Former Jan. 6 committee lawyer running for Congress in Trump district
'It's time for us to write a new story for South Florida — one where hard-working families stop being forced to choose between making rent or seeing a doctor, where small businesses have access to resources and tax relief, and where we no longer get squeezed by corporations and billionaires while politicians like María Elvira Salazar do their bidding,' Peguero said in a statement on Tuesday announcing his candidacy.
'Miami deserves a representative in the House who fights for them. That's the leader I'll be.'
The seat is one of 35 held by House Republicans that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said it plans to target in the 2026 midterms.
Peguero was raised by a mother from Ecuador and a father from the Dominican Republic, and he has a background in law and politics. He spent time working for former Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and was also a former Miami-Dade County homicide prosecutor.
He's currently a criminal law professor at St. Thomas University College of Law.
Peguero is the latest Democrat to enter the race to take on the Florida Republican. Former Key Biscayne Mayor Mike Davey, accountant Alex Fornino and businessman Richard Lamondin have also launched bids to take on Salazar.
The Florida Republican handily won her last election in November against Democrat Lucia Baez-Geller by more than 20 points. President Trump won the district last year by close to 15 points, according to The Downballot.
The Hill has reached out to Salazar's campaign for comment.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Hit By Legal Roadblock
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Trump administration suffered a legal blow on Friday when a New York district court judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking its move to cut National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grants from Authors Guild members on First Amendment grounds. Judge Colleen McMahon issued the injunction which is expected to remain in place until the case is heard in full. Newsweek contacted the NEH and President Trump, via the White House press office, for comment on Saturday outside of regular office hours. The Context With Republicans enjoying slim majorities in both the Senate and House in addition to their control over the White House, the courts have emerged as one of the chief impediments to Trump administration policy. In recent months, courts have struck down punitive measures introduced by President Trump against legal firms previously involved in cases against him, blocked a bid to strip thousands of Haitian migrants of legal protection and struck down sanctions aimed at International Criminal Court employees. What To Know Judge McMahon's preliminary injunction prevents funds previously awarded to Authors Guild members, and subsequently removed by the Trump administration, from being reallocated until a trial is held on the merits of the case itself. The money was allocated by the NEH, a federal agency that funds research and education across the humanities, before some was stripped back by the Trump administration. President Donald Trump speaking to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. President Donald Trump speaking to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. Andrew Harnik/GETTY McMahon ruled much of this was politically motivated, with Termination Notices handed to intended recipients making reference to Trump Executive Orders targeting "DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] programs" and "Radical Indoctrination." She said a grant to one academic working on a book about the history of the Ku Klux Klan was flagged by the administration as being connected to DEI, while other intended recipients had grants withdrawn because they were issued under the Biden administration. A class-action lawsuit was filed by the Authors Guild against the NEH and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), formerly led by Elon Musk. What People Are Saying In her judgment McMahon said: "Defendants terminated the grants based on the recipients' perceived viewpoint, in an effort to drive such views out of the marketplace of ideas. This is most evident by the citation in the Termination Notices to executive orders purporting to combat 'Radical Indoctrination' and 'Radical' … DEI Programs,' and to further 'Biological Truth.'" She continued: "Far be it from this Court to deny the right of the Administration to focus NEH priorities on American history and exceptionalism as the year of our semiquincentennial approaches. "Such refocusing is ordinarily a matter of agency discretion. But agency discretion does not include discretion to violate the First Amendment. Nor does not give the Government the right to edit history." What Happens Next A trial on whether the Trump administration has the authority to strip NEH grants from Authors Guild members as it did is expected to take place in due course.
Business Insider
4 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Peter Thiel's political hiatus is over. Here's where his money's flowing now.
Peter Thiel's vacation from politics is over. The conservative tech billionaire made his first publicly disclosed political contribution in two and a half years in February, giving $852,200 to House Speaker Mike Johnson's joint fundraising committee. That group, called "Grow the Majority," then distributed almost 90% of that money to other campaigns. All told, Thiel's money has now made its way into the coffers of the Republican National Committee, House Republicans' main campaign arm, over a dozen state parties, and nearly 30 GOP House members. It's a significant shift for Thiel. After spending tens of millions of dollars to support Blake Masters and now-Vice President JD Vance during the 2022 midterms, the PayPal and Palantir cofounder came away from the experience apparently disillusioned with politics. In 2024, he even gave an interview to The Atlantic in part to lock himself into not donating to any candidate that year. "By talking to you, it makes it hard for me to change my mind," he told the interviewer. "My husband doesn't want me to give them any more money, and he's right." Vance even publicly urged Thiel to "get off the sidelines" and spend money to back Trump in the 2024 race, but no public donations ever emerged, despite his past financial support for Trump. Thiel also said last year that he would support Trump, and he predicted that the election wouldn't be close. "I've decided not to donate any money politically, but I'm supporting them in every other way possible," he said at the time. A spokesperson for Thiel did not respond to a request for comment about why the tech billionaire changed his mind. During a recent interview with The New York Times' Ross Douthat, Thiel said that he was "schizophrenic" about political giving. "I think it's incredibly important, and it's incredibly toxic," Thiel said. "So I go back and forth." Here's where Thiel's money went: $310,100 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the main campaign arm for House Republicans; $54,600 to the Republican National Committee; $10,000 apiece to GOP state parties in 14 states, including Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin; $7,000 apiece to 29 House Republicans, most of whom represent competitive districts; $7,000 apiece to committees set up for the eventual GOP nominee in 12 other competitive House districts.
