State of Texas: Sen. Kelly Hancock resigns to become acting Comptroller, announces campaign for position
AUSTIN (Nexstar) — Republican State Sen Kelly Hancock resigned from the Texas Senate and was hired to be the Chief Clerk at the Texas Comptroller's office on Thursday. The move puts Hancock in the position to become the acting Comptroller of Public Accounts when Comptroller Glenn Hegar leaves his position to become the next Chancellor of the Texas A&M System on July 1.
Hancock announced his campaign for Comptroller later that same day, becoming the third Republican in the race for the state's top tax-collector. Hancock has served in the Senate as a representative from the 9th district — based in Tarrant County — since 2013. He was one of just two Senate Republicans who voted to convict Attorney General Ken Paxton in his 2023 impeachment trial. Speaking about his new job and candidacy, Hancock said he is still the same person he has always been.
'I'm still the guy that shops at Walmart, and I'm small business owner,' Hancock said. 'Sure, I've served as a school board member for 13 years, served in the legislature, but that's not who I am.'
Hancock is vying to lead the agency that is tasked with rolling out the state's new education savings account program. That will provide state dollars to families who want to send their child to private school. Hancock said he will draw from his 13 years of experience on his local school board to approach that task.
'My love for kids and making sure that every — you know, every child — gets to achieve their dream. Education is how we do that,' Hancock said.
Hancock immediately received an endorsement from Gov. Greg Abbott. Former State Sen. Don Huffines and Railroad Commissioner Christi Craddick announced their campaigns for Comptroller earlier this year. Huffines is among those questioning whether this maneuver is constitutionally legal.
Huffines reposted a post from a conservative member of the media on X, pointing out the 'holdover' provision of the Texas Constitution. The provision states that a public official must continue to perform the duties of their office until their successor is named. This would appear to suggest that Hancock could not cease performing his duties as a senator until a special election is held to replace him.
That also appears to suggest that Hancock could not become Comptroller right away, because the Texas Constitution bars a public official from holding an office in the legislative and executive branches simultaneously. The move raises questions about his appointment to the position.
Asked about the contradiction, Hancock said he was hired to the office just like anyone else.
'There was an opening, I was asked to fill it,' Hancock said. 'Comptroller Hegar and I are good friends. We've known each other for a long time, and so that's the way we wanted to go about it.'
Huffines called the move by Hancock a 'gross manipulation.'
'It's a gross manipulation of the process by the establishment Republicans, the political elite, because they're scared of me, and they know that I'm going to win,' Huffines said.
Now that Hancock has officially resigned his seat, Abbott has to schedule a special election to replace him. The district is strongly Republican — Hancock won reelection in the 9th district by 20 points in 2022 — but given recent trends in special elections across the country, the seat has the potential to become competitive.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed a ruling by a federal appeals court Thursday, clearing the way for plans to temporarily store nuclear waste at a facility in West Texas.
The 6-3 vote came in the case, Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, where the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit sided with Texas and Fasken Oil and Ranch in their suit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prevent the temporary waste site from being built.
The justices reversed the Fifth Circuit ruling. But the Court did not decide the underlying dispute about whether the NRC has the power to license private storage facilities for nuclear waste. While the Court's decision is not a final ruling in favor of the licenses, it clears a key hurdle for the waste storage plans.
Texas argued that federal law requires nuclear waste to be stored on site at reactors in the absence of a permanent storage site. Interim Storage Partners, LLC, the company trying to build the storage site in West Texas, argues that the law cited by the state — the Nuclear Waste Policy Act — does nothing to forbid the creation of a temporary storage site.
'The Fifth Circuit held that the NWPA 'doesn't permit' the ISP license, ISP App. 30a, but cited no statutory provision that says that. Nor do respondents. There is none,' the ISP writes in its response.
Currently, high-level nuclear waste generated from nuclear power plants is stored at the reactors themselves to avoid transporting the fuel. High-level nuclear waste is highly radioactive and dangerous fuel, which no longer has a fast enough fission process to be used to generate energy, but still poses a threat.
Because no federal waste storage site has been built, the NRC hoped to create a temporary storage site in West Texas. Opponents to the site, including the state, said that it would likely become a permanent site with no existing alternative. According to the NRC's website, high-level waste only becomes harmless after being stored for thousands of years.
The concern is not only over storage, but transportation. Transporting spent nuclear fuel requires strict oversight and protection. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the most radioactive material is transported in casks, which are containers that are designed to withstand collisions, being dropped onto a steel spike, burning in gasoline for 30 minutes and withstanding being submerged in water for eight hours.
The state also expressed worries about the site's location near oil fields in West Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott submitted comments in the suit that said the nuclear waste site could inflict significant damage to the oil fields if an act of terrorism or an accident affected the site.
Texas has strived to lead the nation in nuclear energy production, with plans for the construction of several new uranium mines in South Texas and power plants purchased by large tech companies, like Google and Amazon.
Because nuclear power can produce energy without carbon emissions, it is a popular alternative to fossil fuel-heavy sources like coal. But after nuclear disasters abroad and in the U.S. at power plants, including the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania, creation of new nuclear power plants has slowed significantly in the U.S. Meanwhile, foreign powers, like China and India, are ramping up production.
Both the Biden and Trump administrations made efforts to bolster nuclear energy in the U.S. by building new reactors and restarting old ones. Recent executive orders by President Donald Trump take measures, including speeding up the licensing process through the Department of Energy, beginning construction on 10 new reactors by 2030 and creating reactors for artificial intelligence data centers and domestic military bases.
This week Gov. Abbott traveled across the state to sign a $10 billion property tax relief package and a historic $20 billion water infrastructure bill. Both were priorities of this past legislative session.
Abbott started in Denton County on Monday to unveil the latest property tax legislation that will increase the homestead exemption from $100,000 to $140,000, and increase the exemption for disabled Texans and those 65 and older to $200,000.
Senate Bill 4 and 23, both authored by State Sen. Paul Bettencourt, R – Houston, will save 5.7 million Texas homeowners about $484 per year on their tax bill, and $907 per year for 2.08 million seniors, according to Bettencourt's office.
Even though both SB 4 and SB 23 passed unanimously in the Texas House of Representatives, the proposals did not pass without some criticism. State Rep. Brian Harrison, R-Midlothian, spoke out against SB 4 on the House floor before voting yes on the measure. He argues the property tax cuts do not go far enough.
'It is entirely conceivable that many or most homeowners and property owners will not see any real savings at all because the appraisals are likely to increase and eat up this new exemption,' Harrison said.
Gov. Abbott praised the work by the legislature to pass additional tax breaks for Texas homeowners. Both bills will need to be approved by a majority of Texans in the November election. When asked if the state will be able to keep providing these exemptions in the future, the Governor assured the state is in a good financial spot.
'We have some other reserve money to make sure that we will be able to continue to maintain the property tax relief in the future that we provide today,' Abbott said.
Later in the week the governor was in Lubbock to sign Senate Bill 7, aimed at investing $20 billion into the state's water fund. The governor called it 'the largest water law in the history of the great state of Texas.'
'Every day, on average in Texas, there's more than 1,000 more people who go to a faucet and turn that on because of the magnitude of the growth,' Abbott said during the ceremony. 'When they go to the faucet to turn it on, they expect the water to flow.'
Under the plan, half of the $20 billion would fund new water supply sources, while the other half would support water infrastructure development and repair existing systems. The funding operates as a revolving loan program, providing $1 billion annually for 20 years with repaid loans reinvested in additional projects.
House Speaker Dustin Burrows, R-Lubbock, emphasized the economic implications of the water crisis.
'People want to come here because of our economy, because of our culture, and they are coming here with U-hauls,' Burrows said. 'If they show up and they turn on that spigot, and water doesn't come out, those U-hauls are going to go the absolute opposite direction.'
SB 7 tasks the Texas Water Development Board with coordinating large-scale water infrastructure projects across regions, promoting standardized specifications for interoperable systems and minimizing eminent domain use by maximizing existing transportation and utility easements.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, accused the Biden Administration and members of the national press of covering-up the former president's declining health. It is the latest attempt from Congressional Republicans to paint President Joe Biden as unfit to lead.
Sen. Cornyn helped lay out the allegations in a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Following the hearing, he called out the Democratic party for the alleged cover-up.
'There's no question they had the ability to raise this issue earlier, when his incapacity became obvious to everybody who was paying attention. So Congress needs to look at whatever what possible remedies that we might be able to legislate,' Cornyn said.
Only two Democratic senators on the committee, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, attended the meeting. They called the hearing political theater. Other Democrats on the committee who did not attend the hearing called it a distraction from more pressing issues.
The office of former President Biden denies any cover-up.
A day after the hearing President Biden was in Galveston, TX to celebrate Juneteenth. Biden was presented a plaque for his role in designating Juneteenth as a national holiday. He spoke to the congregation at the Reedy Chapel-AME church.
