Rep. Casey Snider to serve as new Utah House majority leader
In the special closed-caucus election late Tuesday, Rep. Casey Snider, R-Paradise, was elected to be the House majority leader. He previously served as the majority assistant whip.
'I am honored to take on this role and grateful for the opportunity to serve,' Snider said, according to a release from the caucus.
'Our leadership team is committed to serving the members of our caucus and the people of Utah with integrity and foresight as we continue to advance meaningful policy for the benefit of every Utahn.'
Rep. Candice Pierucci, R-Herriman, will be the new House majority whip, and the new House majority assistant whip is Rep. Bridger Bolinder, R-Grantsville.
'I am thankful for the trust our Majority Caucus has placed in me,' Pierucci said. 'Our leadership team is energized and ready to represent our caucus as we work to make a lasting impact for families and communities across our state.'
The three representatives will serve in these leadership positions for the rest of the 2025-2026 term.
'It's an honor to earn the trust of my colleagues,' Bolinder said. 'I'm eager to get to work, to listen, and to help ensure every voice in our caucus, and every Utahn, is represented.'
Moss, who was the majority leader, resigned from the Legislature after he was appointed to serve as executive director of the Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity.
'I am excited to work alongside this new leadership team as we represent our caucus and work on behalf of all Utahns,' said Speaker Mike Schultz, R-Hooper. 'Congratulations to Rep. Snider, Rep. Pierucci, and Rep. Bolinder. This leadership team stands ready to work on behalf of all Utahns.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abbott: Texas can ‘eliminate' 10 Democratic districts in response to California
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) warned that Texas could get rid of as many as 10 Democratic districts if California moved ahead with its plan to redraw its House map and neutralize the expected GOP gains in the Lone Star State. 'Listen, all those big blue states, they've already gerrymandered,' Abbott told CNN's Jake Tapper on Monday, when asked if he was concerned about a redistricting arms race as Texas moves forward to create new congressional lines. 'Look at the map of Illinois. Look at the map of California, New York and Massachusetts, and so many other blue states they gerrymandered a long time ago. They got nothing left with regard to what they can do,' Abbott said. 'And know this: If California tries to gerrymander, find more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state.' Abbott's remarks underscore how Republicans plan to be as aggressive as possible in trying to knock off as many Democrats as they can. Right now, the state has 25 House Republicans and 12 Democrats, in addition to one vacancy waiting to be filled after the late Rep. Sylvester Turner (D-Texas) died in March. So far, the Texas GOP's new map is looking to make five pickup opportunities for the party next year. But Texas Republicans' efforts to pass new congressional lines are stalled as Democrats have fled the state to deny the GOP a quorum, or the minimum number of lawmakers needed present to conduct business. As the redistricting war heats up, blue states have signaled they're moving ahead with their own redistricting plans. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) announced last week that he would be calling for a special session in November as Democrats in the Golden State look to pass a new House map that looks to offset the gains Republicans are hoping to make in Texas with their new map. New York and Illinois have also signaled they're exploring their options over how to redraw their maps in response to Texas. Meanwhile, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has signaled readiness to revisit his state's maps while Missouri and Indiana could also revisit their congressional maps.
American Press
2 hours ago
- American Press
UPDATE: D.C. mayor holds press conference after Trump announces police takeover
Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is holding a press conference following President Donald Trump's announcement Monday that he's taking over Washington's police department and activating 800 members of the National Guard in the hopes of reducing crime, even as city officials stressed crime is already falling in the nation's capital. Trump has promised new steps to tackle homelessness and crime in Washington, prompting the city's mayor to voice concerns about the potential use of the National Guard to patrol the streets. Here's the latest: Bowser works to avoid fight with Trump, but can't disguise some anger D.C. Mayor Bowser fielded multiple questions Monday designed to get her to say something harsh about President Donald Trump. But the 3rd term mayor didn't take the bait, for the most part — calmly laying out the city's case that crime has been dropping steadily and Trump's perceived state of emergency simply doesn't match the numbers. She repeatedly acknowledged that Trump has 'broad authority' under the law and would be difficult to challenge. The composure slipped a bit toward the end, when she dropped a reference to Trump's 'so-called emergency.' Trump could extend takeover of DC police for 30 days, then he needs congressional approval President Donald Trump is invoking Section 740 of the DC Home Rule Act to take over control of the city's police department, saying in a letter to a congressional committee that the police force is needed for federal purposes. The Republican president says in the letter sent to the House Oversight Committee Monday that he is taking the action for the purpose of 'maintaining law and order in the nation's seat of government; protecting federal buildings, national monuments, and other federal property; and ensuring conditions necessary for the orderly functioning of the federal government.' By invoking the law, Trump is able to take over the police for more than 48 hours, but if he wants to continue for more than 30 days, both the House and Senate would need to give him a vote of approval.
