Governor Bill Lee addresses plans in State of the State
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) — In his 'State of the State' address Monday, governor Bill Lee pledged the state would be a beacon of opportunity for Tennesseans.
The speech discussed everything from crime prevention grants, investment in public school facilities and innovation. Lee said this is the time the state needs to rethink, imagine and embrace new ideas. Lee emphasized 2025 is the year to think boldly.
Bipartisan bill would make it easier for wrongfully convicted to present new evidence in court
'If Tennessee's led the nation as a beacon of opportunity and security and freedom, then why can't we be the nation's capitol of innovation, too?' Lee said.
Lee said in order to grow Tennessee, there has to be a balance between growth and protecting natural resources. As such, Lee said he supported a bill that would establish a farmland preservation fund in the state.
'We can't solve the problems of today with conventional thinking,' Lee added.
News 2 previously reported on Tennessee's childcare crisis, with one report finding the state's childcare workers are among the lowest paid in the U.S. Additionally, counties like Davidson County struggle to provide adequate, affordable childcare for all families who need it. Lee supported the addition of daycares across the state.
Lee announced a $3 million investment into the Tennessee Emergency Management Agency's (TEMA's) regional response vehicles, which assist in disaster relief. He also proposed the creation of a $60 million Starter Home Revolving Loan Fund, which would provide 0%-interest construction loans for the building of new, single-family homes.
⏩
Lee also proposed a $1 billion transportation grant for projects to the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), but Tennessee Democrats said that's not enough to fill the debt gap the state already has.
'Seven years into this governor's administration, he continues to say the same old tired agenda items when he's up there trying to talk about being innovative,' Rep. John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville) said. 'This fiscal recklessness is not benefiting Tennesseans.'
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' [Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity] The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes—We could have guessed you're a man, Steve—while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews have found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. [Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there] Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. [Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research] One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect. Under Biden, the left went too far into bad and unpopular gender-identity policies. Under Trump, the same is true of the right. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Elon Musk, American patriot
Before Elon Musk aligned himself with President Trump, there were legitimate reasons to both admire and criticize him. In 1999, after the sale of Zip2 to Compaq, Musk was worth $22 million — enough to live comfortably for the rest of his life. But instead of coasting, he threw himself into such high-risk, high-reward ventures as PayPal, Tesla and SpaceX. Today, he is arguably the most successful entrepreneur of his generation. Musk has captivated millions as a rare breed of entrepreneur: equal parts visionary, gambler and engineer. He earned admiration for his boldness: when both Tesla and SpaceX teetered on the brink of collapse, he didn't retreat or diversify — he doubled down, risking nearly his entire fortune to keep them alive. Others were drawn to his sweeping ambitions: to make humanity a multiplanetary species, to accelerate the transition to sustainable energy, and to explore the frontier of human-AI integration. And many simply respected his unfiltered voice — sometimes too blunt, but refreshingly free from the scripted gloss of a corporate PR machine. Yet Musk has always been polarizing. Critics cite his combative leadership style, labor disputes, missed deadlines and frequent social media controversies. Environmentalists point to his personal carbon footprint despite his clean-energy advocacy. His record-breaking Tesla pay package fueled perceptions of greed, and his turbulent personal life has long fascinated the tabloid press. Still, Musk is immensely wealthy, widely admired and his companies are thriving. He has no compelling reason to wade into government matters — especially not under an administration that deeply divides public opinion, and especially not in a role where his message would be unpopular. And yet he did. While Musk holds no formal public office, he has taken up an unofficial but unmistakable role: becoming the loudest and most influential voice calling for a leaner, more accountable government. He has made it his mission to highlight the dangers of unchecked federal spending, bureaucratic inefficiency and fiscal denialism. He knew that aligning himself with Trump — a political lightning rod — would alienate many of his customers, investors and employees. 'Republicans buy sneakers too,' Michael Jordan once said. Musk knew Democrats buy Teslas, and in disproportionate numbers. He did it anyway. Why? Because he understands math, and sees clearly that the massive gap between what the government takes in and what it spends isn't just irresponsible — it's a ticking time bomb. Left unaddressed, this trajectory leads not only to instability but to inevitable economic harm for the 99.999 percent of Americans who aren't billionaires. Ballooning deficits are not just abstract numbers. They are a looming threat to future prosperity. Persistent overspending drives up interest rates, crowds out private investment, limits the government's crisis-response capacity, and places an unfair burden on the next generation. Yet few in Washington are willing to confront this reality. Politicians love to announce new programs and subsidies. Cutting spending? That's political suicide. Musk has dared to say what most elected officials won't. In interviews, social media posts and public appearances, he's called for reining in wasteful agencies, reforming broken systems and reducing federal bloat. His prescriptions