NJ Governor Race: Democratic Candidates Clash Over Immigration, Taxes, and Transit in Heated First Debate

The first debate of New Jersey’s 2025 governor’s race gave voters a real chance to see how the six Democratic candidates compare.

The debate, held at Rider University and sponsored by the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics, New Jersey Globe, and On New Jersey, featured local and national politicians.

On stage were Jersey City Mayor Steve Fulop, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, U.S. Representatives Mikie Sherrill and Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller, and former state Senate President Steve Sweeney.

Over the course of nearly two hours, the candidates tackled major issues like immigration, taxes, public transit, and government transparency.

Although they shared some common ground as Democrats, they also showed that they have different goals and ways of solving problems.

To start with, each candidate made an effort to stand out in a crowded field.

Baraka, well known for his progressive policies, called out fellow Democrats for shifting too far to the right and warned about the growing influence of big money in politics.

On the other hand, Fulop positioned himself as a reformer focused on transparency, arguing that Trenton’s budget process lacks accountability and needs serious change.

Meanwhile, Spiller, who has built his career in education, stressed the need for better school funding and stronger support for teachers.

At the same time, Sweeney leaned on his decades of experience in the legislature, reminding voters of the policies he helped pass.

Sherrill and Gottheimer used their time in Congress as proof that they could bring federal resources to New Jersey while still working on local issues.

As the debate moved on, immigration became one of the most heated topics of the night.

Baraka strongly supported immigrant communities, arguing that they are vital to New Jersey’s economy and should not be unfairly targeted.

He pointed out that immigrants make up nearly a quarter of the state’s workforce and contribute billions in state and local taxes.

Sherrill agreed with the need for a fair approach, advocating for comprehensive immigration reform, a pathway to citizenship, and stronger border security.

Nonetheless, not everyone on stage shared the same viewpoint.

Gottheimer took a tougher stance, defending his vote for the Laken Riley Act, which requires the detention of undocumented immigrants charged with certain crimes.

He argued that public safety should come first.

Sweeney also leaned toward stricter enforcement, though he acknowledged that previous Democratic presidents have deported more people than Trump, proving that the issue can be handled fairly.

Meanwhile, Fulop highlighted Jersey City’s efforts to protect immigrants, noting that his city has a nationally accredited immigration office to help residents navigate legal challenges.

After that, the conversation shifted to government transparency, another topic that sparked some sharp disagreements.

Fulop wasted no time criticizing the state government’s lack of accountability, particularly regarding budgeting and access to public records.

He pointed out that Trenton often passes budgets with little time for public review and that recent changes to the Open Public Records Act (OPRA) have made it harder for citizens to access government documents.

Baraka agreed, adding that campaign finance reform is another area that needs improvement, as wealthy donors currently hold too much influence.

Similarly, Sherrill, drawing from her experience as a former prosecutor, warned that reducing transparency only fuels distrust in government.

Spiller took a broader approach, saying that voters feel increasingly disconnected from political decisions and need more opportunities to engage.

While Sweeney generally supported transparency, he also argued that certain restrictions on public records are necessary to prevent excessive requests from slowing down government operations.

One area where all six candidates found common ground was the state’s struggling public transportation system.

Unsurprisingly, NJ Transit received an across-the-board failing grade from the candidates.

Sherrill blamed Amtrak for prioritizing its own trains over NJ Transit’s, which causes frequent delays for commuters.

She argued that more federal funding is needed for infrastructure improvements, especially the long-awaited Gateway Tunnel Project.

Gottheimer, meanwhile, focused his criticism on New York’s congestion pricing plan, calling it an unfair tax on New Jersey drivers who already pay high tolls.

Fulop went a step further, proposing that the state cancel the $11 billion Turnpike widening project and instead use that money to improve NJ Transit.

He also argued that privatizing bus services was a mistake and should be reversed.

On a similar note, Sweeney pointed out that public transit in other countries, such as Japan, runs much more efficiently and that New Jersey should aim for those same high standards.

Spiller and Baraka also emphasized the need to expand transit options, particularly for lower-income communities relying on public transportation.

Following the discussion on transit, the candidates turned to another major issue: taxes and affordability.

As expected, each candidate had a different approach to tackling New Jersey’s notoriously high cost of living.

Gottheimer, branding himself as the “lower taxes, lower costs” candidate, promised a 15% property tax cut and a $500 annual rebate for renters.

He claimed these cuts could be funded by reducing government waste and securing more federal aid.

However, not everyone was convinced.

Sweeney pushed back, saying that the state cannot rely on Washington for financial help and needs to find its solutions.

Rather than focusing solely on taxes, Spiller pointed out that healthcare and daycare costs are just as much of a burden for working families.

On the other hand, Baraka argued that the state should raise taxes on the wealthy to fund essential social services and control healthcare costs.

Fulop agreed that new revenue sources are needed but suggested a more targeted approach—adjusting tax brackets to better reflect current economic realities.

He also proposed reversing some of the tax cuts former Governor Chris Christie put in place.

Later in the debate, another disagreement emerged over judicial appointments.

New Jersey governors pick state Supreme Court justices, and tradition dictates that the court maintains a political balance, meaning no more than four justices belong to a single party.

Baraka and Fulop argued that this tradition should be abandoned because New Jersey is a Democratic-majority state.

Fulop warned that Republicans have no problem stacking courts in their favor, so Democrats should stop playing fair.

Not everyone agreed with this approach.

Sweeney and Sherrill defended the tradition, arguing that maintaining balance keeps the courts fair and prevents extreme partisanship.

Taking a more neutral stance, Spiller suggested that a judge’s philosophy should matter more than their party affiliation.

As the debate drew to a close, the candidates briefly discussed whether New Jersey should allow statewide ballot initiatives to let residents vote directly on new laws.

Most candidates supported the idea, saying it would give people more control over state policies.

But Sweeney stood firm in his opposition, warning that ballot initiatives would bring even more money into politics, allowing corporations and special interest groups to push their agendas.

Baraka and Fulop disagreed, saying that giving voters more direct power would be good, especially when politicians ignore public opinion.

Lastly, the candidates were asked to grade Governor Phil Murphy’s performance.

While Murphy received credit for fully funding the state’s pension system, he was criticized for NJ Transit’s ongoing failures.

Baraka gave him the highest grade, a B+, while Spiller rated him a C+ or B.

Fulop was the toughest, giving Murphy a C-, arguing that New Jersey has been too slow to act on important issues like the minimum wage and cannabis legalization.

Overall, the debate showed that while all six candidates share Democratic values, they have very different ideas about how to lead the state.

Baraka positioned himself as the bold progressive willing to challenge the political establishment.

Fulop focused on government transparency, fiscal responsibility, and transit reform.

Sweeney leaned on his legislative experience, presenting himself as a steady, working-class advocate.

Gottheimer focused on tax cuts and affordability, while Sherrill and Spiller balanced progressive ideals with practical governance.

With months to go before the primary, this was just the beginning of what is expected to be a highly competitive race.

Each candidate presented a vision for New Jersey, but now it’s up to voters to decide which direction they want the state to go.