Biden

WASHINGTON — Ahead of Tuesday’s election, when Americans weighed in at the ballot box for the first time since President Trump returned to office, a vicious fight emerged among the president’s most prominent supporters.

The head of the most influential conservative think tank in Washington found himself embroiled in controversy over his defense of Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and antisemite, whose rising profile and embrace on the right has become a phenomenon few in politics can ignore.

Fierce acrimony between Fuentes’ critics and acolytes dominated social media for days as a historically protracted government shutdown risked food security for millions of Americans. Despite the optics, Trump hosted a Halloween ball at his Mar-a-Lago estate themed around the extravagance of the Great Gatsby era.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman who rose to national fame for her promotion of conspiracy theories, took to legacy media outlets to warn that Republicans are failing the American people over fundamental political imperatives, calling on leadership to address the nation’s cost-of-living crisis and come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan.

And on Tuesday, as vote tallies came in, moderate Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia who had campaigned on economic bread-and-butter issues outperformed their polling — and Kamala Harris’ 2024 numbers against Trump in a majority of districts throughout their states.

The past year in politics has been dominated by a crisis within the Democratic Party over how to rebuild a winning coalition after Trump’s reelection. Now, just one year on, the Republican Party appears to be fracturing, as well, as it prepares for Trump’s departure from the national stage and the vacuum it will create in a party cast over 10 years in his image.

“Lame duck status is going to come even faster now,” Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative commentator, wrote on social media as election results trickled in. “Trump cannot turn out the vote unless he is on the ballot, and that is never happening again.”

A post-Trump debate intensifies

Flying to Seoul last week on a tour of Asia, Trump was asked to respond to remarks from top congressional Republicans, including the House speaker and Senate majority leader, over his potential pursuit of a third term in office, despite a clear constitutional prohibition against it.

“I guess I’m not allowed to run,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “If you read it, it’s pretty clear, I’m not allowed to run. It’s too bad.”

Less than a year remains until the 2026 midterm elections when Democrats could take back partial control of Congress, crippling Trump’s ability to enact his agenda and encumbering his administration with investigations.

But a countdown to the midterms also means that Trump has precious time left before the 2028 presidential election begins in earnest, eclipsing the final two years of his presidency.

It’s a conversation already brewing on the right.

“The Republican Party is just a husk,” Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent conservative commentator who served as White House chief strategist in Trump’s first term, told Politico in an interview Wednesday. Bannon has advocated for Trump to challenge the constitutional rule on presidential term limits.

“When Trump is engaged, when Trump’s on the ballot, when Trump’s team can get out there and get low-propensity voters — because that’s the difference now in modern politics — when they can do it, they win,” Bannon said. “When he doesn’t do it, they don’t.”

Trump has already suggested his vice president, JD Vance, and secretary of State, Marco Rubio, will be top contenders to succeed him. But an extreme faction of his political coalition, aligned with Fuentes, is already disparaging them as globalists working at the whims of a baseless conspiracy of American Jews. Fuentes targeted Vance last week, in particular, over his weight, his marriage to a “brown” Indian woman, and his support for Israel.

“The infighting is stupid,” Vance said on Wednesday in a post on the election results, tying intraparty battles to Tuesday’s poor showing for the GOP.

“I care about my fellow citizens — particularly young Americans — being able to afford a decent life, I care about immigration and our sovereignty, and I care about establishing peace overseas so our resources can be focused at home,” he said, adding: “If you care about those things too, let’s work together.”

Democratic fractures remain

Some in Republican leadership saw a silver lining in an otherwise difficult night on Tuesday.

The success of Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist who will serve as the youngest and first Muslim mayor of New York City, “is the reason I’m optimistic” for next year’s midterms, House Speaker Mike Johnson told RealClearPolitics on Wednesday.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani speaks at Tuesday night’s victory celebration.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

“We will have a great example to point to in New York City,” Johnson said. “They’ve handed the keys to the kingdom to the Marxist. He will destroy it.”

Mamdani’s victory is a test for a weak and diffuse Democratic leadership still trying to steer the party in a unified direction, despite this week’s elections displaying just how big a tent Democratic voters have become.

Republicans like Trump know that labeling conventional Democratic politicians as socialists and communists is a political ploy. But Mamdani himself, they point out, describes his views as socialist, a toxic national brand that could hobble Democratic candidates across the country if Republicans succeed in casting New York’s mayor-elect as the Democrats’ future.

“After last night’s results, the decision facing all Americans could not be more clear — we have a choice between communism and common sense,” Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday. “As long as I’m in the White House, the United States is not going communist in any way, shape or form.”

In an interview with CNN shortly after Mamdani’s victory was called, Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader hoping to lead the party back into the majority next year, refused repeated questioning on whether Mamdani’s win might hurt Democratic prospects nationwide.

“This is the best they can come up with?” he said, adding: “We are going to win control of the House of Representatives.”

Bannon, too, warned that establishment Republicans could be mistaken in dismissing Mamdani’s populist appeal across party lines to Trump’s base of supporters. Mamdani, he noted, succeeded in driving out low-propensity voters in record numbers — a key to Trump’s success.

Tuesday’s election, he told Politico, “should be a wake-up call to the populist nationalist movement under President Trump that these are very serious people.”

“There should be even more than alarm bells,” he added. “There should be flashing red lights all over.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Will these six California GOP House members survive new districts?
The deep dive: Shakedown in Beverly Hills: High-stakes poker, arson and an alleged Israeli mobster
The L.A. Times Special: Toting a tambourine, she built L.A.’s first megachurch. Then she suddenly disappeared

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

SACRAMENTO — While President Trump was pushing National Guard troops from city to city like some little kid playing with his toy soldiers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was coaxing voters into fighting the man’s election-rigging scheme.

It turned out to be an easy sell for the governor. By the end, Californians appeared ready to send a loud message that they not only objected to the president’s election rigging but practically all his policies.

Trump is his own worst enemy, at least in this solidly blue state — and arguably the California GOP’s biggest current obstacle to regaining relevancy.

Here’s a guy bucking for the Nobel Peace Prize who suggests that the country resume nuclear weapons testing — a relic of the Cold War — and sends armed troops into Portland and Chicago for no good reason.

The commander in chief bizarrely authorized Marines to fire artillery shells from a howitzer across busy Interstate 5. Fortunately, the governor shut down the freeway. Or else exploding shrapnel could have splattered heads in some topless convertible. As it was, metal chunks landed only on a California Highway Patrol car and a CHP motorcycle. No injuries, but the president and his forces came across as blatantly reckless.

And while Trump focused on demolishing the First Lady’s historic East Wing of the White House and hitting up billionaire grovelers to pay for a monstrous, senseless $300-million ballroom — portraying the image of a spoiled, self-indulgent monarch — Newsom worked on a much different project. He concentrated on building a high-powered coalition and raising well over $100 million to thwart the president with Proposition 50.

