Iowa State Rep. J.D. Scholten holds rally in Sioux City
The rally took place at The Marquee downtown. Around 40 people were in attendance, enjoying some beverages. The rally had musicians performing, along with people speaking out about how they're feeling about what's been happening on the state and federal levels, such as potential cuts to the U.S. Department of Education and how the Iowa legislative session is going so far.
Scholten said that when it comes to the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), there should be efficiency, and the federal government should try to have an audit system. However, he said that what DOGE is doing is not efficient and 'ridiculous.'
'It's not efficient to fire USDA people who are working on getting the bird flu under control and then all of a sudden, rehire them back. It's not efficient to do a lot of these things, for what, it's to give more tax breaks to the super wealthy. well, a lot of us aren't the super wealthy and a lot of us have needs and so the working class is getting screwed out of all of this. And that's what a lot of people are feeling, that frustration,' said State Rep. Scholten, (D) District 1.
Morningside University hosts first 'She Grows' event
One of the rally attendees, Sioux City resident Bernie Scolaro, said this is not the time to be silent about what's going on in the government and that people should stand up for themselves.
'We're watching the state and the national government take away and strip away a lot of rights for people, just most recently, with the Iowa Civil Rights Code, they took away trans(gender) rights and LGBTQ rights are in jeopardy, as women's rights. And I'm really concerned about what our government is beginning to look like,' Scolaro said
Scholten will be holding two more rallies this weekend: one in Des Moines on Saturday and one in Davenport on Sunday.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
6 minutes ago
- WIRED
A DOGE AI Tool Called SweetREX Is Coming to Slash US Government Regulation
Aug 14, 2025 3:00 PM Named for its developer, an undergrad who took leave from UChicago to become a DOGE affiliate, a new AI tool automates the review of federal regulations and flags rules it thinks can be eliminated. The Robert C. Weaver Federal Building, the current headquarters of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, is seen on July 8, 2025, in Washington, DC. Photograph:Efforts to gut regulation across the US government using AI are well underway. On Wednesday, the Office of the Chief Information Officer at the Office of Management and Budget hosted a video call to discuss an AI tool being used to cut federal regulations, which the office called SweetREX Deregulation AI. The tool, which is still being developed, is built to identify sections of regulations that aren't required by statute, then expedite the process for adopting updated regulations. The development and rollout of what is being formally called the SweetREX Deregulation AI Plan Builder, or SweetREX DAIP, is meant to help achieve the goals laid out in President Donald Trump's 'Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation' executive order, which aims to 'promote prudent financial management and alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens.' Industrial-scale deregulation is a core aim laid out in Project 2025, the document that has served as a playbook for the second Trump administration. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has also estimated that '50 percent of all federal regulations can be eliminated,' according to a July 1, 2025, PowerPoint presentation obtained by The Washington Post. To this end, SweetREX was developed by associates of DOGE operating out of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The plan is to roll it out to other US agencies. Members of the call included staffers from across the government, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, among others. Christopher Sweet, a DOGE affiliate who was initially introduced to colleagues as a 'special assistant' and who was until recently a third-year student at the University of Chicago, co-led the call and was identified as the primary developer of SweetREX (thus, its name). He told colleagues that tools from Anthropic and OpenAI will be increasingly utilized by federal workers and that 'a lot of the productivity boosts will come from the tools that are built around these platforms.' Sweet said that for SweetREX, they are 'primarily using the Google family of models, so primarily Gemini.' Neither Sweet nor OMB immediately responded to WIRED's request for comment. HUD's press office responded only to say the request was 'under review.' Google did not yet respond to a request for comment. Previously, WIRED reported on the output of an AI tool for deregulation at HUD. A spreadsheet detailed how many words could be eliminated from individual regulations and gave a percentage figure indicating how noncompliant the regulations were; how that percentage was calculated was unclear. At the time, Sweet did not respond to a request for comment, and a HUD spokesperson said the agency does not comment on individual personnel. Leading Wednesday's call alongside Sweet was Scott Langmack, a DOGE-affiliated senior adviser at HUD and, according to his LinkedIn profile, the COO of technology company Kukun. (WIRED previously reported that he had application-level access to critical HUD systems; Kukun is a proptech firm that is, according to its website, 'on a long-term mission to aggregate the hardest to find data.') While Sweet led the development side of SweetREX, Langmack said he was taking point on demoing the tool for different agencies and pitching them on its benefits. He claimed, for example, that the tool is capable of reducing the time spent reviewing and proposing edited regulations from months to just a few hours or days. Langmack did not immediate respond to a request for comment. The 'decision tool' feature