Mike Kennealy, former economic secretary under Baker, launches Republican bid for governor
In a
'The unspeakable violence in migrant shelters is a human tragedy and a national embarrassment,' Kennealy says in the video. 'The political class on Beacon Hill is more concerned with their future than with ours.'
Advertisement
Kennealy worked in private equity before he was tapped in 2013 as a special adviser in Lawrence Public Schools, which was put under state receivership in 2011. After Baker left office in 2023, Kennealy has worked as a senior advisor and chief strategy officer at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston, according to his campaign.
Advertisement
He likely won't be the only Republican to enter the race. Senator Peter Durant, a Spencer Republican and vocal critic of Healey's handling of the shelter system, has said that he's
Brian Shortsleeve, a former chief administrator of the MBTA under Baker, is also considering getting into the race on the Republican side, according to GOP insiders.
Healey has said she'll seek a second term amid a rapidly shifting political environment. She is trying to govern a blue state at a time when President Trump has returned to the White House, and has increasingly criticized the president, be it on
Kennealy did not mention Trump during his two-minute launch video.
He has yet to open a fundraising account with the state's campaign finance office, making it unclear with what kind of financial support he could be entering the race.
Healey entered April with nearly $2.9 million at his disposal after raising more than $400,000 in March alone.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Matt Stout can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
GOP lawmaker flips script on Newsom, Bass by defining anti-ICE riots with 1 word
EXCLUSIVE: GOP Rep. Darrell Issa is blasting elected Democrat officials in his home state of California over their response to the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles after he called for a congressional investigation into the response time of local law enforcement. "These are the same people that tell us, you know, Biden was fine, he was on the top of his game," Issa said about Democrat narratives responding to the riots that have been unfolding in Los Angeles since Friday. "So their credibility goes with what you see versus what they say. I can't think of a better example of why you shouldn't believe or vote for people in that party as long as they're willing to literally lie to your face on what you're seeing with your own eyes." Democrats across the country, from California to Washington, D.C., have downplayed the rioting and focused on the claim that the majority of the anti-ICE displays have been "peaceful." Additionally, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other Democrats have blamed President Donald Trump's mobilizing the National Guard for making the situation worse. Issa, who represents California's 48th Congressional District, took issue with that narrative. "First of all, there was damage, both vandalism and actual destruction done before Trump got involved, and that's the reason he got involved, but there's another thing that some people miss," Issa told Fox News Digital. "When ICE agents called for police support when they were being assaulted, they hunkered down and waited two hours before police responded because police couldn't get authority to react. So that alone gave a reason for the president to bring in additional federalized troops to protect the ICE agents." On Tuesday, Fox News Digital exclusively reported Issa's call for an investigation into the Department of Homeland Security's claim that the LAPD took two hours to respond to assist ICE agents being assaulted on Friday night. The LAPD, in a Sunday press conference, denied that allegation and said it took 40 minutes to respond due to traffic. "Understand that we have over 10 million people who were let into this country, and tens of thousands of them are serious criminal aliens," Issa said. "There were warrants. There were orders to deport. There are reasons that we've got to go after many of these people in cities around the country. If ICE agents can't be protected or won't be protected by people like the mayor and my governor, then the president's going to have to continue to do this, eventually create escorts for ICE agents." Issa told Fox News Digital that Trump is doing a "great job" in his response to the unrest in Los Angeles. "One thing that I'm very happy about is, I know that by taking strong action here, he's keeping it from occurring in other cities around the country, because what you don't want is what ultimately happened in 2020 where we saw it happening not just in one city but in city after city where more than two dozen people died and billions of dollars of damage occurred because it wasn't handled quickly enough, and we've learned from that." Issa told Fox News Digital that he finds it curious why Democrats have used the word "insurrection" to describe the Jan. 6th riots that lasted hours but have not used the term to describe what has unfolded in Los Angeles over several days. "We heard the word 'insurrection' for a couple of years nonstop, and now in Los Angeles, when people are directly assaulting property and law enforcement, that's the very definition of insurrection; and particularly when they're doing it on behalf of people who are sitting in jails because they were arrested for crimes, not just for entering the country illegally but for actual felonies," Issa said. "And it's sort of amazing to believe that high-ranking elected officials like Gov. Newsom would actually try to defend any of that action. And yet they're doing it." Issa went on to say that Newsom's response to the riots "might have worked in the era of print or maybe even the era of radio" but that video evidence of rioting from the scene makes his position untenable. "Television and podcasts and everyone having a cellphone, those images are going to be what the American people [is going to] see when he tries to pretend that he was a good governor," Issa said. "They're going to see a failure to do his job and an absolute resistance against those who came in to do it for him." Fox News Digital reached out to the offices of Newsom and Bass for comment. "Trump is pulling a military dragnet all across Los Angeles, well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals," Newsom said on Tuesday night. "His agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses. That's just weakness. Weakness masquerading as strength. Donald Trump's government isn't protecting our communities. They're traumatizing our communities. And that seems to be the entire point." "When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes. This moment we have feared has arrived. He's taking a wrecking ball, a wrecking ball to our Founding Fathers' historic project."
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Families file suit challenging Arkansas law that requires Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — 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.