The ballot measure was Newsom’s and California Democrats’ response to Trump browbeating Texas and other red states to gerrymander congressional districts to make them more Republican-friendly. The president is desperate to retain GOP control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Newsom retaliated with Prop. 50, aimed at flipping five California House seats from Republican to Democrat, neutralizing Texas’ gerrymandering.

It’s all sleazy, but Trump started it. California’s Democratic voters, who greatly outnumber Republicans, indicated in preelection polling that they preferred sleazy redistricting to an unhinged president continuing to reign roughshod over a cowardly, subservient Congress.

A poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 93% of likely Democratic voters supported Prop. 50. So did 57% of independents. Conversely, symbolic of Trump’s hold on the GOP and our political polarization, 91% of Republicans opposed the measure.

Similar partisan voting was found in a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Pollster Mark Baldassare said that “96% of the people voting yes on 50 disapprove of Trump.”

Democrats — 94% of them — also emphatically disapproved of the Trump administration’s immigration raids, the PPIC poll showed. Likewise, 67% of independents. But 84% of Republicans backed how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was rounding up people living here illegally.

ICE agents shrouded in masks and not wearing identification badges while traveling in unmarked vehicles — raiding hospitals, harassing school kids and chasing farmworkers — are not embraced in diverse, immigrant-accepting California.

When the PPIC poll asked voters how undocumented immigrants should be handled, 69% — including 93% of Democrats — chose this response: “There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally.” But 67% of Republicans said they should be booted.

The ICE raids were among the Trump actions — and flubs — that helped generate strong support for Prop. 50. It was the voters’ device for sticking it to the president.

“Californians are concerned about the overreach of the federal government and that helped 50,” Democratic consultant Roger Salazar says. “It highlights how much the Trump administration has pushed the envelope. And a yes vote on Prop. 50 was a response to that.”

Jonathan Paik, director of a Million Votes Project coalition that contacted 2 million people promoting Prop. 50, says: “We heard very consistently from voters that they were concerned about the impact of Trump’s ICE raids and the rising cost of living. These raids don’t just target immigrants, they destabilize entire communities and deepen economic struggles.

“Voters saw Prop. 50 as a way to restore balance and protect their families’ ability to work, pay rent and live safely.”

The measure also provided a platform for Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California to explore possibly joining a crowded field of candidates running for governor. Newsom is termed-out after next year.

The Trump administration did Padilla a gigantic favor in June by roughing up the senator and handcuffing him on the floor when he tried to query Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles news conference about ICE raids. Such publicity for a politician is golden.

Padilla became a leading advocate for Prop. 50 while seriously considering a gubernatorial bid. The senator said he’d decide after Tuesday’s special election.

“I haven’t made any decision,” he told me last week. “Sometime in the next several weeks.”

But it’s tempting for this L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants who was inspired to enter politics by anti-immigrant bashing in the 1990s.

“I’d have an opportunity and responsibility to be a leading voice against that,” he said. “California can be a leader for the rest of the country on immigration, environmental protection, reproduction quality, healthcare…”

In many ways it already is. But Trump hates that. And California Republicans step in it by meekly following the hugely unpopular president. Prop. 50 is the latest result.

California Republicans can do better than behave like Trump’s wannabe reserve toy soldiers.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A youth movement is roiling Democrats. Does age equal obsolescence?
The what happened: Most Americans have avoided shutdown woes. That might change.
The L.A. Times Special: Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

This major investigative documentary examines the facts surrounding the murder of Palestinian American Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, as she was reporting in Jenin, in the occupied West Bank, in May 2022.

It sets out to discover who killed her – and after months of painstaking research, succeeds in identifying the Israeli sniper who pulled the trigger.

It gets through the smokescreens of both the Israeli and US governments and reveals how the close political relationship between them frustrated efforts to obtain justice at the time.

Through interviews with an Israeli former national security adviser, a former deputy assistant US secretary of state for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, Israeli soldiers and Shireen’s colleagues and family, the film challenges official versions of events – and, in doing so, highlights issues of accountability, press freedom and the geopolitical dynamics surrounding the case, particularly in the light of the Israeli killing of Anas al-Sharif and four of his Al Jazeera colleagues in Gaza in August 2025.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me again, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner, who will be back next week.

California’s Proposition 50, the measure that would redraw election maps to favor Democrats, started out seeming controversial and likely to spark a huge battle.

But in recent days, it’s become clear that the majority of Californians are pro-50. So much so that Gov. Gavin Newsom has offered up the ultimate taunt — he’s ended small-donor fundraising on the measure. Can you imagine President Trump telling MAGA, “Keep your five bucks. It’s better in your pocket than mine.”

So it’s sort of like Newsom is walking across the finish line flush with swagger and cash — maybe not wise, but a statement.

Obviously, Newsom will soon be asking for more money for more things, including his was-never-not-happening presidential bid. But for now, the narrative he’s crafted with Proposition 50 (win or lose, because truly you don’t know until the last ballot is counted) is a consequential and important win for democracy and a ray of hope for the next election, merely a year away.

Here’s why.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Texas state Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins appear at a news conference in July at the governor’s mansion.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

It was never unpopular

The big secret you should know about Proposition 50 is that it was never unpopular with California’s blue voters.

Sure, Republicans hate it. Especially those, such as Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who will probably lose their jobs if it passes. I’ll give Kiley credit on this — he for a short bit tried to convince his party that all mid-decade redistricting was bad. He had no luck, mostly because House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) rolls like jelly when it comes to Trump.

But the majority of Republicans in California and across the country have offered nary a whisper in condemnation of red-tilting cheat maps.

In truth, Proposition 50 started out as a bluff — nothing more than a way to push back on Texas Republicans who were working at full speed to appease Trump by rejiggering their own maps to provide him with a safe margin of seats for the midterms.

Hoping to deter Texas appeasement GOPers from this scorched-earth pursuit, Texas Democratic congressional representatives started floating the rumor this year that if the Lone Star State went forward with its scheme to create five extra red seats, California would do the same for blue. It was nothing more than a bit of tit-for-tat blustering.

There was, however, no such plan by Newsom, and insiders say the feint took the governor by surprise. But kind of a happy surprise, because the idea caught on like wildfire and — even more surprising — turned out to be legally doable.

Newsom’s team did a couple of polls and guess what? Yep, voters wanted to fight back against Trump’s takeover. Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, agreed to back the measure and fundraise and here we are: A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 6 in 10 likely voters support the measure, and of those who have already voted, 67% are in favor.

That backs up another new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California that found 56% of likely voters support the measure, mostly along party lines. Forty-three percent are against it.

Only 2% were undecided in The Times’ poll, and that dropped to 1% in the PPIC poll.

So Californians have made up their minds — now they just need to mail in their ballots (I swear I will send mine very, very soon).

What will 50 actually do?

