In a debate focused heavily on the unprecedented political moment rather than policy, U.S. Rep. John Larson defended his nearly three decades in Congress as his three challengers sought to make the case for new leadership amid some fiery exchanges.

Tuesday night’s hour-long, taped debate hosted by WTNH News 8 swung between attacks on Larson and on former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, the two well-financed candidates in the race who have been dominating the airwaves in the final weeks before the Aug. 11 primary.

The first half of the debate focused on “one of the central questions of this election, which is whether there should be a new face of the 1st District,” as the moderators put it. Larson and his challengers fielded questions about the dynamics of the first primary in 28 years for the Hartford-based seat, which also put Larson’s tenure under a microscope.

But Bronin, the party-endorsed candidate, also took regular blows from Larson, West Hartford Rep. Jillian Gilchrest and Hartford Board of Education member Ruth Fortune.

The four candidates had appeared once previously at an NBC Connecticut televised forum in early July. But this was the first time they took part in a debate where they could directly respond to one another’s claims and criticisms.

From the outset, Larson’s three opponents sought to make the case that someone new should represent Connecticut’s 1st District in Congress and, more broadly, vented their frustration with the Democratic Party for standing up, or not, to President Donald Trump.

Larson, who wouldn’t say whether he was running for his last term, said his main focus is ultimately on Trump. He has sought to push back against criticism that he and other Democrats in Congress aren’t doing enough to take on the administration. He noted the articles of impeachment he filed against Trump over his handling of the war in Iran.

“As I’ve said, many times, this seat will be open soon enough, but we’re in the middle of a crisis,” Larson said. “My quarrel is not with any of these candidates on the stage. My quarrel is with Donald Trump, and that’s who I’m going to continue to take on.”

But he and the other candidates sparred on various issues and over how Democrats can take on the Trump administration over the course of the hour-long debate.

At times, it got personal.

Bronin criticized Larson for not being able to move the needle on his signature bill, the “Social Security 2100 Act,” over the past decade since he introduced it. He noted that the bill didn’t advance even when Democrats controlled all of Congress and the White House.

The former mayor also highlighted a bill that Larson voted against that raised Social Security benefits for tens of thousands of public service retirees and their families in Connecticut. Larson explained that he didn’t support the bill because it wasn’t paid for, but that his own legislation sought to repeal those provisions by having higher earners pay more.

“Well, first and foremost, Luke, I didn’t hear you saying anything about that when we were delivering billions to your community, that you needed the bailout from the governor, when you needed the bailout from the General Assembly and from the United States Congress,” Larson countered.

Bronin pushed back on Larson’s claim that his Social Security bill will be a top priority in the first 100 days of the next Congress if Democrats win back the House.

“I think to say that it’s going to become law in the first 100 days of the next Congress when Donald Trump is in the White House, I think is not being honest with voters,” Bronin argued.

Bronin’s own record came under scrutiny at various points. He defended his time as mayor of Hartford at a time when the city was on the verge of bankruptcy. But his opponents argued that came at the cost of unions.

“We made some difficult decisions for our city,” Bronin said, adding that unions contributed in a major way. “We were able to get a city stable for the first time in a long time.”

When asked to grade Bronin’s time as mayor, Bronin’s opponents gave him a smattering of average scores. Fortune gave him some grace and a “B,” saying “he did the best he could at the time.” Gilchrest, who gave Bronin a “C,” noted that the job is mayor is different than that of a member of Congress, though she took a shot at Bronin, saying he’s “really good at politics.”

Larson argued that he knows the building trades would have given Bronin an “F.” Larson has made his support from labor unions a centerpiece of his campaign, with dozens of endorsements. Bronin highlighted the endorsements he has from some local affiliates, such as public employees and firefighters.

Larson’s own personal assessment of Bronin as mayor? “C-minus.”

That dug up another quick back-and-forth between the two. Bronin reminded Larson that at the end of Bronin’s second term in 2023, Larson called him the “best mayor in the country.”

“I appreciated the partnership we had, and throughout this campaign, I’ve been respectful, because I do respect you, and I respect your service,” Bronin said. “But I’m proud of the work that we did in Hartford through some of the city’s toughest times, from bankruptcy through a global pandemic.”

But that brought up a raw moment from Larson, and he echoed Gilchrest’s earlier retort that Bronin is a savvy politician.

“You’re good at politics, but you can’t keep your word. And when you look somebody in the eye and you make a commitment to them, and you shake their hand, and you tell them you’re with him, and when you donate to their campaign, that’s not keeping your word,” Larson pressed. “And you’re entitled to do whatever you want, and I was proud to work with you, and I was proud when I called you the best mayor as well, because of all the help that we were able to collaborate and bring together. But it wasn’t just you … and especially in Congress, your words do matter.”

While they trained their fire on Larson and the need for change throughout the course of the debate, Gilchrest and Fortune sought to make the case that Bronin is largely indistinguishable from the 14-term congressman.

“They are two sides of the same establishment coin,” Fortune said. “Congressman Larson has been protected by the Democratic establishment for 28 years, and now Luke is their endorsed candidate.”

Gilchrest was critical both of the lack of action on Social Security in Congress as well as how she envisions Bronin handling the issue.

“I don’t trust that Luke Bronin is going to be the champion of Social Security when he is bought by the billionaire class, who stand to make millions off of privatizing Social Security and who would never want to see their wages taxed at a higher rate,” she said.

Bronin pushed back that he’s introduced tax proposals when he first launched his campaign for Congress that would close loopholes in the tax codes and “make wealthiest Americans and corporations pay more.”

The moderators also asked Bronin why he’s challenging Larson for a seat in Congress when he’s previously had interest in running for governor of Connecticut.

