Politics
The 6 most urgent policy questions we have for America’s governors
Governors are scrambling to figure out the most effective way to respond to the seismic changes unleashed in the opening weeks of the Trump administration.
The basic calculus is clear: Democrats are searching for ways to thwart the White House’s most sweeping actions, while Republicans are desperate to show they’re fully on board with the MAGA agenda.
But beneath that crude dynamic, the deliberations happening in state capitals are far more nuanced and politically fraught.
Democrats are wary of simply mounting a scorched-earth resistance to President Donald Trump’s policies given the GOP’s sweeping victories on Election Day. That’s especially true on immigration, where the president’s hard-line tactics have resonated even with voters in deep blue swaths of the country.
Republicans, meanwhile, must navigate their own political tightrope in responding to the administration’s efforts to slash federal spending. That’s particularly tricky with regards to the massive packages enacted during the Biden administration that Trump has vowed to unwind — but that have disproportionately benefited red states.
These calculations are shifting on a daily basis — with legal fights creating even more uncertainty — as state executives face the toughest budget conditions since before the pandemic led to huge pots of federal cash swelling state coffers. Governors’ ability to traverse this choppy terrain will play a big role in determining which of them emerge as national political figures heading into 2028.
As the relationship between the federal government and state capitals gets upended, Blue Light News on Thursday is convening six state leaders for its 2025 Governors Summit, a series of one-on-one interviews on the sidelines of the National Governors Association meeting in Washington.
The gathering will feature some of the country’s most influential state executives answering questions from some of Blue Light News’s top reporters and editors. The lineup includes Democrats Jared Polis of Colorado and Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Republican Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma. The program starts at 8 a.m. EST.
To frame those conversations, we’ve assembled a list of the most urgent political and policy questions governors — and, by extension, the country — face in 2025.
1. How should Democratic governors, with an eye on 2028, work with Trump — or not?
It’s a raging debate among Democrats in Washington and across the country: how much to cooperate with Trump — and how much to resist?
For a party still sorting through the wreckage of its 2024 losses, it’s still an open question. But for Democratic governors, many of whom have an eye on 2028, it’s an even more urgent political balancing act. They’re under pressure from the party’s progressive base to resist Trump at every turn, while also offering a positive vision for the future that’s not centered exclusively on attacking the president.
At the same time, these Democratic governors must find ways to work with Trump when it comes to federal spending, especially after natural disasters. Look no further than California Gov. Gavin Newsom greeting Trump on the tarmac after the devastating Los Angeles wildfires last month.
So, how do they walk that political tightrope?
This isn’t limited to the Democratic governors. Both parties are facing open presidential primaries in 2028, so GOP governors may be looking for their own ways of standing out. Right now, however, there’s little evidence that Republicans want to put distance between themselves and Trump. For example, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp recently told Blue Light News that the government “can stand a little right-sizing,” when asked about 1,300 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employees, based in Atlanta, who were fired.
But how long does that line hold? (Elena Schneider)
2. What role, if any, do governors have to play in navigating a new era of trade war?
Trump’s tariff threats and protectionist ideology have pushed some of America’s closest trading relationships to the brink — and disrupted state economies in the process. Trump’s crackdown on trade with Canada, alone, has cast a shadow over the states: Michigan leaders fear layoffs in the auto sector, New York’s power supply could be imperiled, and Beshear of Kentucky has warned that Canadian retaliation could damage the liquor industry.
So, what is the responsibility of a governor in this moment? How much can a state leader work around Trump’s trade policies — or brace their state’s economy for impact? Should governors be building bridges to foreign countries, even at the cost of undermining federal policy? Or appealing directly to the White House for help, even at the risk of angering Trump or crossing their own party?
During the first Trump administration, governors in both parties stepped up their international travel and economic development efforts, effectively launching a new, sub-federal form of diplomacy aimed at offsetting protectionism in the White House. But Trump is moving faster and more aggressively with his policies this time, with the confidence of a more emphatic electoral mandate. Can governors keep up? (Alex Burns)
3. How should governors navigate abortion issues that stretch across state lines?
The fall of Roe v. Wade was supposed to send abortion back to the states. But more than two years later, so many cross-border conflicts are flaring up that assertions from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority and Trump that each state should be allowed to decide its own policies are being strained to the breaking point.
Louisiana and Texas are attempting to prosecute a New York doctor for prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine to patients in those states. Idaho and Tennessee have vowed to go after anyone who assists a minor in obtaining an abortion out-of-state. Idaho, Kansas and Missouri are also arguing in a Texas court that federal rules allowing abortion pills to be prescribed online and shipped by mail violate their sovereignty. And Alabama medical groups and activists are locked in a legal battle with their attorney general over what information, if any, they can provide to patients about terminating a pregnancy outside the state.
