Iowa Senator Zach Wahls running for Joni Ernst's U.S. Senate seat
DES MOINES, Iowa — The Democratic field for a challenger to incumbent Senator Joni Ernst (R) is growing.
Iowa State Senator Zach Wahls announced his run for the seat on Wednesday morning. Wahls, from Coralville, has been serving District 43 since 2019. He tells WHO 13 News why he is now deciding to hop into the race.
'I'm running because Iowans are working hard but aren't getting ahead. And I want to do something to help solve the problems that hardworking Iowans are facing. I've got a track record of standing up to leaders of both parties when they are not delivering for us. And that's exactly what I'll do in Washington. My wife and I started talking about it seriously this spring when we were watching everything that was happening in D.C.,' said Senator Wahls, (D) District 43 from Coralville.
'ICE Out' protest brings in hundreds in Des Moines
Democrat Nathan Sage from Knoxville announced his bid for the office earlier in the year. Along with State Representative J.D. Scholten, from Sioux City. Wahls tells WHO 13 News that he isn't focusing on his Democratic opponents in this primary race, instead focusing on the incumbent.
'The fact that Senator Ernst didn't have the courage of her convictions to stand against the nomination of Pete Hegseth when she clearly had concerns that were valid, as we all found out when the Signal-gate story broke. And I think that unfortunately, Sen. Ernst has lost her way,' said Wahls. 'We deserve a senator who isn't going to glibly joke that we are all going to die, I mean we all know we are going to die, that's a part of life. It's not supposed to be our senators who are the ones killing us. We need someone who's going to fight back for these benefits that so many Iowans count on.'
Wahls told WHO 13 News that he is eager to get out and campaign in all 99 Iowa counties and meet voters. Wahls is a 6th-generation Iowan who is eager to run on lowering costs, protecting health care and abortion rights, and providing affordable child care to Iowa's families.
Iowa Senator Zach Wahls running for Joni Ernst's U.S. Senate seat
Hot, muggy Wednesday and storm chances
Iowa HHS reports second case of measles in state this year
Increase in ATV/UTV popularity brings more crashes on roads
Dozens of dogs rescued from 'neglectful conditions' at eastern Iowa breeder nearly 2 years after first rescue
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
10 minutes ago
- Forbes
The Senate Budget Bill Is Growing More Regressive
WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) speaks to reporters after leaving ... More the Senate Chambers. (Photo by) The tax provisions of the budget bill being debated on the Senate floor would be even more regressive than the version drafted by the Senate Finance Committee, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis. On average, the Senate measure released on June 28 would cut 2026 taxes by about $2,900, up about $250 from the Finance Committee's version. But the current Senate version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA ) would distribute most of those additional tax cuts to the highest-income households. The main reason: the way it treats the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. Comparing The Plans The Senate bill would cut taxes by an average of $12,500, or 3.4 percent of after-tax income, for those making $217,000 or more, the highest-income 20 percent of households. That's about $1,500, or 0.4 percent of after-tax income, more than they'd get under the Finance panel's plan. Those making between $460,000 and $1.1 million (the 95th-99th income percentile) would get an average tax cut of $21,000, raising their after-tax incomes by 4.4 percent. That would be roughly identical to the House version but nearly $3,000, or 0.6 percent of after-tax income, more generous than the Finance measure. Similarly, the bill on the Senate floor would cut taxes by an additional $8,000 on average for those who make $1.1 million or more, the top 1 percent of households—and an extra $40,000 for those who make $5 million or more, the top 0.1 percent—compared to the Finance bill. Even with those added tax cuts, the current Senate bill remains slightly less generous than the House measure for the highest-income households. While those high-earners get much more than in the Finance panel's measure, the same can't be said for low- and middle-income households. For example, the lowest-income households, those making about $35,000 or less, would get an average tax cut of $150 under either the Finance Committee's or the Senate's bill and $160 under the House bill, less than 1 percent of their after-tax income. Middle-income households would get an average tax cut of roughly $1,800 under all three measures: a bit more in the House bill and slightly less in the two Senate three versions of the big budget bill Differing Details The House and Senate bills are broadly similar. Both would extend the individual provisions of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA); continue and enhance some corporate tax provisions; and adopt scaled-back versions of President Trump's tax-related campaign promises, such as tax-free tips and overtime. But they differ in scores of details, some minor and some significant. And the tax cuts in the Senate bill are substantially more expensive. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the pending Senate bill would slash federal revenues by more than $4.4 trillion over the next decade. The House-passed OBBBA would reduce federal revenue by $3.9 trillion, according to JCT. Both bills would allow costly provisions to expire on paper within the 10-year budget window. But because future Congresses are likely to extend those provisions once again, the true cost is likely to be substantially more. To satisfy many factions of Republicans, Senate GOP leaders made several revisions to the Finance draft. They made even deeper cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and, at the same time, proposed even more generous tax cuts for high-income households. Including spending reductions and other offsets, the Senate bill would increase the federal debt by $3.3 trillion over the next decade, according to CBO. Additional interest would boost the debt by an additional $700 billion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. All About SALT Why are the tax cuts in the latest Senate bill so much more generous than the Finance panel's plan? The primary reason is the state and local tax deduction, including the way it treats owners of pass-through businesses such as partnerships and sole proprietorships. The Finance panel did not address the controversial SALT issue. The Senate bill adopts the House plan to boost the maximum SALT deduction from $10,000 to $40,000, though only through 2029. Crucially, it also allows owners of pass-through businesses to avoid the SALT deduction cap entirely by continuing to take advantage of state-enacted loopholes. That workaround allows these business owners to fully deduct their state and local taxes by paying the levies through their firms. About 36 states allow this. The House and Finance panel bills would have somewhat limited that exemption. But the pending Senate bill keeps the door wide open, effectively freeing very wealthy business owners from any cap on their SALT deductions. Both the House and Senate bills would phase out the more generous deduction for many households starting at $500,000. But since wealthy business owners could continue to fully deduct their state and local taxes if the state workarounds are allowed, the income limit on the cap is meaningless to them. The Finance panel plan faced substantial criticism for its regressivity and cost. But GOP leaders have nonetheless doubled down and written a Senate bill that benefits top earners even more.
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Republicans introduce last-minute industry ‘killer' tax on solar and wind in spending bill
Source: CNN Business groups and clean-energy developers are apoplectic over a last-minute provision tucked into President Donald Trump's spending bill that will tax the solar and wind industry, making it much harder to get new, cheap electricity onto the grid. Senate Republicans revealed an entirely new tax for renewable energy this weekend, in the latest version of a bill that could be passed as early as Monday afternoon. The bill already stripped tax incentives for renewables by 2027 and gave developers stringent requirements to claim them. The new tax would come at the worst possible time for the American power grid, experts and trade groups say, as demand for more electricity spikes due to new data centers for artificial intelligence coming online. 'This new tax is just a killer to the wind and solar industry,' said Ed Mills, a Washington policy analyst at Raymond James. 'You went from taking away a positive for the industry to implementing a negative.' The tax could change, as the Senate embarks on a marathon day of amendment votes on Monday. As it's currently written, the Senate bill will threaten to upend a huge amount of power that was set to come online in the next decade. Wind, solar and long-term storage batteries make up the vast majority of new electricity added to the grid over the past three years. It also encompasses about 85% of what's currently in the development pipeline, according to Ben King, an analyst at the non-partisan think tank Rhodium Group. Keeping Biden-era tax credits for wind and solar would have led to between 400 and 1,100 gigawatts of new, clean power being added to the grid by 2035, Rhodium modeling shows. In comparison, the capacity of the largest fossil fuel power plant in the country is close to 4 gigawatts. 'Increasing the price of this stuff that's actually getting built right now — and just making it harder to build — results in higher prices,' King told CNN. 'And (there's) a greater amount of concern whether the grid can respond.' That hole in energy capacity these taxes will create will be filled by new natural gas power plants and leaving aging coal plants online longer, and both solutions are more expensive than building wind and solar. Those costs will all but assuredly be passed on to the people who pay electric bills. The new obstacles for clean energy come as the AI boom is already consuming vast amounts of energy. By 2030, data centers that power AI are projected to consume a whopping 612 terawatt-hours of energy per year – equivalent to what Canada consumes annually, according to research from Accenture. The new tax, along with killing the tax credits, could raise taxes on utility-scale solar projects by 18%, according to Princeton University professor Jesse Jenkins. Jenkins wrote on X that raising taxes on America's 'most important new sources of electricity supply' is 'utter insanity.' Responding to a post about the new taxes on wind and solar, billionaire Elon Musk warned over the weekend the 'latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Pointing to the cost of the legislation, Musk added in a separate post that polls suggest the legislation will be 'political suicide for the Republican Party.' Even the US Chamber of Commerce, which is broadly supportive of the legislation, came out against the new renewable energy levies. 