'You know on this sacred day it reminds me of another sacred day, that wonderful day four years ago in the East Room of the White House when I had a great honor, of course objections from some, of making Juneteenth a federal holiday,' Biden said.
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


Fox News
20 minutes ago
- Fox News
Iran attacks Israel despite US strikes on nuclear sites, Trump calls for 'peace'
incoming update… Ellie Cohanim, former Deputy Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism during the first Trump administration, says the president deserves a peace prize for his decision to destroy three Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday. Cohanim, who is also an Iranian refugee, joined "Fox & Friends Weekend" on Sunday to discuss her thoughts on the strikes. "President Trump has truly saved the world and I certainly hope that we will see recognition for what he has accomplished for the entire world. He deserves a Nobel Peace Prize for this," she said, in part. She also said that destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities gives "a new hope" for the Middle East and she hopes to see peace between Israel and its neighbors one day. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., pushed for lawmakers to return to Washington, D.C., to sign the War Powers Resolution following President Donald Trump's strikes on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday. 'Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk," Khanna said. The bipartisan War Powers Resolution, introduced by Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., in the House of Representatives seeks to "remove United States Armed Forces from unauthorized hostilities in the Islamic State of Iran." It also directs Trump to "terminate" the deployment of American troops against Iran without an "authorized declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military forces against Iran." The legislation was introduced this past week as strikes between Israel and Iran raged on. Khanna said lawmakers need to return to the capital immediately to "ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." "Americans want diplomacy, not more costly wars. We need to deescalate and pursue a path of peace,' he said. Live Coverage begins here
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The board decision that sent the MLB, NFL unions into controversy
Last June, eight members of the board of directors for a licensing group called OneTeam Partners, which is co-owned by the players unions for five major sports leagues, signed a resolution that would have included the member unions in a plan to receive 'profits units.' Those units, like traditional equity, could be turned into cash if the company did well. It was a move that raised alarms within at least one of the unions. Advertisement By late 2024, an official at the National Football League Players Association had repeatedly raised concerns that implementing the plan could mean that labor officials serving on OneTeam's board of directors — including the head of the NFL players union, Lloyd Howell Jr., and the leader of the Major League Baseball players union, Tony Clark — were attempting to make a change that could lead to their own financial gain, potentially at the expense of union members. The resolution, which was obtained by The Athletic, called for any eventual payouts — made through what is known as a senior employee incentive plan (SEIP) — to go to the unions the board members hail from. The resolution also directly acknowledged the possibility that the unions could then grant that money to their board members. 'The explicit goal throughout the process was to financially enrich the individuals who serve on the OTP Board as labor organization representatives,' the NFLPA official wrote to lawyers in a communication criticizing the plan, which was reviewed by The Athletic. '… the idea was to pay the money into the unions, then the individuals.' In a statement to The Athletic, OneTeam said that though the plan was considered, it was ultimately abandoned. Advertisement 'In early 2024, OneTeam initiated an exploratory review to determine whether the company could lawfully offer incentive-based compensation to current and prospective Board members,' OneTeam Partners said. 'This exploratory effort was part of a broader initiative to assess strategies for attracting high-caliber, independent talent. 'Following the legal advice of a labor law expert, it was determined that the best practice, if implemented, was to make grants to the respective players associations. In so doing, any future payments would be governed by each union's player-approved bylaws, policy, and governance frameworks. It added: 'To be unequivocally clear: no OneTeam board member, nor any union employee, was directly or indirectly granted equity in OneTeam, holds equity in OneTeam or is a participant in its SEIP and any claim to the contrary is simply misinformed and false.' Federal authorities are conducting an investigation related to OneTeam Partners and union officials. The full scope of the probe, which is being run out of the Eastern District of New York, is unclear. The Eastern District of New York declined to comment. Advertisement Five major sports unions hold stakes in OneTeam, the two largest belonging to the NFLPA and the Major League Baseball Players Association, which together own two-thirds of the company, according to people briefed on the business structure who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The NFLPA has 44 percent, the MLBPA 22 percent. The unions representing players in Major League Soccer, the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team and the Women's National Basketball Association own much smaller shares in OneTeam: 3.3 percent for MLS, .3 percent for the USWNTPA, and .2 percent for the WNBA, according to one of the people briefed on the structure. Early this month, the FBI started calling MLB and NFL players or their representatives. Prosecutor David Berman is heading the federal investigation, said people briefed on its process who were not authorized to speak publicly. With a federal investigation underway, the NFLPA has retained outside counsel separate from the outside lawyers retained by its executive director, Howell. Howell's lawyer did not reply to requests for comment. 