadership.
A younger person “can maybe do better, can maybe help us more,” he told the Times.
“This decision has not been easy. But I know in my heart it is the right one and that it is the right time to pass the torch to a new generation,” he added in a statement Tuesday.
Rep. Jerry Nadler sits beside New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.
The decision lands at a moment of transition for the Democratic Party, which has struggled to balance respect for veteran lawmakers who’ve defined its modern era with pressure from activists and younger voters to elevate a new slate of leaders.
In his interview with the Times, Nadler pointed directly to President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the 2024 race as evidence that the “necessity for generational change in the party” could no longer be ignored.
“I’m not saying we should change over the entire party, but I think a certain amount of change is very helpful, especially when we face the challenge of Trump and his incipient fascism,” he said.
Tributes from Democratic leaders quickly followed. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul called him “a champion, a fighter, and a trusted voice for New Yorkers,” while House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries described him as “a relentless fighter for justice, civil rights, and liberties and the fundamental promise of equality for all.”
New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani also commended Nadler, one of his earliest endorsers.
“Jerry stood alongside gay and trans Americans when it was politically unpopular, voted with courage—not calculus—against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, stood steadfast alongside the first responders and families sickened after 9/11, and led efforts to hold a lawless Trump administration accountable,” he said in a statement.
Nadler’s retirement reshapes the political landscape in New York’s 12th Congressional District, a deep-blue Manhattan seat that spans the Upper West Side, Upper East Side, and Midtown.
Though safely Democratic, the district now faces one of the most competitive primaries in the country. Nadler had already drawn a challenge from Liam Elkind, a 26-year-old activist who asked him earlier this year to “respectfully” step aside.
New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani
On Monday, Elkind welcomed the news of Nadler’s retirement with praise.
“He has led this district and this country with humanity, kindness, and intelligence. We are better for his leadership,” he wrote on X.
Other potential contenders are already being floated. Assemblymember Micah Lasher, a longtime Nadler aide now serving in Albany, is expected to weigh a bid, while progressive groups are eyeing the open seat as an opportunity to push a new generation of leadership. Whoever emerges as the Democratic nominee will almost certainly head to Congress: Nadler won reelection in 2022 with more than 80% of the vote.
Nadler’s congressional career began in 1992, when he won his seat in a special election after serving in the New York State Assembly. Over the years, he became one of the House’s most recognizable progressives and a staunch defender of abortion rights and judicial oversight. As chair of the House Judiciary Committee, he presided over President Donald Trump’s first impeachment in 2019.
More recently, he championed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in 2022, which prohibits employment practices that discriminate against employees seeking accommodations due to pregnancy, childbirth, or other medical reasons.
Nadler is also the longest-serving Jewish member of Congress and a central figure in Manhattan politics. But like many of his longtime colleagues, Nadler faced mounting questions about how long the party could lean on its older leadership.
Last year, he was ousted as the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and replaced with a younger colleague. His exit now adds to a growing list of Democratic lawmakers stepping down, including Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis of Illinois and Dwight Evans of Pennsylvania, as well as Sens. Gary Peters of Michigan, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Tina Smith of Minnesota.
Nadler’s departure doesn't just set the stage for a high-stakes New York primary, but it also raises an important question: Is the Democratic Party ready to let a new generation lead?
A major national security scandal is still unfolding after top-level Trump administration officials accidentally invited a journalist to a private text chat being used to plan a military strike in Yemen.
As President Donald Trump and his ever-loyal Republican Party try to minimize the incident, it has fallen on congressional Democrats to probe what happened and to protect the public from the administration’s operational failures.
Republicans have long used congressional investigations to effectively attack their political opponents over foreign policy controversies. In 2015, after the attack on two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, and subsequent rush to assign blame on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Fox News exactly how the GOP playbook worked.
“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee,” McCarthy bragged. “What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.”
Here are 10 things that Democratic lawmakers can do in the days and weeks and months ahead, including borrowing some tactics from the scandal playbook that Republicans have used against Democrats in the past.