So let’s say Proposition 50 does sail to victory. What then? Will it really save democracy, which is really in need of saving?

Probably not. Maybe. Hopefully? Here’s the truth. Our elections are in hugely big trouble, which I wrote about on Tuesday. For the vast majority of you who didn’t read that, here’s the recap: Donald Trump will probably try to cheat.

That suppression may take many forms. It could be new rules to make it harder to vote — such as requiring multiple forms of IDs with matching names (which many married women lack). It could involve something as dire as military “protection” of our polls. It may look like another attempt to end mail-in ballots or early voting.

It could involve Mike “Jelly” Johnson refusing to seat elected Democrats, as he is currently doing with Arizona’s newly elected, release-the-Epstein-files Arizona Rep. Adelita Grijalva.

It will almost certainly include charges of voter fraud, which Trump is already yapping about on social media. And it will almost certainly involve Republican gerrymandered maps in states besides Texas (though there are surprising holdouts in some places, including Nebraska).

All of that is to say that the midterms are going to be both a big, steaming mess and historically important.

But Proposition 50 shows that not only is there will to resist this breakdown of democracy, but there are also ways to fight. Whether or not it ultimately is the key to restoring the power check of an independent Congress, it’s an important proof that the fight is not over.

There are a couple of other things that stand out in this moment of uncertainty. First, Newsom is the Comeback Kid. There was a time after Kamala Harris took the Democratic nomination when his chances of ever sitting behind the Resolute Desk seemed slim. But Proposition 50 coincided with, and fed, his new turn as chief troll — and actually as an effective foil — to Trump.

He has quickly become one of the most recognizable leaders nationwide in fighting authoritarianism, and to his credit, he is speaking truth at a difficult moment.

Yes, that benefits him, but I’ll take pro-democracy pushback wherever I find it — and so apparently will other Californians. The same PPIC poll that found the majority of likely voters support Proposition 50 also found that 55% approve of the way Newsom is doing his job, and about half think California is on the right track.

Nationally, he’s gaining ground too. Another poll about the New Hampshire primary, often considered one of the first harbingers of Democratic things to come, found Newsom in second place after former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

In a couple of other polls, Newsom is in the mix, along with Buttigieg and New York U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So he’s in the running, and not just in his own head — making Proposition 50 a win for the governor.

But Congress, that’s another story. Californians (and Americans in general) are not pleased with their congressional representatives. The PPIC poll found that only 14% of California adults are happy with the way Congress is doing its job. Honestly, judging from the way I feel about it, that seems high.

So keep your eye on California races, even after the maps are redrawn. The youngs are after the olds, and voters seem ready for change. Pelosi is facing two serious challengers, including state Sen. Scott Wiener. In Sacramento, Rep. Doris Matsui has a youthful contender.

California voters may end up wanting even more change than Democrats anticipate. They’re clearly in a mood to fight, and no telling with whom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: We checked DHS’s videos of chaos and protests. Here’s what they leave out.
The what happened: The Republicans thwarting the White House’s redistricting hopes
The L.A. Times special: ICE officials replaced with Border Patrol, cementing hard tactics that originated in California

P.S. More from Homeland Security. This is deeply disturbing propaganda being produced and disseminated without much remark by an armed federal agency. For those who aren’t J.R.R. Tolkien nerds, it’s a reference to a great evil destroying society. Whether or not you support the removal of undocumented people, the portrayal of all undocumented folks as evil and dangerous is well … dangerous. And wrong.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled their long-promised report on former President Biden’s use of the autopen, delivering a blistering critique of his time in office and inner circle that largely rehashes public information while making sweeping accusations about the workings of his White House.

The GOP report does not include any concrete evidence that aides conspired to enact policies without Biden’s knowledge or that the president was unaware of laws, pardons or executive orders signed in his name. But Republicans said their findings cast doubt on all of Biden’s actions in office. They sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi urging a full investigation. President Trump ordered a similar inquiry earlier this year.

At its core, the report advances contested claims that Biden’s mental state declined to a degree that allowed White House officials to enact policies without his knowledge. It focuses heavily on the pardons he granted in office, including to his son, Hunter Biden, based on depositions with close Biden aides.

“The cost of the scheme to hide the fallout of President Biden’s diminished physical and mental acuity was great but will likely never be fully calculated,” the report reads. “The cover-up put American national security at risk and the nation’s trust in its leaders in jeopardy.”

Biden has strenuously denied he was unaware of his administration’s actions, calling such claims “ridiculous and false.” Democrats on the House Oversight committee denounced the probe as a distraction and waste of time.

Republicans are shifting attention back to Biden at a tumultuous time, 10 months into Trump’s presidency, with the government shut down and Congress at a standstill over legislation to fund it. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has kept the House out of session for nearly a month, with most public-facing committee work grinding to a halt.

The report on Biden was largely compiled over several months before the shutdown began. Based on interviews with more than a dozen members of Biden’s inner circle, the report offers few new revelations, instead drawing broad conclusions from unanswered questions.

It includes repeated references to polls of Biden’s approval rating and perceptions of his public gaffes and apparent aging, much of it publicly known.

It alleges a “cover-up of the president’s cognitive decline” orchestrated by Biden’s inner circle and takes particular aim at Biden’s doctor, Kevin O’Connor, who invoked his Fifth Amendment right against testifying. Republicans also singled out senior aides Anthony Bernal and Annie Tomasini, who similarly pleaded the Fifth. All three “should face further scrutiny” from the Justice Department, Republicans said.

Republicans also sent a letter to the D.C. Board of Medicine urging that O’Connor face “discipline, sanction or revocation of his medical license” and “be barred from the practice of medicine in the District of Columbia.”

The report does not include full transcripts of the at-times multiple hours of recorded testimony that witnesses delivered before the committee. It repeatedly scolds Biden officials and Democratic allies for defending Biden’s mental state.

“The inner-most circle, or cocoon, of the White House senior staff organized one of the largest scandals in American history — hiding a cognitively failing president and refusing any means of confirmation of such demise,” the report says.

While the report claims that record-keeping policies in the Biden White House “were so lax that the chain of custody for a given decision is difficult or impossible to establish,” Republicans do not offer any concrete instances of the chain of command being violated or a policy being enacted without Biden’s knowledge.

Still, Republicans argue that Biden’s use of the autopen should be considered invalid unless there is documented proof of him approving a decision.

“Barring evidence of executive actions taken during the Biden presidency showing that President Biden indeed took a particular executive action, the committee deems those actions taken through use of the autopen as void,” the report says.

Democrats and legal experts have warned that broad scrutiny of executive actions could pose future legal headaches for the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, who also often enact policies directed by lawmakers through devices like the presidential autopen.

Brown and Cappelletti write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s anti-Trump, anti-Texas congressional redistricting gamble seems about to pay off.

