In campaign ads blanketing prime-time television, Lamont has touted his administration’s efforts to lower electricity bills by hundreds of dollars a year and enact “tough reforms to take on Eversource,” the state’s largest utility. In May, he publicly lambasted Eversource chief executive Joe Nolan’s eight-figure salary in response to the utility’s request for a new rate hike starting next year.

But Lamont’s message has been undercut in recent days by comments Nolan made to a group of investors downplaying criticisms from politicians and describing his relationship with New England governors, including Lamont, as friendly.

Then on Thursday, CT Insider published text messages between Lamont and Nolan in which the latter repeatedly urged the governor to “intervene” in the company’s dispute with Connecticut regulators over $1 billion in unpaid storm costs.

Lamont’s opponent in the governor’s race, state Sen. Ryan Fazio, R-Greenwich, seized on those comments and accused the governor of having a “cozy” relationship with Eversource’s CEO.

Fazio stopped short of accusing Lamont of wrongdoing. However, he noted that in the same call with investors, Nolan said Eversource’s financial outlook had been buoyed by the resolution of the storm costs issue and the recent sale of its water utility, Aquarion, for $2.4 billion — both of which required approval from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, whose members were appointed by Lamont.

“It’s not just the text messages which were overly familiar,” Fazio said. “It was also Nolan bragging to his investors that he’s friends with Lamont, and that the [governor’s] criticism of the company is just kind of insincere and campaign related, and that [Nolan] has been very happy with the resolution of both storm costs and the sale of Aquarion, both which required the active support from the governor to happen.”

In an interview with The Connecticut Mirror, Lamont defended his contacts with utility officials as part of the job of governor and said that he never felt compelled to act on their behalf.

He also chalked up Nolan’s comments last week to investors as “telling them what they want to hear.”

“I have a civil relationship with people, that’s what I do, and that includes, you know, leaders of the utilities,” Lamont said. “That does not mean we compromise fighting for our consumers every day.”

Lamont also said his administration has taken effective steps to rein in utility costs with bipartisan regulatory reforms and investments in nuclear and renewable energy sources. Connecticut’s electric rates fell by more than 10% over the last year, and the state now has better rates per kilowatt hour than its neighbors.

“Every single governor in the United States of America has to have a constructive relationship with the utilities that serve customers, who are also taxpayers,” said Max Reiss, a spokesman for Eversource.

Reiss declined to make Nolan available for an interview Thursday to clarify the CEO’s remarks.

‘Please Intervene’

For the last several years, Eversource has been engaged in a protracted dispute with PURA regarding its efforts to collect nearly $1 billion in costs the company says it spent responding to a series of “catastrophic” storms between 2018 and 2023. Last June, the company suffered a credit rating downgrade, based in part on what analysts described as a poor regulatory environment and delays in recovering storm costs.

That same month, Nolan reached out to Lamont with an urgent plea, according to copies of text messages published by CT Insider.

“please don’t leave town until we have a deal on storms. pressure is extraordinary with downgrades,” from credit rating agencies, Nolan’s text read.

CT Mirror sought access through the state’s Freedom of Information Act to those messages, as well as other communications between Lamont and Eversource officials on Thursday. The governor’s office has yet to turn over the records.

There was no indication in the text messages published by CT Insider that Lamont took any actions bowing to the pressure from Nolan to intervene in the storm costs case. In his response to Nolan, Lamont wrote that he had spoken with Consumer Counsel Claire Coleman — who leads the state agency responsible for representing utility customers before PURA — and had been told that her office was waiting on “a few documents” and “very serious proposal” from Eversource.

Coleman’s office never reached a settlement with Eversource in the storm costs case.

Instead, the case ended up going before PURA which issued its final decision this July allowing Eversource to recover $861 million in deferred storm costs — more than 90% of the company’s request — but rejecting the company’s request to collect nearly $400 million in interest on those costs. (Coleman’s office was among those who objected to the request.)

In an interview Thursday, Coleman said that she had conversations with the governor’s office, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and Eversource throughout the years-long debate over storm costs. She said she felt her views, and the independence of her office, were respected throughout those talks.

“I never felt in any of those conversations that I was being pressured to do something that was against the interests of customers,” Coleman said.

In the string of text messages published Thursday, Nolan then went one step further, offering to “hire Jonny,” a reference to former Lamont chief of staff Jonathan Dach, to “bang this out.”

Dach was part of Lamont’s team that worked on energy policy, specifically a wide-ranging set of utility reforms, Senate Bill 4, that the governor signed into law that summer. The bill included a provision allowing Eversource to securitize its storm costs through long-term borrowing, in order to lessen the bill impact on customers. Fazio, who is the ranking Republican on the Energy and Technology Committee, was also a negotiator on the bill, which he ultimately supported.

Nolan’s idea was to have Dach — who left state government that June amid scrutiny into his misuse of a state vehicle — work as a “independent mediator” to come up with a binding resolution for the storm costs dispute, according to Reiss. While the position would have been funded by Eversource, it would have been outside the company, Reiss said. In any event, Dach never applied for or received a formal offer for the position.

“During early discussions surrounding a settlement of storm costs, the concept of an independent mediator was raised and Jonny Dach, an attorney with policy and energy expertise, was considered as an option,” Reiss said in a statement. “In the end, this path did not materialize.”

In February, Dach joined the staff at Concourse, a tech startup in New York City that builds software for government agencies.

“I appreciate Gov. Lamont and Joe Nolan’s confidence that I could successfully mediate discussions between Eversource and the state parties, like OCC and DEEP, to any potential settlement,” Dach said in a statement Thursday. “But we never seriously discussed the role described in those text messages.”

Dach would not have been the first former official in Lamont’s office to go to work for Eversource. Reiss, the company spokesman, previously served as Lamont’s communications director. Jonathan Harris and Leslie O’Brien, who both work in government affairs for Eversource, also worked as aides to Lamont.

State ethics rules prohibit former executive branch employees from representing anyone other than the state in any matter in which they “participated personally and substantially while in state service.” The rules also include a “cooling off period” that bars ex-employees from lobbying directly with their former agency for at least one year after leaving state service.

Lamont said Thursday that he was not involved in any discussions about hiring Dach as a mediator in the storm costs dispute. He added that he was not surprised that companies like Eversource hire his former staffers and said those prior relationships do not impact his decision making.

“I don’t think there’s anything nefarious about that,” Lamont said. “You tend to hire people who used to be in government who have a lot of relationships.”

But Tom Swan, the executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group, said that the text messages and Eversource’s repeated hiring of former administration officials raises ethical concerns. Earlier this year, Swan wrote an op-ed calling for a complete ban on the “revolving door” of legislators and executive branch employees going to work for utilities and PURA.

“What I think was the most appalling is the fact that the company is so arrogant and so used to just hiring political insiders to get their way that Nolan would put that type of a question on the table,” Swan said.

‘Nothing personal’

The release of text messages between Nolan and Lamont came on the heels of another controversy involving remarks the Eversource CEO delivered to a group of investors on Sept. 30.

During his presentation, Nolan was asked to opine on the upcoming gubernatorial races in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire — the three states where Eversource operates — and what they mean for the company’s outlook.

Nolan began by saying he had little doubt that the incumbents in each of those races would win by large margins. He went on to say that Eversource has good relationships with “all of them” and that their occasional public criticisms were driven by political necessity.

“If had $1 for every time they’d say, “Hey, nothing personal, Joe, you know you’re our friend,'” Nolan said. “But they have to do that. Obviously, they’re getting attacked, utility issues are front and center, rates are front and center. But all that noise, in 37 days, you’re going to see the volume is going to go right down, and you won’t you won’t hear much of that.”

Lamont said Thursday that while he and Nolan have “grudging respect” for one another, the company’s actions tell a different story than the one presented by Nolan.

