Gov. Lamont eyes state homeschooling reforms

HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Gov. Ned Lamont said Tuesday he'd like to work with the state legislature on reforms to the state's rules regarding homeschooling.
Lamont's remarks represent the first definitive signal that he's eyeing policy changes following the arrest of a Waterbury woman who was charged with a slew of crimes after her stepson told police he'd been held captive in her home for more than two decades.
Nearly $200,000 raised to help alleged Waterbury captive
'I'd like to talk with the legislature about ways we can stay in better communication – make sure those kids are being well protected, not just in school, but at home school as well,' Lamont said in response to questions from News 8 at a press conference on Tuesday.
'When they come into school, that's an early radar system,' Lamont continued. 'We have a better idea of how they're doing and what's going on at the home.'
But when students leave traditional public and private school systems, Lamont said, 'We lose a little bit of touch — as happened in this case over a period of, say, 20 years.'
News 8 also pressed Lamont on the status of internal inquiries into the actions of state agencies responsible for child welfare.
'I think that's ongoing,' Lamont replied. 'Look, DCF was there, they visited. I'm told the family said, 'DCF is bothering us,' and DCF referred it to the Waterbury Police. But you're right something dropped through the cracks and this went on for 20 years.'
The governor's suggestion that there should be changes to the state's system of homeschool regulations was met with sharp criticism by one of the state's leading Republicans.
'To turn this into a homeschool issue, to me is disingenuous,' State Rep. Vincent Candelora, the Republican leader in the state House of Representatives, said. 'It really – to me – smells of 'don't let a crisis go to waste.''
Candelora said he believed that the Waterbury case was being used to advance attacks on homeschooling.
'Democrats love bureaucracy,' Candelora said. 'So, the more people they can get into the government system to regulate – that's what they enjoy doing.'
As a political battle brews over the future of the state's homeschooling laws, some lawmakers are calling for public hearings on the Waterbury case.
'I can't see how this won't have a public hearing,' State Rep. Geraldo Reyes Jr., a Waterbury Democrat, said.
State Rep. Joe Polletta, a Republican who also represents part of Waterbury, has been outspoken along with many of his Republican colleagues calling for public hearings.
'I think the best thing we can do is have a public hearing,' State Sen. Heather Somers, a Republican, said. 'Air out what happened. Learn more information before we start accusing one particular group of being the problem.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

37 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Trump blasts Thomas Massie on Truth Social, threatens to primary NKY congressman

Donald Trump and Republican Thomas Massie are continuing to butt heads as the president berated the Northern Kentucky congressman in a recent Truth Social post. Much like he did in May, Trump once again called Massie a "grandstander' in the June 22 post after the representative of Kentucky's 4th Congressional District has repeatedly opposed the administration's policies. "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be." Trump wrote in the Truth Social post. "MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!" The two share a complicated history, with Massie upsetting Trump the first time in 2024 after Massie initially endorsed candidate and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis during his 2024 presidential bid, though he did endorse Trump just days before the election. Massie also publicly opposed Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," on Instagram in May, stating that it will add $20 trillion of federal debt over 10 years. Trump's most recent social media reaction followed Massie's fiery response on X to his administration's announcement of the bombings in Iran, calling the act "unconstitutional". Massie went on to say: "When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war. I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war… so they can make war." Massie recently joined Ro Khanna, D-Calif., in introducing a resolution that would block U.S. involvement in the conflict between Iran and Israel without congressional approval. Massie's stance drew a rebuke from Trump himself, who wrote in the June 22 post that Massie is "weak, ineffective" and "disrespectful to our military." Trump again promised to back a Republican primary challenge to Massie. Previously, Massie told The Enquirer, "I think every time that I've made my case to the people, even if it's been contrary to what the president wanted at the time, it's eventually worked out for me. And so I'm going to stick with doing what I think is right and making my case to the people." Massie represents almost two dozen counties in and around Northern Kentucky. All of those counties voted for Trump in the past three presidential elections. But while other GOP politicians have lost reelection after losing Trump's support, Massie has dominated every election cycle since he took office in 2012. He was primaried by two candidates in 2024 and beat them with about 76% of the vote. Enquirer reporter Jolene Almendarez contributed to this story. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Trump fires back at Rep. Thomas Massie in newest Truth Social post

Bloomberg

an hour ago

• Bloomberg

Iran Strikes Risk Dividing GOP at Crucial Time for Trump Agenda

By and Steven T. Dennis Save Donald Trump's unilateral decision to strike Iran's key nuclear sites on Saturday notably sidelined Congress just as he needs Republicans lawmakers to unite around one thing he can't do without them: Pass his legislative agenda. Senate Republicans are still planning to move ahead this week with votes on Trump's massive tax and spending bill, Stacey Daniels, a spokeswoman for Majority Leader John Thune, said Sunday.

The Hill

2 hours ago

• The Hill

Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next

President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Here are five big questions. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press-TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely-discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox Sunday Futures. 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with non-interventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd changed 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, retweeted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal non-nuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously has been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israel attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East War. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former National Security Adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider-in-chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability.