POLITICS

NEW YORK — Secret grand jury transcripts from Jeffrey Epstein’s 2019 sex trafficking case can be made public, a judge ruled on Wednesday, joining two other judges in granting the Justice Department’s requests to unseal material from investigations into the late financier’s sexual abuse.

U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman reversed his earlier decision to keep the material under wraps, citing a new law that requires the government to open its files on Epstein and his longtime confidant Ghislaine Maxwell. The judge previously cautioned that the 70 or so pages of grand jury materials slated for release are hardly revelatory and “merely a hearsay snippet” of Epstein’s conduct.

On Tuesday, another Manhattan federal judge ordered the release of records from Maxwell’s 2021 sex trafficking case. Last week, a judge in Florida approved the unsealing of transcripts from an abandoned Epstein federal grand jury investigation in the 2000s.

The Justice Department asked the judges to lift secrecy orders in the cases after the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump last month, created a narrow exception to rules that normally keep grand jury proceedings confidential. The law requires that the Justice Department disclose Epstein-related material to the public by Dec. 19.

The court records cleared for release are just a sliver of the government’s trove — a collection of potentially tens of thousands of pages of documents including FBI notes and reports; transcripts of witness interviews, photographs, videos and other evidence; Epstein’s autopsy report; flight logs and travel records.

While lawyers for Epstein’s estate told Berman in a letter last week that the estate took no position on the Justice Department’s unsealing request, some Epstein victims backed it.

“Release to the public of Epstein-related materials is good, so long as the victims are protected in the process,” said Brad Edwards, a lawyer for some victims. “With that said, the grand jury receives only the most basic information, so, relatively speaking, these particular materials are insignificant.”

Questions about the government’s Epstein files have dominated the first year of Trump’s second term, with pressure on the Republican intensifying after he reneged on a campaign promise to release the files. His administration released some material, most of it already public, disappointing critics and some allies.

Berman was matter of fact in his ruling on Wednesday, writing that the transparency law “unequivocally intends to make public Epstein grand jury materials and discovery materials” that had previously been covered by secrecy orders. The law “supersedes the otherwise secret grand jury materials,” he wrote.

The judge, who was appointed by President Clinton, a Democrat, implored the Justice Department to carefully follow the law’s privacy provisions to ensure that victims’ names and other identifying information are blacked out. Victim safety and privacy “are paramount,” he wrote.

In court filings, the Justice Department informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, “had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.”

The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow and four pages of call logs. The July 2 session ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein.

Epstein, a millionaire money manager known for socializing with celebrities, politicians, billionaires and the academic elite, killed himself in jail a month after his 2019 arrest. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 by a federal jury of sex trafficking for helping recruit some of Epstein’s underage victims and participating in some of the abuse. She is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Maxwell’s lawyer told a judge last week that unsealing records from her case “would create undue prejudice” and could spoil her plans to file a habeas petition, a legal filing seeking to overturn her conviction. The Supreme Court in October declined to hear Maxwell’s appeal.

Maxwell’s grand jury records include testimony from the FBI agent and a New York Police Department detective.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer sought to temper expectations as he approved their release on Tuesday, writing that the materials “do not identify any person other than Epstein and Maxwell as having had sexual contact with a minor.”

“They do not discuss or identify any client of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s,” wrote Engelmayer, an appointee of President Obama, a Democrat. “They do not reveal any heretofore unknown means or methods of Epstein’s or Maxwell’s crimes.”

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

Congressional Democrats are sounding alarms over the deep involvement of Saudi Arabian and other Middle Eastern royal families in Paramount’s proposed bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.

Warner Bros. Discovery owns CNN, HBO and the historic Warner Bros. film and television studios in Burbank, behind such beloved American classics as “Casablanca,” “Citizen Kane,” and Bugs Bunny, and blockbuster hits including “Harry Potter,” “Dirty Harry,” “The Matrix,” and “Friends.”

Late last week, the Larry Ellison controlled Paramount came up short in the bidding for Warner Bros., in part, over the Warner board’s concerns about Paramount’s deal financing. On Monday, Paramount launched a hostile takeover of Warner Bros., appealing directly to Warner shareholders — asking them to sell their Warner stock to Paramount for $30 a share.

Paramount’s gambit has thrown the auction, and Warner board’s selection of Netflix’s $72-billion deal, into doubt.

Paramount has long insisted that it represents the best partner for Warner Bros., in part, because of the Ellison family’s cozy relations with President Trump. The company has trumpeted its ability to gain the blessing of the Trump administration.

Paramount’s bid is heavily backed by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar’s sovereign wealth funds. The three royal families have agreed to contribute $24 billion — twice the amount the Larry Ellison family has agreed to provide in financing for Paramount’s proposed $78-billion takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to regulatory filings.

Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, would also have an ownership stake.

On Wednesday, U.S. Reps. Sam T. Liccardo (D-San Jose) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Boston) called on Warner Bros. board to recognize the consequences of selling the legendary company, which includes news organization CNN, to foreign governments.

“This transaction raises national security concerns because it could transfer substantial influence over one of the largest American media companies to foreign-backed financiers,” Liccardo and Pressley wrote.

“Warner’s platforms reach tens of millions of American households through HBO, Max, CNN, Warner Bros. Pictures, Discovery, and numerous digital and cable properties,” the lawmakers wrote. “They also shape the news, entertainment, and cultural content consumed by the American public.”

Transactions “foreign investors with governance rights, access to non-public data, or indirect influence over content distribution creates vulnerabilities that foreign governments could exploit,” the lawmakers wrote.

Paramount Chairman and Chief Executive David Ellison on the Paramount lot in August.

(Paramount)

Paramount, in its regulatory filings, said the three Middle Eastern families had agreed to give up voting rights and a role in the company’s decision-making — despite contributing more than half the equity needed for the deal.

Representatives of Warner Bros. and Paramount declined to comment.

The Ellison family acquired Paramount in August. David Ellison, the chief executive, attended a White House dinner last month to celebrate Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The involvement of bin Salman was concerning to the lawmakers.

“The fund is controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom (according to the declassified 2021 report of the U.S. Director of National Intelligence) ordered the murder of U.S. resident and Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi,” the lawmakers wrote.

Over the weekend, Trump said the Netflix deal, which would give the streaming an even more commanding presence in the industry, “could be a problem.”

WASHINGTON — As he shook President Obama’s hand and pulled him in for what he thought was a private aside, Vice President Joe Biden delivered an explicit message: “This is a big f——— deal.” The remark, overheard on live microphones at a 2010 ceremony for the Affordable Care Act, caused a sensation because open profanity from a national leader was unusual at the time.

More than 15 years later, vulgarity is now in vogue.

During a political rally Tuesday night in Pennsylvania that was intended to focus on tackling inflation, President Trump used profanity at least four times. At one point, he even admitted to disparaging Haiti and African nations as “ shithole countries ” during a private 2018 meeting, a comment he denied at the time. And before a bank of cameras during a lengthy Cabinet meeting last week, the Republican president referred to alleged drug smugglers as “sons of b——-s.”

While the Biden incident was accidental, the frequency, sharpness and public nature of Trump’s comments are intentional. They build on his project to combat what he sees as pervasive political correctness. Leaders in both parties are seemingly in a race now to the verbal gutter.

Vice President JD Vance called a podcast host a “dips—t” in September. In Thanksgiving remarks before troops, Vance joked that anyone who said they liked turkey was “full of s—-.” After one National Guard member was killed in a shooting in Washington last month and a second was critically injured, top Trump aide Steven Cheung told a reporter on social media to “shut the f—- up” when she wrote that the deployment of troops in the nation’s capital was “for political show.”

Among Democrats, former Vice President Kamala Harris earned a roar of approval from her audience in September when she condemned the Trump administration by saying “these mother———- are crazy.” After Trump called for the execution of several Democratic members of Congress last month, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said it was time for people with influence to “pick a f——— side.” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the administration cannot “f—- around” with the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett, who on Monday announced her Senate campaign in Texas, did not hold back earlier this year when asked what she would tell Elon Musk if given the chance: “F—- off.”

The volley of vulgarities underscore an ever-coarsening political environment that often plays out on social media or other digital platforms where the posts or video clips that evoke the strongest emotions are rewarded with the most engagement.

“If you want to be angry at someone, be angry at the social media companies,” Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, said Tuesday night at Washington National Cathedral, where he spoke at an event focused on political civility. “It’s not a fair fight. They’ve hijacked our brains. They understand these dopamine hits. Outrage sells.”

Cox, whose national profile rose after calling for civility in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s assassination in his state, approved an overhaul of social media laws meant to protect children. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the state law.

Tough political talk is nothing new

Tough talk is nothing new in politics, but leaders long avoided flaunting it.

Recordings from Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, for instance, revealed a crude, profane side of his personality that was largely kept private. Republican Richard Nixon bemoaned the fact that the foul language he used in the Oval Office was captured on tape. “Since neither I nor most other Presidents had ever used profanity in public, millions were shocked,” Nixon wrote in his book “In the Arena.”

“Politicians have always sworn, just behind closed doors,” said Benjamin Bergen, a professor at the University of California-San Diego’s Department of Cognitive Science and the author of “What the F: What swearing reveals about our language, our brains, and ourselves.” “The big change is in the past 10 years or so, it’s been much more public.”

As both parties prepare for the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential campaign, the question is whether this language will become increasingly mainstream. Republicans who simply try to imitate Trump’s brash style do not always succeed with voters. Democrats who turn to vulgarities risk appearing inauthentic if their words feel forced.

For some, it is just a distraction.

“It’s not necessary,” said GOP Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who is retiring next year after winning five elections in one of the most competitive House districts. “If that’s what it takes to get your point across, you’re not a good communicator.”

There are risks of overusing profanity

There also is a risk that if such language becomes overused, its utility as a way to shock and connect with audiences could be dulled. Comedian Jerry Seinfeld has talked about this problem, noting that he used swear words in his early routines but dropped them as his career progressed because he felt profanity yielded only cheap laughs.

“I felt like well I just got a laugh because I said f—- in there,” he said in a 2020 interview on the WTF podcast with fellow comedian Marc Maron. “You didn’t find the gold.”

White House spokesperson Liz Huston said Trump “doesn’t care about being politically correct, he cares about Making America Great Again. The American people love how authentic, transparent, and effective the President is.”

But for Trump, the words that have generated the most controversy are often less centered in traditional profanity than slurs that can be interpreted as hurtful. The final weeks of his 2016 campaign were rocked when a tape emerged of him discussing grabbing women by their genitals, language he minimized as “locker room talk.” His “shithole” remark in 2018 was widely condemned as racist.

More recently, Trump called a female journalist “piggy,” comments that his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, defended as evidence of a president who is “very frank and honest.” Trump’s use of a slur about disabled people prompted an Indiana Republican whose child has Down syndrome to come out in opposition to the president’s push to redraw the state’s congressional districts.

On rare occasions, politicians express contrition for their choice of words. In an interview with The Atlantic published last week, Gov. Josh Shapiro, D-Pa., dismissed Harris’ depiction of him in her book about last year’s presidential campaign by saying she was “trying to sell books and cover her a—.”

He seemed to catch himself quickly.

“I shouldn’t say ‘cover her a—,” he said. “I think that’s not appropriate.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

MIAMI — Democrat Eileen Higgins won the Miami mayor’s race on Tuesday, defeating a Republican endorsed by President Trump to end her party’s nearly three-decade losing streak and give Democrats a boost in one of the last electoral battles ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Higgins, 61, will be the first woman to lead the city of Miami. She spoke frequently in the Hispanic-majority city about Trump’s immigration crackdown, saying she has heard of many people in Miami who were worried about family members being detained. She campaigned as a proud Democrat despite the race being officially nonpartisan and beat Trump-backed candidate Emilio Gonzalez, a former city manager, who said he called Higgins to congratulate her.

“We are facing rhetoric from elected officials that is so dehumanizing and cruel, especially against immigrant populations,” Higgins told The Associated Press after her victory speech. “The residents of Miami were ready to be done with that.”

With nearly all votes counted Tuesday, Higgins led the Republican by about 19 percentage points.

The local race is not predictive of what may happen at the polls next year. But it drew attention from the two major national political parties and their leaders. The victory provides Democrats with some momentum heading into a high-stakes midterm election when the GOP is looking to keep its grip in Florida, including in a Hispanic-majority district in Miami-Dade County. The area has shifted increasingly rightward politically in recent years, and the city may become the home of Trump’s presidential library.

“Tonight’s result is yet another warning sign to Republicans that voters are fed up with their out-of-touch agenda that is raising costs,” said Ken Martin, the chair of the Democratic National Committee, in a statement.

Some nationally recognized Democrats supported Higgins, including former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego and former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel traveled to Miami on Sunday and Monday to rally voters for the Democrat who served as a Miami-Dade county commissioner for seven years.

Higgins, who speaks Spanish, represented a district that leans conservative and includes the Cuban neighborhood of Little Havana. When she first entered politics in 2018, she chose to present herself to voters as “La Gringa,” a term Spanish speakers use for white Americans, because many people did not known how to pronounce her name.

“It just helps people understand who I am, and you know what? I am a ‘gringa,’ so, what am I going to do, deny it?” she told the AP.

Republicans’ anxiety grows

Republicans in Florida have found strong support from voters with heritage from Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, because they likened some members of the Democratic party’s progressive wing with politicians from the governments they fled. Trump and other GOP members have tapped into those sentiments over the past eight years.

However, some local Republicans are growing increasingly frustrated since November’s elections when Democrats scored wins in New Jersey and Virginia, where both winning gubernatorial candidates performed strongly with nonwhite voters.

The results from those races were perceived as a reflection of concerns over rising prices and the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies.

U.S. Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican whose district is being targeted by Democrats and includes the city of Miami, called the elections elsewhere a “wake-up call.” She said Hispanics also want a secure border and a healthy economy but some relief for “those who have been here for years and do not have a criminal record.”

“The Hispanic vote is not guaranteed,” Salazar said in a video posted on X last month. “Hispanics married President Trump, but they are only dating the GOP.”

David Jolly, who is running to represent Democrats in the Florida governor’s race next year, said the mayoral election was good news for Democrats in what used to be a battleground state.

“Change is here. It’s sweeping the nation, and it’s sweeping Florida,” Jolly said.

Miami mayor-elect gains national platform

The mayoral position in Miami is more ceremonial, but Higgins promised to execute it like a full-time job.

The city is part of Miami-Dade County, which Trump flipped last year, a dramatic improvement from his 30 percentage point loss to Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016.

As Florida’s second-largest city, Miami is considered the gateway to Latin America and attracts millions of tourists. Its global prominence gives Higgins a significant stage as mayor.

Her pitch to voters included finding city-owned land that could be turned into affordable housing and cutting unnecessary spending.

Licon writes for the Associated Press.

Less than five months after the House wilted under the heat of an organized pressure campaign and voted down higher pay for members of Congress and other federal officials, Speaker Thomas S. Foley is again saying that judicial and executive branch pay should be raised, preferably by action this year. He’s right, and it would be just as right to extend the prospect of higher pay to Congress as well, however politically unpalatable that idea might seem right now. The fact is that pay scales in all branches of government have fallen far behind what they ought to be. Worse, in the case of Congress, the present pay ceiling continues to provide an excuse for accepting outside fees, thus inescapably corrupting the legislative process.

A lot of people, to be sure, remain distinctly unimpressed by calls for higher federal pay. It’s not hard to see why. At $89,500 a year, a member of Congress, a federal district judge, a civilian secretary of one of the armed services or a deputy secretary in the Department of State, Defense or Treasury already earns far more than the great majority of people. Indeed, these salaries, like the $99,500 Cabinet officers are paid annually, puttheir recipients among the 4% or 5% best-paid Americans. People who have to get by on a lot less have every reason to wonder why certain well-paid public servants should be paid even more.

The best answer, at least for the judicial and executive branches, has to do with equity and pay competitiveness. Americans want high-quality public servants; that, we think, can be taken as a given. But quality is a marketable value.

There are, happily for the nation, a lot of talented and selfless people in the federalgovernment who are willing to work for less than they could earn elsewhere because they aregenuinely committed to public service. It’s one thing, though, to be prepared to work for less; it’s something else to be asked to accept a rate of pay that is effectively punitive.

A good lawyer invited to the federal bench is usually asked to give up an annual income three or more times greater than what he will earn as a judge. And a Cabinet officer or senior executive-branch official almost certainly could expect to earn four, six or even 10 times as much in the private sector. No one has ever suggested that government should pay such people what the private sector offers. But certainly, if talented people are to be drawn to and remain in federal service, they deserve to be paid 40% or 50% more than what they are offered now.

And Congress? The Senate and House are institutions where the idea that you get what you pay for almost certainly doesn’t apply, because as an institution Congress really doesn’t compete with the private sector. The real issue with Congress is that its members should be paid more primarily so they will no longer have an excuse for accepting money from special pleaders in the form of “honoraria,” speaking fees or phony book “royalties.” What’s needed, in short, is a congressional pay increase of, say, 40%, which is comparable to the Senate’s present limit on outside income, welded to a ban on accepting any fees or rewards for outside appearances, talks, publications or whatever. That provision ought to seriously weaken, even if it doesn’t wholly eliminate, the temptation to sell votes and influence for cash and other favors.

Yes, Congress should be held to a strict standard of legislative honesty even without the incentive of higher pay. The unpleasant fact is that we’re not likely to achieve the first without providing the second. In any event, Congress will probably be asked to reconsider the question of higher federal pay before the year is out. This time it ought to do the right thing and vote senior federal officials, members of Congress included, the pay boosts that are so long overdue.

Donald Trump’s public feud with the Muslim family of a fallen soldier has drawn attention to the businessman’s own record of military service.   

Khizr Khan delivered an emotional speech at the Democratic National Convention in which he told the story of his son, Humayun, who was killed in 2004 by a car bomb while serving in Iraq. In his remarks, Khan, with his wife at his side, said the Republican presidential nominee had “sacrificed nothing” for his country. 

And in a response condemned by both Democrats and Republicans, Trump criticized the Gold Star parents and insisted his own “sacrifices” included creating jobs and helping establish a Vietnam War memorial in New York.

