POLITICS

SEATTLE — First-term Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell conceded his reelection fight to progressive activist Katie Wilson on Thursday, handing another victory to leftist Democrats around the country frustrated with unaffordability, homelessness, public safety and the actions of President Trump’s administration.

Harrell, a centrist Democrat who previously served three terms on the City Council, led in early results. But Washington conducts all-mail elections, with ballots postmarked by Election Day. Later-arriving votes, which historically trend more liberal, broke heavily in Wilson’s favor, adding to a progressive shift to the left nationally.

In a concession speech at City Hall on Thursday afternoon, Harrell said he had congratulated Wilson in a “delightful” call.

“I feel very good about the future of this country and this city still,” he said.

Wilson, 43, is a democratic socialist who has never held elected office. She told a news conference later Thursday that it was hard for her to believe she had been elected mayor, considering that at the beginning of this year she had no intention of running, and she acknowledged concerns about her lack of experience: “No one saw this coming.”

But she also spoke to the resonance of her volunteer-driven campaign among voters concerned about affordability and public safety in a city where the cost of living has soared as Amazon and other tech companies proliferated. Universal child care, better mass transit, better public safety and stable, affordable housing are among her priorities, and she said she would take office with a strong mandate to pursue them, though she acknowledged the city also faces a significant budget shortfall.

Wilson called herself a coalition builder and community organizer, and said she would also work with those who questioned her qualifications to lead a city with more than 13,000 employees and a budget of nearly $9 billion: “This is your city too.”

“When I say this is your city, that means you have a right to be here and to live a dignified life — whatever your background, whatever your income,” Wilson said. “But it also means that we all have a collective responsibility for this city and for each other. … We cannot tackle the major challenges facing our city unless we do it together.”

She will be working with a relatively new City Council: Only two of the seven council members have served more than one term.

Harrell was elected mayor in 2021 following the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice protests over George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. With crime falling, more police being hired, less visible drug use and many homeless encampments removed from city parks, the business-backed Harrell once seemed likely to cruise to reelection.

But Trump’s return to office — and his efforts to send in federal agents or cut funding for blue cities — helped reawaken Seattle’s progressive voters. The lesser-known Wilson, a democratic socialist, ran a campaign that echoed some of the themes of progressive mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York. She trounced Harrell by nearly 10 percentage points in the August primary and quickly became favored to win the mayor’s office.

Wilson studied at an Oxford University college in England but did not graduate. She founded the small nonprofit Transit Riders Union in 2011 and has led campaigns for better public transportation, higher minimum wages, stronger renter protections and more affordable housing. She herself is a renter, living in a one-bedroom apartment in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, and says that has shaped her understanding of Seattle’s affordability crisis.

Wilson criticized Harrell as doing too little to provide more shelter and said his encampment sweeps have been cosmetic, merely pushing unhoused people around the city. Wilson also painted him as a City Hall fixture who bore responsibility for the status quo.

Harrell, 67, played on the Rose Bowl champion University of Washington football team in 1978 before going to law school. His father, who was Black, came to Seattle from the segregated Jim Crow South, and his mother, a Japanese American, was incarcerated at an internment camp in Minidoka, Idaho, during World War II after officials seized her family’s Seattle flower shop — experiences that fostered his understanding of the importance of civil rights and inclusivity.

Both candidates touted plans for affordable housing, combating crime and attempting to Trump-proof the city, which receives about $150 million a year in federal funding. Both want to protect Seattle’s sanctuary city status.

Wilson has proposed a city-level capital gains tax to help offset federal funding the city might lose and to pay for housing. Harrell says that idea is ineffective because a city capital gains tax could easily be avoided by those who would be required to pay it.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

ATLANTA — The leader of a nonpartisan organization announced he will take over the Georgia election interference case against President Trump and others after Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis was removed from the case.

The Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia was tasked with finding someone to lead the case after Willis was disqualified over an “appearance of impropriety” created by a romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she’d chosen to lead it. The organization’s executive director, Pete Skandalakis, said Friday that he would take the case on himself.

“The filing of this appointment reflects my inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility for this case,” Skandalakis said in an emailed statement. “Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment.”

While it is unlikely that any action against Trump could proceed while he is the sitting president, there are 14 other people still facing charges in the case, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

Trump earlier this week announced pardons for people accused of backing his efforts to overturn the results of that election — including those charged in Georgia — but that doesn’t affect state charges.

After the Georgia Supreme Court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal of her disqualification, it fell to the nonpartisan Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council to find a new prosecutor. Skandalakis can continue to follow Willis’ vision for the prosecution, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether.

“While it would have been simple to allow Judge McAfee’s deadline to lapse or to inform the Court that no conflict prosecutor could be secured — thereby allowing the case to be dismissed for want of prosecution — I did not believe that to be the right course of action,” Skandalakis wrote. “The public has a legitimate interest in the outcome of this case. Accordingly, it is important that someone make an informed and transparent determination about how best to proceed.”

The Associated Press sent text messages seeking comment to a spokesperson for Willis and a lawyer for Trump.

Willis announced the sprawling indictment against Trump and 18 others in August 2023. She used the state’s anti-racketeering law to allege a wide-ranging conspiracy to try to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Defense attorneys sought Willis’ removal after one of them revealed in January 2024 that Willis had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. The defense attorneys said the relationship created a conflict of interest, alleging that Willis personally profited from the case when Wade used his earnings to pay for vacations the pair took.

During an extraordinary hearing the following month, Willis and Wade both testified about the intimate details of their personal relationship. They maintained that their romance didn’t begin until after Wade was hired and said that they split the costs for vacations and other outings.

The trial judge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, rebuked Willis, saying in an order in March 2024 that her actions showed a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” But he said he did not find a conflict of interest that would disqualify Willis. He ultimately ruled that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned, which the special prosecutor did hours later.

Defense attorneys appealed that ruling, and the Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the case in December, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The high court in September declined to hear Willis’ appeal.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

The battle to replace storied, 80-year-old union chief Jack Henning as head of the California Labor Federation appears to have been wrapped up with a deal calling for the two leading candidates to join forces and run on a combined slate.

The quietly negotiated pact, averting a potentially divisive battle among California’s unions in a pivotal election year, calls for 43-year-old Art Pulaski, head of the San Mateo County Central Labor Council, to move into Henning’s job as executive secretary-treasurer.

Slated to take the No. 2 job of president is Tom Rankin, 54, who for nearly 13 years has served as Henning’s top legislative aide. As president, Rankin would continue handling similar legislative duties.

Left out of the coalition ticket was the only other declared candidate for the helm of the labor federation, Dan Curtin, director of the California Council of Carpenters. Curtin, considered previously to be a distant third in the running and now believed to hold virtually no chance of derailing the Pulaski-Rankin ticket, could not be reached for comment.

The job of executive secretary-treasurer would catapult Pulaski into a hugely influential role as chief spokesman for the state’s unionized workers. The federation represents 1,200 AFL-CIO local unions covering 1.5-million workers in California.

If elected at the federation’s upcoming convention, which is scheduled for the last week of July in Los Angeles, Pulaski said his main goal would be to promote grass-roots union political campaigning throughout the state.

To that end, Pulaski said he would try to hire as many as 10 political staffers to help labor organizations throughout the state to push union-friendly candidates and issues. “We’ll be targeting districts where we can put in people more responsive to worker interests,” he said.

Leading the Pulaski-Rankin agenda is a proposition expected to be on California’s November ballot to raise the minimum wage, which has been $4.25 an hour since 1988, up to $5.75 an hour as of March 1998.

Both Pulaski and Rankin said they recently were persuaded to team up by union supporters around the state who wanted to avoid a punishing election struggle.

Rankin would replace Albin J. Gruhn, 81, as president. Gruhn, widely expected to retire this year after 36 years as the federation’s No. 2 official, said Monday that he will officially announce his plans next month.

Currently, the executive secretary-treasurer’s job pays $82,500 a year, while the president’s post pays $71,500.

Henning, who has played no public role in the contest to determine his successor, could not be reached for comment.

Starting Saturday, NBCUniversal’s cable news channel MSNBC will be called MS NOW, a makeover that may come as a shock to its loyal audience.

It’s why every MSNBC host has been sending the same message in promotional spots, on their programs and in press interviews about the new moniker. They say: We’re not going anywhere and we’re not changing.

“ ‘Morning Joe’ will still be ‘Morning Joe,’ ” said the program’s co-host Joe Scarborough in a recent Zoom conversation. “Chris Hayes will still be Chris Hayes. Rachel Maddow will still be Rachel. Lawrence O’Donnell will still be Lawrence.”

“We’re just going to keep doing what we do,” added Scarborough’s wife and co-host, Mika Brzezinski.

While no programming changes are planned, the rebranding will be a test in an age when brand awareness is difficult to achieve as the media marketplace is highly fractured. MSNBC kept its name for 29 years even after its founding partner Microsoft gave up its stake in the network.

Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe.”

(MSNBC)

MS NOW — an acronym for “My Source for News, Opinion and the World” — is the result of the politically progressive network being spun off into a company called Versant. Parent company Comcast announced the move last year as it no longer wants the slow, steady decline of the cable business holding back its stock price. Versant, which also includes CNBC, USA Network, Oxygen, E! and Golf Channel, will be its own publicly traded company starting in January.

The new ownership for MSNBC led to a separation from NBC News, which operated MSNBC since its launch in 1996. Although Versant leadership initially said the name would remain, NBCUniversal wanted to avoid having the network’s brand attached to a channel it no longer controlled.

Versant executives will likely be nervous when they look at the Nielsen ratings the first few weeks after the name change. But Julie Doughty, regional executive director of naming and verbal identity for the global brand consulting firm Landor, believes the shift is minor enough for consumers to get used to quickly.

“I’m sure they were concerned about disrupting the brand awareness they’ve built and losing the legitimacy and gravitas of the NBC name,” Doughty said. “This new name closely tracks the original. It has the same number of letters. MS is still in the front, which is a nice bit of continuity for those customers who already just shorten the name to MS.”

Doughty added, “The real test will come in the content. Will it continue to have high standards and deserve their trust as a mainstream new source?”

The network appeared to pass its first big test as a freestanding news organization with coverage of the Nov. 4 off-year election that saw a strong showing for the Democrats and the passage of the congressional redistricting proposition in California.

Nielsen data showed MSNBC finished well ahead of CNN on the night and just slightly behind perennial cable news ratings leader Fox News.

MSNBC becomes MS NOW on Nov. 15.

(MSNBC)

MS NOW executives say they remain committed to covering breaking news, staffing the channel’s own Washington bureau and entering news-gathering agreements with Sky for international coverage and AccuWeather. A number of NBC News journalists, including White House correspondent Vaughn Hillyard, justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian and national correspondent Jacob Soboroff, moved to MS NOW with the belief there will be more opportunities for expansive reporting.

“I won’t say their names, but some of the best reporters at NBC are far more disappointed with this than we are,” Scarborough said. “Their window just went from having 30 minutes on ‘Morning Joe,’ where influencers are, to 35 seconds on a morning show or maybe a sound bite on ‘NBC Nightly News.’”

The network is leaning heavily into promoting its lineup of personalities who in the current era of divided politics serve as tribal leaders for the audience.

“One of the things that so impressed me three years ago when I joined MS was the depth of the relationship with the fans,” MSNBC President Rebecca Kutler said at a recent press breakfast at the network’s new headquarters in Midtown Manhattan once occupied by the New York Times. “Eight hours a week — that is a ton of time and that is how much people watch us.”

The only signature MSNBC talent who chose to go with NBC News is political analyst Steve Kornacki. Willie Geist will remain host of NBC’s “Sunday Today” in addition to his duties on “Morning Joe.”

MSNBC on-air personalities believe the lack of a large corporate owner will be freeing at a time when journalism organizations and their parent companies are fearing the wrath of President Trump and his threats of business-related retribution over coverage he doesn’t like.

Last month at an MSNBC fan event in Manhattan, Maddow stirred up the crowd by touting the network’s editorial independence. She called the network a “nontoxic workplace” that is “at no risk of right-wing bloggers who are some billionaire’s friend.”

The comment was a reference to Bari Weiss, founder of anti-”woke” website the Free Press, who was hired to be editor in chief of CBS News and is a clear favorite of parent company Paramount’s chief executive, David Ellison.

Scarborough and Brzezinski said they have noticed how fans greet them with a bit more intensity since Trump has returned to the White House.

“When people see us on the street or the airport, they hug us a little longer and they thank us a little more,” Scarborough said. “They ask if everything is going to be OK.”

Scarborough said the new corporate setup will allow more entrepreneurial opportunities for the on-air talent in other platforms such as newsletters, podcasts and live events.

She’s a little bit country; he’s a little bit rock ‘n’ roll.

And me? I’m a little bit stunned. Two politicians have emerged, against all odds, to surprise and impress us this year: Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

You’d be hard-pressed to find two Americans less similar — politically, culturally, geographically, maybe even molecularly. These two occupy opposite poles. She’s NASCAR and CrossFit. He’s electric vehicles and Pinot Noir. They shouldn’t have much in common, but lately, both have done the unthinkable: They’ve taken on President Trump and lived (politically) to tell about it.

Let’s start with Greene because, honestly, she’s more fun.

For years, MTG was seen as an embarrassment. The QAnon congresswoman. The “Jewish space laser” lady. The lawmaker who, just two years prior to winning her House seat, questioned whether a plane really hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

She harassed a then-teenage Parkland survivor and coined the immortal phrase “gazpacho police,” apparently confusing the soup with Nazi secret police.

But then, something strange happened: Greene started making sense. Not “agree with her at dinner” sense, but the “wait, that’s not totally insane” kind.

She blasted Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, which — if you take the “America First” philosophy literally and not just as performance art — is consistent with her beliefs. And in a time when selling out is perceived as being shrewder than standing for something, the mere act of holding a consistent position is a virtue.

MTG also called out her own party for blocking the Epstein files, and volunteered to walk “on the House floor and say every damn name that abused these women.”

And in an act of shocking populist coherence, she ripped into Republicans for letting Obamacare subsidies expire: “Health insurance premiums will DOUBLE,” she thundered on X, adding: “Not a single Republican in leadership talked to us about this or has given us a plan to help Americans deal with their health insurance premiums DOUBLING!!!”

Trump, naturally, took all this personally. “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie,” he said, recently. “Nice woman, but she’s lost her way.” To which Greene, never one to back down, fired back: “I haven’t lost my way. I’m 100% America First and only!”

The thing I’m liking about Greene isn’t just that she’s standing up to Trump — although, I admit, it’s fun to watch. But what’s really refreshing is that she’s a true believer who got elected, got famous and yet continues to believe.

Which brings us to Gavin Newsom.

Newsom has always been the poster boy for everything people hate about California — a man who looks like he was genetically engineered by a Napa Valley venture capitalist to play a slick politician.

The “important” coiffed hair. The smug grin. The French Laundry dinner during COVID-19, while the rest of us were holed up in our houses microwaving Lean Cuisines.

Once upon a time, he and his then-wife, Kimberly Guilfoyle, posed on a rug for a Harper’s Bazaar spread where they were dubbed “The New Kennedys.”

Enough said.

If Greene is the quintessential MAGA mama, Newsom is the slick bro you want to throat punch. But somehow he has had a banner year.

Newsom stood firm against ICE raids and troop deployments in Los Angeles. Then, he trolled Trump with online memes that actually landed.

After Texas Republicans tried to grab five congressional seats for the GOP, Newsom shepherded Prop. 50 through California — an amendment to the state constitution aimed at mitigating Texas’ gerrymandering by redrawing maps to help Democrats even the score.

Then, he waltzed into Houston for a celebratory rally — some political end zone dancing on the opponents’ home turf, just to twist the knife.

Like Greene, the guy has moxie.

And here’s the thing I’m learning from the Trump era: Guts come from the most unlikely places, and looks can be deceiving.

You never know when some heroic-looking leader will fold like a cheap suit, just like you never know when some “heel” out of central casting for villains will turn “face” and rise to the occasion.

I don’t mean to sound naive. I’m not proposing a Newsom-Greene 2028 unity ticket. (Although … tell me you wouldn’t watch that convention.)

The odds are, both of these figures will disappoint me again, probably by next Thursday. Life is complicated, and it’s sometimes hard to disentangle heroism from opportunism.

Indeed, some have speculated that MTG’s sudden streak of independence is the result of Trump putting the kibosh on a “Greene for U.S. Senate” bid in Georgia. And as for Newsom — is his show of toughness an act of patriotism, or a prelude to his own presidential campaign?

Frankly, that’s a difference without a distinction.

For now, here’s what is clear: These two political figures have shown a flash — a glimmer — of something like backbone.

And in the year of our Lord 2025, that’s rarer, and more valuable, than almost any commodity in politics.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond. In your inbox twice per week.

By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service and our Privacy Policy.

Agree & Continue

With the longest U.S. government shutdown over, state officials said Thursday that they are working quickly to get full SNAP food benefits to millions of people, though it could still take up to a week for some to receive their delayed aid.

A back-and-forth series of court rulings and shifting policies from President Trump’s administration has led to a patchwork distribution of November benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. While some states had already issued full SNAP benefits, about two-thirds of states had issued only partial benefits or none at all before the government shutdown ended late Wednesday, according to an Associated Press tally.

The federal food program serves about 42 million people, or about 1 in 8 Americans, in lower-income households. They receive an average of about $190 monthly per person, though that doesn’t necessarily cover the full cost of groceries for a regular month.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs the program, said in an email Wednesday that funds could be available “upon the government reopening, within 24 hours for most states.” But the agency didn’t say whether that timeline indicates when the money will be available to states or when it could be loaded onto the electronic cards used by beneficiaries.

West Virginia, which hadn’t issued SNAP benefits, should have full November benefits for all recipients by Friday, Gov. Patrick Morrisey said Thursday.

The Illinois Department of Human Services, which previously issued partial November benefits, said Thursday that it is “working to restore full SNAP benefits.” But it won’t happen instantly.

“We anticipate that the remaining benefit payments will be made over several days, starting tomorrow,” the department said in a statement, and that “all SNAP recipients will receive their full November benefits by November 20th.”

