Americans

MORE Americans are looking to vacation in the States — and search data reveals the surprising destination that’s leading the way.

According to Google Trends, it seems as though we have started to ditch the beach for icy thrills, with record-high numbers of us looking up “Alaska cruise”.

Interest in domestic travel has surged in the past few years since the pandemic.

After months stuck indoors, we clearly rediscovered our love for fresh air, wildlife spotting and larger-than-life landscapes.

Alaska fits perfectly with this new outlook, as we increasingly seek nature-packed getaways.

The state’s appeal is plain to see — already one of the world’s most popular cruise destinations, the Last Frontier wows even the most seasoned travelers.

Think lush, secluded mountain ranges and abundant wildlife — from grizzly bears to towering moose.

Out on the ocean, passengers can see stunning spectacles like whales breaching alongside the vessel or seals chilling on ice caps.

But one of the things that appeals most about sailing these waters is the ability to set your own pace.

Want to spend days trekking across colossal glaciers? They’re there for exploring.

Prefer soaking in a hot spring with unbeatable views? Go and lap it up.

Many voyages let you do both: adventuring through rugged coastline and fully indulging in the relaxing facilities onboard afterward.

It’s the perfect blend of excitement and laid-back comfort, with a huge variety of trip types on offer.

Most long-haul cruises head out from Seattle or Vancouver and last about a week, although more travelers are opting for 10 to 14-day itineraries crammed with exploration.

Flying straight to Alaska is also an option, allowing for shorter, more intimate, and adventure-focused itineraries.

Smaller ships can venture where big liners can’t, offering hikes, kayaking, fishing, and other memorable experiences.

But with Google Trends showing far more searches for Alaska cruises than flights, Americans seem to want to take their time.

Most Alaskan voyages run between May and September, when the days are long, warm, and perfect for sighting humpbacks, orcas, and even bald eagles.

So it makes sense that online interest for voyages peaks around July and August.

Searches for cruises overall have soared in the past three years, with summer 2025 seeing the highest peak for half a decade.

Caribbean cruises still attract more online interest than Alaska though.

Curiosity for hot-weather retreats spikes in December and January, but Alaska’s popularity shows Americans also crave epic experiences as well as beach breaks.

testing times

THIRD Strictly star suffers nasty injury that threatens place on the show

‘SHE’S CHANGED’

Lucy Letby’s shock reaction after barrister said ‘I know you’re innocent’

The data trends suggest Americans are hungry for slow travel that mixes comfort with real adventure and wild encounters — all without leaving the country.

With pure escapism high on the wish list, it’s no wonder more people are setting their sights on Alaska.

Nov. 21 (UPI) — Federal authorities have arrested four people, including two Chinese nationals, on accusations of scheming to illegally export cutting-edge Nvidia technology with artificial intelligence uses to Beijing, which prosecutors said seeks to be the AI world leader by the end of the decade.

Federal authorities in Tampa, Fla., on Wednesday arrested 34-year-old Hong Kong-born U.S. citizen Hong Ning Ho, also known as Matthew Ho, and 45-year-old Jing Chen, also known as Harry Chen, who was in the United States on a F-1 nonimmigrant student visa.

Brian Curtis Raymond, 46, of Huntsville, Ala., and 38-year-old Cham Li, also know as Tony Li, a Chinese national, were also arrested, though when was not clear.

Federal prosecutors alleged in an indictment — unsealed Wednesday but publicized by the Justice Department on Thursday — that from September 2023 until their arrests, the defendants conspired to illegally export NVIDIA graphics processing units to China through Malaysia and Thailand.

“The indictment unsealed yesterday alleges a deliberate and deceptive effort to transship controlled NVIDIA GPUs to China by falsifying paperwork, creating fake contracts and misleading U.S. authorities,” John Eisenberg, assistant attorney general for National Security said in a statement.

The court documents statement that they attempted four separate exports consisting of hundreds of GPUs. The first two shipments saw 400 Nvidia A100 GPUs being exported to China between October 2024 and January. The other two shipments of 50 Nvidia H200 GPUs and 10 Hewlett Packard Enterprises supercomputers with Nvidia H100 GPUS were intercepted by authorities.

In return for the shipments, the defendants allegedly received more than $3.89 million in wire transfers, according to the indictment.

The indictment states they used Tampa-based Janford Realtor, owned by Ho and Li, as a front company to buy the goods and export them to China.

Federal prosecutors alleged that despite being labeled a real estate company, it was involved involved in property transactions.

The court document accuses Raymond of supply the GPUs to Ho through his Alabama-based electronics company.

According to federal prosecutors, China is seeking to become the world leader in AI by 2030 and seeks to use the technology for military modernization efforts, including designing and testing its weapons of mass destruction as well as surveillance tools.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Adam Gray was one of only six House Democrats — and the only one from California — who voted with Republicans in favor of a deal to end the government shutdown, and there was a calculated reason behind that decision.

Gray, a first-term Democrat from the Central Valley, is running for reelection in a majority Latino district that national Republicans are expected to heavily target as they defend their narrow House majority in next fall’s midterm elections. Last year, Gray won his seat by 187 votes, and although redistricting has since made the 13th District more favorable to Democrats, it remains highly competitive.

The Merced Democrat’s vote reflects the political reality of representing one of the nation’s few battleground districts. Gray is positioning himself as an independent-minded Democrat willing to buck leadership on politically divisive issues. The shutdown deal gave him a rare opportunity to put that in practice, even at the risk of frustrating members of his own party.

“I know it is not comfortable, and I know there’s people that are going to be mad at me,” Gray told The Times. “But I am not here to win an argument. I am here to actually help fix problems with people in my community, and I know I did the right thing.”

Democratic representatives and senators for weeks were steadfast in opposing a shutdown deal that did not include language to extend Obamacare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year, and as a result, leave millions of Americans with higher healthcare costs.

In Gray’s district, more than half of residents rely on Medi-Cal or have coverage through the Affordable Care Act marketplace, making them vulnerable to rising healthcare costs — a pocketbook issue that is likely to factor into an already competitive congressional race.

Beyond healthcare, nearly 48,000 families in his largely rural district rely on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, according to the latest data provided by the Department of Agriculture. Those benefits were put at risk during the shutdown as funding for the federal program commonly called food stamps was caught up in legal disputes.

As the shutdown dragged on without meaningful negotiations on healthcare, Gray said, he grew concerned that Republicans were too comfortable “using vulnerable Americans as political leverage.”

Ultimately, Gray was among just 13 Democrats — six in the House, seven in the Senate — who went against their party to end the shutdown that had dragged on an historic 43 days.

“The government is reopening because Democrats were willing to compromise,” Gray said.

The deal, which was signed by President Trump last week, will fund the government through January 2026 and reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown. It will also fund SNAP through September 2026, a provision that Gray says he wanted to secure because he worries that partisanship could lead to another shutdown in January.

Republicans attack his position

Although Gray voted with Republicans over the shutdown, national Republican operatives still see his seat as a main target ahead of next year’s election — and there is good reason for that.

The seat has a history of party flipping.

In 2024, Gray won his seat by 187 votes, the slimmest margin of any race in the country. His opponent, Republican John Duarte, who cast himself a centrist in the race, had only held the seat for one term before being beat. (And he defeated Gray two years earlier by just 564 votes.)

President Trump carried the 13th last year by five points, underscoring the competitiveness of the Central Valley district which backed Joe Biden in the first Biden-Trump matchup of 2020.

The passage of Proposition 50 has made the district safer for Democrats as the new congressional map shifts parts of Stockton, Modesto and northern Stanislaus County into the district, while removing more conservative, rural territory west of Fresno. Still, it remains a highly competitive district.

Like Duarte, Gray has positioned himself as a centrist, but that hasn’t stopped Republicans from portraying him as being from the party’s far-left flank.

Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee, is now focusing on Gray’s voting history on the shutdown as a reason to criticize the incumbent. Specifically, how Gray in September abstained from voting on a bill that would have prevented the shutdown.

“Instead of delivering results for Californians, out-of-touch Democrat Adam Gray is too busy appeasing his radical socialist base, and now he’s fully responsible for holding Americans hostage with the longest government shutdown in history,” Martinez said.

Martinez added that “hardworking Californians paid the price for his refusal to vote to keep the government open, and next November, they’ll send him packing.”

Gray is now facing a Republican challenge from former Stockton Mayor Kevin Lincoln. When Lincoln announced his bid on Nov. 6, before the shutdown deal vote, he criticized Gray for not doing enough to prevent the shutdown in the first place.

“Washington politicians like Adam Gray have fallen in line with a failed liberal agenda that’s made life less affordable and less safe,” Lincoln said in a statement.

Moving forward, Gray sees the vote as an opportunity to reset negotiations and find a bipartisan solution before funding runs out again on Jan. 30, 2026.

“I think we’re moving in the right direction,” Gray said. “I hope my colleagues have the courage to do the right thing over the next days.”

Back in his district, Democrats have had a mixed reaction to his vote. As for his congressional colleagues, they have not offered up much criticism, choosing to let Gray explain his vote to the ever-changeable 13th District.

DES MOINES, Iowa — Pessimism about the country’s future has risen in cities since last year, but rural America is more optimistic about what’s ahead for the U.S., according to a new survey from the American Communities Project.