But for all of Trump’s boasting about his support from veterans, he has never served in the military, thanks to a string of deferments that enabled him to avoid the draft during the Vietnam War. 

Here’s a look at what happened: 

Trump graduates from New York Military Academy in 1964 as Vietnam War is ramping up.

At the military academy, Trump wore a uniform and participated in marching drills all four years, up until his graduation in the spring of 1964.  In March 1965, the first U.S. combat troops arrived on the ground in Vietnam.

Shortly after his 18th birthday, Trump registered with the Selective Service on June 24, 1964. Federal law requires men at age 18 to register and be available for military draft. His Selective Service card noted that Trump was 6-foot-2 and 180 pounds. Under a section titled “physical characteristics” it stated that Trump has a birthmark on both heels. 

Registering made Trump a candidate for a military draft, which was about to ramp up as U.S. involvement in Vietnam grew. 

But Trump said he wanted to pursue his education so he could enter the real estate business and follow in the footsteps of his father, Fred, who had built a profitable company in New York.

Donald Trump’s Selective Service card (National Archives and Records Administration )

(Kurtis Lee)

College deferments during his years at Fordham and the University of Pennsylvania.

Trump decided to stay in New York, enrolling at Fordham University in the fall of 1964. He would remain there for two years, before transferring to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, where he would study business. 

Trump received four education deferments while in school, according to the National Archives and Records Administration.

The first education deferment came on July 28, 1964, several weeks before he began his freshman year at Fordham. Trump received similar deferments his sophomore, junior and senior years. 

The deferments ended once he graduated from Wharton, making the then-22-year-old Trump eligible to be drafted again.

After college, Trump receives a medical deferment.

Trump graduated in 1968, one of the most turbulent years of the war. He set his sights on returning to New York.

On Oct. 15, several months after his graduation that spring, Trump was granted a 1-Y medical deferment. 

In an interview with the New York Times, Trump said the reason he received the medical deferment was because of  bone spurs in his heels.

The National Archives and Records Administration does not specify the reason for the medical deferment, only that it resulted from a September 1968 physical exam that “disqualified” him from service. 

“I had a doctor that gave me a letter — a very strong letter on the heels,” Trump told the New York Times.

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks declined to offer additional comment about the deferment. 

Election 2016 | Live coverage on Trail Guide | Sign up for the newsletter

What’s a 1-Y medical deferment?

This deferment was handed out to individuals with health conditions that would have limited their effectiveness to serve. Those conditions, among others, included high blood pressure, severe asthma and allergies. 

Registrants who received this deferment were deemed “not qualified for military service” by the Selective Service. 

Trump’s high lottery number for the draft.

When the draft lottery for Vietnam began in December 1969, Trump was already shielded because of his medical deferment. 

Over the years, Trump has offered few details about his deferments, but has sometimes said the reason he did not fight in Vietnam was because he was fortunate enough to receive a high lottery number. 

“If I would have gotten a low number, I would have been drafted. I would have proudly served,” he told ABC News last year. “But I got a number, I think it was 356. That’s right at the very end. And they didn’t get — I don’t believe — past even 300, so I was — I was not chosen because of the fact that I had a very high lottery number.”

An official for the National Archives confirmed that Trump received a draft number of 356 out of 365.

But before that, Trump was protected from the draft for more than year by his 1-Y medical deferment. 

The draft ended in 1973. 

Listen to Trump talk about his draft number and deferments:

What are Trump’s views on not serving?

At a campaign rally in New Hampshire last year, after Trump had criticized the war record  of Sen. John McCain for being captured and held prisoner in Vietnam, he expressed some guilt about having not served. 

“I didn’t serve, I haven’t served,” said Trump. “I always felt a little guilty.”

Trump’s relations with veterans groups.

Trump has aggressively courted veterans in his presidential campaign and boasted of his contributions to veterans’ causes. But many of those donations remain undocumented. 

Earlier this year, the Washington Post found that Trump had raised $3.1 million at a January fundraiser for veterans, despite proclaiming  he had raised about $6 million. At that same fundraiser, Trump pledged to personally donate $1 million to veterans’ causes. Only after intense pressure and questions from reporters did Trump make good on his pledge four months later. 

While speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars conference last month, Trump asserted he would be the best commander-in-chief that veterans have ever seen. “Our debt to you is eternal — yet our politicians have totally failed you,” he said. 

Yet after his confrontation with the Khan family, the VFW issued a statement condemning Trump’s remarks. 

“Election year or not, the VFW will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression,” said Brian Duffy, head of the veterans organization. “There are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed.”

Numerous other Gold Star families called upon Trump to apologize, but he has said he does not regret responding to what he called Khan’s “vicious” attack against him.

At a Virginia rally Tuesday, a retired lieutenant colonel gave Trump his Purple Heart medal in a gesture of support. Trump thanked him and said, “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.”

Follow @kurtisalee on Twitter 

kurtis.lee@latimes.com 

ALSO

Op-Ed: Why Trump can’t tell the difference between a Twitter war and a presidential campaign

Foreign leaders long refrained from commenting on U.S. elections. Then Trump came along.

‘A sense of panic is rising’ among Republicans over Trump, including talk of what to do if he quits

Many Americans think badly of the government because of “gridlock” in Washington. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is not one of them.

Americans “should learn to love gridlock,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. “The framers (of the Constitution) would say, yes, ‘That’s exactly the way we set it up. We wanted power contradicting power (to prevent) an excess of legislation.’ ”

And that was in 1787, he added. They “didn’t know what an excess of legislation was.”

Scalia, the longest-serving justice, contrasted the American system to those of governments in Europe, and he said this country’s Constitution is better because it provides for an independent president, an independent judiciary and two independent branches of Congress.

“I hear Americans nowadays … talk about dysfunctional government because there’s disagreement,” he said. If they understood the Constitution, he continued, they can “learn to love the separation of powers, which means learning to love gridlock, which the framers believed would be the main protection of minorities.”

Scalia discounted the importance of the Bill of Rights and its protection for freedom of speech and the press. “Every banana republic has a Bill of Rights,” he said. Those are “just words on paper.” It depends on the “structure of government,” including independent courts, to enforce the rights of individuals.

The Senate committee invited Scalia and Justice Stephen G. Breyer to talk about the role of judges, and the two carried on a two-hour conversation about their views of the Constitution and the law.

In recent years, they have conducted their own debate over whether the justices should rely on the original meaning of the Constitution in deciding cases. Breyer said judges needed to start with the “values” set in the Constitution, but need to update them to take account of modern times.

Scalia said he wanted no part of it. “I’m hoping the living Constitution will die,” he said.

ROME — If anyone doubts that self-interest, not the national interest, is the coin of the realm in Washington, Whitewater is ample confirmation. It is the inevitable culmination of a quarter-century of hypocrisy, lying and posturing by Presidents, press and partisan hacks alike. This time, the result may be tragic: to take a seemingly insignificant series of questions that should have been settled in the 1992 campaign–and turn them into the diminution and possible ruin of the first presidency in a generation to deal seriously with the nation’s problems.

On Whitewater, I have read far too much and learned far too little from the effort. But failing a whole new conspiracy unearthed by the special prosecutor or Congress or the press, Whitewater is not Watergate–or anything like it.

Bill Clinton hasn’t abused his presiden- tial authority, as Richard M. Nixon–or even Ronald Reagan–did. He has not promulgated illegal, unconstitutional schemes to bring about desired political goals, judging from the facts thus far revealed. But the distinction may be meaningless in today’s atmosphere of rabid partisanship and media stampede.

The most significant fact known about Whitewater to date is that it occurred 15 years ago. Clinton, as President, is being prosecuted for his ethical standards as governor. Moreover, he is being judged wanting by members of a congressional political class who, in many cases, fed at the same statehouse troughs that he apparently fattened at and who, according to PAC reports, have continued their bottom-feeding on the Potomac.

But it is Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s own lack of candor that has ensured this sordid story is going to go on, and on. Congressional hearings begin on July 26; the special prosecutor will be at work for at least another year. The Clintons’ truth trimming has guaranteed that the press and Congress will continue down predictable paths–reducing the whole sorry business to a high-stakes game of liar’s poker, where only the Clintons can lose. They are heading toward a credibility problem that, in today’s talk-show nation, could achieve Nixonian and Johnsonian proportions. Worse, unlike Reagan, who had his own troubles with the truth, Clinton is now perceived as a less-than-strong leader.

This is something quite apart from obstruction of justice, as practiced by Nixon and documented on his tapes, or the Iran-Contra cover-up. George Stephanopoulus sounding off at the Treasury Department about the appointment of an official investigator who is an acknowledged political opponent of the President would seem, under the circumstances, reasonable. And, indeed, the special prosecutor reported June 30 that White House aides had not acted illegally in their contacts with investigators.

If Clinton has conspired with his aides to lie to grand juries or pay off colleagues for their silence (“I don’t give a shit what you do. Lie, stonewall, whatever you have to do to get past the grand jury,” Nixon said into his microphones), the press has uncovered no shred of evidence.

But the Clintons and this presidency have a special burden. Unlike Nixon, the Clintons came to Washington riding the engine of political reform and change. Indeed, they have brought substantive change to the swamp of inertia and indifference that is Washington.

