Former gubernatorial candidate Lundy announces shift to Republican Party
Special to the American Press
Hunter Lundy, former Louisiana gubernatorial candidate who ran as an independent in 2023, has officially announced his decision to join the Republican Party.
Lundy cited deep frustration with systemic corruption in both major political parties as the catalyst for his original independent run.
'I've always been conservative at heart — more conservative than many who wear the label,' Lundy said. 'But I've also been disgusted by the self-serving behavior I've witnessed from politicians across the spectrum. Too many claim to be putting America first, but their actions say it's 'me, then thee.' '
Lundy emphasized that joining the Republican Party is not a compromise of values but a strategic step toward real leadership and change. 'You have to be in the arena to make an impact. I'm not joining to blend in — I'm joining to challenge the status quo and help return our focus to the principles that truly put America and Americans first.' You Might Like
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
a few seconds ago
- WIRED
Data Brokers Face New Pressure for Hiding Opt-Out Pages From Google
Aug 13, 2025 2:00 PM After reporters found dozens of firms hiding privacy tools from search results, US senator Maggie Hassan insists the companies explain their practices—and pledge to improve access to privacy controls. US senator Maggie Hassan Photograph: Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images United States senator Maggie Hassan is pressing major data brokers after an investigation by The Markup/CalMatters and co-published by WIRED found at least 35 firms hid opt-out information from search results, making it harder for people to take control of their own data and safeguard their privacy online. Hassan, the top Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee, put five of the top firms—IQVIA Digital, Comscore, Telesign Corporation, 6sense Insights, and Findem—on notice Wednesday, demanding that each explain why code on their sites appears designed to frustrate deletion requests. None of the companies immediately responded to WIRED's request for comment. None previously responded to requests for comment during the investigation. California law requires brokers to provide a way to delete personal data; however, the investigation found dozens of registered brokers obscuring their opt-out tools by hiding them from Google and other search results. Consumer advocates called it a 'clever work-around' that undermines privacy rights and may qualify as an illegal dark pattern —a design decision that, according to California's privacy regulator, erodes consumer 'autonomy, decision making, or choice when asserting their privacy rights or consenting.' Hassan wants the firms to justify the placement of their opt‑out pages; acknowledge whether they used code to block search indexing and, if so, against how many users; pledge to remove any such code by September 3; and provide Congress with recent audit results and steps taken since the investigation, if any, to improve user access. 'Data brokers and other online providers have a responsibility to prevent the misuse of consumer data, and Americans deserve to understand if and how their personal information is being used,' Hassan wrote, citing other tactics variously employed by the firms—forcing users to scroll through multiple screens, dismiss needless pop-ups, and hunt for links in shrunken text. Behind the scenes, data brokers fuel a multibillion-dollar industry that trades in detailed personal information—often gathered without a person's knowledge or consent. They compile sprawling dossiers often packed with precise location histories, political leanings, and religious affiliations, then sell and resell those profiles, powering everything from hyper‑targeted ads to law‑enforcement surveillance. Even among the small share of Americans who know this surveillance ecosystem exists, fewer still grasp its true scale—or the ways it can shape, influence, or intrude on their lives. Earlier this year, the Trump administration quietly abandoned a proposed rule that would have sharply limited brokers' collection and sale of Americans' data by treating certain brokers as 'consumer reporting agencies' under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. At the same time, contract documents show the US intelligence community is preparing a centralized marketplace to streamline purchases of commercially available data—giving agencies shared access to large repositories of sensitive information without the court orders traditional surveillance typically requires. For survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking, the risks are acute. The National Network to End Domestic Violence's Safety Net Project warns that data brokers collect and sell vast amounts of information that can put survivors at risk, adding that opting out is already a burdensome, piecemeal process, forcing people to contact data brokers one by one, navigate hard-to-find forms, and re-submit deletion requests regularly as information is re-collected and re-listed. 'Instead of requiring people to navigate byzantine labyrinths to protect their personal information, these companies have a responsibility to make the tools that allow Americans to exercise their right to privacy easy to find and use,' Hassan tells WIRED. Sean Vitka, the executive director of Demand Progress, a nonprofit advocacy group critical of the industry, compares the surveillance ecosystem underlying commercial data markets to the knotted tails of a rat king—an inseparable tangle of entities sustained by unchecked data flows. 'The damage done by data brokers manifests in countless ways,' he says, 'but it's all enabled by the same predatory abuse of consumers' data.' 'And consistent with what we're seeing here, the industry cannot be trusted to mitigate its own harms.'
