Florida Democrat who surprised in special election to run for U.S. Senate seat
A Florida Democrat who earned national attention by raising millions in grassroots donations during an April special election has announced his next steps: challenging Ashley Moody for her Florida seat in the U.S. Senate.
Josh Weil, a Democrat and Orlando resident, is running on a campaign of affordability for Floridians. He said his position as a newer figure in the Democratic Party and experience as a public school teacher help make him the right person for the job — Florida needs a change, he said.
'They're scared to death of the impacts coming to social security, Medicaid, Medicare and veteran's benefits,' Weil said of Floridians. 'Moody only seems to be concerned with taking care of billionaires and corporations.'
Weil made a name for himself during a U.S. House special election for an open seat in northeast Florida last spring where he challenged Randy Fine, at the time a sitting state senator. Weil raised nearly 10 times as much money as Fine. No checks came from political action committees, according to the campaign, with around 70% of $10 million total coming from donors who gave less than $200 each.
Weil still lost by 14 points, prompting Republican Party of Florida Chairman Evan Power to quip that Democrats are 'welcome to come set millions of dollars on fire.' But Democrats saw the results as a positive, noting that Trump won Florida's Sixth District last November by more than 30 points.
Weil, who also launched a short-lived bid for U.S. Senate in 2022, said he is undeterred by his loss.
'We've got 17 months this time to go in and build something county by county, district by district, across this state,' Weil said. 'We will give the people of Florida someone who will fight for them in Washington.'
Weil intends to keep the same fundraising strategy this time. There won't be money from political action committees coming through his Senate campaign, he said.
If Weil wins next year's Democratic primary, his opponent would likely be Moody, a Gov. Ron DeSantis appointee and strong supporter of President Donald Trump, filling Marco Rubio's spot at the beginning of the year after he was pulled to head Trump's Department of State. She was the state's attorney general for six years, winning her first election in 2018 and reelected in 2022.
Her Senate seat will be up for election in 2026 to finish out the final two years Rubio's term. After that, whoever wins must run again in 2028 for a full six-year term. Moody may have to win a competitive primary to keep her seat, but so far no established Republican challengers have filed to run against her.
On the Democratic side, Trump whistleblower Alexander Vindman has floated a run for Senate. Vindman, whose actions set Trump's first impeachment in motion, told CBS in May that he was discussing it with his friends and advisors. But Vindman Group Chief of Staff Adam Stein wrote in an email to the Miami Herald that 'any consideration on that front is very preliminary.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
Sotomayor voices ‘sadness' in reading gender-affirming care dissent
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court's most senior liberal justice, read her dissent aloud from the bench on Wednesday to stress her forceful disagreement with the court effectively greenlighting gender-affirming care bans across the country. The justices reserve reading their dissents aloud for only a handful of cases, and Sotomayor was the first this term to do so. She spoke for nearly 15 minutes. 'The majority subjects a law that plainly discriminates on the basis of sex to mere rational-basis review,' Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent,' Sotomayor wrote. The Supreme Court's six conservative justices on Wednesday all voted to uphold Tennessee's ban on puberty blockers and hormone treatments for transgender minors, rejecting the Biden administration's challenge that it amounted to unconstitutional sex discrimination. The decision stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country, which have also come under legal challenges. The court's three Democratic-appointed justices all said the law's sex-based lines compelled a more exacting standard, known as heightened scrutiny, to determine whether the statute can survive. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, applied a more lenient test that only asks whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. 'That marks the first time in 50 years that this Court has applied such deferential review, normally employed to assess run-of-the-mill economic regulations, to legislation that explicitly differentiates on the basis of sex,' Sotomayor wrote. 'As a result, the Court never even asks whether Tennessee's sex-based classification imposes the sort of invidious discrimination that The Equal Protection Clause prohibits.' The three justices also agreed the law must face the heightened test because it discriminates against transgender people. Sotomayor wrote that transgender Americans lack the political power to vindicate their interests before the legislatures passing the care bans. 'In refusing to say as much, the Court today renders transgender Americans doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination,' Sotomayor wrote. But while Sotomayor and Jackson went on to question whether Tennessee's law would survive under their standard, Kagan didn't join that part of the dissent. She said she would've left it for the lower courts to figure out. 'The record evidence here is extensive, complex, and disputed, and the Court of Appeals (because it applied only rational-basis review) never addressed the relevant issues,' Kagan wrote.
