>> From NJ PBS studios, this is NJ Spotlight News with Brianna Vannozzi.

>> Hello and thanks for joining us tonight.

I'm Joanna Gagas in for Brianna Vannozzi.

A few stories we'll get into later in the broadcast.

We talk with U.S.

Senator Andy Kim about the temporary deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Then it's primary day in the race to fill Governor Mikey Sherrill's vacant congressional seat.

We'll look at the latest.

And later, you can bet on just about anything during the Super Bowl, but is your bet safe?

We'll get into it.

But first, some of today's top headlines.

Jersey City is in deficit.

Mayor James Solomon, who was sworn in a little less than a month ago, announced that the city is facing a $254 million shortfall that makes up nearly 30% of the city's overall budget.

Solomon's not mincing words, blaming his predecessor, former Mayor Stephen Fulop, for the gaping hole that Solomon says occurred in spite of otherwise favorable economic conditions, a growing tax base, surging development, and significant federal pandemic relief funds.

Solomon accuses Fulop of balancing his budgets with nearly $670 million in one-shot gimmicks, and he says he's systemically under-budgeted for expenses like health insurance, leading to millions in underpaid bills and late fees.

He also says Fulop drained the city's rainy day fund and points to the city's credit downgrading by all three major credit rating agencies, all as Fulop was running a campaign for governor.

Fuolop responded saying Solomon served on the city council for eight years with "full budget responsibilities" and never raised these concerns, and that Solomon's playing politics and blaming the predecessor.

Solomon says he voted "no" on every budget during his time on the council, and he committed to make changes in the city first by being honest with residents about the fiscal reality and promising not to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers.

Here's some more of what he had to say.

Some folks might say, "You know, doesn't every mayor blame their predecessor for all the problems?"

Let's be fair.

That does happen, but this is something entirely different.

This is a systemic pattern of decisions made over years that prioritize one man's political ambitions over the long-term health of the city.

Well college campuses are once again the site of protest.

This time, students at three universities, Rutgers, Rowan, and Princeton, are rallying in opposition to ICE and DHS presence on and around their campuses.

Rowan University student groups protested a recent professional development event where the business school hosted a team from the Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection Office.

The students started a petition that's already gathered at least 3,000 signatures, calling it unacceptable for the school to bring DHS onto campus, saying, "So many of our community members live every day in immense fear, trying at every cost to avoid interaction with agents of this violent regime."

University spokesperson Joe Cardona said in response, "The presence of any employer on campus does not constitute institutional endorsement of that organization's policies or actions," citing more than 200 employers who participate each year.

Meanwhile, student groups organized marches and protests on the campuses of Princeton and Rutgers recently, decrying ICE activity in the state, with some arrests occurring near their schools.

One student group at Rutgers has started a petition with nearly 3,000 signatures, calling on the university to become a "sanctuary campus."

We reached out to Rutgers for comment but haven't yet heard back.

Coming up, we hear from U.S.

Senator Andy Kim on the latest from Capitol Hill after a partial government shutdown ended this week.

That's next.

Funding for NJ Spotlight News provided by the members of the New Jersey Education Association.

Making public schools great for every child.

And RWJBarnabas Health.

Let's be healthy together.

This was a big week on Capitol Hill.

We started the week in a partial government shutdown with members of Congress at odds in terms of how to fund the Department of Homeland Security moving forward.

But by midweek we had an agreement and a signature from President Trump.

So how does New Jersey's junior U.S.

Senator Andy Kim feel about that deal and about the other major controversy playing out between the state and our federal government over the gateway tunnel funding.

He joins us now to discuss.

Senator Kim thank you so much for taking some time to be with us today.

Appreciate it.

Yeah thanks for having me again.

What do you make of the spending deal that was agreed to particularly when it relates to funding for DHS.

Well I think the fact that the DHS funding got separated from the rest of the government funding is and the fact that the Trump administration backed down to accept that shows just how angry Americans are, how worried they are.

I mean the Trump administration and the Republicans in Washington are feeling the pressure from millions of Americans that are just saying we don't want this chaos in our streets.

We don't want to have to have this type of anxiety about violence around us.

I have people in New Jersey that are telling me that they are now carrying their passports around with them because they're just worried about being stopped, worried about some potential interaction with CBP or ICE that could go wrong.

And that's just not the kind of life that people want to live.

So that's the big takeaway, is that the Trump administration backed down because the American people stood up.

Senator, what reforms would you like to see?

I know there are a list of reforms that Democrats have asked for.

What would you like to see in terms of how DHS operates oversight of that department and any other changes you're calling for?

Well, as I said, this is really about the American people and what's going to give them a sense of security.

So yes, we need to stop these roving raids that the ICE is doing, just trying to be able to access without a judicial warrant.

They're rounding up of people in large groups, just the way in which they've been treating everybody, including American citizens with detaining and continuing to harass.

We are continuing to see federal agents operating without clearly marked identification.

They cannot be wearing the masks.

We cannot be seeing the types of efforts to avoid and escape accountability.

And just at a very basic level, you know, we need to see a real independent investigation into the killing of Alex Pretty, Renee Good and the others that were killed in detention and in custody of DHS.

Those are just some of the basics.

But that's what the American people are demanding right now.

President Trump came out last night and said that perhaps DHS could use a softer touch.

We saw also Tom Homan take charge in Minneapolis.

Kristi Noem was shifted away from that site will say a lot to break down there.

But let's start with do you believe the president saying that DHS needs a softer touch is a signal that he might be open to some of the reforms that have been suggested.

What it is is damage control.

It's damage control because again he feels the American people are not on his side.

And that's true.

But this is a president who just a couple of days ago also said he's not going to back down in Minnesota or elsewhere.

So you know we need to make sure we're keeping the pressure on.

This president will not change behavior unless it is demanded by the American people.

And so we have to sustain this attention.

What he is hoping for is that the American people will just move on to the next crisis that the 24 hour news cycle will just move on to something else.

And we have to say no that that we are worried about.

It affects so many of us.

And this gets to the heart of our values as a country as well.

And so we need to make sure we're continuing to push.

I want to get back to the leadership of DHS Secretary Christine Noem.

You broke with your party to vote for her.

You voted in support of her confirmation hearing.

Where do you stand on her leading the department right now?

Do you believe she is the right person?

Oh, absolutely not.

You know, I'm on the Homeland Security Committee, so you know, there were certainly those of us on the committee trying to see if we can build some type of business relationship, especially for all the constituents that I've been trying to help and trying to address, hoping that maybe I can be able to get some further answers from DHS.

But clearly, that didn't work out.

She has been abysmal and atrocious.

She should not be in that job any second longer.

She should be removed, and that is something that I hope we can move on towards.

But what I will also say is so much of what I see is really driven from Stephen Miller and Donald Trump.

You know, this is something deep in the rot of this administration.

So even if leadership is changed at DHS or elsewhere, we're just going to see, again, efforts to put in place someone else who will just do whatever Stephen Miller tells them to do.

And that is just showing the level of danger that we have.

So we shouldn't have Kristi Noem, but we shouldn't have Tom Homan, and we shouldn't have Stephen Miller.

We need to see change there, and we need to see the kind of accountability against this administration that is pushing this lawlessness.

It isn't just about a few agents that are acting wrong.

This is a systemic problem straight from the top.

I just have to say, Republicans point out that at one point, Tom Homan was praised by former President Barack Obama, and they say he is somebody that Democrats should be happy is stepping up.

Could he?

You say that he's part of the problem.

You don't see him being a solution?

No, look, I mean, ever since then, you know, he's somebody that went and worked and tried to make a whole lot of money working with Geo Group, a company that is in charge of Delaney Hall up in Newark, that is a for-profit company that is trying to profit off of human misery.

He is somebody that allegedly took $50,000 in cash in a bribe, and this administration has refused to be able to open up an inquiry into this because they're just trying to do a cover-up here.

So I have no confidence in Tom Holman.

Certainly the types of actions and behaviors that he's had since working with President Trump is showing his true colors in terms of how he's operating.

So, Gateway Tunnel, we're going to switch gears a bit.

Gateway Tunnel has been the talk of the town here in New Jersey.

Obviously, we saw two lawsuits against the federal government over the freezing of those funds.

What do you make of the legality of the president freezing the Gateway Tunnel funds that were appropriated by Congress?

Look, this is wrong on so many fronts.

I mean, Congress, we passed this in a bipartisan way to be able to put forward this money.

And the reason why we did it is because the Gateway Tunnel Project is important, not just for New Jersey, not just for New York, but for the entire country.

We're talking about billions of dollars in economic benefit, thousands and thousands of jobs, and the fact that no one benefits from shovels down.

No one benefits from this project being terminated, as the president said.

So why is this happening?

It is really one of the clearest examples of self-sabotage that I've seen in my time in politics so far.

I mean, this is just a self-inflicted wound, and it is all directed by one human being.

One person stands in the way of us being able to move forward, and that is President Trump.

And again, there is no logic to this, apart from what I just imagine is just political retribution, just a desire to have revenge and to use the mechanisms of government against the American people in this way.

You know, this is taxpayer dollars.

You know, this isn't Donald Trump's personal slush fund where he can just choose and pick and choose what he wants to do.

And this is just, you know, something that needs to stop Let me ask you this question, Senator.

We heard this week Senator Lindsey Graham stand next to the President before he signed those bills, and he called for an end to sanctuary states.

He said the federal government needs to force those states to end those types of protections.

Do you see the President's move with the Gateway Tunnel as perhaps an effort to make some of those changes?

And does New Jersey have any concessions it should give in response?

Look, the President has made it very clear why he's stopping the money when it comes to Gateway, which is again just political retribution.

He said it in the Oval Office that he's just, you know, this is his way of trying to get back at Democrats.

But what I will also say is that there is a coalition that I'm a part of in New Jersey, alongside Republican mayors and Republican legislators and others, that say this is important to all of us.

This should not be a political issue at all.

And this is something that we all stand to benefit from.

So we need to stay focused on that.

And the president's going to continue to try to bully people and groups.

And we see that as just his M.O.

over large.

And we can't give into that.

We have to show that we are being strong that we're united in a bipartisan way standing up for the gateway tunnel and standing up for New Jersey.

All right.

U.S.

>> Thank you so much for your time tonight.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> Primary day is finally here in congressional district 11 where democratic voters will select their candidate to run in a special election in April to replace the congressional seat once held by governor Mikey Sherrill.

Polls are open until 8 p.m.

in the district which includes parts of Essex, Morris and Passaic counties.

11 candidates are running on the democratic side and millions of dollars have been spent on the campaigns all in an effort to get voters to turn out in the middle of this deep freeze in February.

Erin Covey has been covering this competitive race.

She leads the cook political reports coverage of the U.S.

House of Representatives and she joins us now.

Erin, so good to have you with us.

Thanks for taking a few minutes.

This race really kind of shows the divide that exists right now within the Democratic Party.

Just explain how and what we're seeing in terms of the candidates who emerged and who are playing very well.

Yeah.

So among the 11 candidates who are running there's really four who people believe have a real path to victory at this point.

And that's former Congressman Tom Malinowski who previously represented the 7th District Ana Lilia Mejia, a former Sanders National Political Director, Tahisha Way, the former Lieutenant Governor, and then Brendan Gill, an Essex County Commissioner.

Now, between those four, Ana Lilia Mejia has really embraced the progressive lane of the party.

She's backed by Bernie Sanders.

She's backed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and has really been able to take up that lane.

The other three leading candidates, I would say, are more in the center of the Democratic Party.

However, there has been an influx of spending from AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby group that has come in against Malinowski.

So that has added another layer that could certainly have an impact on the role that these groups play in further primaries as we get further into the cycle and the outcome will impact which wing of the party has momentum.

Yeah, I want to talk about that Israel piece.

You raise a really interesting point.

We've seen Israel become a real flashpoint in this election and I want to understand why but let's just first set the stage here.

At a recent event with all of the candidates they were asked, this was by a pro-Palestinian group, which of them would agree to not go on a state-sponsored trip to Israel.

Only Annalilia Mejia raised her hand, all the others kept it down.

And then on the flip side we have, as you said, APEC, the American Israel, I don't have the acronym in front of me right now, but the spending group, the political action committee there, putting millions of dollars into attack ads against Malinowski, although they haven't endorsed a candidate.

Why is Israel such a flashpoint here?

Yeah, it's a good question.

Look, I mean, the Democratic Party has had to reckon with the war in Gaza and how it has impacted views of Israel and America over the past couple of years.

And it's true, Anelilia Mejia is the most critical of Israel among the field.

But candidates like Malinowski haven't said, even though he did have a largely very pro-Israel record in Congress, he did not say that he would support totally unconditional aid to Israel.

And so for AIPAC, that's enough to make them want to prevent him from coming to Congress.

Do you think that those ads will have had an impact?

Are voters at the point where they they start to dismiss them and they really don't want to get into the muck?

Yeah, it's a good question.

So as what often happens, the groups that are funding these ads aren't always airing ads that are related to the issues that the group cares the most about.

So in the case of the ads that AIPAC is airing against Malinowski, they are largely focused on two things.

One is that his stock trading became under investigation from the ethics committee while he was in Congress as a result of his stock trading and also his vote for DHS funding which he took along with a large majority of Democrats in 2019 as a part of a deal that Democrats in the House made with President Trump.

However those are the two attacks that AIPAC has used against him.

Brendan Gill one of the other candidates has also attacked Malinowski on his stock trading history.

But again it remains to be seen how much they hurt him.

He started out with this race with a pretty significant advantage having already been in Congress in the neighboring district and was better known.

He also had a decent fundraising advantage over the rest of the field.

And so that has really benefited him even with the attacks that he's been getting in our coverage of this race.

We continue to look at the ground canes that each of these candidates has and how they're able to effectually get out those voters.

As we said in this freezing cold weather in the middle you know the beginning of February what we know early voting numbers have come in.

But how do you see each of their efforts playing out of these top four candidates really in terms of who's going to get out the votes.

Yeah it's a good question.

We've seen all four of these campaigns having active get out the vote campaigns which is uniquely difficult because of the weather but also because of the fact that this election is on a Thursday which is not a normal election day and typically special election.

We would expect them to have lower turnout than a regular scheduled election in November of course.

But the snow and the day of the election has made that an even more difficult task for all of the campaigns.

This is clearly a very New Jersey specific election right here for this primary.

However when you broaden out and you look at the fact that a lot of candidates are gearing up right now for the midterms.

How do you think this election right here signals whether or not Democrats are going to be able to pull this blue wave that they're hoping to pull off come the midterms.

Do you think that this is something we should be watching for that indication.

It's a good question.

Look the New Jersey's 11th district is a pretty safe at this point.

It used to be more competitive.

But at this point we have this rated solid Democrat and we believe that whoever wins the primary tonight will almost certainly go on to win the full special election in April and replace Cheryl in Congress.

However whoever wins the primary could have implications on which wing of the National Party has more momentum going in to 2026.

And that's because this is the first competitive primary that we have really seen in months.

And there's a number of competitive primaries and a lot of these House seats that will ultimately decide control of the House in November.

