Support for the state House news bureau comes from medical mutual dedicated to the health and well-being of Ohioans offering health insurance plans, as well as dental vision and wellness programs to help people achieve their goals and remain healthy.

More at Med Mutual Rt.com.

The Law Offices of Porter Wright Morrison, Arthur LLP.

Porter Wright is dedicated to bringing inspired legal outcomes to the Ohio business community.

More at Porter right Rt.com Porter Wright inspired every day the Ohio Education Association, representing 120,000 educators who are united in their mission to create the excellent public schools.

Every child deserves more at OHEA.org.

There are changes to scholarships at Ohio's largest universities after a big US Supreme Court ruling, and the second in my series of conversations with the candidates in the Republican U.S. Senate primary this week, businessman Bernie Marino.

All this week in the state of Ohio.

Welcome to the state of Ohio.

I'm Karen, counselor.

Ohio's two largest public universities are in the process of removing race based language from their scholarship awards, from those funded by public dollars and from private donors.

Attorney General Dave Yost told college leaders in January that he sees the criteria as unconstitutional based on the recent federal reversal of affirmative action.

But Statehouse correspondent Sarah Donaldson reports that reversal does not directly prohibit race based scholarships.

In June 2023, the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court largely struck down race as a consideration in applications in admissions processes.

Now, spokespeople at Ohio State and Ohio University say they're reviewing scholarship awards for noncompliance based on Yost's guidance.

In an email statement to the Statehouse news bureau, U.S. chief spokesperson Bethany McCorkell wrote, quote, Although the court did not expressly prohibit race based scholarships, it indicated that eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.

Race based scholarships discriminate on the basis of race in awarding benefits.

Therefore, it would follow that such programs are unconstitutional.

The attorney general, of course, is advising his client correctly that that's unconstitutional to do that.

At Ohio University, spokesperson Dan Pittman said, although a small number under review, it will be time consuming and extend beyond race to look at potential references to other protected classes.

The directive did not sit well with some faculty and donors that use college communications, including journalism school director Ed Scheel.

She's the first woman and black American to hold the role.

Dashiell wrote a letter to Dean Scott.

It's worth voicing her concerns.

In it, she wrote, quote, The scholarship committee and the faculty remain obligated to honor the agreements signed between scholarship donors and Ohio University regarding scholarship qualifications actions, regardless of the political whims of politicians in Columbus or anti diversity sentiments among some members of Ohio University staff.

Indy Alexander and OAU alumnus and former Washington News bureau chief funds an award initially with his wife, Beverly.

It's presently earmarked for underwrite presented student journalists born out of a passion, he says, for putting money toward more diverse newsrooms.

You know, if the state and the university interpret this as prohibiting private individuals from specifying that their scholarships be used to promote diversity, then I think there's nothing to stop people like me, my wife and I, from simply bypassing the university and finding a way to give our scholarship directly to students.

Senate President Matt Huffman, a Republican, says he believes donors should have a say in what they're funding.

Because the donor wants to do what they want to do.

Now, if it's exclusionary for certain people.

I think the university's under the obligation to reject that money.

But Senate Minority Leader Nikki Antonio, a Democrat, says she's concerned about what she sees as incremental moves to take away opportunities for students of color to just get their foot in the door in Ohio.

But my question to the attorney general is what steps are we then going to take to make sure that there's truly a level playing field?

How are we going to do that?

That's what we should be asking.

Spokespeople for the University of Cincinnati and Miami University did not answer an email requesting comment on whether any of their awards are under review.

Sarah Donaldson, Statehouse News Bureau.

This week, we continue a series of conversations with the three men who are running in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

With the winner moving on to run against incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown, who's been in that office since 2006, all three candidates support cutting taxes, streamlining regulations and blame President Biden for increased inflation.

They all strongly support Israel in its war against Hamas, though they may disagree on funding for that.

And they all say they're concerned about cancel culture and what they see is liberal indoctrination in schools and universities.

So with the limited time we have available, I'm asking the candidates about the issues where they disagree with their opponents, as well as specific questions about their campaigns.

This week, Bernie Marino.

He's a Colombian born businessman whose family came to the US when he was a child.

He ran a luxury car dealership in the Cleveland area that was sold off by 2019 and then launched a tech company focused on blockchain before first running for the US Senate in 2022.

So you almost ran in 2022.