1. Keep it simple and explain the scandal to a busy public
The technology and issues involved in the leak are somewhat complex and involve issues like the Signal messaging app and U.S. policy in the Middle East. But that doesn’t mean Democrats’ rhetoric about the incident can’t be simple.
For instance, when Republicans raked the Biden administration over the coals for withdrawing from Afghanistan or the Obama administration for the Benghazi attack, they did not get into the weeds about policy—and those attacks frequently resonated as a result.
Most Americans use messaging apps. They wouldn’t want their secrets exposed to the world. It’s even worse when thousands of lives are on the line. That’s what the Trump administration did, and that’s how Democrats can make a big issue understandable.
2. Oppose Trump’s nominees—all of them
Just two months into Trump’s new presidency, Senate Democrats have already been burned by their appetite for bipartisanship. Despite Trump’s open disdain for the rule of law, his embrace of misogyny and bigotry, and his disinterest in basic facts, the party has voted to confirm several of his Cabinet nominees—only to later express regret for doing so.
Even as the leak details were becoming public, members of the Senate Democratic caucus voted for Trump nominees Christopher Landau (to the State Department) and John Phelan. Phelan, who will become secretary of the Navy, is a major Trump donor with no military experience. Voting for him after the text leak is a particularly odd choice for Democrats.
After then-President Joe Biden withdrew from Afghanistan, Republicans blocked him from promoting military officers. Democrats can do the same to Trump now.
3. Be aggressive when talking about a national security crisis
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for a “bipartisan investigation” of the text chat. While it would seem right to call for national unity on an issue of this magnitude, Schumer’s rhetoric is as out of step with reality as his recent vote in favor of Trump’s cruel budget priorities.
As the controversy over the Benghazi attacks raged, Republican voters viewed the scandal as important as Watergate and the Iran-Contra affair, according to opinion polls. Despite the tragedy of the attacks, Republican leaders constantly distorted the magnitude of the incident. Former Vice President Dick Cheney said it was “one of [the] worst incidents I can recall in my career.” Cheney, of course, was vice president on Sept. 11.
Democrats can discuss the possibility that foreign intelligence and other bad actors may have had access to the chat or possibly other, undisclosed chats. That isn’t hyperbole. The Trump administration already did it once.
A good example of this: Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia noted that this kind of thing occurs when a leader like Trump picks his Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the ranks of Fox News talking heads.
Ossoff: This is what happens when you have Fox News personalities cosplaying as government officials. [image or embed]
4. Hold the media accountable for ignoring or downplaying the story
As the initial shock of the leak wears off, the mainstream media is likely to return to form by minimizing the severity of the incident. In fact, major media outlets like The New York Times, which amplified multiple stories about Hillary Clinton’s email server in 2016, are already downplaying it.
Democrats can highlight this problem while stressing the importance of the incident. By noting that a breach of this caliber may risk American lives, Democrats can ask the press to question key officials like Hegseth, Trump, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (who has ahistory of propagandizing for hostile foreign governments).
5. Demand answers about the scandal and fallout from government agencies
Members of Congress have the power to request information and documentation from government agencies. Republicans bombarded the Biden administration with such requests after the Afghanistan withdrawal.
Not only can the defense and intelligence agencies be the subject of such requests, but Democrats can ask other unaffiliated agencies and even projects like Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency to disclose how they are communicating, if any secret backchannels are in use, and to ask what is being discussed and why it is outside of public review.
Congress has the constitutional mandate of oversight, and that comes into play here. Already, Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida has issued a demand for officials involved in the “Hegseth Disaster Signal Chat” to retain records in anticipation of possible litigation and a Congressional investigation.
6. Demand hearings, and follow up with more hearings
It is already unlikely that congressional Republicans will open hearings into the leak, as leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson are already trying to turn the page on the embarrassing debacle.
But Democrats shouldn’t accept just one investigation. House Republicans launched five committee investigations into the Benghazi attack and also set up a House Select Committee on the issue. There was a Senate investigation as well.
