Oliver Thomas launches mayoral campaign
Councilman Oliver Thomas on Tuesday kicked off his long-rumored campaign to be the next mayor of New Orleans.
Why it matters: The race will pit two councilmembers against each other in their hopes of leading the city.
The big picture: Thomas says he is running because he has the institutional knowledge to fix the city's roads, ensure reliable city services and "restore pride in our public spaces."
He's been on and off the council for 15 years and is currently representing New Orleans East.
He made waves last summer after unveiling what he called " PROJECT2025NOLA," which is not related to conservative Project 2025.
Watch his campaign video and read his platform.
Six people have entered the race so far, with Councilmember Helena Moreno the early frontrunner with fundraising.
She ended last year with about $1 million in the bank, while Thomas has about $200,000, according to campaign finance reports.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
One Supreme Court Justice Just Keeps Sliding Further to the Right
The Supreme Court delivered an important victory to disabled children on Thursday, unanimously affirming their right to reasonable accommodations in public education. Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion for the court reiterated that schools engage in unlawful discrimination when they deny these accommodations to kids, even if officials are not acting in bad faith. His ruling provides a lifeline to schoolchildren throughout the country who are wrongly denied equal access to learning opportunities because of a disability. Yet this victory comes with an asterisk: In a concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas—joined, alarmingly, by Justice Brett Kavanaugh—launched an assault on civil rights law that would devastate disabled Americans' ability to receive an education and participate in all aspects of public life. Thomas and Kavanaugh suggested that the long-standing interpretation of disability law is, in fact, unconstitutional, arguing that states should have far more leeway to discriminate against those with disabilities. We should expect such callous radicalism from Thomas. But Kavanaugh's endorsement of this position is yet another ominous sign that the justice is drifting toward the hard-right flank of the court. It is difficult to know exactly what to make of Kavanaugh's drift to the right because he remains an intellectual lightweight who struggles to articulate and defend his views with any coherence. Is he just another MAGA-pilled jurist eager to promote Trump's agenda? Did his bruising confirmation battle leave him with a lifelong grudge against Democrats that he acts upon by trashing progressive priorities from the bench? Has he fallen under the influence of Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, who spurn centrism as craven capitulation to their perceived enemies on the left? Whatever the cause of his transformation, it is by now an undeniable fact that he has abandoned the middle of the court, sliding to the right of Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and sometimes even Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thursday's case, A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, shows exactly why robust federal protections for disabled Americans remain so vital. The plaintiff, Ava Tharpe, 'suffers from a rare form of epilepsy that severely limits her physical and cognitive functioning,' as Roberts put it. Her seizures are worst in the morning, leaving her able to learn only after about 12 p.m. each day. When Tharpe transferred to a new school district in 2015, officials refused to provide her with special evening instruction, leaving her with far fewer hours of instruction than her peers. Eventually, Tharpe's parents sued under several laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, which broadly bar discrimination on the basis of disability. But the federal courts tossed out their suit. These courts acknowledged that Tharpe was denied equal access to education because of her disability. But they held that Tharpe was not entitled to an injunction or damages under the relevant statutes because she had not proven that school officials 'acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment.' Mere 'non-compliance' with the law, the courts concluded, was not enough to justify judicial intervention. This holding was, Roberts wrote, flatly wrong. The widespread adoption of this approach, however, has allowed rampant discrimination against disabled children to fester for decades, despite Congress' clear effort to stamp it out. 'In other disability discrimination contexts,' Roberts wrote, courts do not force plaintiffs to prove that state officials acted with malign intent. And there is no reason why this rule should apply to 'the educational services context' alone. 'In imposing a higher bar for discrimination claims based on educational services as compared to other sorts of disability discrimination claims,' the chief justice declared, the lower courts bungled 'the unambiguous directive' of the law. So Tharpe's suit can move forward. And now all disabled children denied accommodations by school officials will have an easier time establishing illegal discrimination and securing judicial relief. But Thomas and Kavanaugh were not content to let Roberts deliver a clean victory for civil rights law. Instead, Thomas chose to write a concurrence, joined by only Kavanaugh, that aimed an arrow at the heart of disability law. He argued that courts have been misinterpreting these statutes for decades, granting overly generous protections to disabled people. And he warned that this prevailing understanding of civil rights law may actually violate the Constitution in several different (and dubious) ways. Thomas' central gripe is that, as Roberts wrote on Thursday, federal courts do not typically need proof of intentional discrimination to rule in favor of disabled plaintiffs. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973—two closely related statutes that cover much the same ground—disability discrimination can occur even when government officials are not actively seeking to inflict harm. For instance, a school district might not intend to injure wheelchair users when it installs a stairway with no ramp. This refusal to consider the needs of mobility-impaired students has long been seen as discrimination nonetheless. Both the school district and a coalition of red states, however, argued that federal law does not clearly prohibit 'unintentional' discrimination against disabled people. In his concurrence, Thomas embraced that argument. And he wrote that Congress must use clearer language under the Constitution's spending clause if it wishes to outlaw such unintentional discrimination. This solution, though, turns out to be a mirage—because Thomas then declared that even if Congress clarified the statute, his view is that it would violate the Constitution in at least three different ways. First, he wrote that Congress has no general power to 'protect the learning environment in schools' under the commerce clause. Second, he wrote that Congress has no authority to mandate 'special accommodations for the disabled' under the 14th Amendment. Third, he wrote that Congress cannot compel states to provide such accommodations without violating the anti-commandeering doctrine rooted in the 10th Amendment. If the Supreme Court adopted these views, it would effectively eviscerate all disability rights law—not just public education requirements, but the entire framework prohibiting discrimination against disabled children and adults alike. Thomas did hedge by noting that he expressed 'no definitive views' on these theories. But he urged the lower courts to 'carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution.' And caveats aside, the justice left no room for doubt that he believes all three of these constitutional objections to disability law have serious merit. It is hard to know where to start with this hodgepodge of grievances, because none of them are plausible under a fair reading of the law as it stands today. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissected Thomas' gripe about 'unintentional discrimination' in her own deft concurrence. Sotomayor explained that existing statutes apply whether or not officials show 'any invidious animus or purpose.' At bottom, these laws do not simply outlaw state bigotry toward disabled people; they also 'impose an affirmative obligation' to accommodate disabilities. Their expansive language clearly applies 'even where no ill will or animus toward people with disabilities is present.' So the Constitution's spending clause does not require Congress to speak any more clearly than it already has. Thomas' deeper constitutional objections are equally specious. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the commerce clause empowers Congress to address noneconomic conduct as part of a broader regulatory scheme. Disability laws are a key part of Congress' efforts to grant all children equal access to education, a universal public service on which the federal government spends billions each year. If these statutes exceed the commerce clause, then much (perhaps all) federal rules and regulations in this area must fall, too. But disability laws like the ADA do not even need a foundation in the commerce clause to survive constitutional assault, because they are—contrary to Thomas' claim—deeply rooted in the 14th Amendment, a standalone basis for their enactment. It is true that the Supreme Court has never held that the 14th Amendment, on its own, always requires states to accommodate disabled people. But SCOTUS has held that this amendment empowers Congress to go beyond what the Constitution requires in order to 'prevent and deter unconstitutional conduct.' The court has, in fact, expressly upheld some of the ADA's mandates under congressional authority to enforce the 14th Amendment. The court has also wielded the 14th Amendment to invalidate discriminatory policies in public education. It seems obvious that, under this precedent, Congress may rely upon the amendment to impose expansive nondiscrimination policies on state education systems. And when Congress acts pursuant to its enumerated powers, it cannot run afoul of the anti-commandeering doctrine. Of course, Thomas has long taken a hostile view of Congress' right to protect individual freedoms, particularly when it does so by limiting state authority. It is no surprise that the justice sounds eager to tear down the whole edifice of disability law. What is jarring, and portentous, is that Kavanaugh signed onto Thomas' opinion in full, further solidifying the justice's spot on the court's ultraconservative bloc. Earlier in his tenure, Kavanaugh often posed as a moderate, siding with the chief justice nearly 100 percent of the time. Over the past few years, though, he has shifted to the right, making bedfellows with Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito more and more often. Just in recent weeks, Kavanaugh has argued that the Second Amendment protects AR-15s, and—alone among the justices—argued for a ruinous assault on class actions. (The class-action case involved blind people denied an accommodation, a hint of the animosity toward disabled people he displayed in Thursday's case.) The list goes on. In March, when the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to pay out $2 billion in foreign aid, Kavanaugh joined Alito's bilious dissent, which smeared the lower court judge as a power-drunk hack. Last year, Kavanaugh sided with the hardcore conservatives in voting to let Texas nullify the Biden administration's authority over immigration enforcement. In other cases, the justice has staked out a far-right position, as when he suggested that a landmark federal law protecting Native children is, in fact, unconstitutional discrimination. And he pressed the court to consider striking down laws restricting 'conversion therapy' for LGBTQ+ minors before some of his conservative colleagues were ready to do so. 'You sowed the wind,' Kavanaugh warned Democratic senators during his confirmation battle, and now 'the country will reap the whirlwind.' That threat now reads less like a warning than a mission statement.
