Democrat Nate Willems announces campaign for Iowa attorney general
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
Democrat Nate Willems is running for Iowa attorney general. (Photo courtesy of the Nate Willems campaign)
Nate Willems, a lawyer and former state representative, announced Wednesday he is running for Iowa attorney general.
Willems, a Mount Vernon Democrat, is competing for the statewide elected position currently held by Attorney General Brenna Bird. She was first elected to office in 2022, when she defeated longtime Democratic Attorney General Tom Miller.
Willems may not be competing against Bird in the 2026 general election. Bird is considering a run for governor following Gov. Kim Reynolds' announcement that she will not seek reelection. Though Willems may be competing for an open position, he said he wants to change the trajectory of how the state office is utilized, alluding to Bird's commitment to filing legal challenges against policies from former President Joe Biden's administration.
'Iowans deserve an attorney general focused on protecting Iowans and standing up for our fundamental rights and freedoms,' Willems said in a statement. 'As attorney general, I'll work to keep communities safe by holding violent criminals accountable and I'll take on corporations who try to rip off Iowans by price gouging or stealing their hard-earned wages.'
If elected attorney general, Willems said he would use the office to investigate and prosecute corporations that break labor laws, as well as improving the state's consumer protections through the Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division. He also said he would work with prosecutors and local law enforcement to 'secure convictions for violent crimes.'
Willems said has a background in this field, having worked as a lawyer focused on labor cases as an attorney and partner for Rush & Nicholson, P.L.C., in Cedar Rapids, a workers' compensation firm. He has also previously held office in Iowa, representing then-House District 29 for two terms, from 2008 to 2012.
'I've spent my career representing tens of thousands of Iowans who have had crimes committed against them,' Willems said. 'I've successfully taken on corporations who think they're above the law and steal wages, require off-the-clock-work, hurt their employees, or violate the rights of working men and women in our state. As attorney general, I'll fight to make sure every Iowan gets the justice they deserve.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
36 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Democrats at odds over response to Trump decision to join Israel-Iran war
After nearly two years of stark divisions over the war in Gaza and support for Israel, Democrats remain at odds over policy toward Iran after the U.S. strikes early Sunday. Progressives demanded unified opposition before President Trump announced U.S. strikes against Tehran's nuclear program, but party leaders were treading more cautiously. U.S. leaders of all stripes have found common ground for two decades on the position that Iran could not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. The longtime U.S. foe has supported groups that have killed Americans across the Mideast and threatened to destroy Israel. But Trump's announcement Saturday that the U.S. had struck three nuclear sites could become the Democratic Party's latest schism, just as it was sharply dividing Trump's isolationist 'Make America Great Again' base from more hawkish conservatives. Ken Martin, chair of the Democratic National Committee, noted that in January, Trump suggested the U.S. could 'measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.' 'Today, against his own words, the president sent bombers into Iran,' Martin said in a statement. 'Americans overwhelmingly do not want to go to war. Americans do not want to risk the safety of our troops abroad.' Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, said the U.S. entering the war in Iran 'does not make America more secure.' 'This bombing was an act of war that risks retaliation by the Iranian regime,' Welch said in a statement. While progressives in the lead-up to the military action had staked out clear opposition to Trump's potential intervention, the party leadership played the safer ground of insisting on a role for Congress before any use of force. Martin's statement took a similar tack, saying, 'Americans do not want a president who bypasses our constitution and pulls us towards war without Congressional approval. Donald Trump needs to bring his case to Congress immediately.' Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine called Trump's actions 'horrible judgment' and said he'd 'push for all senators to vote on whether they are for this third idiotic Middle East war.' Many prominent Democrats with 2028 presidential aspirations had been silent on the Israel-Iran war, even before Trump's announcement — underscoring how politically tricky the issue can be for the party. 'They are sort of hedging their bets,' said Joel Rubin, a former deputy assistant secretary of State who served under President Obama and is now a strategist on foreign policy. 'The beasts of the Democratic Party's constituencies right now are so hostile to Israel's war in Gaza that it's really difficult to come out looking like one would corroborate an unauthorized war that supports Israel without blowback.' Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) had called Trump's consideration of an attack 'a defining moment for our party.' Khanna had introduced legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that called on the Republican president to 'terminate' the use of U.S. armed forces against Iran unless 'explicitly authorized' by a declaration of war from Congress. Khanna used Trump's campaign arguments of putting American interests first when the congressman spoke to Theo Von, a comedian who has been supportive of the president and is popular among Trump supporters, particularly young men. 'That's going to cost this country a lot of money that should be being spent here at home,' said Khanna, who is said to be among the many Democrats considering seeking the presidential nomination in 2028. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who twice sought the Democratic presidential nomination, had pointed to Trump's stated goal during his inaugural speech of being known as 'a peacemaker and a unifier.' 