MYRTLE BEACH – One Grand Strand businessman who likely would benefit from legislation that could dramatically reshape South Carolina’s short‑term rental market has spent more than $200,000 in recent years to make it a reality.

Pitched as a tax-compliance and accountability measure, South Carolina House Bill 3876 would shift power toward large property management firms and away from small operators and mom‑and‑pop managers, according to analysts and industry advocates, by changing who is legally responsible for collecting and remitting state and local accommodations taxes on short‑term rentals booked through platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo.

The bill was approved May 5 by the Senate Finance Committee on a 12-8 vote. That sends it to the full Senate two days before the regular session ends.

Rick Elliott owns one of those large property management companies. He owns Elliott Beach Rentals in Myrtle Beach, and he has been a vocal supporter of House Bill 3876. Elliott and his company also have donated more than $33,000 in campaign funds to several other key South Carolina lawmakers in recent years, and Elliott also has paid a well-connected lobbyist at least $180,000 in the last four years.

Over the years, campaign finance reports show bill sponsor Rep. Lee Hewitt (R-Murrells Inlet) has received donations from Elliott ($4,000), the Myrtle Beach Lodging PAC which is part of the Grand Strand Business Alliance ($4,000) and from innkeeper Brian Henry ($1,500).

Hewitt is a coastal realtor and property manager who has made tourism, coastal development and real‑estate issues central to his political profile. He owns and is the broker-in-charge of Garden City Realty and also stands to increase his personal real estate business should his bill become law.

Elliott, who lives in Hewitt’s district, has paid lobbyist Boone Peeler at least $180,000 since 2023 to work in Columbia on its behalf. Peeler is the son of Finance Chairman Harvey S. Peeler Jr.

Some co-sponsors of the bill also have received campaign donations from Elliott as well as similar individuals, businesses and PACs.

In addition, campaign finance records show Harvey Peeler has received $2,000 in donations form Myrtle Beach Lodging PAC. State Senate President Thomas Alexander (R-Walhalla) has received $2,250 from the Myrtle Beach Lodging PAC and $1,000 from the South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Luke Rankin (R-Conway) has received $4,300 from Elliott and Elliott Realty, $4,000 from Myrtle Beach Lodging PAC and $1,500 from the South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association.

House Speaker G. Murrell Smith (R-Sumter) has received $4,250 from Myrtle Beach Lodging PAC, $1,000 from Elliott and $1,000 from the South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association.

House Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister (R-Greenville) has received $5,500 from Myrtle Beach Lodging PAC and $500 from the South Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association.

Critics say the fine print of HB 3876 would have far‑reaching consequences for how thousands of South Carolinians are allowed to rent their homes and investment properties.

Industry groups estimate that tens of thousands of short‑term rental properties in South Carolina rely on third‑party managers, meaning as many as 15,000 to 25,000 property owners could see their ability to use platforms like Airbnb significantly curtailed if HB 3876 becomes law, based on typical platform usage patterns and an opposition letter warning that ‘half’ of Airbnb’s state and local tax remittances in the state could be put at risk.

Currently, major booking platforms usually act as the “merchant of record,” collecting the full payment from guests, handling applicable taxes and remitting those revenues to the state and local governments.

HB 3876 would preserve that arrangement only for owners who manage their own listings. For properties handled by third‑party managers, however, the bill would bar platforms from serving in that role and instead shift full responsibility for tax collection, remittance, and record‑keeping onto the property managers themselves, according to bill language and legislative summaries.

The bill also would give a privileged status to “professional property management companies” that have a licensed real‑estate broker‑in‑charge.

That definition, opponents argue, is likely to exclude many smaller management firms that currently handle a handful of homes for individual owners. Those smaller firms would face the choice of taking on complex merchant‑of‑record obligations — including detailed record‑keeping, direct tax remittance, and heightened audit exposure — or losing access to the dominant booking platforms altogether.

Industry groups and some policy analysts warn that the changes could force many small firms out of the market and push property owners to either self‑manage or abandon short‑term rentals entirely. They say that could reduce the number of listings available on platforms, especially in popular vacation destinations such as Charleston, Hilton Head and Myrtle Beach, and ultimately shrink the overall short‑term rental sector.

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers concerned about tax leakage and inconsistent reporting, frame HB 3876 as a necessary step to ensure the state collects what it is owed from a rapidly growing industry.

Short‑term rentals have generated significant economic activity and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue in recent years, and state officials have raised questions about whether existing rules adequately capture the full amount due.

Opponents counter that by making it harder for smaller operators to comply – and easier only for large, broker‑backed companies – the bill could have the opposite effect, driving down the number of taxable stays. They also cast the measure as a property‑rights issue, arguing that the state is effectively limiting how owners can use platforms and managers to monetize their property.

If enacted, HB 3876 would likely set off a period of adjustment as owners, managers and platforms reconsider their business models in South Carolina. Some owners may move to full self‑management to keep using Airbnb and similar services under familiar rules. Others might turn to large professional firms that can absorb the compliance burden. Still others could exit the short‑term rental market, reducing competition and potentially pushing up prices for travelers.

With Jeremy H. Oden on Alabama’s Public Service Commission, state residents have seen utility rates continue to increase to become some of the highest in the country while efficiency has decreased.

And, it’s now been more than 40 years since the PSC held a rate case hearing for the state’s largest utility.

Oden is seeking re-election to the PSC in the May 19 Republican primary. His opponent is Matt Gentry.

As of February, the latest data available, Alabama has the fourth highest monthly electricity bills in the country, according to saveonenergy.com. The national average monthly electricity bill for February, according to the site, is $152.32. Alabama’s is $184.94. That’s higher than every state in the South. Florida is closest at $174.43.

And according to Axios, Alabama and Texas counties have the most expensive electricity bills in the country, with most counties in Alabama seeing $261 monthly electricity bills.

As of January, Alabama’s residential natural gas rate was $16.59 per thousand cubic feet, making it the 10th highest rate in the country based on states for whom data was available, according to chooseenergy.com. The national average was $13.94. In neighboring Tennessee and Mississippi, the rates are $11.23 and $12.68, respectively.

Since Oden was appointed to the PSC in December 2012, the average electricity rate in Alabama has increased more than 41% from $0.1126/kWh to $0.161/kWh in December 2025. That’s higher than any bordering state, with Florida is closest at $0.1592/kWh.

Since 2012, Alabama has seen electricity rate increases at a higher percentage than all neighboring states (Tennessee 30.5%, Georgia 31.8%, Florida 33.5% and Mississippi 36.7%)

And on top of higher rates, Alabama’s energy efficiency has decreased since Oden joined the PSC.

In 2012, Alabama ranked 40^th out of 51 on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, which ranks states and the District of Columbia on policies and programs to advance energy efficiency. By 2025, Alabama had dropped to 50^th, ahead of only Wyoming.

Daniel Tait, president of Energy Alabama, says Alabama Power’s sister companies Georgia Power and Mississippi Power have a rate case when they want to raise rates. A rate case is a public hearing and forces those companies to provide the public with information explaining why a rate increase is necessary.

More than half of Alabama’s energy consumers are customers of Alabama Power, but Alabama Power hasn’t had a rate case hearing since 1982, according to a WBRC news investigation.