Colorado officials said late Wednesday that they are switching from delivering partial to full SNAP benefits, which could be loaded onto electronic cards starting as soon as Thursday.

Missouri’s Department of Social Services, which issued partial SNAP payments Tuesday, said Thursday that it is waiting for USDA guidance on how to issue the remaining November SNAP benefits but would move quickly once that guidance is received.

Paused SNAP payments stirred stress for some families

The delayed SNAP payments posed a new complication for Lee Harris’ family since his spouse was laid off a few months ago.

Harris, 34, said his North Little Rock, Ark., family got help from his temple and received food left by someone who was moving. With that assistance — and the knowledge that other families have greater needs — they skipped stopping by the food pantry they have sometimes used.

Harris’ family, including his three daughters, hasbeen able to keep meals fairly close to normal despite missing a SNAP payment this week. But they have still experienced stress and uncertainty.

“Not knowing a definite end,” Harris said, “I don’t know how much I need to stretch what I have in our pantry.”

Federal legislation funds SNAP for a year

The USDA told states Oct. 24 that it would not fund SNAP benefits for November amid the government shutdown. Many Democratic-led states sued to have the funding restored.

After judges ruled the Trump administration must tap into reserves to fund SNAP, the administration said it would fund up to 65% of its regular allocations. When a judge subsequently ordered full benefits, some states scrambled to quickly load SNAP benefits onto participants’ cards during a one-day window before the Supreme Court put that order on hold Friday.

Meanwhile, other states went forward with partial benefits, and still others issued nothing while waiting for further USDA guidance on the situation.

Amid the uncertainty over federal SNAP funding, some states tapped into their own funds to provide direct aid to SNAP recipients or additional money for nonprofit food banks.

The legislation to reopen the U.S. government provides full SNAP benefits not only for November but also for the remainder of the federal fiscal year, which runs through next September. Citing that legislation, the Justice Department on Thursday dropped its request for the Supreme Court to continue blocking a judicial order to pay full SNAP benefits.

Mulvihill and Lieb write for the Associated Press. AP writers John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill.; John Raby in Charleston, W.Va.; and Colleen Slevin in Denver contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Now that the government shutdown is over, House and Senate Republicans say they will negotiate with Democrats on whether to extend COVID-era tax credits that help tens of millions of Americans afford their healthcare premiums. But finding bipartisan agreement could be difficult, if not impossible, before the subsidies expire at the end of the year.

The shutdown ended this week after a small group of Democrats made a deal with Republicans senators who promised a vote by mid-December on extending the Affordable Care Act subsidies. But there is no guaranteed outcome, and many Republicans have made clear they want the credits to expire.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called the subsidies a “boondoggle” immediately after the House voted Wednesday to end the shutdown, and President Trump said the Obama-era healthcare overhaul was “disaster” as he signed the reopening bill into law.

It is far from the outcome that Democrats had hoped for as they kept the government closed for 43 days, demanding that Republicans negotiate with them on an extension before premiums sharply increase. But they say they will try again as the expiration date approaches.

“It remains to be seen if they are serious,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. But he said Democrats “are just getting started.”

Republicans have been meeting privately to discuss the issue. Some want to extend the subsidies, with changes, to avoid the widespread increases in premiums. Others, like Johnson and Trump, want to start a new conversation about overhauling “Obamacare” entirely — a redo after a similar effort in 2017 failed.

Democrats push for extension

Healthcare has long been one of the most difficult issues on Capitol Hill, marked by deep ideological and political divides. Partisan disagreement over the 2010 law has persisted for more than a decade, and relationships are already strained from weeks of partisan tensions over the shutdown.

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said that while Republicans have promised negotiations and a Senate vote, Democrats are wary. She noted that Johnson has not committed to anything in the House.

“Do I trust any of them? Hell no,” DeLauro said.

If the two sides cannot agree, as many as 24 million people who get their healthcare from the exchanges created by the law could see their premiums go up Jan. 1. New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, one of the Democrats who struck a deal with Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to reopen the government, said she thinks an agreement on the tax credits is possible.

During the talks that led to the shutdown’s end, Shaheen said she and other moderate Democrats sat across from Thune and “looked him eye to eye” as he committed to a serious effort.

“We’re going to have a chance to vote on a bill that we will write by mid-December, in a way that gives us a chance to build — hopefully build — bipartisan support to get that through,” Shaheen said.

While Democrats would like to see a permanent extension of the tax credits, most realize that is unlikely. Just before the shutdown ended, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York proposed a one-year extension and a bipartisan committee to address Republican demands for changes to the Affordable Care Act. But Thune said that was a “nonstarter” as the government remained shut down.

In the House, Democrats have proposed a three-year extension.

What Republicans want

While Republicans have long sought to scrap Obamacare, they have had challenges over the years in figuring out what would replace it. That problem plagued the 2017 effort, when then-Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cast the deciding vote to kill a bill on the Senate floor that was short on detail.

Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, chairman of the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) have proposed overhauling the law to create accounts that would direct the money to individuals instead of insurance companies. Those are ideas that Trump echoed as he signed the funding bill Wednesday evening.

“I want the money to go directly to you, the people,” Trump said.

It is unclear exactly how that would work, and scrapping the law in its current form would take months, if not years, to negotiate, even if Republicans could find the votes to do it.

Slow start to negotiations

Some moderate Republicans in the House have said they want to work with Democrats to extend the subsidies before the deadline, which is only weeks away. In a letter to Thune and Schumer on Wednesday, Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, the Republican co-chair of the Bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, encouraged negotiations.

“Our sense of urgency cannot be greater,” Fitzpatrick wrote. “Our willingness to cooperate has no limits.”

So far, though, Senate Republicans have been meeting on their own to figure out their own differences.

“Right now, it’s just getting consensus among ourselves,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Monday after GOP members of the Senate Finance Committee met to discuss possible ways forward.

Tillis is supportive of extending the tax credits, but said lawmakers also need to find a way to reduce costs. If the two sides cannot eventually agree, Tillis said, Republicans may have to try to figure out a way to do it on their own, potentially using budget maneuvers that enabled them to pass Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” this summer without any Democratic votes.

“We should have that in our back pocket too,” Tillis said.

Another shutdown?

Some House Democrats have raised the possibility that there could be another shutdown if they are unable to win concessions on healthcare. The bill signed by Trump will fully fund some parts of the government, but others run out of money again at the end of January if Congress does not act.

“I think it depends on the vulnerable House Republicans who are not going to be able to go back to their constituents without telling them that they’ve done something on healthcare,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

“We’ll just have to see” if there could be another shutdown, said Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside).

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said he is “not going to vote to endorse their cruelty” if Republicans do not extend the subsidies.

DeLauro said that Republicans have wanted to repeal the ACA since it was first enacted. “That’s where they’re trying to go,” she said.

“When it comes to Jan. 30 we’ll see what progress has been made,” she said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON —  A slow drip of revelations detailing President Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein that have burdened the White House all year has turned into a deluge after House lawmakers released reams of documents that imply the president may have intimate knowledge of his friend’s criminal activity.

The scope of Epstein’s interest in Trump became clear Thursday as media organizations combed through more than 20,000 documents from the convicted sex offender’s estate released by the House Oversight Committee, prompting a bipartisan majority in the House — including up to half of Republican lawmakers — to pledge support for a measure to compel the Justice Department to release all files related to its investigation of Epstein.

In one email discovered Thursday, sent by Epstein to himself months before he died by suicide in federal custody, he wrote: “Trump knew.” The White House has denied that Trump knew about or was involved in Epstein’s years-long operation that abused over 200 women and girls.

The scandal comes at a precarious political moment for Trump, who faces a 36% approval rating, according to the latest Associated Press-NORC survey, and whose grip on the Republican Party and MAGA movement has begun to slip as his final term in office begins winding down leading up to next year’s midterm elections.

Attempts by the Trump administration to quash the scandal have failed to shake interest in the case from the public across the political spectrum.

The records paint the most expansive picture yet of Trump’s relationship with Epstein, the subject of unending fascination and conspiracy theories online, as well as growing bipartisan interest in Congress.

In several emails, Epstein, a disgraced financier who maintained a close friendship with Trump until a falling-out in the mid-2000s, said that the latter “knew about the girls” involved in his operation and that Trump “spent hours” with one in private. Epstein also alleged that he could “take him down” with damaging information.

In several exchanges, Epstein portrayed himself as someone who knew Trump well. Emails show how he tracked Trump’s business practices and the evolution of the president’s political endeavors.

Other communications show Epstein closely monitoring Trump’s movements at the beginning of his first term in office, at one point attempting to communicate with the Russian government to share his “insight” into Trump’s proclivities and thinking.

White House officials attempted to thwart the effort to release the files Wednesday, holding a tense meeting with a GOP congresswoman in the White House Situation Room, a move the administration said demonstrated its willingness “to sit down with members of Congress to address their concerns.”

But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York accused the White House and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of “running a pedophile protection program” for trying to block efforts to release the Epstein files.

The legislative effort in the House does not guarantee a vote in the Senate, much less bipartisan approval of the measure there. And the president — who has for months condemned his supporters for their repeated calls for transparency in the case — would almost certainly veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.