You filed the paperwork, but then pulled out before the deadline after you said former President Trump asked you to.

Why do you.

Think?

He didn't ask me to?

What it was clear to me was that he was going to most likely endorse J.D.

Vance.

So it made no sense to stay in the race in which J.D.

Vance would get the endorsement, become the nominee.

And why would we spend money beating up on fellow Republicans?

And I like J.D.

That's J.D.

is a good friend.

I remind him sometimes that last cycle he was my second choice.

But it wasn't a request from President Trump.

That's been kind of like a media narrative that's out there.

I actually told him I was dropping out, and I think it made sense.

And I think at the end of the day, I put my political ambitions behind what was good for the party and good for the cause and want to make certain that we had a true America first conservative that won.

And I'm very, very proud of the fact that I did that, because we've got now a great senator and J.D.. Why do you think this is your time?

Is it because you got the Trump endorsement this time?

Well, the reality is I'm running against two people that would be more of the same old, same old Washington, D.C. We can't have a repeat of 2017 and 18 in which we had the House, the Senate and the White House and President Trump had to fight Democrats as much as he had to fight Republicans.

And my opponents are career politicians.

There would be more along the lines of the Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney wing of the party.

And if we're going to get the America first agenda done, we need to make certain that we have conservative outsiders.

And in there that actually going to do what they said they're going to do.

That's why JD has endorsed me.

President Trump's endorsed me.

Jim Jordan endorsed me.

14 other sitting senators have endorsed me.

Newt Gingrich, the head of the RJC.

Norm Coleman, Lee Zeldin, Christine Holm, Vivek Ramaswamy.

Because they know in this race it's a clear contrast between a businessperson, outsider America, first conservative and same old, same old career politicians.

You have made immigration a key issue in your campaign as former President Trump has lots of Republicans.

Have you say we need to reform asylum laws?

People who are out of the country illegally are immediately returned, remain in Mexico, finish the wall and designate drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations to seize their money and removing people who are here illegally.

Your opponents say a few years ago you were advocating a path to citizenship, saying immigration law should be designed with the goal to help immigrants become American so they could succeed and that we can't throw out undocumented immigrants who are brought here as children.

Now, you're not.

What's changed here?

Well, if you read the nuance of where your question was, you're accurate.

In other words, the goal of legal immigrants should be to get a path to citizenship.

Legal immigrants, much like myself, I came here as a legal immigrant, followed the process, became a citizen when I was 18.

And that was an interview about ten years ago, which I said maybe the children of undocumented immigrants should be having a path to residency.

What we've seen over the last three years is an invasion of this country.

So I think that the reality is we have no choice but to deport all illegal immigrants out of this country because we're we're sending a mixed message to the world.

We're telling them, hey, you could come here legally, but then we'll reward you if you come here illegally.

What's amazing about my opponents attacking me on this issue is that they both today think that we should provide amnesty.

At a forum in Medina, Ohio, Matt Dolan said, Absolutely.

I'm not for deporting any illegal immigrants.

Frankly, Rose says, you can't take 20 million consumers out of the marketplace.

Now, of course, they've massively shifted their stances over the last four months.

But it's obviously an attack that is uber ironic given that they are both pro-amnesty Republicans.

And let's be honest, if they were the United States Senate today, they would be an impediment to President Trump, because what President Trump has said, and I believe is we have to deport anybody who is here illegally.

We have to have the largest deportation task force in American history because you have to send a clear message come to America, but only legally.

Zero tolerance for illegal immigration.

And we fix that through reforming our asylum laws, as you laid out.

I want to ask you about that question exactly that.

The Trump campaign has said that he wants to conduct the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.

The military would be deployed to go after however many undocumented immigrants there are in this country.

Could be 11 million, could be more.

Or not the military be ice, because, again, as you know, military isn't allowed to operate on U.S. soil.

We would use ice and we would make certain that we defund sanctuary cities.

But, yes, absolutely.

If you're here in this country illegally, it just makes sense.

So Karen, does it is intuitively accurate to say if you're here illegally, if you broke our laws to come into this country, you filed a fake asylum claim or you overstayed your visa, shouldn't we deport you?

Because if you if you allow that person to stay here, you're doing two things.

You're saying that the laws really don't matter, and you're also insulting people like myself who follow the legal process know there's millions of people who are waiting patiently following the process.

Why would we disparage them?

To reward people who skip the line.

That is even fundamentally fair.