The playbook is wide open, with multiple aspects of this incident to be sorted out across a host of committees, and as new information and witnesses surface, the scope of which committees can best handle an investigation could expand.
7. Use the media to push concerns about the scandal
In addition to pushing journalists and news organizations to cover the story, Democrats can use multiple media appearances to forward their narrative surrounding the leak. Republicans have made considerable hay out of any number of Democratic actions, from the Afghanistan withdrawal, to Benghazi, to President Obama’s decision to wear a tan suit, and particularly former President Bill Clinton’s infidelity while in office.
Mainstream news networks book members of Congress and other political leaders for appearances constantly. Even if the main topic is completely unrelated, Democrats can note how one area of Trump administration incompetence or malfeasance echoes the chat leak controversy.
8. Amplify veterans’ concerns about the national security breach
To attack the Biden administration over the Afghanistan withdrawal, Republicans solicited testimony from veterans who witnessed some of the tactical mistakes made. Military security is directly in the crosshairs of the chat leak, and Democrats should take note.
Veteran advocacy groups like VoteVets are already pushing for answers about the incident, and Democrats would do well to take up their cause. Similarly, there are multiple Democratic officeholders who are veterans and have already spoken out about the problems involved in the leak. There can never be too many voices like this, which attract public and media attention.
“This isn’t about party—it’s about country.” - Rep. Pat Ryan
Democratic Veterans are demanding answers after Trump’s SecDef mishandled sensitive military info.
American lives are at risk. We need accountability. We need a hearing. [image or embed]
9. Send criminal referrals related to the leak and possible cover-up
In the course of investigating the leak, there is an extremely high possibility that someone involved will lie or mislead.
Stymied by their failure to turn Biden’s son Hunter into a liability, Republicans referred him and his uncle James Biden to the Department of Justice on the claim that they lied to Congress (a crime). While this did not result in charges, it generated coverage and renewed interest in the story.
If people lie about the leak—and figures like Hegseth have already lied to reporters about it—this is another avenue Democrats can travel down.
10. Never be satisfied with the administration’s spin, and keep pushing for more answers
President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Questions about the chat leak will inevitably lead to more questions. Based on the track record of Trump and his underlings, this group chat from hell surely isn’t the only backchannel of communication that exists in the administration.
Democrats can ask about and investigate this phenomenon and all the other subsequent questions it raises. Were other agencies involved? Were key GOP figures like Elon Musk and Mike Johnson connected? Are there ongoing text chats about national security with conservative media figures like Sean Hannity who are known to have Trump’s ear? Did Trump or anyone under him use this information and sharing of information for personal financial gain?
Trump has shown absolutely zero interest in moral or ethical boundaries, even when the lives of Americans are on the line. These questions aren’t out of bounds, but well within his existing and well-known pattern of behavior.
In an ideal world the Republicans would come clean about what they’ve done, heads would roll, and the American public would be educated about what is being done in their name. But that world does not exist, so Democrats should mirror what Republicans have done in the past to fan the flames of scandal and further their agenda—and use those tactics to protect America from Team Trump’s incompetence.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
President Joe Biden said Friday that he was not fully confident that the current U.S. Supreme Court, which he described as extreme, could be relied on to uphold the rule of law.
When asked the question directly, Biden paused for a few seconds. Then he sighed and said, “I worry.”
“Because,” he said, “I know that if the other team, the MAGA Republicans, win, they don’t want to uphold the rule of law.”
But he said, “I do think at the end of the day, this court, which has been one of the most extreme courts, I still think in the basic fundamentals of rule of law, that they would sustain the rule of law.”
Still, Biden said the court itself should recognize it needs ethics rules after stories by ProPublica revealed that billionaires had given undisclosed gifts to Supreme Court justices and that Justice Clarence Thomas has made appearances at events for donors to the Koch political network. The code of conduct that applies to other federal judges doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court. “The idea that the Constitution would in any way prohibit or not encourage the court to have basic rules of ethics that are just on their face reasonable,” Biden said, “is just not the case.”