And despite President Trump’s insistence that crime is out of control in big cities, residents of the nation’s largest metropolitan centers are less likely to list crime and gun violence among the chief concerns facing their communities than they were a couple years ago.

Optimism about the future is also down from last year in areas with large Hispanic communities.

These are some of the snapshots from the new ACP/Ipsos survey, which offers a nuanced look at local concerns by breaking the nation’s counties into community types, using data points like race, income, age and religious affiliation. The survey evaluated moods and priorities across the 15 different community types, such as heavily Hispanic areas, big cities and different kinds of rural communities.

The common denominator across the communities? A gnawing worry about daily household costs.

“Concerns about inflation are across the board,” said Dante Chinni, founder and director of ACP. “One thing that truly unites the country is economic angst.”

Rising optimism in rural areas, despite economic anxiety

Rural residents are feeling more upbeat about the country’s trajectory — even though most aren’t seeing Trump’s promised economic revival.

The $15 price tag on a variety pack of Halloween candy at the Kroger supermarket last month struck Carl Gruber. Disabled and receiving federal food aid, the 42-year-old from Newark, Ohio, had hardly been oblivious to lingering, high supermarket prices.

But Gruber, whose wife also is unable to work, is hopeful about the nation’s future, primarily in the belief that prices will moderate as Trump suggests.

“Right now, the president is trying to get companies who moved their businesses out of the country to move them back,” said Gruber, a Trump voter whose support has wavered over the federal shutdown that delayed his monthly food benefit. “So, maybe we’ll start to see prices come down.”

About 6 in 10 residents of Rural Middle America — Newark’s classification in the survey — say they are hopeful about the country’s future over the next few years, up from 43% in the 2024 ACP survey. Other communities, like heavily evangelical areas or working-class rural regions, have also seen an uptick in optimism.

Kimmie Pace, a 33-year-old unemployed mother of four from a small town in northwest Georgia, said, “I have anxiety every time I go to the grocery store.”

But she, too, is hopeful in Trump. “Trump’s in charge, and I trust him, even if we’re not seeing the benefits yet,” she said.

Big-city residents are worried about the future

By contrast, the share of big-city residents who say they are hopeful about the nation’s future has shrunk, from 55% last year to 45% in the new survey.

Robert Engel of San Antonio — Texas’ booming, second most-populous city — is worried about what’s next for the U.S., though less for his generation than the next. The 61-year-old federal worker, whose employment was not interrupted by the government shutdown nor Trump’s effort to reduce the federal workforce, is near retirement and feels financially stable.

A stable job market, health care availability and a fair economic environment for his adult children are his main priorities.

Recently, the inflation outlook has worsened under Trump. Consumer prices in September increased at an annual rate of 3%, up from 2.3% in April, when the president first began to roll out substantial tariff increases that burdened the economy with uncertainty.

Engel’s less-hopeful outlook for the country is broader. “It’s not just the economy, but the state of democracy and polarization,” Engel said. “It’s a real worry. I try to be cautiously optimistic, but it’s very, very hard.”

Crime, gun violence are less a concern in urban America

Trump had threatened to deploy the National Guard to Chicago, New York, Seattle, Baltimore, San Francisco and Portland, Ore., to fight what he said was runaway, urban crime.

Yet data shows most violent crime in those places, and around the country, has declined in recent years. That tracks with the poll, which found that residents of America’s Big Cities and Middle Suburbs are less likely to list crime or gun violence among the top issues facing their communities than they were in 2023.

For Angel Gamboa, a retired municipal worker in Austin, Tex., Trump’s claims don’t ring true in the city of roughly 1 million people.

“I don’t want to say it’s overblown, because crime is a serious subject,” Gamboa said. “But I feel like there’s an agenda to scare Americans, and it’s so unnecessary.”

Instead, residents of Big Cities are more likely to say immigration and health care are important issues for their communities.

Big Cities are one of the community types where residents are most likely to say they’ve seen changes in immigration recently, with 65% saying they’ve seen a change in their community related to immigration over the past 12 months, compared with only about 4 in 10 residents of communities labeled in the survey as Evangelical Hubs or Rural Middle America.

Gamboa says he has witnessed changes, notably outside an Austin Home Depot, where day laborers regularly would gather in the mornings to find work.

Not anymore, he said.

“Immigrants were not showing up there to commit crimes,” Gamboa said. “They were showing up to help their families. But when ICE was in the parking lot, that’s all it took to scatter people who were just trying to find a job.”

Hispanic communities are less hopeful about the future

After Hispanic voters moved sharply toward Trump in the 2024 election, the poll shows that residents of heavily Hispanic areas are feeling worse about the future of their communities than they were before Trump was elected.

Carmen Maldonado describes her community of Kissimmee, Fla., a fast-growing, majority-Hispanic city of about 80,000 residents about 22 miles south of Orlando, as “seriously troubled.”

The 61-year-old retired, active-duty National Guard member isn’t alone. The survey found that 58% of residents of such communities are hopeful about the future of their community, down from 78% last year.

“It’s not just hopelessness, but fear,” said Maldonado, who says people in her community — even her fellow native Puerto Ricans, who are American citizens — are anxious about the Trump administration’s aggressive pursuit of Latino immigrants.

Just over a year ago, Trump made substantial inroads with Hispanic voters in the 2024 presidential election.

Beyond just the future of their communities, Hispanic respondents are also substantially less likely to say they’re hopeful about the future of their children or the next generation: 55% this year, down from 69% in July 2024.

Maldonado worries that the Trump administration’s policies have stoked anti-Hispanic attitudes and that they will last for her adult child’s lifetime and beyond.

“My hopelessness comes from the fact that we are a large part of what makes up the United States,” she said, “and sometimes I cry thinking about these families.”

Beaumont, Parwani and Thomson-Deveaux write for the Associated Press. Parwani and Thomson-DeVeaux reported from Washington. The American Communities Project/Ipsos Fragmentation Study of 5,489 American adults aged 18 or older was conducted from Aug. 18 – Sept. 4, 2025, using the Ipsos probability-based online panel and RDD telephone interviews. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points.

WASHINGTON — Time was — not that long ago — that after a mass shooting, gun rights advocates would nod to the possibility of compromise before waiting for memories to fade and opposing any new legislation to regulate firearms.

This time, they skipped the preliminaries and jumped directly to opposition.

“The most effective tool for keeping kids safe is armed law enforcement on the campus,” Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said to MSNBC a few hours after a shooter killed at least 21 people in Uvalde, Texas. “Inevitably, when there’s a murder of this kind, you see politicians try to politicize it. You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work.”

The speed of that negative reaction provides the latest example of how, on one issue after another, the gap between blue America and red America has widened so much that even the idea of national agreement appears far-fetched. Many political figures no longer bother pretending to look for it.

Broad agreement on some steps

And yet, significant agreement does exist.

Poll after poll has shown for years that large majorities of the public agree on at least some, limited steps to further regulate firearms.

A survey last year by the Pew Research Center, for example, showed that by 87% to 12%, Americans supported “preventing people with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.” By 81% to 18% they backed “making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks.” And by a smaller but still healthy 64% to 36% they favored “banning high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.”

The gunman in Uvalde appears to have carried seven 30-round magazines, authorities in Texas have said.

So why, in the face of such large majorities, does Congress repeatedly do nothing?

One powerful factor is the belief among many Americans that nothing lawmakers do will help the problem.

Asked in that same Pew survey if mass shootings would decline if guns were harder to obtain, about half of Americans said they would go down, but 42% said it would make no difference. Other surveys have found much the same feeling among a large swath of Americans.

The argument about futility is one that opponents of change quickly turn to after a catastrophe. It’s a powerful rhetorical weapon against action.

Esmeralda Bravo, 63, holds a photo of her granddaughter, Nevaeh, one of the Robb Elementary School shooting victims, during a prayer vigil in Uvalde, Texas, on Wednesday.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

“It wouldn’t prevent these shootings,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on CNN on Wednesday when asked about banning the sort of semiautomatic weapons used by the killer in Uvalde and by a gunman who killed 10 at a Buffalo, N.Y., supermarket 10 days earlier. “The truth of the matter is these people are going to commit these horrifying crimes — whether they have to use another weapon to do it, they’re going to figure out a way to do it.”

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott made a similar claim at his news conference on Wednesday: “People who think that, ‘well, maybe we can just implement tougher gun laws, it’s gonna solve it’ — Chicago and L.A. and New York disprove that thesis.”

The facts powerfully suggest that’s not true.

Go back roughly 15 years: In 2005, California had almost the same rate of deaths from guns as Florida or Texas. California had 9.5 firearms deaths per 100,000 people that year, Florida had 10 and Texas 11, according to data from the National Center for Health Statistics.

Since then, California repeatedly has tightened its gun laws, while Florida and Texas have moved in the opposite direction.

California’s rate of gun deaths has declined by 10% since 2005, even as the national rate has climbed in recent years. And Texas and Florida? Their rates of gun deaths have climbed 28% and 37% respectively. California now has one of the 10 lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation. Texas and Florida are headed in the wrong direction.