The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
These are the Democrats who've been arrested, detained or charged under Trump
A handful of Democrats have either been arrested, detained or charged under the Trump administration due to the White House's crackdown on illegal immigration. Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin has condemned their treatment, arguing lawmakers are being assaulted without reason. 'Elected officials are being arrested for doing their jobs,' Martin wrote in a Wednesday statement on X. 'Once again, the Trump administration is silencing people who disagree with them in broad daylight.' Here are Democrats who have been recently apprehended by law enforcement: Several Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents handcuffed New York City Comptroller Brad Lander (D), a candidate for mayor, on Wednesday outside an immigration court for impeding law enforcement officers. Lander was escorting a defendant at immigration court while urging ICE agents to present a judicial warrant issued for the individual's arrest. 'I'm not obstructing. I'm standing here in this hallway asking for a judicial warrant,' Lander said while being handcuffed, as recorded in a video posted on X by his wife. 'You don't have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens,' Lander told them. He was swiftly rushed on to the elevator with law enforcement. but New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said at a follow-up news conference he was later released and that all charges were dropped. However, Democrats rushed to condemn consecutive arrests of their party members in recent months. 'The aggressive targeting of Democratic elected officials by the Trump administration will invariably result in law-abiding public servants being marked for death by violent extremists. The Trump administration and their squad of masked agents must change course before it is too late,' House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) wrote in a statement on X. 'This is America. The request for a judicial warrant and observance of law enforcement activity are not crimes. There is zero basis for a federal investigation and any such plans should be dropped forthwith,' he added. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) was forcibly removed from a June 12 press conference by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He attended the presser with federal escorts and attempted to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem a question. 'I'm Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,' Padilla said before being swarmed by agents and forced outside the room. Trump administration officials allege that he lunged at Noem and, despite verbally identifying himself as a lawmaker, agents were unaware of his official capacity without the presence of a physical pin typically worn by members of Congress. 'Mr. Padilla was told repeatedly to back away and did not comply with officers' repeated commands. @SecretService thought he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately. Secretary Noem met with Senator Padilla after and held a 15 minute meeting,' DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social platform X. Padilla later spoke out about the incident, declaring it as a threat to constitutional rights and the rule of law. 'I will say this: If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, I can only imagine what they're doing to farmworkers to cooks to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community and throughout California and throughout the country,' he said. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) was federally charged for allegedly interfering with ICE agents during a visit to the Delaney Hall detention center for congressional oversight. McIver was conducting oversight at the facility alongside Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.) and Rob Menendez (D-N.J.), who all say McIver didn't obstruct or impede law enforcement operations amid immigration protests outside the building. Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba announced on June 10 a three-count grand jury indictment of McIver over the incident. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) filed a House resolution to expel the lawmaker. 'The facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job and will expose these proceedings for what they are: a brazen attempt at political intimidation. This indictment is no more justified than the original charges, and is an effort by Trump's administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused and scare me out of doing the work I was elected to do,' McIver said in a statement on the matter. Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was indicted by a federal grand jury in early May for 'knowingly' concealing a migrant. Authorities allege that Dugan directed the migrant and his counsel to leave the courtroom through a 'non-public' jury door to avoid immigration authorities after telling ICE U.S. they needed a warrant to search the premises. 'As she said after her unnecessary arrest, Judge Dugan asserts her innocence and looks forward to being vindicated in court,' Craig Mastantuono, the attorney representing the judge, said in a previous statement to NBC News. Following her April arrest, Dugan was temporarily suspended by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which said 'it is in the public interest that she be temporarily relieved of her official duties.' Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) was briefly arrested following his visit to the Delaney Hall detention center in New Jersey. Habba originally threatened to press charges but withdrew the statement after further review of the incident. 'I was cuffed, fingerprinted, took pictures of, twice — once there and once in court — for a class C misdemeanor, which you send summons to people for. You don't lock them up and take their fingerprints,' Baraka told MSNBC. 'They said the charges are too minor to have a preliminary hearing,' he added. 'So if it's too minor to have a preliminary hearing, why are you fingerprinting me and taking pictures of me and interrogating me in a room? And why are you doing it twice?' Baraka has filed a lawsuit against Habba in her personal capacity regarding his treatment, false arrest, malicious prosecution and defamation in addition to accusing the interim U.S. Attorney of acting as a 'political operative, outside of any function intimately related to the judicial process.' Ricky Patel, the Homeland Security Investigations agent in charge of Newark, is also named in the suit. Rep. Jerry Nadler's (D-N.Y.) staffer was briefly detained in May after DHS agents entered the congressman's Manhattan office searching for 'protesters.' One agent accused Nadler aides of 'harboring rioters.' 'They barged in. And in barging in one of the offices, a very big, heavyset fellow pushed my aide — a very petite young woman — and they then said that she pushed back and they shackled her and took her downstairs,' Nadler told CNN. 'And she was obviously traumatized,' he added. Her detainment was again condemned by Jeffries, who said the effort was a part of a larger objective being enforced by the Trump administration. 'The administration is clearly trying to intimidate Democrats, in the same way that they're trying to intimidate the country,' Jeffries said Sunday in an interview with CNN. 'This whole 'shock and awe' strategy — this, 'flood the zone with outrageous behavior' that they've tried to unleash on the American people during the first few months of the Trump administration — is all designed to create the appearance of inevitability.'