The nation has been a patchwork for abortion access for decades, but those divisions are only getting deeper, and neither side in the abortion war is satisfied with the current situation.
How much federalism and state-level experimentation should be allowed in the abortion space, and what baseline protections should be guaranteed nationwide by Washington? How concerned are governors that policies restricting the movement of people or medications across state lines could have repercussions beyond abortion? With the Trump administration rolling back its enforcement of the FACE Act, the 1994 federal law criminalizing the obstruction of abortion clinics, will governors push for state-level protections? (Alice Miranda Ollstein)
4. How will states cooperate with — or attempt to thwart — Trump’s immigration policies?
Failure to pass sweeping immigration changes in polarized Washington has led to state governments taking up their own policies. Blue state governors, including New York’s Kathy Hochul, face federal lawsuits over allowing undocumented immigrants to receive driver’s licenses, while red state governors dispatched National Guard troops to the southern border during the Biden administration.
But Trump’s November victory and subsequent push to carry out an aggressive deportation policy has scrambled traditional alliances.
Stitt, the Oklahoma Republican, blocked his state’s top education official from collecting the immigration status of public school children. Democrats, including Hochul and Polis of Colorado, are supportive of deporting undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes.
And the Trump Justice Department’s decision to drop New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ corruption case, as he aligns himself with the administration’s immigration czar, has intensified calls from fellow Democrats for him to step down. The Adams saga highlights the extraordinary steps Trump is willing to take to push local and state governments to enact his immigration plans.
What resources are governors willing to provide Trump to potentially deport millions of people? What will be the impact on state economies and employment? How will crucial, Republican-leaning sectors like agriculture absorb the loss of workers? (Nick Reisman)
5. As Trump downsizes Washington, do Republican governors have a line he can’t cross?
Trump’s slashing of the federal government at the hand of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency is bound to have immediate trickle-down effects on the states, which heavily rely on federal funding to keep the lights on and federal employees to provide critical services and expertise.
State and federal government functions are so closely entwined that a shuttering of federal agencies stands to transform the daily lives of Americans, from where they go to school to what food gets put on the table.
The Trump administration has already laid off thousands of federal workers across agencies, from the Education Department to the Forest Service to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The cuts are expected to escalate in coming weeks and months as Musk and his allies work with surgical precision to downsize government.
Therefore, the question for GOP governors, whose enthusiasm for DOGE’s mission has prompted some to create their own copycats, is: Can DOGE go too far? What would it take for them to stand up for their state’s economic interests and demand that DOGE back off? For Democratic governors, in the absence of congressional pushback to Musk, how do they intend to fight a dramatic reshaping of Washington?
6. What role should governors play at the dawn of artificial intelligence in state government?
Lawmakers have spent the last few years trying to understand the revolutionary implications of artificial intelligence systems while developing guidance on state government use. They still have a long way to go.
What they’ve discovered so far is that there is great promise, many risks and no easy answers. While AI has the potential to transform government operations across the state agency spectrum, the perils are equally eye-opening. For all the efficiencies to be gained in the delivery of services — in critical areas such as education, health care, law enforcement and transportation — there is also the prospect of privacy violations and the inadvertent incorporation of bias or discrimination into algorithms. Recent elections, which have been buffeted by deceptive, AI-generated content, are already offering many officeholders an all-too-personal glimpse into some of the darker applications of artificial intelligence.
What role should governors play in this pivotal moment — the dawn of artificial intelligence in state government? What responsibility do they have to ensure ethical principles are being developed and ethical practices are being followed? How can governors ensure that the government datasets powering this revolution are reliable and unbiased? What steps are being taken to guard against unforeseen consequences?
All of these considerations must be balanced against current fiscal and budgetary constraints, especially the Trump administration’s efforts to slash federal spending. But what price do you put on the potential leap forward in government efficiency, or on the vast opportunities for economic development that will flow from the adoption of AI technologies?
Decisions made today will echo for decades to come. (Charlie Mahtesian)
Byron Donalds says he is not a ‘yes man’ to Trump
lead image
The progressive political action committee Justice Democrats has appointed Rev. Hodari Williams as its new executive director. The change sets the organization up to hone a civil rights message ahead of the 2028 election cycle, Williams told Blue Light News.
His appointment, shared first with Blue Light News, comes at a time when self-proclaimed progressives (and socialists) are flooding the scene. The PAC has had its most successful election cycle ever, helping seven candidates — including Donavan McKinney in Michigan, Melat Kiros in Colorado and Darializa Avila Chevalier in New York — defeat incumbents in the primaries. While those candidates are heavily favored to win on Election Day, the fates of three other Justice Democrats candidates, including Tennessee’s state Rep. Justin Pearson, remain less certain going into November.
At one point, the group tried to get Williams to run for office. Though he declined, Williams said now is the right time to force change.