But it is impossible to accomplish genuine political reform while practicing the same old tricks without bringing new values–some might say spiritual or moral values–to Washington. That was the promise of this Administration, that the breeze of truth–about our politics, our national condition, ourselves–would blow through the denial and pathology about America’s difficulties. The “new politics” would be reality-based.

For that to happen, our President could not be a part-time truth teller. He had to break the pattern of deception that for a generation has informed what passes for political debate in Washington: a pattern in which posture passes for principle, process is valued more highly than policy and the most urgent national business goes untended.

Thus, for the Clinton presidency to succeed on the terms it aspired to office–honesty about our problems and the means available for their solution, beginning with the country’s economic health–a new pattern of presidential candor had to be established, especially after Lyndon B. Johnson’s falsehoods on Vietnam, Nixon’s on Watergate, Reagan and George Bush’s disingenuousness on Iran-Contra and the arming of Iraq.

The conundrum of the 1992 campaign was always that Clinton promised us the truth, and we bought the promise–because he told the truth about almost everything except himself. His judgment was right that, ultimately, people cared less about the assertions of Gennifer Flowers than about health care. But he was wrong to believe most people bought his self-serving answers to tough personal questions in the campaign; any more than most people are buying the Clintons’ tortured explanations about cattle futures and chicken lobbyists. Let’s face it: The Clintons sleazed some back in Arkansas. It is time to fess up: To acknowledge the glaring conflicts of interest–and whatever else untoward may have occurred.

Clinton ran for President under a new-age banner: The courage to change. The difficulty is that Clinton implicitly promised not only change for the country–but change in himself. Perhaps that is why he is politically vulnerable in Whitewater: He appears not to have changed. The truth shaving, the lack of candor, that came to be known as the “character” issue in the campaign are now attached to his presidency. Surprisingly, the issue of candor–and character–now extends to Hillary Clinton.

Worse, the Administration’s responses to its substantive failings and inconsistencies, to the differences between principle and practice from Bosnia to Haiti, are increasingly described in the same kind of defensive, half-truthful context as the Clintons’ answers on Whitewater.

The Clinton presidency is in danger of becoming marginalized by temporizing. Clinton no longer commands the political high ground–though, substantively, the facts and public opinion remain on his side of the issues. (“When Whitewater hearings are televised, it will be Clinton’s turn in the bucket,” Nixon told a trusted friend shortly before his death–remembering that his own polls remained relatively high until the Watergate hearings.) Today, Clinton is much less an inspiring presence in the thought life of the nation than in the days following his election or his masterful State of the Union–even as his eloquence and daring in confronting some of the true problems of our civil society have become more apparent.

His explanations of inconsistencies between his campaign rhetoric and policies–on gays in the military, the abandonment of nominees when they got into trouble, his waffling on campaign-finance reform–all fit the same pattern as the Clintons’ answers on Whitewater. These are the old patterns of presidential prevarication, not the new politics he promised. Clinton’s problems–with the press, the Congress and the people–are due to a growing perception that we are in danger of moving back to business-as-usual.

I write this as a believer in the potential of the Clinton presidency. Clinton shifted the terms of debate, just as Reagan moved the terms of debate and reference roughly 180 degrees early in his tenure. Clinton is the best-informed President of our lifetime. Today, imaginative ideas are being discussed–in Washington and the country–to address national problems.

Clinton is articulate, and clearly relishes the job and its opportunities. He has the political instincts to be a great leader. Moreover, like Reagan, he is prevailing: His basic economic program is being implemented. Some health-care reform will be accomplished, though in what form is still to be determined. As promised, he has undone 12 years of Reagan-Bush antipathy to abortion rights. He speaks sensibly and compassionately–not in code–about crime and family values and race. He was elected to change the country and the way things get done in Washington, and his agenda still reflects the promise.

But all this could disappear in the flotsam of Whitewater.

If Clinton succumbs to that part of himself that plays fast with the truth, that doesn’t inhale–he is finished. If he thinks the lesson of the campaign is that he was helped by his equivocations, that he got away with it–on the draft, on his personal life–he is courting disaster. The press will, inevitably, make this the central issue of his presidency–regardless of all the substance and programs.

Clinton has been besieged by partisan enemies and thoughtless journalism since his tenure began. With some justification, he disdains the press. The press would be more interested in the truth if it were easier to obtain and did not require attention to context. Hence, the wild and loopy coverage in Whitewater. But the underlying questions raised in a handful of legitimate stories deserve honest, expeditious answers. Those haven’t been forthcoming.

Lying and dissembling, once the press pack is on to it, is an easy story to cover–and contributes mightily to the devastation of presidencies. Witness the final chapters of Johnson in Vietnam, of Watergate, Iran-Contra. The GOP and the press are on the lookout for “Slick Willie,” and any time they sense his presence, the truthfulness of the President–not the worthiness of his programs–will become the issue.

In electing Clinton, the country summoned the courage to change that he called for. Now he must summon that same courage to change. The fate of his presidency may be at stake.*

Just as a president is entitled to pardon anyone convicted or accused of a crime, he is free to dismiss any petitions for clemency without offering an explanation. Indeed, he can choose never to issue any pardons or commutations of sentences at all. Still, it’s disappointing that President Obama so far hasn’t approved even one request for a pardon or other form of clemency.

It’s not that there is a shortage of claimants. Earlier this month, Obama formally denied 605 petitions for commutation of sentences and 71 pardon requests. It’s hard to believe that none of those was deserving of approval.

In the public mind, the president’s authority to grant clemency tends to be associated with high-profile and politically motivated grants of clemency, such as President Gerald R. Ford’s pardon of Richard M. Nixon for Watergate crimes, President Clinton’s scandalous pardon of the fugitive financier Marc Rich or President George W. Bush’s commutation of the sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

But presidents also have used the pardon authority to right wrongs and reward rehabilitation in much less prominent cases. They are aided in such decisions by the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Justice Department, which scrutinizes claims for clemency and passes them along to the White House with recommendations. There are strict standards for clemency petitions submitted through the pardon attorney. For example, no petition for a pardon may be submitted until five years after a prisoner is released or, if no prison sentence was imposed, five years after conviction. Petitions for a commutation of a sentence are usually entertained only when no other form of relief is available.

Ideally, presidents would give great deference to the pardon attorney’s recommendations and take a liberal view of the clemency power, exercising it often and on the basis of clear standards. Their reluctance to do so likely reflects not the merits or demerits of particular petitions but the political liability of appearing soft on crime. That reality has led some advocates of more pardons to hope that Obama is waiting to announce grants of clemency until after next week’s election. If so, we hope his first exercise of his clemency power won’t be his last.

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Friday said he has deemed churches and other houses of worship “essential” and called on governors to allow them to reopen this weekend despite the threat of the coronavirus.

“Today I’m identifying houses of worship — churches, synagogues and mosques — as essential places that provide essential services,” Trump said during a hastily arranged news conference Friday. He said if governors don’t abide by his request, he will “override” them, though it’s unclear what authority he has to do so.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had prepared reopening guidelines for churches and other houses of worship weeks ago, but the White House had refused to release them until Thursday, when Trump abruptly changed course.

“I said ‘You better put it out.’ And they’re doing it,” Trump said Thursday at a Ford Motor Co. plant repurposed to make ventilators in Michigan. “And they’re going to be issuing something today or tomorrow on churches. We got to get our churches open.”

Trump on Friday stressed the importance of churches in many communities and took issue with some of the businesses that had been allowed to reopen.

“Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential,” but not churches, he said. “It’s not right. So I’m correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential.”

“These are places that hold our society together and keep our people united. The people are demanding to go to church and synagogue, go to their mosque,” he said.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Opponents of Missouri’s new congressional map submitted thousands of petition signatures Tuesday calling for a statewide referendum on a redistricting plan backed by President Trump as part of his quest to hold on to a slim Republican majority in next year’s elections.

Organizers of the petition drive said they turned in more than 300,000 signatures to the secretary of state’s office — more than the roughly 110,000 needed to suspend the new U.S. House districts from taking effect until a public vote can be held sometime next year.

Referendum votes in Missouri are automatically set for the upcoming November election, unless the General Assembly approves an earlier date during its regular session that begins in January. Missouri’s candidate filing period runs from Feb. 24 through March 31, but districts can still be changed after the deadline, as occurred when the legislature last approved districts in 2022.

The signatures also need to be formally verified by local election authorities and Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who has argued the referendum is unconstitutional. But if the signatures hold up, the referendum could create a significant obstacle for Republicans who hope the new districts could help them win a currently Democratic-held seat in the Kansas City area in the November election.

“At the end of the day, these are going to have to get counted, and people are going to vote on this,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, which sponsored the referendum drive.

Redistricting typically happens once a decade, after each census. But the national political parties are engaged in an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle after Trump urged Republican-led states to reshape House voting districts to their advantage. The Republican president is trying to avert a historical tendency for the incumbent’s party to lose seats in midterm elections.

Each House seat could be crucial, because Democrats need a net gain of just three seats to win control of the chamber and impede Trump’s agenda.

Redistricting is spreading through states

Texas was the first to respond to Trump’s call by passing a new congressional map that could help Republicans win five additional seats. The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way last week for the new districts to be used in the 2026 elections.

Republicans could gain one seat each under new maps passed in Missouri and North Carolina and have an improved chance at taking two additional seats under a new Ohio congressional map. In Indiana, senators are considering a proposal this week that also could help Republicans win two additional seats.

Democrats scored a victory in California, where voters in November approved a new Democratic-drawn congressional map that could help the party win five additional seats. Democrats could gain a seat in Utah under new congressional districts imposed by a judge.

But Republicans are challenging both states’ measures in court. And Utah lawmakers are meeting in a special session Tuesday to consider delaying the candidate filing deadline to allow more time for the legal challenge.

Virginia Democrats have also taken a first step toward mid-decade redistricting, with additional votes expected in the new year.

Missouri referendum sparks intense battle

People Not Politicians has raised about $5 million, coming mostly from out-of-state organizations opposed to the new map. National Republican-aligned groups have countered with more than $2 million for a committee supporting the new map.

Republicans have tried to thwart the referendum in numerous ways.

Organizations supporting the Republican redistricting have attempted to pay people up to $30,000 to quit gathering petition signatures, according to a lawsuit filed by Advanced Micro Targeting Inc., a company hired by People Not Politicians.

Hoskins, the secretary of state, contends he cannot legally count about 100,000 petition signatures gathered in the one-month span between legislative passage of the redistricting bill and his approval of the referendum petition’s format, but can only count those gathered after that.

Hoskins also wrote a ballot summary stating the new map “repeals Missouri’s existing gerrymandered congressional plan … and better reflects statewide voting patterns.” That’s the opposite of what referendum backers contend it does, and People Not Politicians is challenging that wording in court.

Meanwhile, Republican Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Hoskins and the General Assembly asserting that congressional redistricting legislation cannot be subject to a referendum. Although a federal judge dismissed that suit Monday, the judge noted that Hoskins has “the power to declare the petition unconstitutional himself,” which would likely trigger a new court case.

Missouri’s restricting effort already has sparked an intense court battle. Lawsuits by opponents challenge the legality of Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe’s special session proclamation, assert that mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed under Missouri’s constitution and claim the new districts run afoul of requirements to be compact, contiguous and equally populated.

It’s been more than a century since Missouri last held a referendum on a congressional redistricting plan. In 1922, the U.S. House districts approved by the Republican-led legislature were defeated by nearly 62% of the statewide vote.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump will road-test his claims that he’s tackling Americans’ affordability woes at a Tuesday rally in Mount Pocono, Penn., — shifting an argument made in Oval Office appearances and social media posts to a campaign-style event.

The trip comes as polling consistently shows that public trust in Trump’s economic leadership has faltered. Following dismal results for Republicans in last month’s off-cycle elections, the White House has sought to convince voters that the economy will emerge stronger next year and that any anxieties over inflation have nothing to do with Trump.

The president has consistently blamed his predecessor, Democrat Joe Biden, for inflation even as his own aggressive implementation of policies has pushed up prices that had been settling down after spiking in 2022 to a four-decade high. Inflation began to accelerate after Trump announced his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in April. Companies warned that the import taxes could be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced hiring, yet Trump continues to insist that inflation has faded.

“We’re bringing prices way down,” Trump said at the White House on Monday. “You can call it ‘affordability’ or anything you want — but the Democrats caused the affordability problem, and we’re the ones that are fixing it.”

The president’s reception in the county hosting his Tuesday rally could give a signal of just how much voters trust his claims. Monroe County flipped to Trump in the 2024 election after having backed Biden in 2020, helping the Republican to win the swing state of Pennsylvania and return to the White House after a four-year hiatus.

As home to the Pocono Mountains, the county has largely relied on tourism for skiing, hiking, hunting and other activities as a source of jobs. Its proximity to New York City — under two hours by car — has also attracted people seeking more affordable housing.

It’s also an area that could help decide control of the House in next year’s midterm elections.

Trump is holding his rally in a congressional district held by freshman Republican Rep. Rob Bresnahan, who is a top target of Democrats and won his 2024 race by about 1.5 percentage points, among the nation’s closest. Scranton Mayor Paige Cognetti, a Democrat, is running for the nomination to challenge him.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running digital ads during Trump’s visit on the Wilkes-Barre Times-Leader website that criticize Bresnahan for his stock trading while in Congress and suggest that Trump has not as promised addressed double-dealing in Washington.

White House chief of staff Susie Wiles said on the online conservative talk show “The Mom View” that Trump would be on the “campaign trail” next year to engage supporters who otherwise might sit out a congressional race.

Wiles, who helped manage Trump’s 2024 campaign, said most administrations try to localize midterm elections and keep the president out of the race, but she intends to do the opposite of that.

“We’re actually going to turn that on its head,” Wiles said, “and put him on the ballot because so many of those low-propensity voters are Trump voters.”

Wiles added, “So I haven’t quite broken it to him yet, but he’s going to campaign like it’s 2024 again.”

The challenge for Trump is how to address the concerns of voters about the economy while simultaneously claiming that the economy is enjoying an historic boom.

Asked on a Politico podcast about how he’d rate the economy, Trump leaned into the grade inflation by answering “A-plus,” only to then amend his answer to “A-plus-plus-plus-plus-plus.”

Trump has said he’s giving consumers relief by relaxing fuel efficiency standards for autos and signing agreements to reduce list prices on prescription drugs.

Trump has also advocated for cuts to the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate — which influences the supply of money in the U.S. economy. He argues that would reduce the cost of mortgages and auto loans, although critics warn that cuts of the scale sought by Trump could instead worsen inflation.

The U.S. economy has shown signs of resilience with the stock market up this year and overall growth looking solid for the third quarter. But many Americans see the prices of housing, groceries, education, electricity and other basic needs as swallowing up their incomes, a dynamic that the Trump administration has said it expects to fade next year with more investments in artificial intelligence and manufacturing.

Since the elections in November when Democrats won key races with a focus on kitchen table issues, Trump has often dismissed the concerns about prices as a “hoax” and a “con job” to suggest that he bears no responsibility for inflation, even though he campaigned on his ability to quickly bring down prices. Just 33% of U.S. adults approve of Trump’s handling of the economy, according to a November survey by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

Boak and Levy write for the Associated Press. Levy reported from Harrisburg, Penn.

In February 2023, Jaime Green, the superintendent of a tiny school district in the mountains of Northern California, flew to Washington, D.C., with an urgent appeal.

The Secure Rural Schools Act, a long-standing financial aid program for schools like his in forested counties, was about to lapse, putting thousands of districts at risk of losing significant chunks of their budgets. The law had originated 25 years ago as a temporary fix for rural counties that were losing tax revenue from reduced timber harvesting on public lands.

Green, whose Trinity Alps Unified School District serves about 650 students in the struggling logging town of Weaverville, bounded through Capitol Hill with a small group of Northern California educators, pleading with anyone who would listen: Please renew the program.

They were assured, over and over, that it had bipartisan support, wasn’t much money in the grand scheme of things, and almost certainly would be renewed.

But because Congress could not agree on how to fund the program, it took nearly three years — and a lapse in funding — for the Secure Rural Schools Act to be revived, at least temporarily.

On Tuesday, the U.S. House overwhelmingly voted to extend the program through 2027 and to provide retroactive payments to districts that lost funding while it was lapsed.

The vote was 399 to 5, with all nay votes cast by Republicans. The bill, approved unanimously by the Senate in June, now awaits President Trump’s signature.

“We’ve got Republicans and Democrats holding hands, passing this freaking bill, finally,” Green said. “We stayed positive. The option to quit was, what, layofffs and kids not getting educated? We kept telling them the same story, and they kept listening.”

Green, who until that 2023 trip had never traveled east of Texas, wound up flying to Washington 14 times. He was in the House audience Tuesday as the bill was passed.

In an interview Tuesday, Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa, who represents a vast swath of Northern California and helped lead the push for reauthorization, said Congress never should have let the program lapse in the first place.

The Secure Rural Schools Act, he said, was a victim of a Congress in which “it’s still an eternal fight over anything fiscal.” It is “annoying,” LaMalfa said, “how hard it is to get basic things done around here.”

Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), greets Supts. Jaime Green, of Weaverville, and Anmarie Swanstrom, of Hayfork, on Capitol Hill in February 2023.

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

“I’m not proud of the situation taking this long and putting these folks in this much stress,” he said of rural communities that rely upon the funding. “I’m not going to break my arm patting myself on the back.”

Despite broad bipartisan support, the Secure Rural Schools Act, run by the U.S. Forest Service, expired in the fall of 2023, with final payouts made in 2024. That year, the program distributed more than $232 million to more than 700 counties across the United States and Puerto Rico, with nearly $34 million going to California.

In 2024, reauthorization stalled in the House. This year, it was included in a House draft of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act but was ultimately dropped from the final package.

While public school budgets are largely supported by local property taxes, districts surrounded by untaxed federal forest land have depended upon modest payments from the U.S. Forest Service to stay afloat.

Historically, that money mostly came from logging. Under a 1908 law, counties with national forests — primarily in the rural West — received 25% of what the federal government made from timber sales off that land. The money was split between schools, roads and other critical services.

But by the early 1990s, the once-thriving logging industry had cratered. So did the school funding.

In 2000, Congress enacted what was supposed to be a short-term, six-year solution: the Secure Rural Schools & Community Self-Determination Act, with funding based on a complex formula involving historical timber revenues and other factors.

Congress never made the program permanent, instead reauthorizing versions of it by tucking it into other bills. Once, it was included in a bill to shore up the nation’s helium supply. Another time, it was funded in part by a tax on roll-your-own-cigarette machines.

The program extension passed Tuesday was a standalone bill.

“For rural school districts, it’s critically important, and it means stability from a financial perspective,” said Yuri Calderon, executive director of the Sacramento-based Small School Districts’ Assn.

Calderon said he had heard from numerous school districts across the state that had been dipping into reserve funds to avoid layoffs and cutbacks since the Secure Rural Schools Act expired.

Calderon said the program wasn’t “a handout; it’s basically a mitigation payment” from the federal government, which owns and manages about 45% of California’s land.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) meets with a group of superintendents from rural Northern California in February 2023.

(Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times)

On Dec. 3, LaMalfa and Democratic Rep. Joe Neguse of Colorado, alongside Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo and Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, spearheaded a letter with signatures from more than 80 bipartisan members of Congress urging House leadership to renew the program by the end of the year.

The letter said the lapse in funding already had led to “school closures, delayed road and bridge maintenance, and reduced public safety services.”

In Trinity County, where Green’s district is located, the federal government owns more than 75% of the land, limiting the tax base and the ability to pass local bonds for things like campus maintenance.

As the Secure Rural Schools Act has been tweaked over the years, funding has seesawed. In 2004, Green’s district in Weaverville, population 3,200, received $1.3 million through the program.

The last payment was about $600,000, roughly 4% of the district’s budget, said Sheree Beans, the district’s chief budget official.

Beans said Monday that, had the program not been renewed, the district likely would have had to lay off seven or eight staff members.

“I don’t want to lay off anyone in my small town,” Beans said. “I see them at the post office. It affects kids. It affects their education.”

In October — during the 43-day federal government shutdown — Beans took three Trinity County students who are members of Future Farmers of America to Capitol Hill to meet with House Speaker Mike Johnson’s staff about the program.

After years of back and forth, Green could not go on that trip. He did not feel well. His doctor told him he needed to stop traveling so much.

Before hopping on a flight to Washington this weekend, the 59-year-old superintendent penned a letter to his staff. After three decades in the district, he was retiring, effective Monday.

Green wrote that he has a rare genetic condition called neurofibromatosis type 2, which has caused tumors to grow on his spinal cord. He will soon undergo surgeries to have them removed.

“My body has let me go as far as I can,” he wrote.

In Green’s letter, he wrote that, if the Secure Rural Schools Act was extended, “financially we will be alright for years to come.”

On Monday night, the district’s Board of Trustees named Beans interim superintendent. She attended the meeting, then drove more than three hours to the airport in Sacramento. She got on a red-eye flight and made it to Washington in time for the Secure Rural Schools vote on the House floor.

When Green decided a few weeks ago to step down, he did not know the reauthorization vote would coincide with his first day of retirement.

But, he said, he never doubted the program would eventually be revived. Coming right before Christmas, he said, “the timing is beautiful.”

Tony Dokoupil is expected to move from mornings to evenings at CBS News.

Dokoupil, currently the co-host of “CBS Mornings,” has signed a new deal to take over as anchor of “CBS Evening News,” according to several people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to comment publicly. One person said an announcement is expected as soon as this week.

A representative for CBS News declined comment. Dokoupil, 44, did not respond to a request for comment.

The news division’s signature program is expected to return to a solo anchor format after pairing John Dickerson and Maurice DuBois over the last year. Both Dickerson and DuBois are departing CBS News later this month.

The appointment of Dokoupil would not point to a major change in direction at the program. Dokoupil, who has been with CBS News since 2016 after three years at NBC, became co-host at CBS Mornings in 2019.

Bari Weiss, the recently appointed editor in chief at CBS News, reportedly expressed a desire to bring in an outside name, including Bret Baier, the Washington-based anchor at conservative-leaning Fox News. CNN’s Anderson Cooper was also discussed internally, but he chose to sign a new deal with his network.

The Free Press, the digital news site co-founded by Weiss and acquired by Paramount, vigorously defended Dokoupil last year when he was at the center of controversy over an aggressive on-air interview he conducted with author Ta-Nehisi Coates last year.

Dokoupil was admonished in an editorial meeting for how he questioned Coates about his new book, “The Message,” which examines the Israel-Gaza conflict. CBS News leadership said on the call that the interview did not meet the company’s editorial standards after receiving a number of complaints from staffers.

A recording of the meeting was posted on the Free Press site.

“It is journalists like Tony Dokoupil who are an endangered species in legacy news organizations, which are wilting to the pressures of this new elite consensus,” the editors of the Free Press wrote on the matter.

Shari Redstone, the former majority shareholder in CBS News parent Paramount, also publicly expressed her support for Dokoupil at the time. She said CBS News executives made “a bad mistake” in their handling of the matter. Both executives who led the editorial call, Wendy McMahon and Adrienne Roark, are no longer with the network.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives signaled Tuesday they are likely to rule for Republicans and President Trump by throwing out a Watergate-era limit on campaign funding by political parties.

The court has repeatedly said campaign money is protected as free speech, and the new ruling could allow parties to support their candidate’s campaigns with help from wealthy donors.

For the second day in a row, Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down a law passed by Congress.
And they appeared to have the support of most of the conservatives.

The only doubt arose over the question of whether the case was flawed because no current candidate was challenging the limits.

“The parties are very much weakened,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “This court’s decisions over the years have together reduced the power of political parties, as compared to outside groups, with negative effects on our constitutional democracy.”

He was referring to rulings that upheld unlimited campaign spending by wealthy donors and so-called SuperPACs.

In the Citizens United case of 2010, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and four other conservatives struck down the long-standing limits on campaign spending, including by corporations and unions. They did so on the theory that such spending was “independent” of candidates and was protected as free speech under the 1st Amendment.

They said the limits on contributions to candidates were not affected. Those limits could be justified because the danger of corruption where money bought political favors. This triggered a new era of ever-larger political spending but most of it was separate from the candidates and the parties.

Last year, Elon Musk spent more than $250 million to support Donald Trump’s campaign for reelection. He did so with money spent through political action committees, not directly to Trump or his campaign.

Meanwhile the campaign funding laws limit contributions to candidates to $3,500.

Lawyers for the National Republican Senatorial Committee pointed out this trend and told the Supreme Court its decisions had “eroded” the basis for some of the remaining the 1970s limits on campaign funding.

At issue Tuesday were the limits on “coordinated party spending.” In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress added limits on campaign money that could be given to parties and used to fund their candidates. The current donation limit is $44,000, the lawyers said.

Washington attorney Noel Francisco, Trump’s solicitor general during his first term, urged the court strike down these limits on grounds they are outdated and violate the freedom of speech.

“The theory is that they’re needed to prevent an individual donor from laundering a $44,000 donation through the party to a particular candidate in exchange for official action,” he said.

If a big-money donor hopes for win a favor from a congressional candidate, the “would-be briber would be better off just giving a massive donation to the candidate’s favorite super PAC,” he said.

The suit heard Tuesday was launched by then Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and other Republican candidates, and it has continued in his role as vice president and possibly a presidential candidate in 2028.

Usually, the Justice Department defends federal laws, but in this instance, the Trump administration switched sides and joined the Republicans calling for the party spending limits to be struck down.

Precedents might have stood in the way.

In 2001, the Supreme Court had narrowly upheld these limits on the grounds that the party’s direct support was like a contribution, not independent spending. But the deputy solicitor general, Sarah Harris, told the justices Tuesday that the court’s recent decisions have “demolished” that precedent.

“Parties can’t corrupt candidates, and no evidence suggests donors launder bribes by co-opting parties’ coordinated spending with candidates,” she said.

Marc Elias, a Democratic attorney, joined the case in the support of the court limits. He said the outcome would have little to do with speech or campaign messages.

“I think we’re underselling the actual corruption” that could arise, he said. If an individual were to give $1 million to political party while that person has business matter before the House or Senate, he said, it’s plausible that could influence “a deciding or swing vote.”

The only apparent difficulty for the conservative justices arose over questions of procedure.

Washington attorney Roman Martinez was asked to defend the law, and he argued that neither Vance nor any other Republicans had legal standing to challenge the limits. Vance was not a current candidate, and he said the case should be dismissed for that reason.

Some legal observers noted that the limits on parties arose in response to evidence that huge campaign contributions to President Nixon’s reelection came from industry donors seeking government favors.

“Coordinated spending limits are one of the few remaining checks to curb the influence of wealthy special interests in our elections,” said Omar Noureldin, vice president for litigation at Common Cause. “If the Supreme Court dismantles them, party leaders and wealthy donors will be free to pour nearly unlimited money directly into federal campaigns, exactly the kind of corruption these rules were created to stop.”

Daniel I. Weiner, an elections law expert at the Brennan Center, said the justices were well aware of how striking down these limits could set the stage for further challenges.

