Another political deja vu: Rep. David Valadao, Rudy Salas file paperwork to run for Congress in 2026
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — 17 News has confirmed Republican Congressman David Valadao — the incumbent of the 22nd Congressional District — and former Democratic California Assemblyman Rudy Salas have filed paperwork to run in the 2026 Midterm election.
Both Valadao and Salas have filed their statement of candidacy — an intention to run for office — with the Federal Elections Commission.
At a Democratic townhall in Bakersfield Thursday evening, Salas told 17 News that he is not ruling out a 2026 run.
It all depends on if local, state and D.C. Democratics once again rally behind Salas as their candidate.
If Salas officially enters the race come the June 2026 primary, it will be the third faceoff between him and Valadao.
Check back for updates.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Who are the eight new vaccine advisers appointed by Robert F Kennedy?
Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, named eight new vaccine advisers this week to a critical Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) panel after firing all 17 experts who had held the roles. New members of the panel include experts who complained about being sidelined, a high-profile figure who has spread misinformation and medical professionals who appear to have little vaccine expertise. Kennedy made the announcement on social media. 'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Kennedy said in his announcement. 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.' Formally called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the panel advises the CDC on how vaccines should be distributed. Those recommendations in effect determine the vaccines Americans can access. This week, Kennedy also removed the career officials typically tasked with vetting ACIP members and overseeing the advisory group, according to CBS News. Related: RFK Jr announces new panel of vaccine advisers after firing entire previous team Kennedy is a widely known vaccine skeptic who profited from suing vaccine manufacturers, has taken increasingly dramatic steps to upend US vaccine policy. 'ACIP is widely regarded as the international gold standard for vaccine decision-making,' said Helen Chu, one of the fired advisers, at a press conference with Patty Murray, a Democratic US senator. 'We cannot replace it with a process driven by one person's beliefs. In the absence of an independent, unbiased ACIP, we can no longer trust that safe and effective vaccines will be available to us and the people around us.' Arguably the most high-profile new member, Robert W Malone catapulted to stardom during the Covid-19 pandemic, appearing across rightwing media to criticize the Biden administration while describing himself as the inventor of mRNA technology. Messenger RNA technology powers the most widely used Covid-19 vaccines. While Malone was involved in very early experiments on the technology, researchers have said his role was limited. Malone's star rose quickly after appearing on the Joe Rogan podcast in 2022, where he and Rogan were criticized for spreading misinformation. On the show, Malone promoted the idea that both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine could be possible treatments for Covid-19, but said research on the drugs was being suppressed. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have not been shown to improve outcomes from Covid-19. 'Malone has a well-documented history of promoting conspiracy theories,' said Dr Jeffrey D Klausner, an epidemiologist and infectious disease expert at the University of Southern California, who recently told the New York Times he was in touch with Kennedy about his appointments. Kulldorff is a former Harvard professor of biostatistics and an infectious disease epidemiologist originally from Sweden. He said in an essay for the rightwing publication City Journal that he was fired because he refused to be vaccinated in line with the school policy. Like Malone, he rose to prominence during the pandemic as a 'Covid contrarian' who criticized the scientific consensus – views he said alienated him from his peers in the scientific community. He voiced his opposition to Covid-19 vaccine mandates and, in his essay, complained of being ignored by media and shadow-banned from Twitter. Kulldorff co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for limited closures instead of pandemic lockdowns before vaccines were available. The document became a touchstone for the American political right. Before the pandemic, Kulldorff studied vaccine safety and infectious disease, including co-authoring papers with members of CDC staff, such as on the Vaccine Safety Datalink. He was a member of the CDC's Covid Vaccine Safety Working Group in 2020, but said later he was fired because he disagreed with the agency's decision to pause Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine and with Covid-19 vaccine mandates. He served on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) drug safety and risk management advisory committee around the same time. He has since enjoyed support from people already within the administration, including the Great Barrington Declaration co-author Dr Jay Bhattacharya, current head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Dr Vinay Prasad, head of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, which handles vaccines. Meissner is a professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth. He previously held advisory roles at the FDA and CDC, including ACIP from 2008-2012. In 2021, Meissner co-wrote an editorial with Dr Marty Makary, now the head of the FDA, which criticized mask mandates for children. In April, he was listed as an external adviser to ACIP on the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) committee. Notably, Meissner is listed in a new conflicts of interest tool launched by the health department in March. Kennedy had criticized the fired ACIP members as 'plagued with persistent conflicts of interest'. 