logo
Dr. Annie Andrews Is Running To Defeat Lindsey Graham—and Everyone Is Paying Attention

Dr. Annie Andrews Is Running To Defeat Lindsey Graham—and Everyone Is Paying Attention

Yahoo2 days ago

REBEKAH HULLIHEN
Last week, Dr. Annie Andrews officially launched her Democratic Senate campaign against Republican Lindsey Graham, and she hasn't stopped since.
'I'm feeling a combination of completely exhilarated, and overwhelmed and exhausted,' the mom of three and pediatrician says with a laugh.
While Andrews had braced herself for stepping into what is sure to be a very contentious race in 2026, she hadn't quite anticipated that her launch video would go viral immediately. The video, which features Andrews in her doctor's coat calling out the harmful effects of the Trump administration's policies on children, has racked up more than half a million views across social media. Many women were cheering her on for her no-nonsense approach, particularly the moment where she calls Graham 'full of shit.'
Andrews is not a career politician. Less than a decade ago, she had never even considered running for office. As a self-described introvert who had never stepped into the spotlight in this way before, Andrews made the jump into activism through joining her local chapter of Moms Demand Action, the grassroots movement against gun violence started and run by mothers. She slowly grew her confidence and voice, and when the opportunity presented itself to run against Republican Rep. Nancy Mace in 2022, she was able to say, 'why not me?'
The fact that Andrews has run for Congress and now has set her eye on the Senate, she says, is proof that it's possible for women like herself to seize their power.
'There are so many women out there who are scared and frustrated and overwhelmed by the state of the world, but they don't understand their agency,' she says. 'They don't know how to get off the sidelines and get involved. I like to talk about the fact that I was an uninvolved, regular working mom, and then I took this huge leap into politics in a very big dramatic way. When people learn about my story, I hope they understand that they can find their on-ramp, they can find their way into action.'
Glamour chatted with Andrews about how she plans to make a change in her state and how she went from advocate to candidate.
: Your campaign launch video went viral, getting more than half a million views on Instagram as of this writing and being shared all over social media. A week later, how are you feeling?
Dr. Annie Andrews: It's been really overwhelming and incredibly encouraging because it tells me that my instinct to do this was the right instinct. That night, I started reading through some of the comments on Instagram and I was honestly brought to tears. I was so overwhelmed with the support that I was getting from people all across the country and honestly some folks in other countries as well.
I think what people were responding to was that the video was authentically me. I co-wrote it with our media team. I purposefully didn't want to sound like every other politician because I'm not a career politician. I wanted it to be me, how I really feel, how overwhelmed and frustrated I am, but that I still have this fight in me still. And that it's okay to not take ourselves so seriously. It's okay to make jokes. It's okay to show my real life of carpooling and all that stuff. I think we struck a nerve with people who are still feeling lost after 2024 and looking for a direction, looking for leaders to step up, people they can believe in. I'm just so overwhelmed and grateful for the response that our campaign received.
How did you decide to get into politics?
It was really a series of events. One was the presidential election of 2016. My youngest daughter, now eight, was born six days before Donald Trump was elected. I remember vividly putting my older daughter to bed that night and telling her, when you wake up tomorrow, we're going to have our first woman president…As the election returns came in that night, I remember sitting in my bed in between nursing sessions, looking at my baby girl's face and just feeling so overwhelmed in the worst way and afraid and shocked about the world that I had brought these three beautiful children into. Something inside of me changed that night…things started to build after that.
The second thing that pushed me into action was February 14th, 2018, which was the day of the tragic school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. I didn't know anyone who was in the building that day. I was not directly impacted by that shooting. But it was the first mass school shooting that I experienced as a mother of a school age child…When I dropped her off in the days after that school shooting at her public school in South Carolina, watching her march into that school building, noticing the school resource officer that was patrolling the drop off line, I remember just feeling incredibly vulnerable. Is my baby going to be safe in that school?
After that day, you called your Republican Sen. Tim Scott's office, which was dismissive, and then Sen. Graham's, which didn't pick up. What did you do next?
I went online on Facebook, found the local chapter of Moms Demand Action, and signed up to go to their next meeting. One day after working at the hospital, I forced myself to walk into that meeting. I am an introvert. I'm not a joiner. I don't like walking into rooms full of people. I don't know. But I forced myself to do that. And in doing that, it really changed the entire trajectory of my personal and professional life because by joining Mom's Demand Action, I learned so much about the power of my voice as both a mom and a pediatrician. I learned that I had agency and that if I got to work, I could affect change. And everything really just snowballed from there.
How did working on advocacy with Moms Demand lead to your decision to run for Congress in 2022?
