LAS VEGAS — A group of six men and ten women were chosen on Thursday to deliberate over the case of a former gang leader accused of orchestrating the murder of Tupac Shakur nearly three decades ago, a case that remains a defining moment in hip-hop history.

The murder trial, set in Las Vegas, is expected to begin with opening statements on Monday.

For years, the family and fans of the iconic rapper have awaited answers about the tragic 1996 drive-by shooting that claimed Shakur’s life while he was at the zenith of his career.

At just 25, Shakur was gunned down near the bustling Las Vegas Strip during a turbulent period marked by heated rivalries in a music industry heavily influenced by gang tensions.

Three years ago, authorities charged Duane “Keffe D” Davis with murder, labeling him as the mastermind behind the assassination. Davis, who has denied the charges, faces a potential life sentence if convicted.

Sixteen jurors were picked for the trial, which is expected to last about a month. During the selection process, potential jurors were asked about their favorite books and movies, if they had any strong feelings about gangs, and whether they had listened to Shakur’s music.

Shakur still is considered one of the most influential rappers of all time. With hits like “California Love” and “Dear Mama,” more than 75 million of his records have been sold worldwide, including seven albums released after his death.

He was in the passenger seat of a BMW driven by Death Row Records co-founder Marion “Suge” Knight on Sept. 7, 1996, when shots were fired from a Cadillac at a red light. Knight survived but Shakur died six days later.

Prosecutors have not accused Davis, now 63, of pulling the trigger that night, instead saying that he made the calls that led to Shakur’s death and provided the gun.

In Nevada, a person can be convicted of murder for helping another person commit the crime.

Davis is the only person still alive who was in the car where prosecutors said the fatal shots originated.

The case against Davis was revived when Davis published the book “Compton Street Legend,” about the shooting and his time in the Crips, in 2019 as well as his statements during police and media interviews.

Davis’ attorneys unsuccessfully fought to block from the trial details written in the book and said during a 2008 police interview. They argued the book was fictionalized and had a co-author, making it impossible to know which parts Davis wrote.

They also argued Davis’ previous interview with a federal task force was supposed to be confidential and not used against him.

Among those who could be called to testify in the trial is Knight, the rap music mogul whose label represented Shakur. He continually has said that he wants no part in the trial.

Knight, who is serving a 28-year sentence for running over and killing a Compton businessman in 2015, is the only surviving person who was in the car with Shakur at the time of the shooting.

Prosecutors expect to call between 35 and 45 witnesses, ranging from people who saw Shakur moments before he was shot to those who were associates of both Shakur and Davis at the time. Sean “Diddy” Combs, who Davis claimed wanted Shakur and Knight dead, will not be one of those witnesses, attorneys said.

Matthew McConaughey continues to enjoy financial success from the popular film “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.”

The star disclosed that this 2003 romantic comedy, where he shares the screen with Kate Hudson, remains his most lucrative project to date.

“‘How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days’ is truly the gift that keeps on giving,” McConaughey shared during Thursday’s episode of the “Happy Sad Confused” podcast.

Calling it a cherished work, McConaughey expressed that it is “probably my favorite rom-com I’ve done, and it’s a fan favorite too.”

He continued, noting, “It still sends the most consistent residual checks of any film I’ve ever made. By a long shot.”

The 56-year-old also divulged which month of the year he’d rake in the most money from the film.

“When it used to be just DVDs or cable, every March I’d get a big check because Valentine’s Day,” he shared.

McConaughey went on, “But, I mean, look: the movie for me, for that genre, let me just own that genre. ‘How to Lose a Guy in 10 Day’ … that’s a real anchor in the rom-com genre through time.”

Directed by Donald Petrie, “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” follows women’s magazine columnist Andie Anderson (Hudson) who tries to drive a new boyfriend, ad exec Ben Barry (McConaughey), away in ten days for an article.