“You think Eversource thinks we’ve been too easy on them?” Lamont said. “I mean, anybody really think that? I think we’ve been tougher on utilities and held them accountable — performance-based regulation and pushing back — and that’s one of the reasons they were very reluctant to bring a [storm costs case to PURA] in the first place.”

Nolan made another remark later in the call that drew an outcry from Democrats and Republicans alike.

Asked about the company’s plans to invest money in Connecticut, Nolan said the company “shut the faucet off” in the state due to its dispute over storm costs. “Until we get paid the storm costs, we weren’t going to put another dime down there,” he said.

That sentiment wasn’t new.

In 2024, Nolan announced that Eversource would be cutting $500 million worth of investments in Connecticut over the subsequent five years due to delays in the storm costs case and other conflicts that the utility was having with then-PURA Chair Marissa Gillett, who had been appointed by Lamont. Those disputes culminated in a series of lawsuits and Gillett’s resignation late last year.

Since then, Lamont has appointed four new commissioners to PURA, who Nolan expressed optimism about working with during next year’s rate case. “Everybody in the space is a professional,” he said.

Reiss said Thursday that Nolan’s remarks to investors were being cast in a negative light due to the upcoming election.

“In a political season, it is more important than ever to get the story right, and the story Joe Nolan is telling about Connecticut to Wall Street is that the environment for investment is improving every day in Connecticut, which is important for customers, policymakers, and communities across the state,” Reiss said in a statement. “Investors turned their back on Connecticut for years, and now Joe is providing the update for investors that things have improved.”

Fazio said Nolan’s remarks were sign Eversource is getting what it wants from the Lamont administration, specifically with regard to policies such as the rollout of advanced metering technology and the Aquarion sale Fazio and other Republican lawmakers opposed. (Fazio, who voted to to confirm each of Lamont’s most recent nominees to PURA, said it is “too early to judge,” their performance.)

In his interview with CT Mirror Thursday, Lamont also said Fazio was playing up the controversy for political gain. “He was a ranking member on [the] Energy and Technology [Committee], he knew all the players,” Lamont said.

Fazio said he has never met Nolan or spoken to him by phone. He said he has met with other Eversource executives, as well as United Illuminating President Frank Reynolds.

“We don’t text or anything like that,” Fazio said. “Sometimes with many companies, I meet with them in my capacity as a state senator, but don’t have a close relationship at all with them.”

John Moritz is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

On his campaign website, his state Senate page, and his LinkedIn resume, Fazio never mentions the names of any company he has ever worked for.

At the age of 36, Fazio instead provides a summary of his experiences.

His LinkedIn page says he started working for a “growth equity firm” nearly seven years ago but does not mention the company’s name. Before that, he was a commodity trader for “trading houses — full time” from June 2012 to January 2020.

His online resume says that he “traded and transported physical commodities to meet the needs of producers and consumers, with a focus on dry bulk shipping, grains, and renewable fuel products.”

Democrats are questioning why none of the companies is mentioned, and they say they have an answer. Two of the companies that employed Fazio had ties and ownership links to China. One of those companies collapsed as its stock price plummeted 99%. A third company, co-founded by Fazio’s father, led an investment round of $20 million for an international money transfer start-up firm that was co-founded by a Russian national living in London.

Despite calls for transparency, Fazio said he has no regrets about any of his prior employment as he runs to become Connecticut’s governor against two-term Democrat Ned Lamont.

“Absolutely no regrets,” Fazio told The Courant in an interview. “I’m proud of my business background, especially because I worked in the energy industries and the agriculture industry that I have experience that will be helpful to Connecticut to reduce energy costs and protect our agriculture industry as well.”

Fazio said that he rarely talks about his business background on the campaign trail because he is not a “bio candidate” who emphasizes the details of his personal history.

Instead, he is a “policy candidate” who emphasizes how he will cut electricity rates and taxes, among other high-profile issues. He says he has one of the most detailed policy platforms on multiple issues of any candidate running for office.

“I have generally not run on biographical,” Fazio said in an interview. “Some candidates are very biographical, and some candidates are very issue-focused. I have always been a policy and issue-focused candidate for office. I’ve always been someone who is running to change policy and never one who said, ‘Look at my resume. I think I should be in office.’ Not to say that there’s anything wrong with that. I have friends who are more that way, and I have friends who are more like me who are ‘Here’s what I want to do, and here are the issues to be solved.’ I have mostly always run my campaigns oriented to the policy.”

He added, “I don’t talk about myself in my stump speeches. I don’t talk about my background. I really talk about the issues and what I’d like to accomplish as governor. I’m not doing my hour-long town halls on my background.”

Fazio confirmed that he never registered with FINRA, which is required for professionals who are trading other people’s money. FINRA, which stands for the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, regulates stockbrokers and their firms in an industry overseen by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

“You’re not trading financial products with other people’s money,” Fazio said. “We were trading physical and financial products with our own firm’s money. It’s not the same kind of registration. … We were trading the actual physical bushel of corn, the gallon of ethanol, and so on.”

Fazio said he purposely stepped back from his business career and reduced his hours in order to devote more time working in the state Senate, where he has been intensely focused on policy. He also stopped working for his father’s venture capital company one year ago to devote long hours as he crisscrosses the state in the race for governor.

But Gary Rose, a longtime political science professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, said voters need to know the personal details of candidates who are seeking the state’s highest office that oversees an annual budget of nearly $30 billion and more than 40,000 employees in a vast state bureaucracy.

“His resume needs to be more defined and needs to be more thorough,” Rose told The Courant in an interview. “In fact, I have always felt that about him as a candidate. When somebody is running for governor, it’s very important to really go deep into their work record, particularly if they are promoting themselves as employees of the private sector. You would want to know exactly what these companies are and what they did and what his role was. And I don’t believe that Ryan, to date, has provided a lot of that important information.”

Concerning the November 3 election against Lamont, Rose said, “I’m not so certain that Republican voters are all that concerned. The fact that he lists the private sector in very general terms, for Republicans, that’s probably good enough.

“They’re going to vote for him no matter what. But I always felt that Democrats were going to say that more is needed. It’s important for candidates to be very clear, and I don’t think he has been to date.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, said he is unaware of Fazio’s work history after serving in the state Senate together for the past five years.

“No, I just heard he was involved in some financial services employment, but nothing beyond that,” Looney said. “I’ve never heard a precise description of what he does or who he worked for. I think most other people — of their fellow members — have a more precise sense of what they do apart from their work at the Capitol.”

Voters, Looney said, should know more about a candidate’s work history.

“It’s an essential part of somebody establishing their credentials as a candidate,” Looney said.

Chinese drones

From 2014 to 2018, Fazio worked for a giant, Hong Kong-based commodities trading company called Noble Group, which was a powerhouse in its heyday before eventually collapsing. Worth more than $11 billion in market value at its peak, Noble was described by Reuters as “Asia’s biggest commodity trader.”

But the company ran into major controversy about its accounting practices, huge debt, and the value of its assets, causing the stock price to fall by 99% as Moody’s eventually cut Noble’s credit rating to “junk status,” Reuters said.

From 2018 until 2021, Fazio worked for a company called COFCO, which stands for China Oil and Foodstuffs Corporation. The firm is known as China’s largest state-owned food processing holding company.

“COFCO is a Chinese agriculture company,” Fazio said. “That became a 50-50 joint venture between Noble Group, which is the independent company, and the Chinese grains company. Basically, what it did was it purchased and shipped and exported North American and South American agricultural goods — all the stuff that our farmers in the United States want to see. They want more exports. They rely heavily on exports.”

Fazio said that his private sector employment had nothing to do with his decision to vote in the state Senate against a high-profile bill that would prohibit Connecticut towns and state agencies from purchasing drones made in China and Russia. The drone bill has a detailed history as it was passed by the Senate in 2024 but failed on the final night of the legislative session when the state House of Representatives never voted on the measure as time expired. The measure then came back up again in early 2025 and was eventually signed into law by Lamont.

Republicans argued at the time that Connecticut firefighters and police were already using drones that were made in China, and the ban would have a major financial impact on municipalities because the Chinese drones could be purchased at a lower price than their American counterparts. Citing the FBI and others, Democrats said the drones might be a security risk because they could collect video and photographs of water and sewer plants, emergency communications systems, and key infrastructure.

Father’s company

Starting in February 2020, Fazio began working for Marcorp Financial, where his father, Michael, has served as chairman for the past 14 years.

But Fazio says he stepped down from his father’s company a year ago to devote his full energies to running for governor. At the moment, he says that his salary as a state senator is his only income as he crisscrosses the state during long hours on the campaign trail. Since he is not seeking reelection to the legislature, his tenure as a state senator will expire in January 2027.

As a venture capital firm, Marcorp makes investments in a wide variety of companies. One of those investments was leading a round of $20 million in 2018 for a start-up company founded in 2017 that is called Paysend, which Fazio describes as “a digital version of Western Union.”

Western Union is well-known company for transferring money at storefronts around the world. The company says it has more than 500,000 locations in more than 200 countries, including 72,000 locations in the United States. Paysend is much newer in the money transfer business, having been operating less than 10 years.

“There is no connection whatsoever to the Russian government with that firm,” Fazio said. “One of the founders is someone of Russian descent. He doesn’t live there. He’s not involved in the government there. He’s just a person of Russian background. … Do you want to play that game where you judge someone by the country that they’re born in?”

Paysend, he said, operates with strict guidelines in a difficult business that is known for tight regulations.

“This company is so rigorous and careful in vetting for and protecting against any sort of fraudulent or nefarious activity,” Fazio said. “They have very, very serious controls and compliance with federal regulations that allow them to do this — that they are monitoring against any nefarious activity and therefore that they can stop it and alert authorities to anything that is potentially nefarious. They have approvals and do money transfer in the United States, where the threshold for participating in the market is extraordinarily high. A lot of money-transfer firms will naturally, because they’re in that business, be exploited.”

Career choices

While saying that he enjoyed his jobs in the private sector, Fazio said that he decided to “take a pay cut and run for office” because of his passion for the issues facing the state.

He had been logging long hours in the private sector, which was not sustainable.

“The commodities jobs, the trading jobs — working is just a fulltime, every day of the week, every hour of the day type of job,” Fazio said. “The flexibility of serving in the state Senate, I could not do both sufficiently.”

Concerning the future, he says he might return to the commodities industry in eight years should he would win two terms as governor. But he is not ruling anything out.

“That doesn’t mean I won’t go back into the industry some day,” Fazio said. “It’s been well worth it because I love what I’ve been able to do.”

Polls

With less than 35 days left in the campaign, the candidates have been jockeying regarding the polls as Fazio says that the race is closer than the public polls indicate.  A series of polls, however, show Lamont in the lead by double digits with varying totals.

The latest poll by the University of New Hampshire had Lamont at a 17-point lead in September with 55% of likely voters compared to 38% for Fazio. Another 6% was undecided and 1% chose someone else, according to the poll.

The UNH poll was similar to other surveys taken by the university that showed Lamont ahead by 13 percentage points in June and 15 points in August. Those polls were also similar to others that showed Lamont with a double-digit lead, including Lamont ahead by 17 points in the Quinnipiac University survey and up by 14 points in early September in a poll by Sacred Heart University, WFSB-Channel 3, and CT Insider.

Fazio and other Republicans have been pointing to another survey by a polling firm called co/efficient that showed Fazio trailing in mid-September by only 7 points at 48% to 41% with 11 percent undecided. But others said the survey often tilts toward conservative candidates, which is different than the nonpartisan polls run by the three universities.

As the debate on the polls continues, Rose, the Sacred Heart professor, says Fazio needs to talk more about his background.

“People should know what a candidate for governor has done for a living,” Rose said. “That should be in the public square. To me, that’s very important. Then you let the public make their own judgement on whether or not a candidate’s line of business has been beneficial to his decision-making capacity as governor. It’s certainly fair game for people to inquire into that.”

Republican lawmakers want to suspend the 25-cents-per-gallon gasoline tax and the 49.9-cents-per-gallon diesel tax for the next three months to save consumers a combined $128 million.

Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat, did not immediately rule out the idea. He had proposed his own gasoline tax suspension in March, but the idea was never approved due to opposition by Democrats who control the legislature. They said the idea was flawed because truck drivers from Massachusetts and Rhode Island who cut through the state would be getting the same tax savings per gallon as those in Connecticut.

In addition, Democrats were concerned about progressivity and fairness as Bridgeport residents would receive the same 25-cents-per-gallon benefit as drivers in Greenwich.

“It’s the war that’s almost doubling the price of diesel,” Lamont said when asked by The Courant. “If they want to forgive the gas tax, just tell me how we can keep up with our roads and bridges. … The only thing I worry about is politicians in a campaign saying, “Let’s get rid of the tax, and we’ll figure out how to pay for it later.’ That’s the type of attitude that got this state into trouble for many years. We’re not going to let that happen. Let’s figure out how to pay for it. … I’ve got to be very careful that I don’t make promises that I can’t keep.”

But Republicans said the money could be taken from the state’s once-troubled Special Transportation Fund, which was designed to pay for transportation needs. The fund now has nearly $650 million in reserves and projected surplus, Republicans said.

“The governor saw this coming. Democrats saw this coming,” said House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford. “They talked about it in March, and then did nothing. We suspended the gas tax in 2022, so everyone knows how to do it. Diesel matters just as much. It fuels the trucks that deliver our groceries and everything on store shelves, and Democrats already made that more expensive with their truck mileage tax. Other states are taking action. We should, too.”

State Sen. Ryan Fazio, a Greenwich Republican who is running for governor against Lamont, supports the idea of holding a special legislative session to cut the taxes.

“Connecticut residents are overtaxed. They’re paying too much for energy generally,” Fazio said Wednesday in his Hartford office. “It shouldn’t be a question. When residents are overtaxed and they’re suffering from high costs, we should deliver tax relief.”

When asked by The Courant for his views on the Iran War causing the increase in fuel prices, Fazio responded, “I am running for state office, and so I do not make it a practice to interject my opinions or views on major federal issues for which I have no influence or control. As a voter, I’ve long considered myself more of a non-interventionist on foreign policy, not least of which because I am a child of the Iraq War-era, and I’ve seen that intervention when it’s not clearly for national defense is counterproductive. I think that there is reason to view the Iran intervention in a similar lens. The cost or the consequence of intervention is unlikely to be borne out in the benefits.”

A Lamont campaign spokeswoman, Lauren Gray, said the rising gasoline prices are intertwined with President Donald Trump’s push for the war, which has lasted far longer than some analysts expected.

“Now, Republicans are demanding relief at the pump for political show while also demanding Governor Lamont clean up the mess created by the destructive Trump policies they support,” Gray said. “Ryan Fazio voted for Trump three times, said he would welcome his endorsement, and stayed silent as Trump’s war with Iran drove up global oil prices, increasing the cost of gas, heating oil and diesel. If Fazio wants to talk about lowering costs, he should explain why he stood with Trump while those costs were going up, and whether he will call on Trump and his own party to end the war driving costs higher.”

On the streets of Connecticut, residents would save an estimated $2.75 for each fill-up of gasoline and nearly $5.50 for a diesel fill-up.

Democrats have urged caution on suspending the fuel taxes.

“The richest person in the state [would be] getting the same benefit as the poorest person,” House Speaker Matt Ritter said earlier this year. “If you put gas tax on the board, yeah, it would pass. But I don’t know that is as targeted to Connecticut residents, and then on a progressivity level, the way some policymakers may want.”

A new law is scheduled to take effect Thursday that prohibits Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and other law enforcement officers from wearing masks, except in limited circumstances.

The leaders are concerned that masked ICE agents entered the Meriden courthouse last week and arrested a man as judicial marshals allowed the agents into the courthouse. In videos taken at the scene, protestors are shown at the entry into the courthouse as ICE enters.

Although the new law takes effect Thursday, a federal court case is currently pending as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has sued Connecticut in an attempt to block the law. Federal officials and Republican state legislators have cited the Supremacy Clause that says that federal law overrides state law and the state cannot tell federal agents what they can do.

House Speaker Matt Ritter of Hartford says state officials are watching both the court case and ICE actions closely.

“The scene in Meriden is exactly what we’re trying to avoid here in Connecticut,” Ritter told The Courant in an interview.

“If you look at the law that we passed, adherence to that law is going to avoid the type of situations that we’ve seen that put not only officers in harm’s way but also people they’re trying to apprehend. Storming courthouses or hospitals or schools is not going to make people safer, and I don’t think it’s a good outcome for law enforcement, either,” he said. “It puts our law enforcement in a tough spot. I think it puts the federal officers in a tough spot. We should not have people going into those types of places. They are very sensitive and have long been considered sensitive sites.”

As law enforcement officers try to avoid clashes with each other, some officials have questioned whether state or local police officers would ever attempt to arrest an ICE agent for wearing a mask. In addition, police need to work closely with prosecutors so that cases are not dismissed when they get to court.

If necessary, Ritter said that he would be open to calling a special legislative session later this year if needed to comply with a federal court ruling regarding the Connecticut law.

“If we need to do something, we will do it,” Ritter said. “If a judge comes out and tells us in November that something’s got to happen, then you can call yourselves in. We know how to do that.”

State attorney general William Tong, who is defending Connecticut in the federal lawsuit, said that ICE agents are not above the law.

“ICE’s deliberate provocation at the courthouse in Meriden resulted in serious injury and caused needless chaos for our court system,” Tong said Monday. “No one is above the law, including federal immigration officials. We are using every ounce of our authority to protect the people of Connecticut, including vigorously defending the state’s lawful and necessary measures to protect public safety against federal challenges.”

While Tong is defending the civil lawsuit, his office does not have criminal jurisdiction over issues such as the arrest of an ICE agent for wearing a mask. That would be handled by local prosecutors and the Chief State’s Attorney’s office, which has criminal jurisdiction in Connecticut.

Cathryn Vaulman, the chief spokeswoman for Gov. Ned Lamont, said the state passed the law because masked ICE agents have been involved in too many violent incidents.

“By designating protected spaces, we can keep these sensitive places safe for all residents, undocumented and citizen alike,” she said. “ICE doesn’t belong in doctors’ offices or in schools, and as we saw in Meriden, its presence in courthouses can endanger people seeking justice. Beginning October 1, ICE agents will be required to show a judicial warrant to enter these spaces.”

One of the groups raising questions is Hands Off Connecticut, which includes groups known as Danbury Unites For Immigrants, Bridgeport Rapid Response, Middleton Immigrants Rights Alliance, and New Haven Immigrants Coalition, among others.

“When Connecticut passed the Trust Act, Connecticut made a promise — local law enforcement agencies are not an extension of ICE,” the group said. “That promise is being broken. A federal government so disrespectful of state power erodes its own legitimacy, but so does the state that does not uphold its own laws in the face of federal aggression.”

The group continued, “When federal agents barged into the state courthouse in Meriden, they did not just abduct another community member, they fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of our state government. Marshals opened the doors wide for ICE while pushing the citizens out of their own courthouse. ICE went so far as to pepper spray bystanders and a marshal assaulted another, causing one to be taken from the court by ambulance to the ER. This is an unforgivable act of collaboration, for which we demand justice.”

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat, agreed with Ritter that he would be open to a special session in the coming months if that is necessary. Looney added that he believes the Connecticut law should be upheld by the federal court.

“First of all, I think that any law that is passed by the state of Connecticut is presumptively constitutional until a court rules otherwise,” Looney told The Courant in a telephone interview.

“The law we passed is constitutional. It is not something that should be struck down under the Supremacy Clause. … This is a matter of public safety, where the state has a significant, historically validated claim to be able to protect its own people. … The ICE officials are ignoring a presumptively valid state law.”

Looney added, “They’re taking the position that the state doesn’t have any authority to regulate the way they conduct their activities. But we were very careful in passing the law to make sure that we were not subjecting federal law enforcement to anything that we do not require of state law enforcement – masks, physical badges, and ID and all those things.”

Concerning masks, Looney said, “The agency operating ICE inherently understands that some of what they’re doing is shameful, and that’s why they don’t want to be identified. It’s an extraordinary thing for people engaged in law enforcement to think they have to remain anonymous. It means that they don’t have confidence in the morality of their own mission. FBI agents do not wear masks. ATF agents — they don’t wear masks, either. Federal marshals who protect courthouses — they don’t wear masks.”

But President Donald J. Trump and his administration have defended the agency and touted arrests by ICE on the Department of Homeland Security’s website.

“Every day, the NICE men and women of ICE are putting their lives on the line to make America safe again,” Lauren Bis, the acting assistant secretary for public affairs, said earlier this year. “They arrested murderers, pedophiles, arsonists, and sex criminals. Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, criminal illegal aliens are not welcome in the U.S.”

The state’s judicial branch is still reviewing the Meriden incident. The person arrested was identified as Welington Leonel Almara-Diaz, officials said.

“Based on our review of videos and interviews conducted to date, we do not believe that our marshals impeded the work of federal officials,” a branch spokeswoman said. “As our review of the incident continues, we will be mindful of these allegations and will take action if necessary.”

But House Republican leader Vincent Candelora of North Branford said he fundamentally questions whether Connecticut can prevail in the federal lawsuit under the circumstances.

“I don’t believe that we have the ability to regulate the federal government,” Candelora said in an interview. “I do think the Supremacy Clause will come into play. … I care that people in Connecticut are made less safe by these laws.”

Saying that the updates of the Trust Act have now gone too far, Candelora said, “There is no communication allowed between federal authorities and local authorities, which I think is really misplaced. If local law enforcement arrests an immigrant who has committed crimes, and is subject to a detainer, they should have the ability to reach out to ICE and have that person taken into federal custody. That’s what the intent of the original Trust Act was meant to do — to take the criminals off the street, but leave the innocent bystanders alone.”

He added, “The way the law was in 2016 worked well, and we should return to it. That law in 2016 had Republican support, and the current law that was revised had no Republican support.”

Concerning a possible special session, Candelora responded, “I would ask would they be amenable to come into special session to lower the gas tax? Frankly, I think that’s what voters care about. If we’re going to go in for illegal immigrants, why don’t we go in to lower the gas tax? This issue is a dog whistle for them for the elections.”

ICE has come under close scrutiny from state lawmakers as they say ICE agents have used excessive force around the country under Trump.

In Connecticut, ICE agents detained more than 100 people recently in various cities, particularly Danbury. While ICE said “numerous” immigrants had criminal histories, local groups put the number at six or seven. U.S. Sen Richard Blumenthal on Monday highlighted the recent detainments of four young people, none of whom had criminal histories and all of whom had a “legal basis” for being in the U.S., he said.

Led by Lamont, who received a standing ovation from Democrats in February during his State of the State Address for criticizing ICE, Democrats passed a detailed law that allows citizens to sue federal immigration agents if they believe that their civil rights have been violated. In addition, Senate Bill 397 prevents all law enforcement officers, including from ICE, from wearing masks, except in limited situations.

Republicans responded that states have no authority over federal immigration policy or the actions of federal agents that include ICE, the FBI and others. As such, Republicans have predicted that Connecticut’s law will eventually be overturned in federal court. The U.S. Department of Justice already filed a lawsuit in May against Connecticut that is still pending.

