Trump's presidential 'heir' plunged into gay scandal
Virginia Republicans were plunged into scandal after their candidate for lieutenant governor was revealed to allegedly be running a social media account where he posted images of nude men.
Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Friday asked Republican nominee for lieutenant governor John Reid to drop out of the race.
But Reid, who is gay and married, refused to cave to a week of pressure to step aside.
Reid maintains he was not connected to the photos and claims they are an extortion tactic related to what he says are efforts to remove him from the Republican ticket because of his sexual orientation.
The controversy could hurt Youngkin in his future political endeavors.
Under Virginia law, Youngkin cannot run for a second consecutive gubernatorial term in the commonwealth. Many feel that instead, he could launch a 2028 presidential bid as President Donald Trump completes his second term.
But Youngkin is far from an early frontrunner when it comes to the 2028 primary race.
Instead, Republicans appear to prefer the likes of Vice President J.D. Vance or the president's eldest son Donald Trump Jr. to be the heir to the Trump political legacy, according to multiple polls.
In a Sunday interview with NBC News, Trump named Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as potential figures to continue his MAGA agenda.
Once leaders within Virginia's GOP became aware of the explicit photos and Reid's social media activity, they tried to force him out of the race. But these efforts appeared to backfire in some cases.
For example, Matt Moran, who ran Youngkin's Spirit of Virginia PAC, stepped aside when he was accused of pressuring Reid to remove himself from the GOP ticket. Moran has publicly denied he pushed Reid to step aside.
Reid is the first openly gay candidate for statewide office in Virginia.
Youngkin cannot run for a second consecutive term for governor under Virginia law. His Republican lieutenant governor Winsome Earle-Sears is running to be the next leader of the commonwealth.
'The Governor was made aware late Thursday of the disturbing online content,' Youngkin's Spirit of Virginia PAC wrote in a statement. 'Friday morning, in a call with Mr. Reid, the Governor asked him to step down as the Lt. Governor nominee.'
Moran did not say if he would campaign on behalf of Reid, but told Politico that he will 'support the nominees and their ticket.'
'At the end of the day, Republicans need to win. And that's the bottom line,' Moran said.
Reid was connected to explicit posts on a Tumblr account with the handle 'jrdeux', which the candidate has used on other social media sites like Instagram and Threads.
Reid's husband, Alonzo Mable, has tagged his spouse in social media posts using the 'jrdeux' moniker.
The Tumblr account includes a litany of gay pornographic images and kinks.
The former radio host says that Youngkin's political operation is threatening him with further damaging information in an effort of hurting his chances at election to be Virginia's next lieutenant governor.
'I can tell you that's not my account,' Reid said in a five-minute video posted on X last week addressing the controversy.
In the clip, Reid notes how he was approached by individuals who warned him the account could be damaging to his campaign.
'I demanded to see the evidence, and someone created a social media account with my instagram name, a name, which I've had for years, but this fake account reposted nude pictures of other people, models and porn models,' he says. 'I can tell you, that's not my account, and anyone on the internet can open accounts with the same or similar names as other people.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
40 minutes ago
- NBC News
New GOP bill would protect AI companies from lawsuits if they offer transparency
Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., is introducing legislation Thursday that would shield artificial intelligence developers from an array of civil liability lawsuits provided they meet certain disclosure requirements. Lummis' bill, the Responsible Innovation and Safe Expertise Act, seeks to clarify that doctors, lawyers, financial advisers, engineers and other professionals who use AI programs in their decision-making retain legal liability for any errors they make — so long as AI developers publicly disclose how their systems work. 'This legislation doesn't create blanket immunity for AI — in fact, it requires AI developers to publicly disclose model specifications so professionals can make informed decisions about the AI tools they choose to utilize,' Lummis, a member of the Commerce Committee, said in a statement first shared with NBC News. 'It also means that licensed professionals are ultimately responsible for the advice and decisions they make. This is smart policy for the digital age that protects innovation, demands transparency, and puts professionals and their clients first.' Lummis' office touted the bill as the first piece of federal legislation that offers clear guidelines for AI liability in a professional context. The measure would not govern liability for other AI elements, such as self-driving vehicles, and it would not provide immunity when AI developers act recklessly or willfully engage in misconduct. 