Florida state lawmaker who recently ditched Democratic label announces gubernatorial bid
Florida state Sen. Jason Pizzo, who announced last month that he was switching from Democrat to no party affiliation, has revealed that he plans a Sunshine State gubernatorial bid.
"Yes I am," Pizzo said after CBS News Miami's Jim Defede asked the state senator whether he plans to run for governor.
In a written statement to Fox News Digital, Pizzo declared, "Florida is ready for someone to put people before party, and get … back to basics in public service. The state is facing significant fiscal and resiliency challenges, and I'm [the] best one to guide us through."
Sunshine State Dem Announces Switch To No Affiliation: 'Democratic Party In Florida Is Dead'
Current Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican who is currently serving his second term, is not eligible to run for governor again in 2026.
The state constitution stipulates, "No person who has, or but for resignation would have, served as governor or acting governor for more than six years in two consecutive terms shall be elected governor for the succeeding term."
Read On The Fox News App
Florida State Senator Who Quit Democratic Party Slams It As 'Rudderless' And 'Without Direction'
U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla. announced a bid for the job in February after President Donald Trump publicly urged him to do so.
Desantis Signs Bill Banning Fluoride Additives In Florida Public Water: 'Hydrate, Not Medicate'
"Byron Donalds would be a truly Great and Powerful Governor for Florida and, should he decide to run, will have my Complete and Total Endorsement. RUN, BYRON, RUN!" Trump declared in a February Truth Social post.Original article source: Florida state lawmaker who recently ditched Democratic label announces gubernatorial bid
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
30 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Police Clear Protesters in Seattle, Las Vegas and L.A.
California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' could affect oil and gas
MIDLAND, Texas (KMID/KPEJ) – President Trump's 'Big, beautiful bill' could pass by July 4th bringing tax cuts, border security, and a boost for Permian Basin jobs. Representative August Pfluger has championed several provisions in the bill to help the oil and gas industry. Energy provisions: Expedited LNG Exports (Section 41003) — Expedites approvals by deeming applications to non-free trade countries 'in the public interest' upon payment of a $1 million fee, eliminating a previously lengthy review process. This streamlining preserves existing legal and regulatory authorities while potentially reducing approval timelines from years to months. Natural Gas Permitting Reform (Section 41005) — Creates a voluntary expedited permitting pathway with guaranteed timelines, requiring agencies to complete reviews within one year of fee payment ($10M or 1% of project cost). If review deadlines are missed, applications are automatically approved, and legal challenges are limited. Strategic Petroleum Reserve Funding (Section 41008) — Provides a $2 billion appropriation for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), including $218 million for cavern repairs, $1.32 billion for oil purchases, and directs the remaining funds to reverse prior mandated sales. This targeted investment strengthens U.S. energy security and reserve readiness. Environmental Provisions: Air Pollution Monitoring Limitation (Section 42105) — Repeals and rescinds unobligated funds from IRA Section 60105, which had allocated $281.5 million to the EPA for expanding air quality monitoring networks. This reduces the EPA's ability to identify new non-attainment zones, limiting additional regulatory burdens. Methane Emissions Program Delay (Section 42113) — Extends the timeline for the Methane Emissions Reduction Program charges by an additional 10 years. Healthcare provisions: Affordable Care Act Exchange Reforms (Section 44201) — Amends the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) definition of 'lawfully present' to exclude Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. This change counters the Biden Administration's May 2024 rule, which expanded ACA eligibility to include DACA recipients, a move with potential legal and financial implications. For more information on this legislative package, visit: Text – H.R.1 – 119th Congress (2025-2026): One Big Beautiful Bill Act | | Library of Congress Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LAPD Chief Shuts Down Trump Claim About City Needing National Guard
Los Angeles Police Chief Jim McDonnell sharply countered President Donald Trump's claims that the city was at a point of needing National Guard support, emphasizing Wednesday that protests were 'nowhere near' that level. McDonnell's remarks come after Trump cited the police chief as validating the White House's decision to send in troops to address largely peaceful immigration enforcement protests. 'If we weren't there, if we didn't bring in the National Guard and the Marines, you would probably have a city that was burning to the ground,' Trump baselessly stated while attending a performance of Les Misérables at the Kennedy Center Wednesday evening.'You would have had a big problem there, if we weren't – in fact, the police chief said so much if you look at what his statements were. He said we're very lucky to have had them.' When asked by CNN's Kaitlan Collins if Trump had correctly described his position, McDonnell disputed the president's statements. 'No, we were not in a position to request the National Guard,' he said. 'We're nowhere near a level where we would be reaching out to the governor for National Guard at this stage. And my hope is that things are going in the right direction now and that we wouldn't have had to have done that, or we won't either.' California's state and local leaders have vocally opposed Trump's decision to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests that began this past weekend, emphasizing that they're not needed and will only sow chaos. Trump has bypassed state leaders, however, and made the rare move of sending in members of the military without the approval of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. McDonnell told CNN that the role of these troops is 'still not clear' to the LAPD, describing them as a 'support entity to protect federal employees and facilities.' In the last week, both National Guard troops and Marines have been authorized to temporarily detain civilians, a move that has murky legal footing since they're largely barred from engaging in law enforcement activity unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