Obviously, factors beyond a state’s laws can affect the rate of firearms deaths. The national health statistics take into account differences in the age distribution of state populations, but they don’t control for every factor that might affect gun deaths.

Equally clearly, no law stops all shootings.

California’s strict laws didn’t stop the shooting at a Taiwanese church in Laguna Woods earlier this month, and there’s no question that Chicago suffers from a large number of gun-related homicides despite strict gun control laws in Illinois. A large percentage of the guns used in those crimes come across the border from neighboring states with loose gun laws, research has shown.

The overall pattern is clear, nonetheless, and it reinforces the lesson from other countries, including Canada, Britain and Australia, which have tightened gun laws after horrific mass shootings: The states with America’s lowest rates of gun-related deaths all have strict gun laws; in states that allow easy availability of guns, more people die from them.

Fear of futility isn’t the only barrier to passage of national gun legislation.

Hardcore opponents of gun regulation have become more entrenched in their positions over the last decade.

Mostly conservative and Republican and especially prevalent in rural parts of the U.S., staunch opponents of any new legislation restricting firearms generally don’t see gun violence as a major problem but do see the weapons as a major part of their identity. In the Pew survey last year, just 18% of Republicans rated gun violence as one of the top problems facing the country, compared with 73% of Democrats. Other surveys have found much the same.

Strong opponents of gun control turn out in large numbers in Republican primaries, and they make any vote in favor of new restrictions politically toxic for Republican officeholders. In American politics today, where most congressional districts are gerrymandered to be safe for one party and only a few states swing back and forth politically, primaries matter far more to most lawmakers than do general elections.

Even in general elections, gun issues aren’t the top priority for most voters. Background checks and similar measures have wide support, but not necessarily urgent support.

Finally, in an era defined by “negative partisanship” — suspicion and fear of the other side — it’s easy to convince voters that a modest gun control proposal is just an opening wedge designed to lead to something more dramatic.

That leads to a common pattern when gun measures appear on ballots: They do less well than polling would suggest.

The same thing happens to measures in Congress. Nine years ago, for example, supporters of gun control made their last big push for legislation, after the slayings of 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Then, as now, polls showed strong support for requiring background checks for sales that currently evade them. But support for the legislation was sharply lower than support for the general idea, Pew found.

Almost 8 in 10 Republican gun owners favored background checks in general, they found, but when asked about the specific bill, only slightly more than 4 in 10 wanted it to pass. When asked why they backed the general idea but opposed the specific one, most of those polled cited concerns that the bill would set up a “slippery slope” to more regulation or contained provisions that would go further than advertised.

Faced with that sort of skepticism from voters, Republican senators who had flirted with supporting the bill mostly walked away, and it failed.

Then-Vice President Joe Biden led the unsuccessful effort to pass that bill. Nearly a decade later, the political factors impeding action have only grown more powerful.

Texas school shooting

The recent string of devastating shootings has renewed calls for tighter gun restrictions. But as Kevin Rector reported, a loosening of gun laws is almost certainly coming instead, largely because of an expected decision from the Supreme Court, which is likely to strike down a broad law in New York that doesn’t allow individuals to carry guns in public without first demonstrating a “special need” for self-defense.

For all the impassioned speeches and angry tweets, for all the memes and viral videos of gun control proponents quaking with rage, most of the energy and political intensity has been on the side of those who favor greater gun laxity, Mark Barabak wrote.

The shooting has generated a lot of questions from parents about what their own schools are doing for safety. Howard Blume looked at what California officials say about school security.

The latest from Washington

Biden marked the second anniversary of George Floyd’s murder by a Minneapolis police officer by signing an executive order aimed at reforming policing at the federal level. As Eli Stokols reported, Wednesday’s order falls short of what Biden had hoped to achieve through legislation. It directs all federal agencies to revise their use-of-force policies, creates a national registry of officers fired for misconduct and provides grants to incentivize state and local police departments to strengthen restrictions on chokeholds and no-knock warrants.

Sluggish response and questionable decisions by the Food and Drug Administration worsened the nation’s infant formula shortage, agency officials told lawmakers at a congressional hearing. “You’re right to be concerned, and the public should be concerned,” said FDA Commissioner Robert Califf. The agency’s response “was too slow and there were decisions that were suboptimal along the way,” Anumita Kaur reported.

Only a couple of months ago, U.S. and European officials said a renewal of the Iran nuclear deal was “imminent.” But with little progress since then, and a shifting global geopolitical scene, the top U.S. envoy for the Iran negotiations testified Wednesday that prospects for reviving the Iran deal are “at best, tenuous,” Tracy Wilkinson reported. “We do not have a deal,” the Biden administration’s special envoy for Iran, Robert Malley, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Cuba will not attend next month’s Summit of the Americas, a major conference to take place in Los Angeles, after the U.S. refused to extend a proper invitation, the country’s president, Miguel Díaz-Canel, announced Wednesday. As Wilkinson reported, the decision throws the summit, which is crucial to the U.S.’ ability to demonstrate its influence in the Western Hemisphere, into further disarray.

The latest from California

GOP Rep. Young Kim would seem to have a relatively easy path to reelection in November — the national mood favors her party, she has a lot of money and the newly drawn boundaries for her Orange County district give her more Republican constituents. But Kim is suddenly campaigning with a sense of urgency, Melanie Mason and Seema Mehta report. She’s unleashed $1.3 million in advertising, and outside allies are coming to her aid with more spending. Most of it is aimed at fending off Greg Raths, an underfunded GOP opponent who has been a staple on the political scene in Mission Viejo, the district’s largest city.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and top legislative Democrats pledged Wednesday to expedite gun legislation. Among the bills are measures that would require school officials to investigate credible threats of a mass shooting, allow private citizens to sue firearm manufacturers and distributors, and enact more than a dozen other policies intended to reduce gun violence in California, Taryn Luna and Hannah Wiley reported. “We’re going to control the controllable, the things we have control of,” Newsom said during an event at the state Capitol. “California leads this national conversation. When California moves, other states move in the same direction.”

The Los Angeles mayor’s race has seemingly devolved in recent days into a rhetorical brawl between two of the city’s richest men, Benjamin Oreskes wrote. Hollywood mogul Jeffrey Katzenberg, who supports Rep. Karen Bass, says Rick Caruso’s history of supporting Republican candidates and being registered as a Republican a decade ago disqualifies him from being mayor. That came after Variety published an interview with Caruso in which he attacked the former Walt Disney Studios chairman for “lying” about him in ads by a pro-Bass independent expenditure committee predominantly funded by Katzenberg.

The growing corruption scandal in Anaheim has cost the city’s mayor his job, endangered the city’s planned $320-million sale of Angel Stadium to the team and provided a rare, unvarnished look at how business is done behind closed doors in the city of 350,000. Read our full coverage of the FBI probe into how the city does business.

Sign up for our California Politics newsletter to get the best of The Times’ state politics reporting.

WASHINGTON — The House is scheduled to be back in session Wednesday with a vote expected in the evening on a spending package that, if approved and signed by President Trump, will end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history.

The legislation, which the Senate passed Monday night, is expected to narrowly pass the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority. House Democrats are largely anticipated to oppose the deal, which does not include a core demand: an extension to Affordable Care Act healthcare tax credits that are set to expire at the end of the year.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said he believes the deal is poised to pass by the end of the day.

“We believe the long national nightmare will be over tonight,” Johnson told reporters in Washington. “It was completely and utterly foolish and pointless.”

House Democrats were scheduled to meet ahead of the floor vote to discuss their vote. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Tuesday night that there is a “strong expectation” that Democrats will be “strongly opposed” to the shutdown deal when it comes to final vote.

If the tax credits lapse, premiums will more than double on average for more than 20 million Americans who use the healthcare marketplace, according to independent analysts at the research firm KFF.

The spending bill, if approved, will fund the government through Jan. 30 and reinstate federal workers who were laid off during the shutdown. It will also guarantee back pay for federal employees who were furloughed or who were working without pay during the budget impasse.

Passage of the bill would mark a crucial moment on the 43rd day of the shutdown, which left thousands of federal workers without pay, millions of Americans uncertain on whether they would receive food assistance and travelers facing delays at airports across the country.

A vote is expected to begin after 4 p.m. EST — after Johnson swears in Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who was elected seven weeks ago. Once sworn in, Grijalva is set to become the final vote needed to force a floor vote on a petition demanding the Trump administration release files connected to Jeffrey Epstein.

The swearing-in ceremony will soon lay the groundwork for a House vote that Trump has long tried to avoid. It would come as the Epstein saga was reignited on Wednesday morning when Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released new emails in which the late sex trafficker said Trump “knew about the girls” that he was victimizing.

The emails are part of a trove of documents from Epstein’s estate released to the committee.

Over the weekend, United States President Donald Trump promised Americans $2,000 each from the “trillions of dollars” in tariff revenue he said his administration has collected.

During his second term, Trump has imposed tariffs broadly on countries and on specific goods such as drugs, steel and cars.

“People that are against Tariffs are FOOLS!” Trump said in a November 9 Truth Social post. “We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion. Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

How seriously should people take his pledge? Experts urged caution.

Tariffs are projected to generate well below “trillions” a year, making it harder to pay each person $2,000. And the administration already said it would use the tariff revenue to either pay for existing tax cuts or to reduce the federal debt.

Trump’s post came days after the US Supreme Court heard arguments about the legality of his tariff policy. The justices are weighing whether Trump has the power to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. If the justices rule against Trump, much of the expected future tariff revenue would not materialise.

What Trump proposed, and who would qualify

The administration has published no plans for the tariff dividends, and in a November 9 ABC News interview, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said he had not spoken to Trump about giving Americans a dividend payment.

Details about a potential payment have been limited to Truth Social posts.

Trump said “everyone”, excluding “high income people”, would get the money, but did not explain the criteria for high-income people. He also did not say whether children would receive the payment.

In a November 10 Truth Social post, Trump said his administration would first pay $2,000 to “low and middle income USA Citizens” and then use the remaining tariff revenues to “substantially pay down national debt”.

Trump has not said what form the payments might take. Bessent said the dividend “could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways. You know, it could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, deductibility of auto loans. So, you know, those are substantial deductions.”

Analysts said it is a stretch to rebrand an already promised tax cut as a new dividend.

Trump has previously discussed paying Americans with tariff revenue.

“We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate, but the big thing we want to do is pay down debt,” he told reporters on July 25. “We’re thinking about a rebate.”

Days later, Senator Josh Hawley introduced legislation that would give $600 tariff rebate cheques to each American adult and child. Hawley’s bill has not advanced.

Tariff revenue collected versus cost of ‘dividend’ payment

Trump made the imposition of tariffs one of his signature campaign promises for the 2024 presidential election. Since taking office in January, he has enacted tariffs on a scale not seen in the US in almost a century; the current overall average tariff rate is 18 percent, the highest since 1934, according to Yale Budget Lab.

Through the end of October, the federal government collected $309.2bn in tariff revenue, compared with $165.4bn through the same point in 2024, an increase of $143.8bn.

The centre-right Tax Foundation projects that tariff revenue will continue to increase to more than $200bn a year if the tariffs remain in place.

Erica York, the Tax Foundation’s vice president of federal tax policy, estimated in a November 9 X post that a $2,000 tariff dividend for each person earning less than $100,000 would equal 150 million adult recipients. That would cost nearly $300bn, York calculated, or more if children qualified. That is more than the tariffs have raised so far, she said.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget projected that Trump’s proposal could cost $600bn, depending on how it is structured.

The administration previously detailed other uses for tariff revenue

The Trump administration already promised to use tariff revenue for other purposes, including reducing the country’s deficit and offsetting the cost of the GOP tax and spending bill Trump signed into law in July.

As Trump announced new tariffs on April 2, he said he would “use trillions and trillions of dollars to reduce our taxes and pay down our national debt”.

Bessent has made the same promise, falsely saying in July that tariffs were “going to pay off our deficit”.

The treasury secretary said in August that he and Trump were “laser-focused on paying down the debt”.

“I think we’re going to bring down the deficit-to-GDP,” Bessent said in an August 19 CNBC interview. “We’ll start paying down debt and then, at a point, that can be used as an offset to the American people.”

Tariffs’ current cost to Americans 

Tariffs are already costing Americans money, analysts say. Independent estimates range from about $1,600 to $2,600 a year per household. Given the similarity of these amounts to Trump’s proposed dividend, York said it would be more efficient to remove the tariffs.

Joseph Rosenberg, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Centre senior fellow, said a $2,000 dividend in the form of a cheque would require congressional approval – and lawmakers have already declined to act on that idea once.

When members of Congress approved the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, “They had the ability to include a tariff dividend, but they didn’t”, Rosenberg said.

Democrats just crumbled like soft-bake cookies.

The so-called resistance party has given up the shutdown fight, ensuring that millions of Americans will face Republican-created skyrocketing healthcare costs, and millions more will bury any hope that the minority party will find the substance and leadership to run a viable defense against Trump.

Sunday night, eight turncoat Democrats sold out every American who pays for their own health insurance through the affordable marketplaces set up by President Obama.

As has been thoroughly reported in past weeks, Republicans are dead set on making sure that insurance is entirely out of financial reach for many Americans by refusing to help them pay for the premiums with subsidies that are part of current law, offered to both low- and middle-income families.

Republicans — for reasons hard to fathom other than they hate Obama, and apparently basics such as flu shots — have long desired to kill the ACA and now are on the brink of doing so, in spirit if not actuality, thanks to Democrats.

Trump must be doing his old-man jig in the Oval Office.

The pain this craven cave-in will cause is already evident. Rates for 2026 without the government subsidies have been announced, and premiums have doubled on average, according to nonpartisan health policy researchers KFF. Doubled.

Insurance companies are planning on raising their rates by about 18%, already devastating and symptomatic of the need for a total overhaul of our messed-up system. That increase, coupled with the loss of the subsidies beginning at the start of next year, means a 114% jump in costs for the folks dependent on this insurance. Premiums that cost an average $888 in 2025 will jump to $1,904 in 2026, according to KFF.

But it’s the middle-income people who will really be hit.

“On average, a 60-year-old couple making $85,000 … would see yearly premium payments rise by over $22,600 in 2026,” KFF warns, meaning that instead of paying 8.5% of their entire income toward health insurance, it will now jump to about 25%.

Merry Christmas, America.

While the eight Democrats who broke from their party to allow this to happen are directly responsible (thankfully our California senators are not among them), Democratic leadership should also be held accountable.

A party that can’t keep itself together on the really big votes isn’t a party. It’s a a bunch of people that occasionally have lunch together. Literally, they had one job: Stick together.

The failure of Democratic leadership to make sure its Senate votes didn’t shatter in this intense moment isn’t just shameful, it’s depressing. For all of the condemnation of the Republican members of Congress for failing to uphold their duty to be a check on the power of the presidency, here’s the opposition party rolling over belly up on the pivotal issue of healthcare.

As California Rep. Ro Khanna put it on social media, “Senator Schumer is no longer effective and should be replaced. If you can’t lead the fight to stop healthcare premiums from skyrocketing for Americans, what will you fight for?”

If the recent elections had any lessons in them, it’s that Democrats — and voters in general — want courage. Love or hate Zohran Mamdani, his win as New York City mayor was due in no small part for daring to forge his own path. Ditto on Gov. Gavin Newsom and Proposition 50.

Mamdani put that sentiment best in his victory speech, promising an age when people can “expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt.”

Before you start angry-emailing me, yes, I do understand how much pain the shutdown in causing, especially for furloughed workers and those about to see their SNAP benefits cut off. I feel for every person who doesn’t know how they will pay their bills.

But here are the facts that we can’t forget. Republicans have purposefully made that pain intense in order to break Democrats. Trump has found ways to pay his deportation agents, while simultaneously not paying critical workers such as airport screeners and air traffic controllers, where the chaos created by their absence is both visible and disruptive. He has also threatened to not give back pay to some of those folks when this does end.

And on the give-in-or-don’t-eat front, he’s actually been ordered by courts to pay those SNAP benefits and is fighting it. Republicans could easy band together and demand that money goes out while the rest is hashed out, but they don’t want to. They want people to go hungry so that Democrats will break, and it worked.

But at what cost?

About 24 million people will be hit by these premium increases, leaving up to 4 million unable to keep their insurance. Unable to go to the doctor for routine care. Unable to pay for cancer treatments. Unable to have that lump, that pain, the broken bone looked at. Unable to get their kid a flu shot.

In many ways, this isn’t a California problem. The majority of these folks are in southern, Republican states that refused to expand Medicaid when they had the chance. About 6 in 10 subsidy recipients are represented by Republicans, according to KFF, led by those living in Florida, Georgia and Mississippi. But Americans have been clear that we want access to care for all of us, as a right, not an expensive privilege.

Which makes it all the more mystifying that Democrats are so eager to give up, on an issue that unites voters across parties, across demographics, across our seemingly endless divides.

But I guess that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

As United States lawmakers fail to agree on a deal to end the government shutdown, around 750,000 federal employees have been furloughed, millions of Americans go without food assistance, and air travel is disrupted across the country.

The shutdown began on October 1, after opposing sides in the US Senate failed to agree on spending priorities, with Republicans rejecting a push by Democrats to protect healthcare and other social programmes.

Since then, both sides have failed to agree on 14 separate funding measures, delaying payment to hundreds of thousands of federal staff.

After 40 days, senators from both parties are working this weekend to try to end what has become the longest government shutdown in US history. But talks on Saturday showed little sign of breaking the impasse and securing long-term funding for key programmes.

On Friday, Democratic Senate leader Chuck Schumer offered Republicans a narrower version of an earlier Democratic proposal – a temporary extension of healthcare subsidies. Republicans rejected the offer, prolonging the record-breaking shutdown.

So what do we know about the shutdown, and how it has impacted Americans?

Flights disrupted

The shutdown has created major disruptions for the aviation industry, with staffing shortages among unpaid air traffic controllers.

More than 1,530 flights were cancelled across the US on Saturday, while thousands more were delayed as authorities ordered airports to reduce air traffic.

According to the flight tracking website FlightAware, Saturday’s cancellations marked an increase from 1,025 the previous day. The trend looks set to continue, with at least 1,000 cancellations logged for Sunday.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said staffing shortages were affecting 42 control towers and other facilities, leading to delays in at least a dozen major cities – including Atlanta, Newark, San Francisco, New York and Chicago.

