Alabama attorney general launches bid for Tuberville Senate seat
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) on Thursday launched his bid for Sen. Tommy Tuberville's (R) Senate seat, pitching himself as a fighter for the state and a close ally of President Trump.
Marshall made the announcement in a video posted Thursday, featuring multiple instances of Trump praising him and reports of him meeting with White House officials. The video also includes clips about his efforts to oppose the Biden administration, concern about the effects of southern border crossings and support for law enforcement to fight crime.
'Steve is the senator our state needs and our president can count on,' the narrator states.
Marshall's candidacy — after Tuberville decided against pursuing a second term in office to instead seek the governor's mansion — comes as no surprise. The state's top lawyer previously said he would consider running for the seat if Tuberville ran for governor and the Senate has been an 'overlay interest' as he's worked as attorney general.
Having served since 2017, Marshall is term-limited from running for reelection next year.
Marshall lays out various conservative policy proposals on his campaign website, including opposition to federal funding for Planned Parenthood, support for securing U.S. borders and a call for Congress to pass Tuberville's legislation federally banning transgender women from playing in female sports.
Marshall is the second Republican to formally enter the race following Tuberville's announcement. Former Navy SEAL Jared Hudson launched his candidacy on Wednesday.
A few other possible Republican candidates have expressed interest in the seat, including Rep. Barry Moore (Ala.), former Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill and former Rep. Mo Brooks (Ala.).
Whoever wins the Republican nomination will be the clear favorite to win the seat in the deep-red state.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Murphy says Ernst's constituents 'would just rather die in old age'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Sunday that Sen. Joni Ernst's (R-Iowa) constituents know they will die, but 'would just rather die in old age,' a reference to a town hall remark from Iowa Republican. 'I think everybody in that audience knows that they're going to die,' Murphy told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union,' discussing comments made by Ernst on Friday in response to a remark that cuts to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would result in deaths. 'They would just rather die in old age at 85 or 90, instead of dying at 40. And the reality is that, when you lose your health care, you are much more at risk of early death,' Murphy added. During a town hall in Butler, Iowa, Ernst defended spending reforms included in a budget reconciliation package passed by the House, including those to stop people from getting federal benefits if they've entered the country illegally. A person in the crowd attempted to talk over the senator, interrupting her while she was answering about changes to Medicaid and SNAP, shouting that people are 'going to die' as a result. 'Well, we're all going to die,' Ernst responded, drawing jeers. Ernst later doubled down on her comments on social media, saying in a Saturday Instagram post that she 'made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth.' 'So I apologize, and I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well,' she added. The Hill has reached out to Ernst's office for comment.
USA Today
44 minutes ago
- USA Today
'It's completely unsustainable': Republican lawmaker doubles down, knocks Trump tax bill
'It's completely unsustainable': Republican lawmaker doubles down, knocks Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk 'disappointed' with Trump's tax bill Elon Musk told CBS he is 'disappointed' with President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, is doubling down on his concerns about a bill that would make sweeping changes to taxes, Medicaid, food stamps and more after it was passed last month in the Republican-led House at the urging of President Donald Trump. The more-than-1,000-page bill narrowly cleared the lower chamber on May 22. Now, it faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where some conservatives have raised concerns about the legislation's cost. "It's completely unsustainable," Johnson said in an interview on Fox's "Sunday Morning Futures." The bill is expected to add somewhere around $3 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years and swell the federal government's debt. Still, the legislation would enact Trump's major campaign promises like eliminating taxes on workers' tips and overtime. It's likely to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation that will be passed during his second term in the Oval Office. Bartiromo on June 1 pressed Johnson on whether he was prepared to "blow up President Trump's agenda." "I want to see him succeed," Johnson said in response. "But again, my loyalty is to the American people, to my kids and grandkids. We cannot continue to mortgage their future." Johnson has repeatedly called for the federal government to return to pre-pandemic levels of spending and said he was disappointed the House bill didn't go further in reducing the government's debt. Asked what the solution is, Johnson told Fox, "DOGE showed us how to do it. Contract by contract, line by line." Trump's billionaire former adviser Elon Musk recently ended his tenure leading the Department of Government Efficiency. While the department has played a major role cutting into the federal bureaucracy, a longtime priority for the president, it hasn't come up with the bulk of the $2 trillion savings Musk had promised to deliver while on the campaign trail. Musk said in a May 27 interview with CBS he was "disappointed" by the Trump-led tax bill. 