Sherrod Brown to launch U.S. Senate bid against Ohio Sen. Jon Husted
COLUMBUS, Ohio - Sherrod Brown will run for U.S. Senate in 2026, seeking a political comeback in Ohio as Democrats hope for a sweeping rejection of President Donald Trump and his party, according to multiple news reports.
The decision by Brown, 72, came months after he lost his U.S. Senate seat to Sen. Bernie Moreno in one of the country's most expensive races. This time, Ohio's most beloved Democrat will take on Sen. Jon Husted, who joined the Senate earlier this year after serving as lieutenant governor.
Cleveland.com first reported that Brown has shared his decision with Ohio labor leaders. Politico and Axios also reported his plans, citing unnamed sources.
More: 11 pivotal Senate races for 2026
The Statehouse Bureau, a USA TODAY Network partner, is trying to confirm the news independently. A spokesperson for Brown did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Gov. Mike DeWine appointed Husted to replace Vice President JD Vance. Husted must run in November 2026 to keep his seat. Whoever wins in 2026 will be up for reelection two years later.
Brown's decision ended speculation that he would run for governor against the presumptive GOP nominee, Vivek Ramaswamy. Former Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton is the only Democrat in that race, although former Congressman Tim Ryan is mulling a bid.
Running for governor would have placed Brown at the top of Ohio's ticket in 2026. He also could have sat out the election and focused on a nonprofit he launched earlier this year. Instead, Brown opted to pursue a familiar job and the chance to help his party flip the Senate.
Despite Brown's loss in 2024, Democrats in Ohio and nationally view him as key to breaking the hold Republicans have on the Buckeye State. GOP leaders control control every statewide executive office, but they're all term limited in 2026 and playing musical chairs in an effort to maintain power.
Brown received 117,250 more votes than former Vice President Kamala Harris. Democrats contend that math will be in their favor when the president isn't on the ballot and GOP candidates face questions about Medicaid cuts, immigration raids and the widespread firing of federal employees.
Husted, for his part, has been a reliable supporter of Trump's agenda since he took office. He supported the budget bill that slashed $1 trillion from Medicaid, eliminated taxes on tips, increased the child tax credit and enacted tax cuts that primarily benefit high earners.
State government reporter Haley BeMiller can be reached at hbemiller@gannett.com or @haleybemiller on X.
What do you think about Sherrod Brown running for U.S. Senate?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
7 minutes ago
- UPI
Appeals court: Arkansas can ban gender-affirming care for minors
Participants walk up Market Street in the 55th annual San Francisco Pride Parade in San Francisco on Sunday, June 29, 2025. An appeals court on Tuesday permitted Arkansas to enforce its gender-affirming care ban for minors. File Photo by Terry Schmitt/UPI | License Photo Aug. 13 (UPI) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that Arkansas may enforce its ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care, overturning a lower court's decision that found the law unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling Tuesday, stating the lower court erred in June 2023 when it struck down Arkansas' Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act for violating the First Amendment and both the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. It said the lower court's ruling was incongruent with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee's gender-affirming care ban for minors. "Because the district court rested its permanent injunction on incorrect conclusions of law, it abused its discretion," the appeals court ruled. Arkansas' Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, celebrated the ruling. "I applaud the court's decision recognizing that Arkansas has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of children and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from risky, experimental procedures with lifelong consequences," he said in a statement. Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. The medical practice has been endorsed by every medical association. Despite the evidence and the support of the medical community, Republicans and conservatives, often with the use of misinformation, have been targeting gender-affirming care amid a larger push threatening the rights of the LGBTQ community. Arkansas passed the SAVE Act in 2021, but then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed it that same year, calling the ban a "product of the cultural war in America" that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The GOP-majority legislature then overrode his veto, making Arkansas the first state to pass a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors in the United States. Four transgender minors and their parents then challenged the law, saying it violated their rights, resulting in the 2023 ruling overturning the ban, which marked a victory in the fight for LGBTQ healthcare until Tuesday. "This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families," Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said in a statement. "As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity and equal access to the healthcare they need." The ruling comes as Republicans seeking to restrict transgender healthcare have gained a support in the White House with President Donald Trump who has implemented several federal policies that align with their efforts. On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it federal policy that there are only two genders, male and female, both of which were determined at "conception." He has also banned transgender Americans from the military and has sought to bar transgender athletes from competing on teams and in competitions that align with their gender identity. Twenty-six states and the territory of Puerto Rico have banned gender-affirming care for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alabama congressman seeks Senate seat
