In a pivotal moment for the Garden State, the final gubernatorial debate took place on October 8, 2025, at the New Brunswick Performing Arts Center. With the election looming just weeks away, Democratic candidate Mikie Sherrill and Republican challenger Jack Ciattarelli engaged in an hour-long discussion that delved into the pressing issues confronting New Jersey residents. Moderated by Eyewitness News anchor Bill Ritter alongside WPVI-TV anchor Tamala Edwards, the debate provided a platform for both candidates to express their viewpoints on various topics, including the rising cost of living, government shutdowns, abortion rights, immigration policy, and the overall political climate in the United States.
The debate highlighted several critical themes that resonate deeply with New Jersey voters. Here are some of the standout moments and topics discussed:
One of the most pressing issues for New Jerseyans has been the escalating cost of living, which has become a burden for families across the state. Both Sherrill and Ciattarelli articulated their perspectives on how to tackle this challenge. Ciattarelli criticized the current administration for its fiscal policies, suggesting that they have contributed to an environment where residents are struggling to make ends meet. He proposed measures aimed at reducing taxes and promoting economic growth through business incentives.
Conversely, Sherrill emphasized her commitment to addressing affordability through targeted initiatives that support working families. She highlighted her plans for affordable housing and reducing healthcare costs, which she believes are crucial to alleviating financial pressure on New Jerseyans. The candidates’ contrasting approaches to economic management underscored the broader ideological divide between the two parties.
Education emerged as a significant topic during the debate, particularly in light of the learning disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Ciattarelli began by asserting that the state has yet to fully recover from the educational setbacks experienced during school closures, which he attributed to Governor Phil Murphy's policies. He pointed out that a staggering 50% of incoming freshmen at New Jersey's community colleges are enrolled in remedial courses, indicating a concerning decline in educational preparedness.
"The governor prioritized closing schools for two years while reopening nursing homes, which resulted in tragic outcomes," Ciattarelli stated, highlighting what he perceives as a misplaced focus during the pandemic. He advocated for school choice, suggesting that parents should have the option to select educational paths that best suit their children’s needs, including vouchers and charter schools.
In response, Sherrill acknowledged the issue of learning loss but argued that her record demonstrates a proactive approach to education reform. "While my opponent has run for governor multiple times, I have been actively working to improve educational outcomes," she remarked. Sherrill’s focus was on increasing funding for public schools and enhancing resources for teachers, which she believes are essential for driving better results for students.
The candidates also engaged in a heated discussion regarding abortion rights, a topic that has become increasingly polarizing across the nation. Both candidates expressed their positions clearly, with Sherrill affirming her support for abortion access as a fundamental right for women. She emphasized the importance of protecting reproductive rights in New Jersey, particularly in light of recent changes to federal policies that threaten access to healthcare.
Ciattarelli, on the other hand, articulated a more conservative stance, advocating for restrictions on abortion. This divergence in views reflects a broader national debate on reproductive rights, and the candidates’ positions are likely to influence voter sentiment in the upcoming election.
Immigration policies were another focal point of the debate, with both candidates addressing their visions for a state that has long been a melting pot of cultures and communities. Ciattarelli emphasized the need for robust border security and a legal framework that prioritizes American citizens while ensuring that those who enter the country do so legally. He argued that effective immigration policies are essential for maintaining public safety and economic stability.
Sherrill countered by emphasizing the contributions of immigrants to New Jersey’s economy and cultural fabric. She advocated for comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes the value of immigrants and provides a pathway to citizenship for those who are already contributing to society. “Our diversity is our strength,” she asserted, underscoring her belief in the positive impact of inclusive policies.
Amidst the heated exchanges, there were lighter moments that showcased the candidates’ human sides. When prompted to say something positive about each other, both Sherrill and Ciattarelli took a moment to acknowledge one another’s military service, with Sherrill expressing appreciation for Ciattarelli's son's service and Ciattarelli reciprocating by acknowledging Sherrill's own military background. This brief moment of camaraderie offered a glimpse into their personal values, even as they debated vigorously on the issues at hand.
The debate was not without its confrontational moments. A particularly intense exchange occurred when Sherrill accused Ciattarelli of profiting from his involvement in the opioid crisis. "He made his millions by working with some of the worst offenders in saying opioids were safe," she declared, referencing the devastating impact of the opioid epidemic in New Jersey and the loss of thousands of lives. This accusation led to a fiery back-and-forth, with both candidates trading barbs and insisting on the integrity of their respective records.
Ciattarelli responded by defending his business history and highlighting his commitment to legality and ethical practices. "I graduated college without breaking any laws," he retorted, alluding to Sherrill's military records that had been scrutinized in the past. Such exchanges underscored the high stakes of the debate as both candidates sought to solidify their positions in the minds of voters.
As the debate wrapped up, it was evident that both candidates had made their cases to the voters of New Jersey, presenting starkly different visions for the future of the state. With less than a month remaining until election day, the stakes could not be higher. Voters will need to weigh the candidates’ proposals, their personal histories, and their visions for New Jersey as they prepare to cast their ballots.
Overall, this final debate served as a critical juncture in the campaign, shaping the narratives and issues that will likely dominate the final weeks leading up to the election. The diverse range of topics discussed, from education and affordability to immigration and healthcare, reflects the complexity of New Jersey’s political landscape and the significant choices voters face in the upcoming election.