Ben, meanwhile, secretly makes a bet with his co-workers that he can make Andie fall in love with him in the same timeframe.

The film cemented McConaughey, who was already in 2001’s “The Wedding Planner,” as one of the go-to actors for 2000s rom-coms.

He went on to star in “Failure to Launch,” “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past” and “Fool’s Gold,” the last of which reunited him with Hudson, 47.

Afterwards, McConaughey’s career shifted to more serious roles, including his Oscar-winning turn in 2013’s “Dallas Buyers Club.”

McConaughey, who has always spoken highly of his “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” experience, previously revealed that a fortune teller approached him on the street and convinced him to do the film.

“He immediately goes, ‘There’s a movie you’re considering right now. It’s a romantic comedy. You have to do this or it will be one of the biggest regrets of your life. It is going to be a blast, it is going to be an incredible experience and it is going to make a bunch of money,’” he recalled in a 2014 Vanity Fair interview.

McConaughey said while he initially thought the “studio hired” the mystery man to sway his decision, the advice stuck with him.

“I laughed at the thought, but I also remember taking a more serious consideration,” he explained. “I think I even accepted the offer the next day.”

Hudson, meanwhile, previously called working with McConaughey on the film “truly an amazing experience.”

“It’s like, you have great loves of your life, and then, like, as actresses I think you have great loves in your work,” she told Vanity Fair last year. “And he’s one of my great loves.”

Hudson added, “I feel really lucky that I got to experience that with someone as talented and as fun as Matthew.”

At one point, America’s leading financial institutions were locked in a fierce race to demonstrate their commitment to addressing climate concerns.

Today, however, it’s clear that Wall Street’s enthusiastic green initiative is waning.

In a significant shift, the nation’s top six banks—JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo—have decided to part ways with the Net Zero Banking Alliance, as highlighted in a recent report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.

However, this mass departure isn’t exactly breaking news. The bulk of these exits occurred throughout 2024 and the early months of 2025, culminating in the alliance’s decision to end its membership program in October 2025.

What’s capturing attention now is the fresh attempt to evaluate just how distanced Wall Street has become from the climate-centric networks that once had a firm grip on corporate America.

The Committee to Unleash Prosperity says support for major ‘net zero’ initiatives – efforts to balance carbon emission with carbon offsets – among the financial institutions it examined has plunged by almost 90 percent over the past four years.

And Jerry Bowyer, CEO of Bowyer Research and one of the authors of the study, told the Daily Mail that the retreat represents a fundamental shift in the way Wall Street views climate policy.

‘The net-zero finance boom really began around 2020 and 2021,’ Bowyer said.

‘The finance industry was still treating net zero as the price of admission to polite global opinion. Then reality intruded.’

He said energy demand, fiduciary responsibilities, antitrust concerns, political pressure and the practical limitations of transforming the world’s energy system had all contributed to the reversal.

‘The laws of physics and engineering do not bend to ESG branding,’ he said.

The Net Zero Banking Alliance was launched in 2021 and grew rapidly, reaching 140 banks representing $75.5 trillion in assets as recently as November 2024. But the biggest US players soon began walking away.

Goldman Sachs exited in December 2024, followed by other major American banks. By October 2025, the alliance had stopped operating as a membership organization and instead became a provider of voluntary climate guidance. 

The latest report argues that the retreat has become far broader than a handful of high-profile departures.

Bowyer told the Daily Mail that the trend became ‘unmistakable’ in late 2024 and early 2025 and the banking alliance had ‘lost many of the institutions that gave it credibility.’

The shift is also visible among the world’s biggest asset managers.

The Net Zero Asset Managers initiative once had more than 300 members overseeing almost $60 trillion. It suspended operations in January 2025 after BlackRock and other major US firms withdrew, before relaunching in October with less demanding membership requirements and a greater focus on guidance. 

Climate Action 100+, another major environmental coalition, has also lost prominent financial institutions, including JPMorgan, State Street and BlackRock’s US operations.