On top of the fact that you either have laws or you don't.

Is it realistic, though, to go after that huge number of people with the limited space in detention areas without building, say, mass detention camps?

No.

We're going to deport them.

We're not going to detain them.

In fact, what I talk about in my that you very accurately laid out my reform to asylum laws if you cross into the country illegally, the current law says that you can raise your hand and claim asylum.

You know, my opponent talks about having troops there.

You can have 10 million troops in the border.

But under the current law, if you raise your hand and claim asylum by law, we have to let you in and file an asylum claim.

What I'm saying is, if you cross illegally, you aren't detained, you aren't arrested, you're immediately returned immediately, you're taken right back to where you came from.

We're not flown to another country.

We you cross the river, we take you right back.

And that is just common sense.

And if you come in the legal way through a port of entry, then we hear your claim.

We schedule you for a claim to be heard.

I'm sorry.

We exclude your claim to be heard, and then you wait.

In the previous country.

That's Mexico.

It's Mexico.

It's candidates, Canada.

It's your claim.

It's here.

We don't just release you into the country.

I think both of those things, unless you're a crazy, lunatic leftist that believes in open borders, is common sense.

What's amazing about Washington, D.C., is that this law has been in place for three or four years.

This has been 20 plus years.

And yet the legislature, the Congress has failed to reform our asylum laws.

That needs to happen because we want legal immigration.

We want people to come here that are additive to our economy, aren't here for handouts, are here to add to the American culture that we want, where it doesn't lower American wages, but we can't have anything tolerance for illegal immigration.

This is an 8020 issue.

There's very few Americans that are open border radicals other than, of course, Sherrod Brown, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, AOC and the rest of them.

But most Americans think this is pretty common sense.

Is it realistic to go out and find those people who are here illegally, though?

I mean, is that even possible, given how difficult that is to do?

it's not that difficult to do.

We go to New York City.

We're housing them in luxury hotels.

We're paying right now.

We paid $451,000,000,000.11 times the budget of Ohio to house and take care of illegal immigrants.

Last year, $451 billion for a fraction of that care.

And we could have built homes, good homes for 37,000 homeless veterans.

Think about that for a fraction of that money.

So we can we know where they are, where there are sanctuary cities, sanctuary states, they should get absolutely no federal funding.

If they want to do that, then that's on them.

They want to violate federal law, but we absolutely can do it.

We will do it.

We will get it done.

And it's imperative we get it done.

We've had 9.6 million people crossing this country illegally since Joe Biden's been president.

We don't know who these people are.

We don't know what their intentions are.

We have to do this.

This is a national security imperative.

If the border situation, the invasion you've called it, it's been called a crisis is an never.

Never by me, only by my opponents, my opponent.

Although my opponent's been good, I taught him to say the word invasion.

Back in Claremont County a few months ago, and now he uses the word invasion because it is when you have 9.6 million people cross into our country.

What else would you call it?

Well, if it is an emergency situation, an invasion, should Republicans in Congress be opposing a bipartisan bill that was endorsed by the Border Patrol?

I mean, is it an emergency, a crisis that needs to be addressed now or can it wait till after the election and be addressed then?

Well, first of all, you have a president and Democrats that have refused to enforce the laws.

Joe Biden reversed every single one of President Trump's executive orders, every single one.

He could just reinstate every single one of the executive orders that he that he reversed.

What was put forth was 357 pages of garbage.

I actually read the entire bill.

I actually read the entire bill.

I gave the power to the Secretary Mayorkas and Biden.

And at the end of every section says, unless the president or the secretary deems otherwise, meaning they chose not to enforce the new sections, they could do that.

Well, you already have people who aren't enforcing our laws.

This was a terrible bill.

And what I learned in business is a bad bill is much worse than no deal at all.

We do have a serious bill that does the things that outline the question for Democrats.

If you interview Sherrod Brown, ask him, Well, Bernie Moreno put forward this very common sense asylum law reform.

Would you support it?

The question is, would you ask them that?

And I already know the answer.

He wouldn't because they are controlled by the open border, radical leftist.

That's what the Democrats are controlled by, by the.

I want to move on to Ukraine.

You have said we should absolutely not give more money to fight a stalemate that is killing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians.

We are not in the business to fund more endless wars.

Matt, don't let us characterize your position as saying there needs to be negotiation.

