John Delaney dropped out of the presidential race on January 31, 2020. This page is no longer being updated.
Delaney, who served three terms in Congress before leaving office in January 2019, announced his presidential candidacy in 2017. He previously owned a health care company and has campaigned as a moderate, focusing on a proposal to expand access to health coverage using Obamacare and existing insurance markets rather than upending the system.
Columbia University, B.S., 1985; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1988
April 16, 1963
Summer, Lily, Grace and Brooke
Congressman from Maryland, 2013-2019; Executive chairman of CapitalSource, 2010-2012; CEO/executive manager of CapitalSource, 2000-2009; Chairman of the Board, CEO and president of HealthCare Financial Partners, 1993-1997; Co-owner of American Home Therapies, 1990-1992
DELANEY IN THE NEWS
John Delaney Fast Facts
Updated 8:41 AM ET, Sun Apr 10, 2022
Here is a look at the life of John Delaney, a businessman, former US representative from Maryland and former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate. Personal Birth date: April 16, 1963 Birth place: Wood-Ridge, New Jersey Birth name: John Kevin Delaney Father: Jack Delaney, electrician Mother: Elaine (Rowe) Delaney, homemaker Marriage: April McClain-Delaney Children: Summer, Lily, Grace and Brooke Education: Columbia University, B.S., 1985; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. 1988 Religion: Roman Catholic Other Facts Went to Columbia University on scholarships from his father's trade union, the American Legion, the VFW and the Lions Club. Delaney was one of the wealthiest members of the US Congress when he served as a representative from Maryland, according to the 2018 Roll Call Wealth of Congress analysis, which placed him as the sixth-richest, with a calculated net worth of $93 million. The youngest CEO of a publicly traded company when his first company was listed on the stock exchange. He practiced law briefly at Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge in the late 1980s, after completing law school. Timeline 1990-1992 - Co-owns and runs American Home Therapies, a health care firm, with Ethan Leder. 1993 - Co-founds HealthCare Financial Partners, a lender to health care companies, with Leder and Edward Nordberg Jr. 1993-1997 - Serves as chairman of the board, CEO and president of HealthCare Financial Partners. 2000-2009 - Co-founds and acts as CEO/executive manager of CapitalSource, a lender to small- and medium-sized businesses. 2010 -2012 - Serves as executive chairman of CapitalSource. April 6, 2012 - Resigns as executive chairman of CapitalSource after becoming the Democratic candidate in Maryland's 6th District race. January 3, 2013-January 3, 2019 - US representative from Maryland's 6th District. July 28, 2017 - Announces in a Washington Post opinion piece that he is running for president and will not run for reelection to the House of Representatives. May 29, 2018 - Delaney's book, "The Right Answer: How We Can Unify Our Divided Nation," is published. January 31, 2020 - Delaney announces that he is ending his 2020 presidential campaign. September 21, 2021 - Delaney founds Forbright Inc. and becomes executive chairman of Forbright Bank. Forbright Bank, formerly Congressional Bank, will "dedicate half its assets to financing companies, investors, and innovators driving sustainability and the shift to a low-carbon economy." Delaney purchased control of Congressional Bank in 2011.