“It should be upheld, and will be upheld,” Looney said, “if the courts are acting with integrity.”

Juanita James, who was appointed to the board by Gov. Ned Lamont in 2022, submitted a letter of resignation to the governor Wednesday, effective immediately, saying the current situation presents “insurmountable obstacles to progress.”

Her departure follows those of several in leadership at CSCU, including former Chancellor O. John Maduko following complaints of sexual harassment, and former board chairman Marty Guay, who resigned following allegations he bragged about firing a woman for reporting sexual harassment and, last week, Central Connecticut State University President Zulma Toro after a complaint of workforce bullying and intimidation.

Kevin Rennie: A nest of CT incompetence is revealed. In a $1.2 billion a year system.

Allegations from two women against Maduko that preceded his appointment from the inaugural president of the combined Connecticut State Community College to CSCU chancellor were reportedly ignored, raising questions about the vetting process. An independent investigation into the CSCU system’s handling of the complaints against Maduko by Grand River Solutions “found serious failures in how CSCU responded to concerns about sexual harassment and gaps in the Board’s process for selecting the former interim chancellor,” according to Board of Regents Interim Chair Ari Santiago, who replaced Guay.

Maduko’s accuser reported telling former General Counsel Karen Buffkin of his alleged behavior and warning her Maduko should not be appointed chancellor. Her complaint alleged Buffkin did not encourage her to report the alleged harassment. Buffkin was put on administrative leave on May 29.

The wave of scandals and resignations has led lawmakers to question the efficacy of the governance structure of the revamped Connecticut college system, which originally consisted of four separate state universities, CCSU, ECSU, Southern and WestConn, and 12 separate community colleges.

Following the Grand River Solutions report, Sen. Gary Winfield said in a statement that the report “exemplifies gross misconduct and a severe lack of leadership at the CSCU board level.”

He called the findings a betrayal of public trust and “gives the appearance of cover-ups and people who are more worried about themselves than the people they’re supposed to serve.”

The Board of Regents website notes the board is composed of 13 members appointed by the governor and legislative leaders, two students chosen by their peers, and seven non-voting ex-officio members. The page lists just nine members, including former state Senate president Don Williams and retired Department of Children and Families commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly. Former New Britain mayor Erin Stewart resigned in January to pursue her now-terminated campaign for governor.

Former chair Guay had designated James to lead the search for a permanent chancellor.

In her letter of resignation, James said despite “40 years as a Trustee of Higher Education institutions- Princeton University, Lesley University, and the University of Connecticut,” there is now a “no-win situation for everyone.”

“I have found that the dysfunctional culture and political in-fighting present insurmountable obstacles to progress. The reprehensible behavior of the former Interim Chancellor is inexcusable. Rumors and conjecture outweigh truth. Public attacks and insults are made with impunity,” James said.

“I have worked with dozens of organizations and hundreds of people to be part of making a positive impact on people’s lives. Unfortunately, I do not see an opportunity to be effective in this environment. Therefore, I resign, effective immediately.”

As news of James’s resignation became public Monday, Republican Sens. Henri Martin and Jeff Gordon issued a statement, asking “So, what now?”

“The mess at CSCU just gets messier. The individual who was leading the search for the new Chancellor has cited an overall ‘no-win situation’ and ‘dysfunctional culture’ at CSCU with no further details.

“Who is now leading the search process? Does anyone know what is going on? This is a higher education system which requires $1.2 billion a year from already overburdened Connecticut taxpayers to run. Taxpayers, students and staff deserve leadership, transparency and accountability.”

Lamont issued a statement thanking James for her service.

“Thank you to Juanita James for her service to the CSCU system over these past four years. We are looking at the membership of the Board of Regents and expect to make new appointments soon,” Lamont said.

Board chair Ari Santiago, who was appointed by Lamont in May, did as well.

“I thank Juanita James for her service on the Board of Regents and for the decades of higher-education experience she brought to it. Our focus remains on the students, faculty and staff we serve, and on the work ahead for this Board,” he said.

Reporting by Courant reporter Livi Stanford is contained in this article. 

On the air this week are paired 30-second ads by Lamont’s campaign: A positive piece features an amiable governor high-fiving kids as he walks through a school reciting highlights of his record on education; a negative one shows worried educators fretting about votes on education by Fazio in the state Senate.

“Ryan Fazio — where do I even begin?” says one exasperated teacher in an ad that cuts to a second educator, who replies, “He voted against so many things that helped teachers, students and parents.” A third complains, “Ryan Fazio opposed giving free breakfast to kids in need.”

The spot is titled “Report Card.” It follows two others that contrast Fazio’s positions with Lamont’s on measures the governor signed to counter President Donald Trump’s aggressive campaign to deport undocumented immigrants and the federal cutbacks that have raised the cost of healthcare coverage.

“I found out during the primary, you get attacked, you get attacked pretty hard, and at some point, you’ve got to respond and defend yourself,” Lamont said in an interview this week. He spoke after an event highlighting another contrast: Fazio’s vote against an AI regulatory bill the governor promoted and signed.

Fazio was one of only four senators to oppose the bill that passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, saying the state should defer to federal action that seems unlikely, given the opposition of the president.

During the primary against Elliott, Lamont did not heed early warnings that the liberal lawmaker from Hamden was on track to qualify for a primary and public campaign financing unless the governor pushed back. His one hard shot at Elliott didn’t come until a week before the Aug. 11 contest.

“Yeah,” Lamont said, acknowledging the campaign was slow to hit Elliott. “But we did.”

Lamont won the primary in a landslide, 67.8% to 32.2%.

Last week, a Quinnipiac University poll found Lamont leading Fazio by 17 percentage points, one of three public polls showing the governor with a double-digit lead. A fourth by co/efficient, a marketing and survey firm with a Republican clientele, found Fazio within 7 points.

Fazio’s ads are trying to focus voters on the high cost of living in Connecticut, a concern identified in each poll, and suggest there is no reason to expect that the governor can accomplish things in a third term that he could not in the first two.

Lamont’s two-track approach — promoting his record, while undermining his challenger’s — is hardly unconventional.

Liz Kurantowicz, a former Republican campaign operative, said using the candidate’s face and voice for positive messages and third-party “validators” to deliver criticism was standard fare for the campaign of a relatively popular incumbent.

Vinnie Mauro Jr., the New Haven Democratic chair, said neither campaign is running provocative ads designed to rile their base. The governor’s ads, he said, are what should be expected from a Democratic incumbent running in a blue state with high name recognition after eight years in office.

“What he’s trying to do is say, ‘Look at me. I’ve been a steady hand on the wheel. You may agree with me on some things. You may disagree with me on other things. But in terms of what Connecticut needs and wants, I am the right guy.’ That message is the right message for the state of Connecticut,” Mauro said. “Is it going to make the left part of the party excited? No, it’s not. But that’s not his intention here.”

But Fazio says the Lamont ads attacking him are evidence the governor views the race as competitive and that he has too little to say about a third-term agenda.

“The governor, even though he’s an incumbent, even though everyone knows who he is already after eight years, is not focusing primarily on his record,” Fazio said. “He’s focusing primarily on misleading voters about me, which I think shows that despite his incumbency, he’s relatively weak.”

Four years ago, when Lamont was seeking reelection to a second term in a rematch with Republican Bob Stefanowski, the governor frustrated his campaign staff by refusing to sign off on commercials attacking Stefanowski over his background as the former CEO of a payday loan company.

A payday loan ad eventually aired, but it came from a SuperPAC funded by the Democratic Governors Association, not Lamont’s campaign. Lamont dismissed Stefanowski’s private-sector record at GE, UBS and the payday lender, DFC Global, as irrelevant, at least compared to a public record.