“How do we know that we’re actually getting a fair deal?” Tait asks. “Well, we don’t. They should match the practice of practically every other utility company, including its own sister companies like Georgia Power and Mississippi Power. …

“For the power company and the Public Service Commission to say with a straight face that no one deserves to have a say or even be in the room when one of the biggest factors in a utility bill is decided, that’s crazy to me. …

“The people deserve to have somebody that’s actually looking at these calculations and making sure that filings are correct. Is this really the best deal that we’re getting right now? We don’t know. We’ve never seen the records. Nobody can see the records.”

According to the WBRC report, the industry standard for measuring equity is ROE, or return on equity. But the Alabama PSC doesn’t measure that for Alabama Power.

In the 1980s, the Alabama PSC switched to a formula rate that adjusts Alabama Power’s bills every year without a traditional rate case. And in 2013, the PSC switched from using ROE to something called a weighted return on average retail common equity. It shows a much lower number than traditional ROE.

In a recent interview, Oden has said rate cases can “cost millions of dollars and a lot of time.”

But Ari Pesco, director of the Electricity Law Institute at Harvard Law School, says consumers benefit from a rate case.

“There can be billions of dollars at stake, and it’s worth the time and the money,” he told WBRC. “We don’t just trust a monopolist that provides essential services and doing it for profit.”

In that recent interview, Oden also questioned the motives of parties that call for a formal rate case.

“I’d like to ask, why would an intervenor, legislator or candidate want to call for a Formal Rate Case?” Oden asked. “Because of the money they will make. There are rate case lawyers, energy intervention experts and environmental intervenors all over the country who get paid millions of dollars to come in and intervene in rate cases. I did say millions! …

“I would question any candidate, legislator or individual that calls for this type of hearing. They are in it for money, contribution or publicity. In Alabama, that cost is not there.”

So, it seems as if the PSC is propping up Alabama Power’s profits.

A new report by S&P Global ranking state utility regulators puts Alabama’s PSC in its own category: above average. In plain terms, that means the PSC is considered investor-friendly.

“If you look at Alabama Power’s return on equity or a marker of their profit compared to neighbors, it’s substantially higher,” Tait said in the WBRC story. “That means that every year, Alabama Power collects about $250 (million) to $300 million more in profit.”

Tait says the Alabama PSC has been derelict in its duties.

“Their job is to play the judge, if you will, between the needs of a power company and the desire to make money versus also the other side of making sure that regular people get the service they need at a fair price,” Tait said. “We would argue that the Public Service Commission has allowed this, you know, rate structure essentially that has been essentially unchanged and unchecked since the early 1980s to go on far too long.”

Alabama Power is one of the most politically influential companies in the state.

Since 2013, it has shelled out nearly $5 million to PACs, and Alabama Power’s PAC paid out more than $3.3 million directly to candidates, including donations to nearly every state lawmaker.

Oden has not received campaign donations as a PSC candidate from Alabama Power because utilities are not allowed to donate to Alabama PSC candidates, but he did receive money from the company when he was running for the House.

But Oden’s campaign did receive substantial donations from energy-related groups and companies over the years.

In 2022, he received $12,500 from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, $10,000 from the Alabama Coal Cooperative and $10,000 from Altec, which supplies products and services to, among others, the electric utility market.

In 2018, he received $10,000 from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association and $2,000 from Warrior Coal Sales.

In 2015, he received $1,000 each from Best Coal, Black Rock Energy, Black Warrior Minerals, Cedar Lakes Mining and Alabama Coal Cooperative.

In 2013, he received $5,000 from the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, $2,500 from the Alabama Coal Cooperative and $500 from Cahaba Resources

For his 2022 campaign, Oden raised at least $205,000 from PACs among his $259,000 total contributions.

While these contributions aren’t all from fossil fuel interests, an al.com article notes that they “[fuel] the long-held perception that the Alabama PSC is more beholden to special interests than consumers.”

Over the course of his first 12 years on the PSC, Mother Jones reports that Oden received about $1.3 million, roughly 80 percent of his campaign funds, from sources with links to fossil fuel companies and utilities.

“Our analysis and leaked records revealed that Oden’s top donors were political action committees operated by accountants with long-standing ties to consultants for Alabama Power, the state’s largest utility,” the report states.

COLUMBIA, S.C. – A Grand Strand realty company owned by a man supporting a bill that would change how short-term rental owners list and market properties has paid the son of an influential lawmaker at least $180,000 in recent years to lobby on its behalf.

Rick Elliott of Elliott Beach Rentals in Myrtle Beach has been a vocal supporter of House Bill 3876, which could mean hundreds of millions in lost taxes to the state as well as force thousands of these short-term rental owners out of the rental business.

Elliott and his company also have donated more than $33,000 in campaign funds to several other key South Carolina lawmakers in recent years.

House Bill 3876 only would recognize professional property management companies with licensed real estate brokers-in-charge, effectively mandating use of large incumbent companies over small business property managers.

Critics say this could force many small hosts who market properties on Airbnb, Vrbo and similar booking platforms out of the market entirely due to compliance burdens they aren’t equipped to handle.

Opponents also warn the bill could jeopardize tax collection, noting that property owners who used Airbnb paid $388 million in South Carolina taxes since 2020, according to NetChoice. They also cite numbers from a South Carolina Realtors report that shows the $4.2 billion annual impact of short-term rentals in South Carolina, including more than 50,000 jobs, more than $1.4 billion in labor income and more than $1.8 billion in revenue for property owners in the state.

HB 3876 was introduced by Rep. Lee Hewitt (R-Murrells Inlet). He is a coastal realtor and property manager who has made tourism, coastal development and real‑estate issues central to his political profile. He owns and is the broker-in-charge of Garden City Realty and stands to increase his personal real estate business should his bill become law.

The bill passed the House on a 66-38 vote. The legislation still is pending in the state Senate.

Elliott lives in Hewitt’s district. According to South Carolina State Ethics Commission filings, Elliott Realty has paid lobbyist Boone Peeler at least $180,000 since 2023 to work in Columbia on its behalf. Peeler is the son of Finance Chairman Harvey S. Peeler Jr.

South Carolina ethics laws do not bar a child from lobbying a parent as long as they don’t live under the same roof.

Elliott’s company website has a page set up for homeowners to email lawmakers in support of HB 3876. On the page, Elliott Beach Rentals notes it is the property manager for its homeowners. The page also claims the bill does not impact homeowners.

Critics say HB 3876 could force many small hosts who market properties on Airbnb, Vrbo and similar booking platforms out of the market entirely due to compliance burdens they aren’t equipped to handle. Opponents also warn the bill could jeopardize tax collection, noting that property owners who used Airbnb paid $388 million in South Carolina taxes since 2020.

NetChoice, a trade association representing leading internet businesses committed to free expression and free enterprise online, says half of those state and local taxes are at risk if HB 3876 passes because it would prohibit small property management businesses from using Airbnb’s platform for secure payment processing and tax collection.

And, if every property management company is forced into using its own costly system, the risk of tax leakage and non-compliance will skyrocket.

As of 2023, 80% of Airbnb hosts in South Carolina have only one whole-home listing, and 56% reported that renting out their home has helped them cover rising costs of living. Opponents say HB 3876 would make it difficult for these listers to comply with the demands of the bill.

According to Airbnb’s 2025 Economic Impact Report, that platform helped generate about $2.1 billion in economic activity, helped support an estimated 30,000 jobs and drive about $565 million in total tax revenue in South Carolina in 2024. That $2.1 billion is roughly half of the economic impact created by the short-term rental mark in South Carolina in 2022.

About 25,000 property owners either could lose or have their ability curtailed to use their property for supplemental income should HB 3876 become law.

Critics say the bill would undermine property rights by preventing rental hosts from listing on platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo if they hire property managers.

HB3876 focuses on tax collection and compliance for short-term rental accommodations. It amends South Carolina tax code to specify which parties are responsible for collecting and remitting taxes and fees on accommodations.

The bill effectively would prohibit small property managers from listing their clients’ homes on these online booking platforms. For example, more than half of all homes listed on Airbnb in South Carolina are managed by a property manager.

If this bill passes, these booking platforms will no longer be able to allow those homeowners to list their homes. Only homeowners who self-manage their property could continue using the online platforms.

The controversy over the bill stems from one provision that prohibits short-term rental owners who use property management companies from also using digital platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo for tax collection. Instead, property managers would be required to handle tax responsibilities.

Proponents say the bill would make sure taxes are collected and property owners don’t get in trouble later for not paying what they owe.

Critics, however, say it would create an impossible choice for small hosts between using property management services and online platforms.

A commentary on reason.org says HB 3876 would hurt small short-term renters.

“South Carolina localities have a history of hostility toward short-term rentals (STRs), and the latest statewide effort is found in House Bill 3876,” the commentary states. “This bill would impose significant restrictions against both local STR providers and the digital platforms that support them.

“HB 3876 would establish arbitrary limits on short-term rental providers, undermining property rights and distorting the STR market in favor of large providers capable of absorbing the additional costs this legislation imposes.”

During her time on the Deschutes County Commission, Patti Adair helped usher in higher taxes and higher county budgets.

Now, Adair seeks a seat representing Oregon’s 5^th District in Congress. She’s running against Jonathan Lockwood in the Republican Primary, which is May 19.

When she first ran for Deschutes County Commission in 2018, Adair said county property taxes were too high. But Adair also said the commission’s recent vote to lower property taxes by $0.03 per $1,000 wouldn’t do much to save residents money.

“She said she’d like to focus on keeping county taxes low and recognizing that the county’s portion makes up a portion of the taxes residents must pay,” The Bulletin reported of Adair.

According to World Population Review, Deschutes County currently has the fifth-highest median property taxes among all 36 counties in Oregon. And Ownwell says, based on a median home value of $648,885, the annual Deschutes County property tax bill in 2026 is $3,985. That compares to the national median property tax bill of $2,400.

In other words, Deschutes County’s median property tax bill is 66 percent higher than the national median property tax bill.

In fiscal year 2019-2020, Deschutes County ranked 6th of Oregon’s 36 counties in terms of total property taxes imposed. That same year, the Deschutes County Commission adopted a total budget, including service districts, of $502,642,110, with an operating budget of $227,788,787.

The county’s total adopted budget, including service districts, for fiscal year 2025-2026 was $766.4 million, with an operating budget of $430.7 million. This represented increases of 52.5 percent for the total budget and 89.1 percent for the operating budget over the period in which Adair has sat on the Deschutes County Commission.

In May 2022, Adair voted in favor of fellow commissioner Phil Chang’s proposed Deschutes County property tax increase to support general operations. The tax had been reduced by a previous commission. Ultimately, the increase failed to pass. But the Deschutes County Budget Committee, which includes the Deschutes County Commission and was chaired by Adair, did adopt a fiscal year 2023 budget that included a property tax increase for the sheriff’s rural law enforcement district. It’s also worth noting that Chang was elected as a Democrat in 2020 before a ballot measure removed party affiliation from local elections.

In June 2023, Adair and the commission voted for and passed a property tax increase for rural county residents while giving themselves raises. Adair defended both the tax increase and the increase in commissioner salaries,

“I definitely didn’t do the job for the money,” Adair said. “I work really hard at my job.”

She also said the tax hike was necessary because of high interest rates and decreased revenues in county departments.

And in a March 2024 opinion piece, The Source editorial board called out Adair and fellow Commissioner Tony DeBone for voting to move a new Adult Parole and Probation home to a different location and selling the property following public outcry but without considering the fiscal impacts of the decision. That past December, the commission had unanimously voted to approve the facility at the original location.

“Elected officials have the responsibility to be good stewards of our tax dollars,” The Source editorial board wrote. “To that end, it is imperative that they understand the impacts of their decisions fully before they make a vote.

“It is also their responsibility as leaders — to not only listen to the concerns of neighbors (which may be valid), but also to the counsel of the experts among the County staff, who in this case advised that moving the facility would be a losing game.

“This is exactly how you lose qualified staff — and that, also, comes at a price that we all pay.”

(The Center Square) – The House Rules Committee debated long into Monday night to prepare the five-year farm bill for a floor vote this week.

Lawmakers have filed over 360 amendments to the 802-page Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which is currently scheduled to hit the House floor Thursday.

Congress is under immense pressure to pass a farm bill, which it is supposed to do every five years but has not since 2018.

The proposed bipartisan “skinny” farm bill renews and enhances crop insurance and price support, disaster assistance, risk management programs, operation and marketing loans, and federal agricultural research.

It also outlines investments in rural broadband connectivity, forest management, water infrastructure, and hospital assistance, as well as the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., testified Monday afternoon in support of the bill, which cleared his committee weeks ago.

“Producers have operated under an extension of 2018 policy since 2023. This cannot continue,” Thompson said. “We are not playing political games with the future of rural America. We are focused on policy that threads the needle of responsible spending and meaningful impact back home.”

Though more than 500 stakeholders support the legislation, it still contains a number of controversial provisions that Democrats in particular object to.

During the hours-long Rules committee hearing, Democratic lawmakers objected to the $1 billion cut to the farm conservation program EQIP, the solidification of cost-cutting reforms to SNAP implemented by the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” and deregulatory provisions Democrats believe are harmful.

“The Republicans call this a ‘skinny farm bill,’ and maybe that’s because they know there’s not enough meat on the bone, nor is it a real farm bill,” House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Angie Craig, D-Minn., said.

“Farm country needs a full, five-year, 12-title, robust farm bill that helps solve their biggest problems. Not a ‘skinny’ farm bill that leaves so many questions unanswered and so many problems unsolved. And we will be right back here in a year if the administration continues the bad policies that are impacting farm country.”

Multiple lawmakers also opposed a provision that would shield pesticide manufacturers from state-level “failure-to-warn” lawsuits. Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., filed an amendment to strip that provision, though it will likely fail.

“Weakening pesticide oversight moves in the wrong direction,” Mace lamented Monday. “These provisions preempt state and local authority, shut down judicial review, and hand EPA bureaucrats unchecked power to define what is safe.”

The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether such personal injury lawsuits are constitutional when companies follow federal labeling requirements.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Consumer protection organization Consumers’ Research launched a campaign to warn Congress about nonprofit hospitals that prioritize “woke” politics such as diversity, equity and inclusion, transgender ideology for minors, and climate extremism over their patients.

Executive director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that “it is appalling to see hospitals indulge in woke politics while their patients struggle with long waits, surprise bills, and a continuous lack of price transparency.”

“Consumers are right to be fed up, especially when their tax dollars are underwriting activism,” Hild said.

“They see how nonprofit hospitals are abusing their privileges to prioritize everything from DEI to trans ideology for kids to climate extremism, and beyond,” Hild said.

Hild noted that “nonprofit status is not an automatic right; it is a public subsidy granted in exchange for a public benefit.”

“Every cent and second spent on left-wing activism is money and time taken away from patients,” Hild said.