“I was struck by how both sides had to acknowledge that this case has to be weighed not in isolation but as part of a decades-long push to strike down campaign finance rules,” he said. “Those other decisions have had many consequences the court itself failed to anticipate.”

BOSTON — A federal judge has allowed a Tufts University student from Turkey to resume research and teaching while she deals with the consequences of having her visa revoked by the Trump administration, leading to six weeks of detention.

The arrest of Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student studying children’s relationship to social media, was among the first as the Trump administration began targeting foreign-born students and activists involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy. She had co-authored an op-ed criticizing her university’s response to Israel and the war in Gaza. Caught on video in March outside her Somerville residence, immigration enforcement officers took her away in an unmarked vehicle.

Öztürk has been out of a Louisiana immigrant detention center since May and back on the Tufts campus. But she’s been unable to teach or participate in research as part of her studies because of the termination of her record in the government’s database of foreign students studying temporarily in the United States.

In her ruling Monday, Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper wrote that Öztürk is likely to succeed on claims that the termination was “arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law and in violation of the First Amendment.”

Government argued that termination was legal

The government’s lawyers unsuccessfully argued that the Boston federal court lacked jurisdiction and that Öztürk’s Student and Exchange Visitor Information System record, or SEVIS record, was terminated legally after her visa was revoked, making her eligible for removal proceedings.

“There’s no statute or regulation that’s been violated by the termination of the SEVIS record in this case,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Mark Sauter said during a hearing last week. The Associated Press sent an email Tuesday seeking comment from Sauter on whether the government plans to appeal.

In a statement, Öztürk, who plans to graduate next year, said while she is grateful for the court’s decision, she feels “a great deal of grief” for the education she has been “arbitrarily denied as a scholar and a woman in my final year of doctoral studies.”

“I hope one day we can create a world where everyone uses education to learn, connect, civically engage and benefit others — rather than criminalize and punish those whose opinions differ from our own,” said Öztürk, who is still challenging her arrest and detention.

The then-30-year-old was one of four students who wrote the opinion piece in the campus newspaper. It criticized the university’s response to student activists demanding that Tufts “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,” disclose its investments and divest from companies with ties to Israel.

Öztürk, who is Muslim, was meeting friends in March for iftar, a meal that breaks a fast at sunset during the month of Ramadan, according to her lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai. Her student visa had been revoked several days earlier, but she was not informed of that, her lawyers said. The government asserted that terminating her SEVIS record two hours after her arrest was a proper way of informing Tufts University about her visa revocation.

A State Department memo said Öztürk’s visa was revoked following an assessment that her actions “‘may undermine U.S. foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization’ including co-authoring an op-ed that found common cause with an organization that was later temporarily banned from campus.”

Öztürk running out of time to pursue teaching, research goals

Without her SEVIS status reinstated, Öztürk said she couldn’t qualify as a paid research assistant and couldn’t fully reintegrate into academic life at Tufts.

“We have a strange kind of legal gaslighting here, where the government claims it’s just a tinkering in a database, but this is really something that has a daily impact on Ms. Öztürk’s life,” her attorney, Adriana Lafaille of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said in court.

“We are running out of time to make this right. Each day that goes by is a day that she is being prevented from doing the work that she loves in the graduate program that she came here to be part of. Each day that this happens is a day that the government is allowed to continue to punish her for her protected speech.”

Öztürk, meanwhile, has maintained a full course load and fulfilled all requirements to maintain her lawful student status, which the government hasn’t terminated, her lawyer said.

Record created to collect information on international students

SEVIS is mandated by Congress in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 and administered by the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement “to collect information relating to nonimmigrant foreign students” and “use such information to carry out the enforcement functions of” ICE.

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, when a SEVIS record is terminated, a student loses all on- and off-campus employment authorization and allows ICE agents to investigate to “confirm the departure of the student.”

Willingham and McCormack write for the Associated Press. McCormack reported from Concord, N.H.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy admiral who is retiring early from command of the campaign to destroy vessels allegedly carrying drugs near Venezuela spoke to key lawmakers Tuesday as Congress seeks more answers on President Trump’s mission, which, in one instance, killed two survivors clinging to the wreckage of an initial strike.

The classified video call between Adm. Alvin Holsey, who will be retiring from U.S. South Command in the coming days, and the GOP chairs and ranking Democrats of the Senate Armed Services Committee represented another determined step by lawmakers to demand an accounting from the Department of Defense on the threats against Venezuela and the strikes, especially after a report that two survivors were killed during one operation in September.

Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to discuss the specifics of the call but described Holsey as a “great public servant.”

Congress is also demanding that the Pentagon turn over unedited video of the strikes, as well as the orders authorizing the attacks, as part of its annual defense authorization bill. Wicker said that the Pentagon is weighing whether the video had “classified sections.”

The demands were evidence of the intense scrutiny being placed on the Sept. 2 strike, which legal experts say may have violated the laws governing how the U.S. military uses deadly force. Congressional leaders will also receive a wider foreign policy and national security briefing from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday afternoon.

“They are using expensive, exquisite American military capabilities to kill people who are the equivalent of corner dealers and not making progress interdicting the trafficking by the cartels,” said Sen. Chris Coons, a Delaware Democrat.

Congress presses for more information

What lawmakers learn from Holsey could shed new light on the purpose and parameters of Trump’s campaign, which has struck 22 boats and killed at least 87 people since it started in September. Trump has also been making threats against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, sending a fleet of warships near the South American country, including the largest U.S. aircraft carrier.

Holsey became the leader of U.S. Southern Command just over one year ago, but in October, Hegseth announced that Holsey would be retiring early from his post. As commander of U.S. forces in the region, Holsey oversaw a command structure that has in recent years been mostly focused on building stability and cooperation across much of Latin America.

Trump’s drug boat campaign, however, has added a new, deadly dynamic to its mission. Rather than trying to interdict drug vessels, as forces such as the U.S. Coast Guard have traditionally done, the Trump administration asserts that the drugs and drug smugglers are posing a direct threat to American lives. Officials say they are applying the same rules as the global war on terrorism to kill drug smugglers.

Lawmakers are also questioning what intelligence the military is using to determine whether the boats’ cargo is headed for the U.S. As they have looked closer at the Sept. 2 strike, lawmakers learned that the destroyed boat was heading south at the time of the attack and that military intelligence showed it was headed toward another vessel that was bound for Suriname.

Still, it remains to be seen whether the Republican-controlled Congress will push back on the Trump administration’s campaign.

“I want a full set of data to draw my conclusions from,” said Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who had demanded accountability after it was revealed that two survivors had been killed.

Trump this week justified the strike by claiming that the two suspected drug smugglers were trying to right part of the boat after it had capsized in the initial attack. However, Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, the special operations commander who ordered the second strike, told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing last week that he ordered the second strike to ensure that the cocaine in the boat could not be picked up later by cartel members.

Groves and Mascaro write for the Associated Press.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker on Tuesday signed a law prohibiting federal officials from taking enforcement actions against immigrants near courthouses, in hospitals, on college campuses or in day care facilities.

The law, which takes effect immediately, is in response to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration in the Chicago area, launched in September.

The law also provides for legal steps for those whose constitutional rights were violated during enforcement action, including a $10,000 in damages for someone unlawfully arrested while attempting to attend a court proceeding.

“Dropping your kid off at day care, going to the doctor, or attending your classes should not be a life-altering task,” Pritzker said at a bill-signing in a largely Latino neighborhood in Chicago. “Illinois — in the face of cruelty and intimidation — has chosen solidarity and support.”

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “Operation Midway Blitz” arrested more than 3,000 people.

Los Angeles County’s inspector general is retiring as chief watchdog for the Sheriff’s Department, stepping down from the post he has held since it was first created a dozen years ago.

Max Huntsman, 60, announced his plans in a letter Tuesday.

“It has been my honor to work with a talented, brave, and tireless group of public servants to ensure that the public knows what its government is doing,” he wrote.

Huntsman, a former L.A. County prosecutor, also included comments that were critical of how the county has responded to efforts at civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Department.

Time and again, he wrote, efforts by his office “were ignored” by county leaders.

“The county is putting all its efforts into convincing the public and the courts that it is following the law and has no room to honestly evaluate itself and make the changes it would need to really follow those laws,” Huntsman told The Times in a message early Tuesday. “That’s not compatible with my oath of office.”

In stacks of detailed reports, the inspector general’s office has described a wide range of abuses and failures by the Sheriff’s Department, the L.A. County Probation Department and county leaders. Huntsman’s office has documented poor conditions in L.A. County’s jails, called out the Sheriff’s Department’s for noncompliance with portions of of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and criticized the inability or unwillingness of sheriff’s department officials to rein in so-called deputy gangs, whose tattooed members have repeatedly been accused of misconduct.

The Inspector General’s Office has independently probed hundreds of on-duty shootings by deputies, along with other use of force incidents. Under Huntsman’s direction, the office also scrutinized deficiencies in the county’s skilled nursing facilities during the early days of the COVID-19 epidemic.

In 1991, Huntsman graduated from Yale Law school and immediately joined the L.A. County District Attorney’s Office. A father of two, he served as a deputy district attorney for 22 years, prosecuting political corruption, police misconduct and fraud cases before leaving the courtroom for the helm of the new Office of Inspector General.

