Former Navy SEAL unveils bid for Tuberville Senate seat
Former Navy SEAL Jared Hudson said Wednesday he would launch a bid for Sen. Tommy Tuberville's (R-Ala.) Senate seat.
Tuberville announced Tuesday he would leave the Senate to run for governor of Alabama.
'I've spent my life taking the fight to America's enemies,' Hudson said in a press release.
'Now it's time to continue the mission in Washington,' he added.
Hudson formerly served as a SEAL operator and sniper with Naval Special Warfare and was deployed multiple times to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, as recorded in his personal biography.
'I'll be a warrior for President Trump's America First Agenda,' he said in Wednesday's release.
Over the last few years, Hudson has served as CEO and founder of The Shooting Institute, a tactical expertise training organization formatted to train law enforcement agencies, service members and officials with the Department of Defense.
He and his wife Lauren also co-founded the Covenant Rescue Group nonprofit to combat human trafficking.
Hudson previously ran for Jefferson County sheriff in 2022, earning 48 percent of votes but losing to Sheriff Mark Pettway.
Democrat Kyle Sweetser previously announced his intention to run for the Senate seat in Alabama now held by Tuberville.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In Trump Immigration Cases, It's One Thing in Public, Another in Court
During his testimony on Capitol Hill earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio took a swipe at Senator Chris Van Hollen, falsely accusing him of having had 'a margarita' with Kilmar Abrego Garcia—one of the Maryland Democrat's constituents, who was mistakenly sent to an El Salvador megaprison more than two months ago and who remains there despite the Supreme Court ordering the Trump administration to facilitate his release. 'That guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger … and the evidence is going to be clear,' Rubio said of Abrego Garcia, repeating claims that have never been proved in court. 'He can't make unsubstantiated comments like that!' Van Hollen shouted over the pounding gavel of the Republican chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 'Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States, because he hasn't done it under oath.' Van Hollen's frustration centered on the frequent gap between what the Trump administration says about its mass-deportation campaign in court, where it is required to tell the truth, and what officials say in public as they attempt to blunt criticism of their immigration crackdown. By playing up the alleged criminality of deportees at every opportunity, they deflect attention from the more mundane issue of whether the government is following the law. [Read: A loophole that would swallow the Constitution] When the administration's attorneys appear before the court, and top officials are required to provide sworn testimony, the administration is more restrained and tethered to facts. Department of Justice attorneys insist that the administration is following judicial orders in good faith. They recognize errors made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even if they attempt to diminish their significance. And they provide data and logistical details about ICE deportations that they do not otherwise release voluntarily. Outside of court, President Donald Trump and his top aides depict deportees as terrorists and gang leaders regardless of whether they've been convicted of a crime. They admit no mistakes. And if judges rule unfavorably, they denounce them as 'communists' and 'lunatics' and suggest that they won't respect their rulings. Trump and his top officials have dispensed with the usual conventions regarding public comment on pending cases. This has been a theme of Trump's litigation approach for years—from the Manhattan hush-money trial to the January 6 investigations—and the top officials running his current administration have taken his cue. The political fight matters more than the legal one, one senior official told me. 'Instead of using the old playbook of saying 'no comment' because there's pending litigation, you have top officials that are using the avenues they have to fight back and speak directly to the American people about what this administration is trying to do,' said the official, who agreed to discuss the approach candidly on the condition that I would not publish their name. The official said the strategy is designed to challenge judges who are 'thwarting the duly elected president from implementing his policies.' Although issuing public statements about ongoing litigation 'is unusual,' the person said, 'that's exactly what everyone who is a supporter of the president is looking for from his senior team.' The White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson defended that strategy. 