But if you are dismantling the strength of one side in the negotiation, why would Putin negotiate?

He'll just wait and destroy Ukraine and then go into Poland and NAITO Ally So where do you stand on this?

I think you laid it out perfectly and I think you quoted me very accurately, which I appreciate.

Why would we find a bloody stalemate that's leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans and risk World War Three At the end of the day, where?

Biden We have to recognize as Republicans is that Biden's weakness, Obama's weakness is what caused this problem.

The invasion of Ukraine is a direct result of our withdrawal from Afghanistan.

It sent Putin a message.

We greenlighted the Nord Stream two pipeline, right?

Putin amassed troops on the border of Ukraine prior to the invasion.

And what did Joe Biden say?

Well, it's a minor incursion, right?

So he his weakness allowed the invasion to happen in the first place.

We have two options.

Either spend hundreds of billions, potentially trillions of dollars fighting a proxy war with Russia or get to a peaceful settlement.

I thought the Democrats are the party of peace.

We never even give a peace a chance to happen in Ukraine where we end the conflict.

You would think that the Democrats would be on the side of that, but they're not because they they think that the Ukraine situation is the most important existential threat to America.

I've been to every corner of Ohio and every corner about 2000 miles a week.

I haven't had one Ohioan tell me that their number one, number two, number three, number four.

And number five issue is us giving hundreds of billions of dollars more to Ukraine.

The fact that Matt Dolan was quoted when he got the endorsement for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which by the way, is embarrassing, he said that we got to stop being distracted by the dysfunction at the border to do what we need to do in Ukraine.

He's putting Ukraine here, American security here.

That's exactly what's wrong with D.C. That's why President Trump has endorsed me, because that kind of thinking is old school Republican, that it's got to go away.

We got to put America first.

That shouldn't even be controversial.

And it's pretty straightforward.

Are you concerned at all about the relationship between Trump and Putin?

I think you need to have a really good relationship with them.

I'm concerned about the relationship with between Biden and Putin by Putin thinks Biden's weak, doesn't think he'll respond to any action, which he hasn't.

What has happened?

What has happened since Biden's been president?

Putin invaded Ukraine.

The Russian economy is growing.

Russia's thriving.

The alliance with China's growing.

Right.

What happened with President Trump?

Nothing.

We have peace with peace.

We have peace and stability all over the world.

So we don't get to pick the leaders of other countries.

That's not the way this works.

But when there are leaders that are bad guys and they are.

Putin's a bad guy.

Do you want them to have a war relationship with that leader or do you want to have a relationship where they respect each other and keep each other in check, meaning that we keep them in check?

That's the answer.

I think this whole Russia Russia narrative that Trump cozying up with dictators is just such nonsense.

Media narratives.

The other day the leader of the world has to ensure peace and stability around the planet, and that's exactly what President Trump did.

You and Franklin Roosevelt endorsed my right to life.

It seems possible that if Republicans win the House, Senate, and the White House that a national abortion ban could be introduced.

You should have never said the word ban.

I don't look at that at all that restrictions.

What I say is that abortion is mostly up to the states.

And the states make those decisions that we advocate for program policies, make it less expensive, that kids make it less expensive to raise them, make sure we have good adoptions services, we fund pregnancy centers, defund Planned Parenthood as much as we can get to a 15 week standard where after 15 weeks, there's commonsense restrictions.

That so that we don't have elective late term abortions, then that's a victory for the pro-life movement.

Chair But I would agree with that, Caryn, because Sherrod Brown thinks that abortion should be allowed right up until the moment of birth.

He voted against the Infant Born Alive Protection Act, which says in a botched abortion, that baby can't be given life saving care.

He is an absolute extremist on this issue.

I think most Ohioans are with me.

And by the way, if we got to that stage, we would be right there with even the most radically left wing Western European countries that that this is an issue that the Democrats like for one reason and one reason only.

They love the issue.

They don't care about the women.

They absolutely don't care about the babies.

They care about it as a political weapon.

But most Ohioans did vote for issue one last November, which that would have been in conflict a 15 week ban would be in conflict with that.

And a 15 week ban would still allow most abortions to have to happen.

Well, again, you're saying ban.

I'm not saying ban.

I'm saying abortion is legal and after 15 weeks, there's commonsense restrictions.

That's not a ban.

What it says is that after 15 weeks, there has to be some common sense reasons why an abortion is necessary so that we don't have elective late term abortions.