Delaney does not support the Green New Deal, the broad plan to address renewable-energy infrastructure and climate change proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, calling it as “realistic as Trump saying that Mexico is going to pay for the wall.” Instead, Delaney has introduced a $4 trillion climate plan that includes a carbon fee on emissions producers like power plants, something he proposed while in Congress. He says the fee will reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2050. Under the plan, the fee would be returned to Americans as a “dividend” they could use to pay for education or retirement. Delaney would try to directly counteract warming by investing $5 billion annually in technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and he supports a $20 billion plan to develop infrastructure for carbon dioxide capture and transport. He has also proposed starting what he calls the “Climate Corps.” It would give recent high school grads job opportunities to work in low-income communities to transition them “to a green economy, work on environmentally friendly projects, and fight climate change by working on the ground,” according to his website. Delaney says that on his first day in office, he would recommit the US to the Paris climate accord, a landmark 2015 deal on global warming targets that Trump has pledged to abandon. More on Delaney’s climate crisis policy
Delaney has introduced a three-part “Living Wage Plan,” which would nearly double the Earned Income Tax Credit, raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it to inflation, and establish an eight-week paid family leave program. To pay for it, he proposes rolling back Trump’s 2017 tax cuts as well as raising the capital gains rate for high earners. He also proposes taxing corporate investment in automation that displaces workers. As a congressman, Delaney was among the Democrats who supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an 11-nation trade deal negotiated under Obama that Trump withdrew from in one of his first acts as President. That agreement, which has gone ahead without the US, was designed in part to counter Chinese influence. Delaney has said he opposes Trump’s tariff-centric approach to negotiating trade with China, which Delaney argues is harming rural America. More on Delaney’s economic policy
As a congressman, Delaney introduced the Early Learning Act, which would provide free, universal pre-K paid for by a surtax of 1.5% on those who make more than $500,000 a year. He supports free public community college and technical training but is not in favor of providing universal tuition-free four-year college. He’s said he wants to allow student loan borrowers to refinance or discharge loans in bankruptcy, but has called loan forgiveness proposals “ridiculous.” In July 2019, Delaney proposed a mandatory national service plan that would provide two years of free tuition at a public college or university, and up to three years of tuition for those who extend their service periods. Tuition could also be applied to vocational or technical training. More on Delaney’s education policy
Delaney supports universal background checks and a ban on AR-15-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. He’s also in favor of so-called “red flag” laws, which allow families and police to petition a judge to temporarily block someone’s access to firearms if there is credible concern they might hurt themselves or others. “We live in a country where we have the Second Amendment, which I support. So that gives the American people the right to bear arms, and under the Second Amendment, they have the right to bear handguns,” he said to The New York Times in June 2019. “But I do think that’s not an unlimited right.” More on Delaney’s gun violence policy
Delaney has proposed enrolling all Americans in a public health insurance program he calls “BetterCare” that would replace the employer-sponsored insurance system. Individuals could opt out and receive a tax credit to buy their own policies. Americans and employers could also buy supplemental coverage from private insurers to cover additional services. Delaney would combat rising prescription drug prices by levying a 100% tax on pharmaceutical companies for the difference in the average price of a drug sold in the US vs. in other developed countries. He would also allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical companies. More on Delaney’s health care policy
Delaney supports providing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, including some brought to the US as children. He would look to increase the number of refugees admitted to the US to 110,000 a year, he told The Washington Post. He would also work to enhance border security through “high-tech solutions, fencing, increased security personnel” and to increase security at ports of entry. More on Delaney’s immigration policy
LATEST POLITICAL NEWS
What to know about the FBI's search of Trump's Florida resort and his potential legal exposure
Updated 2:39 PM ET, Tue Aug 9, 2022
The FBI search of former President Donald Trump's residence in Florida on Monday signaled an extraordinary escalation of an investigation into the handling of certain documents from his presidency and raises questions about whether his legal exposure extends beyond whether he improperly took government records when he left the White House. What exactly the FBI was searching for and why is still unknown. But to obtain a search warrant, investigators would have had to show a judge that there was probable cause of a crime and that evidence of that crime was located at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's Palm Beach resort. Here's what to know about the legal significance of the search, which comes as Trump is preparing a potential 2024 presidential run, and what could come next: What would it have taken for the DOJ to have obtained the search warrant? To get judicial approval for the search, investigators would have had to present to a judge a detailed affidavit that would establish that probable cause exists to believe that a crime had been committed and that that evidence of that crime exists in recent days at the property where the search is being sought. The search warrant would have been filed under seal, meaning that its details are not publicly available at the moment (though they could become public in the future). The federal courthouse in West Palm Beach lists only one sealed search warrant application since June that was still not closed as of Friday, according to the court's public register of cases. But before prosecutors got to the point of asking a magistrate judge to approve the warrant, in order to move forward with a search that carried such historical and political significance, investigators would have had to obtain the OK from the highest levels of the Justice Department, legal experts told CNN. Former DOJ officials told CNN that it was likely that, at the very least, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco would have had to have given the green light and that Attorney General Merrick Garland and/or FBI Director Chris Wray may have also been consulted. "Not