'AI is transforming industries — medicine, law, engineering, finance — and becoming embedded in professional tools that shape critical decisions,' her office said in a release. 'But outdated liability rules discourage innovation, exposing developers to unbounded legal risk even when trained professionals are using these tools.' Exactly who is liable when AI is used in sensitive medical, legal or financial situations is a bit of a gray area, with some states seeking to enact their own standards. The House-passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' which is advancing through Congress and supported by President Donald Trump, includes a provision that would ban states from enacting any AI regulations for 10 years. Senate Republicans last week proposed changing the provision to instead block federal funding for broadband projects to states that regulate AI. Both Democratic and Republican state officials have criticized the effort to prohibit state-level regulations over the next decade, while AI executives have argued that varying state laws would stifle industry growth when the United States is in stiff competition with countries like China.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Troops are now patrolling Los Angeles. This is a disaster waiting to happen
This was the moment that Donald Trump was waiting for. A Democratic city, Los Angeles. A Democratic state, California. His most popular issue, immigration. And protests where occasional violence could be spotlighted endlessly on social media. What better time to summon the troops and burnish the president's tough-guy image. But Trump should be careful what he wishes for. The spectacle of needlessly calling in 4,000 national guard troops and 700 Marines may be red meat for his Maga base, but for most everyone else it is a bright warning sign of Trump's autocratic tendencies. Rather than quell the protests, he is provoking more, not only in LA but in at least two dozen cities across the US. Even if this is not yet the mass mobilization that such repression has sparked in other countries, it is making Trump's true colors clear. Surrounded by sycophants, living in an echo chamber, Trump seems oblivious to his overreaching. Yes, immigration has been his strong suit, but the issue is more complex than he imagines. Many Americans were disturbed by the large number of immigrants streaming across the southern border, but there is an enormous difference between bolstering border enforcement and raiding immigrant neighborhoods and workplaces. Trump officials want Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents to deport 3,000 people a day. But with Trump having largely stopped the border influx, the easy path to mass deportations – returning people who just arrived – is largely closed. His administration thus has pressured Ice agents to detain undocumented immigrants throughout the country. And because it is time-consuming to target one by one people who have a criminal record or a pending deportation order – the less controversial cases – Ice is turning to random raids on places where undocumented immigrants are assumed to congregate. An estimated 14 million undocumented immigrants live in the US. A 2017 study estimated that two-thirds of such immigrants at the time had been in the US a decade or more. These people typically work jobs, pay taxes and build families, frequently with US-citizen spouses and children. They are Americans in all but legal status. Deporting them rips holes in households and communities. If not for the polarized politics of Washington, these longtime residents would have long ago been given a path to regularize their immigration status. If we decline to prosecute most crimes after five years, in part out of recognition that at some point people should be able to move on with their lives despite what they have done in the past, why not have a similar statute of limitations for deportations? But that is not the world we live in, even if the impulse behind it is broadly shared. Trump's workplace and community raids are bumping up against public recognition that over time, the equities of immigration shift, that the manner of immigrants' entry is overcome by the unfairness of disrupting the lives they have built. Even some Republican lawmakers are now warning that Trump has gone too far. It is no wonder that these raids have sparked protests. And Trump has responded in the lawless way that is his wont. There was nothing extraordinary about the initial LA protests that local law enforcement authorities could not have handled on their own. California's governor, Gavin Newsom, accused Trump of choosing 'theatrics over public safety'. The national guard, not to mention the marines, were not needed or wanted. Yet Trump, dying to flex his muscles, mobilized them anyway. Not since 1965 has a US president deployed the national guard without a request from the state's governor. Then, Lyndon Johnson ordered it to protect civil-rights marchers in Alabama from a segregationist governor, George Wallace. Now, in a sad parody of that historic moment, Trump called on it to trample people's right to protest his cruel immigration policies. As for the marines, US law prohibits deploying them or other troops for policing purposes absent