“New York-Presbyterian and CommonSpirit Health…are just two of many examples of nonprofit hospitals using taxpayer dollars to push an ideological agenda,” Hild said of the two hospitals included in his organization’s campaign. “As this new campaign shows, Consumers’ Research will continue exposing woke hospitals and hold them accountable.”

Neither New York-Presbyterian nor CommonSpirit Health have yet to respond to The Center Square’s individual requests for comment.

Consumers’ Research’s campaign against woke hospitals includes a mobile billboard on Capitol Hill and a website, according to media relations.

On the website, Consumers’ Research stated that both New York-Presbyterian and CommonSpirit Health prioritize “woke politics over patients.”

For instance, Consumers’ Research revealed that New-York Presbyterian’s 2025 Health Equity Report stated that “advancing health justice is essential to our organization’s mission and key part of our strategic framework.”

New York-Presbyterian also runs the Dalio Center For Health Justice which, according to its website, aims “to understand and address the root causes of health inequities with the goal of setting a new standard of health for the communities we serve.”

According to Consumers’ Research’s campaign website, New York-Presbyterian promotes “‘health equity for all’ through community partnerships.”

The website also revealed that New York-Presbyterian operates “The Compass Program,” which is “a program that supports transgenderism in children.”

According to Consumers’ Research, New York-Presbyterian Pediatrician-In-Chief Sallie Permar “advocated for transgender intervention on kids and pledged to continue ‘providing gender-affirming care to our transgender youth.’”

“She also committed to ‘fight against legislation’ limiting access to ‘gender-affirming care’ and to advocate for transgender youth as a ‘vulnerable population,’” the website said.

CommonSpirit Health also has a hand in “woke politics,” Hild said, as it runs an Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging.

According to the office’s website, it “leads” the “health equity strategy for CommonSpirit” by “promoting a workforce that represents the diversity of…patients, families, and communities,” “ensuring health equity is embedded across [its] sites of care,” as well as “removing barriers through economic empowerment while addressing systemic racism.”

CommonSpirit also has a “five-pillars approach to create equity for all and lists ‘advocating for social justice’ as a key pillar ‘especially when it comes to healthcare access,’” Consumers’ Research wrote.

Consumers’ Research stated that “CommonSpirit collaborated with Morehouse School of Medicine to push DEI through a $100 million initiative ‘focused on increasing the number of clinicians who are Black or from other underrepresented populations.’”

Beyond DEI, CommonSpirit Health promotes transgender ideology, according to Consumers’ Research, “through a systemwide steering committee to ‘ensure standardized training and policies related to best practices for preferred pronouns, gender-neutral restrooms, and family visitation.’”

Additionally, “in 2023, a report was released that exposed how CommonSpirit was offering transgender surgeries and hormone treatments, including providing these transgender interventions to kids,” Consumers’ Research said.

Consumers’ Research also revealed that “CommonSpirit integrated radical climate goals through its “Race To Zero” campaign targeting net-zero emissions by 2040.”

Consumers’ Research’s campaign comes ahead of the House Committee on Ways & Means’ Tuesday hearing “on the impact of rising health care costs on patients and families.”

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – A majority of U.S. adults say children born in the country should automatically get citizenship, according to a new poll published as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on President Donald Trump’s effort to end the practice.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted April 15-20, found that 64% of Americans support maintaining birthright citizenship, while 32% said citizenship should not automatically be granted at birth. The survey collected responses from 4,557 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

The results come weeks after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, a challenge to Trump’s January 2025 executive order that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent legal resident. A ruling is expected before the end of the court’s term in late June.

Public opinion on the issue breaks sharply along party lines. Nine percent of Democrats say birthright citizenship should be scrapped, compared with 62% of Republicans. Independents are divided, with 66% saying the policy should stand and 26% saying it should not.

Support for birthright citizenship crosses racial lines. Among Black and Hispanic adults polled separately, 74% said they believe the policy should be upheld. Fifty-eight percent of white adults agreed. Opposition was highest among white respondents, at 39%, compared with 22% of Hispanic respondents and 19% of Black respondents.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments April 1. Several justices expressed skepticism of the administration’s position during the hearing. Chief Justice John Roberts questioned how the government could move from narrow historical exceptions to the citizenship rule, such as children of diplomats or invading armies, to exclude the entire class of children born to parents in the country illegally.

Trump attended the oral arguments in person, a first for a sitting president. He has since said publicly that he expects the court to rule against him.

“If they rule against our Country on Birthright Citizenship, which they probably will, it will cost America massive amounts of money but, more importantly, it will cost America its DIGNITY!” Trump wrote on social media earlier this month.

Trump’s executive order was blocked by four federal judges before the Supreme Court stepped in last June, ruling 6-3 to limit the scope of nationwide injunctions against the policy. The court did not rule on the merits of the order at that time.

The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Trump’s administration has argued the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of those in the country illegally or on temporary visas.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Trump administration officials on Monday detailed charges against the suspected attacker of the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Dinner in Washington, D.C.

Cole Tomas Allen faced three charges on Monday, including attempted assassination of President Donald Trump. Allen was also charged with transporting firearms across state lines and with discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the charge of attempting to assassinate a sitting U.S. president carries as much as life in prison. Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence and interstate transmission of a firearm both carry as much as a 10 year prison sentence, each, if convicted.

Officials said Allen boarded a train in California on April 21 bound for Chicago and later arrived in Washington, D.C. Allen arrived in Washington, D.C., at about 1 p.m. Eastern on April 24 and checked into the Washington Hilton Hotel.

He approached a security checkpoint at 8:40 p.m. on April 25 on the terrace level of the hotel, which is a floor above where the dinner was taking place, authorities said.

Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said Allen made it clear that he intended to assassinate Trump. She said Allen made his reservation at the dinner on April 6, a month after Trump announced he would be attending on March 2.

“He is very much aware that the president and the first lady entered the ballroom at 8:00 p.m,” Pirro said. “It was 8:40 that he made the decision to rush the ballroom.”

Pirro said Allen had a pump-action shotgun, a semi-automatic gun and at least three knives when he approached the security checkpoint in the hotel.

“The Constitution and the laws of the United States permit us to register our views through our voices and our votes,” Pirro said. “What they don’t permit is making your views known through violence, especially violence directed at the President of the United States. That is anti-democratic at its core.”

FBI director Kash Patel said agents were dispatched to Allen’s home in California. He also said agents were dispatched to New London, Connecticut, to conduct further interviews during the process.

“In less than 48 hours, you know almost every single thing we know,” Patel said. “What we have not told you yet, we will tell you in short order.”

Blanche criticized elected officials and members of the media for what he called contributions to the rhetoric that led to the Allen’s alleged actions.

“When you have media just being overly critical and calling the president horrible names for no reason and without proof it shouldn’t surprise us that this type of rhetoric takes place,” Blanche said.

Blanche said law enforcement fired five shots responding to the attacker. He also said that authorities believe Allen fired a shot from the shotgun in his possession.

“As far as getting into exacting ballistics, um, I’m not going to do that today because it’s still being looked at and finalized,” Blanche said.

Blanche also expressed support for Trump’s planned White House ballroom. He said it would allow for a space in Washington, D.C., to host future events similar to the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.

“Violence has no place in civic life,” Blanche said. “It cannot and will not be used to disrupt democratic institutions or intimidate those to serve them and it certainly cannot continue to be used against the president of the United States.”

