U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans of Philadelphia says he won't run for reelection
Evans, a Democrat, said in a statement that he decided that 'the time is right' to retire after his term is up in early 2027. Evans, 71, said he is in good health and capable of serving, a year after he suffered what he has called a minor stroke.
Evans is serving his fifth term. He originally ran for Congress in 2016 against then-U.S. Rep. Chaka Fattah, a fellow Democrat who had been seeking a 12th term in Congress while under federal indictment.
Prior to that, Evans served for 36 years in the state House of Representatives, rising to become Appropriations Committee chairman, and the first Black chairman of the powerful committee. He was first elected when he was just 26.
Evans' Philadelphia district is heavily Democratic and a crowded 2026 Democratic primary — possibly including state Sen. Sharif Street, the state Democratic Party chair — is possible to determine a successor in the seat.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
10 minutes ago
Pentagon spokesman says Iran's nuclear program knocked back 'closer to 2 years'
The Pentagon on Wednesday sharpened its assessment of Iran's nuclear program, declaring that Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon following the U.S. strike on its nuclear facilities is "closer to two years" away. The assessment by Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesperson, appeared to be significantly more optimistic than by U.N. inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA's director general Rafael Grossi said this past weekend that he believed Iran could begin enriching uranium in a matter of months. Military officials and experts have said that there is no doubt the U.S. bombing of three key nuclear sites in Iran -- Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan -- caused signficant damage when they were hit by 14 bunker-buster bombs and two dozen Tomahawk missiles. But they caution that a firm intelligence assessment will take time to do. And nuclear experts question whether some of the enriched uranium could have been moved in advance or stored elsewhere -- a possibility the Trump administration dismisses as probable. When asked what the latest intelligence might show, Parnell told reporters at a Pentagon briefing that the administration's stance is unchanged that Iran's nuclear sites were "completely obliterated." The term "obliterated" was first used by President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in the hours after the bombing. "It's not just ... enriched uranium or centrifuges or things like that. We destroyed the components that they would need to build a bomb," he said. "And so when you take that constellation of things into consideration, yeah, we believe that Iran's nuclear capability has been severely degraded. It's even their ambition to build a bomb," he added. Republicans said they were satisfied with the administration's assessment, whereas several Democrats said they remained skeptical after being briefed on the strike on Capitol Hill.
Fox News
17 minutes ago
- Fox News
Why Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' is a test for our democracy
This week, Washington is buzzing about one thing: the "big beautiful bill." After a dramatic showdown in the Senate, the bill just barely passed this week—thanks only to Vice President JD Vance's tie-breaking vote. But while the bill squeaked through the Senate, its fate in the House remains uncertain, with a final vote unfolding over the July Fourth weekend. Yet, the real battle isn't in Congress—it's in the hearts and minds of the American people. A Crisis of Trust—And a Nation on the Brink Forget the legislative horse race for a moment. The real story is the crisis of trust that's threatening to tear the country apart. Americans aren't just divided over the "big beautiful bill" —they're losing faith in the very institutions meant to serve them. The bill has become a lightning rod for a deeper, more dangerous problem: a sense that no one in Washington is telling the truth, and that ordinary people are being left behind. This isn't just about policy. It's about legitimacy. It's about whether Americans believe their government is working for them—or against them. The "big, beautiful bill" is so sprawling, so complex, and so politicized that it's almost impossible for anyone to know what's real. In a moment when the country is desperate for clarity and leadership, all they're getting is confusion, spin, and division. And the stakes couldn't be higher. If Americans can't trust what's in this bill—or the people selling it to them—what hope is there for any future reform? The "big, beautiful bill" isn't just a test of policy. It's a test of whether our democracy can function at all. A Bill That Means Everything—and Nothing Let's be honest: almost nobody has read all 940 pages of the "big, beautiful bill" Act. It's a legislative monster, stuffed with everything from tax cuts for the wealthy to changes in Medicare, defense spending, and billions for border security. It's so big, so sprawling, that it's become a Rorschach test for what you believe. If you oppose Donald Trump, you see it as a symbol of everything that's broken about Washington. If you support him, you probably see it