
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry's approach to lower insurance rates could cast political fate
Testifying in a nearly two-hour exchange Wednesday with lawmakers on the House Insurance Committee, Landry urged his fellow Republicans to break from their traditional alignment with insurance companies and vote in favor of House Bill 576, a Democrat-backed proposal that's part of an agenda Landry has described as a 'balanced approach' to the decades-old rate debate between personal injury lawyers and the insurance companies they sue.
Louisiana pollster John Couvillon said Landry can't really afford not to take on the insurance issue because policy premiums are by far the most overwhelming concern of voters and likely outweighs any risk associated with bipartisanship.
'If he can bend the cost curve on insurance rates, that's something he can take credit for,' Couvillon said. 'Who he works with to do it is much more insider baseball. I don't know if that kind of perception would matter with the average Louisiana voter who's really more concerned with high insurance rates.'
Landry has included multiple bills on his agenda that target both insurance companies and trial lawyers, but House Bill 576 could be part of a larger political calculation that affords him more opportunities for reward than risk.
Cosponsored by moderate Democrats Robby Carter of Amite and Chad Brown of Plaquemine, the bill would give the state insurance commissioner the power to prohibit any insurance rates considered 'excessive' during any market conditions. Currently, the commissioner can only exercise that power after holding a public hearing in which someone proves that the insurance market lacks competition.
The bill applies to all lines of insurance, though Landry has focused his attention mostly on auto and property insurance rates. Spikes in homeowner premiums occurred after a series of destructive storms starting in 2020 and have been mostly limited to the coastal regions. Premiums for auto insurance have long been elevated across Louisiana, and lawmakers have struggled to identify a clear reason why, believing the problem is rooted in policy decisions.
Landry and Brown sat shoulder-to-shoulder Wednesday as they presented the measure, which includes an amendment the governor said he wrote himself and modeled after a law in Mississippi. Louisiana's neighbor has average auto insurance rates that are nearly half the amount of Louisiana's, according to U.S. News & World Report.
Brown's bill cleared the committee in a 13-4 vote but still has a ways to go before final passage, and Landry's office would not say if the governor will continue to shepherd the bill over each subsequent hurdle.
'It certainly helped that the governor was there to support it,' Brown said in an interview, adding that he hopes Landry will testify at subsequent hearings. He thinks the governor has sent a clear enough message to Republican lawmakers about what they need to vote for.
Landry paired his appearance with rhetoric that potentially puts him at odds with his own party, which has traditionally favored pro-capitalist narratives.
'We're losing sight of something that's been going on in this country for quite some time, and that is consolidation … That is exactly why we need this law,' Landry said, 'because we have allowed corporations to control large market shares in violation of Sherman [Antitrust Act] again and again.'
Congress passed the Sherman Act in 1890 to establish rules for competitive trade and prevent unfair monopolies.
Rep. Edmond Jordan of Baton Rouge and New Orleans Reps. Matt Willard and Mandie Landry, all Democrats, thanked the governor for putting effort into the issue and trying to hold insurance companies accountable. They joined Landry in arguing tort reform legislation, which is based on the idea that trial lawyers have an unfair advantage in court, has not worked.
One of the four Republicans who voted against the Brown bill, Rep. Jay Gallé of Mandeville, told his colleagues it would undermine 'all free market principles' of supply and demand and ultimately discourage new insurance companies from coming to Louisiana. He argued it would give the insurance commissioner sole authority to arbitrarily decide rates.
Brown clarified the commissioner would only be able to approve or reject rates, not set them. The governor argued Louisiana could never have a 'free market' for insurance because the law requires drivers and homeowners to have coverage.
'The free-market rules do not apply when the consumer is mandated to buy something,' Landry said.
In a later interview, Gallé said he was in an uncomfortable situation having to choose between supporting his party leader versus following his conscience and beliefs.
'When it is a quote-unquote 'governor's bill,' the pressure is already on you, and when he takes the time to come and sit in the room that adds a little more pressure,' Gallé said. 'I hated to go against the governor, but at the end of the day I had to go with what's best for my district.'
LA GATOR applications More than 39,000 Louisiana students apply for LA GATOR program, Education Department reports
Landry suspends late fees at OMV Louisiana Office of Motor Vehicles suspends driver's license late fees amid system issues
Whether the Brown bill would even have an impact on insurance rates is questionable. Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple, who is opposed to it — and in a public feud with the governor — has said actuaries in his office have reviewed high policy rates in Louisiana and found them to be justified based on losses insurers have accrued in defending lawsuits.
The governor's bill would back the commissioner into a corner, forcing him to choose between rates based on market data or rates artificially suppressed for political reasons, Temple said.
The governor has cast suspicion on Temple's opposition to the bill, repeating an argument Rep. Mandie Landry made earlier in the hearing when she suggested to the governor that politicians usually don't shy away from gaining more power.
'I've never seen a politician not want more power,' the governor said.
At the same time, some claim the governor is focused on Brown's proposal because he hopes giving more power to Temple would allow him to blame the commissioner if rates fail to improve. Temple's office pointed to Gov. Landry's April 9 discussion with conservative radio host Moon Griffon in which the governor suggested as much.
'If we … implement that here, giving our insurance commissioner those tools, and if the rates don't go down, it's on him,' the governor told Griffon.
But according to Couvillon, deflecting blame away from the governor would be a more difficult task than most people realize. Voters are much more familiar with the governor than the insurance commissioner, so it would take a very effective messaging strategy to deflect any blame.
'Voters tend to hold the governor accountable for things like high insurance rates whether it is a deserved measurement or not,' Couvillon said.
If Gov. Landry's agenda has little effect and coverage premiums remain about the same, there's enough time to try to recast his political fate and convince voters to overlook it before his re-election bid in 2027. The greatest risk in the governor's calculation lies in the possibility that insurance rates continue to increase, which would be a much bigger problem for Gov. Landry, Couvillon said.
On the other hand, the insurance commissioner has said repeatedly previous reforms have started having an impact on homeowner coverage lines. On Wednesday, Temple told the committee eight insurers have filed rate decreases for 2025.
'It is working,' Temple said. 'Rates are coming down.'
House Bill 576 will next move to the House floor for consideration.
— The Louisiana Illuminator is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization driven by its mission to cast light on how decisions are made in Baton Rouge and how they affect the lives of everyday Louisianians, particularly those who are poor or otherwise marginalized.
This article originally appeared on Lafayette Daily Advertiser: Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry insurance stance could cast political fate
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
7 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump To Release Billions In Frozen Funds: What To Know
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than $5 billion in frozen education grant funding to the states will be released in the coming weeks, according to the Department of Education. The money, which was used to found a range of initiatives including teacher training and English language programs, was suspended by the Trump administration on June 30 pending a review by the federal Office of Management and Budget. Newsweek contacted the Department of Education for comment on Saturday via email outside of regular office hours. The Context The announcement follows weeks of lobbying from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers concerned about the impact the funding suspension would have on their districts. Lawsuits aiming to get the money unfrozen had been submitted by 24 states and the District of Columbia along with a separate group of teaching unions, school districts and parents. What To Know On Friday, the Department of Education spokesperson Madi Biedermann said the funding had been unfrozen and would begin being paid out next week. The money was part of a larger sum of nearly $7 billion that had been approved by Congress for education spending and was due to be released on July 1, but that the Trump administration announced it had placed a block the previous day. On June 30, the Education Department announced the spending was under review with the Office of Management and Budget saying it would investigate whether it had previously been spent supporting a "radical left-wing agenda." President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport on July 25, 2025 in Prestwick, Scotland, UK. Andrew Harnik/GETTY The money had been earmarked for a number of services including migrant education, English language programs and adult education with $2.2 billion committed to teachers' professional development. On Friday the administration said there would be "guardrails" in place to ensure the released money wasn't spent "in violation of executive orders or administration policy." Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled the Department of Education can go ahead with its plan to lay off nearly 1,400 workers. The Trump administration reportedly considered abolishing the Department of Education in its entirety earlier this year. What People Are Saying In a post on X, Nebraska House Republican Don Bacon wrote: "Exciting news to announce! All frozen education funding for the upcoming school year have been released." Referring to the payments on Friday at the National Governors Association's summer meeting Education Secretary Linda McMahon said: "I would think now that we've reviewed them … a year from now, we wouldn't find ourselves in the same situation." Addressing The Washington Post Democratic Senator Patty Murray said: "This administration deserves no credit for just barely averting a crisis they themselves set in motion. "You don't thank a burglar for returning your cash after you've spent a month figuring out if you'd have to sell your house to make up the difference." Speaking to Axios Republican Senator Shelley Moore Capito said: "The programs are ones that enjoy long-standing, bipartisan support like after-school and summer programs that provide learning and enrichment opportunities for school aged children, which also enables their parents to work and contribute to local economies, and programs to support adult learners working to gain employment skills, earn workforce certifications, or transition into postsecondary education." Skye Perryman, president of the Democracy Forward campaign group, said: "While this development shows that legal and public pressure can make a difference, school districts, parents, and educators should not have to take the administration to court to secure funds for their students." What Happens Next Payments from the frozen funding should start going out next week according to the Department of Education.


USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
What to know on Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein files: The latest
The Justice Department talked to Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, after weeks of bubbling outrage over a memo that appeared to close the Epstein case. Over two days, Justice Department officials questioned Jeffrey Epstein's ex-girlfriend, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, as the White House continues to battle calls for more transparency over what Epstein did and who else may have been involved. It's unclear what came out of the interview, but Maxwell's lawyer David Markus said his client answered all of the government's questions, which covered about 100 people. "She answered questions about everybody and she didn't hold anything back," Markus said, without specifying who was mentioned. The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on what came out of the interview. The talks follow more than two weeks of bubbling outrage from members of President Donald Trump's base over the department's announcement in early July that it won't release its files on Epstein. DOJ said a systematic review of the files didn't turn up any list of clients involved in Epstein's crimes. Even some congressional Republicans have clamored for the files' release or introduced legislation to try to force the Trump administration's hand. Republican leadership has so far blocked the legislation and White House officials continue to resist those calls. Still, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has suggested that Maxwell could reveal new details about Epstein's circle and crimes. Here is all the latest on the fallout: July 25: Maxwell lawyer signals desire for pardon Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of trafficking a minor to Epstein for sexual abuse, and for conspiring to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts. She is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence, and has an appeal pending at the U.S. Supreme Court. Markus indicated July 25 that his client could ask for a pardon soon, following the two days she spent talking to Justice Department officials July 24-25. "We haven't spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet," he said. "The president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way." Trump has the power to pardon Maxwell fully as well as to commute her prison sentence. But to many, that might look more like reducing than enhancing accountability – especially if Maxwell offers little in return. In the morning on July 25, Trump said he hasn't thought about pardoning Maxwell, but also didn't rule it out. "I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about," Trump said. "I certainly can't talk about pardons now." July 25: 16% of voters in poll approve of Trump administration on Epstein Only 16% of of voters who responded to a poll released July 25 by Emerson College Polling approved of the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files. Fifty-one percent disapproved, while 33% were neutral. The poll surveyed 1,400 U.S. voters from July 21-22. Its margin of error is ±2.5 points, according to the polling organization. July 23: Florida judge shields Epstein grand jury testimony In addition to approaching Maxwell, the Justice Department asked federal judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts of testimony before grand juries investigating Epstein and Maxwell. If judges allow for the transcripts' release, the department said it will first redact both victim-related information and personal identifying information from the transcripts. On July 23, federal Judge Judge Robin L. Rosenberg rejected the request in Florida, writing that she doesn't have the power to order the records' release because of a past ruling from an appeals court that presides over her trial court. Judges in New York haven't yet ruled on the administration's requests there. July 23: Reports emerge that AG Bondi told Trump in May he is named in Epstein files Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump in May that he was named multiple times in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and CNN. A White House official did not dispute that Trump's name is mentioned in the Epstein files, telling USA TODAY that briefing binders Bondi prepared for MAGA influencers in February included the president's name. But the official rejected any suggestion that Trump engaged in wrongdoing in connection with Epstein. Being named doesn't mean the person did anything criminal. July 22: House Speaker Mike Johnson starts summer recess early to avoid Epstein House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Louisiana, announced on July 22 he is shutting down the House for its summer recess early to avoid a vote on releasing the Epstein files. Johnson said there was "no daylight" between the Trump administration and the House, and the White House needed "space" to address the issue. Members of Congress were scheduled to leave Washington for several weeks starting July 24, but Johnson said he would cut the schedule short and end with votes on July 23. Johnson took that step after Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, and Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colorado, co-sponsored legislation calling for the release of the government's Epstein records. July 22: New footage shows Epstein at Trump wedding Archived video footage and photos revealed by CNN July 22 showed Jeffrey Epstein attended Trump's wedding to Marla Maples at the Plaza Hotel in 1993. Maples is the second of Trump's three wives. The couple divorced in 1999. "You've got to be kidding me," Trump told CNN when asked about the wedding photos on a phone call. He called the outlet "fake news" and hung up. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said the images were "out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious." July 22: House committee agrees to seek Maxwell testimony The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee agreed on July 22 to subpoena Ghislaine Maxwell to testify. Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tennessee, said he pressed for the subpoena in order to learn more about Epstein's criminal conduct. 'This deposition will help the American people understand how Jeffrey Epstein was able to carry out his evil actions for so long without being brought to justice,' Burchett said. July 18: Trump sues Wall Street Journal over lewd Epstein birthday letter On July 17, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump sent Epstein a lewd birthday letter for his 50th birthday, which took place in early 2003. Trump called the letter a "FAKE" on social media July 17 and sued the newspaper's publisher for libel on July 18. The letter contains typewritten dialogue between "Donald" and "Jeffrey," and at a later point "Trump." In the dialogue, "Donald" says, "We have certain things in common, Jeffrey" and that, "Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?" The dialogue ends with "Trump" saying, "A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret." The dialogue is encased within a seemingly hand-drawn outline of a naked woman, the Journal reported. The letter includes a pair of arcs denoting the woman's breasts, and a "Donald" squiggly signature mimicking pubic hair. USA TODAY could not verify the details or origin of the letter. Contributing: Joey Garrison, Bart Jansen, Melina Khan, Savannah Kuchar, Christopher Cann - USA TODAY

USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Department of Justice wants to inspect swing state voter rolls
The Justice Department effort has targeted battleground states. It follows a March executive order. The Department of Justice is going state by state to scrutinize how officials manage their voter rolls and remove ineligible voters. The effort is so far focused on battleground states and follows President Donald Trump's widely challenged executive order in March that sought to create new requirements to register to vote and backed a range of voting policies long supported by Republicans. In nearly identical letters to state election officials in Minnesota, Nevada and Pennsylvania, the Department of Justice asked them to describe how they identify people who are felons, dead, nonresidents or noncitizens, and how they remove them from their voter lists. A letter to Arizona officials said the state should be requiring people who have driver's license numbers to register to vote using that number instead of the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. The Department of Justice said the office should conduct a review of its voter file. The department also sued Orange County, California for not providing enough identifying information in response to a records request; and filed documents in support of lawsuits brought by the right-leaning group Judicial Watch that say Illinois and Oregon have not been not removing enough people from their voter rolls. 'It is critical to remove ineligible voters from the registration rolls so that elections are conducted fairly, accurately, and without fraud,' said Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division said in a statement that a spokesperson provided to USA TODAY. She said the department would 'vigorously enforce' federal law that requires states to 'conduct a robust program of list maintenance.' From 2024: Republican Party sues over absentee ballots, voter rolls in battleground states Several of the states in question have competitive elections in November 2026, when all seats in the House and one-third of the seats in the Senate are on the ballot. Minnesota has a race for an open Senate seat. Arizona and Pennsylvania have multiple competitive House races, and there will be a tight race for a House seat in California that includes part of Orange County. Americans are more likely to get struck by lightning than to commit in-person voter fraud, according to a study from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan good government group based at New York University. 'I do think this is part of a broader effort number one to lay the groundwork for attempts to overturn election results that they don't like in 2026,' said Jonathan Diaz, the voting advocacy director at Campaign Legal Center. 'So they can cook up some story about how these states' voter rolls can't be trusted and so we can't trust their election results if Democrats win.' Trump's March executive order alleged that previous administrations didn't do enough to keep noncitizens of the voter rolls and said having accurate voter rolls protects voters. What DOJ wants from the lawsuits In Orange County, the Department of Justice wrote in a federal lawsuit in June that the Attorney General received a complaint about a noncitizen receiving a ballot, and that the department requested five years of data on how the county removes noncitizens from voter registration rolls. The county provided information but redacted identifying numbers and signatures, among other things, according to the lawsuit. The Department of Justice says that's illegal, and wants the federal court to force the county to provide the full information. Diaz said the Department of Justice in general is 'asking for a lot of very specific data about individual voters, which normally would not be necessary.' He said that information is much more specific than what states would provide to political campaigns or journalists, who often obtain voter registration files. The Department of Justice also asked Nevada and Minnesota for copies of their statewide voter registration list with both active and inactive voters. Inactive voters generally have not voted in recent elections and are put on the inactive list to preserve their registration while queuing them for future removal. Diaz said the requests read "like a fishing expedition." He predicted that the Department of Justice may find a human error, such as a noncitizen who checks the wrong box when getting their drivers license and registers to vote, and then "make that a referendum on the entire electoral system." 'They are looking for anything they can find so they can yell about noncitizen voting or dead people voting or whatever their conspiracy theory of the day is," Diaz said. Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a right-leaning organization that advocates for government transparency, said many states are not doing enough to maintain clean voter rolls. He said his organization has sued multiple jurisdictions over the years to get about 5 million names removed from voter rolls, including in New York City and Los Angeles. Fitton said a voter registration list is 'a pool of names from which someone with problematic intent can draw to engage in fraud. And the appearance of dirty voting lists undermines voter confidence and participation.' The conservative Heritage Foundation alleges there have been about 1,600 cases of voter fraud over a period of many years. That compares to more than 150 million people voted in the 2024 presidential election alone. Fitton acknowledged that showing up to vote in another person's name requires a level of "chutzpah" that "might be a step too far to even political fraudsters." He posited that it'd be easier to impersonate a dead voter, but concluded: "All that is speculation. The law requires the names to be cleaned up, and it's not being done." In its federal lawsuit in Oregon, which the Department of Justice is backing, Judicial Watch alleges the state has too many people on its voter rolls in comparison to its voting-age population, and wants the federal court to force the state to develop a new removal program. Oregon contends that the organization doesn't have the right to sue and hasn't proven it's been harmed, which are both necessary for the suit to move forward. In Illinois, Judicial Watch says that 11 counties removed no voter registrations between November 2020 and November 2022, and 12 other counties removed 15 or fewer during the same time period. The suit does not allege that anyone voted illegally, but questions whether so few voters could have moved or died. The Illinois State Board of Elections declined to comment on pending litigation. 'When Illinois voters cast their ballots, they should be confident that their vote is given its due weight, undiluted by ineligible voters,' the Department of Justice wrote in its July 21 filing in the case. 'This confidence is the bedrock of participatory democracy.'