The discussion was part of a rare formal interview on a topic the president has laid out as a priority: How America’s democracy is under siege. Seated in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Friday afternoon, Biden seemed relaxed and confident, batting back a question about why he thinks he’s the only Democrat who can protect democracy next year, especially given voter concerns with his age: “I’m not the only Democrat that can protect it. I just happen to be the Democrat who I think is best positioned to see to it that the guy I was worried about taking on democracy is not president.”
Biden cast the threat to democracy posed by Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy as a resistance movement animated by fear of change. “I think Trump has concluded that he has to win,” Biden said, noting the rising vitriol in the embattled former president’s rhetoric. “And they’ll pull out all the stops.”
Biden linked the attempt by House Republicans to bring Washington to “a screeching halt” through a government shutdown to Trump’s effort to regain the presidency. He warned against the desire of “MAGA Republicans” — which he called a minority of the GOP, much less the nation as a whole — to weaken institutions such as the federal civil service to shift power over the U.S. government toward the president alone. Trump has promised his supporters to “be your retribution” in a second term.
The drama over a government shutdown resulted from the “terrible bargain” Republican Speaker Kevin McCarthy made with extremist colleagues to secure his job, Biden said. “He’s willing to do things that he, I think, he knows are inconsistent with constitutional processes.” He added: “There is a group of MAGA Republicans who genuinely want to have a fundamental change in the way that the system works. And that’s what worries me the most.”
Biden faulted his Democratic Party for failing at some points to respond effectively to one of the wellsprings of the anti-democratic threat: the anxieties of Americans, most conspicuously blue-collar white men, unsettled by economic, cultural and demographic change.
What’s needed isn’t so much economic benefits as “treating them with respect,” said Biden, who has emphasized his middle-class Scranton, Pennsylvania, upbringing throughout his political career. “The fact is, we’re going to be very shortly a minority-white-European country. Sometimes my colleagues don’t speak enough to make it clear that that is not going to change how we operate.”
Biden expressed confidence that the majority of the Republican Party and the nation itself would ultimately safeguard the American experiment. But he exhorted them to “speak up” in opposition to the increasingly menacing rhetoric Trump has deployed in response to his legal peril.
“[Do] not legitimize it,” he said. He added, in what seemed a reference to the vitriol aimed at jurors and potential jurors in trials for the Jan. 6 insurrection and Trump-related cases, “I never thought I’d see a time when someone was worried about being on a jury because there may be physical violence against them if they voted the wrong way.”
He encouraged Americans concerned about democracy to be “engaging” more with family, friends and acquaintances who have embraced extremism. Even more urgent, he added, is voting in next year’s presidential election. “Get in a two-way conversation,” he said. “I really do believe that the vast majority of the American people are decent, honorable, straightforward. … We have to, though, understand what the danger is if they don’t participate.”
ProPublica also asked Biden whether his former Senate colleague Joe Lieberman is upholding democracy by working with an organization called No Labels to pursue a potential third-party candidacy. “Well, he has a democratic right to do it. There’s no reason not to do that. Now, it’s going to help the other guy. And he knows [that]. … That’s a political decision he’s making that I obviously think is a mistake. But he has a right to do that.”
Biden was asked whether Fox News and other outlets that spread falsehoods about the 2020 election drive the threat that he’s concerned about or simply reflect sentiment that already exists. Both, Biden said: “Look, there are no editors any more. That’s one of the big problems.” Without providing detail, he suggested that reporters on outlets such as Fox are just doing what they’re told.
In response to a question about whether the decision by Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X (formerly Twitter), to lower guardrails against misinformation contributes to the problem, Biden said, “Yeah, it does.” Biden noted that the invention of the printing press had effects that are still felt today. He suggested something similar was happening with the internet. “Where do people get their news?” he continued. “They go on the internet. They go online … and you have no notion whether it’s true or not.”