Fox News
14 minutes ago
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: Trump's base trusts him to play strong hand in Iran
Of all the ways to try to influence President Donald Trump, the absolute worst is to threaten him. And yet, there is a segment of MAGA world podcasters and influencers insisting that if the commander-in-chief takes direct action against Iran, it will divide and crush Trump's base. Don't count on it. The argument from podcast land is that Trump ran on a promise of no new wars and that any direct American action against Iran would betray that promise and plunge America into another forever war in the Middle East. Let's slow down a bit. In his first term, Trump killed Quasim Soliemani, the top Iranian general, to howls from the left, and some of these same right-wing podcasters, that it would start World War III. It didn't. They were wrong, Trump was right. Here we are again, the president faced with a choice. He can use U.S. bunker bombs to deal the lethal blow to Iran's nuclear program, or he can take the Joe Biden route, and sheepishly back off his demand for unconditional surrender, and let Iran continue its march to nukes. Depending on the polling, about 80% of Republicans think that a nuclear Iran poses a critical threat to the United States. And while voters are more split on direct U.S. action, Trump is laser-focused on stopping Tehran's bomb. Trump excels at solving problems everyone else says are impossible. Just look at the southern border, sealed tight as a Ziploc bag, even though everyone swore only Congress could do that. Likewise, in Iran, Trump doesn't want to hear a rehashing of the 8 million reasons why nobody can stop their nuclear program. He wants to hear how to stop it, and if those urging restraint can't tell him how, he's going to listen to those who can. This goes back to the farcical threat that Trump is going to lose his base if he bombs Iran, that the guy in an Ohio diner is going to side with the podcasters over the president he voted for. How did that work out for Elon Musk? The analogy is an apt one, because Musk's threats and criticisms over the Big Beautiful Bill potentially raising the debt had real resonance among GOP voters, and yet, they chose Trump over a chastened richest man in the world. They support Trump's overarching economic goals more than they dislike the debt. Same thing in Iran. Is there skepticism about using direct American military might? Of course. This ain't a pickup game of shirts and skins. But do they trust Trump overall to stop Iran from getting nukes? Absolutely. Talk of regime change and threats to kill Iran's supreme leader understandably make Americans jittery 25 years after the launch of the disastrous war in Iraq, but Trump isn't talking about invading with boots on the ground, and his base knows this. What the podcasters don't seem to understand is that the only way to influence Trump is to influence his voters. He doesn't care how many followers an influencer has on social media, half of which could be bots from foreign information operations, anyway. Actually, one has to wonder if our geo-political foes, whose bot farms seek to manipulate social media platforms in America and sow discord, are disappointed by their return on investment. On X, it seems like to bomb or not to bomb is a divide ripping our country apart. In real life, it simply isn't. The final thing that Trump understands and that his base trusts, is that the United States was losing the international status quo under his predecessors, on global trade, on the border, on China policy, and yes, in the Middle East. In all of these cases, he is determined to reverse that trend. There is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about arguing that direct U.S. action against Iran would be a mistake, and Trump no doubt welcomes lively debate. But as Vice President JD Vance, no chickenhawk, pointed out Tuesday, this is Trump's decision to make. Trump promised that Iran would never obtain a nuke, and he has a habit of keeping his campaign promises, even when taking slings and arrows from noisy voices on his own side. There isn't a podcast in the world that can keep Trump from fulfilling this promise as he sees fit, and his base, the real power behind the administration, expects nothing less.