MOBILE, Ala. (WKRG) — Alabama Congressman Barry Moore announced he is running for a U.S. Senate position. UPDATE: Mobile police identify 2 men killed in industrial incident Moore currently serves as the United States representative for Alabama's District 1 after when the state redrew its congressional districts. In his announcement Tuesday morning, Moore promised to stand with President Donald Trump. Moore previously served in the Alabama State House for eight years as the District 91 representative. During his time in the state house, Moore served as chairman of the Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, as well as the vice-chair of the Small Business and Commerce Committee. If Moore were to win the election, he would be taking Tommy Tuberville's seat, as Tuberville previously announced . Atmore arrests: 6 held for immigration crimes, FBI says The Senate election will be held on Nov. 3, 2025. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
Engineered Confusion: The $100 Million Threat To Business Integrity
Climate misinformation is no longer confined to the margins of public discourse. It has matured into a systemic force, a strategic instrument capable of shaping regulation, market dynamics, and public trust. A 2024 joint report from the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and House Oversight Committee revealed fossil fuel–aligned actors are spending more than $100 million annually to promote misleading narratives and block climate action, even as those same actors receive $600 billion in subsidies. The strategy has evolved: from outright denial of climate science to emotionally engineered scepticism, designed to create doubt, delay, and division. How Misinformation Is Rewriting Climate Policy The disinformation ecosystem now actively shapes regulatory outcomes. In 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to roll back its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, and to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding, a basis legal and scientific ruling that underpins all U.S. federal climate regulation. Many consider this a direct result of coordinated lobbying and strategic messaging around political positions. Climate regulation was reframed as an attack on economic freedom and consumer choice, despite scientific consensus and broad public support. As Dr. Frederic Bertley, president and chief executive officer of the Center of Science & Industry (COSI), said in an interview, 'Policies are written by elected officials, usually attorneys or political scientists, not scientists. And most don't have a basic science literacy background. Sometimes, they base their decisions on information from lobbyists not experts, and the lobbyists frequently preserve legislation that allows the status quo.' Parallel efforts have targeted foundational data infrastructure. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), long trusted for climate modelling, has suffered funding cuts and the closure of key data centers. Without access to granular risk data, companies are left navigating climate volatility with impaired visibility – especially in terms of increasingly extreme weather. As Sean Buchan, intelligence c-ordinator at the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition observes, 'The goal isn't to win a debate. It's to erode trust in institutions and paralyze decision-making. That paralysis directly harms business continuity.' Drilled Media has been instrumental in documenting the evolution of fossil fuel communication strategy. Today's misinformation doesn't deny climate science outright, it reframes the stakes. This new genre of messaging, dubbed petroganda, recasts fossil fuels as protectors of personal freedom, national sovereignty, and economic stability, while painting clean energy and climate policy as elite, costly, and controlling. But, as Buchan points out, 'There's actually new studies showing that almost all far-right parties in Europe have been using arguments, false arguments, against solar energy.' These narratives aren't grassroots; they're crafted through market research and deployed strategically to trigger emotion, deepen polarization, and block consensus on climate action. Buchan explains, 'You talk about facts, and they are seeking not emotionless truth, but emotional triggers. And then people believe the actors.' The effects are tangible as petroganda fuels local opposition to clean energy projects, inflates perceived risks in ESG investing, and enables deregulation by undermining climate governance, weakening the very institutions businesses depend on for forecasting, planning, and insurance. It also weaponizes identity, framing fossil fuels as aligned with the working class and masculinity, while painting renewables as urban and elite. This cultural divide silences companies and delays progress, while all the while AI is amplifying the threat. Generative tools produce expert-sounding disinformation at scale, embedding false narratives into dashboards, supply chains, and internal systems, making manipulation faster, cheaper, and harder to detect. What's really challenging is the level of public misunderstanding of just how many people actually do want to see climate action. A 2024 global survey revealed that 89% of people support stronger climate action, but most mistakenly believe that few others do. This misperception weakens the mandate for action, discouraging executives from pursuing bold strategies for fear of reputational backlash or political reprisal. Correcting this gap is more than a communications challenge, it's a market issue. Dr. Bertley says, 'Soundbites don't necessarily create understanding. If you meet people where they are, respect their questions, and avoid arrogance, you can move the needle. But the messaging needs to connect with what people care about.' At the same time, behavioural studies show that when people learn the majority supports action, willingness to engage, invest, and