Subscribe now

COLUMBIA, S.C. – A South Carolina bill that would change how short-term rental owners list and market properties could mean hundreds of millions in lost taxes to the state as well as force thousands of these owners out of the rental business.

House Bill 3876 only would recognize professional property management companies with licensed real estate brokers-in-charge, effectively mandating use of large incumbent companies over small business property managers.

Critics say this could force many small hosts who market properties on Airbnb, Vrbo and similar booking platforms out of the market entirely due to compliance burdens they aren’t equipped to handle. Opponents also warn the bill could jeopardize tax collection, noting that property owners who used Airbnb paid $388 million in South Carolina taxes since 2020.

NetChoice, a trade association representing leading internet businesses committed to free expression and free enterprise online, says half of those state and local taxes are at risk if HB 3876 passes because it would prohibit small property management businesses from using Airbnb’s platform for secure payment processing and tax collection.

And, if every property management company is forced into using its own costly system, the risk of tax leakage and non-compliance will skyrocket.

As of 2023, 80% of Airbnb hosts in South Carolina have only one whole-home listing, and 56% reported that renting out their home has helped them cover rising costs of living. Opponents say HB 3876 would make it difficult for these listers to comply with the demands of the bill.

According to Airbnb’s 2025 Economic Impact Report, that platform helped generate about $2.1 billion in economic activity, helped support an estimated 30,000 jobs and drive about $565 million in total tax revenue in South Carolina in 2024. That $2.1 billion is roughly half of the economic impact created by the short-term rental market in South Carolina in 2022.

About 25,000 property owners either could lose or have their ability curtailed to use their property for supplemental income should HB 3876 become law.

Moreover, the origin of the bill seems as if it was created to benefit a handful of local realty businesses that would benefit if the bill became law.

Rep. Lee Hewitt (R-Murrells Inlet) is the primary sponsor. He is a coastal Realtor and property manager who has made tourism, coastal development and real‑estate issues central to his political profile. He owns and is the broker-in-charge of Garden City Realty and likely stands to increase his personal real estate business should his bill become law.

One key supporter of the bill is Rick Elliott of Elliott Beach Rentals in Myrtle Beach, which is part of Hewitt’s district. It was introduced last year by Hewitt and passed the House on a 66-38 vote. The legislation still is pending in the state Senate.

According to South Carolina State Ethics Commission records, Elliott also has hired Boone Peeler to lobby for his company for the past several years. Boone Peeler is the son of Finance Chairman Harvey S. Peeler Jr. South Carolina ethics laws do not bar a child from lobbying a parent as long as they don’t live under the same roof.

Critics say the bill would undermine property rights by preventing rental hosts from listing on platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo if they hire property managers.

HB3876 focuses on tax collection and compliance for short-term rental accommodations. It amends South Carolina tax code to specify which parties are responsible for collecting and remitting taxes and fees on accommodations.

The bill effectively would prohibit small property managers from listing their clients’ homes on these online booking platforms. For example, more than half of all homes listed on Airbnb in South Carolina are managed by a property manager.

If this bill passes, these booking platforms will no longer be able to allow those homeowners to list their homes. Only homeowners who self-manage their property could continue using the online platforms.

The controversy over the bill stems from one provision that prohibits short-term rental owners who use property management companies from also using digital platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo for tax collection. Instead, property managers would be required to handle tax responsibilities.

Proponents say the bill would make sure taxes are collected and property owners don’t get in trouble later for not paying what they owe.

Critics, however, say it would create an impossible choice for small hosts between using property management services and online platforms.

The Private Property Rights Institute opposes the bill.

“This legislation poses a direct threat to private property rights and undermines the ability of homeowners to freely utilize property management services, including short-term rental platforms,” PPRI Executive Director Charlie Kolean wrote in an April 15 letter to South Carolina Senate leaders. “At its core, HB 3876 represents a clear overreach into the rights of property owners. It restricts how individuals can use, manage and derive income from their own property – setting a concerning precedent that extends well beyond the short-term rental market.

“Property rights are foundational to economic freedom, and any policy that limits an owner’s ability to contract with a property manager or utilize widely accepted platforms should be approached with the utmost caution.”

Kolean’s letter was address to Senate President Thomas Alexander (R-Walhalla), Majority Leader A. Shane Massey (R-Edgefield) and Minority Leader Brad Hutto (D-Orangeburg) as well as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Peeler (R-Gaffney).

Kolean said the legislation disproportionately affects small property owners and local entrepreneurs.

“Many homeowners rely on property managers to responsibly oversee their assets, particularly in markets where short-term rentals provide meaningful supplemental income or financial stability,” Kolean wrote. “Buy limiting access to these services, HB 3876 effectively advantages larger, more established operators while reducing opportunity for everyday South Carolinians.”

Opponents say HB 3876 strips freedoms away from homeowners to benefit a handful of large corporations seeking to eliminate their competition.

For example, if a property owner uses a property manager to list a home on Airbnb, this bill would force the property owner off of the platform entirely. His only options would be to manage everything himself or sign a contract with a large corporation, including some companies behind the bill, likely at a much higher cost.

Here’s how it works. When someone books with Airbnb or Vrbo, that platform acts as the “merchant of record,” meaning it processes the payment, collects applicable taxes and handles the financial transaction on behalf of the host.

For property managers who list and manage homes on behalf of individual homeowners, that means they do not need to build their own payment infrastructure, navigate complex tax obligations or take on liability and data protection responsibilities for financial transactions.

Airbnb, Vrbo and similar platforms voluntarily collect and remit South Carolina state and local sales taxes, state accommodations tax and local taxes and fees in 16 localities on behalf of hosts and guests.

The bill currently is pending with the Senate Finance Committee led by Harvey Peeler, but no action has been taken on it since it was referred to the committee in January. A Senate Finance subcommittee discussed the bill in March, but no formal action was taken. The regular session is scheduled to end May 14.

(The Center Square) - The man accused of storming the White House Correspondents’ Associations Dinner has been charged with the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump.

Cole Tomas Allen appeared in federal court on Monday in Washington, D.C., after being take into custody on Saturday following the shooting. Allen faced three charges including attempted assassination, transporting firearms across state lines and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence.

Allen, a resident of Torrance, California, appeared in court Monday. He did not enter a plea during the brief hearing. He is beleived to have traveled by train from California to Chicago and then onto Washington, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said.

The charge of attempting to assassinate a sitting U.S. president carries as much as life in prison, if convicted. Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence also carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years if convicted.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) - The White House on Monday called on Congress to fund the U.S. Department of Homeland Security after shots were fired at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner Saturday with President Donald Trump just one room away.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called the shutdown at DHS “shameful” and said the Secret Service has been affected by the lack of congressional appropriations.

“The Secret Service is a vital component of DHS,” Leavitt said. “It has been directly impacted by this political gamesmanship.”

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has gone without congressional funding since Feb. 14. DHS spends $1.6 billion on payroll every two weeks.

Officials in the Transportation Security Administration have recieved otherwise appropriated funds laid out by Trump to get paid. However, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned that leftover funds are set to run out in May.

“There is no more emergency fund,” Mullin said. “The president can’t do another executive order for us to use money because there’s no more money there.”

Leavitt also slammed Democrat members of Congress and state leaders, including Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

“Those who constantly falsely label and slander the president as a fascist, as a threat to democracy, and compare him to Hitler to score political points are fueling this kind of violence,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt compared the rhetoric from leaders to language in the manifesto from accused shooter Cole Allen. Allen said he planned to target top Trump administration officials in the attack.