'We're guided by our responsibility to our members in everything we do and we will continue to fully cooperate with the investigation,' the NFLPA said in a statement to The Athletic. Advertisement The MLBPA declined to comment Friday. That union too has retained outside counsel separate from its leader, Clark. His attorney did not return requests for comment. The NFLPA official who voiced concern about the incentive plan wrote that they were concerned about the potential for various conflicts of interest. The official argued internally that the change to the plan could dilute the players' existing stakes, which they held via their unions. The official also questioned whether the players were informed of how their financial interests might be affected. The NFLPA official's email with lawyers shows talk of changing OneTeam's SEIP dated to 2023, when a new CEO took over. In March 2024, OneTeam asked outside counsel whether there would be any issues granting union officials on its board participation in a SEIP, according to the same email. In response, the official wrote, the law firm flagged concerns regarding the National Labor Relations Act were any units to be granted directly to union board members. Plans like SEIP are common in the business world. Companies use them to reward and lure top leaders, and the programs often grant traditional shares in a company. Private companies in particular will often grant something that operates similarly to shares but is not traditional equity, according to Chris Crawford, managing director for the executive compensation practice at the firm Gallagher. Advertisement 'It's not a publicly traded, readily tradable environment,' Crawford said. 'It gets into these third-party transactions that get a little bit messy. The most common is by a generic term called 'phantom stock.'' Hence OneTeam's use of 'profits units.' But ultimately, OneTeam is not a common business because it is largely owned by unions. Union officials have legal obligations to their members and their members' interests, and most unions don't have for-profit arms with the overlay of those governance concerns. 'The labor organizations' representatives on the OTP Board are there as FIDUCIARIES representing their union members' direct ownership interests in the Company — their legal duties are not to the Company generally, but rather their union members' ownership in the company,' the NFLPA official wrote in the email to lawyers. Advertisement The union officials have their positions on OneTeam's board because of their union roles, positions for which they are already compensated. Howell was paid $3.6 million by the NFLPA for the 12 months from March 2024 through February 2025, according to the union's annual disclosure filed with the Department of Labor. Clark was paid $3.5 million for the 2024 calendar year, per the baseball union's filing. The NFLPA has four seats on OneTeam's board, and the MLBPA has three seats. Both Howell's and Clark's signatures appear on the resolution to change OneTeam's senior employee incentive plan. The unions representing players in MLS, the USWNT and the WNBA share one seat on the board that rotates. Only the signature of Becca Roux, the head of the USWNTPA, appears on the resolution from last year. Roux, as well as Bob Foose, head of the MLSPA, and Terri Jackson, head of the WNBPA, have hired Steve McCool of McGuireWoods as outside counsel. Advertisement 'I notified the prosecutor in New York that I represent a number of OTP board members,' McCool said by phone Friday. 'My clients have no cause for concern and they are available to answer any questions the government may have about this matter.' Outside investors own the remaining 30 percent of OneTeam that is not owned by unions. The SEIP resolution called for the NFLPA to receive 44 percent of the new plan units available to the board, and the MLBPA 33 percent. The other three unions were in line to receive 3.7 percent each. The outside investors on the board were not going to receive any new incentive units, the resolution said. Such an arrangement has the potential to create at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, according to Lee Adler, a labor lawyer with no involvement in the matter who has long worked as counsel to unions. Advertisement 'Is there something in that set of criteria for the incentive that might have some influence on how or what the union officials who sit on the board actually end up … legislating (at OneTeam)?' asked Adler, a lecturer at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. NFLPA employees said at a meeting in November 2024 that they expected payments via SEIP would be $200,000 to $300,000, the NFLPA official wrote in the email. Sports unions have moved aggressively to capitalize on their players' branding rights. The MLBPA and NFLPA were among the founders of OneTeam in 2019. Both unions already had for-profit arms that handled licensing business, and those arms still exist today. But they were betting that a company with aggregated rights would have greater leverage. The venture has been a boon not only for the unions but also for the private equity investors who partnered with them. RedBird Capital cashed out its 40 percent stake in 2022, when the company had a $1.9 billion valuation. The windfalls from name, image and licensing rights carry a slew of gains for athletes, including bolstering traditional labor objectives like collective bargaining. The NFLPA reported about $101 million in revenue from OneTeam from early 2024 into 2025, and the MLBPA about $45 million for 2024. But both the baseball and football unions have been wrapped up in public controversy this year over, in part, OneTeam. Advertisement Late last year, an anonymous complaint filed with the National Labor Relations Board levied allegations at Clark, including concerns over equity from OneTeam. The football union, where internal complaints had already been lodged, then brought on an outside firm, Linklaters, to conduct a review. The NFLPA has not publicized that firm's findings. But in March, in an email reviewed by , Howell notified OneTeam's board of directors that Linklaters found the NFLPA and OneTeam had been in compliance. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. NFL, MLB, MLS, WNBA, Sports Business 2025 The Athletic Media Company
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Chime versus SoFi: Which Is the Better Fintech Stock Right Now?