“Last time around, I was running against somebody who had no record. He had done something at GE, not particularly relevant. Now I’m running against somebody who’s been in the state Senate for a lot of years,” Lamont said.

Fazio, 36, was elected five years ago to the Senate from Greenwich, the governor’s hometown. The Report Card ad is based on Fazio’s vote against a budget that increased spending for education and school meals.

Fazio said he supports higher spending for education but found other elements of the budget objectionable. He said the governor’s ad was an example of “taking big bills, complicated votes, and picking out one thing.”

Elliott had attacked Lamont, a 72-year-old former business owner, as a beneficiary of multigenerational wealth, indifferent to the economic pressures on the poor and middle class. He also darkly suggested that Lamont’s wife, a successful venture capitalist, had profited from her marriage to the governor.

While Lamont and Fazio are running attack ads, they largely have focused on policies. Fazio, who remains unknown to a significant portion of the electorate, is running several lighthearted ads with a dual purpose of raising his profile and criticizing the governor.

Fazio is cast as a superhero in one ad, strong enough to save Connecticut from expensive electricity and high taxes tolerated by Lamont. Another portrays him as wielding defibrillator paddles in a hospital room over a patient flatlining from taxes imposed by Democrats. There are 15- and 30-second versions of the spots on television and digital media.

“His are a little more cartoonish, but you know, they’re not attacking my wife or my family or my grandfather. It’s a little different tone than where I was four months ago,” Lamont said, referring to the more personal daily assaults from Elliott. “Let’s keep it to the issues. Let’s keep it to our records.”

The governor, however, has not hesitated to draw an unpopular president into the campaign. His own healthcare ad publicizes the $500 million fund Lamont has used to offset actions by Trump or Congress undermining the Affordable Care Act. Fazio was one of eight senators, all Republicans, to vote against creating the fund.

Humor is an element in most of Fazio’s ads, with at least two featuring clips of the governor. One of the spots dinging Lamont as failing to appreciably bring down electric rates featured a clip of him making a joke that did not quite land: If electric rates were so high, people would be turning out the lights.

“My ads have employed some humor, and at the same time, in doing so, have tried to make the point that we need to cut taxes and cut electric rates to make Connecticut affordable,” Fazio said. “I’m trying to be myself. I’m trying to focus on the issues that I care about and my vision for the state, but also to try to have some fun in the process. And I think it’s attracting people’s attention, and it’s giving people a little bit of an introduction into who I am as a person.”

Fazio said the tone of his ads is appropriate.

“I’m critical of the governor’s failures to make the state affordable. I’m critical of the governor’s tax increases and electric bill increases,” Fazio said. “I don’t think politics needs to be nasty and performative.”

Twice this year, Fazio has dismissed campaign strategists, most recently parting ways with a consultant known to favor more aggressive ads. Was a disagreement over ads a factor?

“There’s been no change in tone or messaging on the campaign,” Fazio said.

The question wasn’t had the tone changed. The question was whether a disagreement over tone and messaging had contributed to the departure. Pressed, Fazio declined to comment further.

“My answer is my answer.”

Sen. James Maroney, a Milford Democrat and co-chair of the General Law Committee who this year led passage of a bill regulating artificial intelligence in the state, said he is interested in legislation passed in Illinois that would require third-party safety audits of AI models.

“I think we are in a time where there is not a lot of trust,” Maroney said. “I think it’s essential that we have an independent third party to validate that companies are meeting these safety protocols to prevent these potential catastrophic risks from happening.”

OpenAI’s Sam Altman, SpaceXAI’s Elon Music and Anthropic’s Dario Amodei have all called for stronger oversight of AI. After a series of recent events that showed AI agents could conspire to deceive humans and act independently, the calls were amplified to slow the pace of development of the technology.

In a 3,000-word essay, Amodei wrote, “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models.

“Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6–12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet,” Amodei wrote, adding that the damages could be in the hundreds of billions of dollars or more “without the necessary guardrails.”

Anthropic researcher Evan Hubinger on X warned the likelihood AI could “kill all humans” was greater than 10% within the next decade.

This summer, Gov. Ned Lamont signed SB 5, the key legislation regulating artificial intelligence, which put in safeguards to limit digital harms to children and seniors from chatbots and also aims to ensure employment decisions made using AI are accurate and fair, according to information from Connecticut Senate Democrats.

Maroney and Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff say that they hope to strengthen the current law on artificial intelligence next session, which they agree is critical in light of recent warnings from tech leaders on the evolving technology. They agree federal legislation is also necessary, but say it is unlikely to happen.

Maroney said SB 5 “was never intended to be a ceiling.

“It’s a start,” he said. “We are likely to do more in the tech space and I think definitely more needs to be done.”

Asked if he is concerned about AI rogue models, such as the OpenAI incident in which an artificial intelligence system in July hacked into another AI company on its own, Maroney said it is worrisome.

“I think it is concerning and we have to look at the potential for a hack of critical infrastructure,” he said. “I think we do need to work on putting in more safeguards.”

He said AI tech companies have changed their tune on regulation several times. He said a few years ago, OpenAI asked for regulation but later joined the other big tech companies in refusing regulation.

“So this is a cycle that we have seen before,” he said.

‘There’s no guardrails. There is no regulation on a national level’

Duff noted that the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a 10-year moratorium on state and local regulation concerning artificial intelligence. Though the Senate rejected the provision, the exchange left him quite pessimistic.

“The federal government has been asleep at the switch to the detriment of the American people,” he said. “We are just seeing the results of their inaction by these types of pronouncements by AI executives about what AI is becoming because of the fact that there are simply no standards. There’s no guardrails. There is no regulation on a national level. And then you have a president who is bought and paid for by the crypto industry, the AI industry, the tech industry, who will do everything possible to keep hands off any type of common sense legislation to protect his billionaire buddies.”

President Donald Trump has lashed out against concerns about rogue artificial intelligence, claiming that any efforts to limit the technology are part of a “SICK conspiracy.”

The president has issued executive orders to “remove barriers to United States AI leadership,” saying the country is in a “race for supremacy” with “adversaries.”

Trump has some support from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, who has described the risks of AI as overblown.

Sen. Paul Cicarella, a North Haven Republican, and ranking senator on the General Law Committee, which oversees AI policies, said it is important for the federal government to do more to address concerns from tech leaders. He said it is essential when big companies see something that is alarming, they are able to pull the plug.

“I really hope the federal government takes this seriously and crafts legislation .. so we are all in the same playing field, so we are not making a state less friendly to do business than the other,” he said. “We have to try to balance that and make sure we are doing something meaningful while not stopping this technology from helping our state, our country, businesses, people,  and medical fields from doing things quicker.”

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal proposed the Artificial Intelligence Risk Evaluation Act, which “would establish an agency to apply standards and oversight” similar to the FDA to determine whether new models are safe and effective.

He said bipartisan awareness of the potential risks from AI is growing and he is hopeful federal legislation will pass.

“The bots escaped their sandbox and could deceive their developers and even act as decoys and collaborate with each other to hack into websites — all more than a little scary,” he said. “It is not science fiction anymore. It’s real. I think ultimately legislation is necessary for the sake of humanity. I am hopeful that we can make progress between now and the end of the year.”

‘The solutions are going to come from the states’

But Maroney said, “I ultimately don’t think there will be federal legislation, but I do think that next year we are going to see a lot more states stepping up to fill that void.”

He said California, New York, and Illinois passed legislation protecting against the catastrophic risks of AI. He said Massachusetts is considering similar legislation.

Duff and Maroney serve on the Cybersecurity AI Privacy Taskforce of the National Conference of State Legislators, which worked to defeat the provision in the federal budget that would have stripped states of their rights to regulate AI.