CNBC
4 minutes ago
- CNBC
Under Trump, Uncle Sam is becoming an active investor at a scale not seen outside war or major crises
The Trump administration has taken direct stakes in companies on a scale rarely seen in the U.S. outside wartime or economic crisis, pushing a Republican Party that traditionally championed free-market capitalism to embrace state intervention in industries viewed as important for national security. Japan's Nippon Steel agreed to give President Donald Trump a "golden share" in U.S. Steel as a condition for the two companies' controversial merger. Trump now personally wields sweeping veto power over major business decisions made by the nation's third-largest steel producer. "You know who has the golden share? I do," Trump said at a summit on artificial intelligence and energy in Pittsburgh on July 15. The president's golden share in U.S. Steel is similar to nationalizing a company but without any of the benefits that a company normally receives, such as direct investment by the government, said Sarah Bauerle Danzman, an expert on foreign investment and national security at the Atlantic Council, a think tank focused on international affairs. But the Trump administration demonstrated earlier this month that it is also willing to buy directly into publicly traded corporations. The Department of Defense agreed to purchase a $400 million equity stake in rare-earth miner MP Materials, making the Pentagon the company's largest shareholder. This level of support by the federal government for a mining company is unprecedented, said Gracelin Baskaran, an expert on critical minerals at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "This is the biggest public-private cooperation that the mining industry has ever had here in the United States," Baskaran said. "Historically, DOD has never done equity in a mining company or a mining project." Trump's unique hold over the Republican Party gives him the ability to intervene in companies on a scale that would be difficult politically for a Democratic president, Danzman said. "The Democrat would have been accused of being a communist and a lot of other Republicans probably would not have felt comfortable moving in this particular direction because of their greater commitment to market principles," Danzman said. Trump is expanding the range of what is possible in the U.S. in terms of state intervention in markets, she said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. More interventions could be on the horizon as the Trump administration develops a policy to support U.S. companies in strategic industries against state-backed competition from China. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in April that the U.S. government might need to make an "equity investment in each of these companies that's taking on China in critical minerals." The Pentagon's investment in MP Materials is a model for future public-private partnerships, CEO James Litinsky said. "It's a new way forward to accelerate free markets, to get the supply chain on shore that we want," Litinsky told CNBC. The U.S. government is helping the mining industry fight "Chinese mercantilism," the CEO said. Meanwhile, the golden share in U.S. Steel is a potential model for foreign direct investment "transactions that really affect our national security but where it's going to be great for our economic growth," Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., said in a May interview with CNBC. "Having taken a stake in US Steel and MP, we're now left to wonder where this administration will find its next investment," Don Bilson, an analyst at Gordon Haskett, wrote in a note to clients earlier this month. Trump proposed in January that the U.S. should take a 50% stake in social media app TikTok as part of a joint venture. China's ByteDance is required under a recently passed law to divest TikTok or the platform will be banned in the U.S. Trump extended ByteDance's compliance deadline until Sept. 17. The U.S. has a long history of intervening in industries, particularly where national defense is concerned, said Mark Wilson, a historian at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte, who studies the military-industrial complex. But past interventions were often temporary and typically happened during war, economic crisis or took the form of bailouts to prevent a major player in a critical industry from going bankrupt. The U.S. government bought a majority stake in General Motors to prevent the automaker from collapsing in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, ultimately selling off its shares at a loss to the taxpayer. In the 1970s, defense giant Lockheed and automaker Chrysler received government bailouts. During World War I, President Woodrow Wilson nationalized the railroads, but he returned them to private ownership after the conflict. The Roosevelt administration made sweeping interventions during the Great Depression and World War II, from establishing the Tennessee Valley Authority to making big investments in the nation's manufacturing capacity. The U.S. is not fighting an economic crisis or war today, but the return of great power competition with Russia and China and the supply chain disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic have led to more nationalistic economic policies, said UNC's Wilson. The U.S. has increasingly recognized that China's economic model is based on manufacturing overcapacity that dumps products "onto global markets in ways that make it hard for other markets to compete," Danzman said. The threat posed by China's dominance of the rare-earth supply chain became apparent in April when Beijing imposed export restrictions against the U.S., Baskaran said. Within weeks, automakers warned they would have to halt production due to a rare-earth shortage, forcing the U.S. back to the negotiating table with Beijing, she said. "The historical moment we're in does seem to be one where there is this reassessment of assumptions of the previous generation about the efficacy of markets and free trade to solve all our problems in national security," Wilson said. The question is whether state intervention can solve the failure of the free market to address national security concerns in industries like rare earths, Danzman said. "When you step in to try to address one of these market failures with this kind of government intervention, you can have a cascade of new market failures," she said. "You're distorting the market more."