The travel chaos could prove politically costly for lawmakers if disruptions persist, especially ahead of the holiday season. Reduced air traffic will also hit deliveries and shipping, since many commercial flights carry cargo alongside passengers.

The CEO of Elevate Aviation Group, Greg Raiff, recently warned that the economic impact would ripple outward. “This shutdown is going to affect everything from business travel to tourism,” he told the Associated Press.

“It’s going to hurt local tax revenues and city budgets – there’s a cascading effect from all this.”

Threat to food assistance

In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has said he will only restore food aid once the government shutdown ends.

“SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term … will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government,” he wrote earlier this week on Truth Social.

The US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, provides low-income Americans with roughly $8bn a month in grocery assistance. The average individual benefit is about $190 per month, while a household receives around $356.

Health insurance standoff

Democrats blame the shutdown on Republicans’ refusal to renew expiring healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Talks stalled again on Saturday after Trump declared he would not compromise on the issue.

Democrats are pushing for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies, which mainly help people without employer or government health coverage buy insurance. But with a 53–47 majority in the Senate, Republicans can block the proposal.

Trump intervened on Saturday via Truth Social, calling on Republican senators to redirect federal funds used for health insurance subsidies toward direct payments for individuals.

“I am recommending to Senate Republicans that the Hundreds of Billions of Dollars currently being sent to money sucking Insurance Companies … BE SENT DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN PURCHASE THEIR OWN, MUCH BETTER, HEALTHCARE, and have money left over,” he said.

Roughly 24 million Americans currently benefit from the ACA subsidies. Analysts warn that premiums could double by 2026 if Congress allows them to expire.

Has this happened before?

This is not the first time Washington has faced such a standoff. The graphic below shows every US funding gap and government shutdown since 1976, including how long each lasted and under which administration it occurred.

The current federal budget process dates back to 1976. Since its creation, the government has experienced 20 funding gaps, leading to 10 shutdowns.

Prior to the 1980s, such funding lapses rarely caused shutdowns. Most federal agencies continued operating, expecting Congress to soon approve new funding.

That changed in 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued legal opinions clarifying that, under federal law, agencies cannot spend money without congressional authorisation. Only essential functions (like air traffic control) were permitted to continue.

From 1982 onward, this interpretation has meant that funding gaps have more frequently triggered full or partial government shutdowns, lasting until Congress reaches a resolution.

What happens next?

No breakthrough was announced after the US Senate convened for a rare Saturday session. The chamber is now expected to reconvene at 1:30pm local time on Sunday.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters that the chamber will continue meeting until the government reopens. “There’s still only one path out – it’s a clean funding extension,” he said.

Some 1.3 million service members are now at risk of missing a paycheque, and that might put pressure on both sides to agree on a deal. Earlier this month, staff were paid after $8bn from military research and development funds were made available at the intervention of Trump.

But questions remain about whether the administration will resort to a similar procedure if the shutdown is prolonged. Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire told reporters on Friday that Democrats “need another path forward”.

Shaheen and several moderate Democrats are floating a proposal that would temporarily fund certain departments – such as veterans’ services and food aid – while keeping the rest of the government open until December or early next year.

It’s understood that Shaheen’s plan would include a promise of a future vote on healthcare subsidies, but not a guaranteed extension. It remains unclear whether enough Democrats would support that compromise. 

Thune, meanwhile, is reportedly considering a bipartisan version of the proposal. On Friday, he said he thinks the offer is an indication that Democrats are “feeling the heat … I guess you could characterise that as progress”.

Looking ahead, it remains unclear what Republicans might offer regarding healthcare.

For now, Democrats face a stark choice: keep pressing for a firm deal to renew healthcare subsidies and prolong the shutdown – or vote to reopen the government and trust Republicans’ assurances of a future healthcare vote, with no certainty of success.

Almost a decade ago, I would have wagered my entire wealth on the defeat of candidate Donald Trump in the primaries of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. My premises were clear: presidential elections should be contests among politicians, of which the U.S. has an abundance, making it unlikely for an outsider to succeed; Americans are well-educated, mature citizens unlikely to elect a non-politician; and Trump’s provocative personality would deter the majority from voting for him. I was proven wrong, but this lesson led me to anticipate his victory in the 2024 elections after reevaluating my premises.

My understanding of American intellect has made me overlook a significant portion of society that prioritizes personality over substance, favoring a strong, assertive persona instead of a competent candidate. Elections blend many factors influencing citizens’ decision-making, with power being a major element in American life. Trump’s political incompetence was overshadowed by his ability to manipulate power, convincing over fifty percent of the population to support him—a quality clearly lacking in his 2024 challenger. For Republicans, the victory was cause for celebration — even if it happened by an “insurgent power manipulation.”

While politics revolves around power, democracy was conceived to constrain it and to enable its lawful and moral exercise. The primary challenge for the U.S. is determining how citizens and their leaders can wield power constructively and ethically within a democratic framework. Current polarization in the U.S. isn’t merely a divide between Republicans and Democrats; it encompasses a myriad of issues and policies on both sides, such as abortion, gender identity, and immigration. The underlying struggle remains the interaction between democracy and power that shapes their mindsets.

American society, perhaps like many others, exists in two parallel realities. One ideal reflects a belief in a nation that genuinely upholds liberal democratic values, supported by a system of checks and balances and the rule of law. In contrast, a significant segment of society downscales this notion, accepting that the United States is fundamentally a nation of power—one that should be guided by the realities of its superpower status, often involving elements of violence in its policies, including leadership selection that Trump threatened during the election process.

It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership failed to present a “powerful” presidential candidate in 2024 or effectively engage its base in the democratic process of candidate nomination. This deficiency has reinforced Trump as the strongman that many believe the U.S. needs. Recent polls show that most voters think Trump is pushing the limits of his constitutional authority, yet the nation must accept that his return to power came through a democratic process.

Ultimately, I realized that the American intellect that has shaped my understanding of the U.S. for decades isn’t purely fact-driven; it tends to twist facts depending on the media outlet or institution, which often highlights issues in ways that align with what they define as their “corporate mission” at the expense of true democracy. This mechanism is supported by a multitude of influential writers and podcasters who shape societal thoughts and behaviors. This troubling phenomenon has been countered by social media, which offers alternative, often unaccountable, views that may be entertaining but lack substantiation.

Regrettably, freedom of expression is widely accepted even when if entails provocation or incendiary that significantly contributes to escalating violence in the United States. The average gun ownership rate, estimated at 120 firearms for every 100 people—the highest in the world—amplifies personal power and can easily incite violent actions during conflicts. A small fraction of enraged citizens can commit crimes fueled by personal firearms, exemplified by incidents like the assassination of Charles Kirk. The prevalence of guns among citizens bolsters the phenomenon of a power-driven presidency and society.

Trump is, in fact, a byproduct of American citizens’ overvaluation of power at the expense of democracy. Although he promised to avoid military conflict, politics is notorious for broken promises. Striking Iran and targeting suspected drug smugglers in international waters exemplifies illegal violence that nonetheless strengthens his power status among supporters. Meanwhile, the recent massive protests, part of the No Kings movement against Trump’s policies, represent a form of “soft democracy,” activity which may not resonate with the “power segment” of society. What the United States needs is a clear set of norms, policies, and public order to advance its democracy. This doesn’t imply transforming the nation into an autocracy but rather clarifying many grey areas, such as freedom of speech and incitement. The US military spending, which accounts for roughly 3.4% of GDP, is not intended to defend the nation against a specific enemy; rather, it aims to maintain superpower status in contrast to the unrealistic small budget used by previous administrations to promote democracy, reflecting the nation’s interests in both areas. In my view, the U.S. does not faithfully adhere to democratic principles; instead, power is the true driving force that reflects its nature.

Republicans are licking their wounds after Tuesday’s ballot box defeats. But there is a lesson to be learned here. The various elections in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia, viewed collectively, reminded us yet again of a perennial political truth: Americans still care first and foremost about their wallets.

Culture war-type issues often generate the most salacious headlines — and many of the Trump administration’s fights on these fronts, such as immigration enforcement and higher education reform, are just and necessary. Still, the economy remains the top political issue. Unless Republicans get more serious about advancing an actionable economic agenda to provide real relief to middle- and working-class Americans, the party risks losing even more ground in next year’s midterm elections.

When voters went to the polls in New York City, New Jersey and Virginia, they were often asking the simplest, most urgent questions: Can I pay the rent? Can I fill up my truck at the pump? Can I fill the fridge? Will my job still exist next year? Do I have reliable healthcare for my children? Across too many districts and communities, those answers remain uneasy. Inflation, while well down from its Biden-era peak, is still stubbornly higher than the Fed’s 2% target. Purchasing power is still eroded, and cost-of-living anxieties persist for far too many.

For Republicans, this is both a warning and an opportunity. Despite a concerted effort in recent years to rebrand as the party of the common man, including but hardly limited to Teamsters President Sean O’Brien getting a coveted speaking slot at last year’s Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, too many voters still associate the GOP with tax cuts for the donor class and a general indifference toward the tens of millions of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck. That’s the blunt truth. The perception of corruption in some of the highest corridors of power in Washington, especially when it comes to the influence wielded by the über-wealthy emirate of Qatar, doesn’t exactly assuage voters’ concerns.

If the GOP wants to regain the public’s trust, it must present a compelling vision of what a sound conservative economic stewardship entails in the 21st century.

That redefinition begins with a renewed focus on work, dignity and resilience. The Republican Party must build an economic narrative that centers on taming inflation, boosting wages, rebuilding America’s industrial base and greater healthcare security for the paycheck-to-paycheck class. Conservatives should pursue a pragmatic economic nationalism — one that ties together trade policy, manufacturing, energy production, workforce development and family formation. All proposed economic policies must be explained in concrete, local terms. The relevant questions each and every time should be: How does this policy tangibly benefit the average American, and how can the policy be messaged so that the benefit is clearly understood?

The voters Republicans need to reach are not tuning in to wonky policy seminars. They want results: lower energy bills, affordable groceries, job security and an economy that rewards hard work. The GOP must speak directly to these priorities with honesty and humility.

If economic anxiety persists through next fall’s midterms, voters will punish whichever party appears more indifferent to their struggles. The Trump administration and Republicans across the country need to get to work fast. That means more Trump-signed executive orders, within the confines of the law, that can provide real economic relief and security to the working men and women of America. And it certainly means a concerted congressional attempt to bolster the economic prospects of the middle and working classes, perhaps through the Senate’s annual budget reconciliation process.

Inflation must finally be tamed — including the Fed raising interest rates, contra Trump’s general easy-money instincts, if need truly be. Private health savings account access must be expanded and the ease of acquiring private healthcare must finally be divorced from the particular circumstances of one’s employment. More jobs and supply chains must be reshored. Concerns about child care affordability and parental leave availability must be addressed. And even more of our bountiful domestic energy must be extracted. These are just some of the various policies that voters might reward at the ballot box next fall.

Our searing cultural battles will continue — and they matter, greatly in fact. But when a family can’t afford its groceries or gas, such debates tend to fade into the background. Republicans must rebuild trust with voters on the most fundamental issue in American politics: the promise of economic opportunity and security.

It’s always dangerous to over-extrapolate and glean clear national lessons from a few local elections. But all three of the biggest recent races — for New York City mayor and for New Jersey and Virginia governors — had final winning margins for Democrats greater than most polling suggested. That seems like a clear enough rebuke. Accordingly, the Trump administration and Republicans across the country must deliver real economic results on the real economic issues facing the American people. If they don’t present a compelling economic vision and execute that vision capably and efficiently, there likely will be even greater electoral damage next fall.

That could all but doom the remainder of the Trump presidency. And what a disappointment that would be.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

“If they’re able then to treat Sami in this way, it’s only a matter of time before they start to treat US citizens like that too.”

The wife of pro-Palestinian commentator and journalist Sami Hamdi told Al Jazeera that his detention by US immigration authorities poses a threat to every American citizen and visitor to the country.

President Trump has long acknowledged that he doesn’t read books, so perhaps he’s never cracked the spine of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby.” But hasn’t he seen one of the several movies? Does he really not know that Gatsby is a tragedy about class, excess and hubris?

It seems not. On Halloween, there was Trump, dressed as himself, hosting a Gatsby-themed party at his Gatsby-era Mar-a-Lago estate. The president was fresh from a diplomatic tour of Asia during which he’d swept up an array of golden gifts (a crown!) from heads of state paying tribute in hopes of not paying tariffs.

Trump’s arriving guests, costumed as Roaring ’20s flappers, bootleggers and pre-crash tycoons, passed a scantily clad woman seductively writhing in a giant Champagne glass, then entered his gilded ballroom beneath a sign in Art Deco script pronouncing the night’s theme: “A little party never killed nobody.”

That’s the title of a song from the soundtrack of Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 film take on Gatsby, the most recent. Perhaps Trump is unaware that in the wake of the fictional Gatsby’s own debauched party, three people died, including Gatsby.

The tone-deaf Trump faced a comeuppance far short of tragedy after his party, but painful nonetheless: a blue wave in Tuesday’s elections. Revulsion at his imperial presidency swamped Republican candidates and causes.

The apparent ignorance of Mr. Make America Great Again about one of the great American novels, now in its centennial year, wasn’t the worst of Trump’s weekend show of excess. This was: The president of the United States held court at Mar-a-Lago, amid free-flowing liquor and tables laden with food, hours before federal food aid would end for 42 million Americans. Meanwhile, more than 1 million federal employees were furloughed or worked without pay amid a five-week-old government shutdown, some of them joining previously fired public servants at food banks. The online People magazine juxtaposed a photo of Trump surveying his Palm Beach party with a shot of nearby Miamians in a food line.

The president, who for nearly 10 months has seized powers he doesn’t have under federal law and the Constitution, professed to be all but powerless to avert the nutrition assistance cutoff, despite two federal judges’ rulings that he do so. And, characteristically, he claimed to be blameless about the shutdown that provoked the nutrition crisis.

“It’s their fault,” Trump said of congressional Democrats as he flew to Mar-a-Lago for the fete. “Everything is their fault. It’s so easily solved.”

How? Why, Democrats have to bend the knee, of course. They must abandon their quest to get Trump and Republicans to reverse their Medicaid cuts and to extend Obamacare subsidies for the working poor. Even as Mr. Art of the Deal claims (falsely) to have settled eight wars, bargaining even with Hamas, he’s refused to negotiate with Democrats. The shutdown is now the longest ever, on Tuesday surpassing the 35-day record Trump set in his first term.

There’s more.

En route to Florida aboard Air Force One, the presidential plane that Trump is replacing with a truly royal jet, a gift from Qatar, and having left behind the ruins of the East Wing where his $300-million ballroom will rise, Trump took to social media to boast of his latest project in the Mar-a-Lago-fication of the White House: an all-marble and gold do-over of the bathroom adjoining the Lincoln Bedroom. “Highly polished, Statuary marble!” he crowed, sending two dozen photos in a series of posts. Trump wrote that the previous 1940s-era bathroom “was totally inappropriate for the Lincoln Era,” but his changes fixed that.

“Art Deco doesn’t go with, you know, 1850 and civil wars and all of the problems,” he’d told wealthy donors last month. “But what does is statuary marble. So I ripped it apart and we built the bathroom. It’s absolutely gorgeous and totally in keeping with that time.”

And with that, Trump again showed his ignorance of America’s history as well as its literature. That said, the new bathroom is more attractive than the one at Mar-a-Lago in which Trump stashed boxes of government documents, including top-secret papers, after his first term.

Trump’s lust for power and its trappings seems to have made him blind to bad optics and deaf to the dissonance of his utterances. The politician who’s gotten so much credit — and won two of three presidential elections — for speaking to working-class Americans’ grievances now seems completely out of touch. There’s also his family’s open accrual of wealth, especially in crypto, and Trump’s recent demand for $230 million from the ever-accommodating Justice Department, to compensate him for the past legal cases against him for keeping government documents and attempting to reverse his 2020 defeat.

All of this while Americans’ costs of living remain high, people are out of jobs thanks to his policies and longtime residents, including some citizens, are swept up in his immigrant detentions and deportations, sundering families.

This week’s election results aren’t the only thing that suggests Trump is finally paying a price. So did the release of several polls timed for the first anniversary of his reelection. Despite Trump’s claims to the contrary, his job approval ratings are the lowest since the ignominious end of his first term. Majorities oppose his handling of most issues, including the ones — the economy and immigration — that helped elect him.

The narrator in “The Great Gatsby” famously says of two central characters, “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.”

I’m looking forward to the day when the careless Trump is gone and his mess can be cleaned up — including all that gold defiling the People’s House.

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

Nov. 6 (UPI) — On this date in history:

In 1860, Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected 16th president of the United States.

In 1861, Jefferson Davis was elected president of the Confederate States of America.

In 1869, in the first formal intercollegiate football game, Rutgers beat Princeton, 6-4.

In 1928, Republican Herbert Hoover was elected 31st president of the United States, defeating Democrat Al Smith.

In 1956, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was re-elected by a wide margin.

In 1965, a formal agreement between the United States and Cuba allowed Cubans who wanted to leave the island nation for America to do so. More than 250,000 Cubans had taken advantage of this opportunity by 1971.

In 1984, U.S. President Ronald Reagan was elected to a second term, winning 49 states.

File Photo by Mal Langsdon/UPI

In 1985, members of the 19th of April Movement took over the Palace of Justice in Bogota, Colombia. The leftist guerrillas would kill more than 100 people (11 of whom where Supreme Court Justices) by the time the siege ended.

In 1991, Russian President Boris Yeltsin issued a decree banning the Communist Party, nationalizing its property and condemning its activities.

File Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPI

In 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama defeated Republican challenger Mitt Romney to win a second term. Federal finance reports showed campaign expenditures broke the $2 billion mark, making the election the most expensive in U.S. history at the time.

In 2013, Avigdor Lieberman, who had resigned as Israel’s foreign minister because of an investigation of alleged corruption, was acquitted and said: “This chapter is behind me. I am now focusing on the challenges ahead.” Lieberman became foreign minister again five days later.