Much has been written lately about the GQP’s unfathomable opposition to the Democrats’ $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package (see here, here, here and here). In short, the Democrat’s proposal is incredibly popular, even among Republicans. A Morning Consult poll pegged support at 76% of voters, including 60% of Republicans. That’s bipartisanship. But Republicans in Congress want to play off the old destroy-Obama-at-all-costs playbook, and have put up a wall of opposition to the legislation.
And not only are they rhetorically opposing it, but they’re actively whipping against it, forcing congressional Republicans to vote against it or else. Let’s hope they’re successful, because nothing will make the 2022 midterm messaging clearer than “those checks came from us, they didn’t want to help you at all.”
Indeed, their current stances are so at odds with basic political common sense, it almost makes you suspicious, right? What do they know that we don’t? But no, they think the COVID-19 relief package is like the Affordable Care Act, where they could fearmonger about losing your doctor. Pandemic relief isn’t about taking anything away from you, it’s about giving you cold, hard cash.
The current Republican response is hilariously stupid. It’s stuff like this:
That “$$$”, of course, is checks for people. But even libraries and mass transit aren’t particularly unpopular items, so not sure what they think they’re getting from this kind of messaging. Here’s another one:
Only 9% of the Biden Bailout Bill goes to #COVID relief. A few examples of where the money is actually going: ➡️$135 million for the National Endowment of the Arts ➡️$350 billion in blue state bailouts ➡️$1.5 million for the Seaway International Bridge ➡️$1.5 billion for Amtrak
For a party that is losing ground with swing voters, not sure why they think that “blue state bailouts” kind of divisive rhetoric gets them anything beyond their old, white, rural, and literally dying off base. “$1.5 million” for something? In a $1.9 TRILLION dollar bill? Does anyone care? And Amtrak is a lifeline for many rural communities. And people like trains.
Part of the GOP’s problem is that they no longer know how to message against an old white male. President Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren? Oh boy, they’d have a field day. But the old guy who doesn’t grandstand or showboat much, keeps his head down, stays professional? They’re at a loss.
So much so that he is a far more popular politician than pretty much anyone else in this country. Some polling has shown positively gaudy numbers for Biden.
Civiqs, which does a great job of filtering out partisan non-response bias (in essence, demoralized partisans refusing to answer polls), has more measured numbers:
For comparison’s sake, Donald Trump is at 42% favorable, 56% unfavorable. And just as important as the toppling, the trend is a good one. Republicans can’t touch him, which is maybe why they’re resorting to this kind of buffoonery:
Newsmax guest attacks Biden's dogs for being dirty and "unlike a presidential dog" pic.twitter.com/6yitOlM765
That 16-point gap (46% Democratic vs. 30% Republican) is quite dramatic, and is driven by crashing numbers among independents: only 22% think the GOP is concerned about people like them, down from 33% on Election Day. Meanwhile, 36% of independents say Democrats are concerned about them. Let’s keep an eye on this chart in the coming months, because it’s going to become extra clear which party cares about people, and which one is hell-bent on committing political suicide. The damage Republicans are doing to themselves is already extensive. Let’s compare the two parties:
Republican Party favorability: 23% favorable, 65% unfavorable, with brutal trendiness.
Republicans already lost the 2018 and 2020 elections, and demographic trends continue to move against them. Trump cost them the White House, the Senate, and the House, and there is zero guarantee his voters will ever turn out for an election without Trump on the ballot (they haven’t before). Yet the Republican Party isn’t just doubling down on Trumpism, it’s doubling down on opposing popular legislation.
Think about it, even a Q-addled Republican will have to think twice in 2022 if she or he has to vote between losing their monthly child credit check from the IRS, or a Republican promising to end any such help. Deliver help to people, and it’s a different playing field. It’s already happening, and the legislation hasn’t even passed into law.
Democrats gifted Republicans the chance to rip out the Trump cancer from their party, but the GQP refused to convict in the impeachment trial. Now Republicans are gifting Democrats the chance to lock in popular support for their party and candidates.
Perhaps it’s time to stop looking the gift horse in the mouth, and just run up the advantage.