Newsom’s bet on Proposition 50 is looking like a winner, although we won’t really know until the vote count is released starting election night Nov. 4.

Insiders closely watching the high-stakes campaign would be shocked if Republicans pulled an upset and defeated the Democrats’ retaliatory response to red state gerrymandering.

They talk mostly about the expected size of victory, not whether it will win. The hedged consensus is that it’ll be by a modest margin, not a blowout.

Any size victory would help Newsom promote himself nationally as the Democrat whom party activists anxiously seek to aggressively fight Trumpism. It could energize grassroots progressives to back the Californian in early 2028 presidential primaries.

Propositions 50’s defeat, however, could be a devastating blow to Newsom’s presidential aspirations. If Californians wouldn’t follow him, why should other people?

Private and independent polls have shown Proposition 50 being supported by a small majority of registered voters. Not enough for an early victory dance. But the opposition is nowhere close to a majority. A lot of people have been undecided. They may not even bother to vote in a special election with only one state measure on the ballot.

As of last week, the return of mail-in ballots was running about the same as in last year’s presidential election at the same point — very unusual.

A slightly higher percentage of Democrats were casting ballots than GOP registrants. This is particularly significant in a state where 45% of voters are Democrats and only 25% are Republicans. The GOP needs a humungous turnout to beat Democrats on almost anything.

You can credit President Trump’s antics for riling up Democrats to vote early.

One practical importance of early Democratic voting is that the “yes” side doesn’t need to spend more money appealing to people who have already mailed in their ballots.

“It’s a bird in the hand kind of thing,” says Paul Mitchell, the Democrats’ chief data processor and principal drawer of the gerrymandered congressional maps up for approval in Proposition 50.

Mitchell believes the large recent weekend turnouts in California of “No Kings” protesters are indicative of the anti-Trump outrage that is generating Democratic enthusiasm for Proposition 50.

Republican consultant Rob Stutzman thinks that Proposition 50 could have been beaten with enough money. But not nearly enough showed up. Potential donors probably concluded it was a lost cause, he says. Don’t waste the cash.

It takes ridiculous amounts of money to win a competitive statewide race in California, with 23 million diverse voters scattered over hundreds of miles and several costly media markets.

Democrats, with their unmatched California power, have raised well over $100 million from unions, billionaire Democratic donors and other political investors.

Billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer put up $12 million. There are rumors he’s tempted to run for governor.

Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso is thinking very seriously about entering the 2026 gubernatorial race. He just paid for 100,000 pro-50 mail pieces in L.A. County, aimed at those least likely to vote.

One problem for the opposition is that it never unified behind a main anti-50 message. It ranged from “reject Newsom’s power grab” to “win one for Trump” and a purist lecture about retaining California’s current congressional districts drawn by a voter-created good government citizens’ commission.

The basic pro-50 message is simply, as Steyer says in his TV ad: “Stick it to Trump.”

This contest at its core is about which party controls Congress after next year’s midterm elections — or whether Republicans and Democrats at least share power. It’s about whether there’ll be a Congress with some gumption to confront a power-mad, egotistical president.

The fight started when Trump banged on Texas to redraw — gerrymander — its congressional districts to potentially gain five more Republican seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats need only a slight pickup to capture House control — and in an off-year election, the non-presidential party tends to acquire many.

Texas obediently obliged the nervous Trump, and other red states also have.

Newsom responded by urging the California Legislature to redraw this state’s maps to potentially gain five Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ underhanded move. The lawmakers quickly did. But in California, voter approval is needed to temporarily shelve the independent commission’s work. That’s what Proposition 50 does.

It also would boost Newsom’s standing among party activists across America.

“He’s been trying to claim the national leadership on anti-Trump. This is a chance for him to show he can deliver,” says UC Berkeley political scientist Eric Schickler. “There’s a sense the party doesn’t know how to fight back.

“On the flip side, if he were unable to persuade California voters to go along with him, it would be a hard sell to show Democrats nationally he’s the best person to take on Republicans.”

“It’s a gamble,” says UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser. “If 50 wins, he’s a person who can effectively fight back against Donald Trump. If it loses, he has no hope of winning on the national level.”

But veteran political consultant Mike Murphy — a former Republican who switched to independent — thinks Newsom could survive voters’ rejection of Proposition 50.

“It would take some of the shine off him. But he’d still be a contender. It wouldn’t knock him out. The worst you could say was that he lost 50 but was fighting the good fight.

“If 50 wins, Gavin might have a good future as a riverboat gambler if he puts all the chips in.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Pelosi faces challenges as age becomes unavoidable tension point for Democrats
The TK: Justice Department says it will monitor California poll sites amid Prop. 50 voting
The L.A. Times Special: She was highly qualified to be California governor. Why did her campaign fizzle?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Former US Vice-President Kamala Harris has expressed concern that she didn’t ask Joe Biden to pull out of the race for the White House.

In an interview with the BBC for Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, she said: “I do reflect on whether I should have had a conversation with him, urging him not to run for re-election.”

After months of speculation about his health and mental acuity, President Biden ended his re-election bid in July 2024 after a disastrous performance in a debate against Donald Trump a few weeks earlier.

Harris, who stepped in as the Democratic nominee but lost to Trump, has revealed in her book about her three-month campaign that she did not discuss with President Biden her concerns over his ability. Nor did the then 81-year-old raise the issue with her.

In the book, 107 Days, the former vice-president wrote that Biden’s decision to run again was a choice that shouldn’t have “been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition”. She wrote that “perhaps” she should have raised it with him.

In this interview she told the BBC that she still ponders whether she should have acted differently and talked to him about it.

“I do reflect on whether I should have had a conversation with him, urging him not to run.” She said “my concern, especially on reflection is, should I have actually raised it”. She questioned whether it was “grace or recklessness” that stopped her speaking up.

Her worry, she added, was not Biden’s capacity to do the job of commander in chief but about whether he would meet the demands of a gruelling election campaign to stay in the White House.

When pressed on why there is a distinction, she said there was a serious difference between running for the office and conducting the duties of being president. And running against Trump is even more demanding, she said.

She said she had a “concern about his [Biden’s] ability, with the level of endurance, energy, that it requires, especially running against the now current president”.

The former vice-president said it was hard for her to speak up because she risked being accused of promoting her own political interests if she had confronted Biden about his health.

“Part of the issue there was that it would – would it have actually been an effective and productive conversation, given what would otherwise appear to be my self-interest?”

The issue of whether more people in Biden’s circle could have challenged him about the wisdom of him running again has become a major talking point.

One book, Original Sin by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, alleged that people close to him covered up his physical deterioration from the public.

Biden’s aides have pushed back at the allegation, saying there were physical changes as he got older but no evidence of mental incapacity and nothing that affected his ability to do the job.

In his first interview after leaving the White House, in May of this year, Biden told the BBC it would not have mattered if he had left the race any earlier.