only would the investigators have to suggest it, not only would a line prosecutor have to agree with it, but multiple layers of management would have had to approved of it -- all the way up to the Attorney General," Daren Firestone, a former DOJ attorney, told CNN. The Justice Department has declined to comment. What does this mean for Trump's legal exposure? To take the extraordinary step of executing a search warrant on a former president's home suggests investigators are looking at more than what the National Archives had previously recovered from Mar-a-Lago, according to legal experts. In January, the National Archives retrieved 15 boxes of records from Mar-a-Lago, including materials that had been identified as classified, but activity around those boxes have been quiet since the spring. "I really don't believe that the department would have taken such a significant step as pursuing a search warrant for the president's residence about information they already had back," Andrew McCabe, a former FBI deputy director and CNN contributor, said on CNN "Newsroom." "There had to be a suspicion, a concern and indeed specific information that led them to believe that there were additional materials that were not turned over." Before the news of Monday's search, a law known as the Presidential Records Act had been forefront of public speculation about Trump's legal jeopardy as other investigatory steps were taken related to the handling of documents from Trump's White House. That law -- passed after Watergate to make clear that certain records from a presidency belong to the public and not the former office holder -- is not a criminal statute and has been seen as relatively toothless law. A search warrant and the presence of the FBI signifies a criminal investigation. There are other record retention statutes that bring with them criminal penalties -- such as the Espionage Act -- but at this point it's not clear what criminal statutes have been implicated in the Justice Department investigation. It is a crime to destroy or remove federal records, or to mishandle classified documents. There are other federal laws that aim prevent the tampering of information during an investigation. Earlier this year, the Justice Department issued subpoenas for presidential materials including classified documents that the National Archives had previously retrieved. The FBI also interviewed Trump aides at Mar-a-Lago in the spring as part of the probe, according to a source familiar with the matter. For investigators to escalate their probe with a search, "there would have to be something serious enough that would merit more than a slap on the wrist," Firestone, now a partner at the DC-based firm Levy Firestone Muse, said. It's also notable that the DOJ hasn't gone the route of civil litigation against the former president for how he handled the documents in question. Just last week, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against former Trump White House official Peter Navarro, alleging that Navarro had violated the Presidential Records Act and seeking a court order compelling him to turn over emails from a private account that he used while working at the Trump White House. Why now? The search was executed two months after the previously unreported June 3 meeting between DOJ investigators and Trump's attorneys at the resort. During the visit, reported by CNN on Monday, four investigators, including the chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, toured a basement where boxes of materials were being stored. Five days later, investigators sent Trump's attorneys a letter asking them to further secure the room storing the documents, prompting aides to add a padlock to the room. For the FBI to execute a search warrant two months later hints that the federal officials were not satisfied with what they saw on the visit or that they were not confident in the voluntary cooperation they were receiving from Trump's team, some legal experts said. It's possible federal officials also needed official sign off to repossess classified records. "The fact that the FBI learned Trump still had documents at [Mar a Lago] in June, and felt the need to come back two months later with a search warrant, indicates to me that the agency has evidence that Trump and his staff were holding onto additional classified records and not taking any steps to properly return them to the Archives," Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer, told CNN in an email. It also may have taken months for the Justice Department to decide to do search and how it should go about it. When the FBI was leaving Mar-a-Lago, Trump's team would have received a document akin to a receipt of what was taken. But DOJ can be as vague as it wants in that documentation. More broadly, the Justice Department can keep large swaths of its investigation secret, as the Justice Department made clear in court filings Monday evening around its search of John Eastman, the former Trump lawyer who spearheaded plots to subvert the 2020 election. In that filing -- where the Justice Department was arguing against an Eastman request that January 6 investigators return devices seized from him in late June in New Mexico -- prosecutors said there was no obligation for the Department to share with Eastman more details about the status of its probe. "The Government has no doubt that the movant would like to have full knowledge of the Government's investigation and the ability to 'engage [federal agents] in a debate over the basis of the warrant," the filing said. "But the law only, and properly, requires a neutral magistrate judge to find probable cause to search for and seize any electronic devices on his person; it does not require that the person searched know the basis for the warrant." What happens next? It still not known how off guard Trump's lawyers were with the FBI actions taken Monday and what Trump's team has been arguing to the DOJ about the handling of the documents in previous interactions with investigators. Trump could take a pre-emptive legal step to challenge in court the way the FBI handled the search, perhaps with the goal of getting thrown out any evidence investigators had obtained or at least to try to get more information about what investigators in probing. But without such court activity, the next steps of the investigation could very well continue in secret. Can Trump be barred from running for president if he is found to have violated records law? Another law that may be implicated by the FBI's search is one barring the willful concealment, removal or mutilation of government records. That law threatens as a punishment disqualification "from holding any office under the United States." However, there are questions about the constitutionality of that law and its applicability to a Trump presidential run, if he were to be convicted under it. Because the Constitution sets specific qualifications for presidential office -- and lays out a separate impeachment process for disqualifying presidents from holding office in the future -- some argue that Congress would not have the authority to enact such a statute that would apply to a presidential candidate.