as big and, well, beautiful. Republicans are calling it a historic win. Democrats warn it's a disaster for healthcare and the social safety net. But here's the truth: a majority of Americans don't trust either side. According to a recent KFF poll, 64% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the bill. That number soars to 85% among Democrats and 71% among Independents. While most MAGA Republicans support the bill, support is shaky among Republicans who don't identify as MAGA—two-thirds of non-MAGA Republicans don't like it either. Public Opinion: Overwhelming Opposition The numbers are stark. By a 21-point margin, voters questioned in the most recent Fox News national poll opposed the federal budget legislation (38% favored vs. 59% opposed). The bill is also underwater in national surveys conducted this month by the Washington Post (minus 19 points), Pew Research (minus 20 points), and Quinnipiac University (minus 26 points). About half of respondents in the Fox News poll said the bill would hurt their family (49%), while only a quarter thought it would help (23%), and another quarter didn't think it would make a difference (26%). Sixty percent felt they had a good understanding of what's in the measure, formally known as the "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," and while those voters were more likely to favor the legislation than those unfamiliar with it, more still think it will hurt rather than help their family (45% vs. 34%). A Political Firestorm: Elon Musk and the Third Party Threat The backlash isn't just coming from the polls. Elon Musk has promised to launch a third party and to challenge any member of Congress who votes for the bill. He's already begun targeting lawmakers on X, vowing to make this a defining issue in the next election cycle. The political stakes are rising, and the pressure on lawmakers is intense. The Republican Pitch: Prosperity and Security Donald Trump has called it "ONE GREAT "BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL" promising it will "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN." The White House claims the bill will deliver nearly 1.7 trillion in mandatory savings and spark an era of unprecedented economic growth. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise says it's a "huge win for all Americans," promising that the average family will save $1,700 a year—enough, he says, "to cover nine weeks of groceries." There's $46 billion for the border wall, more money for border agents, and even billions for modernizing air traffic control. Supporters argue that the bill is about more than just numbers. It's about restoring American competitiveness, putting more money in people's pockets, and making the country safer. They point to investments in infrastructure, border security, and tax relief as proof that this is a bill designed to help working families and strengthen the nation. The Democratic Warning: Cuts and Consequences Democrats, meanwhile, see something very different. They warn that the bill is a massive tax cut for the wealthy, paid for by slashing Medicaid, Medicare, and food assistance. Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders says it will take healthcare away from millions. Connecticut Democrat Sen. Chris Murphy calls it a "wealth transfer from the poor and middle class to the rich." Virginia Democrat Sen. Mark Warner has gone so far as to call the bill a "pig," arguing that it's dressed up with false promises but ultimately harmful to the most vulnerable Americans. Democrats are also furious about the process. They point to late-night votes, unread pages, and what they call "fake math" used to hide the bill's true cost. Senator Elizabeth Warren has highlighted the lack of transparency, saying that the rush to pass the bill without proper debate or scrutiny is "sick." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., accuses Republicans of using accounting gimmicks to disguise the bill's impact, calling it the "single most expensive bill in US history" that benefits billionaires at the expense of social programs and jobs. For Democrats, the "big, beautiful bill" isn't just bad policy—it's a betrayal of American values. They argue that the cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and other programs will hit the very communities that need help the most, including many who voted for President Trump. They warn that the bill will deepen inequality, undermine healthcare, and leave millions worse off. The Real Legacy of the "Big, Beautiful Bill" As the House prepares for a final vote by the 4th of July weekend, the "big, beautiful bill" faces its toughest test—not in Congress, but in the court of public opinion. Will Americans buy the promise of prosperity and security? Or will they fear the cuts and chaos that critics warn about? In the end, this bill is more than just legislation. It's a mirror of our divided politics, our broken process, and our crisis of trust. No matter what happens in Washington, that's a problem no bill can fix. The "big beautiful bill" may pass or fail, but the deeper challenge remains: rebuilding faith in our leaders, our institutions, and each other. Until we do, every "big, beautiful" promise will be met with skepticism—and every debate will leave us more confused, and more divided, than ever.