“America and its present-day politicians, from my experience, have a high blood pressure of promises and anemia of political courage,” Williams said in an interview, using a common Kenyan political expression. “Right now, JD is producing candidates who have the political courage to deal with the crises that are existing in marginalized and disenfranchised communities, and I want to be a part of that.”
Williams, 46, was born and raised in Lakewood, New Jersey. His parents were activists and community organizers who raised him on the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. After graduating from Francis Marion University in Florence, South Carolina, with his bachelor’s degree, he joined the NAACP as a field organizer for voter rights and empowerment while pursuing his Master’s of Divinity at the Interdenominational Theological Center. In his time with the NAACP, Williams traveled across the Black Belt, where he said he witnessed poverty and inequity up close.
“Civil rights traditionally has been something that people have tried to separate from progressivism … but these movements are inseparable,” said Williams. “What I witnessed in the South as a worker in voter rights and voter empowerment and education, and as a regional representative for the NAACP, was that the conditions that created inequity still existed and needed to be confronted and challenged.”
His work took him to Kenya, where he served as a program coordinator with the Presbyterian Church USA. In Nairobi, he supported the Green Belt Movement’s work against deforestation and its mission to highlight environmental justice as a tool for economic empowerment and self-determination.
Now, as some Black and brown voters express concerns of being tokenized by traditional Democratic candidates, Williams plans to bring his experience working in racial justice circles to his new role.
“I have worked in communities that have borne the brunt of failed promises from the current Democratic leadership,” Williams said. “I have opened the doors of my congregations to politicians and have experienced the absence of those politicians after the elections.”
He continued: “Black communities have become destinations for environmental hazards and data centers. Unemployment has risen. Black federal employees have been targeted. The list goes on. I’ve pastored these people. I’ve prayed with them. I’ve listened to them as they’ve shed tears. Now I’ve decided I want to move from triage work to really transformational work.”
Some of that work will require challenging other Black leaders.
“Unfortunately, many of our Black politicians have become victims of corporate capture, and their voices have been taken by entities like AIPAC,” said Williams, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “They have not really been able to stand for the issues that are affecting the communities that that many of us are fighting for, and JD candidates are free from that, and they’re free to take bold and significant action to move forward legislation.”
But with the 2026 election cycle nearly over, the PAC is already brainstorming how to establish a strong progressive coalition for the 2028 presidential election. That will mean convincing the mainstream Democratic party that Justice Democrats have built a lasting coalition of the party’s base, said Williams.
“We hope that the Democratic Party would see that we’re developing a blueprint to show them how the base is being energized around the issues that are kitchen table issues that people want us to deal with,” said Williams.
“It’s not enough for us just to have a call to defeat a fascist president. We don’t want a fascist president. We want him out, but we also want a vision of what America could look like when affordability, healthcare, civil rights, housing, and livable wages — all of those things are at the top of the political agenda,” he added.
Williams succeeds current executive director and co-founder Alexandra Rojas, who will become president of Justice Democrats’ board and will support Williams as a senior adviser.
Iowa Rep. Ashley Hinson took a swipe at the savings habits of millennials as she fielded a question Wednesday about Social Security during a Senate campaign debate.
Hinson, the Republican candidate facing off against Democrat state Rep. Josh Turek, was asked about ensuring the solvency of Social Security when she raised the broader prospect of savings by millennials, the demographic consisting of people born from 1981-1996.
She said the country needed to have a “serious conversation” about “how young people are saving money,” as part of the discussion about the future of Social Security.
“We also need to be talking about millennials saving money,” she later added. “Millennials are the worst group of savers in the country right now and have the least amount of savings. So those are ways where I think we can help have a bigger conversation around saving in general, planning for retirement, and making sure we’re all able to experience a robust retirement.”
Hinson faces a tough race in Iowa against Turek amid a difficult political environment for Republicans. Voters are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the state of the economy and their own personal finances, and they support Social Security while being concerned about the program’s future.
Hinson said she would not support cutting benefits and suggested creating a bipartisan commission to present suggestions to Congress to save the program. When pushed on her statement that “all options should be on the table,” she turned her attention to young people.
“I think my dad and I had this discussion when I was in sixth grade, looking at a ledger book and trying to figure out, hey, how are we going to make sure you’re set up for your life?” she said. “So we need to be having a conversation simultaneously to all solutions on the table, to make sure that it can stay solvent, while we’re also talking about, how do we get more young people to save?”
Hinson’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.
Turek, when asked about Social Security, said he supports removing the payroll tax cap.
“The best way we can keep this solvent is by taking off the cap,” Turek said. “Let’s make sure that billionaires and large corporations are paying their fair share. That will move the needle in a very serious way to keep Social Security solvent.”
Hinson disagreed. “The only thing I’m hearing from him is that the only solution to everything is to raise taxes,” she said.
-
Politics2 years agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics2 years agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship2 years agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics2 years agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words