'Taxing energy production is never good policy, whether oil & gas or, in this case, renewables,' US Chamber of Commerce executive vice president Neil Bradley said in a post on X. 'Electricity demand is set to see enormous growth & this tax will increase prices. It should be removed.' The weekend changes to the bill were blasted by renewables trade groups, who had been pushing lawmakers for a more generous tax credit phaseout timeline for wind and solar projects. 'It is astounding that the Senate would intentionally raise prices on consumers rather than encouraging economic growth and addressing the affordability crisis facing American households,' American Clean Power Association CEO Jason Grumet said in a statement. Solar Energy Industries Association president Abigail Ross Hopper called the tax an 'unprecedented and punitive measure that would raise costs for American consumers' and a 'blanket penalty on solar,' in a statement. The renewable energy tax is part of a broader effort to wean critical US industry off components from China. 'The Trump administration and Congressional Republicans really dislike wind and solar, but apparently they hate China even more,' said Mills, the Raymond James analyst. 'We're trying to get China out of our supply chains.' However, the tax and restrictions will make the US far less competitive with China on AI and clean energy manufacturing, said Robbie Orvis, Energy Innovation's senior director of modeling and analysis Energy Innovation. 'This is just a gift to China; they must just be salivating over what's in this bill,' Orvis said. 'They would be very happy to have US energy costs go up so they can take on more of those data centers that might otherwise be located here.' While being tough on China has bipartisan appeal, many clean energy projects are major employers in purple and red districts. For instance, Texas is not just the leading state for oil and natural gas production, it's also No. 1 for wind-powered electricity generation. 'Republicans have long supported an all-of-the-above energy policy. With this tax provision, the all-of-the-above policy has an asterisk where wind and solar are no longer included,' Mills said. Still, Mills added it's not entirely clear the wind and solar taxes will survive the political sausage-making process. 'Does this ever get implemented? Does it get softened? Does it get repealed? All of those are in the realm of possibility,' he said. Kevin Hassett, director of the White House's National Economic Council, told CNBC on Monday that the Trump administration remains focused using 'all-of-the-above approaches to get energy production to go through the roof.' 'That means using coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear and, to the extent it passes a market test; these other solar and wind type things can be part of the picture too,' Hassett said. For context, solar, wind and batteries are far cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear power, because they have no fuel costs and currently cost less to build. Hassett disagreed with the characterization that lawmakers are not just taking away tax breaks for clean energy, they are also penalizing the industry with new taxes. 'I don't think that's the way to think about it. In the end, solar is going to be in people's grids,' Hassett said. Even without the new tax, the Republican spending bill will cause household energy bills to rise over the next decade, CNN previously reported. When combined with the electric vehicle consumer tax credit likely being cut, annual electricity and transportation costs in every state in the continental United States will be higher than they would have if the tax credits stayed intact, analysis from think tank Energy Innovation found. Red states including Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas could see up to 18% higher energy costs by 2035 if Trump's bill passes, compared with a scenario where the bill didn't pass. See Full Web Article
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Zohran Mamdani Defends Agenda Amid Democrat Pushback
Ever since New York Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani's sweeping victory in the Democratic mayoral primary, it became clear that New York was only the first part of his political battle. Mamdani has faced criticism—not just from Republicans, but from within his own party. More centrist Democrats in both New York politics and in Congress have labeled him 'too extreme.' The 33-year-old ran on a platform focused on affordability issues for New Yorkers: freezing rent, making buses fare-free, creating a network of city-owned grocery stores, and offering free childcare for any resident with children between 6 weeks to 5 years old. These proposals resonated strongly with younger voters considering their future in an increasingly unaffordable city. More than half of New York families with children age 4 or under cannot afford child care, and grocery prices have soared 50 percent in recent years. Among Democrats and moderates however, his policies have made raised concerns over economic viability. Representative Laura Gillen, a centrist Democrat in Congress representing part of Long Island, told TIME that Mamdani's proposals are not fiscally sound. 