That was never put forward to the people of Ohio.

People of Ohio had to pick between this absolutely extremist abortion law that allows parental rights to be stripped away.

It allows abortions.

If what you're saying is true, then why don't you have Sherrod Brown support?

What I'm saying?

Let's get to the point where we get consensus around this issue.

Do we need to be more divisive with each other as Americans, or can't you get Sherrod Brown and say, hey, listen, after 50 weeks, let's put some common sense restrictions, Right?

Let's let's be empathetic for the women that are having to go through this abortion process is gruesome and awful for the mom also.

Right.

But let's not use this as a hammer, a political weapon.

Let's get consensus and put this issue after 52 years behind us.

He won't because, again, he's become a radical.

He used to be against federal funding for abortion.

He says he's for some sort of limits of whether it's 22 weeks or 20.

Well, we know that was science.

Babies are viable well before that time.

So let's get consensus around the issue and move on.

On the IVF question, that's been something that's come up after the Alabama situation.

If you voted against ISSUE one, you've already essentially voted against protecting fertility treatment because that was in that amendment.

So how do you feel about this?

That's absolutely not true.

The reality is IVF is something that is I've been touched by personally, I have friends, relatives that if not for IVF, they wouldn't have their children.

So I have absolutely not against IVF.

I think anything that promotes families, having babies, anything that gets us where birth rates get back up to replacement levels, extraordinarily important for America to do.

Again, this is a Sherrod Brown Democrat talking point they want there.

So desperate to find something that distracts Americans from the invasion of our border energy prices, food prices, world instability, the assault on American energy, the fact that the working class are so far behind because of Sherrod Brown and Joe Biden's policy.

So let's use IVF as a distraction and get Republicans talking about that.

Nobody that I know is against IVF.

Let's just make that clear.

You have the coveted endorsement of former President Trump.

There is a relationship.

Your daughter is married to Congressman Max Miller, who was an aide to former President Trump.

My daughter worked on his campaign.

Yes.

You have you had reservations about Trump several years ago.

That was evident in tweets that you have now pulled back on.

Do you have any doubts now, though, about supporting a candidate who's been indicted on 91 felony counts, who said he would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they want when it came to native countries that have not met their spending guidelines, who added more than $8 billion to the national debt, who has repeatedly lied, saying the 2020 election was stolen.

Do you fully support him?

I fully support him and I would push back on everything that you just said.

First of all, I didn't support President Trump in 2015 and 16.

From the moment I became president, actually for the moment of the convention in Cleveland 2016, that support and my support has been crystal clear.

I voted for him twice.

I know the man.

And I would push back against the narrative that people say that they support his policies but not the person.

I support both.

He's a good man.

The fact that he's willing to put up with this level of abuse from the media, from big tech and from Democrats is absolutely inspiring to me, because what we're seeing in this country is a persecution, a political persecution that's intended to conduct election interference.

We had peace and prosperity around the world when President Trump was in office.

This is not theoretical.

We know what four years under President Trump, first president, we didn't have a war on terror.

Now we have Biden.

We have instability all over the world.

And on the election issue.

Big tech media clearly censored news that was bad for Biden and clearly suppressed news that was good for for Trump.

That's just a fact.

That's not that's not in dispute.

So and by the way, he's the executive.

He didn't pass those budgets.

Congress did.

Congress did not pass his budgets.

We're going to change all that in 2025.

We're going to have America first conservatives in there who get the agenda done, put this country back on track.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose is scheduled to appear on this show next week.

State Senator Matt Dolan was on the show last week.

You can find that interview and all our shows in our archives.

And that is it for this week for my colleagues at the Statehouse news bureau, Ohio Public Radio and Television.

Thanks for watching.

Please check out our website and our archives at State News dot org or find us online by searching State of Ohio show.

And please join us again next time for the state of Ohio.

Support for the Statehouse news bureau comes from medical mutual dedicated to the health and well-being of Ohioans offering health insurance plans as well as dental vision and wellness programs to help people achieve their goals and remain healthy.

More at Med Mutual AECOM The law offices of Porter Right.

Morrison Arthur LLP.

Porter Right.

Is dedicated to bringing inspired legal outcomes to the Ohio business community.

More at Porter recom Porter right inspired every day in Ohio Education Association representing 120,000 educators who are united in their mission to create the excellent public schools.

Every child deserves more at OHEA.org.