Maroney said he is hopeful that the federal government would better fund the National Institute of Standards and Technology to provide the standards and adaptive risk management framework, so states could put requirements around those standards.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

In the interview, Gifford, a junior UConn journalism student, asks Joshua Haymes, a former pastor at Defense Secretary Pete Hegeseth’s church, “is it antisemitic to not like someone because they are Jewish and what the Jewish religion says against white Christian men?”

In response, Haymes said: “It is difficult because I don’t know what you mean by not like them. For me, I am called to love everyone. Now the Jew, who is in front of me, I love that Jew and I love him enough to say, ‘your religion is evil. Your religion leads people to hell.’”

House Speaker Matt Ritter, a Hartford Democrat, said the video was disheartening and he called for Gifford to withdraw his candidacy for the 8th District representing Columbia, Coventry, Lebanon and Tolland.

“When you are running for office, you have an obligation to correct antisemitic and other derogatory comments that come from somebody and at no time is that done,” he said. “If you watch that interview, it is chummy. It is cordial and they basically seem to be in alignment and agreement. And I’m still waiting for an apology.”

Ritter added, “This is not acceptable in Connecticut, and these are not the type of people who should be running for office because they’re not ready for it.

“They’re not ready for the responsibility of representation of all kinds of people,” he said.

This is the second nominee the Coventry Republican Town Committee endorsed to fill Rep. Tim Ackert’s seat, who withdrew to run for lieutenant governor with former New Britain Mayor Erin Stewart. Michael Carroll, a candidate from Columbia, pulled out of the race in April when he confirmed to CT Post his arrest in 2017 involving spray-painted swastikas.

Gov. Ned Lamont also called for Gifford to pull out of the race the UConn student is facing against Democratic candidate Francis Lombard, according to Lauren Gray, communications director for Lamont’s re-election campaign.

“Hate and antisemitism have no place in Connecticut and anyone who broadcasts or shares this hateful ideology shouldn’t be in public service,” Gray said. “Calling out bigotry isn’t a political issue, it is a responsibility for anyone seeking the public’s trust and vote.”

Gifford, the president of the UConn chapter of Turning Point USA, the political conservative group the late Charlie Kirk co-founded, said in an interview with the Courant that he would not withdraw from the race, nor issue an apology.

“I’m concerned with the prejudicial condemnation of the speaker,” he said. “No one has had the decency to even call me about these allegations. So, I will not be withdrawing and I reject antisemitism in every form. I’m not going to submit an apology because that is not the case of what happened in this interview.”

Gifford said while attending the AMFEST last year in Arizona, referring to Turning Point USA’s annual conservative convention, he interviewed Haymes for his portfolio to increase “getting practice” in the field.

He said, “just because I interviewed the guy does not mean that I am an antisemite.

“And on top of that, the fact that I am being accused of such is just ridiculous,” he said. “I’m holding power accountable because we are passing all kinds of laws and mandates that are needless to say ridiculous and ultimately my job as a journalist is to hold people accountable.”

He said someone in the audience submitted the question he asked Haymes. He said that he disagreed with Haymes’ views “wholeheartedly.”

“Antisemitism does not belong in our country, period,” he said. “Antisemitism is wrong.”

Asked if he should have corrected Haymes’ comments, Gifford said referring to his work as a journalism student, “It’s not our job to correct what people are saying.

“Our job is to report on what they’re saying,” he said. “So, If I misconstrued what he was saying, that wouldn’t hold up in journalism integrity. I’m not claiming to be antisemitic. I’m not agreeing to his points just because I’m nodding or saying yes. It doesn’t mean I am agreeing with him. I want him to continue to speak his open mind because that is our right as American citizens to have freedom of speech.”

Gifford said he attended the event with the “idea to spread awareness of the people that are there.”

He said he interviewed other people there, from pro-health to pro-life conservative organizations. He said he posted 30 interviews on his social media page.

Top Republicans continue to back Gifford

Republican Leader Vincent Candelora of Branford, said that he endorsed Gifford.

“If he had an ounce of antisemitism in his blood, I obviously would call that out and stand up against it,” he said. “That is not what this is.”

Candelora said this is a college student getting a journalism degree who “had asked a question that was posed that he doesn’t agree with or subscribe to, and it’s being turned into something it really is just not.”

Candelora said he accused the Democrats, in particular Rep. Geoff Luxenberg, a Manchester Democrat, of “fundraising off of” the issue.

“It’s one thing to call out behavior that you’re concerned with and it’s another thing to turn it around and try to make money off of it,” he said.

Ben Proto, chairman of the Connecticut Republican Party, questioned the Democrats’ concerns.

Proto said that Ritter “needs to be concerned about things like making electric rates more affordable.

“He needs to be concerned about making insurance rates more affordable,” he continued. “He needs to be concerned about reducing property taxes in the state of Connecticut. He needs to be concerned about making housing more affordable. These are the things that Matt Ritter needs to be concerned about, not being concerned about a question being asked by a journalism student, seeking an answer to a question.”

In response to Candelora’s accusations,  Luxenberg, said “Republicans are just embarrassed that yet again, they have nominated an extremist antisemitic bigot to run for a competitive open House seat and the notion that it isn’t antisemitic is an outrageous sinister lie.”

Ian Clarke, spokesman for the state Democratic Party, said, “This is the second GOP-backed House candidate this year who has blasted open hatred via social media.”

“The antisemitic ideas that William Gifford espoused have no place in any campaign,” he said. “Ryan Fazio, Jeff Gordon, Ben Proto, Vincent Candelora and incumbent Tim Ackert- who gave Gifford his enthusiastic endorsement as his successor- must denounce Gifford, pull any material support and call on him to suspend his campaign.”

Jadon E. MacCormack, a conservative Republican candidate from Brooklyn, lost last month’s primary for the state legislature after making anti-gay comments. Republicans recruited an opponent to run against him, defeating him.

Ritter said this is not about politics.

“My job is to uphold the rules for everybody, Republican and Democrat,” he said. “And I have taken hits for being angry at Democrats for things they say on video and vice versa. So, I think I have a track record of playing it fair and balanced. To me, this is not about elections and campaigns. This is not about winning the seat. It’s about the type of people we elect and the decorum that we expect to have in the General Assembly. And if a Democrat said this, just like I’ve done in the past, I would call them out as well.”

Larson conceded his loss to former Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin in the August four-way primary a couple of hours after the polls closed. He wouldn’t give a firm answer that night about whether he was calling it a career.

But Larson’s spokesperson Charles Perosino confirmed Monday that he won’t pursue another path to get on the Nov. 3 ballot. The deadline for minor parties in Connecticut to select their candidates and submit for certification to get on the general election ballot was Sept. 2.

In a statement provided to the Connecticut Mirror, Larson said the party must unify to take on President Donald Trump.

“As the president prosecutes an illegal war in Iran and costs continue to rise for working families, now is the time for Democrats to come together to hold Donald Trump accountable and deliver for the American people,” Larson said in a statement.

Larson had offered a similar characterization of his time left in Congress to the dozens of supporters who attended his election night party in the summer. On the night of the August primary, he indicated in his speech that he’s focusing the remaining months of his term on battling the president.

“The people of this district have spoken, and it’s time for us to come together and make sure that we all join forces,” Larson said that night. “Because the issue here, as I said throughout this campaign, is Donald Trump and what he’s doing to this country.”

“There’s still a lot of fight left and a lot to be done,” Larson added. “And I intend to fulfill my responsibility until the last day.”

When asked by reporters at the time whether he would seek the Working Families Party line or mount an independent bid in the fall, he quickly brushed aside those questions by saying, “take the night off, relax, take a deep breath.”

Larson’s decision not to run was first reported by CT Insider.

Larson was seeking a 15th term in the Hartford-based seat in an election cycle that’s been dominated by calls for generational change within the Democratic Party and some backlash to incumbency and the political establishment.

