Iowa Senator Zach Wahls running for Joni Ernst's U.S. Senate seat
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Democratic field for a challenger to incumbent Senator Joni Ernst (R) is growing.
Iowa State Senator Zach Wahls announced his run for the seat on Wednesday morning. Wahls, from Coralville, has been serving District 43 since 2019. He tells WHO 13 News why he is now deciding to hop into the race.
'I'm running because Iowans are working hard but aren't getting ahead. And I want to do something to help solve the problems that hardworking Iowans are facing. I've got a track record of standing up to leaders of both parties when they are not delivering for us. And that's exactly what I'll do in Washington. My wife and I started talking about it seriously this spring when we were watching everything that was happening in D.C.,' said Senator Wahls, (D) District 43 from Coralville.
'ICE Out' protest brings in hundreds in Des Moines
Democrat Nathan Sage from Knoxville announced his bid for the office earlier in the year. Along with State Representative J.D. Scholten, from Sioux City. Wahls tells WHO 13 News that he isn't focusing on his Democratic opponents in this primary race, instead focusing on the incumbent.
'The fact that Senator Ernst didn't have the courage of her convictions to stand against the nomination of Pete Hegseth when she clearly had concerns that were valid, as we all found out when the Signal-gate story broke. And I think that unfortunately, Sen. Ernst has lost her way,' said Wahls. 'We deserve a senator who isn't going to glibly joke that we are all going to die, I mean we all know we are going to die, that's a part of life. It's not supposed to be our senators who are the ones killing us. We need someone who's going to fight back for these benefits that so many Iowans count on.'
Wahls told WHO 13 News that he is eager to get out and campaign in all 99 Iowa counties and meet voters. Wahls is a 6th-generation Iowan who is eager to run on lowering costs, protecting health care and abortion rights, and providing affordable child care to Iowa's families.
Iowa Senator Zach Wahls running for Joni Ernst's U.S. Senate seat
Hot, muggy Wednesday and storm chances
Iowa HHS reports second case of measles in state this year
Increase in ATV/UTV popularity brings more crashes on roads
Dozens of dogs rescued from 'neglectful conditions' at eastern Iowa breeder nearly 2 years after first rescue
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Hamilton Spectator
34 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people , including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use . In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military . Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act . Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment. 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 .
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
America's Dollar Dominance Depends on GENIUS
We are closer than ever to cementing America's global leadership in digital asset innovation. Next week, the Senate will hold its final vote on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act – the GENIUS Act – bringing this landmark stablecoin legislation one step closer to becoming law. Following Senate passage, the bill will advance to the House for consideration. This marks a significant step forward – not just for the crypto industry, but for American consumers, investors, and the global strength of the U.S. dollar. The numbers tell the story. Today, more than $190 billion in dollar-backed stablecoins are in circulation worldwide, doubling annually. Stablecoins aren't speculative crypto assets – they are digital dollars that enable instant, low-cost transactions anywhere in the world. In regions facing currency devaluation or authoritarian financial controls, stablecoins provide access to the economic stability of the U.S. dollar. Not only is this pro-innovation – it's pro-democracy. The GENIUS Act provides the clarity the industry urgently needs. By establishing sensible guidelines, it ensures stablecoins maintain stable value through high-quality liquid reserves, regular audits, and clear redemption rights. These aren't excessive burdens – they're reasonable protections already practiced by responsible issuers. Most importantly, what the GENIUS Act provides is certainty, allowing responsible innovation to flourish while preventing bad actors from undermining the system. Passing GENIUS can't wait. As other nations develop central bank digital currencies and alternative payment systems designed to circumvent dollar dominance, the United States faces a choice: embrace the innovation that's already spreading dollars globally, or cede this ground to other countries. The legislation provides the framework we need – strong reserve requirements, transparency rules, and consumer protections – without stifling the innovation that makes stablecoins so powerful. Progress on stablecoin legislation has been bipartisan, reflecting a growing recognition across the political spectrum that this technology serves American interests. Republicans see free-market innovation and reduced government intervention. Democrats value the financial inclusion and consumer protection aspects. Both parties understand that maintaining dollar supremacy isn't partisan – it's patriotic. Globally, stablecoins are already making a profound difference. In Argentina, where inflation has exceeded 100%, residents use dollar stablecoins to preserve their savings. In Ukraine, humanitarian organizations have used them to deliver aid instantly when traditional banking channels failed. Across Africa and Southeast Asia, entrepreneurs have access to dollar liquidity and can build businesses that connect to the global economy. Each transaction strengthens the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. The technology community knows what's on the line. That's why companies of all sizes – from traditional financial institutions to Silicon Valley startups – want clarity around stablecoins. They're not asking for light-touch regulation or special treatment; they're asking for clear rules that allow them to build in America, serve American interests, and extend American financial leadership globally. Meanwhile, every month that goes by, more stablecoin activity moves offshore, more innovation happens outside our borders, and more ground is ceded to competitors. The European Union has already implemented stablecoin guidelines. Singapore, the UAE, and others are rolling out frameworks to attract this activity. Dollar-backed stablecoins don't compete with the Federal Reserve; they extend its reach. They don't undermine American banking; they create new customers for it. They don't weaken financial oversight; they make it more effective through programmable compliance and real-time transparency. Stablecoins are foundational infrastructure, not ideology. Passing the GENIUS Act requires no vast expenditures or bureaucratic complexity. It simply offers clear rules for American innovation to thrive, safeguards consumers, and fortifies the dollar's global influence. The message to Congress is clear: Don't let this moment pass. The world won't pause while America deliberates. With the GENIUS Act, we can ensure that the future of global finance remains dollar-denominated, governed by American values, and powered by our unmatched American ingenuity. Sign in to access your portfolio