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
North Carolina Gov. Stein vetoes bill repealing interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed legislation Wednesday that in part would repeal an interim greenhouse gas reduction mandate set for power generation in a 2021 law, arguing that the bill would have discouraged diverse energy sources and harmed consumers. The measure, which largely addresses activities involving Duke Energy — the state's dominant electric utility — would get rid of the current requirement that electric regulators take 'all reasonable steps to achieve' reducing carbon dioxide output 70% from 2005 levels by 2030. A directive in the 2021 law to meet a carbon neutrality standard by 2050 stays in place with or without the legislation. Environmental critics who want cleaner energy sources to come online sooner urged Stein to veto the bill. They also were unhappy with other bill provisions that they argue will make Duke Energy more profitable and shift costs of producing or purchasing electricity to residential customers. The bill 'walks back our state's commitment to reduce carbon emissions, sending the wrong signal to businesses that want to be a part of our clean energy economy,' Stein said in a news release. 'My job is to do everything in my power to lower costs and grow the economy. This bill fails that test.' Stein, a former attorney general who took office in January, also vetoed two more bills Wednesday from dozens still on his desk left by the GOP-controlled legislature. These and four other recent Stein vetoes are subject to potential override votes, perhaps coming as soon as later this month. Speaking Wednesday only on the energy bill, House Speaker Destin Hall and Senate leader Phil Berger expressed confidence in successful overrides. Over a dozen House and Senate Democrats voted for the measure in June. The 2021 greenhouse gas law was the result of a rare agreement on environmental issues by then-Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper and Republican lawmakers. Now GOP supporters of the current bill say the 70% reduction mandate is unnecessary and will needlessly raise customer rates by requiring outsize growth for renewable sources like solar and wind power. The state Utilities Commission already pushed back the 2030 deadline — as the 2021 law allows — by at least four years. By focusing on meeting the 2050 carbon-neutrality mandate, bill supporters say, regulators can direct Duke Energy, which backed the measure, to assemble less expensive power sources now and moderate electricity rate increases. They cite an analysis performed by a state agency that represents utility customers that calculated the repeal would reduce by at least $13 billion what Duke Energy would have to spend on energy sources for the next 25 years. Bill opponents, which include several environmental groups, question the savings figure. And Stein cited another study in saying the bill could cost utility customers more through 2050 due to higher fuel costs. 'We need to diversify our energy portfolio so that we are not overly reliant on natural gas and its volatile fuel markets,' Stein added. At least 17 other states, most of them controlled by Democrats, have laws setting similar net-zero power plant emissions or 100% renewable energy targets, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. The bill also contains language that would help Duke Energy seek higher electric rates to cover financing costs to build nuclear or gas-powered plants incrementally, rather than wait until the project's end. Environmentalists praised Stein's action and urged lawmakers to uphold the veto. 'Stand instead for affordable energy and economic opportunity for all,' said Dan Crawford of the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters. Donald Bryson of the conservative-leaning John Locke Foundation urged an override, saying Stein 'has chosen ideology over affordability.' Another vetoed measure Wednesday attempted to clarify and adjust powers of the state auditor — currently Republican Dave Boliek — including his ability to investigate alleged improper governmental activities of individuals, nonprofits and other groups that receive government funds. Stein's veto message said the auditor's 'sweeping access' in the bill to records of 'any private corporation that accepts any amount of state funding' could undermine business recruitment efforts. Boliek said in a statement that Stein's veto 'undercuts the important principles of accountability and transparency that taxpayers expect from their government.'