The retreat does not mean that Wall Street has abandoned environmental concerns altogether. Some banks still publish extensive sustainability policies, maintain emissions reporting systems or remain members of less prominent climate organizations.

The report identifies Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Pimco and Citigroup as among those retaining stronger links with environmental groups. Bowyer said this distinction is important.

‘Firms will keep some climate language for public relations purposes, but the grandiose alliance model has been badly damaged,’ he said.

‘The more serious institutions will move back toward fiduciary duty, energy realism, and client choice. They may not all admit that net zero failed, but their behavior is already saying it.’

JPMorgan, for example, continues to have substantial sustainability material on its website despite leaving the major alliances.

Wells Fargo has gone further. In February 2025, it abandoned sector-specific 2030 financed-emissions targets and its goal of achieving net-zero financed emissions by 2050, according to the report.

The bank said at the time that many of the conditions needed to help its clients transition had not occurred. 

Meanwhile, Vanguard was an early defector from the asset-management initiative, leaving in December 2022.

The political environment has also changed dramatically. In October 2022, 19 state attorneys general launched an antitrust investigation into six major US banks over their involvement in the Net Zero Banking Alliance.

Bowyer believes politics played a role in the retreat – but argues it was only part of the story.

‘The politics got them into these groups,’ he said. ‘Physics and economics got them out.’

He said the change began before the administration changed hands, describing it as ‘a steady progression away from the radical climate change policies, including net zero.’

There is another force making the old Wall Street climate commitments increasingly difficult to maintain: artificial intelligence. The explosion in AI is creating enormous demand for electricity as technology companies race to build vast data centers.

That is forcing the US to confront an awkward reality. While financial institutions may want to reduce exposure to fossil fuels, the technology driving the latest economic boom requires huge amounts of reliable power – and gas and other conventional energy sources remain part of that equation.

For Bowyer, this is one of the clearest examples of why he believes the net-zero model is running into practical limits.

‘Modern economies run on energy, and energy systems cannot be transformed by press release,’ he said.

‘The path to a cleaner and more prosperous economy is innovation, abundance, and competition, not coercive decarbonization targets.’

The shift represents a striking reversal from the early 2020s, when ESG – environmental, social and governance investing – was one of the biggest trends in finance.

US ESG and environmentally focused funds attracted around $485 billion in 2021, according to Bloomberg Intelligence figures. By 2025, those funds had suffered $82 billion in outflows.

But declaring ESG or climate investing dead would be premature. European investors remain considerably more engaged with climate issues, while some US financial institutions continue to maintain emissions targets and sustainability programs.

Instead, what appears to be disappearing is the idea that every major Wall Street institution needs to belong to the same high-profile climate coalition. Bowyer believes that process could continue.

‘Wall Street’s retreat from net zero is the market correcting a political mistake,’ he said.

“It’s one-of-a-kind. I’ve honestly never encountered anything like this before,” remarked Carl DeFazio, a seasoned private investigator.

Over two months have passed since the tragic discovery of a New Jersey mother and psychotherapist’s lifeless body in her Chester residence, yet investigators continue to keep details of this chilling homicide under wraps.

The victim, 35-year-old Brooke Hanlon, was brutally murdered, suffering multiple stab wounds within the confines of her home on Pottersville Road, on June 6.

DeFazio, who brings his experience as a former U.S. Marine and retired NYPD officer to the case, noted that while the ongoing silence breeds curiosity and speculation, there’s a chance significant progress is being made behind the scenes. Such secrecy might be a strategic move by law enforcement to maintain the investigation’s integrity.

“I always look at what they’re not telling you,” he said. “They always, especially in a homicide case, hold one or two things back that only the perp would know.”

The Morris County Prosecutor’s Office is leading the investigation and has yet to reveal a suspect or person of interest.

The investigation started when Conor Hanlon, Brooke’s husband, made a 911 call reporting his wife was unresponsive and not breathing.