'I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both. My personal opinion,' Musk said. Johnson's comments to Fox echo what he said a week earlier in an interview with CNN. The Wisconsin senator told anchor Jake Tapper he believed there were enough Senate Republicans who opposed the bill to hold up any potential vote. "I think we have enough to stop the process until the president gets serious about the spending reduction and reducing the deficit," Johnson said May 25. Contributing: Riley Beggin
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Supreme Court helping Trump undo one of Biden's most egregious migrant moves
On Friday, the Supreme Court allowed President Trump to suspend a program that provided 'parole' to 500,000 aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Democrats are crying foul, saying Trump isn't following the law. But it was President Biden who broke the law when he allowed these migrants here in the first place. While the Supreme Court's reprieve doesn't assure that the Court will ultimately rule in the administration's favor, it is good news for now. For these parole programs were some of the most egregious misdeeds of Alejandro Mayorkas, President Biden's Secretary of Homeland Security. Advertisement US President Donald Trump walks to speak to journalists before boarding Air Force One from Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey, May 25, 2025, after spending the weekend in New Jersey. AFP via Getty Images This program ushered into the United States on a red carpet over half a million aliens who, under our nation's immigration laws, were flatly inadmissible. In fact, the House of Representatives impeached Secretary Mayorkas for high crimes and misdemeanors in part because of these very programs: proclaiming that 'Mayorkas willfully exceeded his parole authority' by 'creat[ing], re-open[ing], or expand[ing] a series of categorical parole programs … which enabled hundreds of thousands of inadmissible aliens to enter the United States in violation of the laws enacted by Congress.' When Congress granted the President the parole power in 1952, it was strictly for, as the House Judiciary Committee made clear, ONLY 'emergency cases,' such as 'an alien who requires immediate medical attention' or an inadmissible alien who needs to be here as 'a witness or for purposes of prosecution.' Advertisement In 1996, Congress reacted to decades of abuses by administrations of both parties by tightening the language of the parole power in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Among other changes, IIRIRA required that parole only be granted 'on a case-by-case basis.' The 9th Circuit, yes even the activist West Coast 9th Circuit, concluded that '[i]n enacting IIRIRA,' Congress had 'expressed concern' that the Executive Branch 'had been using parole 'to circumvent Congressionally-established immigration policy'' and responded 'by narrowing the circumstances in which aliens could qualify' for parole. The 5th Circuit concluded that DHS 'cannot … parole aliens en masse; that was the whole point of the 'case-by-case' requirement that Congress added in IIRIRA.' Advertisement Haitian immigrant Rose Juliane, center, holds her daughter Rosie Sarah, as she speaks with Immigrant Family Services Institute Executive Director Geralde Gabeau, left, while waiting at the agency in the Mattapan neighborhood of Boston for transportation to a shelter, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2023. AP Here's the irony. While Biden ignored the 'case by case basis' requirement, and provided a mass parole, the lower-court judge who ruled against Trump, said that since parole can only be granted on a case-by-case basis, it likewise can only be terminated on a case-by-case basis. So one law for Biden, another for Trump. I believe it is clear that the Biden administration could not lawfully grant parole on a categorical basis to over half a million aliens in the first place. The 'case-by-case' requirement bars all mass parole programs (not specifically authorized by Congress). Biden's move was an affront to our constitutional separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. Advertisement If the Supreme Court does not once and for all put the kibosh on categorical parole programs, the next Biden, the next Mayorkas, could institute a program on steroids, rolling out the red carpet for pretty much any and every person around the world not already in the United States. George Fishman is enior legal fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies.