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Donald Trump Issues Next Trade Deal Update After China
President Trump told a reporter on Wednesday the United States is currently in trade negotiations with "around 15 countries" including Japan and South Korea just days after he said he had reached a new trade agreement with China. Asked on Wednesday evening "who are you expecting to get a deal with next?" Trump replied: "So we're dealing with Japan, we're dealing with South Korea, we're dealing with a lot of them. We're dealing with around 15 countries but as you know we have about 150 plus and you can't do that so we're going to be sending letters out in about a week and a half, two weeks, to countries telling them what the deal is." The president was speaking at the Kennedy Center ahead of a performance of Les Miserables. Trump also shared a 1 minute, 11 second clip of his comments, broadcast by Fox News, via his Truth Social website. Related Articles How Project 2025 Compares With Trump's Los Angeles ResponseDonald Trump Gold Card Visa Launches: How to ApplyEntire Board Overseeing State Department Program Resigns in Trump ProtestTrump Tariffs Face Delay as White House Struggles To Meet 90 Deals Deadline 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
These Early Ed Grants Are ‘Conservative-Friendly.' Why Does Trump Want Them Cut?
Chris Eichler has worked nearly four decades as a family child care provider — so long, she even cared for a boy whose father attended her program as a preschooler. Even with her expertise, she still appreciates the support she gets through a University of Arkansas-run network. With funding from a federal grant, 250 participants from across the state work on increasing children's vocabulary and screening them for delays in speech, motor or social skills. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter 'We try to catch those things early,' said Eichler. The network helped her become nationally accredited and now she's one of the top-ranked providers in Arkansas. 'The better we get, the better our kids get. It's a win-win for our state.' But President Donald Trump now wants to eliminate the funding that paid for that network and similar projects nationwide. Launched in 2014 during the Obama administration, Preschool Development Grants were intended to expand pre-K for 4-year-olds from low-income families. During his first term, Trump significantly redesigned the grants into what Katharine Stevens, an early-childhood policy expert, described as a 'conservative-friendly' effort to promote parent choice and put decisions about improving early learning in the hands of states. The funds benefit kids from birth to age 5, not just pre-K students. That's why it's hard for her to understand Trump's reason for eliminating them. 'I sympathize with people who are feeling like the federal government has just grown way out of control,' said Stevens, founder and president of the Center on Child and Family Policy, a right-leaning early childhood think tank. But the grants, she said, have delivered 'a lot of bang for the buck' by making it easier for parents to find high-quality programs. 'Just doesn't make sense to end it.' Despite his first-term goal of allowing states to take the lead, Trump wants to cut the program because it doesn't increase the supply of preschool slots. The proposal would save $539 million. Rachel Greszler, a senior research fellow at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, whose Project 2025 has guided much of the president's second term, said the funding falls short because child care and early education programs don't meet the demand. 'These taxpayer dollars have primarily gone towards the planning and administrative side of preschool — things like 'identifying needs' and 'engaging stakeholders,' ' she said. 'What's needed most is more child care providers and more slots for children.' The grant program might result in one-time bonuses or incentive payments for providers, but doesn't necessarily bring new teachers into the field, she said. In an earlier budget preview, the Trump administration pinned its objections on former President Joe Biden's use of the 'unproductive funds' to 'push [diversity, equity and inclusion] on to toddlers.' As an example, a brief paragraph points to Minnesota, which listed DEI buzzwords like 'racial equity' and 'intersectionality' as 'guiding principles' for the grant in 2021. But many of the grants have gone to red states like Alabama, Florida and Idaho that have used the money to keep parents in the workforce and improve the quality of early care and education programs, including Head Start. Last October, 10 states and the District of Columbia received a new round of funding, totaling $87 million over three years. One grantee, Kansas, is set to receive $21 million. In keeping with the Trump administration's push to reduce regulations, the state has worked to speed up the fingerprinting process for staff and streamline applications for extra funding. Minnesota intends to use its $24 million to support research projects, family engagement efforts and salaries for early-childhood mental health professionals. The goals that the administration labeled DEI are not for classroom activities, said Anna Kurth, a spokeswoman for the Minnesota Department of Education, but to help children from low-income families gain access to services. Related As Congress debates next year's budget, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, ranking Democrat on the appropriations committee, and a former preschool teacher, said she hopes the grants continue. 'President Trump talks a lot about parental choice, and here he is pushing to ax investments to expand families' child care and pre-K options,' she said in a statement to The 74. 'Congress has got to reject these cuts, and I'll be doing everything I can to ensure we do.' It's unclear whether Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the committee, agrees with the president's budget plan. But in announcing a Preschool Development Grant in 2023, she said it would 'build an educational foundation for Maine children that will benefit them for the rest of their lives.' Parents have a lot to navigate before their children become old enough for school, including long waitlists for good programs and costs that are often out of reach. Providers face their own financial obstacles. They're underpaid compared to those in professions requiring similar training, and over 40% depend on Medicaid and other public assistance programs to get by. Stanford University's RAPID survey, which has captured the impact of the pandemic on families and the workforce, shows that the percentage of early education providers struggling to afford at least one basic need increased in 2022 and was still high in 2024. Eliminating the grants won't solve those problems, said Philip Fisher, who directs the Stanford Center on Early Education and founded the survey. 'If you think about a market that's teetering on the edge of collapse, resources that go into that market are going to help shore it up,' he said. 'This may not directly put money into the pockets of providers or parents to pay for care, but it creates a more efficient system and enhances quality — a huge issue for a lot of parents.' States have used the funds to address some of those challenges and to encourage early education leaders from school districts, child care centers and faith-based programs to tackle them together. With a highly rated pre-K program for 4-year-olds already in place, Alabama used its roughly $48 million in federal grants to coach child care providers, help teachers get bachelor's degrees and improve transitions for kids into kindergarten. The University of Arkansas spent the $6 million it received in 2023 to improve quality in rural areas, like Eichler's town of Romance, about 45 miles north of Little Rock. 'Large centers just aren't viable in some of our communities,' said Kathy Pillow-Price, director of Early Care and Education Projects at the university. 'Family child care providers really support us and our workforce.' With advocates concerned about the future of Head Start, which the administration initially proposed to eliminate, the fate of the Preschool Development Grants has received less attention. Trump's budget, released May 30, preserves Head Start — rejecting, for now, a Project 2025 recommendation to end it. The document didn't specifically cite Preschool Development Grants, but it called for shifting more child care funding toward in-home programs. Trump's Jan. 29 executive order on school choice echoed that theme by calling for families to use their child care subsidies for'private and faith-based options.' Related But experts say the grants have already met those expectations. As in Arkansas, Idaho used its funds to support the growth of licensed home-based programs in 'child care deserts,' like rural areas. Leaders also offered providers training in business practices. Christian and other religious early-childhood programs have been among those benefiting from the federal money. According to a report to Congress, 'faith-based entities' were among the new partners in 2019 participating in state and local efforts to improve services. The grant program has been a boon to member schools by supporting quality improvements and training opportunities for staff, said Althea Penn, director of early education for the Association of Christian Schools International. Stevens, with the Center on Child and Family Policy, remembers how the goals of the program shifted from primarily expanding pre-K during the Obama years to encouraging states to identify their own priorities under Trump. 'We need state-level innovation,' she said. 'That is the entire purpose of these grants.'