In 2019, the U.S. midterm elections saw a number of milestones and firsts — Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., were the first Muslim women elected to the House; Sharice Davids, D-Kan., and Debra Haaland, D-N.M., were the first Native American women elected to the House; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., was the youngest person elected to the House in nearly three decades; and Jared Polis became the country’s first openly gay male governor, in Colorado. Democrats also took back control of the House, while Republicans held onto the Senate.

In 2024, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz dismissed Finance Minister Christian Lindner, resulting in the collapse of his three-party coalition government. A month later, Scholz lost a confidence vote in parliament, triggering an election in February that saw conservative Friedrich Merz put into power.

File Photo by Leo Correa/UPI

WASHINGTON — Signs of a potential end to the government shutdown intensified Tuesday with behind-the-scenes talks, as the federal closure was on track to become the longest ever disrupting the lives of millions of Americans.

Senators from both parties, Republicans and Democrats, are quietly negotiating the contours of an emerging deal. With a nod from their leadership, the senators seek a way to reopen the government, put the normal federal funding process back on track and devise some sort of resolution to the crisis of expiring health insurance subsidies that are spiking premium costs from coast to coast.

“Enough is enough,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, the South Dakota Republican, as he opened the deadlocked chamber.

On day 35 of the federal government shutdown, the record for the longest will be broken after midnight. With SNAP benefits interrupted for millions of Americans depending on federal food aid, hundreds of thousands of federal employees furloughed or working without pay and contracts being delayed, many on and off Capitol Hill say it’s time for it to end. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy predicted there could be chaos in the skies next week if the shutdown drags on and air traffic controllers miss another paycheck. Labor unions put pressure on lawmakers to reopen the government.

Election Day is seen as a turning point

Tuesday’s elections provide an inflection point, with off-year governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, along with the mayor’s race in New York that will show voter attitudes, a moment of political assessment many hope will turn the tide. Another test vote Tuesday in the Senate failed, as Democrats rejected a temporary government funding bill.

“We’re not asking for anything radical,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said. “Lowering people’s healthcare costs is the definition of common sense.”

Unlike the earlier shutdown during President Trump’s first term, when he fought Congress in 2018-19 for funds to build the U.S.-Mexico border wall, the president has been largely absent from this shutdown debate.

Trump threatens to halt SNAP food aid

But on Tuesday, Trump issued a fresh threat, warning he would halt SNAP food aid unless Democrats agree to reopen the government.

SNAP benefits “will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before!” Trump said on social media. That seemed to defy court orders to release the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program contingency funds.

His top spokeswoman, press secretary Karoline Leavitt, said later that the administration continues to pay out SNAP funding in line with court orders.

With House Speaker Mike Johnson having sent lawmakers home in September, most attention is on the Senate. There, the leadership has outsourced negotiations to a loose group of centrist dealmakers from both parties have been quietly charting a way to end the standoff.

“We pray that today is that day,” said Johnson, R-La., holding his daily process on the empty side of the Capitol.

Contours of a potential deal

Central to any endgame will be a series of agreements that would need to be upheld not only by the Senate, but also the House, and the White House, which is not at all certain in Washington where Republicans have full control of the government.

First of all, senators from both parties, particularly the powerful members of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing to ensure the normal government funding process can be put back on track.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and GOP Sen. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, along with several Democrats, including Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, and Chris Coons of Delaware, are among those working behind the scenes.

“The pace of talks have increased,” said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who has been involved in conversations.

Among the goals is guaranteeing upcoming votes on a smaller package of bills where there is already widespread bipartisan agreement to fund various aspects of governments, like agricultural programs and military construction projects at bases.

“I certainly think that that three-bill package is primed to do a lot of good things for the American people,” said Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala, who has also been in talks.

More difficult, a substantial number of senators also want some resolution to the standoff over the funding for the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are set to expire at year’s end.

White House won’t engage on health care until government reopens

The White House says its position remains unchanged and that Democrats must vote to fund the government until talks over health care can begin. White House officials are in close contact with GOP senators who have been quietly speaking with key Senate Democrats, according to a senior White House official. The official was granted anonymity to discuss administration strategy.

With insurance premium notices being sent, millions of Americans are experiencing sticker shock on skyrocketing prices. The loss of federal subsidies, which come in the form of tax credits, are expected to leave many people unable to buy health insurance.

Republicans, with control of the House and Senate, are reluctant to fund the health care program, also known as Obamacare. But Thune has promised Democrats a vote on their preferred proposal, on a date certain, as part of any deal to reopen government.

That’s not enough for some senators, who see the health care deadlock as part of their broader concerns with Trump’s direction for the country.

“Trump is a schoolyard bully,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Independent from Vermont, in an op-ed. “Anyone who thinks surrendering to him now will lead to better outcomes and cooperation in the future does not understand how a power-hungry demagogue operates.”

Moreover, Democrats, and some Republicans, are also pushing for guardrails to prevent the Trump administration’s practice of unilaterally slashing funds for programs that Congress had already approved, by law, the way billionaire Elon Musk did earlier this year at the Department of Government Efficiency.

With the Senate, which is split 53-47, having tried and failed more than a dozen times to advance the House-passed bill over the filibuster, that measure is out of date. It would have funded government to Nov. 21.

Trump has demanded senators nuke the filibuster, the Senate rule that requires a 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation, which preserves minority rights in the chamber. GOP senators panned that demand.

Both Thune and Johnson have acknowledged they will need a new temporary measure. They are eyeing one that skips past the Christmas holiday season, avoiding what often has been a year-end crunch, and instead develop an agreement that would keep government running into the near year, likely January.

Mascaro and Jalonick write for the Associated Press. AP writers Kevin Freking, Seung Min Kim and Matt Brown contributed to this story.

Remember when soccer was being touted as the next big sport in the U.S.? Well, it looks like that moment has finally arrived.

Or not. It all depends on who you ask and how you interpret what they tell you.

On one hand, there’s the recent Harris Poll that found 72% of Americans profess an interest in soccer, a 17% increase from 2020. A quarter of those are “dedicated” fans and 1 in 5 say they are “obsessed” with the sport.

On the other hand, there’s the stark decline in attendance and TV viewership for the country’s top two domestic leagues, MLS and the NWSL, and the underwhelming crowds that showed up last summer for the FIFA Club World Cup and the CONCACAF Gold Cup.

LAFC fans lift up a banner honoring Carlos Vela during a ceremony to honor him before a match against Real Salt Lake at BMO Stadium on Sept. 21.

(Kevork Djansezian / Getty Images)

These contrary findings — a growing fanbase at the same time attendance and viewership numbers are falling off a cliff — come at an important inflection point for soccer in the U.S., with the largest, most ambitious World Cup kicking off at SoFi Stadium in fewer than 200 days.

“The short answer is yes, the World Cup will be a watershed moment for soccer in America. However, it’s unlikely to immediately lead to a significant increase in ticket sales for MLS and NWSL. Soccer fandom in America develops differently from that of other sports,” said Darin W. White, executive director of the Sports Industry Program and the Center for Sports Analytics at Samford University, which next year will launch a major five-year study to explore how soccer can become mainstream in the U.S.

“The World Cup will bring millions of new Americans into the pipeline. Over the next few years we expect these new fans to progress through the pipeline, giving soccer a substantial enough fan base to tip the scales and help make soccer part of the ongoing mainstream sports conversation. I am confident that the World Cup will enable soccer to reach that critical mass.”

Steven A. Bank, a professor of business law at UCLA who has written and lectured extensively on the economics of soccer, isn’t as optimistic.

“The risk isn’t that U.S. soccer will be in the same place in 10 years, but that it will have regressed,” he said.

“For the World Cup to benefit domestic leagues’ attendance, ratings, and revenue, as well as youth and adult participation rates in playing soccer, it will have to be the catalyst for more domestic investment in the game. The question isn’t whether the World Cup will convince enough people to become fans or to move from casual to dedicated or obsessive fans. It’s whether it will convince enough wealthy people and companies to risk the kind of money necessary to compete with the top leagues for the top talent.”

U.S. captain Christian Pulisic drives the ball during an international friendly against Ecuador at Q2 Stadium on Oct. 10 in Austin, Texas.

(Omar Vega / Getty Images)

That investment could be a boost to both first-tier domestic leagues, which saw their attendance and TV rating fall dramatically this year. After setting records in both 2023 and ‘24, MLS watched its average attendance fall 5.4% — to 21,988 fans per match — this season. According to Soccer America, 19 of the 29 teams that played in 2024 saw their attendance drop; more than half saw declines of 10% or more.

The TV audience also appears to be relatively small, although the fact Apple TV, the league’s main broadcast partner, rarely releases viewer data has hampered efforts to draw any firm conclusions. MLS said last month that its games attracted 3.7 million global aggregate viewers a week on all its streaming and linear platforms, an average of about 246,000 a game on a full weekend. While that’s up nearly 29% from last year, the average viewership figure is about 100,000 smaller than what the league drew for single games on ESPN alone in 2022, the last season before Apple’s 10-year $2.5-billion took effect.