Officers responded to the call and within minutes pronounced her dead at the scene, classified the death as “suspicious.”

Sources confirmed to News Media the couple’s 12-month-old baby was inside at the time of the incident. The child was unharmed.

DeFazio noted that in high-profile homicides, initial 911 audio and the presence of family members inside the home are among the very first things investigators dissect to establish a timeline.

A computer-aided dispatch (CAD) log released to News Media revealed several days of investigative activity at the home.

DeFazio said the first few days of an investigation are critical to preventing missteps.

“I always start at the beginning — the crime scene — and work my way out. A lot of investigators will go in there with a suspect and try to make the facts fit their suspect. That’s the wrong way to do it,” DeFazio said.

“I look at what they didn’t do. Did they interview the neighbors? Did they rope off the house? Did they take DNA samples? Did they find a crime weapon? Was there a struggle? Were there any defensive wounds? I’d really love to see the ME’s [medical examiner’s] report.”

News Media previously spoke to neighbors who revealed they are still on edge and constantly looking over their shoulders for a potential murderer on the loose.

DeFazio said investigators in complex homicide cases must audit every detail from day one—ranging from financial policies like life insurance to underlying personal relationships—which often explains why police hold back information while piecing together a timeline.

News Media has repeatedly reached out to Conor Hanlon for comment. He has not been charged with any crime or wrongdoing.

WASHINGTON — A prominent anti-abortion organization is urging a Senate investigation into the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over its past funding of research involving fetal organs and tissue.

Earlier this year, the NIH declared a halt to funding research using fetal tissue from elective abortions. However, the group known as 40 Days for Life is advocating for an examination of government-sponsored studies conducted prior to the implementation of this new policy.

“We possess a distinct insight into the harm caused by abortion—to women, society, and the unborn. Each day, we witness the abortion industry’s malpractice, including the misuse of aborted fetal body parts and tissues,” stated Shawn Carney, president of the group, in a letter issued on Thursday.

Carney made a formal appeal to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Chairman Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, encouraging them to initiate the investigation.

“We earnestly request your committees to examine whether the NIH’s practices adhered to legal, regulatory, Congressional funding mandates, and ethical standards required of our nation’s public health authorities,” he emphasized.

On July 29, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) confronted Dr. Anthony Fauci over taxpayer-funded research with fetal parts when he appeared before a Senate panel to face questioning on COVID-19.

During a line of questioning that went viral, Ernst recounted how researchers took parts from human fetal organs and put them into mice.

Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and declined to answer Ernst’s questions about the practice.

“American taxpayers financed experiments in which researchers surgically implanted livers, thymuses, and chunks of lung from nearly five-month-old aborted human babies into mice—experiments the researchers themselves named ‘BLT-L’ mice and described as a ‘sandwich of aborted body parts,’ Carney wrote.

Since 2018, NIH spending on human fetal tissue research has declined from nearly $120 million that fiscal year to approximately half that amount in fiscal year 2024, according to the agency itself.

The Trump administration argued in ending government fetal tissue research that alternatives such as “organoids, tissue chips, computational biology, and other cutting-edge platforms” have rendered the practice unnecessary.

The Trump administration has also taken steps to reduce animal testing in government-funded research.

Reps for Cassidy, Grassley, and the NIH did not immediately return requests for comment on the 40 Days for Life letter.

Prichard Colon, a former professional boxer, has passed away at 33, succumbing to severe brain injuries that drastically altered his life over a decade ago.

In October 2015, Colon, who was then fighting in the super-middleweight division, endured a brain hemorrhage following a match against American fighter Terrel Williams in Virginia. This injury came from multiple illegal punches to the back of his head.

After his loss in the ring, Colon collapsed and vomited in the dressing room, leading to an urgent hospital admission where he spent 221 days in a coma. During the bout, a section of his skull had caved in due to the repeated illegal punches, known as rabbit punches, which are forbidden in boxing.

When he awoke from the coma, the once hopeful boxing talent faced a new reality in a vegetative state. With profound injuries, Colon required round-the-clock care from his dedicated family.

Before turning professional, Colon had achieved significant success in the boxing world, claiming numerous national amateur titles and earning a Youth Pan American gold medal.

Colon’s dad and former trainer, Richard, announced the heartbreaking news on social media, writing: ‘Good morning, everyone. I regret to inform you of the passing of my son Prichard from this earthly world. He is now in a better place.’ 

He added: ‘Thank you for so many years of love and prayers. As much as you can, please keep us in your prayers.’

Until that fateful fight almost 11 years ago, Colon had been one of the sport’s most promising prospects. 

He had established an unblemished 16-0 record with 13 knockouts with many in boxing viewing him as a future star. 

Following the bout against Williams, Colon was rushed to the hospital where doctors discovered a subdural hematoma. 

He underwent emergency surgery as medics desperately attempted to relieve the swelling in his brain. After spending 221 days in a coma, Colon awoke unable to walk or talk.  

Despite the traumatic injuries, just three years ago, Colon had vowed not to throw in the towel. 

In an update on his Facebook profile at the time, Colon attempted to speak with his mother and even raised a smile in a moving video.

The post was captioned: ‘I will not give up’.

In other clips, the ex-fighter could be seen attending a truck rally with his family, while also appearing to take a positive step in being able to brush his own teeth.

His mother also shared a video of her son on his 31st birthday where she gave him a cupcake with a candle on it.

Colon’s story is one of the most tragic in boxing history, with former heavyweight champion Deontay Wilder breaking down in tears while discussing it last year.

‘We’ve seen what happens, look at Colon. How he got hit, Prichard Colon, correct,’ Wilder said.

‘This man didn’t have no kids… they don’t understand. Y’all don’t f****** understand what we go through, man.

‘And I don’t even know him like that, but I will always be an advocate for us. Because this man will never know what it’s like to be somebody’s father. And that’s one of the most precious things in the world, to be somebody’s father. But he will never be nobody’s father, man.

‘Because he got in the ring to support his family but now, his family got to take care of him for the rest of his life.’

On Friday, Alex Murdaugh will step back into a South Carolina courtroom, where his defense team aims to nullify the murder charges against him and restrict what evidence can surface during his upcoming retrial. A former federal prosecutor notes that this time around, the defense faces a newfound strategic landscape as they’ve already “played all their cards.”

The former attorney, now disbarred, is slated to appear before Circuit Judge Debra McCaslin at 10 a.m. in Lexington County. This pretrial hearing sets the stage for his April 2027 retrial related to the deaths of his wife, Maggie, and son, Paul.

Unlike the proceedings in June, which primarily focused on scheduling the retrial, Friday’s session follows a whirlwind of legal motions from both camps, highlighting their divergent approaches.

The tug-of-war involves attempts by the defense to throw out the murder indictments entirely, along with disputes over whether prosecutors can revisit Murdaugh’s previous financial misconduct, reuse his initial trial testimony, and introduce various other pieces of evidence to a fresh jury.

Nathan S. Williams, a South Carolina federal criminal defense attorney and former assistant U.S. attorney who served as criminal chief for the District of South Carolina, told News Media that a second trial changes the strategic landscape for Murdaugh.

“There is no surprising the government or the state at trial,” Williams said. “He’s given his testimony, they can prepare infinitely now to cross examine him.”

“That tends to be frankly more helpful for the state. I think they usually have a better chance on retrial,” he added, while noting that limits on some of the state’s evidence could cut the other way.

Murdaugh, 58, was convicted in 2023 of murdering Maggie, 52, and Paul, 22, at the family’s Moselle estate in Colleton County in June 2021. The South Carolina Supreme Court later overturned the convictions after finding that former Colleton County Clerk of Court Becky Hill improperly influenced jurors.

The high court ordered a new trial, but the retrial may look significantly different from the first.

At Murdaugh’s first trial, prosecutors argued that years of theft and financial fraud were closing in on him and that the killings were an effort to distract from mounting scrutiny.

The South Carolina Supreme Court did not rule that all evidence of Murdaugh’s financial wrongdoing was inadmissible, but it said prosecutors had been allowed to go too far into the details during the first trial.

McCaslin will now be tasked with determining how much of that evidence can be presented to jurors the second time around.

Williams said he expects the amount of financial evidence to shrink from the first trial. He said “there will definitely be less,” adding, “How much less I think will be a good question.”

Prosecutors are also vying to use Murdaugh’s sworn testimony from his first trial during the retrial.

Murdaugh took the stand in his own defense in 2023 and admitted lying to investigators about his whereabouts shortly before Maggie and Paul were killed. He denied murdering them.

Whether jurors in the new trial will be able to hear portions of that prior testimony could become especially important if Murdaugh chooses not to testify again.

The defense has separately mounted a wider challenge to the charges themselves.

Murdaugh’s attorneys, led by Dick Harpootlian, have asked McCaslin to dismiss the murder and weapons indictments, alleging that false physical evidence was presented to the grand jury that indicted him.

The motion targets testimony from South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) investigator David Owen and raises questions about the evidence used to secure the original charges.

It is not yet clear whether McCaslin will rule on the dismissal motion Friday.

Williams called the dismissal request “a big ask” and “the explosive one, frankly, at this point,” noting that it attacks the validity of the indictments based on alleged misconduct or false statements.

“They’re alleging misconduct or false statements by one of the main case agents,” he said. Williams added that he would be “a little surprised if that gets taken up on Friday,” saying the issue will likely require evidence, testimony and additional briefing.

Another major fight involves forensic evidence.

Murdaugh’s attorneys have sought additional DNA testing using newer techniques, including testing tied to evidence found underneath Maggie’s fingernails.

Prosecutors have not opposed additional testing outright but have sought safeguards surrounding the handling of evidence, testing procedures and access to results.

“Independent testing might be tough,” Williams said. “It wouldn’t shock me if she lets them have a separate new test by the defense. To me, that strikes me as being fair, assuming they have the evidence available to be retested.”

The defense has also sought to move the retrial out of Colleton County, where the killings occurred and where the first trial became a media spectacle.

Murdaugh’s attorneys have argued that extensive publicity surrounding the case, along with the fallout from Hill’s conduct, makes it impossible for him to receive a fair trial there. They have proposed moving the case to nearby Charleston County.

Williams said venue may be one of the more straightforward disputes for McCaslin to address Friday, though the location could be the real fight.

“The battle, frankly, does seem to be not the venue change, but where,” he said. “Personally, I’d be a little surprised if she doesn’t change the venue.”

Other pending disputes involve access to phone data, third-party guilt evidence, discovery rules, polygraph evidence, juror questionnaires and protective orders governing sensitive material.

News Media has reached out to the attorney general’s office and Murdaugh’s defense team for comment.

There’s an old adage among political insiders about how the Republican and Democratic parties handle wins and losses.

Commentators often observe that when Republicans face a defeat, they worry it might be the last time they can recover; conversely, when Democrats celebrate a victory, they tend to govern as though another win is a given.

Virginia provides a clear example of this enduring truth.

During my tenure as Virginia’s Republican Attorney General, from 2022 until 2026, I teamed up with Governor Glenn Youngkin to revitalize a state that was struggling on many fronts.

At the outset of our administration, Virginia found itself languishing at 46th place out of the 50 states in terms of job creation in the post-COVID era.

Our schools were among the last in the country to reopen.

The murder rate had reached a 20-year high, and fentanyl overdose deaths hit new records. 

People and businesses were voting with their feet: For the first time in a century, Virginia experienced eight consecutive years of net population loss. 

Commonsense conservative ideas and leadership changed the trajectory.

Under Youngkin, Virginia climbed from the bottom tier of job creation to the top five. 

Smart fiscal discipline produced budget surpluses every year, even while delivering more than $9 billion in tax relief.

Over $156 billion in new business investment flowed into the commonwealth, more than under the previous six governors combined.

The murder rate fell, and Virginia led the nation in reducing drug overdose deaths because we chose to work with law enforcement rather than against it.

Some dubbed it the “Virginia Renaissance.” 

Virginia Democrats have rejected that Renaissance.

In doing so, Gov. Abigail Spanberger has managed to become one of the least popular governors in modern state history after a little more than half a year in office.

All it took was five easy steps. 

Step 1: Drive businesses away 

Virginia Democrats have proposed more than $37 billion in new taxes in 2026, one analysis found — despite the budget surplus that Youngkin’s policies left them.

Democrats in Richmond have enacted a sweeping payroll tax and a carbon tax, and their new regulatory burdens have increased the effective cost of hiring in Virginia by 22.5% , the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy estimates.

Under Spanberger, Boeing, Amazon and many other companies have announced closures or layoffs in the commonwealth. 

Step 2: Impose an energy tax 

Virginia must double its baseload electricity capacity over the next decade to meet growing demand.

The rational response would be expanding natural gas and nuclear energy — proven, reliable and affordable energy sources.

Instead, Spanberger is pushing energy suicide by advancing an extreme green agenda centered on intermittent wind and solar power.

Democrats are forcing ratepayers to purchase “renewable energy credits” that generate no actual electricity — a de facto carbon tax that’s costing Virginians hundreds of millions of dollars annually, and will soon add up to $1 billion or more a year. 

Step 3: Prioritize offenders over victims and tie law enforcement’s hands 

Under the Democrats’ “Enhanced Earned Sentence Credits” program, more than 9,000 convicted felons have been released early, some with decades remaining on their sentences; nearly half of them have already been re-arrested.

As a former prosecutor, I can affirm that justice means accountability — and accountability means serving the sentence imposed.

Moreover, one of Spanberger’s first official acts was ordering state law enforcement to stop cooperating with federal authorities to deport violent illegal immigrants, even those convicted of rape and murder, putting innocent Virginians at risk. 

Step 4: Undermine workers’ rights and force unions on local governments 

Virginia’s right-to-work law has been key in attracting and retaining manufacturing jobs — but Spanberger, while in Congress, was a co-sponsor of the PRO Act, which would have abolished right-to-work protections in Virginia and 26 other states.

Now, as governor, she is poised to sign mandatory collective bargaining legislation that forces all government employees into bargaining units, stripping local governments of flexibility and guaranteeing property-tax increases across the board.

Chesterfield County alone estimates the cost to its taxpayers at $200 million per year. Extrapolated across Virginia, the fiscal damage will be devastating. 

Step 5: Push partisan politics in defiance of the state constitution 

In 2020, Virginia voters amended their state constitution — by a two-thirds supermajority — to enact a nonpartisan redistricting process.

Yet Spanberger, who campaigned as a pragmatic leader who would transcend party politics, supported an egregious partisan gerrymander under which the 46% of Virginians who voted Republican in 2024 would have held approximately 9% of the state’s congressional seats.

And while our state Supreme Court struck down the power grab, the damage to Spanberger’s credibility was done. 

The Virginia Renaissance was the product of principled, disciplined governance focused on the people rather than the political class.

What’s unfolding now in Richmond is its deliberate undoing at the hands of Spanberger and her Democrat allies.

Now, businesses and families are making their own calculations about whether to stay or go.

History, and the voters, will render their verdict in time. 

Jason Miyares, Virginia’s attorney general from 2022 to 2026, is a partner at Torridon Law PLCC. Adapted from City Journal.