You raise a great point there and I wonder if New Jersey ends up being similar to New York in the sense that people say, well, OK, if a progressive wins, that's a progressive state versus if a moderate wins.

That's probably a boon to Democrats more in the center of the country and other parts of the country.

How do you think.

What are you.

What's your take on that.

The good question.

Obviously Mikey Sherrill was a bit more in the center of the party.

But she of course won the very competitive primary for the open governor's race last year and went on to win the regular the general election by a pretty wide margin despite polls showing it close.

So I think that was a good sign for maybe the more moderate wing of the party.

But then of So, of course, you saw Zoran Mamdani's victory in the New York City mayoral race was a huge boom for the progressive wing of the party.

So if someone like Annalilia Mejia is able to win the primary, I think that the progressive wing will take that as an indication of their strength going forward into a lot of these races.

You know, there are quite a few incumbents in Congress who are facing challengers on their left this cycle as well.

And a lot of these groups that are involved in all of these races are looking at New Jersey's 11th District as the first test case of how well that wing of the party will be able to do going forward.

Yeah.

Erin Covey, editor at The Cook Political Report's coverage of the U.S.

House of Representatives.

Thank you for your insight.

Appreciate your time today.

Well, it's finally time for the big game.

And for many people, it's time to place a big bet or two.

The Super Bowl is this weekend and the NFL's championship game is expected to once again be the biggest day of the year for sports betting.

But there's a twist this year.

The rise of prediction markets where you can bet on random real life events.

It's created even more options for gamblers.

But those options might create safety risks for bettors.

Raven Santana reports.

The biggest Sunday in sports is here.

The Super Bowl and this year, it's also expected to be the biggest betting night yet.

The Sports Betting Alliance, which includes Draft Kings and FanDuel, estimates $1.7 billion will be legally wagered on this year's Super Bowl.

That's up from about $1.4 billion last year.

In partnership with Legal Sports Report, the Sports Betting Alliance came out with a legal wager projection.

We are forecasting nationally $1.7 billion in legal wagers.

And in the state of New Jersey, it remains one of the top legal sports wagering jurisdictions throughout the country.

with Nevada and New York about picking a winner fr books offer thousands of nearly every moment of th types of bets when it com overs, overs on touchdown the quarterback overs on the popular star wide receiver having a certain number of receiving yards or touchdowns.

But as betting options grow, so do concerns about new forms of wagering entering the market.

Prediction markets, where users trade on the outcome of events, could see tens of millions of dollars in activity tied to the Super Bowl.

Another gambling trade group, the American Gaming Association, warns prediction markets could confuse consumers by promoting sports betting as an investment rather than entertainment and says many lack responsible gaming protections.

Ultimately, the Sports Betting Alliance, we do not have a position on prediction markets.

Some members have launched prediction market products, others have not, but it's certainly affecting the discussion, the policy discussion in a lot of jurisdictions.

And, you know, like New Jersey and in Ne considering certain types What does that mean when other categories of gamin and advertising to residen with similar types of prod regulatory regimes.

Overa Alliance is urging better platforms and have consum and responsible gaming to in unregulated markets.

O betting on activity that you're in an app where yo to do with the play on th things we saw in years pa for the chiefs in the Su Swift's movements around probably in an illegal an Louise del Orbe is the ex the Council on compulsive and says another concern they cannot afford to los economic pressures grow a easier to access through Uh, everything that's goi not working and because t in gambling, they figure maybe I can use this to s He says the rapid expansi especially in game or so called micro bets placed could increase risks for New Jersey lawmakers are that would restrict cert bets, citing concerns the behavior because microbe action.

Delore Bay says t reflects consumer demand away from illegal markets oversight.

Do not engage because first of all, you if you do win as betting I spoke with agrees on on the game but gamble respo News.

I'm Raven Santana a do it for us tonight.

I'm the entire team at N. M. Insurance Group, serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

♪♪ and businesses for more than 100 years.

[music]