within SweetREX flags sections of regulations that it deems extraneous according to relevant statutes, according to Sweet and Langmack. US government attorneys and policymakers can then review the AI platform's proposed changes and make adjustments, Sweet and Langmack said. The tool will also create a draft of the AI-altered regulation for review. Before new or updated regulations are adopted, an agency may publish an 'Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,' which allows any member of the public to comment on the changes to the regulation. In addition to flagging clauses in regulation as extraneous, SweetREX will also have the ability to group the public's comments on proposed changes to federal rules into AI-determined 'buckets,' according to details shared on the call. The tool will further categorize the types of people or entities submitting comments, such as whether they're an individual or a 'sophisticated' corporate commenter. Last month, a HUD worker told WIRED that combing through the regulations flagged by the AI to explain why they might still be needed was 'painful.' However, several people who asked questions during Wednesday's call praised SweetREX as 'awesome' and 'great.' During the call, a person in the video meeting identified as Steve Davis piped in. 'Would it be possible to open source software and put it up on GitHub?' he asked. (The answer was, essentially, 'maybe.') Steve Davis is also the name of Musk's top lieutenant, who earlier this summer left his post as a special government employee involved with running DOGE and returned to the private sector as the president of Musk's Boring Company—a title he did not abdicate during his time in government. After his departure, DOGE staffers were reportedly made uncomfortable by him seemingly continuing to run DOGE despite not working for the government. Davis did not immediately respond to WIRED's request for comment.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Number of LGBTQ+ Wanting Children Goes Up: Survey
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. A recent survey from the Pew Research Center polled LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ individuals about their marriage and family aspirations. Newsweek compared this data from 2025 to data from a 2013 Pew Research Center study to reveal how marriage and family aspirations have changed for the LGBTQ community. Why It Matters There are currently widespread concerns over Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark case which guaranteed the right to same-sex marriage nationwide, potentially being overturned in the U.S. Crowds watch outside of Stonewall National Monument as people take part in the 2025 NYC Pride March on June 29, 2025 in New York City. Crowds watch outside of Stonewall National Monument as people take part in the 2025 NYC Pride March on June 29, 2025 in New York like Clarence Thomas have signaled an openness to revisit the case as the court has shifted to the right. This shift on cultural issues was defined by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling, which overturned Roe v. Wade, which for decades guaranteed abortion rights. If the courts were to overturn same-sex marriage nationwide, the issue would likely return to the states. The data from the Pew Research Center comes as countries all over the world face declining birth rates. In the U.S., the fertility rate (the average number of children a woman has in her lifetime) is now projected to average 1.6 births per woman over the next three decades, according to the Congressional Budget Office's latest forecast. This is below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman required to maintain a stable population without immigration. What To Know The recent Pew Research Center poll, published in August of this year, polled both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ adults. The poll found that 59 percent of adults under 50 who had never been married say that they want to get married someday. A third of LGBTQ adults under 50 who do not have children said they wanted children someday. This figure was higher among non-LGBTQ people, 47 percent of whom wanted children. The number of LGBTQ adults wanting children has risen, though, compared to the Pew Research Center's 2013 study. That study found that about three-in-ten (28 percent) of these LGBT respondents say they would like to have children someday. 2025's data represents a 5 percent increase. The 2013 study also polled individuals on marriage desires, but used different criteria. It found that a total of 60 percent of LGBT respondents were either married or intended to marry one day. Newsweek spoke to experts about this data and what it represents. Dr. Garry J. Gates, an expert on geography and demography of the LGBT population who co-authored The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, told Newsweek over email, "Unlike marriage more generally, child-rearing for LGBTQ people can often be more complex and expensive than child-rearing among their non-LGBTQ counterparts. Same-gender couples who want to parent likely face expenses associated with adoption, surrogacy, and reproductive technologies that many different-gender couples don't encounter. "Surveys suggest that increases in the age of first marriage in the US are often associated with a desire for greater economic certainty before committing to marriage. So it's clear that economic factors affect the timing & possibly the desire for marriage among many. It's not surprising then to find that economic constraints associated with child-rearing for LGBTQ people could result in a lower desire to have children," Gates said. Newsweek also spoke with Abbie Goldberg, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Clark University. "I'm actually not that surprised," she said of the findings. "Is the expectation that marriage would become more attractive over time? If so, I don't know that this is true, or why it