His former vice-president is in the UK promoting her new book. In a wide-ranging conversation for the Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, Harris also said it was “possible” she could run for the White House again.

She has already ruled out running for governor in her home state, California, and the former prosecutor told the BBC she was “not done” with public service.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s Anita Chabria again. Today, I’m coming to you from a coffee shop where I just used Apple Pay to buy a dirty chai.

Why does that matter? Because in the last five minutes, I’ve dropped all kinds of data into the universe. What I drink, how much I’ll pay for it, how long I sat here using this Wi-Fi and dozens of other details that companies are willing to pay for but that I don’t even think about — much less benefit from.

Every day, we all walk around dropping data like garbage — when in reality it’s gold. Especially in the age of budding artificial intelligence, when the smallest bit of insight is being crammed into these new robo-gods in the hope of making them seem ever smarter and more human.

It all raises the question, if it’s our data, shouldn’t we be paid for it?

André Vellozo thinks so, and is working to make that a reality. He’s a Brazilian hippie based in Silicon Valley, an outsider in an increasingly conservative and insular community with an idea that’s more about equality than power.

“Everything you do generates value and data,” Vellozo said. “Now you can collect.”

Here’s what he envisions — and why it’s as much politics as business.

A bus stop advertises Artisan AI, an artificial intelligence software company, along the Embarcadero in downtown San Francisco.

(Florence Middleton / For The Times)

Pennies add up

Think of Vellozo’s idea a bit like streaming royalties, giving you a small paycheck every time information you create is used, be it details of a coffee purchase or your hospital stay. Obviously, an artist could never keep track of every single time their show or song is played — they rely on managers and brokers.

Vellozo’s company, DrumWave, would act as that broker for individuals’ data. In his scenario, every person from birth would have a digital wallet where every bit of data they drop is accounted for. This is stuff you are already creating, whether you’re aware of it or not — and which companies are too often collecting, whether you are aware of it or not.

How many “accept all” buttons have you clicked in your life without reading the details of what you are agreeing to, including allowing others to sell your data for their own profit?

When companies want to use that data — which they do to understand economics in the macro and micro, or to study health outcomes, or to feed those large language models such as ChatGPT — DrumWave packages it and licenses it for use without identifying details, but with each consumer’s consent.

Data goes out, payment comes it — over and over for the life of the account.

It’s not as far-fetched as it might seem. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a similar idea in 2019, arguing, “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data.”

Nothing ever came of it, in no small part due to the lobbying and money thrown at government by big tech. I asked the governor’s office if there was still any interest around the idea and got nothing back from them. But California already has a law that could give folks control of their data, though it isn’t often used the way Vellozo envisions.

Downsides

There are, of course, many obstacles and potential pitfalls. Data privacy is one that comes up often — do we really want to be selling the details of our most recent colonoscopy, anonymous or not?

And of course, there’s also the potential for exploitation. What data would the poor or desperate be willing to sell, and how cheaply?

Annemarie Butler is an associate professor of philosophy at Iowa State University who specializes in the ethics of AI. She wonders if people would really understand what their data was being used for or by whom, and if they would be able to pull it back in any way once it’s out there.

She also said that there may be no meaningful way to opt out.

“Our own data are not always restricted to that one person,” she warns. “DNA is probably the clearest example of this: When one shares a DNA sample, she shares vital (and immutable) information about any of her blood relatives. And yet only she provides the consent.”

Of course, privacy is something of an illusion right now.

And, Vellozo points out, it’s not just that we are currently giving data away for free under the current system — we are all actually paying to create that data in the first place. We pay for the electricity that charges our phones. We pay the monthly service charge on our devices. We are actively putting in our time and labor to create the information.

Vellozo’s company is currently running a pilot of digital wallets with rideshare drivers in California.

He points out that these drivers spend a lot of money and energy creating information that will likely be used to train their AI replacements — their gas, the cost of the car, insurance, maintenance and time. Then all that information — who they pick up, when, how long the ride is and a million other details — is just collected and used to create profit for others.

In another milestone, Brazil — a country that has embraced a national model of digital payments much to the chagrin of many technology and banking companies, and President Trump for that matter — is on board with the idea of a digital wallet for all citizens. Vellozo was back home this week to work on that effort.

A check on AI

So why does all this matter in a politics newsletter?

Beyond money, data ownership offers another benefit: Regulation. Although California has arguably done more to regulate AI than almost any other state, the controls on the technology remain woefully slim. The federal government, after a fancy dinner redolent in flattery at the White House, has made it clear it has no interest in protecting people from this powerful technology, or the men who would wield it.

Vellozo sees the ownership of data as an important step in curbing the power of corporations to pursue ever-mightier AI models without oversight.

The coming changes induced by artificial intelligence are going to be profound for the average person. Already, we are seeing a world in which physical money, or at least the movement of it, is increasingly a relic. Financial companies are becoming tech companies, and money is digital (yes, economists, I know this is technically too simple).

Combine that with the changes in our ability to earn money through work, and the power imbalance already faced by the poor and working class becomes, well, really bad. Remember the railroad barons? This is going to make it seem like they were running ice cream trucks.

We need to rethink what a successful economy looks like. Because AI is going to give a few people not just a lot of money, but a lot of power — by scavenging the knowledge and work of the rest of us. It will take all of us to build successful AI, but the rewards will go to a handful.

So the idea of owning our data is not really about Vellozo’s company or if it accomplishes its goal.

It’s about creating a future in which individual power isn’t a thing of the past.

And where the coming changes benefit society, not just the corporate titans who would like us all to remain too confused to object.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Just like humans, AI can get ‘brain rot’ from low-quality text and the effects appear to linger, pre-print study says
The what happened: Trump empowers election deniers, still fixated on 2020 grievances
The L.A. Times special: Malibu residents flee as international buyers snap up burned-out lots

P.S. We’re continuing to look at the blatant (and frankly frightening) propaganda that Homeland Security is posting on its official social media. Case in point, this recruitment ad with … medieval knights? Not only is this image chock-full of Christian nationalism dog whistles, it’s aimed at the young men Immigration and Customs Enforcement is hoping to recruit with its edgelord/video game fanatasies that would turn legimate law enforcement efforts into a religious crusade against immigrants.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Some witty person long ago gave us this immortal line: “No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.”

Humorist Will Rogers usually is credited — wrongly. Mark Twain, too, falsely.

The real author was Gideon J. Tucker, a former newspaper editor who founded the New York Daily News. He later became a state legislator and judge, and he crafted the comment in an 1866 court opinion.

Anyway, Californians are safe from further legislative harm for now. State lawmakers have gone home for the year after passing 917 bills. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 794 (87%) and vetoed 123 (13%).

I’m not aware of any person’s life being jeopardized. Well, maybe after the lawmakers and governor cut back Medi-Cal healthcare for undocumented immigrants to save money.

One could argue — and many interests did — that what the Legislature did to increase housing availability made some existing residential neighborhoods less safe from congestion and possible declining property values.

But kudos to the lawmakers and governor for enacting major housing legislation that should have been passed years ago.

Public pressure generated by unaffordable costs — both for homebuyers and renters — spurred the politicians into significant action to remove regulatory barriers and encourage much more development. The goal is to close the gap between short supply and high demand.

But legislative passage was achieved over stiff opposition from some cities — especially Los Angeles — that objected to loss of local control.

“It’s a touchy issue that affects zoning and is always going to be controversial,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who finessed through a bill that will allow construction of residential high-rises up to nine stories near transit hubs such as light-rail and bus stations. The measure overrides local zoning ordinances.

Wiener had been trying unsuccessfully for eight years to get similar legislation passed. Finally, a fire was lit under legislators by their constituents.

“The public understands we’ve screwed ourselves by making it so hard to build homes,” Wiener says.

But to win support, he had to accept tons of exceptions. For example, the bill will affect only counties with at least 15 passenger rail stations. There are eight: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda and Sacramento.

“Over time it will have a big effect, but it’s going to be gradual,” Wiener says.

Dan Dunmoyer, who heads the California Building Industry Assn., calls it “a positive step in the right direction.”

Yes, and that direction is up rather than sideways. California could accommodate a cherished ranch-house lifestyle when the population was only a third or half the nearly 40 million people it is today. But sprawling horizontally has become impossibly pricey for too many and also resulted in long smog-spewing commutes and risky encroachment into wildfire country.

Dozens of housing bills were passed and signed this year, ranging from minutia to major.

The Legislature continued to peck away at the much-abused California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Opponents of projects have used the act to block construction for reasons other than environmental protection. Local NIMBYs — ”Not in my backyard” — have resisted neighborhood growth. Businesses have tried to avoid competition. Unions have practiced “greenmail” by threatening lawsuits unless developers signed labor agreements.

Another Wiener bill narrowed CEQA requirements for commercial housing construction. It also exempted from CEQA a bunch of nonresidental projects, including health clinics, manufacturing facilities and child-care centers.

A bill by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) exempted most urban infill housing projects from CEQA.

You can’t argue that the Legislature wasn’t productive this year. But you can spar over whether some of the production was a mistake. Some bills were both good and bad. That’s the nature of compromise in a functioning democracy.

One example: The state’s complex cap-and-trade program was extended beyond 2030 to 2045. That’s probably a good thing. It’s funded by businesses buying permits to emit greenhouse gases and pays for lots of clean energy projects.

But a questionable major piece of that legislation — demanded by Newsom — was a 20-year, $1-billion annual commitment of cap-and-trade money for California’s disappointing bullet train project.

The project was sold to voters in 2008 as a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s $100 billion over budget and far behind its promised 2020 completion. No tracks have even been laid. The new infusion of cap-and-trade money will merely pay for the initial 171-mile section between Merced and Bakersfield, which the state vows to open by 2033. Hot darn!

Newsom muscled through the bill at the last moment. The Legislature should have taken more time to study the project’s future.

One gutsy thing Democratic legislators and the governor did — given that “oil,” among the left, has become the new hated pejorative sidekick of “tobacco” — was to permit production of 2,000 more wells annually in oil-rich Kern County.

It was part of a compromise: Drilling in federal offshore waters was made more difficult by tightening pipeline regulations.

Credit the persistent Sen. Shannon Grove, a conservative Republican from Bakersfield who is adept at working across the aisle.

“Kern County knows how to produce energy,” she told colleagues during the Senate floor debate, citing not only oil but wind, solar and battery storage. “We are the experts. We are not the enemy.”

But what mostly motivated Newsom and legislators was the threat of even higher gas prices as two large California oil refineries prepare to shut down. Most Democrats agreed that the politically smart move was to allow more oil production, even as the state attempts to transcend entirely to clean energy.

Let’s not forget the most important bill the Legislature annually passes: the state budget. This year’s totaled $325 billion and allegedly covered a $15-billion deficit through borrowing, a few cuts and numerous gimmicks.

Nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek last week projected deficit spending of up to $25 billion annually for the next three years.

In California, no state bank account is safe when the Legislature is in session.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Sen. Scott Wiener to run for congressional seat held by Rep. Nancy Pelosi
California vs. Trump: Federal troops in San Francisco? Locals, leaders scoff at Trump’s plan
The L.A. Times Special: One of O.C.’s loudest pro-immigrant politicians is one of the unlikeliest

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

President Biden, in one of his first moves in office, reversed the immigration restriction put in place by the Trump administration covering five Muslim-majority nations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen — as well as North Korea and some government officials from Venezuela.

The Trump administration was forced to revise its original order twice to resolve legal problems over due process, implementation and exclusive targeting of Muslim nations.

Jake Sullivan, who will be Biden’s national security advisor, said the ban “was nothing less than a stain on our nation. It was rooted in xenophobia and religious animus.”

Biden also extended to June 2022 temporary legal status for Liberians who fled civil war and the Ebola outbreak.

Biden sent a broader immigration plan to Congress on Wednesday that includes a pathway to U.S. citizenship for an estimated 11 million people.

The bill also proposes an expansion of refugee admissions and increases in per-country visa caps.

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner.

Andrea Grossman was a kid when her mother pulled her out of school to join the 1969 Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam, a nationwide day of peaceful protest. They held hands while her mom walked in a knit suit and ladylike shoes, joining more than 2 million people nationwide.

Grossman, now one of the organizers of the Beverly Hills segment of the “No Kings” marches being held in more than 2,000 cities this weekend, remembers that opponents of that long-ago protest threw stinky rat poison on the lawns in Exposition Park so participants couldn’t sit on the grass. But protesters were not deterred.

“It made it all the more rebellious of us to be there,” Grossman told me. “It made us more insistent that we had to be there.”

Today, that rat poison is being metaphorically hurled by MAGA leaders such as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), in the form of noxious allegations that the No Kings marches are “Hate America” rallies staged for a “rabid base” of criminal agitators.

“It’s all the pro-Hamas wing and the antifa people, they’re all coming out,” Johnson said on Fox News.

Of course, that is dumb and false. It would be all too easy to write off comments such as Johnson’s as partisan jibber-jabber, but his insidious words are the kind of poison that seeps into the soil and shouldn’t be ignored.

Participants in the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam demonstrate in 1969 at Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.

(Clay Geerdes / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

Johnson isn’t the only Republican working overtime to smear everyday folks such as Grossman. Talk about organized campaigns — Trumpites are all going after No Kings with the same script.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said: “These guys are playing to the most radical, small, and violent base in the country. You’ll see them on Saturday on the Mall. They just do not love this country.”

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has parroted similar messaging, and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), diving into old, antisemitic conspiracies, described the events as “a Soros paid-for protest,” adding that the National Guard would probably need to be activated.