'Saying things like 'we're going to give away free everything' is not realistic, and it's not the direction the Democratic Party should go in,' she said. 'They should find ways to make people's lives affordable in tangible ways, and say we will reach across the aisle to do that.' In response, Mamdani has emphasized how he intends to fund his policy agenda—a tax on New York's top 2% of earners, and raising the corporate tax to match New Jersey's 11.5%. 'It's not fiscal policy, it's quality of life [that forces top 1% New Yorkers to move away],' Zohran told Kristen Welker on Meet the Press, citing a 2023 Fiscal Policy Institute study showing that the top 1% of New Yorkers leave at a quarter of the rate of other income groups. When they do leave, he added, it is often to other states with high tax rates, such as New Jersey and California. 'And ultimately, the reason I want to increase these taxes on the top 1% the most profitable corporations, is to increase quality of life for everyone, including those who are going to be taxed.' Democratic strategists in Washington are closely monitoring Mamdani's rise. While some warn that his brand of progressive populism could alienate moderate voters, others argue that his appeal to working-class and immigrant communities—especially in a high-turnout primary—offers a glimpse of how Democrats might reenergize a disillusioned base. Read more: What Will Really Happen if New York City Goes Socialist Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also weighed in last week, criticizing Mamdani during an appearance on The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Asked about 'the threats facing the Jewish community from Zohran Mamdani,' she cited his refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and erroneously claimed that Mamdani referenced the word 'jihad'. Her communications director later clarified on X that Gillibrand had misspoken. Mamdani has been sharply critical of the Israeli government throughout his campaign and vocal in his support for Palestinians in Gaza amid the Israel-Gaza War. His refusal to denounce the phrase 'globalize the intifada'—a slogan historically associated with Palestinian uprisings—has drawn intense scrutiny. Critics argue that the phrase may incite antisemitic violence; Mamdani has countered that such interpretations are misguided. In his interview with Welker, Mamdani reiterated that the phrase is 'not the language that I use,' while adding that 'we have to root out that bigotry' from politics. 'I've heard those fears [of antisemitism], and I've had those conversations, and ultimately, they are part and parcel of why in my campaign,' he said. 'I've put forward a commitment to increase funding for anti-hate-crime programming by 800 percent.' Mamdani has not received endorsement from prominent establishment Democrats such as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Minority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Hakeem Jeffries. He has however garnered support from more progressive Congresspeople, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders, representing a schism in the Democratic party. 'I think the cost-of-living message that national Democrats maybe have gotten away from too much, that [Mamdani] really foregrounded in his campaign, is the best way to reach into these pockets,' political strategist and researcher Michael Lange said of Mamdani's success in an interview with the New York Magazine. Mamdani continued his media push over the weekend, defending his platform and tone across multiple outlets with a message that emphasized optimism and inclusion. On MSNBC, Mamdani was asked whether he had spoken to Sen. Gillibrand after his win, and how he had dealt with Islamophobic attacks from all sides in the aftermath of his win. 'I spoke to Senator Gillibrand soon after the victory on Tuesday evening and the comments that I've heard, especially from Republicans across the country and even the comments prior, during the primary, were comments that were both unsurprising and yet still quite sad, because they showcase what politics has become for so many,' he said. 'It's a language of darkness and a language of exclusion, and what has kept me hopeful through this is that our vision is one where every New Yorker belongs.' Read more: Meet Rama Duwaji, the Illustrator Who Met Zohran Mamdani on Hinge—and May Become NYC's First Lady He noted a significant increase in turnout compared to the 2021 primary, with notably higher participation among young people, immigrant voters, and voters of color. Mamdani ultimately defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo, a fixture of New York's political establishment. He pointed specifically to previously disengaged Asian and Hispanic voter communities and many New Yorkers who he says 'saw themselves' in his politics. 'He was capturing younger voter energy across all races and classes, native New Yorkers, non-native New Yorkers, in a way that the candidates in 2021 just were not doing,' Lange explained. 'And that also extended to rent-stabilized tenants and to South Asian and Muslim voters.' On Meet the Press, Mamdani was asked whether the Democratic establishment fears him. Mamdani said that by bringing his policies back to 'working Americans' and an economics-based policies, this is how he was able to win over New Yorkers. Contact us at letters@