Epstein died in a federal prison in Manhattan awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking in 2019. His death was ruled a suicide by the New York City medical examiner and the Justice Department’s inspector general.

As reporters sift through the documents in the coming days, Trump’s relationship with Epstein is likely to remain in the spotlight.

In one email Epstein sent to himself shortly before his imprisonment and death, he wrote that Trump knew of the financier’s sexual activity during a period where he was accused of wrongdoing.

“Trump knew of it,” he wrote, “and came to my house many times during that period.”

“He never got a massage,” Epstein added. Epstein paid for “massages” from girls that often led to sexual activity.

Trump has blamed Democrats for the issue bubbling up again.

“Democrats are using the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax to try and deflect from their massive failures, in particular, their most recent one — THE SHUTDOWN!” the president wrote Wednesday in a social media post, hours after the records were made public.

Trump made a public appearance later that day to sign legislation ending the government shutdown but declined to answer as reporters shouted questions about Epstein after the event.

Trump comes up in several emails

The newly released correspondence gives a rare look at how Epstein, in his own words, related to Trump in ways that were not previously known. In some cases, Epstein’s correspondence suggests the president knew more about Epstein’s criminal conduct than Trump has let on.

In the months leading up to Epstein’s arrest on sex trafficking charges, he mentioned Trump in a few emails that imply the latter knew about the financier’s victims.

In January 2019, Epstein wrote to author Michael Wolff that Trump “knew about the girls,” as he discussed his membership at Mar-a-Lago, the president’s South Florida private club and resort.

Trump has said that he ended his relationship with Epstein because he had “hired away” one of his female employees at Mar-a-Lago. The White House has also said Trump banned Epstein from his club because he was “being a creep.”

“Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever,” Epstein wrote in the email to Wolff.

One of the employees was Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s survivors who died by suicide this year. Giuffre said in a civil case deposition that she never witnessed Trump sexually abuse minors in Epstein’s home.

Republicans in the House Oversight Committee identified Giuffre as one of the victims whose names are redacted in an April 2011 email.

In that email, Epstein wrote to Ghislane Maxwell, a former associate who was later sentenced for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors, that Trump was “the dog that hasn’t barked.”

“[Victim] spent hours at my house with him,” Epstein wrote. “He has never once been mentioned.”

“I have been thinking about that…,” Maxwell replied.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Wednesday that the emails “prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong.”

News over the summer that Trump had penned a lewd birthday card to Epstein, drawing the silhouette of a naked woman with a note reading, “may every day be another wonderful secret,” had sparked panic in the West Wing that the files could have prolific mentions of Trump.

CHICAGO — A Chicago day-care center employee who was detained by immigration agents at work as children were being dropped off last week has been released, according to her attorney.

Diana Santillana Galeano was detained Nov. 5 at the Rayito de Sol Spanish Immersion Early Learning Center on the north side of Chicago. A video showed officers struggling with her as they walked out the front door. Her attorneys said in a statement Thursday that she was released from a detention center in Indiana on Wednesday night.

“We are thrilled that Ms. Santillana was released, and has been able to return home to Chicago where she belongs,” attorney Charlie Wysong said in the statement. “We will continue to pursue her immigration claims to stay in the United States. We are grateful to her community for the outpouring of support over these difficult days, and ask that her privacy be respected while she rests and recovers from this ordeal.”

Her case reflects the Trump administration’s increasingly aggressive enforcement tactics. But her detention at a day care was unusual even under “Operation Midway Blitz,” which has resulted in more than 3,000 immigration arrests in the Chicago area since early September. Agents have rappelled from a Black Hawk helicopter in a middle-of-the-night apartment building raid, appeared with overwhelming force in recreational areas and launched tear gas amid protests.

“I am so grateful to everyone who has advocated on my behalf, and on behalf of the countless others who have experienced similar trauma over recent months in the Chicago area,” Santillana Galeano said in the same statement. “I love our community and the children I teach, and I can’t wait to see them again.”

The Department of Homeland Security said last week that the woman, who is from Colombia, entered the U.S. illegally in June 2023 but obtained authorization to work under the Biden administration. The department denied that the day care was targeted.

As Gov. Gavin Newsom flew around the country last year campaigning for President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, his chief of staff Dana Williamson — known as one of California’s toughest political insiders — was not only helping to helm the ship in Sacramento, but under criminal investigation by federal law enforcement.

The resulting criminal case, which splashed into public view with Williamson’s arrest Wednesday, does not implicate Newsom in any wrongdoing. Williamson’s alleged misdeeds occurred in private work prior to her joining his staff, and his office said it placed her on leave in November 2024 after she informed him she was under investigation.

Nonetheless, the bombshell allegations struck at the center of the political power circle surrounding Newsom, rattling one of the nation’s most prominent and important hubs of Democratic state power at a time when President Trump and his Republican administration wield power in Washington.

Williamson was charged with bank and tax fraud for allegedly siphoning campaign and COVID-19 recovery funds into her and an associate’s pockets and claiming personal luxuries as business expenses on tax forms. According to the indictment, the campaign funds were drawn from a dormant state account of another top California Democrat: gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra.

Two other well-connected aides in state politics were also charged — and struck plea deals confirming the scheme — while a third, with deep ties to one of the most well-connected circles of political and business consultants in the country, appeared in charging documents as an uncharged co-conspirator.

Williamson’s attorney McGregor Scott, a former U.S. attorney in Sacramento, told The Times on Wednesday that federal authorities had approached Williamson more than a year ago, seeking help with some kind of probe of the governor himself.

“She told them she had no information to provide them, and then we wind up today with these charges,” Scott said. The nature of that alleged probe is unclear.

Newsom’s office on Thursday said it was “not aware of any federal investigation involving the governor.”

Lauren Horwood, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office in Sacramento, said she could not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation involving Newsom, in accordance with Justice Department policy. None of the charging documents released in the cases against the three aides mention Newsom.

A loquacious liberal foil to Trump and likely 2028 presidential contender, Newsom has been in Brazil since Sunday and on Wednesday left for a planned trip into the Amazon with a small delegation after attending the United Nations climate summit known as COP30. He left the conference before news of Williamson’s arrest, and could not be reached directly by The Times for comment.

In his absence, Newsom’s representatives have tried to draw a connection between the federal case and the contentious relationship between California and the Trump administration, though offered no evidence that the investigation was influenced by the White House.

“At a time when the president is openly calling for his attorney general to investigate his political enemies, it is especially important to honor the American principle of being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of one’s peers,” a Newsom spokesperson said Wednesday.

“Under the Trump administration, the DOJ routinely targets the state, which has resulted in us suing the federal administration 46 times,” a Newsom spokesperson said Thursday.

Trump and his administration have been accused of using their power — and control over the Justice Department — to go after his political enemies. Charges reportedly deemed weak and unfounded by career prosecutors have been brought forward anyway against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, while Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is being investigated for years-old occupancy claims in mortgage documents. All have denied wrongdoing.

The case against Williamson and the other California aides, however, is something different — originating years ago under the Biden administration.

“Today’s charges are the result of three years of relentless investigative work, in partnership with IRS Criminal Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office,” FBI Sacramento Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel said Wednesday.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, rejected the notion that the case was in any way driven by the Trump administration or politically motivated.

“What an absurd claim to make when public reporting has already noted that this investigation began under the Biden DOJ,” Jackson said. “The Trump administration is restoring integrity and accountability to the Justice Department.”

Prosecutors also have plea deals with two of the primary suspects in the case, in which they corroborate some of the allegations.

According to the 23-count indictment, unsealed Wednesday morning, Williamson conspired with Sean McCluskie — a former top aid to Becerra — and lobbyist Greg Campbell to bill Becerra’s dormant state campaign account for bogus consulting services. The three allegedly used shell companies to funnel money out of the campaign fund starting in 2022.

Federal authorities alleged the bulk of the payments were made to McCluskie’s wife, who did not actually provide consulting services, and deposited into an account accessed by McCluskie. Becerra, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, said Wednesday’s charges alleging “impropriety by a long-serving trusted advisor are a gut punch,” and that he was cooperating with authorities.

In addition, Williamson was charged with falsifying documents for a COVID-era small business loan, and with claiming luxury goods and services — including a $15,353 Chanel purse, $21,000 in private jet travel and a $150,000 birthday trip to Mexico, complete with an $11,000 yacht trip — as business expenses on her tax returns, federal prosecutors said.

Williamson appeared in federal court in Sacramento on Wednesday afternoon, and pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Williamson’s attorney said he has been in “regular communication” with federal prosecutors about the case for some time, and had asked to meet with prosecutors to “present our side” before any charges were brought, but that request “was not honored.”

Instead, officials “chose grandstanding instead of the normal process” and arrested Williamson at home Wednesday, despite her being seriously ill and in need of a liver transplant, Scott said. Williamson could not be reached for comment directly.

Williamson previously worked as a Cabinet secretary to former Gov. Jerry Brown, who also could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The case against Williamson is bolstered by acknowledgments of guilt from at least two others.

McCluskie — a former chief deputy attorney general of California when Becerra was attorney general — pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and is cooperating with authorities, court filings show. He could not be reached for comment.

Campbell pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud and conspiracy to defraud and commit offenses against the U.S. government. Campbell’s attorney Todd Pickles said his client “takes full accountability for his actions and is cooperating fully with the legal process.”

The case also involves another longtime California political insider: Alexis Podesta, a former secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency who Newsom appointed to the State Compensation Insurance Fund board of directors in January 2020. A spokesperson for the board confirmed Podesta remained a member as of Thursday morning.

Bill Portanova, Podesta’s attorney, confirmed to The Times that Podesta is the person identified as “Co-Conspirator 2” in charging documents — including McCluskie’s plea agreement, which alleges she funneled the campaign funds to him.

Portanova said Podesta inherited responsibilities for handling the Becerra account from Williamson when Williamson left to become Newsom’s chief of staff. Podesta did not perceive anything “unusual about the accounts, how they were set up or who had set them up,” so continued making payments as previously arranged, Portanova said.

However, “when confronted with the information that it was improper payments,” Portanova said, she immediately stopped the payments, and “has been fully cooperative with the federal authorities at every stage of these proceedings.”

He said she is not charged, and “should not be charged” moving forward. He otherwise declined to comment, as “investigations are ongoing.”

Podesta had close ties to some of the most influential Democratic political consultants in California, adding to the intrigue surrounding the case.

In September 2020 — about eight months after Newsom had appointed Podesta to the insurance board for workers’ compensation — Politico reported on a new “influence superteam” of Democratic political consultants forming in California.

The project, it said, would be called the Collaborative. Among its “architects” were Williamson and Campbell, as well as Jim DeBoo, another former Newsom chief of staff. Its managing director, the outlet reported, would be Podesta.

Among its enlisted consultants, it said, would be Sean Clegg of Bearstar Strategies, another senior advisor to Newsom, and Shannon Murphy, of M Strategic Communications, who has ties to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.

DeBoo, Clegg and Murphy have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

“Bearstar participated in a joint marketing press release with the Collaborative and worked on one campaign with the Collaborative’s members in 2022. Bearstar and its partners had no interest, stake or other involvement with this entity,” David Beltran, a representative of Bearstar, said in a statement Thursday.

Murphy also released a statement about the enterprise: “Five years ago, our firm participated in a joint-marketing effort. We had zero ownership or role in the business entity that was created and had no knowledge of its finances or operations until yesterday’s news stories.”

DeBoo did not respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Members of the Collaborative advise some of the largest companies in not just the country, but the world.

The Collaborative’s website was recently scaled down to a simple landing page, but it previously touted itself there as “the hub for the most talented public affairs, campaign, crisis management, communications and lobbying firms in California,” providing clients “the ability to choose one or several firms that work together — rather than compete — to provide their clients with the best possible outcomes.”

The website led with what it called a proverb: “If you call one wolf, you invite the pack.”

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — The next city bracing for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is Charlotte, North Carolina, which could see an influx of federal agents as early as this weekend, a county sheriff said Thursday.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden said in a statement that two federal officials confirmed a plan for U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to start an enforcement operation on Saturday or early next week in North Carolina’s largest city. His office declined to identify those officials. McFadden said details about the operation haven’t been disclosed, and his office hasn’t been asked to assist.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin declined to comment, saying, “Every day, DHS enforces the laws of the nation across the country. We do not discuss future or potential operations.”

President Trump has defended sending the military and immigration agents into Democratic-run cities like Los Angeles, Chicago and even the nation’s capital, saying the unprecedented operations are needed to fight crime and carry out his mass deportation agenda. Charlotte is another such Democratic stronghold, and the state will have one of the most hotly contested U.S. Senate races in the country next year.

Activists, faith leaders, and local and state officials in the city had already begun preparing the immigrant community, sharing information about resources and attempting to calm fears. A call organized by the group CharlotteEAST had nearly 500 people on it Wednesday.

“The purpose of this call was to create a mutual aid network. It was an information resource sharing session,” said City Councilmember-Elect JD Mazuera Arias.

“Let’s get as many people as possible aware of the helpers and who the people are that are doing the work that individuals can plug into, either as volunteers to donate to or those who are in need of support can turn to,” said CharlotteEAST executive director Greg Asciutto.

The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department also sought to clarify its role, saying it “has no authority to enforce federal immigration laws,” and is not involved in planning or carrying out these enforcement operations.

Mazuera Arias and others said they had already begun receiving reports of what appeared to be plainclothes officers in neighborhoods and on local transit.

“This is some of the chaos that we also saw in Chicago,” state Sen. Caleb Theodros, who represents Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, said Thursday.

Theodros was one of several local and state officials who issued a statement of solidarity this week.

“More than 150,000 foreign-born residents live in our city, contributing billions to our economy and enriching every neighborhood with culture, hard work, and hope,” it read, adding: “We will stand together, look out for one another, and ensure that fear never divides the city we all call home.”

Gregory Bovino, the Border Patrol chief who led Customs and Border Protection’s recent Chicago operation and was also central to the immigration crackdown in Los Angeles, had been coy about where agents would target next.

The Trump administration’s so-called “ Operation Midway Blitz ” in the Chicago area was announced in early September, over the objections of local leaders and after weeks of threats on the Democratic stronghold.

It started as a handful of arrests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in the suburbs but eventually included hundreds of Customs and Border Protection agents whose tactics grew increasingly aggressive. More than 3,200 people suspected of violating immigration laws have been arrested across Chicago and its many suburbs dipping into Indiana.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees both immigration agencies, has offered few details on the arrests, aside from publicizing a handful of people who were living in the U.S. without legal permission and had criminal records.

The group Indivisible Charlotte and the Carolina Migrant Network will be conducting a training for volunteers on Friday.

“Training people how to recognize legitimate ICE agents, versus obviously those who don’t look legitimate,” said Tony Siracusa, spokesman for Indvisible Charlotte. “They’re not always wearing vests that say ‘ICE.’ And what your rights are.”

The groups will also discuss areas where they can conduct “pop up protests.”

“Obviously, we’re not doing anything that is going to encourage people to go get arrested by federal agents,” he said.

Siracusa said locals are “not freaking out, but very definitely concerned. Nobody asked for this help. Nobody asked for this, at least no one of any official capacity.”

Breed and Verduzco write for the Associated Press. Breed reported from Wake Forest, N.C. AP writer Sophia Tareen in Chicago contributed to this report.

LONDON — The BBC apologized Thursday to President Trump over a misleading edit of his speech on Jan. 6, 2021 but said it had not defamed him, rejecting the basis for his $1 billion lawsuit threat.

The BBC said Chair Samir Shah sent a personal letter to the White House saying that he and the corporation were sorry for the edit of the speech Trump gave before some of his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol as Congress was poised to certify the results of President-elect Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

The BBC said there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary, which had spliced together parts of his speech that came almost an hour apart.

“We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” the BBC wrote in a retraction.

Trump’s lawyer had sent the BBC a letter demanding an apology and threatened to file a $1 billion lawsuit for the harm the documentary caused him. It had set a Friday deadline for the BBC to respond.

The dispute was sparked by an edition of the BBC’s flagship current affairs series “Panorama,” titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” broadcast days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.”

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

Director-General Tim Davie, along with news chief Deborah Turness, quit Sunday, saying the scandal was damaging the BBC and “as the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me.”

The apology and retraction came as BBC acknowledged that its Newsnight program in 2022 had also misleadingly spliced together parts of Trump’s speech.

Melley writes for the Associated Press.

The Justice Department on Thursday sued to block new congressional district boundaries approved by California voters last week, joining a court battle that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. House in 2026.

The complaint filed in California federal court targets the new congressional map pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in response to a similar Republican-led effort in Texas backed by President Trump. It sets the stage for a high-stakes legal and political fight between the Republican administration and the Democratic governor, who is seen as a likely 2028 presidential contender.

“California’s redistricting scheme is a brazen power grab that tramples on civil rights and mocks the democratic process,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in an emailed statement. “Governor Newsom’s attempt to entrench one-party rule and silence millions of Californians will not stand.”

California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 50, a constitutional amendment that changes the state’s congressional boundaries to give Democrats a shot at winning five seats currentlyheld by Republicans in next year’s midterm elections.

The Justice Department is joining a case challenging the new map that was brought by the California Republican Party last week. The Trump administration accuses California of racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution by using race as a factor to favor Latino voters with the new map. It asks a judge to prohibit California from using the new map in any future elections.

“Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50 — the recent ballot initiative that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of California’s congressional district lines,” the lawsuit says.

Proposition 50 was Newsom’s response to Trump’s maneuvers in Texas, where Republicans rejiggered districts in hopes of picking up five seats of their own ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, when House control will be on the line.

Democrats need to gain just a handful of seats next year to take control of the chamber, a win that would imperil Trump’s agenda for the remainder of his term and open the way for congressional investigations into his administration. Republicans currently hold 219 seats, to Democrats’ 214.

The showdown between the nation’s two most populous states has spread nationally, with Missouri, Ohio and a spray of other states either adopting new district lines to gain partisan advantage or considering doing so.