One of the main reasons the Sheriff’s Department is still plagued by many of the problems Huntsman confronted when he first became inspector general, he wrote in the Tuesday letter, has been the county’s reluctance to swiftly implement many of his office’s recommendations.

“In my twelve years at this work, I have longed for the day that the county would address the conditions in our reports without a court fight,” he wrote. “Some things never change.”

The Inspector General’s Office is now expected to undergo a sea change with the retirement of the only leader it has ever had.

Huntsman is the latest in a recent string of oversight officials to abruptly depart from their posts. In June, L.A. County Civilian Oversight Commission Chair Robert Bonner told the public that county officials were terminating him from the position. Earlier this year, Sean Kennedy, a member of the commission and its former chair, resigned over what he described as undue county interference in the commission’s activities.

The oversight bodies themselves also have faced cuts. In August, a county office proposed eliminating the Sybil Brand Commission, which conducts civilian oversight of the largest county jail system in the U.S. The county also announced that it would be reassigning or eliminating about a third of Huntsman’s staff.

Yet Huntsman and other county oversight officials continued to advocate for change. For instance, in October, state lawmakers approved Assembly Bill 847. The law will allow oversight commissions across the state, including L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission, to view confidential documents in closed session.

“When government abuses occur, they are sometimes kept secret, but that is no longer the case for much of what is happening in Los Angeles County,” Huntsman wrote at the end of his Tuesday letter. “What you do about it is up to you.”

Paramount is refusing to accept defeat in the Warner Bros. Discovery auction, launching a $78-billion hostile takeover of its rival Monday after being spurned last week in the bidding.

The move comes four days after Warner’s board unanimously selected Netflix as the winner.

Paramount has beefed up its offer with backing from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, including Saudi Arabia, a Chinese firm and President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s investment firm Affinity Partners, according to a Monday regulatory filing.

The presence of a member of the president’s family in a proposed corporate takeover, which includes news channel CNN and the historic Warner Bros. properties, immediately complicates an already fraught regulatory picture.

Last week, Netflix had offered $72 billion — or $27.75 a share — for a big chunk of the company: Warner Bros. film and television studios, which hold the rights to Batman, Bugs Bunny and Harry Potter, the expansive lot in Burbank and HBO and HBO Max. Additionally, Netflix would take on more than $10 billion in Warner Bros. debt for a total deal value of $82.7 billion.

Paramount, backed by billionaire Larry Ellison’s family, had entered the final week of the auction with a $25 a share, all-cash offer for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to people involved in the auction who were not authorized to comment. In the final hours, Paramount upped its offer to $30 per share — but still came away empty-handed.

Paramount confirmed Monday that it submitted its $30-per-share offer just a few hours before Netflix was announced as the winner.

“We never heard back,” Paramount Chairman and Chief Executive David Ellison told CNBC on Monday morning. “We’re really here to finish what we started.”

Despite the decision by Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery to pursue a deal, Paramount is directly appealing to shareholders to vote on their offer in what is commonly known as a hostile takeover.

Historically, hostile takeover bids are difficult to pull off, but there have been some notable exceptions, including Elon Musk’s $44-billion acquisition of the company formerly known as Twitter in 2022. Two decades ago, Comcast failed in a hostile takeover bid for Walt Disney Co.

Warner Bros. Discovery said Monday that its board would “carefully review and consider Paramount Skydance’s offer in accordance with the terms of Warner Bros. Discovery’s agreement with Netflix.”

Warner’s board remains supportive of Netflix’s bid, the company said. Shareholders will receive recommendations from the Warner board within 10 business days. The company has long wanted the auction to be wrapped up by Christmas.

“Warner Bros. Discovery stockholders are advised not to take any action at this time with respect to Paramount Skydance’s proposal,” the company said in a statement.

Paramount began its pursuit of Warner in mid-September. It is now bypassing Warner’s board, management and bankers and appealing directly to shareholders in a hostile takeover effort. In a statement, Paramount said its bid was a “superior alternative” to Netflix’s, which will face a rigorous and lengthy antitrust review.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Ted Sarandos said Paramount’s move was “entirely expected.”

“We have a deal done and we are incredibly happy with the deal,” Sarandos said at a UBS conference, adding that he believes Netflix’s takeover of the historic company would be great for shareholders, consumers and Hollywood workers. “We’re superconfident we’re going to get it across the line and finish.”

Already, the biggest weakness in Netflix’s deal was concern that the tech company may not be able to win regulatory approval. The company has more than 300 million streaming subscribers worldwide, and adding HBO Max would more than double the number of subscribers for competing video-on-demand subscription services.

In a statement, Paramount called Netflix’s offer “inferior,” one that would expose Warner shareholders “to a protracted multi-jurisdictional regulatory clearance process with an uncertain outcome.” Paramount has long counted on its warm relationship with President Trump to smooth the regulatory process, at least in the U.S.

Warner Bros. Discovery continues to believe that Netflix submitted the best offer.

Netflix is not buying Warner’s basic cable channels, including CNN, TBS, Food Network and TLC, and Warner figures it can spin off those assets into a separate company, Discovery Global, that would be worth about $3 to $4 a share.

When adding the Discovery Global value with Netflix’s price of $27.75 a share, Warner believes that its shareholders will come away with more than $31 a share for the company — more than what Paramount has offered.

Netflix offered a cash and stock deal. On Friday, the company said it would take a year to 18 months to gain the necessary regulatory approvals. Paramount is banking on investors being concerned about a possible regulatory fallout with the Netflix deal.

“Look, we’re sitting on Wall Street, where cash is still king,” Ellison told CNBC. “We are offering shareholders $17.6 billion more cash than the deal that they currently have signed up on Netflix. We believe when [Warner shareholders] see what is currently in our offer, that that’s what they’ll vote for.”

Since mid-September, Paramount has submitted six bids for all of Warner Bros. Discovery.

Trump said Sunday that Netflix’s deal to buy Warner Bros. Discovery “could be a problem” because of the size of the streaming service’s combined market share. Trump said he “would be involved” in his administration’s decision whether to approve any deal.

Paramount said its $30 per share, all-cash offer represents a 139% premium to Warner’s $12.54 stock price on Sept. 10, the day before Paramount’s pursuit was leaked in the media. With the absorption of Warner’s cable channels and its heavy debt load, the Paramount deal would have an enterprise value of $108.4 billion.

That’s roughly what AT&T paid to buy the company, then called Time Warner Inc., in 2018 after spending nearly two years fighting in court with the first Trump administration.

A federal judge finally cleared the way for AT&T’s takeover, but after three years the phone company wanted to flee Hollywood and made a deal with Discovery’s David Zaslav, allowing his smaller company to take over in 2022.

“The Trump card is the best card Paramount-Skydance has but it could backfire in multiple directions,” New Street Research media analyst Blair Levin said Monday in a note to investors. “As they say in Hollywood, ‘stay tuned.’”

Warner and Netflix could claim that Trump’s Justice Department, if it seeks to intervene, was trying to squash their deal simply because of politics. The inclusion of Kushner in the deal also could open the door to conflict-of-interest arguments.

“Courts, and the public, in the past, have regarded Presidential involvement in antitrust challenges as problematic,” Levin wrote in his note.

Paramount’s 11th-hour offer for Warner contained “opaque” details about its financing, a person involved in the auction who was not authorized to speak publicly told The Times over the weekend. The fuzzy nature of Paramount’s backers gave the Warner board pause in contrast to the Netflix offer, which spelled out its financing, the person said.

In a Securities & Exchange Commission filing Monday, Paramount disclosed that Larry Ellison’s family has provided an $11.8-billion commitment. An additional $24 billion would come from three sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi.

The controversial Chinese tech firm Tencent would provide an additional $1 billion, Paramount said. It said RedBird Capital Partners, an investor in Paramount, and Kushner’s Affinity Partners would also provide an undisclosed level of debt financing.

When asked about his son-in-law’s involvement in the Paramount bid, Trump told reporters at the White House: “I don’t know. I’ve never spoken with him about that. He’s really trying to work on Gaza.”

Should Paramount prevail, it would confront a heavy debt load that would bring more layoffs in an industry already reeling from downsizing. “As with Netflix, Paramount’s expected hostile bid for WBD raises significant concerns for our members and the industry,” a spokesperson for the Directors Guild of America said in a statement.

Just like with the AT&T deal for Time Warner, the Trump administration may not have the final say. If the U.S. Justice Department sues to block the Netflix deal, the matter will go before a federal judge.

However, Paramount hired Trump’s former antitrust regulator — Makan Delrahim — in the hope of steering a successful regulatory review. Delrahim joined Paramount in October as its chief legal officer.

“We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers and the movie theater industry,” David Ellison said in a statement. “We believe they will benefit from the enhanced competition, higher content spend and theatrical release output, and a greater number of movies in theaters as a result of our proposed transaction.”

Paramount’s tender offer is set to expire Jan. 8, 2026, unless it’s extended.

Shares of Warner Bros. jumped 4.4% on Monday to $27.23. Paramount gained 9% to $14.57 a share while Netflix lost 3.4% to $96.79.

Times staff writers Wendy Lee and Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.