advocate increases sharply. In other words, telling the truth about public sentiment isn't just good ethics, it's smart business. When Ad Spend Fuels The Opposition Behind the scenes, the corporate advertising supply chain has become one of the most over-looked vectors for disinformation risk. Millions in programmatic ad spend are routed, often without oversight, to platforms that host climate lies, conspiracy theories, and hyper-partisan disinformation. As Harriet Kingaby, co-founder of the Conscious Advertising Network, explains, 'Advertisers are pouring money into a black box. There are so many middlemen in programmatic ad tech that brands have no idea where their ads land.' The consequences go beyond reputational risk. CAN research shows that 45% of consumers would reconsider their support for a brand funding climate misinformation, even indirectly. And while disinformation earns ad revenue through viral reach, up to 70% of legitimate climate content is demonetized due to outdated keyword blocklists, cutting off funding to credible journalism while amplifying false narratives. This is despite research showing it drives high engagement and trust. 'Brands have invested heavily in ethical supply chains for their physical goods,' Kingaby notes. 'Now they need to apply the same rigor to their digital supply chains. Otherwise, they are inadvertently underwriting the narratives that undermine their own climate strategies.' Advertising is just one high-profile example of how disinformation creates hidden liabilities. The same dynamic, where misinformation seeps into supply chains, dashboards, ESG data, or stakeholder narratives, can quietly undermine any part of a business that relies on trust, transparency, or credible information. Companies that fail to address disinformation in their supply chains, ad spend, and public messaging are increasingly going to be seen as complicit, not cautious. Buchan is blunt saying, 'Corporations need to ask not just what narratives they're using but what actors are benefiting from the lies. Follow the incentives. That's where disinformation unravels. They need to expose the actors, what financial interests are benefiting from the lie, rather than engage in a welcome-all context debate.' Effective corporate responses must go beyond fact-checking. They must integrate emotional resonance, community-centered messaging, and strategic foresight. That includes pre-emptive communications before project launches, investments in digital literacy, and public alignment with truth-based coalitions advocating for transparency and accountability in advertising and AI. Resilience today isn't just about physical assets or infrastructure, it's also about trust, credibility, and the ability to navigate an environment shaped by misinformation. In an era where misinformation actively shapes regulation, reputation, and public perception, perhaps it's time that companies start treating information integrity as infrastructure. This begins with a clear-eyed audit of digital advertising and media spend, ensuring that corporate dollars are not inadvertently funding climate disinformation. It requires demanding full transparency from ad tech partners, not just in principle, but down to the URL level. Internally, teams across communications, legal, sustainability, and marketing must be equipped to recognize and respond to manipulated narratives that could damage credibility or derail strategy. Strategic messaging must also evolve. It's no longer enough to present facts; companies need to tell stories that resonate emotionally-grounded in what matters most to people: jobs, public health, local security, and fairness. Externally, this commitment to integrity must extend to the policy environment as well. Businesses should be at the forefront of advocating for open data, algorithmic accountability, and enforceable standards around green claims. As Buchan says, 'We need to keep people who are lying accountable, and we need to create healthy incentives, rather than the current ones that promote lying.' Kingaby adds, 'It's time for the C-suite to get its hands on the steering wheel. This is a cross-functional risk, touching marketing, legal, sustainability, and finance. The opportunity is massive, but only if leaders act.' Information integrity is no longer a communications concern. It's a strategic imperative, one central to resilience, reputation, and long-term value creation. The Legal Reckoning Is Coming The legal landscape is catching up to these information risks. In July 2025, International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion that states, and by extension companies, have obligations to reduce emissions in line with human rights and climate science. These rulings, while non-binding, signal growing global alignment around legal accountability. Dr. Bertley adds, 'In general large corporations are not going to change just because of facts. It's not a science literacy issue, it's a moral and economic one. Unless there's policy and economic pressure, change is not likely to happen.' Companies in high-emitting sectors or those misaligned in word and deed may face legal scrutiny not just for what they emit, but for whether they've enabled or financed disinformation that blocks action. This dovetails with rising fiduciary awareness. Investors and regulators alike are questioning the integrity of ESG disclosures, particularly where companies claim climate leadership while unknowingly funding oppositional messaging. Information Integrity Is Competitive Advantage Disinformation is not background noise but rather a force that distorts regulation, derails projects, destabilizes markets, and weakens corporate resilience. The cost of inaction isn't just reputational: it's also legal, operational, and existential. In a volatile, high-stakes world, the ability to act on facts, rather than fight through fiction, has become a competitive advantage. In a landscape shaped by misinformation and engineered confusion, companies that invest in information integrity aren't just doing the right thing, they're protecting their future.