'We are confident in the legality of our actions and do not apologize for acting to protect the American people,' she told me in a statement. But the approach has at times left Department of Justice lawyers stuck between what Trump officials say publicly and their professional and legal obligations to make truthful statements in court. When a senior ICE official said in sworn testimony in March that Abrego Garcia had been deported to El Salvador because of an 'administrative error,' the Justice Department attorney who initially represented the Trump administration, Erez Reuveni, relayed that characterization to the court. When asked why the administration hadn't taken steps to correct the error and bring Abrego Garcia back, Reuveni said his client—the Trump administration—hadn't provided him with answers. The top Trump aide Stephen Miller soon began insisting publicly that Abrego Garcia's deportation was not, in fact, an error—the opposite of what the government admitted in court. Vice President J. D. Vance claimed that Abrego Garcia is a 'convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here,' even though he has no criminal convictions in the United States or El Salvador. Attorney General Pam Bondi cast the error as missing 'an extra step in paperwork' and said that Abrego Garcia should not be returned. Reuveni was fired. Bondi said he had failed to 'zealously advocate' for the government. 'Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences,' she told reporters. Trump and his top aides have made statements outside court that have undermined the legal positions staked out by government attorneys—at times with more candor than his lawyers. The president acknowledged during an interview last month with ABC News, for instance, that he could bring Abrego Garcia back by placing a phone call to the Salvadoran president. [Read: How the Trump administration flipped on Kilmar Abrego Garcia] Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, told me Trump and his top aides 'really are saying whatever they want to say in public, and then after the fact, trying to figure out what that means for their litigation, instead of the other way around, which is where they figure out what they want to do in their litigation and then they mold their public statements to that.' U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who presides over the Abrego Garcia case, said during a recent hearing that Trump's claim was clearly at odds with his attorneys' contention that they could not compel a foreign government to release Abrego Garcia. Xinis also noted social-media statements by Department of Homeland Security officials saying Abrego Garcia will never be allowed to return to the United States. The judge said it sounded like an 'admission of your client that your client will not take steps to facilitate the return.' Jonathan Guynn, the government's attorney, said Trump's statement needed to be read with 'the appropriate nuance' and it was not 'inconsistent with our good-faith compliance.' 'What world are we living in?' Xinis said in frustration as Guynn ducked her questions. 'What sort of legal world are we living in?' Similarly, Trump officials have depicted Venezuelans sent to the prison in El Salvador as invaders and terrorists to justify the administration's attempt to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. But the majority have no criminal convictions in the United States, and at least 50 of the roughly 240 sent to El Salvador entered the United States legally and did not violate U.S. immigration law, according to a new analysis by the Cato Institute. When U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg asked about a statement by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—who said the megaprison in El Salvador was one of the tools it planned to use to scare migrants into leaving the United States—he questioned whether it was an admission that the U.S. government has control over the fate of the deportees it sends there. Another Justice Department attorney similarly argued that the statement lacked sufficient 'nuance.' 'Is that another way of saying these statements just aren't true?' Boasberg said. When Boasberg asked if Trump was telling the truth when he said he could get Abrego Garcia released with a phone call, the administration's attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said the president's statement should not be treated as a fact, but as an expression of 'the president's belief about the influence that he has.' Jeff Joseph, the president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told me that Trump attorneys are twisting themselves into rhetorical knots because the administration officials conducting the deportation campaign are doing whatever they want, and coming up with a legal rationale later. The government attorneys have 'to sort of post hoc rationalize what they're doing,' Joseph said, 'but they're running afoul of the fact that it's actually against the law, and they just can't explain it.' 'They can't just come in and admit that they broke the law,' he added, 'so they have to come up with some sort of paltering way of addressing it.' The Abrego Garcia ruling and the Alien Enemies Act litigation have left legal scholars warning of a constitutional crisis. But a more tangible effect, attorneys told me, has been the erosion of the 'presumption of regularity'—the benefit of the doubt given to the government in court proceedings. It's based on the idea that federal officers and attorneys are operating in good faith, and not trying to achieve political goals through acts of subterfuge. As judges see the administration saying one thing in public and another in court, they have started to treat the government's claims with more skepticism and, sometimes, with outright suspicion of criminal contempt. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that the Trump administration has been losing the majority of its immigration-related motions and claims, regardless of whether the judges overseeing their cases were appointed by Democrats or Republicans. [Adam Serwer: 'A path of perfect lawlessness'] The White House is focused on political wins, and it has pushed back even harder at judicial oversight as the losses pile up. In a case challenging its attempts to send deportees to third countries if their own nations won't take them back, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled in March that the government had to give deportees time to challenge the government's attempts to send them to potentially dangerous places. Despite the order, Trump officials tried last week to deport a group of men from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and other nations to South Sudan. Murphy ruled that the flight violated his previous order mandating due process—but the Department of Homeland Security still convened a press conference to recite the criminal records of the deportees, calling them 'uniquely barbaric monsters.' The White House made an emergency appeal of Murphy's ruling directly to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, bypassing the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Adam Cox, a constitutional law professor at NYU, told me that the Trump administration's approach marks 'a sweeping transformation of past practices.' But he said it has also affirmed the importance of the lower courts to function as a powerful fact-finding body at a time when other oversight mechanisms are weakened or under attack. The courts' ability to compel sworn testimony is crucial to helping the public sort through political rhetoric to understand what's actually true. 'A lot of the focus of public debate around courts and politics has been (understandably) focused on the Supreme Court and big legal rulings,' Cox wrote to me. 'But recent months have brought a nice reminder of just how important the well-developed fact-finding mechanisms of federal trial courts can be.' Article originally published at The Atlantic
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
America might finally make childbirth free
is a policy correspondent for Vox covering social policy. She focuses on housing, schools, homelessness, child care, and abortion rights, and has been reporting on these issues for more than a decade. As politicians grapple with declining birth rates, the financial burden of giving birth in America — where privately insured families face out-of-pocket costs of nearly $3,000 on average — has captured widespread attention. Last month, when news broke that the Trump administration was considering $5,000 baby bonuses for new parents, comedian Taylor Tomlinson captured the national frustration: 'That's like spritzing a volcano with a water gun.' A recent viral TikTok showing one mother's $44,000 hospital bill shocked viewers worldwide, underscoring the uniquely brutal pressures facing American families. Now, a rare bipartisan solution could directly address at least the problem of expensive childbirth. The Supporting Healthy Moms and Babies Act, introduced in the Senate last week, would require private insurance companies to fully cover all childbirth-related expenses — from prenatal care and ultrasounds to delivery, postpartum care, and mental health treatment — without any co-pays or deductibles. (Medicaid, which insures roughly 41 percent of American births, already covers these costs.) The bill was introduced by Republican Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and Josh Hawley (MO), and Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (VA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). A companion bipartisan version is expected in the House soon, with Democratic Rep. Jared Golden (ME) among the forthcoming cosponsors. Perhaps most striking are the bill's endorsees: organizations that typically find themselves on opposite sides of reproductive health debates. Supporters include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, alongside prominent anti-abortion groups including Americans United for Life, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Students for Life, and Live Action. While the White House has not yet weighed in, Vice President JD Vance championed the idea during his Senate tenure. He publicly called the free childbirth proposal 'interesting' in January 2023, and his office had been preparing bipartisan legislation on the issue last year before being tapped to join the Trump campaign. Notably, Vance's former Senate staffer Robert Orr, who led the childbirth bill initiative, now works for Hawley. Some abortion rights advocacy groups, too, have expressed approval. Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director at Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, told me her organization 'proudly supports' the bill. Dorianne Mason, the director of health equity at the National Women's Law Center, said they are 'encouraged' to see the bipartisan effort. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Action Fund said the group is still reviewing the bill but 'generally supports legislation to make the cost of maternal health care and parenting more affordable.' Reproductive Freedom For All declined to comment. While questions remain about whether eliminating childbirth costs would actually boost birth rates or reduce abortions — as various supporters hope — there's little doubt it would provide crucial relief to families who have already chosen to have children. The unlikely alliance behind the bill traces back to an unexpected source: a journalist's challenge to the anti-abortion movement. How the free childbirth bill would work The Affordable Care Act already requires insurers to cover essential health benefits, like birth control and cancer screenings, at no cost to patients. This new bill would expand the list of essential health benefits to include prenatal, birth, and postpartum care, and require these services also to be free. The costs would be paid by insurance companies and modest increases in premiums for the 178 million people primarily covered by private plans. On average, premiums would go up by approximately $30 annually, according to an analysis from the Niskanen Center think Mansell, the Niskanen policy analyst who ran the cost modeling, told me he thinks this proposal is the simplest way, on an administrative level, to make birth free. The trade-off, though, is instability: employer-sponsored coverage can disappear just when families need it most, since people often lose their jobs during pregnancy. The bill started with a challenge to the anti-abortion movement The bill to cover childbirth costs under private health insurance has an unusual origin story compared to most pieces of legislation in Washington, DC, and reflects evolving factions within the anti-abortion movement. In early July 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Elizabeth Bruenig, a staff writer at the Atlantic, published a piece urging the anti-abortion movement to take up the cause of making birth free. 'It's time the pro-life movement chose life,' Bruenig, who identifies as pro-life but opposes criminal bans on abortion, wrote. She recommended expanding Medicare to cover the costs, just as Medicare was expanded to cover dialysis and kidney transplants in the early 1970s. Her article cited examples of staggering medical bills, such as one couple charged $10,000 for delivering in Texas and another $24,000 in Indiana. The piece made waves within an anti-abortion movement that was grasping for its next move after the Supreme Court struck down Roe. 'She was really challenging the pro-lifers on this issue, and we found the idea super interesting,' said Kristen Day, the executive director of Democrats for Life of America. Catherine Glenn Foster, then the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, responded a week after publication, praising Bruenig's piece and adding, 'Making birth free should be table stakes as a political matter. I'll work to advance this.' Democrats for Life and Americans United for Life teamed up, and in January 2023 the two organizations released a white paper, fleshing out the 'Make Birth Free' policy in more detail. The authors thanked Bruenig in the acknowledgements for pushing them to take on the idea, and it was this white paper that caught the eye of Vance in the Senate. John Mize, who succeeded Glenn Foster as CEO of Americans United for Life in January 2024, said the Bruenig article arrived at exactly the right moment. He acknowledges his movement 'missed the mark' by being so singularly focused on banning abortion for so many years. 'I think there's been a little bit of paradigm shift in some of the movement — not by all, by any means — but certainly by some parts' to better support women and families. He pointed to the Blueprint for Life coalition which launched in June 2024 to promote more holistic family policies, and he noted that some anti-abortion groups are newly advocating for policies like expanding the Child Tax Credit and paid family leave. Still, many leading anti-abortion advocates and lawmakers have been leading the push to cut federal spending on programs like child care, food assistance, and maternal health care. The Heritage Foundation called the original proposal to make childbirth costs free an 'unjust wealth transfer' and others protested the risk of more 'socialism' in health care as too great. When Bruenig's piece was originally published, she faced fierce pushback from the left. Critics felt the article was insensitive, implicitly endorsing the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe, and offering 'fanfic' for a right-wing movement historically opposed to a robust welfare state. Political science professor Scott Lemieux called the piece 'cringe' and 'embarrassing' and 'deluded.' Others said she was pitching 'forced birth but make it free.' The left-wing backlash ultimately prompted Bruenig to quit Twitter. Bruenig says she never expected much uptake on the idea, but is encouraged by recent changes. 'For the last 10 years or more I have contended that the best way to deal with abortion is on the demand side, by creating a welfare system that gives people an honest choice,' she told me. 'There's been, for better or worse, a shift in the way Republicans are thinking about these kinds of in the center, and I'm very impressed to see some uptake on the idea.'She says she's not surprised there was criticism, but was writing for 'people who are persuadable when it comes to what the pro-life movement should be about.' She added that she embraces the 'pro-life' label despite opposing abortion bans because 'I don't think the pro-ban people should get to decide what counts as pro-life policy or philosophy.' The political road ahead Bill supporters are cautiously hopeful about the road ahead for the legislation. The timing reflects converging forces that have created an unusual window for bipartisan family policy. President Donald Trump's election, combined with growing concerns about declining birth rates, has coincided with a shift among some conservatives toward more proactive family policies. Meanwhile, Democrats see an opportunity to advance maternal health goals. The legislation also benefits from political cover on both sides. Republicans can champion it as pro-family policy that potentially reduces abortions, while Democrats can support it as expanding health care access. Crucially, because it doesn't require new government spending but instead redistributes costs through the existing private insurance system, it sidesteps typical fights over federal budget increases. But challenges remain. The upcoming reconciliation process will test whether Republicans prioritize fiscal restraint or family policy when forced to choose. And while Vance previously supported the free birth idea, the administration faces pressure from fiscal conservatives who view any insurance mandates as market interference. Not all conservatives will be thrilled at the idea of tinkering with the Affordable Care Act or facing accusations of supporting socialized medicine. Bill supporters hope the momentum for pronatalist policies might help to combat those kinds of criticisms, though other conservatives have pointed to falling birth rates in places with single-payer health care, the legislation has attracted support from heavyweight conservative intellectuals. Yuval Levin, the director of social, cultural, and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote a policy brief earlier this year urging Congress to embrace making childbirth free, even if it doesn't affect birth rates. 'Substantively and symbolically, bringing the out-of-pocket health care costs of childbirth to zero is an ambitious but achievable starting point for the next generation of pro-family policies,' he Brown, a family policy analyst at the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center tells me he thinks it's 'the right instinct' to share the costs of parenting more broadly across society, though he hopes it does not 'distract from more broad-based efforts to help parents' such as a larger Child Tax Credit. Mize, of Americans United for Life, has been in 'the planning phases' of working with the White House on family policy. He thinks once the reconciliation bill is done, Republicans and Democrats could either retreat to their camps ahead of the midterms or decide to work together on achievable wins. 'You could see level-headed people say, 'Hey, this is one opportunity for us to put a feather in our cap and say that we're working on a bipartisan basis with our constituents,'' he said.A Senate staffer working on the bill, who requested anonymity to more candidly discuss their plans, said their intention is to move the bill through normal order and attach it to a must-pass legislative package. Both Hawley and Kaine sit on the Senate HELP committee, which holds jurisdiction over the bill. Rep. Golden, who is working on preparing the House version, said they're hoping to introduce their bill within the next week or two.'While some debates over what that should look like can be complicated or contentious, this idea is simple and powerful: Pregnancy and childbirth are normal parts of family life,' he told Vox. 'So, insurance companies should treat it like the routine care it is and cover the cost, not stick people with huge medical bills. That's the kind of simple, commonsense reform that anyone can get behind. '
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Meet Markey's primary challenger
MARKEY CHALLENGER ENTERS THE CHAT — Alex Rikleen — a father, former teacher and fantasy sports writer — is running for the U.S. Senate 'because Democrats have shown us that they're not going to change on their own.' Rikleen, a first-time candidate, launched his primary campaign against Sen. Ed Markey earlier this week with a call for Democrats to do more to fight the 'existential threat' they warned of from a second Trump term. 'Democrats the whole last campaign, the overwhelming message was 'existential threat, existential threat,'' Rikleen told Playbook. 'And Ed Markey has been around for — this is his seventh new Republican administration — and I don't see any difference in how he is responding to this new Republican administration versus any of the previous six.' Out of power in D.C., Democrats have unleashed a steady drumbeat of criticism against Republicans. Markey has crossed the state to attend protests and rallies, and he t raveled to Louisiana in April to urge the White House to release Tufts student Rumeysa Öztürk who was detained there. But beyond messaging, there's little Democrats can do to block President Donald Trump's agenda without control of either the House or the Senate. Republicans will likely be able to push their policy agenda through Washington, Rikleen acknowledged. 'A unified Republican majority can overcome people who are objecting to unanimous consent, and they can overcome quorum calls, but it slows them down,' he said. Rikleen isn't alone in launching a frustration-fueled primary challenge against a longtime Democratic member of Congress. Candidates are running similar campaigns in California, Illinois and Virginia. But Rikleen, a millennial, didn't specifically mention Markey's age (he'll be 80 when he's on the ballot next year). Taking on Markey will likely be an uphill battle for a political newcomer like Rikleen — especially considering he notched a decisive victory last cycle over high-profile congressman from one of the country's most storied political families. GOOD FRIDAY MORNING, MASSACHUSETTS. Happy Friday! TODAY — Gov. Maura Healey and Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll announce the state's new Poet Laureate at 12:45 p.m. in Salem. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu hosts a Chinatown and Bay Village coffee hour at 10 a.m. in Chinatown, speaks at the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Flour Bakery location in Boston Common at noon and talks about 'governing in the age of Trump' at the WBUR Festival at 2 p.m. THIS WEEKEND — Auditor Diana DiZoglio is on WCVB's 'On the Record' at 11 a.m. Sunday. Rep. Jake Auchincloss is on NBC10 Boston Weekend Today at 9:30 a.m. Sunday. Have a tip, story, suggestion, birthday, anniversary, new job, or any other nugget for the Playbook? Drop me a line: kgarrity@ DATELINE BEACON HILL EYEBROW RAISER — Massachusetts' Healey seeks meeting with Trump border czar Homan by Barry Richard, 1420 WBSM: 'Days after Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey praised 'some' of President Donald Trump's border policies, Healey is now looking to score a meeting with Trump border czar Tom Homan. … [F]ormer Bristol County Sheriff Tom Hodgson, the Massachusetts chairman of the 2024 Trump campaign, told WBSM's Chris McCarthy he was approached by a Healey contact who asked if he might mention Hodgson to Healey as someone who might be able to put her in touch with Homan. Hodgson agreed. 'I will wait for his response,' Hodgson said. 'He (the contact) did not say she asked him to reach out to me, but he prefaced his conversation by saying he was 'having dinner with Maura Healey.''' Healey has previously said she would be willing to meet with Homan, but an aide didn't clarify Thursday night whether she was actively seeking a meeting with Trump's border czar. — Lawmakers urged to block library book bans by Christian M. Wade, The Eagle-Tribune: 'Lawmakers are being urged to restrict efforts to ban books from public libraries and schools in response to a rise in challenges from parents and conservative groups. The bipartisan proposal, which is being considered by the Legislature's Committee on Tourism, Arts and Cultural Development, would, if approved, make Massachusetts one of only two states to effectively outlaw book bans because of 'partisan or doctrinal' reasons by setting new restrictions on receiving state funding.' WHAT'S ON CAMPBELL'S DOCKET — AG Campbell releases 'Know Your Rights' guide as ICE arrests surge by Vivian La, WBUR: 'In response to an increase in immigration arrests, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell issued a guide that outlines what immigrants, families and communities should know about their rights if they are approached by ICE or witness detentions in their neighborhoods. Over the last few months, some arrests have shocked communities. Five federal agents tackled a man in Watertown; a chaotic arrest in Worcester led to an hours-long standoff between bystanders, local police and federal agents; agents smashed a car window to access a man in New Bedford; and a Tufts student who didn't know her visa was revoked was arrested by plainclothes agents.' FROM THE HUB — Opioid-related deaths decline in Boston in 2024 by Craig LeMoult, GBH News: 'Opioid-related deaths dropped sharply in Boston last year, hitting a nine-year low, according to a new analysis by the Boston Public Health Commission. Public health leaders believe some interventions, like distribution of the overdose-reversing drug naloxone, are helping — but they say the biggest contributing factor may be what's in the illicit drugs themselves.' THE RACE FOR CITY HALL — District 7 candidates debate land use, White Stadium at Boston forum by Tréa Lavery, MassLive: 'Nine candidates seeking to replace Boston District 7 City Councilor Tania Fernandes Anderson discussed a number of community issues during a virtual forum Thursday night. But the one issue that remained unsaid during the nearly three-hour forum was the reason Fernandes Anderson's seat is open — her conviction on federal corruption charges.' PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES — MBTA employees busted for allegedly falsifying Red Line track inspection reports in Boston by Lance Reynolds, Boston Herald: 'Four former MBTA employees who clocked in overtime well north of $50,000 last year and a current staffer could face up to 20 years in prison for allegedly falsifying Red Line track inspection reports. The four former employees are accused in federal court of working on private vehicles, playing on their phones, and chatting with other employees instead of performing track inspections, which they stated they completed.' DAY IN COURT — Grand jury investigating State Police recruit death by Sean Cotter, The Boston Globe: 'A state Superior Court grand jury has been hearing sworn testimony over at least several weeks from State Police troopers and others close to the investigation of a police recruit's death during a training exercise in September, according to three people with direct knowledge of the secret court proceedings. The grand jury appears to be an escalation in the months-long investigation by special prosecutor David Meier. The veteran defense attorney and former prosecutor was tapped by state officials to lead an independent probe into the death of 25-year-old Enrique Delgado-Garcia, who suffered serious injuries in a boxing ring during an academy training exercise in New Braintree. He died a day later.' WARREN REPORT — Savannah Chrisley clashes with Elizabeth Warren over Trump's pardon of her parents' fraud convictions by Tal Kopan, The Boston Globe: 'Senator Elizabeth Warren drew the ire of a conservative reality television star Thursday morning over a pardon from President Trump that wiped away her parents' fraud convictions. Savannah Chrisley, daughter of 'Chrisley Knows Best' TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, took issue with a Warren post on the social media platform X that called Trump's pardon of her parents 'a get-out-of-jail-free card for the rich & famous who cozy up to Trump.' The younger Chrisley campaigned for Trump last year.' — Led by Senator Warren, Mass. lawmakers demand answers about Trump's ongoing attack on international students by Tonya Alanez, The Boston Globe: 'Senator Elizabeth Warren led a delegation of Massachusetts lawmakers in demanding answers from the Trump administration about its revocation of international students' visas, what they called the latest in a string of hostile actions aimed at students from abroad, according to a copy of a letter sent Wednesday.' FROM THE DELEGATION OVERSIGHT OFFICIAL — Rep. Stephen Lynch made his bid for the for the top Democratic spot on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee official Thursday, touting his decades of experience on the committee, and the support of the late Rep. Gerry Connolly, who previously held the post. 'As we all know, Gerry Connolly was all about the work, and I am honored to have earned his trust and endorsement to continue this important work and lead Oversight Democrats at a moment when our decisions and our actions over the coming months may determine the course of our American experiment,' Lynch, who has been serving as the party's temporary head of the panel, wrote in a letter to Democratic colleagues. 'I am well-prepared to manage an extremely talented group of Oversight Democrats as we fight like hell against every action taken by the Trump Administration to curtail individual rights, dismantle our democratic institutions and unload the costs of reckless economic plans onto the backs of America's workers and vulnerable communities,' Lynch added. So far, Lynch is up against Rep. Robert Garcia of California and Rep. Kweisi Mfume of Maryland. Others, like Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, have also expressed interest in running. MARIJUANA IN MASSACHUSETTS — Small marijuana businesses call reform bill a 'Trojan horse' for big companies by Walter Wuthmann, WBUR: 'Massachusetts House lawmakers this week released their long-awaited plan to restructure the state's embattled Cannabis Control Commission, but some marijuana retailers say it contains provisions that would be a 'death blow' to the industry. The agency tasked with regulating the state's $8 billion marijuana industry has faced calls for reform following allegations of workplace toxicity, infighting and perceived regulatory delays. The House proposal would reduce the five-member commission to three, and give more governing power to its chair.' — With cannabis industry struggling, Western Mass. sellers and growers seek relief from high court by Jim Kinney, The Springfield Republican: 'Plaintiffs growing, selling and delivering legal marijuana in Massachusetts now have two court decisions against them, but aren't giving up. They seek to overturn a federal law they say strangles their business. They were turned back last week by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. But plaintiffs say their fight against the Richard Nixon-era Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not over.' FROM THE 413 — ICE takes two into custody Wednesday morning in Amherst by Scott Merzbach, Daily Hampshire Gazette: 'Amherst officials are notifying the community about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions in which two individuals were taken into custody, in separate incidents, Wednesday between 7 and 8 a.m.' — Pittsfield City Council gives initial OK to 10 city budgets by Maryjane Williams, The Berkshire Eagle. THE LOCAL ANGLE — Holy Family Hospital in Haverhill cuts overnight care, pursues 'satellite emergency' status by Jill Harmacinski, The Eagle-Tribune: 'Plans are underway for Holy Family Hospital in Haverhill to become a 'satellite emergency facility' with 59 beds for overnight admissions now being phased out, officials said. Surgical services ended in March at HFH Haverhill and intensive care unit services have been unavailable there since 2024 before Lawrence General Hospital assumed ownership after the Steward health care system collapse.' — $70 million in bonds in pipeline for New Bedford's water systems by Colin Hogan, The New Bedford Light: 'A new bond order advanced in City Council last Thursday will kick off the latest round of work — $70 million in total — for the Whaling City to repair, replace, and improve its water systems: stormwater, wastewater, and lead pipes alike.' — In Nantucket, fears of an economic chilling effect after ICE sting by Danny McDonald, The Boston Globe. — — Renters find relief at Worcester legal clinic to clear their eviction records by Sam Turken, GBH News. HEARD 'ROUND THE BUBBLAH HAPPY BIRTHDAY — to CNN's Eric Levenson, Senate Ways & Means Chair Michael Rodrigues, Bill Fonda, Natasha Sarin, Ayanna Pressley alum Luisa Peña Lyons and Wes Ritchie. HAPPY BIRTHWEEKEND — to WPRI's Ted Nesi, Katie Sagarin and Gena Mangiaratti, who celebrate Saturday.
