"Iowa GOP Chair Kaufmann Selected to Lead RNC Presidential Nominating Process Committee"

In a press release from the Republican Party of Iowa:

"Iowa GOP Chairman Jeff Kaufmann released the following statement in response to being named Chair of the Republican National Committee’s Presidential Nominating Process Committee:

“I’m honored that President Trump and Chairman Gruters have asked me to lead this critical committee shaping our party’s presidential nominating process. This committee will be giving recommendations to determine whether Iowa Republicans remain First in the Nation.

I’m proud that Iowa continues to play a leading role in defining what it means to be a Republican and ensuring grassroots voters everywhere have a voice in choosing our next nominee. Together, we’ll build a process that reflects our values, strengthens our party, and positions us to win in 2028.”

About Chairman Kaufmann:

In 2014, Kaufmann took over the Iowa GOP and led the party to tremendous success on the local, state, and federal levels. In his time as the chair, the GOP won control of both chambers of the state legislature and the governorship for the first time in almost twenty years, and on the federal level, the GOP captured 5 of 6 federal offices while delivering Iowa to the GOP presidential candidate for the first time since 2004.

At the 2024 Republican National Convention, Trump picked Kaufmann to officially nominate him for President of the United States, becoming the first Iowan to have this honor.

This will be Chairman Kaufmann’s second time leading this powerful committee, having previously served as chair during the 2024 presidential election cycle, when the party nominated President Trump, who went on to win a second term in the White House."

--

Noteworthy: News has continued to trickle out about the national party committee that will guide the rules-making process for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination since the September 30 deadline to name the committee. The latest is that RPI Chair Kaufmann will head the efforts. 

Folks in the media were quick to treat the snubbing of Scott Brennan, Iowa's former member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee, as indicative of Hawkeye state Democrats' standing in the push to gain early state status for 2028. And if Kaufmann's appointment to chair the RNC's Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process is treated in a similar light, then little needs to be read into the move. It would seemingly suggest that Iowa's position, and for that matter the RNC's position on the early calendar generally, are secure ahead of 2028. 

In other words, the RNC is looking at nomination rules beyond the calendar. 

...if the chair selection is any indication. How big an if that is will become clearer between now and June 30, the deadline for the committee to send any recommended rules changes for 2028 to the full RNC.

RNC Chair names members of the 2028 Presidential Nominating Process Committee

September 30 was not just the end of the fiscal year for the federal government. Under the rules of the Republican National Committee (RNC), it was also deadline day for the national party chair to name the members of the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process for the 2028 cycle. 

According to Rule 10(a)(9):

There shall be a Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process to review the rules governing the nomination of the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall appoint all temporary members of the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process, not to exceed eleven (11) members, and shall appoint one (1) as chairman, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee shall serve as an ex officio member. The chairman of the Republican National Committee shall convene the Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating process at his discretion, but no later than September 30 of the year following a presidential election. The Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process shall make any recommendations it deems appropriate and report such recommendations to the Republican National Committee no later than June 30 of the year two years prior to a presidential election.

At least two of the new members of panel have come forward publicly following the appointment:

1. Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Power

   Honored to have been appointed to the @GOP committee on the Presidential Nominating Process pic.twitter.com/fPr0gf4FVG

   — Evan Power (@EvanPower) September 30, 2025

   More here:

   “I am deeply honored to serve on the RNC’s Standing Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process,” Power said.

   
   

   “Having participated in multiple national conventions, I’ve seen firsthand how a strong, inclusive nominating process empowers our voters and elevates principled candidates. I look forward to working with fellow committee members to refine our rules, promote geographic diversity, and build on the successes we’ve achieved in Florida — ensuring the Republican Party remains united and ready to win big in the cycles ahead.”

    

2. West Virginia Republican National Committeeman Larry Pack

   I’m proud to have been appointed to serve on the @GOP RNC Committee on Presidential Nominating Process. It’s time to begin preparing for 2028 and a GOP victory

   — Larry Pack (@LarryPack) September 30, 2025

--

Noteworthy: Comparatively, Republican rules set up a timeline for crafting a presidential nomination cycle's rules that is modestly more compact than what is likely to occur on the Democratic side. The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) has been at work throughout 2025 but was not fully seated until August. Yes, the primary calendar rules will gain all of the attention, but the RBC will work through not only the full delegate selection rules but the Call to the Convention as well into 2026. Although the calendar work may extend beyond next summer, the remainder of the 2028 rules will likely be set in stone by August 2026. 

Republicans, on the other hand, have just empaneled their nominating rules committee whose work is due to the full RNC in the form of recommended changes (if any) by June 30, 2026. The RNC then has until September 30, 2026 to finalize and adopt the rules that will govern the 2028 presidential nomination process. It all occurs in a window that is exactly one year long. 

[Under Rule 12, September 30, 2026 is the last date on which amendments can be made to a subset of the Rules of the Republican Party for the 2028 cycle.]

"Michigan lawmakers weigh moving primary date ahead of 2026 campaign"

Craig Mauger, Beth LeBlanc and Melissa Nann Burke at The Detroit News detail a bipartisan legislative push in the Great Lakes state to move the date of the primaries for state and federal offices:

"Michigan lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are weighing a new push to move the state's August primary to May, a change that could shake up next year's fight for control of state government.

"While there's been little bipartisan cooperation in the divided Legislature so far this year, members of the Democratic-led Senate and representatives within the Republican-led House have both been considering yet-to-be-unveiled proposals to alter the traditional August primary date."

--

Noteworthy: Could any change on this front in Michigan affect the scheduling of the 2028 presidential primary in the state as well? I'm glad you asked. Let's walk through some of the possibilities at FHQ Plus (subscription)...

Would Michigan primary consolidation stop at state/federal and municipal offices?

"Democratic Calendar in Disarray: The Importance of the 2028 Presidential Primary Schedule"

Nick Field, writing at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, looks at some of the questions facing Democrats as they set out to put together an early calendar lineup for 2028:

"[T]he primary calendar is now under the purview of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee. Martin has reshaped this critical committee, as 32 of its 49 members are new, with Martin ousting some party power brokers who haven’t been shy in making their displeasure known far and wide. According to what Martin told Favreau, the committee won’t release their proposed calendar until the winter of 2027...

"Top of the agenda for the group is bound to be whether New Hampshire leads the pack again or South Carolina now assumes that role. There’s also the question of Nevada, and whether any other states can join the pre-Super Tuesday portion of the calendar. This trio of states is set to get two seats each on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, perhaps an indication that none of them will be dropped from the early window.

"All of these scheduling questions could ultimately prove pivotal for the potential 2028 candidates."

--

Noteworthy: Perhaps this is one of those cases in which a headline writer was overly playful with an often over-expressed notion -- Dems in disarray -- that does not exactly match the tenor of the piece. However, having written for Crystal Ball a few times over the years, my experience was that the author came up with them. Regardless of whether it was used tongue-in-cheek or seriously, I just do not see that much disarray with the Democrats and their 2028 calendar. 

That is, not yet anyway. 

Look, if used seriously in the context of Nick Field's piece, the usual thicket of rules that the two major parties, but especially the out-party, faces every four years can be confused for disarray. But I don't think it is disarray at this point. After all, Democrats on the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) are literally at the beginning of what is likely to be a lengthy process. Everything is seemingly on the table. 

But as this process progresses and we learn more about how state parties will be able to pitch their primaries or caucuses to the RBC and the new members of the panel get the historical context of the rules and the rules-making process that staff quadrennially provides, that aforementioned everything will winnow down to a much smaller, actually feasible, set of options from which the committee will ultimately choose in the next 18 months.

And no, none of this necessarily portends big changes to the early calendar for 2028. But yes, the New Hampshire question will be among the more prominent ones the RBC will have to tackle.