'Supporting Netanyahu's war against Iran would be a catastrophic mistake,' Sanders said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Sanders reintroduced legislation prohibiting the use of federal money for force against Iran, insisted that U.S. military intervention would be unwise and illegal and accused Israel of striking unprovoked. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York signed on to a similar bill from Sanders in 2020, but so far was holding off this time. Some believed the party should stake out a clear antiwar stance. 'The leaders of the Democratic Party need to step up and loudly oppose war with Iran and demand a vote in Congress,' said Tommy Vietor, a former Obama aide, on X. The staunch support from the Democratic administration of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for Israel's war against Hamas loomed over the party's White House ticket in 2024, even with the criticism of Israel's handling of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Trump exploited the divisions to make inroads with Arab American voters and Orthodox Jews on his way back to the White House. Today, the Israel-Iran war is the latest test for a party struggling to repair its coalition before next year's midterm elections and the quick-to-follow kickoff to the 2028 presidential race. The party will look to bridge the divide between an activist base that is skeptical of foreign interventions and already critical of U.S. support for Israel and more traditional Democrats and independents who make up a sizable, if not always vocal, voting bloc. In a statement after Israel's first strikes on Iran, Schumer said Israel has a right to defend itself and 'the United States' commitment to Israel's security and defense must be ironclad as they prepare for Iran's response.' Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that 'the U.S. must continue to stand with Israel, as it has for decades, at this dangerous moment.' Other Democrats have condemned Israel's strikes and accused Netanyahu of sabotaging nuclear talks with Iran. They are reminding the public that Trump withdrew in 2018 from a multinational nuclear agreement that limited Tehran's enrichment of uranium in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions negotiated during the Obama administration. 'Trump created the problem,' Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted on X. A Pearson Institute/Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from September 2024 found that about half of Democrats said the U.S. was being 'too supportive' of Israel and about 4 in 10 said its level of support was 'about right.' Democrats were more likely than independents and Republicans to say the Israeli government had 'a lot' of responsibility for the continuation of the war between Israel and Hamas. About 6 in 10 Democrats and half of Republicans said they felt Iran was an adversary with whom the U.S. was in conflict. Gomez Licon and Beaumont write for the Associated Press. AP writers Mary Clare Jalonick, Linley Sanders, Will Weissert and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani slams US bombing of Iran nuclear sites: ‘Dark new chapter'
Anti-Israel mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is blasting the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites as an 'unconstitutional military action. 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' the Democratic Socialist said in a statement released on X late Saturday. 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos,' the New York City candidate wrote. 'In a city as global as ours, the impacts of war are felt deeply here at home.' 4 'Donald Trump ran for president promising to end wars, not start new ones,' candidate Zohran Mamdani said in a statement on X, blasting the bombings. Vincent Alban/UPI/Shutterstock 4 'Today's unconstitutional military action represents a dark, new chapter in his endless betrayals that now threaten to plunge the world deeper into chaos,' Mamdani said about Trump's decision. AP Mamdani also blamed the 'political establishment' for spending money on weaponry and 'endless wars' rather than on fighting poverty and promoting peace. 'For Americans middle aged and younger, this is all we have known,' said Mamdani, who is running a strong second in polls to front-runner Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary for mayor. 'We cannot accept it any longer,' the candidate said. The Cuomo campaign had no immediate comment on the US airstrikes. But city Comptroller and Democratic mayoral candidate Brad Lander also slammed the bombing. 'Trump's reckless & unconstitutional strikes against Iran are a dangerous escalation of war — and threaten countless Iranian, Israeli & American lives,' Lander wrote on X on Saturday, after President Trump's address to the nation outlining why the US launched the bombs at Iran. 4 City Comptroller and Democratic mayoral candidate Brad Lander also condemned the bombing, calling it 'reckless & unconstitutional.' William Farrington 'My thoughts are with families fearing for their safety, and the thousands of New Yorkers worrying tonight about loved ones in Iran,' Lander said. Trump defended the bombing in his speech by saying, 'Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror.' The US strikes came before Tuesday's final day of voting in the Big Apple's Democratic primary for mayor after Sunday's last day of early voting, overshadowing and potentially impacting the outcome. Stay up to date on the latest developments in the U.S. airstrike on Iran Mayor Eric Adams, who is seeking re-election on an independent ballot line, said he ordered the NYPD to 'increase its presence around religious, cultural, and diplomatic sites throughout the five boroughs' in the wake of the US attack. 'Thinking about our large Persian population here in NYC at this time,' he wrote on X on Saturday night. Mamdani's close Democratic Socialist ally, New York City Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said Trump's bombing of Iran is 'grounds for impeachment.' 4 Trump defended the bombing, saying, 'our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror.' via REUTERS Mamdani has come under fire for his vicious bashing of Israel, which has also struck Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities in an effort to prevent Tehran from building nuke bombs. He is a staunch supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against the Jewish state, and refused to condemn the 'globalize the intifada' rallying cry — a slogan that has been denounced for allegedly stoking antisemitic violence.
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
Trump Got This One Right
'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.