would be true; LGBTQ+ Americans who were critical of marriage as an institution in 2015 might remain so." "The key feature—consistent in the Pew data—that seems to drive marriage is the desire to be a parent. If we don't see steeply rising rates of LGBTQ+ folks who want to be parents, then perhaps we also won't see similar rises in marriage aspirations," Goldberg said. Pointing to the factors influencing attitudes among LGBTQ+ people toward marriage and childbearing, Goldberg said "Compared with older generations, LGBTQI+ Gen Z report more mental health issues, including feelings of hopelessness and anxiety, which arise from a variety of sources including rising anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and attacks on their rights, financial and housing instability, employment uncertainties, climate change, and lack of access to affirming health/mental health services." What People Are Saying Dr. Garry J. Gates, an expert on geography and demography of the LGBT population who co-authored The Gay and Lesbian Atlas, told Newsweek over email: "These findings suggest that views on marriage are becoming less associated with sexual orientation or gender identity. In short, marriage equality worked. In the case of child-rearing, very specific economic constraints that are more prevalent in LGBTQ populations likely play a large part in observed differences in the desire to have children. Abbie Goldberg, a professor in the Department of Psychology at Clark University told Newsweek over email: "Much of my research suggests that marriage is attractive to LGBTQ+ people in part because they wish to protect current or future children. Beyond that, we see the typical reasons: desire for legal protections, love and companionship, and societal acceptance/symbolic value. Perhaps, as some of my recent data suggest, LGBTQ+ Americans right now are more fearful than ever that the right to marry could be taken away—and, if they are leaning toward marriage mainly for the legal protections, the fear that they could lose those protections could be a partial disincentive to hold back." What's Next There are ongoing concerns over the Supreme Court moving to overturn gay marriage. It currently faces a choice about whether to take a case, filed by the former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, urging the overturn its decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Supreme Court may decide whether to accept Davis' case in the coming months, but it has not indicated which way it is leaning.
Buzz Feed
9 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
Millennials Share How Finances Have Changed Under Trump
Hello there! Welcome to the first edition of BuzzFeed's Political Finance series, where we're asking how different folks are faring financially under the Trump administration. We kicked things off by asking millennials (aged 29—44) in the BuzzFeed Community how their money situation has changed since Donald Trump took office. Here's what they had to say: "I was laid off in February. Still job searching, but it's tough competing with all of the laid-off federal employees. I had to move back in with my parents, which was the right move because I'd have to be making a mint as a single person to afford rent here. My finances have been completely destroyed, and it's hard to imagine them improving any time soon. I've decided not even to worry about retirement savings yet (I have none to speak of)." —R.D., 30, USA "My husband and I both work in healthcare. Since the pandemic, I've worked part-time to be home more for the kids, and we were financially OK. But now, all of our costs have increased significantly: groceries, clothes, youth sports, school supplies, all of it! I just got a second part-time job to help cover the increase in costs." —39, Hawai'i "Job opportunities were postponed or vanished under DOGE. I'm seeing my already high grocery prices creeping up on the same items I buy, and I'm considering putting off major life events because I don't see this situation improving in the near future. I may put off having kids or getting married until after the economy stabilizes, but honestly, it hasn't felt really stable or steady since the pre-'08 recession." "The middle class and young people in this country have largely been falling behind economically, and we were already struggling. The mental toll of the years this will take to rebalance is almost more overwhelming than the financial aspect some days. I know I can make do with less, but knowing that I only have to because of policy choices and helping the rich get richer is hard to stomach, and it's hard to even be as grateful as I am for what I do have. Most people just want to be able to have the standard of living our parents did, and these policies are destroying our lives with ripples that will last decades."—S.W., 29, Washington, DC "My company has a lot of ultra-wealthy clients, who are all very happy at the moment (most of them voted for Trump). And the more money they spend, the more money I make. I feel bad profiting off of the shitshow that Trump brings, but I guess somebody has to." —N., late 30s, East Coast "I work in mental health for an agency that serves people with Medicaid coverage. We're still waiting for more information about whether the cuts passed in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' will require any layoffs or wage decreases. My spouse gets insurance through the state healthcare exchange, and rate increases have already been announced." "We have three cars, but they're all 12–22 years old, and at least one will need to be replaced soon. I really don't know how we'll manage paying increased insurance rates, let alone a car problem or decreased income on top of that. I pray it's not all three."—H.M., 42, Spokane, WA "I don't have kids, I don't have credit card debt, and I don't live paycheck to paycheck, so I can deal with the inflation and higher prices thanks to these tariffs. I'm doing OK right now. However, I am worried I'll start living paycheck to paycheck again, like I did in my twenties, if my student loan payments skyrocket thanks to Trump. He can file bankruptcy multiple times, but the average American has to drown in predatory debt to get an education?!?! Make it make sense." —Anonymous "I was DOGEd in May. I was at NIH [the National Institute of Health] through a contracting agency, and my contract was cut. They'd been trying to bring me over as a fed. The job market is ROUGH for biomed research. I would normally have academic research institutions as my backup, but they're all struggling, too. Financially, it is a hit as I was planning a wedding. The bigger hit is seeing all I've worked for over the years go up in smoke due to politics when it has had bipartisan support for a decade!" —S.H., 40ish, Chicago "We are in the red every month. We have to pull from a savings account that is depleting. We have two kids; luckily, the eldest is in kindergarten now, but the little one is in daycare for almost $300 a week (another issue that needs fixing). We can't seem to get our heads above water, and we make over $100K a year. I have no idea how those making less do it. We can't do this much longer." —34, Arizona "Because of the federal budget cuts due to the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' I am no longer going to receive the promotion and pay raise my supervisor and I have been fighting very hard for over the past year. My husband and I have just bought our first house, and now I have to work a second job cleaning houses because my full-time job doesn't cover the basics anymore." "Our governor announced that the state government (which I am an employee of) is now on a hiring and spending freeze due to the results of this bill. Not only does it essentially freeze me in place where I'm at (though I'm expected to take on an extra workload because of staffing shortages), but it is also gutting funding to SNAP and Medicare in our state. I'm grateful that I'm at least employed during this period, but my heart breaks for all of the people who are going to go hungry and without the medical care they desperately need because of the Orange Buffoon's ego and all the spineless sycophants in DC who worship him blindly."—Anonymous "Not much — so far, anyway. Food and gas expenses have risen a little for me, but I was doing well before that POS took over again. I make good money and am happily single and childfree, so I don't have to worry about financially supporting anyone but myself." —Anonymous "Everything costs more. My grocery bill is at least 50% higher than last year, and I simply can't afford to live. Two kids and a two-income household, and we're still struggling. Medication costs have gone up. I'm worried if I'll have enough to make it. It's a sad state to be in, but I guess those who voted for Trump are reaping what they sow. Too bad the rest of us have to suffer, too." —Mike, 40, Upstate New York "I went from paying zero dollars in loans to now having to pay $500 a month, with no warning and no time to prepare. The turnaround from forbearance to now paying DOUBLE what I was paying prior to the freeze is insane." —Mary, New York "I work in the advertising sector. After four years of running a department, I was laid off in May. Revenue grew tight as advertisers cut back to recession-proof and tariff-proof their bottom line, and a big chunk of the company got laid off over several rounds. Thankfully, that was short-lived, and I was able to find a new, higher-paying job a month and a half later. It all worked out in my favor, but it was a very stressful time that I would have rather avoided." —A.F., 34, Seattle "Weirdly, it has been going really well outside of some initial fears. We were definitely worried at first, but my stocks and crypto are both up, and I was able to buy my first used car from a dealership outright. I don't know what the next three and a half years will bring, but we are doing great." —D.M., 42, California "Because of the tariffs on China, my small business is suffering as I struggle to find new suppliers. Fuck this pumpkin-headed sack of vomit." —Luxacious "I'm living paycheck to paycheck in my forties. It feels like my twenties — the only difference is I'm now tired on top of being broke. Student loans are killing me. Rent is killing me. Groceries are killing me. Medical debt scares me. Racism and fascism scare me. I'm tired of living through intense, once-in-a-lifetime events. I'm freaking exhausted. But like the nightmares seem to persist, so do I." —D.S., 43, Des Moines, IA And finally, "I work as a freelance contractor and project manager in global health and work for several different NGOs. Literally half of my clients and projects have just disappeared overnight due to the Trump administration's funding cuts. I went from doing pretty well for myself to just barely scraping by — basically overnight. It's not like I lost a job at a specific place and can just go out and find a new one. It's the entire field that's been affected and decimated. I've never seen anything like this." "I work mostly in HIV research and sexual violence response. Even projects that aren't directly tied to USAID funding have been hurt. It's created a devastating ripple effect. We're talking about projects and initiatives to get HIV prevention and drugs to infants and children, or to help survivors of conflict-related sexual violence — literally the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. It feels like the cruelty IS the point. I'm having to rethink my entire career because there is just no more funding for worst part? My parents are MAGA and support all of this, even though it means my career is essentially over."—Jake, 36 Now that we've heard from millennials, I'm curious about Gen Xers. If you're between 45 and 60 years old, how have your finances changed under the Trump administration? Share your experience in the comments or in the anonymous Google form below.