He faced Bronin, state Rep. Jillian Gilchrest and Hartford Board of Education member Ruth Fortune in the Aug. 11 primary. It was the first primary Larson as a sitting member of Congress faced since he was first elected in 1998.

Bronin was able to break out of the crowded field of candidates because of his name recognition and his ability to raise money. Bronin and Larson frequently tangled over the sources of their fundraising, which played out on the campaign trail and in advertisements.

Following the primary and the month-long August recess, Larson returned to Washington, D.C., for a couple of weeks before Congress was to leave again for the election.

But the U.S. House wrapped up its work much earlier than expected and left town in the middle of last week. Lawmakers will have seven weeks back in their home districts, primarily meant for campaigning ahead of a pivotal election that will determine control of Congress.

Larson and the rest of the lawmakers now won’t return to D.C. until after the election. They’ll have several more weeks in the lame-duck session to finish up any remaining work before the holidays. Members try to pass last-minute priorities, but the final weeks of session are typically dominated by government funding bills and an annual defense policy bill that is crucial for Connecticut’s defense industry.

Larson’s signature issue of Social Security was a centerpiece of his reelection campaign. He had said he could be chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security if Democrats regain the House majority. The issue recently gained some steamed in Congress as a reports estimate the trust fund for retirees could dry up by the early 2030s. Larson recently applauded the attention to the issue by others in Congress and continued to push for passage of his own bill to strengthen Social Security, even as he gets ready to depart.

Larson’s 14th term will finish up early next year. The new session of Congress will begin Jan. 3, 2027, when new members are sworn in.

Bronin will square off against Republican nominee Amy Chai on Nov. 3.

Bronin served as the mayor of Hartford for two terms, leaving office in 2024. He joined a crowded field in the summer of 2025 to take on Larson in the primary. He led the pack in fundraising and had also clinched the party’s endorsement in an upset at the nominating convention this spring.

“This is a political earthquake in Connecticut,” Bronin said following his primary victory in August, while also thanking Larson for a “lifetime of service.” “The goal is to shake things up in Washington D.C., and we’re just getting started.”

Chai has sought elected office before, running as an independent against U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, in 2022. She was previously an independent but “realized she couldn’t win” unless she was affiliated with a major party.

“My motto is listen more, hate less,” Chai said as she stood at the polls on the August primary day. If elected, Chai, who’s a doctor, wants to focus on the prevention of mental illness and addiction. She believes politics is making mental health disorders worse.

But Bronin is considered the heavy favorite in the general election. Of the five U.S. House seats in Connecticut, the 1st Congressional District is the bluest.

Lisa Hagen is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).

The survey released by the CT Community Nonprofit Alliance also found slightly more than half of voters favor these investments, even if it requires adjusting the state budget caps that have forced unprecedented surpluses since their enactment nine years ago.

“I understand the need to save for the future,” Gian-Carl Casa, president and CEO of the alliance, said this week. “But it doesn’t help somebody hungry to get food.”

The poll, conducted online last month by the Connecticut-based STATS Group, surveyed 602 voters and has a 4% margin of error.

State government uses hundreds of community-based nonprofits to deliver the bulk of publicly sponsored social services to people with disabilities or mental illness, patients struggling with addiction, children with various needs and people reentering society following incarceration.

The alliance, which represents most of those agencies, has argued in recent years for a major adjustment in state compensation, insisting payments have lagged inflation for more than a decade, costing the industry more than $300 million annually.

Agencies praised the General Assembly and Gov. Ned Lamont last May for boosting funding by roughly $60 million for the fiscal year that began July 1. But they also fear new and impending cuts in federal programs will create a climate of need and demand for aid that swamps all services.

For example, nearly 63,000 residents have lost federal nutrition benefits since Congress and President Donald Trump tightened eligibility last July — roughly double state officials’ projections, New Haven-based Connecticut Voices for Children reported last month.

An estimated 110,000 low-income adults who receive health insurance through the Medicaid-funded HUSKY D program are at risk of losing coverage this January due to new federal work rules. And hundreds of lawfully present immigrants are expected to lose Medicare eligibility — regardless of work status — at the same time.

State officials project the maximum federally funded heating and energy assistance benefits this winter will be down 33% from prepandemic levels for Connecticut residents in need.

The survey found 86% of voters want the state, which has run up unprecedented surpluses averaging more than $1.8 billion or about 8% of the General Fund since 2017, to spend Connecticut dollars to ease this pain.

The state has been using those surpluses chiefly to build reserves and reduce the state’s hefty pension debt, which still exceeds $30 billion.

But critics say Connecticut could shift hundreds of millions of dollars toward social services and still wipe out pension debt by a significant margin each year, especially now that the emergency reserve — commonly known as the rainy day fund — holds nearly $4.5 billion or 18% of annual operating costs, the maximum allowed by law.

The survey found 54% of voters favor adjusting the state’s budget caps to redirect more funds to top social services.

And 56% of those surveyed said they would be more likely to support a gubernatorial candidate who wants to adjust those caps to send more funds to community-based nonprofits.

Gov. Ned Lamont, a fiscally moderate Democrat, largely opposed all efforts to modify budget caps during six of his eight years in office, frustrating many liberals in his party.

But the governor compromised and supported several efforts to work around the caps in recent years, including dedicating $712 million outside of the formal budget system to expand affordable childcare. He also declared fiscal emergencies — the first step in legally exceeding the cap — to allow legislators to order more than $280 million in additional municipal aid this spring.

He also helped legislators create a special $550 million fund, also outside of the formal budget, to begin to mitigate cuts to federal programs. Since last November, Lamont has used this fund to help low- to moderate-income households purchase health insurance, bolster food pantries, provide $300 grocery store gift cards to 25,000 residents removed from SNAP, and to assist legally present immigrants who have been stripped of temporary protected status by President Trump’s administration.

But all of that assistance has been one-time in nature, and many legislators are pressing for Connecticut to establish ongoing state-funded assistance programs for many of these groups.

The governor has not ruled out providing ongoing assistance in some cases but has cautioned legislators that state government cannot afford to backfill all federal cuts.

“Gov. Lamont shares concerns about federal cuts that affect critical services for our residents,” Chris Collibee, the governor’s budget spokesman, said Wednesday. “The Lamont administration continues working with nonprofit providers and legislative leaders to protect essential services while maintaining the fiscal stability that allows us to be there for residents when they need us most.”

Republican gubernatorial nominee Ryan Fazio does not support modifying the caps. But Fazio, a state senator from Greenwich, also says Lamont and legislators have not done enough to cut wasteful spending, which then could have been redirected toward social services.

Fazio and others have criticized Lamont and Democratic legislators for awarding most unionized state employees annual raises around 4.5% since 2022, compensation Republicans say tops most private sector pay hikes.

The GOP also says Democrats have allowed public colleges and universities to spend far too much on administrative costs and also could save on Medicaid by denying benefits to undocumented immigrant adults and children.

Sen. Cathy Osten of Sprague, who co-chairs the Appropriations Committee, is one of several Democrats who predicts the 2027 session will feature an extensive debate on expanding Connecticut’s role in protecting vulnerable residents.

Osten has called for a state-funded benefit to assist those who’ve lost federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits but still cannot work due to mental illness or disability.

As inflation rises and the average price of regular gasoline tops $4.40 per gallon in Connecticut, according to the AAA, “it’s becoming dire for people. Their incomes are not going up anywhere near the level the need. And it’s eating into the middle class,” she said.

Rep. Tammy Nuccio of Tolland, ranking House Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said the GOP is ready to find more money to assist Connecticut’s most vulnerable.

But for that to happen, she added, majority Democrats in the General Assembly must be ready to hear ideas on cutting wasteful spending.

That effort “has to be fully bipartisan, and not just bipartisan in name,” she said.

Keith M. Phaneuf is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2026 @ CT Mirror (ctmirror.org).