--

There is more in there to respond to, but I will save that for something over at FHQ Plus, where I have a bit more space to address things.

In the meantime, here is where the 2028 primary calendar currently stands.

"Should Iowa Democrats go 'rogue' and go first with 2028 caucuses? Survey seeks party input"

Brianne Pfannenstiel at The Des Moines Register digs in on where Iowa Democrats are with the 2028 presidential primary calendar process at the starting line:

"As national Democrats begin gearing up for a conversation about the 2028 presidential nominating calendar, Iowa Democrats are asking themselves whether they want to obey the national party’s process or go 'rogue' with a renewed push for first-in-the-nation status.

"In a new survey set released to Iowa Democrats Thursday, Aug. 21, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart writes that although the party’s focus is on winning elections in 2026, 'discussions about the 2028 nominating process have begun.'

“'Without an incumbent president on the ballot, we are likely to have one of the deepest and longest nominating campaigns in history,' she wrote in the survey introduction. 'Unlike 2024, the outcome of the presidential nominating process will be in doubt. As Iowa Democrats, we have choices to make about how to proceed.'”

--

Noteworthy: Chair Hart struck a pragmatic tone at the outset of the national party's calendar deliberations. While the survey teases the idea that Hawkeye state Democrats may go rogue for 2028, Hart pointed out that 1) it is still much too early and 2) there are a lot of moving parts that will affect what the state party may do with regard to the caucuses next time around, including how the party performs in state contests during the 2026 midterms. 

Others within the party were much more forceful, recently removed DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member (and Iowa national committeeman) Scott Brennan among them. "Full speed ahead and damn the DNC," he said, striking a defiant posture. 

Of course, Iowa Democrats can be defiant without actually breaking any likely DNC rules for 2028. One should expect the state party to hold early caucuses again during the next cycle. It is, after all, state law. What those early -- January? February? -- caucuses do, however, matters. If they merely select delegates to go to the next step of the caucus/convention process as was the case for the 2024 cycle, then Iowa Democrats will not have held their "first determining step," as the DNC calls it, and will be rules-compliant. 

What matters is not that preliminary selection process. The part that will be and always has been important, not to mention determinative, is the allocation process. If the results of any caucus vote determines which candidates win how ever many delegate slots -- allocation -- then such a caucus would run afoul of DNC rules. 

And it is worth raising another reality: Now that Iowa Democrats have held a mail-in party-run presidential primary, it will be hard for the state party to make the case for returning to the in-person caucuses alone, rogue or not. That is a much more difficult argument to make before the national party and to rank-and-file Democrats in the Hawkeye state. 

--

Related at FHQ+:

Background on 2023 state law change and the implications for Iowa Democrats

--

More:

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa Democrats launch survey, discussion on future of presidential caucuses

Associated Press: Iowa Democrats consider bringing back lead off caucuses, even if it means going ‘rogue’ in 2028

"Inside the Dems' fight to be 'the new Iowa' and hold the first 2028 primary"

Alex Thompson at Axios pulls back the curtain on the beginning of the Democrats' process to set the 2028 early calendar :

"Democratic Party officials are quietly battling over which state will be the first to vote in the 2028 presidential primary — a fight that's set to break into the open next week, when the officials meet in Minneapolis.

"Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan are currently the frontrunners to be 'the new Iowa,' and lead off the 2028 Democratic primary season, according to several people familiar with the Rules and Bylaws committee that will determine the order."

--

Noteworthy: First of all, I don't know how much "fight[ing]" or "battling" there is over the calendar at this point. As Thompson notes much further on in the story than was probably necessary, the process is at the starting line. If there are fights now, then that portends a likely ugly process. It won't be. It will be politics as it usually is. State parties will jockey for early spots, candidates will push their preferences (directly or through proxies/supporters on the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and those members of the panel will have their own opinions as well. There will be some push and pull, and things may get heated along the way -- they probably won't (although it may be reported that way) -- but the calendar is a collective action problem the party's new (as of the 2024 cycle) process has already resolved once. 

As for "the new Iowa," well, Michigan was already the new Iowa in 2024. The Great Lakes state became the midwestern state in the early window. And, yes, South Carolina was the new first (sanctioned) state in the process as well. Would Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan not be vying to be the new South Carolina? 

And finally, this passage from Thompson's piece merits a response:

"For decades, Iowa's caucuses and New Hampshire's primary kicked off the presidential primary season.

"But the order of contests has become a free-for-all since Iowa botched its caucuses in 2020, and then-President Biden changed the calendar in 2024 to favor his re-election bid by moving up the primary in Biden-friendly South Carolina."

I don't know that Iowa's caucus experience in 2020 triggered the reexamination of the calendar. It was a part of it, but the DNC was already moving in the direction of diversifying the early calendar and opening the process up for 2024. The party voluntarily moved toward an orderly process -- not a free-for-all -- whereby Iowa and New Hampshire (and Nevada and South Carolina) no longer received (near) automatic waivers to hold early contests. Rather, all state parties -- those that wanted to anyway -- could pitch the party on being early. 

And then as now, the early favorites to win those slots were states that were mostly already early. That's the story here: that Nevada, New Hampshire and Michigan are the states being talked about now as the possible first Democratic primary state for 2028. All were granted early spots during the last cycle.

Bottom line: there is a long way to go, folks.

--

More on the 2028 presidential primary calendar here and here.

"In Boost to FITN Fortunes, NH’s O’Brien Tapped to Head RNC Rules Committee"

Michael Graham at the NH Journal has the story on the new RNC Rules Committee chair:

"Former New Hampshire House Speaker Bill O’Brien has been elected chairman of the Republican National Committee’s powerful Rules Committee, placing the veteran GOP leader at the center of the party’s preparations for the next presidential election.

"O’Brien, who serves as New Hampshire’s Republican National Committeeman, was chosen by his colleagues to lead the panel through the end of the next Republican National Convention. The Rules Committee oversees the party’s governing framework, including convention procedures, delegate selection, and the presidential nomination calendar..."

--

Noteworthy: While there have been no rumblings of any imminent changes to the beginning of the 2028 presidential primary calendar on the Republican side, this is a feather in the cap for Republicans in the Granite state. New Hampshire probably is -- and was -- not going anywhere, but holding the gavel in Rules Committee meetings provides some additional insulation for the first-in-the-nation primary that was not there before.

"DNC chair says Democrats will start process of setting 2028 primary calendar this month"

Sarah Fortinsky at the The Hill summarizes DNC Chair Ken Martin's comments on the 2028 Democratic primary calendar:

"Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said on Sunday that the party will begin deliberating the 2028 primary calendar later this month at a meeting in Minneapolis.

"'We’re going to start that conversation actually this month in August at our DNC meeting in Minneapolis,' Martin said in an interview on NewsNation’s 'The Hill Sunday,' when host Chris Stirewalt asked about the primary calendar in the next president election.

"'The Rules and Bylaws Committee, which is newly composed, will start this conversation by putting forward the rules and procedures, and start to really figure out how we’re going to engage in this,' he continued.

"Martin said the process will play out over the next year, and he expects to have a calendar set by the end of next year."

--

Noteworthy: The rough timeline here suggests that the DNC will carry over some elements of the process from the 2024 cycle. That the final calendar decisions at the national party level did not come down until not only after the 2022 midterms but in December of that year was a break from the protocol the party had utilized in most previous post-reform cycles. Usually, those early window calendar slots were settled on in the late summer/early fall of the midterm year alongside the formal final adoption of the entire rules package for the upcoming presidential nomination process. 

--

More from FHQ Plus (subscription):

DNC Chair Martin lays out early state checklist for 2028

"South Carolina Democrats will fight to keep 'first in the nation' primary status in 2028"

Alexandra Marquez weighs in at NBC News on the uncertainty of the early 2028 primary calendar for Democrats:

"Three years before 2028, the outlines of the next presidential race are already growing clearer, with large fields of potential primary candidates in both parties already making early moves.

"But one big thing is very much unclear for Democrats: which state will vote first when the primaries start."

...

"In South Carolina, which was tapped to host the Democrats’ first sanctioned primary for the first time in 2024, state Democrats are adamant they will be first in line on the primary calendar again in 2028.

"'Oh yeah, we’re first,' South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Christale Spain told NBC News at the party’s headquarters in Columbia earlier this month. She added, 'South Carolina is first. That means the South is first. So we’re gonna continue to fight for that.'"

--

Noteworthy: Early reporting on the South Carolina angle of the 2028 primary calendar story has come to lean so heavily on comments from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC, 6th) that they have almost become conventional wisdom:

"Clyburn told reporters at his annual fish fry he’s not concerned about South Carolina being the lead off contest, after the Democratic Party kicked off its 2024 presidential nominating process with the Palmetto State.

“'I never asked for anything more than keep us in the pre-primary window which covers a whole month before the primary starts,' Clyburn said. 'So I think it’s important to the party for that to be the case. Whether it be one, two, three or four, I don’t care.'”

But the resulting picture -- a kind of "we're just glad to be here" sentiment -- is maybe a bit too deferential to Clyburn. There are other perspectives among state Democrats on the "should South Carolina be first?" discussion as Chair Spain demonstrates. 

However, would one expect her to say anything less at this stage of the process? Of course she is going to advocate for the Palmetto state going first in 2028. But this is the first break (of sorts) from that South Carolina conventional wisdom that has developed in the reporting on the primary calendar. 

"South Carolina's early state status is far from secure. But 2028 Dems are going anyway."

Note that the title of this piece changed from when it was first released via RSS. It is now published under the headline "Democrats in South Carolina are barely pretending they're not already running for president."

--

Politico's Brakkton Booker and Elena Schneider report on prospective 2028 Democrats' travel to traditional early states (and shuffling the calendar moving forward):

"South Carolina Democrats know their grip on the top spot is tenuous, with traditional early states like Iowa and New Hampshire eager to reclaim their lead-off position, and others — like North Carolina and Georgia — seeking to emerge as new states to consider. And it comes as there’s been a major reshuffling on a powerful panel at the Democratic National Committee that has huge sway over the presidential nominating process."

...

"But moving the order of primary states is easier said than done. North Carolina is hamstrung by state law from moving its date, and Democrats would need the GOP-controlled legislature to agree to any changes. DNC members have also emphasized smaller states to allow lesser-known candidates to build followings.

“'The most powerful force in the universe is inertia, so South Carolina is probably the favorite to stay just because of that,' said an incoming member of the committee granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. 'Every state has a chance to be first, but I do think we have to come into this with a degree of realism.'”

--

Noteworthy: In 2022 the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee (DNCRBC) had a short checklist for states vying for one of the several early calendar slots for 2024:

• Diversity
• Competitiveness
• Feasibility

The first two, to be sure, were and are more than aspirational or symbolic. Diversity of the Democratic primary electorate in a given (prospective early) state was always important to the DNCRBC when the calendar decisions were made in 2022. General election competitiveness was less so. Both paled in comparison to the unavoidable third item on the list: feasibility. A state cannot be early if decision makers cannot get a date change made. That is all the more difficult when 1) Republicans control all of some of the levers of power in state government (whether governor, secretary of state or state legislature) and/or 2) there is no Republican buy-in at the state and/or national level. And conversations between Democrats and Republicans at the national, much less the state, level are not apparent at this time ahead of decisions on the 2028 calendar. 

It is early yet for 2028, and those conversations can happen at any time, but there is no evidence they have or are in the offing at this point. And that is food for thought as the media treatments of this topic gain steam. Feasibility matters.