an insurrection. Trump calls the protesters 'insurrectionists', his defense secretary claims a 'rebellion', but those assertions are farcical. Instead, Trump is invoking yet another fake 'emergency' to justify handing himself extraordinary powers. The ban on policing by the military is founded on good sense. Troops are trained for war, where they can shoot to kill opposing combatants. But police can use lethal force only as a last resort to meet an imminent lethal threat. Asking troops to police is an invitation to brutality. And Trump goads them on by dehumanizing the protesters as 'animals' and 'a foreign enemy'. Having broken the taboo against deploying troops for law enforcement, there is every reason to fear that Trump will continue as protests inevitably spread. The next occasion may be this coming Saturday, when he has scheduled a big military parade in Washington to mark the 250th anniversary of the US army – which also falls on Trump's 79th birthday. Army officials worry that the parade 'could make it appear as if the military is celebrating a crackdown on Americans'. That is undoubtedly what Trump wants. To make matters worse, Trump is already threatening people who might demonstrate against his military extravaganza: 'For those people that want to protest, they're going to be met with very big force.' Even a peaceful demonstration? What about the first amendment? For Trump in his flout-the-constitution mode, those are irrelevant details. In his first term, the 'grown-ups in the room' often were able to restrain Trump's most dangerous tendencies. This time around, only die-hard loyalists are left. Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, defended the military deployment in LA. It is hard to imagine him resisting whatever outrage Trump might next try to commit. Trump's military posturing is another step in the autocrat's playbook. Just as he has attacked judges, lawyers, journalists, universities, elected officials and other potential checks on his power, so he is now taking a stab at the public. Protests are an important way to rein in abusive leaders. In many countries, they have proved decisive. Trump's military threats aim to limit that possibility. Aspirations aside, Trump has not yet managed to build an autocracy. It is important not to exaggerate, because that can demoralize the resistance and obscure how much difference it is making. But it is essential that we keep in mind not only the wrongfulness of Trump's conduct in LA but also the broader plan of which it is a part. The danger is not the protesters. The danger is Trump. Kenneth Roth, former executive director of Human Rights Watch, is a visiting professor at Princeton's School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs: Three Decades on the Front Lines Battling Abusive Governments, was published by Knopf and Allen Lane in February
NBC News
2 hours ago
- NBC News
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — Seven Arkansas families filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging an upcoming state requirement that public school classrooms have posted copies of the Ten Commandments, saying the new law will violate their constitutional rights. The federal lawsuit challenges a measure Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed into law earlier this year, similar to a requirement enacted by Louisiana and one that Texas' governor has said he'll sign. The Arkansas law takes effect in August and requires the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed in public school classrooms and libraries. "Permanently posting the Ten Commandments in every classroom and library — rendering them unavoidable — unconstitutionally pressures students into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture," the lawsuit said. The suit was filed on behalf of the families by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The lawsuit names four school districts in northwest Arkansas — Fayetteville, Bentonville, Siloam Springs and Springdale — as defendants. A spokesperson for Fayetteville schools said the district would not comment on pending litigation, while the other three districts did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office was reviewing the lawsuit and considering options. Attorneys for the families, who are Jewish, Unitarian Universalist or nonreligious, said they planned to ask the federal judge in Fayetteville for a preliminary injunction blocking the law's enforcement. The attorneys say the law violates longstanding Supreme Court precedent and the families' First Amendment rights. "By imposing a Christian-centric translation of the Ten Commandments on our children for nearly every hour of every day of their public-school education, this law will infringe on our rights as parents and create an unwelcoming and religiously coercive school environment for our children," Samantha Stinson, one of the plaintiffs, said in a news release. Louisiana was the first state to enact such a requirement, and a federal judge blocked the measure before it was to take effect Jan 1. Proponents of Louisiana's law say that ruling only applies to the five school boards listed in the suit, but The Associated Press is unaware of any posters being displayed in schools as the litigation continues.