may be controversial, but they are not unserious. He has floated the privatization of Amtrak and the USPS, pushed for deregulation in innovation-heavy sectors, and questioned the size and scope of U.S. foreign aid. These aren't fringe ideas — they're overdue conversations. Naturally, the backlash has been swift. Critics accuse him of oversimplifying complex problems or threatening essential services. Musk himself has admitted he won't have all the answers. But someone had to start the painful, necessary process of fiscal realism — and few others with his platform have dared. Elon Musk didn't need to pick this fight. He had everything to lose and little to gain. But he stepped into the fray because he saw a country drifting toward economic peril, and he believed he could help shift the trajectory. Agree or disagree with his methods, that choice reflects not vanity or ambition, but patriotism. What's even more remarkable than Musk's initial alliance with Trump is how swiftly and forcefully he has turned against him. The same man he once saw as a partner in fiscal restraint is now advancing a tax-and-spending package Musk views as reckless and dangerous. By attacking what Trump calls his 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' Musk hasn't just broken with a former ally, he's jumped into an even bigger, riskier battle. And he's doing it on principle. While conventional CEOs stay quiet to protect their brand, Musk is torching bridges because he believes the country's long-term solvency is at stake. In an era when patriotism is often mistaken for partisanship, Musk offers a rare counterexample: someone willing to challenge both political parties when they abandon fiscal responsibility. His message may be polarizing, but his motive is clear: he's putting country before comfort, math before politics, and future generations before short-term applause. That's not recklessness. That's leadership. That's Elon Musk, American patriot. Peter Ciano is chief financial officer and senior vice president of corporate development at a pharmaceutical company. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Newsweek
30 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Video of Man Calling US a Dictatorship Viewed Over 25 Million Times
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Footage of a man describing the U.S. as a dictatorship has gone viral and been viewed millions of times. "It is a dictatorship, and there is not much we can do about it right now," creator @longlivejudah says in the TikTok video shared to his page. The footage, which lasts for nearly 7 minutes, has amassed over 26.1 million views online, and sees the creator share criticisms and concerns about the state of American politics, with the text overlay "The USA is a dictatorship." Newsweek has reached out to longlivejudah via email for comment. Why It Matters The term "dictatorship," is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "Autocratic rule, control, or leadership," and "A form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique," and "a government organization or group in which absolute power is concentrated." President Donald Trump gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, 2025. President Donald Trump gestures while speaking in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 2, Donald Trump has been described as a dictator on multiple occasions. In April, a survey conducted by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) found that 52 percent of Americans agreed that Trump is a "dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys American democracy." There was a split down party lines in terms of agreement with this statement though, with 87 percent of Democrats agreeing, compared with 56 percent of independents, and 17 percent of Republicans. What To Know The video from @longlivejudah was shared last week and shows him talking to camera about the current state of politics for 6 minutes and 51 seconds. He makes a number of arguments and statements throughout the video, referencing Elon Musk, ICE deportations and book bans, among other things. "All of these alarm bells are ringing, federal court judge blocks this but all this s*** is happening, why?" he asks in the video, in what appears to be a reference to legal setbacks faced by the president on a number of matters, after judges have moved to block executive orders from the administration. "In what type of society does that happen? A dictatorship," he adds. Later in the video, he says: "They're trying to float bills that will ban books." Book bans have been on the rise in recent years, with conservative states more likely to restrict access to some books in schools. More than 3,000 books have been banned across various states, with Florida leading the charge, primarily brought on by debates over race, gender identity, and LGBTQ+ rights. PEN America recorded 3,362 instances of books being banned in the 2022-23 academic year, an increase of 33 percent from the previous year. After this, @longlivejudah references deportations, stating: "They said we're going after the worst of the worst criminals, we're gonna get 'em all out of here. And then, they revoke people with legal status. And then they have ICE agents waiting at courthouses for people going through the legal process." Trump has pledged to carry out the biggest mass deportations in U.S. history, and numerous ICE raids have been conducted. Some of these have swept up individuals who held proper documentation. Though the raids follow legal directives, protests and opposition to these raids has been prominent. In Los Angeles, protests about the deportations has led to clashes with law enforcement, highlighting deepening rifts between sanctuary jurisdictions and federal immigration policy. What People Are Saying @longlivejudah, speaking in the viral TikTok video: "It's a dictatorship. It's not pre, it's not upcoming, it's here." TikTok user @🇺🇸kindsonly314🇺🇸 in a response liked over 334,000 times said: "PEOPLE ARE NOT NEARLY FRIGHTENED ENOUGH." TikTok user @Angel said: "Keep talking! Never silence yourself for Trump!!" What's Next Toward the end of the video, @longlivejudah states: "It genuinely does not matter if you're on the right, left, Republican, Democrat, it just should be a collective, universal, unanimous, 'What the f*** is this?'"