Politico
a few seconds ago
- Politico
NIAID acting director's view of ‘risky research'
THE LAB Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, says conducting so-called gain-of-function research shouldn't be dismissed. He discussed the controversial topic with his boss, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, on the latter's 'Director's Desk' podcast this week. What is it? Gain-of-function involves genetically altering pathogens to make them deadlier or more transmissible to better study them. But the research is a lightning rod issue for President Donald Trump and many Republicans in Congress who believe the Covid-19 pandemic was caused by a lab leak stemming from gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China, where the virus first emerged. That thinking puts them at odds with most of the scientific community who believe the virus most likely spilled over from animals into humans. In May, Trump signed an executive order banning all 'present and all future' federal funding for gain-of-function research in countries like China,which Trump said has insufficient research oversight. He also ordered the National Institutes of Health to review and possibly halt experiments the administration believes could endanger Americans' lives. In Congress, Sen. Rand Paul's (R-Ky.) Risky Research Review Act, which hasn't yet been taken up by the full Senate, would create a panel to review funding for gain-of-function research. Not black and white: During the podcast, Bhattacharya asked Taubenberger how the institute should approach gain-of-function research. 'It's not a simple black-and-white issue,' replied Taubenberger, a senior investigator in virology who's a leading expert on the 1918 flu pandemic and sequenced the virus that caused it. He's also co-leading the effort to develop a universal flu vaccine, backed with $500 million from the Trump administration. 'Very reasonable, very well-informed people could fall on opposite sides of the line, wherever you draw the line,' he said. 'Having a wide variety of people with different levels of expertise — not just logic expertise, but safety, national security, all sorts of other questions — having them weigh in on this is really important.' Regardless of where people fall, gain-of-function work shouldn't be shut down, he said. 'Work on nasty bugs that have the potential to kill people, for which we want to develop better therapeutics, diagnostics, prognostics, treatments and preventatives, needs to happen. That's important for global health. It's important for U.S. health,' Taubenberger said. But that research has to be done very carefully, with oversight and should be evaluated on a risk-benefit basis, he warned. While the pandemic turbocharged the issue, the controversy over gain-of-function predates Covid-19. The government paused funding for the research roughly a decade ago, Taubenberger pointed out, while they put stronger oversight mechanisms in place. 'I favor this kind of work being done, where possible, in U.S. government labs, by U.S. government scientists, monitored by U.S. government safety officials and regulators — with openness and transparency.' What didn't come up in conversation: The implementation of Trump's executive order hasn't gone as smoothly as the podcast discussion might have suggested. A July post on the NIH's X account implied that staff at the NIAID had acted inappropriately by omitting certain grants while compiling a list of potentially dangerous gain-of-function research experiments in compliance with the order. Contacted by POLITICO at the time, an official at HHS described the behavior as 'malicious compliance' and said the administration wouldn't tolerate it. NIH Principal Deputy Director Matt Memoli, according to The Washington Post, overrode staff by classifying tuberculosis studies NIH reviewers deemed safe as potentially dangerous gain-of-function research. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) described undergoing mental health treatment with the psychedelic drug ibogaine to the New York Times. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. TECH MAZE Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California has moved faster than other states to regulate artificial intelligence, including signing a bill last year barring health insurers in the state from using AI to deny claims. Now, a prominent AI company is urging the Democratic governor to consider a less rigid regulatory approach. In a letter to Newsom, obtained by our POLITICO colleagues at California Decoded, OpenAI suggests that California should consider AI companies that sign onto national and international AI agreements as compliant with state AI rules. The letter, dated Monday, from OpenAI's Chief Global Affairs Officer Chris Lehane, comes as Sacramento continues to debate key AI legislation, including Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener's bill SB 53, which would require large AI developers to publish safety and security protocols on their websites. Lehane recommended that 'California take the lead in harmonizing state-based AI regulation with emerging global standards' when it comes to the technology, dubbing it the California Approach. World view: OpenAI and other developers have already signed, or plan to sign, onto the EU's AI code of practice and have committed to conducting national security-related assessments of their programs. Lehane said that 'we encourage the state to consider frontier model developers compliant with its state requirements when they sign onto a parallel regulatory framework like the [European Union's] CoP or enter into a safety-oriented agreement with a relevant US federal government agency.' Newsom spokesperson Tara Gallegos said, 'We have received the letter. We don't typically comment on pending legislation.' Worth noting: The EU code is a voluntary way for companies to comply with the bloc's AI Act and is nonbinding in the U.S., which has no equivalent. Commitments to work with federal regulators don't necessarily cover all the areas, like deepfakes or chatbots, where Sacramento wants to regulate AI. But the letter offers Newsom something of an off-ramp, after he vetoed Wiener's broader AI safety bill last year that would have required programs to complete prerelease safety testing. Last week, Newsom spoke with cautious positivity about Wiener's effort this year, saying it was in the spirit of an expert report on AI regulation he commissioned. But SB 53 — which would establish whistleblower protections for AI workers and require companies to publish their own internal safety testing — still faces opposition from the tech industry. Lehane's letter puts an industry-sponsored solution on the governor's desk. He framed the simplified California Approach as a way to give 'democratic AI' an edge in the race with Chinese-built programs by removing unnecessary regulation, a key priority for the Trump administration. 'Imagine how hard it would have been during the Space Race had California's aerospace and technology industries been encumbered by regulations that impeded rapid innovation,' Lehane wrote.