“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” Cole wrote in a manifesto to family members before the incident.

Leavitt slammed public figures and elected officials for their rhetoric regarding the president.

“Much of the manifesto of the would-be assassin is indistinguishable from the words that we hear daily from so many,” Leavitt said.

Leavitt expressed support and praise for the security measures at the correspondents dinner.

“The president was satisfied with the response and he’s very grateful to the men and women who provided the response for him and his wife and members of his team,” Leavitt said.

White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles plans to meet with top leadership at the Department of Homeland Security to discuss security procedures for upcoming events this week, Leavitt said.

“We’re always monitoring operations and procedures, always asking the tough questions to ensure the president is safe and the American people should be assured there’s no higher priority for the president and his staff than the president’s safety,” Leavitt added.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The California man accused of charging security and shooting a Secret Service officer at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner Saturday night will appear Monday in federal court.

Among other possible charges, the 31-year-old suspect, Cole Tomas Allen, is facing two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence and one count of assault on a federal officer using a dangerous weapon, media outlets reported.

“It is clear that this individual was intent on doing as much harm as he could,” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro posted on social media. “Thank God for our law enforcement who acted so quickly to prevent what could have been a horrific event.”

President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, and members of Trump’s cabinet were at the event and were rushed out of the banquet hall of the Washington, D.C. Hilton., less than two miles from the White House.

The Hilton was also the place where John Hinckley Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981.

A long gun and shell casings were recovered at the scene, where Allen was detained. No one else but the Secret Service agent, who Trump said he spoke to and was doing OK, sustained injuries during the incident.

The Center Square’s White House Bureau Chief Sarah Roderick-Fitch was in attendance at the event, and said she heard a loud noise before attendees started screaming. Secret Service agents then stormed the room and began escorting people out, Roderick-Fitch said.

Federal law enforcement officers searched the suspect’s California home and interviewed members of his family.

According to reports from media outlets, Allen was an amateur video game developer and a tutor from Torrence, California. He graduated from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena in 2017 and donated $50 to the campaign of then presidential candidate Kamala Harris through ActBlue.

Allen’s “manifesto” sent to family members before the attack, which the New York Post reported Sunday, said he wanted to minimize casualties at the hotel but, “I would still go though most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most “chose” to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.”

Allen may enter a plea during his Monday arraignment.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case over the constitutional authority of federal agencies to handle migrant farmworker disputes.

The case, Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, focuses on a New Jersey farm that was accused of violating an employment agreement under the H-2A visa program.

The H-2A visa program is a federally administered work visa system that allows agricultural employers to hire immigrant workers for temporary or seasonal jobs when there are not enough U.S. workers available.

The Department of Labor accused Sun Valley Orchards of failing to provide adequate housing, meal plans, transportation and work hours for H-2A employees. The department imposed hundreds of thousands of dollars in liabilities for violations at the farm.

Lawyers for the Department of Labor said employers that use the H-2A program to hire workers must comply with federal guidelines to ensure American citizens are not disadvantaged by the program.

“Administrative adjudications provide an efficient mechanism for ensuring that employers who participate in that vast program comply with those terms and conditions,” the lawyers wrote in a brief to the court.

Lawyers for Sun Valley Orchards argued that the department violated Article III of the Constitution, which gives power for federal adjudications to the judiciary branch, not the executive.

The lawyers argued the Department of Labor overstepped in its pursuit of adjudicating the claim.

“There is no precedent or history supporting agency adjudication of such employment-related issues,” lawyers for the farm wrote. “The government’s contrary argument would vastly expand the public rights exception for immigration-related claims to encompass myriad issues involving temporary workers.”

Justices on the court will decide whether the Department of Labor can adjudicate immigration-related violations in the fall. The court will likely decide the case in 2027.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – This week begins with housing, but the real macro story comes later: the Federal Reserve chair’s press conference and the Personal Consumption Expenditures inflation report.

The Case-Shiller home price index will likely confirm what Zillow’s data already showed: home-price growth has cooled. Because Case-Shiller is lagged by almost two months, it should mostly validate a slowdown that appeared earlier in Zillow’s more timely home value and market data. National home values are now mostly unchanged from a year ago, and Zillow expects prices to remain broadly flat by year-end as stronger inventory growth relative to sales weighs on appreciation. The exception remains supply-constrained markets. Milwaukee, Hartford, Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago and New York have seen some of the strongest price growth over the past year.

The new construction report should tell a similar story from the builder side. Single-family permits and starts are expected to remain under pressure as builders face more competition from resale inventory returning to the market. Builders are still focused on sales, incentives and managing supply rather than accelerating new production. The good news is that demand has remained resilient despite wavering real wage growth, a softer labor market, higher gas prices and mortgage rates that have ticked higher.

The spring home shopping season is still underway, roughly matching last year’s activity levels.

But housing is the setup. The main event is the Fed.

The policy rate is expected to remain unchanged, so investors will focus on the tone of the Fed chair’s press conference. Does he sound more concerned about inflation, or more concerned about the economy? Inflation has moved higher, though not as much as feared, while the labor market no longer looks like it is deteriorating. It looks stable, but at a lower level of activity.

That should make the Fed a bit less worried about both sides of its mandate. Inflation has moved higher by less than expected, supporting the view that the recent shocks are acting more like a tax on activity than a source of broad overheating. That gives the Fed room to look through the current supply-side shock rather than tighten in response to it. At the same time, the labor market appears stable and no longer worsening, which means no Fed rescue is needed either.

Together, that supports the case for keeping the fed funds rate unchanged for now.

This week’s PCE report will help determine whether that balancing act becomes easier – or harder.

Orphe Divounguy is an economist with Zillow and the co-host of The Center Square’s Everyday Economics podcast.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The California man accused of storming security at Saturday night’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner and shooting a Secret Service officer before being detained, likely was targeting Trump administration officials, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday.

President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, and members of Trump’s cabinet were at the event and were rushed out of the banquet hall of the Washington, D.C. Hilton.

“It does appear that he did in fact set out to target folks who work in the administration, likely including the president,” Blanche said on NBC’s “Meet the Press. “But I want to wait and not get ahead of us on that.”

A long gun and shell casings were recovered at the scene.

No one else but the Secret Service agent, who Trump said he spoke to and was doing OK, was injured in the attack.

The New York Post reported Sunday that it received a copy of a “manifesto” the suspect, Cole Tomas Allen of Torrance, California, sent to family members just minutes before the attack.

“Administration officials (not including Mr. [FBI Director Kash] Patel): they are targets, prioritized from highest-ranking to lowest,” the Post reported the manifesto read.

Allen, media outlets reported, was a tutor and amateur video game developer. He attended the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, where he graduated in 2017. He donated $50 to the campaign of then presidential candidate Kamala Harris through ActBlue.

According to the Post, Allen’s manifesto said he wanted to minimize casualties at the hotel but, “I would still go though most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most “chose” to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.”

Speaking to Fox News on Sunday, Trump said the manifesto shows the suspect was a sick guy.

“The guy is a sick guy,” Trump told Fox News. “When you read his manifesto, he hates Christians. That’s one thing for sure. He hates Christians, a hatred. And I think his sister or his brother actually was complaining about it. You know, they were even complaining to law enforcement. So he was, he was a very troubled guy.”

The Center Square’s White House Bureau Chief Sarah Roderick-Fitch was in attendance at the event and said she heard a loud noise before attendees started screaming. Secret Service agents then stormed the room and began escorting people out, Roderick-Fitch said.

Federal law enforcement officers searched the suspect’s California home and interviewed members of his family. The investigation is ongoing.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Nearly two dozen state attorneys general are asking the three top ratings agencies to explain their “ESG-driven” downgrades of fossil-fuel companies.

In a letter to the agencies, the 23 attorneys general allege the agencies promote a radical climate agenda.

Executive director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that ratings agencies – Fitch, Moody’s and S&P – “should be providing objective financial analysis for consumers and investors to rely on, not using their market power to push woke ideology.”

“As the state attorneys general expose in this letter, these ratings groups have been weaponizing their credit ratings in an effort to push a radical ESG agenda,” Hild said.

“Instead of providing analysis through the lens of fiduciary duty and financial prosperity, these woke activists are colluding with UN-backed climate activists and using flawed methodologies to meet arbitrary net-zero and ESG goals,” Hild said.

“Thanks to leadership by the AGs, the depths of collusion by the woke cartel continues to be exposed,” Hild said.

In their letter, the Attorneys General wrote that the ratings agencies have used “flawed methodologies to downgrade, or to threaten to downgrade, states and municipalities with fossil-fuel production revenues,” and “yet [the agencies] largely have not reversed the [d]owngrades after highly speculative ESG predictions proved to be wrong.”

The letter additionally stated that the “[d]owngrades materially contravened the Ratings Agencies’ stated methodologies and are consistent with undisclosed material conflicts of interest.”

For instance, “all three agencies have pledged to a United Nations-backed group that they will ‘incorporat[e] ESG into credit ratings and analysis in a systematic...way,’” the letter said.

Additionally, “Moody’s and S&P pledged to help ‘achieve’ net zero,” the letter said.

The attorneys general requested in their letter that the ratings agencies complete five actions, which are: “explain ESG-driven downgrades,” “withdraw from or disclose ESG commitments,” “revise sector-specific methodologies,” “eliminate or disclose ESG consulting conflicts,” and “certify internal controls review.”

“Failure to take these corrective actions will inform the undersigned attorneys general’s assessment of whether enforcement action under state UDAP laws, antitrust investigation, referral to the SEC’s Office of Credit Ratings, or coordination with the U.S. Department of Justice is warranted,” the attorneys general wrote.

CEO of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told The Center Square that the attorneys general’s allegations against the three ratings agencies in question “confirm what many have warned for years: ESG is not about risk assessment, it is about reshaping markets through financial coercion.”

“Credit rating agencies appear to have abandoned objective, data-driven analysis in favor of speculative, politically aligned assumptions that penalize reliable American energy while rewarding favored industries,” Isaac said.

“That kind of distortion doesn’t just mislead investors, it raises costs for states, undermines domestic production, and ultimately hits consumers with higher prices,” Isaac said.

“If these claims hold, regulators and attorneys general should treat this as a serious breach of trust and restore integrity to the ratings process,” Isaac said.

The attorneys general’s letter also spoke of a CCP advantage, as founder, CEO and chairman of State Armor Michael Lucci told The Center Square.

“It is absurd that ratings agencies claim to measure environmental, social, and governance performance while awarding stronger marks to a CCP-owned company tied to an authoritarian regime with a well-documented human-rights record than to major U.S. energy firms,” Lucci said.

“That contradiction becomes even more glaring when China has expanded coal capacity at a pace exceeding much of the rest of the world combined, undermining any serious claim that these scores are rooted in consistent environmental standards,” Lucci said.

“Outcomes this detached from reality underscores why the entire ESG ratings system deserves every ounce of scrutiny it gets,” Lucci said.

When reached, an S&P spokesman told The Center Square: “S&P Global is aware of the letter sent to its office by the 23 State Attorney Generals.”

“We take these matters very seriously and do not have further comments at this time,” the spokesman said.

Neither Fitch nor Moody’s responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.

The 23 state attorneys general that signed the letter to S&P, Fitch, and Moody’s hail from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – A retiring Republican congressman plans to confront Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth this week over how $2.6 billion appropriated by Congress for military housing assistance was redirected to fund “Warrior Dividend” bonuses paid to 1.45 million service members before Christmas.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired Air Force brigadier general and member of the House Armed Services Committee, says the money, drawn from a $2.9 billion Basic Allowance for Housing appropriation in the One Big Beautiful Bill, was intended to help service members living off base.

He is calling on Hegseth to restore the funds and plans to raise the issue before the full committee on Wednesday.

“The barracks budget has been looted for many years for other priorities,” Bacon told The Center Square. “We brought in $2.5 billion to increase housing allowances for people living off base in the reconciliation bill. The [Department of Defense] took that money and paid the entire force $1,776 in bonuses, but it was targeted to help those living off base.”

President Donald Trump said the funds were from tariff revenue, but the Pentagon used money from the Housing Allowance budget.

Bacon previously chaired the HASC Military Quality-of-Life Panel, leading a year-long inquiry into military pay, housing, childcare and healthcare access.

Congress appropriated $2.9 billion in taxpayer funds for military housing in the One Big Beautiful Bill. An estimated $2.6 billion was allocated to bonuses, leaving $300 million for actual BAH needs.

Trump announced the surprise check for military members on Dec. 18, saying it was a reward funded in part by tariff revenue and his signature funding bill.

“Because of tariffs, along with the just-passed ‘One Big Beautiful Bill,’ tonight, I am also proud to announce that more than 1,450,000 military service members will receive a special, we call ‘Warrior Dividend’ before Christmas,” Trump said during an address to the nation.

A Pentagon official confirmed to The Center Square that the funding came from the BAH appropriation in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

“Congress appropriated $2.9 billion to the Department of War to supplement the Basic Allowance for Housing entitlement,” the official said, adding that the department used an estimated $2.6 billion of those funds for the one-time payment, with the remaining $300 million being used “to support BAH requirements.”

Hegseth, in a Dec. 18 video posted to social media, described the payment as a “direct investment in the brave men and women who carry on the legacy of our Armed Forces” and said it was intended to “improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families.”

The House Armed Services Committee convenes at 10 a.m. Wednesday in Rayburn 2118 for a full committee hearing on the Department of Defense’s $1.5 trillion budget request. Hegseth and Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to testify.

“This money should be restored,” Bacon told The Center Square.

Bacon announced in June 2025 that he would not seek reelection in 2026.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) - New estimates for the cost of the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program (IBR) project over the Columbia River between Washington and Oregon have increased and the timeline has again been pushed out.

The final environmental review and Record of Decision (ROD) have been delayed, such that construction is now unlikely until 2028.

And this week, leaders of the IBR team gave an update on the megaproject to the C-TRAN Board of Directors, detailing increased projections for needed tolling and ballooning costs for light rail across the new span.

John Ley, a Republican state representative from Vancouver who is also a member of the Southwest Washington Regional Transportation Council, was at the meeting and afterward told The Center Square he remains a sharp critic of the project design, prioritizing light rail over traffic congestion relief.

“They are going to allocate 54% of the bridge surface to transit, bikes and pedestrians, and only 46% to cars and freight haulers,” said Ley who bemoaned the fact planners have been studying, designing and modifying plans for four years.

The new cost estimate for the entire project, which includes a 5-mile corridor and light rail extending to the Vancouver waterfront is an estimated $14.4 billion.

Ley strongly opposes extending Portland’s TriMet light rail into Clark County, arguing it is a high-cost, low-ridership solution that does not serve local residents or do much for traffic congestion.

“This is a light rail project in search of a bridge,” Ley said. “Portland’s TriMet is going bankrupt. They need a bailout and if they can get billions in federal money, it helps them delay the inevitable.

TriMet is facing a $300 million budget gap. As a result, the agency is planning to make some major cuts, set to take effect in August.

Ley said the current demand for transit does not come close to justifying the need for light rail. He also pushes back on design supporters who have argued the feds won’t provide funding for a project that does not include light rail.

“They claimed we had to have high-capacity transit in order to get federal funding. That’s part of the lie they tell, or half-truth,” Ley said. “Today, as we speak, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Northern Kentucky are building a bridge that was competing for the same money as the IBR is. They’re building a 10-lane bridge, 5 in each direction, over the Ohio River, connecting from northern Kentucky into Cincinnati. It’s the Brent-Spence Bridge.”

Ley said the Ohio-Kentucky bridge project competed for the same federal dollars the Washington-Oregon IBR project is competing for.

They “competed and got about $1.6 billion in federal money. Zero transit component on it,” Ley said. “So, the IBR is telling a misnomer that we have to have it. No. You don’t need it.

Projected cost has risen

Estimates have jumped to between $13.6 billion and $14.4 billion, more than double the earlier $6 billion estimate.

IBR Program staff emailed a response to Ley’s criticisms.

“All 10 local partners agreed to the key elements of IBR Program investments, detailed in the Modified Locally Preferred Alternative. Major changes to the key elements, such as light rail, would require all partners to agree, delay completion of the federal environmental process, delay the start of construction on all IBR Program elements and potentially put half a billion dollars in grant funding from the Bridge Investment Program in danger if upcoming deadlines are missed.”

“In addition, the Program is also eligible for additional federal funding beyond what is already awarded. Without light rail as the high-capacity mode, the program would not be eligible for Capital Investment Grant New Starts funding from the Federal Transit Administration, from which the Program plans to request $1 billion”

The amount of toll funding that the driving public will have to pay in order to help fund the project also keeps climbing to a current level of $1.5 billion. Rates are expected to vary from $1.55 to $4.50 per trip.

The updated plan calls for construction on the replacement bridge to start in 2028, with tolling to start at the same time. Drivers will be tolled on the old bridge to pay for the new bridge.

Ley noted another issue for Oregon and their ability to fund the mega-project is a ballot measure coming up next month.

“On their May 19th primary ballot there’s a referendum to repeal over $4 billion in transportation taxes that the governor crammed through in an emergency session last summer and fall,” Ley said.

He explained Oregon voters hurriedly collected far more than enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot.

“It was supposed to be on the November ballot of 2026, the exact date that the governor’s on the ballot. But now it’s going to be on the May 19th ballot,” Ley said.

“Overwhelmingly, the assumption is it’s going down, which leaves a $4 billion further hole for the state of Oregon. How do they have the money to pay for the existing obligation for the bridge even at the old price?”

Only about $5.5 billion in funding has been secured, leaving a large deficit for both states.

The project is not expected to be complete in all phases until around 2045.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – Members of Congress debated a bill on Tuesday that would change how the federal government handles air quality monitoring influenced by wildfire mitigation.

House Resolution 6387, known as the FIRE Act, is sponsored by U.S. Reps. Gabe Evans, R-Colorado, and Adam Gray, D-California. The legislation would revise regulations under the Clean Air Act “governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk.”

The House’s vote on the bill is expected Wednesday following Tuesday’s discussion on the floor.

Rep. Gary Palmer, R-Ala., said the bill would mean states wouldn’t be penalized for wildfire mitigation efforts such as prescribed or controlled burns.

“States currently limit these practices for fear of falling out of attainment with national air quality standards,” he said on the floor. “Unlike wildfires, prescribed burns do not automatically qualify as an exceptional event under the current provisions of the Clean Air Act.”

According to Palmer, only one prescribed burn has qualified as an exceptional event in the last decade.

Despite the bipartisan support for H.R. 6387, several Democrats spoke against it.

Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., called the FIRE Act “yet another dishonest attempt, in my opinion, by Republicans to weaken the Clean Air Act, which would make Americans sicker while health care costs skyrocket.”

“Republicans are peddling this dangerous bill as an attempt to promote prescribed burns and combat wildfires,” he said. “But as has been true, like for the other dirty bills that we’ve considered over the last week or so, this bill fails to address the stated goal and instead provides overly broad exemptions that will harm American families and children.”

Rep. Maxine Dexter, D-Ore., cited public health concerns for her opposition.

“The FIRE Act undermines a centerpiece of the Clean Air Act: the National Ambient Air Quality Standards program,” she said. “Right now, there are narrow exceptions to the rules that set limits on how polluted our air can be. Republicans want to blow those exceptions wide open.”

Evans, the bill’s primary sponsor, said states like his home of Colorado should not be penalized for smoke and emissions that are outside of their control.

The bill removes those penalties “while still maintaining strong environmental protections and incentivizing good forest management practices to prevent wildfires,” he said on the House floor.

“The Front Range of Colorado has consistently struggled to meet ozone attainment levels set by the federal Clean Air Act, despite the fact that data and science show that more that 70% of emissions originate from sources outside of Colorado,” Evans said.

Corrections and Clarifications

This story has been edited since initial publication to correct that the vote on the matter was not postponed to Wednesday. It was scheduled to take place Wednesday.

Subscribe now

(The Center Square) – The United States will continue it’s blockade in the Strait of Hormuz for “as long as it takes,” War Secretary Pete Hegseth said on Friday.

Hegseth called on Iran to make a deal and agree to give up its nuclear weapons capabilities.

“Iran has a historic chance to amke a serious deal, and the ball is in their court,” Hegseth said. “Either way, the War Department stands ready for what comes next. Locked and loaded.”

Hegseth and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine, described the United States seizure of an Iranian-flagged cargo ship on Sunday called the Touska. Caine said 34 ships met the U.S. blockade and turned around. The Touska was the only ship to not turn around.

“Over a six-hour period, the vessel and her crew repeatedly ignored U.S. warnings, and then the U.S. Navy destroyer executed a series of pre-planned, carefully calibrated escalation options, including firing five warning shots,” Caine said.

The U.S. military fired nine inert rounds into the Touska’s engine room and engine space. After firing shots, Caine said, U.S. Marines boarded and took custody of the ship.

“The ship and her crew remain safe in U.S. custody today,” Caine said.

Caine also said the United States seized two Iranian dark fleet ships in the Indian Ocean. Both ships remain in U.S. custoy, Caine said.

The Tifani and the Majestic X were seized over the past week, Caine said. The Tifani, a large crude tanker, is capable of transporting roughly two million barrels of oil.

“We will continue to conduct similar maritime interdiction actions and activities in the Pacific and Indian Oceans against Iranian ships and vessels of the dark fleet,” Caine said.

Hegesth criticized European countries for not aiding the United States’ blockade in the Strait of Hormuz.

“We are not counting on Europe, but they need the Strait of Hormuz much more than we do,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth also said the U.S. would work to clear mines in the Strait of Hormuz and called on other countries to help. He said Iran would be violating the country’s ceasefire if it laid more mines in the Strait.

“America and the free world deserve allies who are capable, who are loyal and who understand that being an ally is not a one-way street,” Hegseth said.

Subscribe now