I got to know some state level lawmakers. I got myself in these rooms where decisions were being made, and it became abundantly clear that I was very much smart enough to be in those rooms and I was fully capable of taking my advocacy to the next level. It wasn't on a whim, but my decision to run for Congress in the 2022 election cycle was not something I spent weeks and weeks and weeks pouring over, like is this the right time? What is the path to victory? I felt so driven to take that next step, to take a big step and elevate my voice at that level. And I saw an opportunity to run against a congresswoman who has no business representing our district who had taken bad vote after bad vote in ways that negatively impacted South Carolina's children. Honestly, I felt called to do it. Again, I didn't have an extensive pro/con list. Certainly I talked to my family about this choice that I was making, but I let my passion drive me.
I think that's something else that is so important because so many of our current leaders in this country don't come across as authentic because they're not driven by some true inherent passion. It's more of a sort of career path calculation for them. So when you find yourself feeling passionately driven to do something, even if it seems sort of crazy on paper, we just have to be brave enough to step into those spaces and just do it because we need more leaders who are driven by their true passion and inherent desire to build better communities.
What did you learn from that first race?
I think most importantly that it wasn't as scary as I thought it would be, that I am fully capable of running for federal office. That running just to win isn't the only reason to run. There's a million reasons for women to step up and run for office, whether it's city council, school board, all the way up to the US Senate, and we can't always make that calculation based on our chances of winning.
There are so many important reasons to just step up and run because voters deserve a choice. Voters want to see someone fighting for them. Voters want someone they can relate to a regular person, a mom from their community who steps up and takes their fight to the next level. That is what inspires people…I have absolutely zero regret about running, even though it was disruptive to my personal and professional life, even though I didn't win. I know I gave women in South Carolina something to feel hopeful about in a season when Roe was overturned. I know I shined a big, bright spotlight on the issue of gun violence and how it impacts my state in a way that most other candidates would not have done so boldly and all of that matters, and I'm a stronger person because I decided to run for Congress.
Speaking of Roe, South Carolina now has a . How do you plan to approach if elected?
Doing this work in a state like South Carolina is harder than it is in so many other states in this country because it is such an uphill battle. We currently have a Republican supermajority in our statehouse. But to me, that makes the fight more important. I have said many times, there's no one scrappier than a child health advocate, a gun violence prevention advocate, or an abortion rights advocate in a red state. You have to be so scrappy. You have to be full of grit and grace and understand that you're not going to win most of the fights you show up for, but that the actions still matter. And when you lose, you learn something and then you take that to the next fight.
When I decided to run for Congress, I didn't necessarily anticipate that Roe would fall during that campaign, but there I found myself as a woman, physician mom, on the ballot for this federal seat at this moment when the women in South Carolina really needed someone to look to and speak for them. I found that I was able to do that, and I think it was so incredibly important.
Let's talk about your run for Senate. You've been in a political campaign before, but running against Lindsey Graham, who is incredibly well-known nationally and gives this race a lot more attention. How'd you decide to do it?
It is definitely another level, and it's not at all what I thought I would be doing. Even if you had asked me four months ago, would I run against Lindsey, I would've said, 'no, I'm not doing that.' But since the day Trump was inaugurated, every single day has continued to make me feel compelled to find some bigger way to fight, in particular, the coordinated attack on our nation's healthcare system and the elevation of a grifter and conspiracy theorist in RFK Jr. to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It's too much.
As a physician, I cannot stay on the sidelines while I watch Republicans gleefully attack our nation's Medicaid program, which is the largest insurer of children in this country, talking about cutting the Medicare program, slashing NIH funds, putting a microphone in front of true conspiracy theorists in a way that has already gotten children in this country killed because of the anti-vaccine rhetoric. And I knew that this was a moment where a voice like mine is just so important. A physician who has run for office before can run for office at this level against what I would call a national villain in Senator Lindsey Graham.
We have a long way to go before the midterm elections in 2026, but I think a lot of people are itching to get involved. Where do they start?
Just find a way in. Find a way to get a little bit more involved because it is so easy to doom scroll and to feel overwhelmed and to let that hopelessness creep in. The antidote to that is to get involved. Whether it's volunteering for a local campaign, knocking doors for a school board candidate donating to a local campaign or a candidate being more vocal on social media.
I think people are sometimes very hesitant to share their political beliefs on social media, but the more vocal I get when I speak about the issues I'm so passionate about, when I help people understand the link between public policy and our kids' well being, people are enthusiastically supportive of that. So be more vocal. Have conversations in the carpool drop off line at your HOA meeting about the things you're worried about, the things you care about, and understand the agency of your voice. And together we truly can create the change that our children so desperately need and deserve.
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Originally Appeared on Glamour

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

Hamilton Spectator

time30 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website . 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back , saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals , and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade
South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

Hamilton Spectator

time30 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

South Dakota is on track to spend $2 billion on prisons in the next decade

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — Two years after approving a tough-on-crime sentencing law, South Dakota is scrambling to deal with the price tag for that legislation: Housing thousands of additional inmates could require up to $2 billion to build new prisons in the next decade. That's a lot of money for a state with one of the lowest populations in the U.S., but a consultant said it's needed to keep pace with an anticipated 34% surge of new inmates in the next decade as a result of South Dakota's tough criminal justice laws. And while officials are grumbling about the cost, they don't seem concerned with the laws that are driving the need even as national crime rates are dropping. 'Crime has been falling everywhere in the country, with historic drops in crime in the last year or two,' said Bob Libal, senior campaign strategist at the criminal justice nonprofit The Sentencing Project. 'It's a particularly unusual time to be investing $2 billion in prisons.' Some Democratic-led states have worked to close prisons and enact changes to lower inmate populations, but that's a tough sell in Republican-majority states such as South Dakota that believe in a tough-on-crime approach , even if that leads to more inmates. The South Dakota State Penitentiary For now, state lawmakers have set aside a $600 million fund to replace the overcrowded 144-year-old South Dakota State Penitentiary in Sioux Falls, making it one of the most expensive taxpayer-funded projects in South Dakota history. But South Dakota will likely need more prisons. Phoenix-based Arrington Watkins Architects, which the state hired as a consultant, has said South Dakota will need 3,300 additional beds in coming years, bringing the cost to $2 billion. Driving up costs is the need for facilities with different security levels to accommodate the inmate population. Concerns about South Dakota's prisons first arose four years ago, when the state was flush with COVID-19 relief funds. Lawmakers wanted to replace the penitentiary, but they couldn't agree on where to put the prison and how big it should be. A task force of state lawmakers assembled by Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden is expected to decide that in a plan for prison facilities this July. Many lawmakers have questioned the proposed cost, but few have called for criminal justice changes that would make such a large prison unnecessary. 'One thing I'm trying to do as the chairman of this task force is keep us very focused on our mission,' said Lieutenant Gov. Tony Venhuizen. 'There are people who want to talk about policies in the prisons or the administration or the criminal justice system more broadly, and that would be a much larger project than the fairly narrow scope that we have.' South Dakota's laws mean more people are in prison South Dakota's incarceration rate of 370 per 100,000 people is an outlier in the Upper Midwest. Neighbors Minnesota and North Dakota have rates of under 250 per 100,000 people, according to the Sentencing Project, a criminal justice advocacy nonprofit. Nearly half of South Dakota's projected inmate population growth can be attributed to a law approved in 2023 that requires some violent offenders to serve the full-length of their sentences before parole, according to a report by Arrington Watkins. When South Dakota inmates are paroled, about 40% are ordered to return to prison, the majority of those due to technical violations such as failing a drug test or missing a meeting with a parole officer. Those returning inmates made up nearly half of prison admissions in 2024. Sioux Falls criminal justice attorney Ryan Kolbeck blamed the high number of parolees returning in part on the lack of services in prison for people with drug addictions. 'People are being sent to the penitentiary but there's no programs there for them. There's no way it's going to help them become better people,' he said. 'Essentially we're going to put them out there and house them for a little bit, leave them on parole and expect them to do well.' South Dakota also has the second-greatest disparity of Native Americans in its prisons. While Native Americans make up one-tenth of South Dakota's population, they make up 35% of those in state prisons, according to Prison Policy Initiative, a nonprofit public policy group. Though legislators in the state capital, Pierre, have been talking about prison overcrowding for years, they're reluctant to dial back on tough-on-crime laws. For example, it took repeated efforts over six years before South Dakota reduced a controlled substance ingestion law to a misdemeanor from a felony for the first offense, aligning with all other states. 'It was a huge, Herculean task to get ingestion to be a misdemeanor,' Kolbeck said. Former penitentiary warden Darin Young said the state needs to upgrade its prisons, but he also thinks it should spend up to $300 million on addiction and mental illness treatment. 'Until we fix the reasons why people come to prison and address that issue, the numbers are not going to stop,' he said. Without policy changes, the new prisons are sure to fill up, criminal justice experts agreed. 'We might be good for a few years, now that we've got more capacity, but in a couple years it'll be full again,' Kolbeck said. 'Under our policies, you're going to reach capacity again soon.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

San Francisco Chronicle​

time37 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store