The national implications of California’s ballot measure were clear in both the money it attracted and the high-profile figures who became involved. Tens of millions of dollars flowed into the race, including a $5-million donation to opponents from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the super political action committee tied to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).

Former action movie star and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposed the measure, while former President Obama, a Democrat, appeared in ads supporting it, calling it a “smart” approach to counter Republican moves aimed at safeguarding House control.

The contest provided Newsom with a national platform when he has confirmed he will consider a White House run in 2028.

Richer and Blood write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Chicago.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Lawyers for two of President Trump’s foes who have been charged by the Justice Department asked a judge on Thursday to dismiss the cases against them, saying the prosecutor who secured the indictments was illegally installed in the role.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie didn’t immediately rule from the bench but said she expects to decide by Thanksgiving on challenges to Lindsey Halligan’s appointment as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The requests are part of multiprong efforts by former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James to get their cases dismissed before trial.

At issue during Thursday’s arguments are the complex constitutional and statutory rules governing the appointment of the nation’s U.S. attorneys, who function as top federal prosecutors in Justice Department offices across the country.

The role is typically filled by lawyers who have been nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. Attorneys general do have the authority to get around that process by naming an interim U.S. attorney who can serve for 120 days, but lawyers for Comey and James note that once that period expires, the law gives federal judges of that district exclusive say over who can fill the vacancy.

But that’s not what happened in this instance.

After then-interim U.S. attorney Erik Siebert resigned in September while facing Trump administration pressure to bring charges against Comey and James, Attorney General Pam Bondi, at Trump’s public urging, installed Halligan to the role.

Siebert had been appointed by Bondi in January to serve as interim U.S. attorney. Trump in May announced his intention to nominate him and judges in the Eastern District unanimously agreed after his 120-day period expired that he should be retained in the role. But after the Trump administration effectively pushed him out in September, the Justice Department again opted to make an interim appointment in place of the courts, something defense lawyers say it was not empowered under the law to do.

Prosecutors in the cases say that the law does not explicitly prevent successive appointments of interim U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department and that, even if Halligan’s appointment is deemed invalid, the proper fix is not the dismissal of the indictment.

Comey has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, and James has pleaded not guilty to mortgage fraud allegations. Their lawyers have separately argued that the prosecutions are improperly vindictive and motivated by the president’s personal animus toward their clients, and should therefore be dismissed.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Edison International Chief Executive Pedro Pizarro said Wednesday that the utility expects the first Eaton fire victims who have agreed not to sue the utility to get their settlement offers later this month.

In an interview, Pizarro said that the utility decided to create the program to pay victims before the fire investigation was complete to get money to them more quickly and because it has become more apparent that the company’s equipment ignited the inferno that killed 19 people.

“There is no other clear probable cause at this point,” he said.

More than 6,000 homes and other properties were destroyed in the Jan. 7 fire that started under an Edison transmission tower in Eaton Canyon. The flames damaged an additional 700 to 800 homes, according to Edison.

Those homes, as well as more than 11,000 others that were damaged by smoke and ash, are eligible for compensation under Edison’s plan. To receive the money, the victims must agree not to sue Edison for the fire.

So far 580 people have applied for compensation, Pizarro said.

He said that if the person accepts the company’s offer, they would be paid within 30 days. “We’ve staffed it to move very quickly.” he said.

Pizarro said the utility is expecting to swiftly be reimbursed for the amounts it pays to victims by a state wildfire fund that Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers created to keep utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment sparks a catastrophic fire.

The first $1 billion in damage costs will be covered by an insurance policy paid for by the utility’s electric customers.

In April, Pizarro said that a leading theory of the fire’s cause was that a century-old transmission line, not used since 1971, reenergized through a process called induction and sparked the fire.

Induction is when magnetic fields created by a nearby live line cause a dormant line to electrify. The unused line runs parallel to other energized high-voltage transmission wires running through Eaton Canyon.

Asked why Edison did not turn off those transmission lines on Jan. 7, Pizarro said in the interview that the company’s protocol at the time, which analyzes wind speed and other risk factors, did not call for a preventive shutoff.

He said the Los Angeles County Fire department and Cal Fire are continuing their investigation into the official cause of the fire.

“We’ve given them everything they’ve asked for,” he said.

At the same time, he said, Edison and lawyers for victims who have filed lawsuits are working jointly on a separate investigation that is gathering detailed information on the fire’s cause.

Pizarro said that he and the company have pledged to be transparent about details of the fire’s cause.

“As significant material things come out we will make that known,” he said.

“I need to go to the supermarket in Pasadena or Altadena and be able to look people in the eye,” Pizarro said. “We want to do the right thing for our community.”

During the last government shutdown six years ago, the main narrative when it came to public lands was the damage caused by unsupervised visitors. Trash cans and toilets overflowed with waste. Tourists reportedly mowed down Joshua trees to off-road in sensitive areas of Joshua Tree National Park.

This time around, national parks were directed to retain the staff needed to provide basic sanitation services, as I reported in a recent article with my colleague Lila Seidman. But meanwhile, something bigger and more coordinated was unfolding behind the scenes, said Chance Wilcox, California Desert program manager for the National Parks Conservation Association.

“We’re not seeing Joshua trees getting knocked down, things getting stolen, damage to parks by the American people, but we are seeing damage to parks by this presidential administration on an even larger scale,” Wilcox told me last week before lawmakers struck a deal to reopen the government.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Wilcox and other public lands advocates allege that President Trump’s administration used the shutdown to expedite an agenda that prioritizes extraction while slashing resources dedicated to conservation and education. What’s more, they fear the staffing priorities that came into sharp relief over the past 43 days offer a preview of how these lands will be managed going forward, especially in the aftermath of another potential mass layoff that could see the Interior Department cut 2,000 more jobs.

When I asked the Interior Department about its actions during the shutdown, a spokesperson responded via email that the administration “made deliberate, lawful decisions” to protect operations that sustain energy security and economic stability. “Activities that continued were those necessary to preserve critical infrastructure, safeguard natural resources, and prevent disruption to key supply chains that millions of Americans rely on,” the spokesperson wrote.

As a resident of the Mojave Desert on the outskirts of Joshua Tree National Park, I’ve taken particular interest in this topic. Out here, summer days can top 110 degrees, a trip to the grocery store is an hours-long excursion and there are rattlesnakes. Lots of rattlesnakes. But one huge bonus is the proximity to public lands: We’re surrounded by the park, the Mojave National Preserve and hundreds of miles of Bureau of Land Management wilderness.

These spaces not only provide endless entertainment for residents like my 3-year-old daughter, who would rather be turned loose in a boulder field than a jungle gym, but they play a key role in drawing visitors from around the world who support the stores, restaurants and other establishments that underpin our local economy.

Sentinel Rock in Hidden Valley, Joshua Tree National Park.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

In short, the health of our community depends on the health of these landscapes. Now, their future seems increasingly uncertain.

During the shutdown, roughly 64% of National Park Service employees were furloughed, according to a Department of the Interior contingency plan. At Joshua Tree National Park, those sidelined included Superintendent Jane Rodgers, along with most of the staff responsible for scientific research, resource management and educational and interpretive programs, according to a source at the park who asked not to be named out of fear of retaliation.

Over at the BLM, roughly 26% of staffers were furloughed. Among those who were allowed to keep working: employees responsible for processing oil, gas and coal permits and leases, along with items related to other energy and mineral resources, according to the contingency plan, which cited the president’s declared national energy emergency as rationale. As a result, the federal government issued 693 new oil and gas drilling permits and 52 new oil and gas leases on federal lands during the shutdown, according to tracking by the Center for Western Priorities.

Also during the shutdown, the BLM continued to move ahead with plans to consider the expansion of the Castle Mountain Mine, which is surrounded by California’s Castle Mountains National Monument. Already, the Interior Department had approved a different nearby mine, the Colosseum, ending a years-long dispute in which the National Park Service had alleged the mine was operating without authorization.

In Alaska, the Trump administration moved to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas leasing and approved a long-disputed push to build a 211-mile industrial road through the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve to allow for mining in a remote corner of the Northwest. The U.S. also took an equity stake in a company focused on mining exploration in that area, part of a growing trend that some experts have described as unusual.

And in Utah, the BLM is now reconsidering an application, which has been rejected seven times, to build a four-lane highway through desert tortoise habitats in the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

There’s real fear among federal employees and advocates that this dynamic — an emphasis on developing public lands, as stewardship and research efforts languish — will become the new reality, said Jordan Marbury, communications manager for Friends of the Inyo. What’s more, he said, is that some worry the administration will point to the shutdown as proof that public lands never really needed all that staffing in the first place.

“It could get to the point where conservation is totally an afterthought,” he said.

More recent land news

Operators of the 1,000-acre Inglewood Oil Field must stop pumping by the end of the decade, if a state edict holds up in court. My L.A. Times colleague Doug Smith looks at what will become of one of the Los Angeles region’s last great pieces of undeveloped land, which offers a rare opportunity to address the pressing needs of open space and affordable housing in underserved neighborhoods.

Homes sit in the shadow of the Inglewood Oil Field.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

Five California tribes have established an intertribal commission to co-manage Chuckwalla National Monument, marking a historic step toward tribal sovereignty over sacred desert lands. Times environment reporter Tyrone Beason examines how this will work — and why it’s a big deal.