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Harvard and White House Move Toward Potential Landmark Settlement
Harvard University and the Trump administration are nearing a potentially landmark legal settlement that would see Harvard agree to spend $500 million in exchange for the restoration of billions of dollars in federal research funding, according to four people familiar with the deliberations. Negotiators for the White House and the university have made significant progress in their closed-door discussions over the past week, developing a framework for a settlement to end their monthslong battle. The talks could still collapse, as President Trump and senior Harvard officials need to sign off on the terms of the deal. The sides are still going back and forth over important wording in for a potential agreement. But under the framework coming together, Harvard would agree to spend $500 million on vocational and educational programs, three of the people said. That figure, currently penciled in to be paid out over years, would meet a demand from President Trump that Harvard spend more than double what Columbia University agreed last month to pay. It would also satisfy Harvard's wish that it not pay the government directly, as Columbia is doing. Harvard would also make commitments to continue its efforts to combat antisemitism on campus, two of the people said. In return, Harvard — one of the largest recipients in higher education of federal research money — would see its research funding restored and avoid the appointment of a monitor, a condition the school has demanded as a way to preserve its academic independence, according to two of the people. The Trump administration would also end its widening number of investigations into the university, including ones conducted by the Justice Department and another inquiry that the Commerce Department announced on Friday. The deal would also stop attempts by the Trump administration to block Harvard from enrolling thousands of international students, according to three of the people. The stakes for reaching a deal are high for both Harvard and the administration. A deal would allow Mr. Trump to claim that Harvard forked over $500 million amid pressure from him. For Harvard, the deal would allow the school to remain one of the most robust higher education institutions in the country. Harvard has insisted that any settlement must not jeopardize its academic freedom, and Mr. Trump has taken a keen interest in the details. The people with knowledge of the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. Harvard declined to comment. Harvard has spent the last four months at the forefront of the opposition to the Trump administration's pressure campaign against higher education. It is the only school that has sued after the administration targeted it with explicitly punitive funding cuts. A settlement between the White House and the nation's oldest and wealthiest university would reverberate throughout academia and could shape how other schools respond to Mr. Trump's tactics. Last week, the administration proposed that the University of California, Los Angeles, pay more than $1 billion to reach a settlement with the government. Some terms in an agreement with Harvard are expected to be similar to ones included in a deal Brown University struck with the White House in late July, such as a provision intended to guard academic independence. Brown's deal included language that barred the government from dictating curriculum or the content of academic speech. It also touched on several other issues central to the administration's attacks on higher education, including transgender athletes who play on women's teams and the treatment of Jewish students in the wake of the protests against the Gaza war. Brown will have to ensure locker rooms and bathrooms are reserved for female athletes, perform outreach to Jewish groups and hire an external group to conduct campus climate surveys, for example. Although Harvard officials welcomed many of the Brown deal's nonfinancial conditions, they were stunned that the university agreed to pay only $50 million over a decade as they were being pressed to cough up 10 times that sum. But with the beginning of the school year approaching, negotiators have accepted that they will have to pay $500 million to strike a deal, and instead focused on how payments would be structured. One potential sticking point could be the government's access to admissions data, especially numbers involving applicants' race. The administration was seeking a stipulation in the deal that would require Harvard to release detailed admissions data, including on race and gender as well as grade point averages and standardized test scores. That would be consistent with an executive action that Mr. Trump signed last week, forcing schools nationwide to give the government similarly detailed data. Brown and Columbia, as part of their deals, both agreed to supply the administration with that information, something conservatives have sought in an effort to prove that elite schools have disregarded a recent Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action. May Mailman, a White House adviser driving the negotiations with top universities, suggested in a recent interview that Harvard's inclination to provide data surrounding its consideration of race in admissions would be a factor in the government's willingness to sign off on a deal. It was not clear on Monday how any agreement between the government and Harvard would resolve that demand, which the university has viewed as overly invasive. It was also not clear when Mr. Trump would be briefed on the potential agreement. The White House and the university opened negotiations in June, each seeking an offramp from a clash that began with accusations of antisemitism and became a battle over academic independence and the specter of federal overreach. The dispute between Harvard and the White House erupted in the spring after the Trump administration inadvertently sent the university a list of demands that would reshape student and academic life, including surveys of the student body's political ideology, audits of the curriculum and a reduction in the influence of untenured faculty. The university quickly refused them, and the administration responded hours later by starting to freeze billions of dollars in research funding. Harvard, like other top schools, depends on that funding and has done so for decades. The university took the administration to court in April, arguing that assorted government demands threatened Harvard's constitutional rights. The school also asserted that the government had violated its own procedures when it hastily cut off research funding. A federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's efforts when she heard arguments in the lawsuit in July. Both the administration and Harvard have asked the judge to rule in their favor without a trial, but she has not yet issued a ruling. Harvard officials have been combative, depicting their fight against the Trump administration as a vital crusade. But behind closed doors, they have been wary of a sustained war with the White House. Even if Harvard prevailed in court, some inside the university have argued, the administration could continue to pelt the school with investigations and subpoenas while, over time, bleeding it of research funding through more standard protocols. To them, a settlement was an unappealing but essential outcome. Although Harvard has an endowment valued at roughly $53 billion, much of it is restricted, meaning that university officials are limited in how they may use it. And the school has shown signs of financial strain as federal research funding has evaporated. University leaders warned last month that the blitz of actions from Washington, including an increase in the excise tax on endowments, could blow a nearly $1 billion annual hole in Harvard's budget. Still, proponents of a possible deal have faced fierce resistance on Harvard's campus in Cambridge, Mass. There, faculty members and students have warned that an agreement with the White House would amount to capitulation and that Mr. Trump could not be trusted to honor any arrangement over the long term. Given those concerns, Harvard's negotiators have pressed the administration in recent weeks, insisting that any resolution of their fight be structured as a legal settlement. A legal settlement would make it more difficult for the administration and Mr. Trump to change the terms after the fact. Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory, said in an interview last month that the university should ensure there is a clear process for resolving disputes. 'I would spell out what happens if a party feels the agreement is not being honored,' Dr. Hart said. Referring to the government, he added, 'If they have so many things up their sleeve, they're going to have those things up their sleeve once you've agreed on a deal.'