NWSL also saw overall league attendance fall more than 5%, with eight of the 13 teams that played in 2024 experiencing declines. And TV viewership in the second year of the league’s four-season $240 million broadcast deal was down 8% before the midseason July break, according to the Sports Business Journal.

That follows a summer in which both the expanded Club World Cup and the Gold Cup struggled to find an audience. Although the 63-match Club World Cup drew an average of 39,547 fans per game, 14 matches had crowds of fewer than 20,000. The Gold Cup averaged 25,129 for its 31 games — a drop of more than 7,000 from 2023. And five matches drew less than 7,800 people.

“There’s a danger of taking this year’s decline out of context,” said Stefan Szymanski, a professor of sports management at the University of Michigan and author of several books on soccer including “Money and Soccer” and “Soccernomics” (with Simon Kuper). “Last year was a record year. It’s really about the diminishment of the Messi effect.

“I wouldn’t say it’s a moment of crisis. And the way MLS is looking at this strikes me that they’re entirely focused on a post-World Cup [bump], which they think they’re going to get. I’d be skeptical myself about that. I don’t think it will do that much for them.”

Szymanski said the World Cup could hurt the league by underscoring the huge difference in the quality of play between elite international soccer and MLS.

“Americans are not dumb,” he said. “They know what’s good quality sport [and] not good quality sport. And they know that MLS is low level. The only way, in a global marketplace, you can get the top talent to have a truly competitive league is to pay the salaries.”

Which brings us back to Bank’s conclusion that fixing soccer in the U.S. isn’t about the soccer, it’s about the money being spent on the sport. For next summer’s World Cup to have a lasting impact, the “bump” will have to come not just from an increase in attendance and TV viewership but in investment as well. And, as Szymanski argues, that means additional investment in players as well.

“If all it does is attract eyeballs for this competition,” Bank said “I’m not sure it does more than the Olympics does every four years when it temporarily raises the profile of a few sports for some people who were not casual fans before.”

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown is poised to become the longest ever this week as the impasse between Democrats and Republicans has dragged into a new month. Millions of people stand to lose food aid benefits, health care subsidies are set to expire and there are few real talks between the parties over how to end it.

President Trump said in an interview aired on Sunday that he “won’t be extorted” by Democrats who are demanding negotiations to extend the expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies. Echoing congressional Republicans, the president said on CBS’ “60 Minutes” he’ll negotiate only when the government is reopened.

Trump said Democrats “have lost their way” and predicted they’ll capitulate to Republicans.

“I think they have to,” Trump said. “And if they don’t vote, it’s their problem.”

Trump’s comments signal the shutdown could drag on for some time as federal workers, including air traffic controllers, are set to miss additional paychecks and there’s uncertainty over whether 42 million Americans who receive federal food aid will be able to access the assistance. Senate Democrats have voted 13 times against reopening the government, insisting they need Trump and Republicans to negotiate with them first.

The president also reiterated his pleas to Republican leaders to change Senate rules and scrap the filibuster. Senate Republicans have repeatedly rejected that idea since Trump’s first term, arguing the rule requiring 60 votes to overcome any objections in the Senate is vital to the institution and has allowed them to stop Democratic policies when they’re in the minority.

Trump said that’s true, but “we’re here right now.”

“Republicans have to get tougher,” Trump told CBS. “If we end the filibuster, we can do exactly what we want.”

With the two parties at a standstill, the shutdown, now in its 34th day and approaching its sixth week, appears likely to become the longest in history. The previous record was set in 2019, when Trump demanded Congress give him money for a U.S.-Mexico border wall.

A potentially decisive week

Trump’s push on the filibuster could prove a distraction for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and Republican senators who’ve opted instead to stay the course as the consequences of the shutdown become more acute.

Republicans are hoping at least some Democrats will eventually switch their votes as moderates have been in weekslong talks with rank-and-file Republicans about potential compromises that could guarantee votes on health care in exchange for reopening the government. Republicans need five additional Democrats to pass their bill.

“We need five with a backbone to say we care more about the lives of the American people than about gaining some political leverage,” Thune said on the Senate floor as the Senate left Washington for the weekend on Thursday.

Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday there’s a group of people talking about ”a path to fix the health care debacle” and a commitment from Republicans not to fire more federal workers. But it’s unclear if those talks could produce a meaningful compromise.

Far apart on Obamacare subsidies

Trump said in the “60 Minutes” interview that the Affordable Care Act — often known as Obamacare because it was signed and championed by then-President Barack Obama — is “terrible” and if the Democrats vote to reopen the government, “we will work on fixing the bad health care that we have right now.”

Democrats feel differently, arguing that the marketplaces set up by the ACA are working as record numbers of Americans have signed up for the coverage. But they want to extend subsidies first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic so premiums won’t go up for millions of people on Jan. 1.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said last week that “we want to sit down with Thune, with (House Speaker Mike) Johnson, with Trump, and negotiate a way to address this horrible health care crisis.”

No appetite for bipartisanship

As Democrats have pushed Trump and Republicans to negotiate, Trump has showed little interest in doing so. He called for an end to the Senate filibuster after a trip to Asia while the government was shut down.

White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said on Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that the president has spoken directly to Thune and Johnson about the filibuster. But a spokesman for Thune said Friday that his position hasn’t changed, and Johnson said Sunday that he believes the filibuster has traditionally been a “safeguard” from far-left policies.

Trump said on “60 Minutes” that he likes Thune but “I disagree with him on this point.”

The president has spent much of the shutdown mocking Democrats, posting videos of House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries in a Mexican sombrero. The White House website is now featuring a satirical “My Space” page for Democrats, a parody based on the social media site that was popular in the early 2000s. “We just love playing politics with people’s livelihoods,” the page reads.

Democrats have repeatedly said that they need Trump to get serious and weigh in. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner said that he hopes the shutdown could end “this week” because Trump is back in Washington.

Republicans “can’t move on anything without a Trump sign off,” Warner said on “Face the Nation” on CBS.

Record-breaking shutdown

The 35-day shutdown that lasted from December 2018 to January 2019 ended when Trump retreated from his demands over a border wall. That came amid intensifying delays at the nation’s airports and multiple missed paydays for hundreds of thousands of federal workers.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on ABC’s “This Week” that there have already been delays at several airports “and it’s only going to get worse.”

Many of the workers are “confronted with a decision,” he said. “Do I put food on my kids’ table, do I put gas in the car, do I pay my rent or do I go to work and not get paid?”

As flight delays around the country increased, New York City’s emergency management department posted on Sunday that Newark Airport was under a ground delay because of “staffing shortages in the control tower” and that they were limiting arrivals to the airport.

“The average delay is about 2 hours, and some flights are more than 3 hours late,” the account posted.

SNAP crisis

Also in the crossfire are the 42 million Americans who receive SNAP benefits. The Department of Agriculture planned to withhold $8 billion needed for payments to the food program starting on Saturday until two federal judges ordered the administration to fund it.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNN Sunday that the administration continues to await additional direction from the courts.

“The best way for SNAP benefits to get paid is for Democrats — for five Democrats to cross the aisle and reopen the government,” Bessent said.

House Democratic leader Jeffries, D-N.Y., accused Trump and Republicans of attempting to “weaponize hunger.” He said that the administration has managed to find ways for funding other priorities during the shutdown, but is slow-walking pushing out SNAP benefits despite the court orders.

“But somehow they can’t find money to make sure that Americans don’t go hungry,” Jeffries said in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Aamer Madhani contributed to this report.

Nov. 3 (UPI) — The United States’ 10 richest billionaires saw their wealth grow last year by nearly $700 billion, according to a new report published Monday by Oxfam, which warns the Trump administration is worsening U.S. inequality.

The report states that in the past year, the wealth of U.S. billionaires grew by $698 billion.

Oxfam, the British-founded confederation of nearly two dozen non-governmental organizations, citing Federal Reserve data, found that between 1989 and 2022, a household in the top 0.1% gained $39.5 million, while a household in the top 1% gained about $8.3 million. Meanwhile, a bottom 20% household saw its wealth only grow by $8,465.

This equals to the poorest household in the top 1% having gained 987 times more wealth than the richest household in the bottom 20%, according to the report.

It continues by stating that while the wealth of working- and middle-class families have barely grown in more than three decades, America’s richest have seen their purses overflow.

As evidence, Oxfam said the share of national income going to the top 1% doubled from 1980 to 2022, while the share going to the bottom 50% decreased by one-third.

It also pointed to the top 1% owning half of the entire stock market, while the bottom half of Americans only hold 1.1%.

“The data confirms what people across our nation already know instinctively: the new American oligarchy is here,” Abby Maxman, Oxfam America’s president and CEO, said in a statement accompanying the publication of the report.

“Billionaires and mega-corporations are booming while working families struggle to afford housing, healthcare and groceries.”

The report warns that the Trump administration is taking actions that threaten to worsen inequality in the United States.

According to Oxfam, the Trump administration, backed by a Republican-controlled Congress, “has moved with staggering speed and scale to carry out a relentless attack on working class families, and use the power of the office to enrich the wealthy and well-connected.”

Maxman said the Trump administration and congressional Republicans “risk turbocharging” this inequality, while adding that what they are doing isn’t new, but what is different “is how much undemocratic power they’ve now amassed.”