President Trump has tapped former New Mexico Rep. Steve Pearce to lead the BLM — which manages about 10% of land in the U.S. — after his first pick, oil and gas lobbyist Kathleen Sgamma, withdrew her name from consideration in the wake of reporting on comments she made criticizing Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Industry trade organizations are praising Pearce’s nomination, while environmental groups allege that the former Republican Party of New Mexico chair is a climate change denier with a record of supporting expanded oil and gas drilling on public lands and shrinking national monuments, the Santa Fe New Mexican reports.

Lawmakers have begun to use the Congressional Review Act, which enables Congress to overturn recent federal rules with a majority vote, in an unprecedented way: to revoke specific land management plans that limit mining and drilling in specific places, Inside Climate News reports. So far, lawmakers have rescinded BLM plans that ended new coal leasing in Montana’s Powder River Basin and that limited development in North Dakota and portions of Alaska. They are now seeking to do the same in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. That’s despite warnings from legal experts, environmental organizations and hunting and fishing groups that these precedents could paralyze the ability of agencies to manage public lands.

A few last things in climate news

Negotiators for seven Western states say they are making progress in ongoing talks over how to share the diminishing waters of the Colorado River, according to our water reporter Ian James. Still, a deadline set by the Trump administration came and went Tuesday without any regionwide agreement on water cutbacks, Ian reports.

The Trump administration plans to allow new oil and gas drilling off the California coast, but energy companies may not be interested in battling the state’s strict environmental rules to try and tap into limited petroleum reserves, our climate policy reporter Hayley Smith writes. Citing these obstacles, some experts told Hayley the move may be politically motivated: It’s likely to set up a fight with California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has said that any such proposal will be dead on arrival.

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks to reporters at the COP30 Climate Summit in Belém, Brazil, on Tuesday.

(Alessandro Falco)

Speaking of Newsom and Trump, the California governor is in Belém, Brazil, for the annual United Nations climate policy summit, which the Trump administration is sitting out. My colleague Melody Gutierrez, who’s also there, looks at how California hopes it can fill in the gap left by America’s absence as Newsom positions himself for a 2028 presidential run.

Meanwhile, diplomats have accused top U.S. officials of threatening and bullying leaders from poorer or small countries to defeat a historic deal to slash pollution from cargo ships that was slated by be approved by more than 100 nations, according to a bombshell New York Times report. Federal representatives denied that officials made threats but “acknowledged derailing the deal and repeated their opposition to international efforts to address climate change,” the paper reported.

This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.

For more land news, follow @phila_lex on X and alex-wigglesworth.bsky.social on Bluesky.

We are being ruled by the “Epstein class,” and voters deserve to know the details of that particular scandal, and to be able to expect better of their leaders in the larger sense.

That’s the message we’ll be hearing a lot in the coming weeks and months now that Democrats have successfully moved forward their effort to release the full investigation into former President Trump buddy Jeffrey Epstein.

“When you take a step back, you have a country where an elite governing class has gotten away with impunity, and shafted the working class in this country, shafted factory towns, shafted rural communities,” Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) told me Wednesday.

He represents parts of Silicon Valley and is one of the authors of the House push to release the full government investigation into Epstein. But in the Epstein case, he also sees an opportunity to reach voters with a larger promise of change.

“What Epstein is about is saying, ‘we reject the Epstein class governing America today,’” Khanna said.

How appropriately strange for these days would it be if Epstein, who faced sex trafficking charges at the time of his death, provided the uniting message Democrats have been searching for?

“Epstein and economics” sounds like a stretch on the surface, but it is increasingly clear that Americans of all political stripes are tired of the rich getting richer, and bolder. The Epstein files are the bipartisan embodiment of that discontent.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), left, and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach) have led Democrats’ push for release of the Epstein files.

(Sue Ogrocki and J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

Our collective frustration with what can appear only as a cover-up to benefit the wealthy and powerful is an unexpected bit of glue that binds regular Americans, because the corruption and hubris of our oligarchy is increasingly undeniable and galling.

Whether it’s our president’s obviously wrong contention that grocery prices are down; our vice president being willing to take on the pope about true Catholic doctrine; or our FBI chief flying his girlfriend around on the taxpayer dime, the arrogance is stunning.

But where each of those examples becomes buried and dismissed in partisan politics, sex trafficking girls turns out to be frowned upon by people from all walks of life.

“It’s universal,” said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, and another Californian. “This is clearly a White House and a president that is the most corrupt person we’ve ever had in office serving as a chief executive, and this is just another piece of that corruption.”

Khanna, along with Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, built the unlikely but unstoppable effort that brought together once-loyal Trumpers including Reps. Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace and Marjorie Taylor Greene with Democrats.

Those staunch right-wingers are tied in to their voters, and probably understood just how unpopular sex trafficking is with a base that grew into maturity on QAnon-inspired fear mongering about kidnapped children.

“It’s the only thing since Trump walked down the escalator that’s been a truly bipartisan effort to expose corruption and where there’s been a break in his coalition,” Khanna said.

And by “exposing rich and powerful people who abuse the system and calling them out clearly, we start to rebuild trust with the American people,” Khanna argues, the trust required to make folks believe Democrats aren’t so terrible.

Long before he was a linchpin in the Epstein saga, Khanna built a name as a force on the progressive left for a positive and inclusive economic platform that resembles the New Deal, which Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to rebuild democracy in another era of hardship and discontent.

It’s all about real payoffs for average Americans — trade schools and affordable child care and jobs that actually pay the bills. That’s the message that he hopes will be the top line as Democrats push forward.

On Wednesday, the buildup of resentment that might make that possible came into full focus in Washington, as Congress opened up to anything but business as usual. Democrats, led by Garcia, released emails raising questions about Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.

Trump “spent hours at my house” and “knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, even as Trump’s press secretary argued this was all a “fake narrative to smear” her boss.

Republicans countered the emails with a massive information dump probably meant to obscure and confuse. But House Speaker Mike Johnson, out of excuses, finally swore in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who promptly provided the final signature on the discharge petition to call a House vote on releasing the entire Epstein files.

That happened just hours after Boebert, one of the key Republican backers of that effort, was called to the White House in a last-minute, heavy-handed bid to pressure her into dropping her name from the demand. She did not.

Enough to make your head spin, honestly. About 10 more dastardly, intriguing and unexpected things happened, but you get the gist: President Trump really, really does not want us to read the Epstein files. House Democrats are ready to fight the long fight.

Garcia said House Democrats aren’t caving, because the cover-up keeps growing.

“There’s a lot of folks now that are obsessed with hiding the truth from the public, and the American public needs to know,” he said. “The Oversight Committee is committed to fighting our way to the truth.”

But it will be a long fight, and one with only a slim chance of winning the release of the files. Any effort would have to clear the Republican-held Senate (and after the shutdown collapse, who knows if Senate Democrats have the stomach for resistance), then be signed by Trump.

Judging from his near-desperate social media posting about the whole thing being a “hoax,” it’s hard to imagine him putting his scrawl on that law.

But unlike the shutdown, the longer this goes, the more Democrats have to gain. People aren’t going to suddenly start liking pedophiles. And the more Trump pushes to hide whatever the truth is, the more Democrats have the high ground, to message on corruption, oligarchs and even a vision for a better way.

“Epstein and economics” — linking the concrete with the esoteric, the problem with the solution.

The bipartisan message Democrats didn’t know they needed, from the strangest of sources.

WASHINGTON — Before flying to Brazil this week, showing up for the United States at an international summit skipped by the Trump administration, California Gov. Gavin Newsom made a stop in Texas. The redistricting fight that had started there had come to a halt in California thanks to the governor’s action. “Don’t poke the bear,” Newsom told an elated crowd of Democrats.

In Washington, a handful of Senate Democrats had just voted with Republicans to reopen the government, relenting on a fight for an extension of healthcare tax credits. Newsom lashed out harshly against his party colleagues. “Pathetic,” he wrote online, later telling The Times, “you don’t start something unless you’re going to finish.”

They were just Newsom’s latest moves in an aggressive strategy to shore up early support for an expected run for president starting next year, after the 2026 midterm elections, when both parties will face competitive primaries without an incumbent seeking reelection for the first time since 2016.

The opportunity to redefine a party in transition and win its presidential nomination has, in recent cycles, led to historically large primary fields for both Democrats and Republicans, often featuring over 20 candidates at the start of a modern race.

And yet, one year out, Newsom appears to be running alone and out front in an open field, with expected competitors taking few steps to blunt his momentum, ceding ground in public media and with private donors to the emerging front-runner.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris remains well-respected among Democratic voters and is said to be flirting with another campaign. Other candidates, including Govs. Wes Moore of Maryland, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Sens. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, are all said to be considering bids.

But Newsom has begun pulling away from the pack in public polling, emerging as the Democrats’ leading choice and running competitively against top Republican contenders.

“It’s very early, but at the moment Gov. Newsom seems to have his finger more acutely on the pulse of Democratic voters than his 2028 rivals,” said Sawyer Hackett, a Democratic strategist and content creator who worked on presidential campaigns for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

“As a governor, Newsom has an advantageous perch to fight back and command attention,” Hackett said, “but he’s getting a significant head start in defining himself politically — as the guy who can take on Trump. And the battle for attention will only get harder as more contenders enter the ring.”

Running to the center

Over the summer, Newsom embraced a social media strategy leaning into the vitalist, masculine culture that has captured the attention of young American men and helped drive them to President Trump’s reelection campaign last year — a strategy that Newsom has said will be key to Democratic hopes of recapturing the White House.

“We need to own up to the fact that we ceded that ground — we walked away from this crisis of men and boys,” Newsom told CNN in an interview this week. “They were attracted to this notion of strength: strong and wrong, not weak and right.”

In a series of interviews and podcasts with with conservative commentators, the governor announced his opposition to transgender athletes competing in girls’ sports. He moved to limit access to California’s Medicaid program for immigrants without legal status. And he directed a crackdown on homeless encampments across cities in California that had blighted the state’s national image.

The moves were seen as an effort by Newsom to position himself as a centrist heading into the campaign, a posture that could benefit him in a general election. But it could also open the governor up to a robust challenge from the progressive left.

In 2014, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was laying the groundwork for her run for president, polling showed her as the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic nomination — and ahead of all competitors by 49 points in the crucial battleground state of New Hampshire. She would ultimately secure the nomination, but only after facing down a serious challenge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who beat her soundly in the Granite State.

“One of the biggest pitfalls is who else might get in,” said Christian Grose, a professor of political science at USC and principal of Data Viewpoint, a data and polling firm. “At this stage with such a wide-open race, he is the front-runner, but who runs and who does not will shape his chances.”

Ocasio-Cortez could pose a similar challenge to an establishment candidate like Newsom, political analysts said. But her prospects in a Democratic primary and in a general election are different matters. In 2020, when Sanders once again appeared close to the nomination, other candidates cleared the field to help Joe Biden secure a victory and take on Trump.

“The shape of the field is still fuzzy,” said Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College. “AOC generates excitement, but no House member has gone directly to the White House since [James] Garfield in 1880.”

Risks to an early start

Newsom’s yearlong head start has earned him practical advantages. The campaign for Proposition 50, Newsom’s successful bid to redraw California’s congressional map along partisan lines, drew a new set of donors to a governor whose experience up until now had been limited to statewide office. Assertive exposure on social and legacy media has enhanced his name recognition nationwide.

He will need both to compete against Harris, a fellow Californian who could be convinced to stay out of the race if she isn’t confident she will win the primary, a source familiar with her thinking told The Times. Harris would enter the race with the benefit of widespread name identification and inherited donor rolls from her previous campaigns.

“This stage in the race for 2028 we generally call the ‘pre-primary’ period, in which would-be candidates compete for three resources: media attention, money, and staff. Newsom is definitely ahead in the “media pre-primary” at this point,” said Todd Belt, professor and director of the political management master’s program at George Washington University.

“A candidate definitely wants to be seen as the front-runner early on in order to attract the best staff,” Belt said. “It’s also good to get donors committed early on so they don’t contribute to others in the race, and you can then go back to them for more donations and bundling.”

But in a media environment where voters have increasingly short attention spans, Newsom could risk flaming out early or peaking too soon, analysts said.

Other centrist candidates could emerge with less baggage, such as Gallego, a young Latino lawmaker and Marine combat veteran from a working-class background.

“If Democrats care about winning the general election, Ruben Gallego is one to watch,” Pitney added. “He could appeal to groups with which Democrats have struggled lately. Newsom does not exactly give off blue-collar vibes.”

Grose, of USC, also said that Newsom’s association with coastal California could pose significant political challenges to the governor.

“There are pitfalls,” Grose said. “He needs to sell California, so any perceptions of the state’s problems don’t drag him down.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: LAFD knew of firefighter complaints about Lachman mop-up and said nothing
The deep dive: Immigrant detainees say they were harassed, sexually assaulted by guard who got promoted
The L.A. Times Special: 26 Los Angeles restaurants to order Thanksgiving takeout from this year

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Democrats’ caterwauling this week after a few of their senators caved to end the government shutdown couldn’t completely drown out another noise: the sound of President Trump pinballing dumb “policy” ideas as he flails to respond to voters’ unhappiness that his promised Golden Age is proving golden only for him, his family and his donors.

On social media (of course) and in interviews, the president has been blurting out proposals that are news even to the advisors who should be vetting them first. Rebates of $2,000 for most Americans and pay-downs of federal debt, all from supposed tariff windfalls. (Don’t count on either payoff; more below.) New 50-year mortgages to make home-buying more affordable (not). Docked pay for air traffic controllers who didn’t show up to work during the shutdown, without pay, and $10,000 bonuses for those who did. (He doesn’t have that power; the government isn’t his family business.) Most mind-boggling of all, Trump has resurrected his and Republicans’ long-buried promise to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

It’s been five years since he promised a healthcare plan “in two weeks.” It’s been a year since he said he had “concepts of a plan” during the 2024 campaign. What he now calls “Trumpcare” (natch) apparently amounts to paying people to buy insurance. Details to come, he says, again.

With all this seat-of-the-pants policymaking, Trump only underscores the policy ignorance that’s been a defining trait since he first ran for office. No other president in memory put out such knee-jerk junk that’s easily discounted and mocked.

In his first term, Trump didn’t learn how to navigate the legislative process, and thus steer well-debated ideas into law. He didn’t want to. Even more in his second term, Trump avoids that deliberative democratic process, preferring rule by fiat and executive order (even if the results don’t outlast your presidency, or they fizzle in court). For Trump, ideas don’t percolate, infused with expertise and data. They pop into his head.

But diktats are not always possible, as the shutdown dramatized when Republicans couldn’t agree with Democrats on the must-pass legislation to keep the government funded.

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress (and arguably the Supreme Court: see recent decisions siding with the Trump administration to block SNAP benefits), the Democrats were never going to actually win the shutdown showdown — not if winning meant forcing Republicans to agree to extend health insurance tax credits for millions of Americans. Expanding healthcare coverage has never been Republicans’ priority. Tax cuts are, mainly for the wealthy and corporations, and Republicans pocketed that win months ago with Trump’s big, ugly bill, paid for mainly by cuts to Medicaid.

Yet Democrats won something: They shoved the issue of spiraling healthcare costs back onto politics’ center stage, where it joins the broader question of affordability in an economy that doesn’t work for the working class. Drawing attention to the cruel priorities of Trump 2.0 is a big reason that I and many others supported Democrats forcing a shutdown, despite the unlikelihood of a policy “W.” (I did not support the Senate Democrats’ caving just yet, not so soon after Democrats won bigger-than-expected victories in last week’s off-year elections on the strength of their fight for affordability, including health insurance.)

The fight isn’t over. The Senate will debate and vote next month on extending tax credits for Obamacare that otherwise expire at year’s end, making coverage unaffordable for millions of people. Even if the Democrats win that vote — unlikely — the subsidies would be DOA in the House, a MAGA stronghold. What’s not dead, however, is the issue of rising insurance premiums for all Americans. It’s teed up for the midterm election campaigns.

Such pocketbook issues have thrown Trump on the defensive. The result is his string of politically tone-deaf remarks and unvetted, out-of-right-field initiatives.

On Monday night, having invited Fox News host Laura Ingraham into the White House for an interview and a tour of his gilt-and-marble renovations, he pooh-poohed her question about Americans’ anxiety about the costs of living with this unpolitic rejoinder: “More than anything else, it’s a con job by the Democrats.” When Ingraham, to her credit, reminded Trump that he’d slammed President Biden for “saying things were great, and things weren’t great,” Trump stood his shaky ground, sniping: “Polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we’ve ever had.” (False.)

On Saturday, Trump had posted that Republicans should take money “from the BIG, BAD Insurance Companies, give it to the people, and terminate” Obamacare. He told Ingraham, “Call it Trumpcare … anything but Obamacare.” Healthcare industry experts pounced: Such direct payments could allow younger, healthy people to get cheaper, no-frills coverage, but would leave the insurance pools with disproportionately more ailing people and, in turn, higher costs.

As for Trump’s promised $2,000 rebates and reductions in the $37 trillion federal debt, he posted early Sunday and again on Monday that “trillions of dollars” from tariffs would make both things possible soon. On Tuesday night, he sent a fundraising email: “Would you take a TARIFF rebate check signed by yours truly?”

Maybe if he’d talked to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who professed ignorance about the idea on ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday, Trump would have learned that tariffs in the past year raised not trillions but $195 billion, significantly less than $2,000 rebates would cost. Not only would there be nothing to put toward the debt, but rebates would add $6 trillion in red ink over 10 years. That would put Trump just $2 trillion short of the amount of debt he added in his first term.

When Ingraham asked where he’d get the money to pay bonuses to air traffic controllers, Trump was quick with a nonanswer: “I don’t know. I’ll get it from someplace.” And when she told him the 50-year mortgage idea “has enraged your MAGA friends,” given the potential windfall of interest payment for banks, Trump was equally dismissive: “It’s not even a big deal.”

Not a big deal: That’s policymaking, Trump-style.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes