Tampa state senator doesn't rule out exploring USF president's job
The University of South Florida's search for its next president has barely started, but murmurs of who might succeed Rhea Law have already circulated.
On the front page of last Friday's La Gaceta, Tampa Bay's trilingual newspaper, publisher Patrick Mantiega's 'As We Heard It' column listed one possibility: State Sen. Jay Collins, R-Tampa.
Asked about the rumor on Tuesday, Collins denied that he was formally in the running.
'I haven't heard anything about that,' he told a Tampa Bay Times reporter. 'I've seen it, but I'm here focused on what we're doing.'
But asked further if he would be interested, he didn't rule it out.
'I think anytime something's there, you have to look at it, but that's true in anything,' he said.
USF has yet to hold its first presidential search committee meeting, and the process will include listening sessions with stakeholders and creating a position profile to advertise the opening.
Collins, a former Green Beret and Purple Heart recipient deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, was elected to the state senate in 2022. Bills he's sponsored include one to allow eligible owners to carry concealed weapons without a permit, one requiring communist history education in schools and one banning non-Governor approved flags at government buildings, which some have interpreted to include Pride flags at universities.
This year he's also sponsored several bills, including one to create a public transparency about the activities of 'agents of adversarial nations and foreign terrorist organizations' in the state.
That bill states that any state university or college student, faculty or employee that violates defined rules, including participating in political activities intended to influence policy toward these organizations or nations, will be permanently expelled or dismissed from their roles. Non-U.S. citizens would be turned over to the U.S. Department of Justice for removal.
The university's first search committee meeting is Thursday.
This is a developing story and may be updated.
Divya Kumar covers higher education for the Tampa Bay Times in partnership with Open Campus.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Celebrates Pride by Defunding LGBTQ+ Support at Suicide Hotline
President Donald Trump is marking Pride Month by slashing specialized counseling services for young LGBTQ+ people who call the National Suicide Hotline. The Department of Health and Human Services' proposed 2026 budget cuts LGBTQ+ youth resources provided by the hotline, also known as 988. Although $520 million is still set aside to fund the organization, government support for LGBTQ-specific counseling will be eliminated. When Trump signed the suicide prevention line into law in 2020, the legislation put in place special counseling for high-risk populations like LGBTQ+ people under the age of 25. The hotline service was required to employ 'specially trained staff and partner organizations' because—the legislation states—queer and trans youth 'are more than 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide than their peers, with 1 in 5 LGBTQ youth and more than 1 in 3 transgender youth reporting attempting suicide.' Less than five years later, a senior administration official told NBC that the money has been reallocated so that it doesn't go to 'radical grooming contractors,' perpetuating a discriminatory stereotype that equates LGBTQ+ individuals or allies with sexual abusers. Rachel Cauley, a spokesperson for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, said that the proposed budget funds 988 but not 'radical gender ideology.' 'It does not... grant taxpayer money to a chat service where children are encouraged to embrace radical gender ideology by 'counselors' without consent or knowledge of their parents,' Cauley said. The contractors that partner with 988 are mental health organizations that typically provide care to the general population and LGBTQ+ people. This includes The Trevor Project, which has long advocated for LGBTQ+ youth. Jaymes Black, The Trevor Project's CEO, said in a statement to NBC: 'Attempts to discredit these life-saving services will not change the reality of what this administration is proposing: the elimination of a national suicide prevention program, run by seven leading crisis contact centers, that has supported over 1.3 million LGBTQ+ youth across the U.S. with best-practice crisis care.' Black, who urged Congress to rethink the proposal, said that 'every young life is worth saving.' The Trump administration chose to announce the move during Pride Month, a season meant to honor queer representation and commemorate the pioneers who paved the way toward equality. The first Pride marches were held in 1970 to honor the one-year anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riots, a pivotal event in the LGBTQ+ rights movement. It took nearly 30 years for the U.S. government to officially recognize the significance of the month; in 1999 former president Bill Clinton issued a proclamation recognizing June as 'Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.' Its name was subsequently updated to include other identities, like bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals, by former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It formally became LGBTQ+ Pride Month in 2021. Trump had already signalled that he would officially spite Pride Month last week when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president has no intention to formally recognize it. 'There are no plans for a proclamation for the month of June,' Leavitt said. 'But I can tell you this president is very proud to be a president for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed.' Trump's critique of 'gender ideology' has been a cornerstone of his second term. He has declared that there are only two biological sexes; scrubbed agency websites of any mention of transgender or intersex people; stripped diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from the federal government; barred transgender women from women's sports; prevented federal funding from going to transition-related care for minors; and removed transgender people from the military.
6 hours ago
Big changes are being proposed for a U.S. food aid program
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
6 hours ago
Big changes are being proposed for a US food aid program. Here's a breakdown by the numbers
TPresident Donald Trump's plan to cut taxes by trillions of dollars could also trim billions in spending from social safety net programs, including food aid for lower-income people. The proposed changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program would make states pick up more of the costs, require several million more recipients to work or lose their benefits, and potentially reduce the amount of food aid people receive in the future. The legislation, which narrowly passed the U.S. House, could undergo further changes in the Senate, where it's currently being debated. Trump wants lawmakers to send the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to his desk by July 4, when the nation marks the 249th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Here's a look at the food aid program, by the numbers: The federal aid program formerly known as food stamps was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals, or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. But the modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law took effect eliminating a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. A little over 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in February, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the county. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often, more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of February, nearly 22.5 million households were enrolled SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $353. Legislation passed by the House is projected to cut about $295 billion of federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. A little more than half of those federal savings would come by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Nearly one-third of those savings would come by expanding a work requirement for some SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Additional money would be saved by eliminating SNAP benefits for between 120,000 and 250,000 immigrants legally in the U.S. who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents. Another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits. As a result, the CBO estimates that the average monthly food benefit would be about $15 lower than it otherwise would have been by 2034. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents would need to work, volunteer or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation that passed the House would expand work requirements to those ages 55 through 64. It also would extend work requirements to some parents without children younger than age 7. And it would limit the ability of states to waive work requirements in areas that lack sufficient jobs. The combined effect of those changes is projected by the CBO to reduce SNAP participation by a monthly average of 3.2 million people. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs. States also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. All states would be required to pay at least 5% of the food aid benefits, and could pay more depending on how often they make mistakes with people's payments. States that had payment error rates between 6-8% in the most recent federal fiscal year for which data is available would have to cover 15% of the food costs. States with error rates between 8-10% would have to cover 20% of the food benefits, and those with error rates greater than 10% would have to cover 25% of the food costs. Many states could get hit with higher costs. The national error rate stood at 11.7% in the 2023 fiscal year, and just three states — Idaho, South Dakota and Vermont — had error rates below 5%. But the 2023 figures are unlikely to serve as the base year, so the exact costs to states remains unclear. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate benefits for people. House Resolution 1, containing the SNAP changes and tax cuts, passed the House last month by a margin of just one vote — 215-214. A vote also could be close in the Senate, where Republicans hold 53 of the 100 seats. Democrats did not support the bill in the House and are unlikely to do so in the Senate. Some Republican senators have expressed reservations about proposed cuts to food aid and Medicaid and the potential impact of the bill on the federal deficit. GOP Senate leaders may have to make some changes to the bill to ensure enough support to pass it.