'He's a card-carrying infectious disease person who knows the burden of these diseases, and he knows the risk and the benefit,' Dr Kathryn Edwards told CBS News. Edwards previously served as chair of the FDA's vaccine advisory panel. Pebsworth is a nurse and the former consumer representative on the FDA's vaccine advisory committee. She is also the Pacific regional director for the National Association of Catholic Nurses, according to Kennedy's announcement. In 2020, Pebsworth spoke at the public comment portion of an FDA advisory panel meeting on Covid-19 vaccines. There, she identified herself as the volunteer research director for the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), 'and the mother of a child injured by his 15-month well-baby shots in 1998'. The NVIC is widely viewed as an anti-vaccine advocacy organization 'whose founder Barbara Lou Fisher must be considered a key figure of the anti-vaccine movement', according to an article from 2023 on how to counter anti-vaccine misinformation. Levi is a professor of operations management at the MIT Sloan School of Management who Kennedy described as an 'expert in healthcare analytics, risk management and vaccine safety'. In 2021, he opposed Covid-19 booster shot approval during the public comment portion of an FDA advisory committee hearing. In 2022, he wrote an article calling for EMS calls to be incorporated into vaccine safety data, arguing that cardiovascular side-effects could be undercounted – an article that later required correction. The potential effects of Covid-19 vaccines on heart health have been a focal point of right-leaning criticism. Last month, Levi was criticized for publishing a pre-print paper – a paper without peer review – that he co-authored with Dr Joseph Ladapo, the Florida surgeon general, a vaccine skeptic. The paper alleged that people who took the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine were more likely to die than those who received the Moderna vaccine. Kennedy described Ross as 'a Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University, with a career spanning clinical medicine, research, and public health policy'. However, as first reported by CBS News, Ross's name does not appear in faculty directories for either school. A spokesperson for George Washington University told the outlet that Ross did work as a clinical professor, but 'has not held a faculty appointment … since 2017'. A spokesperson for Virginia Commonwealth University described Ross as 'an affiliate faculty member' at a regional hospital system in the Capitol region. He is also listed as a partner at Havencrest Capital Management, as a board member of 'multiple private healthcare companies'. Hibbeln is a California-based psychiatrist who previously served as acting chief for the section of nutritional neurosciences at the NIH. He describes himself as an expert on omega-3, a fatty acid found in seafood. He also serves on the advisory council of a non-profit that advocates for Americans to eat more seafood. He practices at Barton Health, a hospital system in Lake Tahoe, California. His work influenced US public health guidelines on fish consumption during pregnancy. Pagano is an emergency medicine physician from Los Angeles 'with over 40 years of clinical experience', and a 'strong advocate for evidence-based medicine', according to Kennedy.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republicans line up behind Trump after strike on Iran — with few detractors
Republicans on Capitol Hill quickly lined up behind President Trump after he announced that the U.S. conducted a strike on three Iranian nuclear facilities, a strong show of support for the White House with few detractors inside the GOP. Trump announced on Truth Social just before 8 p.m. EDT on Saturday that the U.S. 'completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran,' including Fordow, the nuclear site hidden in a mountain south of Tehran. He is scheduled to address the nation from the White House at 10 p.m. Republican leaders in the House and Senate backed the action, which had become a debate of sorts in Washington — especially among GOP — since Israel struck Iranian nuclear facilities earlier this month in what it called a 'pre-emptive' attack. Live updates: US bombs Iranian nuclear sites, Trump to address nation 'The military operations in Iran should serve as a clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says,' Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wrote in a statement on X. 'The President gave Iran's leader every opportunity to make a deal, but Iran refused to commit to a nuclear disarmament agreement. President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision, and clarity.' 'The President's decisive action prevents the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, which chants 'Death to America,' from obtaining the most lethal weapon on the planet,' he added. 'This is America First policy in action. God bless our brave men and women in uniform – the most lethal fighting force on the planet – as we pray for their safe return home. May God bless America.' Johnson was briefed on the strike beforehand, a source familiar with the matter told The Hill. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) wrote in a statement with X: 'I stand with President Trump.' 'The regime in Iran, which has committed itself to bringing 'death to America' and wiping Israel off the map, has rejected all diplomatic pathways to peace. The mullahs' misguided pursuit of nuclear weapons must be stopped,' he said. 'As we take action tonight to ensure a nuclear weapon remains out of reach for Iran, I stand with President Trump and pray for the American troops and personnel in harm's way.' Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), similarly, backed Trump after the strike and applauded him for making the 'right call.' 'Iran has waged a war of terror against the United States for 46 years. We could never allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. God bless our brave troops. President Trump made the right call and the ayatollahs should recall his warning not to target Americans,' Cotton wrote on X. 'As I have said multiple times recently, I regret that Iran has brought the world to this point,' Crawford echoed in a statement. 'That said, I am thankful President Trump understood that the red line — articulated by President of both parties for decades — was real. The United States and our allies, including Israel, are making it clear that the world would never accept Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.' While the majority of Republicans backed Trump in the wake of the strike, there were some GOP detractors on Capitol Hill. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been advocating for the U.S. to avoid intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict, wrote on X minutes after Trump announced the offensive: 'This is not Constitutional.' Massie helped lead a bipartisan war powers resolution to prohibit U.S. involvement in the Middle East dispute. Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) suggested that the move was unconstitutional. 'While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional. I look forward to his remarks tonight,' he wrote on X. Trump's decision to strike a trio of Iranian nuclear sites came after a week of debate on Capitol Hill over whether the U.S. should take action in Iran after Israel launched an attack on Iran, prompting a back-and-forth between the two countries. Trump on Thursday said he would decide whether to take action within the next two weeks. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiation that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go in the next two weeks,' Trump said in the statement read by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. The big question had been whether the U.S. would deploy a large bomb known as a 'bunker buster' to strike the Fordow facility, which is underground. While some lawmakers advocated for the move, others — including some of the president's most vocal supporters on the right-flank — pushed against the U.S. directly getting involved in the conflict. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), for example, said 'Me and my district support President Trump and his MAGA agenda, it's what we voted for in November, and foreign wars weren't a part of it.' On Saturday night, she offered prayers for the safety of U.S. troops and Americans in the Middle East. 'Let us pray that we are not attacked by terrorists on our homeland after our border was open for the past 4 years and over 2 Million gotaways came in.🙏 Let us pray for peace. 🙏,' she added. But across the GOP conferences on Capitol Hill, Republicans were quick to back the move by the president. 'Our commander-in-chief has made a deliberate —and correct— decision to eliminate the existential threat posed by the Iranian regime,' Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) wrote in a statement on X. 'We now have very serious choices ahead to provide security for our citizens and our allies and stability for the middle-east. Well-done to our military personnel. You're the best!' House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.), the No. 3 House Republican, said Trump 'was right then, and he is right today: NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE.' 'A nuclear Iran posed a threat to the Middle East and to the world. @POTUS has been consistent that this dangerous regime should NEVER possess a nuclear weapon,' he added in a statement on X. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Women and men diverge more than ever on support for abortion rights, poll shows
Three years after the fall of Roe v Wade and months after an election that heavily focused on the fight over abortion rights, men and women have never diverged more on their support for access to the procedure, according to new polling from Gallup released Monday. Sixty-one percent of women now identify as 'pro-choice', but only 41% of men say the same, Gallup found. The same percentage of women identified as 'pro-choice' in 2022, just after the decision to overturn Roe was leaked, but at the time, 48% of men also did so. Prior to Roe's collapse, men and women were never more than 10 points apart from one another on the issue, according to decades of Gallup polling. Men and women are also in record disagreement over whether abortion is moral, as 57% of women and 40% men say that it is. Just 41% of men say that abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 56% of women say the same. These gender gaps are likely less due to post-Roe changes in men's attitudes towards abortion than in changes in women's attitudes, said Lydia Saad, Gallup's director of US social research. Specifically: women have become a lot more supportive of abortion since Roe fell. In 2021, 52% of women and 45% of men identified as 'pro-choice'. 'In general, we see that with abortion, that the party that wants to change the status quo is the one that has more energy on the issue,' Saad said. 'For years, it was more the pro-life respondents who said that they will only support a candidate who shares their views on that issue. Whereas, since 2022, we've seen it flip.' Sudden political upsets do have the power to dramatically change people's beliefs, Saad said. Typically, however, those changes don't last and people revert to their norm views within a few years. Men's declining support for abortion may thus be a sign that they are reverting to their norm – but Saad was surprised women are still so energized by the issue. 'A line had been crossed for women,' Saad said. 'If you were generally supportive of abortion rights before, you became much more so.' Similarly, men who identify as Democrats have, like women, become much more likely to back abortion rights. Between 2020 and 2021, 63% of Democratic men said that they believed abortion should be legal in most circumstances; as of 2025, 78% of Democratic men say the same. Saad is not exactly sure why support for abortion rights is dwindling among men. Although this is the lowest level of support among men for the 'pro-choice' label in a decade, she is not convinced that this decline will continue. 'It's more just a out of sight, out of mind issue for men,' Saad said of abortion's legality. 'Whereas for women – it's just been more salient.' At this point, it's difficult to tell whether men are becoming more actively opposed to abortion or whether they are simply becoming more conservative overall, Saad said. Men are already more likely to be Republicans, and Republicans typically oppose abortion rights. A mere 19% of Republican men think abortion should be legal in most circumstances. Saad suspects Gallup's findings may be tied to shifts in the political views of young men, who proved to be surprisingly conservative in the 2024 election. Fifty-six percent of men between the ages of 18 and 29 voted for Donald Trump. 'We have to see where this goes,' Saad cautioned. 'If it's sustained, then we would really have to take a close look at why.'