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs are forcing Canada to address its money laundering problem
On July 31, the Trump administration announced that it would raise tariffs on Canadian imports to 35 percent, citing Canada's failure to meaningfully address the growing use of its territory by fentanyl traffickers. Canada's response has been fractured. Federal officials called for renewed dialogue, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford demanded retaliatory tariffs. If that sounds like an overreaction from the U.S., it's not. It's a reaction to a real and mounting problem: Cartels are using Canada — not in theory, but in practice. Fentanyl super-labs have been discovered in British Columbia. Precursor chemicals from China are entering Canadian ports before making their way into domestic markets or rerouted across the U.S. border. The numbers are still small compared to the southern border. Fentanyl seizures along the northern corridor comprise less than 1 percent of total U.S. interdictions, but they're rising. And while the raw volume was low, the potency was not. According to White House estimates, the fentanyl seized from Canada in the past year was sufficient to kill more than 9 million Americans. The question isn't whether Canada is the dominant trafficking route. It's whether it's increasingly being utilized. And it is. The reason is structural. Canada has long been exploited by criminal networks due to regulatory blind spots, fragmented enforcement and opaque corporate formation laws. Canada is notorious for money-laundering through real estate. Trade-based money laundering schemes are commonly exploited. And bribery and corruption have long been identified as a substantial money-laundering risk. Canada, for too long, has treated organized crime as a localized public safety issue, not a transnational finance and border security risk. The Trump administration's tariff spike isn't just a trade war headline. It's part of a broader strategy of nation-level accountability. Venezuela's Cartel de los Soles, a state-embedded trafficking network directly linked to the Maduro regime, was designated a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity under expanded fentanyl authorities just days before the action against Canada. Mexico has not been spared, either. In February, the U.S. imposed 25 percent fentanyl-linked tariffs on Mexican imports, citing the government's failure to curb cartel flows. In July, those tariffs were scheduled to increase to 30 percent. Although Mexico negotiated a temporary reprieve, committing additional National Guard resources to its northern border in February, the escalation framework remains in place. The goal is not symbolic but structural. Pressure the sovereign, disrupt the enabler. Canada now finds itself in that same pressure chamber. Unlike Venezuela, it is a U.S. ally and a U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement partner. But those relationships don't exempt governments from consequences. Canada's fentanyl enforcement effort has been reactive, fragmented and, until very recently, deeply under-resourced. That posture changed the moment the 35 percent tariff went live. To its credit, Ottawa has shown that it is willing to act with urgency. The newly announced border security initiative includes enhanced lab detection infrastructure, dual-nation strike teams and an aggressive crackdown on shell entities used to obscure cross-border fund flows. These moves are overdue. In 2024, Canada's two largest banks, Royal Bank of Canada and TD Bank, were at the center of major anti-money laundering failures. Royal Bank of Canada's U.S. subsidiary, City National Bank, was fined $65 million for violating the Bank Secrecy Act, while TD admitted in U.S. federal court to allowing over $650 million in suspected fentanyl proceeds to flow through its accounts. TD paid a $3 billion penalty and agreed to oversight by a government-appointed monitor. Regulators called the sector's anti-money laundering risk ' under-appreciated,' exposing deep structural gaps that persisted until the failures became too large to ignore. None of this is partisan. None of this is rhetorical. It is structural enforcement built around financial leverage, and it reflects a doctrine that has quietly reshaped the American approach to trafficking: Drug routes are no longer just a law enforcement issue. They are a sovereign accountability issue. The tools of response — tariffs, sanctions, financial denial mechanisms — reflect that shift. Canada's economy isn't the target. Its vulnerabilities are. But if they remain unaddressed, the economic impact will be severe. Trade penalties will expand. Correspondent banks will de-risk. Investment flows will hesitate. And trust — financial, diplomatic and regulatory — will erode. The Canadian government has a narrow window to solidify enforcement credibility. That means closing anti-money laundering loopholes, coordinating proactively with U.S. agencies, and enacting a serious national strategy against transnational organized crime. Not just speeches. Not just appointees. Results. Because fentanyl isn't waiting. Neither are the traffickers. And neither, apparently, is the Trump administration.