Chime operates an online banking platform that is similar to SoFi. SoFi is acquiring new members, increasing revenue, and accelerating profit at a pace superior to the competition. 10 stocks we like better than SoFi Technologies › It's been a hot couple of weeks for the fintech sector. Digital banking platform (NASDAQ: CHYM) and stablecoin operator Circle (NYSE: CRCL) both completed initial public offerings (IPOs) in which shares of both companies soared. While artificial intelligence (AI) is still the biggest megatrend fueling the stock market right now, the back-to-back IPOs from Circle and Chime have brought some renewed interest to the financial services arena. Given the overlapping business models of Chime and SoFi Technologies (NASDAQ: SOFI), another budding neobank, investors may be wondering which stock is the better buy right now. Let's assess Chime and SoFi from both an operational and valuation perspective. After doing so, I think smart investors will be able to determine a clear winner between the two digital banking platforms. SoFi offers many of the same financial services products that you may see at traditional banks. By offering lending, insurance, and investment management, SoFi has proven that it can compete with legacy banking providers by offering a similar, diversified portfolio of products. The main differentiator between SoFi and most of its competitors is that the company operates entirely online and lacks physical brick-and-mortar infrastructure. By creating a one-stop shop for financial services, SoFi is offering a level of convenience that is hard to match. In turn, SoFi is not only able to keep its customers loyal to the platform, but also has leveraged its comprehensive ecosystem by cross-selling additional services to existing members. SoFi refers to this strategy as its financial services productivity loop -- essentially building a model in which the lifetime value of customers increases over time, ultimately creating a competitive advantage over incumbent providers. At the end of the first quarter, SoFi boasted 10.9 million customers on its platform that use a total of 15.9 million products. This implies that each user in SoFi's network is using 1.4 products on average. As the chart above illustrates, SoFi's business model is paying off in spades, underscored by accelerating revenue growth and a transition to consistent profitability. While SoFi's business is rocking, Chime doesn't appear too far behind. In the table below, I've summarized a number of financial metrics and key performance indicators for SoFi and Chime. Category SoFi Chime Revenue -- Trailing 12-month ($) $2.8 billion $1.8 billion Members 10.9 million 8.6 million 3-year membership compound annual growth rate (CAGR) 41.3% 22.3% Net income (Trailing 12-Months) $482 million ($28.3) million Market capitalization (as of June 18) $17 billion $10.6 billion Data source: SoFi Investor Relations and Chime S-1 Filing. The obvious takeaway from the figures above is that SoFi is a larger business than Chime in terms of revenue. This is not entirely surprising, given that SoFi's platform boasts more than 2 million more members than Chime. The more subtle factor that I'd like to point out is that SoFi is far more profitable than Chime. Perhaps the biggest contributor to SoFi's profitability profile is the rate at which it is acquiring new members relative to the competition. Per the table above, SoFi's three-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for user acquisition is almost double that of Chime's. By onboarding more users, SoFi has been able to more quickly monetize these members and command superior unit economics compared to its peers. While Chime's growth is impressive, the company lags behind SoFi on a number of critical metrics. While I suspect that Chime may see a brief uptick in its operations thanks to the notoriety that came with the IPO, I question if the company will ever eclipse SoFi's size. Although SoFi is a bit pricey compared to traditional bank and financial services stocks based on its price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio, I think the shares deserve a premium due to the company's technology-first platform. I see SoFi growing into its valuation thanks to future earnings growth. If I had to choose between the two digital bank stocks explored here, I'd pick SoFi without thinking twice. Before you buy stock in SoFi Technologies, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and SoFi Technologies wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 JPMorgan Chase is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Wells Fargo is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Adam Spatacco has positions in SoFi Technologies. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends JPMorgan Chase and PayPal. The Motley Fool recommends Capital One Financial and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $42.50 calls on PayPal and short June 2025 $77.50 calls on PayPal. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Chime versus SoFi: Which Is the Better Fintech Stock Right Now? was originally published by The Motley Fool Sign in to access your portfolio