“What changed is that Donald Trump won reelection for a second time, and then we saw a Democratic Party struggle to bring enough energy and clarity to that fight in this moment,” Bronin said. “And I think we would be a stronger Democratic Party if more of our leadership recognized that part of leadership is knowing when it’s time to pass the torch.”

Fortune, who is also an estate attorney, made a similar point about running for the seat now versus waiting another two years.

“Congressman Larson likes to say the seat will open up soon enough,” Fortune said. “The idea of waiting your turn is why we’re in this mess in the first place. Congress does not have an experience deficit. Congress has a perspective deficit. Congress has a courage deficit.”

They were all asked whether they’d support term limits for members of Congress. Bronin and Fortune said they support term limits. Larson said elections every two years essentially serve as them.

While she’s open to such restrictions, Gilchrest argued those things don’t matter unless there’s campaign finance reform.

“I’m open to a mandatory retirement age, and I’m also open to term limits, but both of those things don’t work if you don’t get money out of politics, because the same special interests are going to be buying the candidates who are elected,” Gilchrest said.

Fundraising has been one of the biggest sticking points in the race and played out again at Tuesday’s debate. And Larson and Bronin have been the two biggest beneficiaries of money, while they continue to spar over where it comes from. Gilchrest and Fortune are much farther behind.

Larson has taken aim at Bronin for getting a large portion of his individual donations from billionaires and other executives connected to the private equity and tech industries. (Larson has also received some similar donations from billionaires.) Meanwhile, Bronin has criticized the congressman for getting half of his total fundraising from political action committees, including corporate and union PACs.

Bronin argued there’s “a world of difference” between a corporation making contributions and “and an actual human being who’s making a decision to support a candidate for a number of reasons.”

Gilchrest argued that “both men have crossed the line” on where they get their money from but took on Bronin specifically for trying to make a distinction between the types of money.

“We’ve all heard the phrase ‘Thou doth protest too much,'” Gilchrest said, noting Bronin’s own fundraising from CEOs of corporations, hedge funds and AI data centers. “What do these folks think they’re getting with a Luke Bronin?”

“These two men haven’t raised money in this race,” she continued. “They’ve been bought by the billionaire class and by corporations.”

Larson said he agreed with Gilchrest’s assessment, saying the House had previously voted on campaign finance reform multiple times while Democrats were in power but the Senate didn’t take it up.

The four candidates have little daylight between them on major issues, including immigration enforcement, health care and efforts to rein in Trump on the war in Iran.

But they sought to make some policy distinctions, particularly when asked by one of the moderators if they could name two instances when they would have voted differently than Larson.

Both Fortune and Gilchrest named the same votes, saying they wouldn’t have supported a House resolution that honored the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk or voted against a recent amendment that would have cut off more U.S. aid to Israel.

When he voted against that amendment to a federal spending bill, Larson had argued that it would have exacerbated issues such as blocked aid to Palestinian refugees and put “a two-state solution further out of reach.”

Bronin also criticized Larson’s vote on the Kirk resolution but took aim at the congressman’s vote in 2024 against the Social Security Fairness Act, a bipartisan bill signed into law by President Joe Biden that raised Social Security benefits for tens of thousands of people in Connecticut.

It eliminated a pair of provisions — the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset — that reduced payments to certain beneficiaries as well as spouses and surviving family members who also collected a pension from jobs that were not covered by Social Security. They can include teachers, police officers, firefighters and government employees.

Larson was one of a few Democrats to oppose it because the law did not include an offset similar to that in his own Social Security reform bill, which would have temporarily removed those provisions. His own bill, “Social Security 2100 Act,” would have funded the repeal of WEP and GPO through raising the income cap on taxable earnings for Social Security as well as provide an across-the-board hike in Social Security benefits by 2%.

When asked about whether he regrets any votes, Larson said there’s “probably a lot of votes over a 20-year period” but didn’t name any specifics. “An important thing with voting is lead with your heart first.”

There were also small contrasts among the four when it came to the Middle East conflict and whether the U.S. should keep providing funding to Israel.

Both Gilchrest and Fortune called Israel’s war in Gaza a “genocide” and said they don’t support the U.S. sending additional aid. Gilchrest said she also wanted to see the military’s overall budget reduced.

Bronin toed the line more on the issue, saying he’s against taxpayers’ money going toward funding offensive military aid. He said he supports “defenses for civilians that protect civilian life against rockets and missiles and drones” as well as more humanitarian aid for Gaza.

Larson argued that Trump himself needs to enforce his deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “so that there is no need to send extra weapons to Israel.” He defended his recent vote to ensure Israel gets aid from U.S. as well as humanitarian aid for the Palestinians.

The debate ended with a quick lightning round with some eyebrow-raising questions. But it was the question about “who is one current Republican you admire” that appeared to stump the congressman.

Larson labored over the question, saying, “It’s a very small group of people to pick from.” It seemed like he was going to mention a member on the House Ways and Means Committee he’s a part of, but the moderators ultimately moved on without an answer.

Fortune said “Honestly, none,” while Gilchrest and Bronin named Republicans they worked with in their separate roles.

On whom they support in the Democratic primary for governor, Fortune and Gilchrest said they support state Rep. Josh Elliott, while Larson and Bronin back Gov. Ned Lamont for a third term — though Bronin wasn’t direct at first when he answered, saying he will support the “endorsed Democratic slate.” Lamont won the party’s endorsement at the nominating convention, as did Bronin in a separate convention.

In a question about age unrelated to this particular campaign, the hosts noted that U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., will be up for reelection in 2028 at the age of 82. Larson’s three challengers ultimately answered affirmatively that Blumenthal’s current term should be his last.

Much like Larson’s own defense for seeking another term to Congress, he replied: “It’s up to him.”