U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi added her two cents, apparently confusing printed signs, the kind that say, a union or organizations such as Planned Parenthood or the ACLU, might have made up, with evidence of diabolical terrorist networks.

“You’re seeing people out there with thousands of signs that all match,” Bondi told Fox News. “They are organized and someone is funding it. We are going to get to the funding of antifa, we’re going to get to the root of antifa and we are going to find and charge all of those people who are causing this chaos.”

Note to Bondi: Matching signs are not a conspiracy. Just ask Kinko’s.

But in her defense, it was a mere two weeks ago when President Trump addressed the leaders of the U.S. military at Quantico, Va. There, he warned that the use of military troops on American protesters was about to become reality, if he has any say in it.

“This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room, because it’s the enemy from within, and we have to handle it before it gets out of control,” Trump said.

That came on the heels of his executive order declaring antifa — a general descriptor for anyone who opposes fascism — as a terrorist organization.

So to recap: The president declares “antifa” a terrorist organization, warns military brass that they must be ready to defeat internal enemies, then MAGA Republicans begin to falsely claim No Kings rallies are full of “antifa.”

Andrea Grossman, second from left, with other activists in 2024 discussing efforts to protect a Beverly Hills abortion clinic.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Bad journalism

Grossman calls the idea that she is anti-American “preposterous.”

“We wouldn’t be out there spending our time and energy if we weren’t desperately worried for our country. Of course we love America,” she said.

Here’s where I eat my own: Media are failing miserably and unforgivably in covering this issue — this terrifying march to turn peaceful protest into a criminal offense. We shouldn’t be asking Grossman whether she hates America. We should be pushing Johnson and his ilk to defend his attack on people like her.

“We can both recognize that it’s ridiculous and also that it’s pretty sinister,” Leah Greenberg told me.

She’s the co-executive director of Indivisible, the organization behind the No Kings effort, and she’ll be at the D.C. event — the one Johnson specifically condemned. At the first No Kings rally in Philadelphia, her husband led more than 1,000 people in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, some real anti-American stuff.

“We have to see what is currently happening here, not only as Republicans desperately grasping for a message, but also of them creating a permission structure to, you know, invite a broader crackdown on peaceful dissent,” Greenberg warned.

I asked Grossman whether she felt personally at risk by taking on this organizing role at such a fraught moment, even in Beverly Hills, that hotbed of radicalism. At first, she said she didn’t. But when I asked her why not, she paused for a bit.

“We have to put ourselves out there and it takes risk sometimes,” she finally said. “I mean, I don’t consider myself a freedom fighter by any means. I consider myself a woman of a certain age, you know, who has to stand up and be loud and noisy.”

In her regular life, Grossman runs one of the preeminent literary salons in Los Angeles, drawing authors and luminaries including Rob Reiner, Rep. Jasmine Crockett and legal podcaster Joyce Vance. She was also one of the “abortion yentas” who last year fought a losing battle to protect a controversial abortion clinic in the neighborhood. So she knows risk and doesn’t shy away from it.

But this moment is different, because it’s not normal for a president to declare protests to be terrorism, or for legislators to deem them un-American. It is not normal to fear that the military will be used to silence us.

Which is why No Kings is so crucial to this moment.

It is a movement that seeks to draw the most normal, the most average, the most mild of people to highlight just how abnormal this government is. No flags are going to be burned (though that is a protected 1st Amendment right, no matter what Trump says). No Molotov cocktails will be tossed. Hamas is not invited.

Greenberg said that “anybody with eyes” can see who comes to a No Kings rally.

“You see veterans, you see members of faith communities. You see federal workers, dedicated public servants. You see parents and grandparents and kids all coming together in this joyous and defiant opposition,” she said.

Those are exactly the types that turned out in June, when somewhere between 3 million and 6 million people marched in what felt like a cross between a fall school carnival and a Fourth of July parade. People sauntered, they sat, they sang. But most of all, they showed up.

“If we’re going to be afraid and not say anything, then [they] win,” Grossman said. “The only way to stand up to oppression is to get out there in huge, great numbers.”

So like her mom, she’ll march and she’ll ignore the poison — and much to the dismay of MAGA, I suspect millions of others just like her will too.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Justices lean toward rejecting race in redistricting, likely boosting GOP in 2026
The what happened: Mike Johnson’s nightmare: Kevin Kiley is unhappy with the speaker and has nothing to lose
The L.A. Times special: USC finds itself in funding battle between Trump and Newsom over the campus’ future

P.S. This is another bit of propaganda from the Department of Homeland Security. “Remigrate” is a term often embraced by the far right that alludes to the forced deportation of immigrants, legal or not, especially those who are not of European origin.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Sen. Alex Padilla apparently dreams of becoming California’s next governor. He’s thinking hard about entering the race to succeed Gov. Gavin Newsom. And Katie Porter may have just opened the starting gate for him.

Porter has been regarded as the early front-runner. But she tripped and stumbled badly during a contentious, unprofessional and rude performance in a recent routine TV interview that went viral.

We don’t know the extent of her injury. But it was certainly enough to make Padilla’s decision a lot easier. If he really deep down covets the job of governor, the time seems ripe to apply for it.

Padilla wouldn’t need to vacate the Senate merely to run. He’d have what’s called a “free ride”: He doesn’t face reelection next year because his Senate term runs through 2028.

But a Senate seat is gold plated. No term limits — a job often for life. It offers prestige and power, with sway over a global array of issues.

Why would Padilla trade that to become the governor whose state is plagued by homelessness, wildfires and unaffordable living for millions?

For starters, it’s not much fun these days to be in the toothless Senate minority as a Democrat.

The California governor has immense power over spending and taxes, the appointment of positions ranging from local fair board members to state Supreme Court justices and the fate of hundreds of bills passed each year by the Legislature.

You lead the most populous state and the world’s fourth-largest economy.

The office provides an automatic launching pad for anyone with presidential aspirations, such as the termed-out present occupant.

Anyway, Padilla, 52, is a proud native Californian, raised in the San Fernando Valley with strong ties to the state.

And he’s immensely qualified to be governor, having served well in local, state and federal branches of government: Los Angeles City Council, state Senate, California secretary of State and the U.S. Senate.

There has been speculation for weeks about his entering the gubernatorial race. And in a recent New York Times interview, he acknowledged: “I am weighing it.”

“Look, California is home,” he said. “I love California. I miss California when I’m in Washington. And there’s a lot of important work to do there. … I’m just trying to think through: Where can I be most impactful.”

How long will he think? “The race is not until next year,” he said. “So that decision will come.”

It should come much sooner than next year in order to be elected governor in this far-flung state with its vast socio-economic and geographic diversity.

Former Democratic Rep. Porter from Orange County has been beating him and every announced candidate in the polls — although not by enough to loudly boast about.

In a September poll by Emerson College, 36% of surveyed voters said they were undecided about whom to support. Of the rest, 16% favored Porter and just 7% Padilla.

In an August survey by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, 38% were undecided. Porter led with 17%. The nearest Democrat at 9% was Xavier Becerra, former secretary of U.S. Health and Human Services, state attorney general and 12-term congressman. Padilla wasn’t listed.

Why Porter? She gained renown during congressional hearings while grilling corporate executives and using a white board. But mainly, I suspect, voters got to know her when she ran statewide for the U.S. Senate last year. She didn’t survive the primary, but her name familiarity did.

By contrast, Padilla has never had a tough top-of-the-ticket statewide race. He was appointed by Newsom to the Senate in 2021 to fill the vacancy created by Kamala Harris’ election as vice president.

Democratic strategist Garry South says it would be “risky” for Padilla to announce his candidacy unless he immediately became the front-runner. That’s because he’d need that status to attract the hefty campaign donations required to introduce himself to voters.

“Unlike the governor, a California senator is not really that well known,” the strategist says. “And he hasn’t been a senator that long. I don’t think voters have a sense of him. In order to improve his [poll] numbers, he’s going to have to spend a lot of money. If he were an instant frontrunner, the money would flow. But if he jumps in with only half the votes [of

the frontrunner], there’s no reason for money to flow.

“And the longer he waits, the less time he has to raise the money.”

Porter may have eased the way for Padilla.

The UC Irvine law professor came unglued when CBS Sacramento reporter Julie Watts asked what she’d tell California’s 6 million Donald Trump voters in order to win their needed support for governor. Porter reacted like a normal irritated person rather than a seasoned politician.

She tersely dismissed the question’s premise and replied that the GOP votes wouldn’t be needed.

When the interviewer persisted, Porter lost her cool. “I don’t want to keep doing this. I’m going to call it,” she said, threatening to walk out. But she didn’t.

It was raw meat for her campaign opponents and they immediately pounced.

Former state Controller Betty Yee called on Porter to “leave this race” because she’s “a weak, self-destructive candidate unfit to lead California.”

Veteran Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who’s not involved in the contest, says the TV flub “hurts her a lot because it goes to likability.”

If Padilla really longs for the job, he can stop dreaming and take advantage of a golden opportunity.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California tightens leash on puppy sales with new laws signed by Newsom
Wut?: Inside tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s off-the-record lectures about the antichrist
The L.A. Times Special: At Trump’s Justice Department, partisan pugnacity where honor, integrity should be

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — Former President Biden is receiving radiation and hormone therapy as part of a new phase of treating the aggressive form of prostate cancer he was diagnosed with after leaving office, a spokesperson said Saturday.

“As part of a treatment plan for prostate cancer, President Biden is currently undergoing radiation therapy and hormone treatment,” Biden aide Kelly Scully said.

Biden, 82, left office in January after he had dropped his bid for reelection six months earlier following a disastrous debate against Republican Donald Trump amid concerns about Biden’s age, health and mental fitness. Trump, despite similar questions during the campaign about his age and mental fitness, defeated Democrat Kamala Harris, who was Biden’s vice president.

In May, Biden’s postpresidential office announced that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer and that it had spread to his bone. The discovery came after he reported urinary symptoms.

Prostate cancers are graded for aggressiveness using what is known as a Gleason score. The scores range from 6 to 10, with 8, 9 and 10 prostate cancers behaving more aggressively. Biden’s office said his score was 9, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive.

Last month, Biden had surgery to remove skin cancer lesions from his forehead.

Superville writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 11 (UPI) — Former President Joe Biden has begun radiation therapy, in addition to hormone therapy, to treat aggressive prostate cancer, a spokesperson has confirmed.

The radiation treatments will continue over five weeks to treat the cancer that Biden, 82, first announced in May.

“As part of a treatment plan for prostate cancer, President Biden is currently undergoing radiation therapy and hormone treatment,” a Biden spokesperson told NBC News.

When Biden announced his cancer diagnosis, it already had spread to his bones, which his doctors had been treating with hormone medication.

“The expectation is we’re going to be able to beat this,” Biden told CNN in May.

“It’s not in any organ,” Biden said, adding that the cancer hadn’t penetrated any of his bones.

Doctors diagnosed Biden’s prostate cancer after he reported having issues with his urinary system, which led to the discovery of a small nodule on the former president’s prostate, according to the BBC.

Doctors determined it was an aggressive form of cancer that is vulnerable to hormone treatment.

The cancer’s spread to Biden’s bones makes it incurable, but recent developments in chemotherapy and hormone therapies can greatly extend the life expectancy of those who are similarly afflicted, Dr. Benjamin Davies, a urologic oncology professor at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told CNN.

Biden last month also underwent Mohs surgery to remove skin cancer lesions.

While president, Biden launched a “cancer moonshot” program to advance the ways in which cancers are diagnosed and treated.

WASHINGTON — A peace plan for Gaza touted by President Trump as a historic breakthrough is facing its first test this week after Israel and Hamas agreed in principle to an initial list of terms that could end the war.

The 20-point American plan reflects an administration losing patience with Israel, while also leveraging its relationships with Arab partners to finally pressure Hamas into a deal that would release the Israeli hostages still in its custody two years since the Oct. 7 attack.

On Wednesday evening, Trump said both parties had agreed to the first phase of his plan, securing the hostage release in exchange for a limited Israeli troop withdrawal.

“I am very proud to announce that Israel and Hamas have both signed off on the first Phase of our Peace Plan,” Trump wrote on social media. “This means that ALL of the Hostages will be released very soon, and Israel will withdraw their Troops to an agreed upon line as the first steps toward a Strong, Durable, and Everlasting Peace.”

The president’s push comes amid an unexpected and growing divide within the Republican base over support for Israel — once seen as a bedrock of the alliance — and as Trump presents himself as a global peacemaker, ahead of the announcement of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize on Friday.

The president is expected to travel to the region over the weekend to secure the deal.

“All Parties will be treated fairly!” Trump wrote. “BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS!”

Who controls Hamas?

People attend a pro-Palestinian vigil and protest on Tuesday outside Columbia University.

(Adam Gray / Getty Images)

One former senior Biden administration official who worked on the Gaza crisis told The Times that Trump’s 20-point plan “is credible,” if not fully baked, and that Trump’s position of influence over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may give the proposal “a real chance of success.”

Devastated after two years of war, Hamas had seen its continued holding of the hostages as its only remaining leverage to ensure later stages of a peace agreement are implemented by the Israelis. Trump’s plan demands an immediate release of all of the hostages, both dead and alive, in an initial phase, preceding reconstruction of the Strip that removes Hamas from power.

An opening emerged for progress in the talks after Israel conducted an extraordinary strike on a Hamas target in Doha, shaking the confidence of the Qatari government, a key U.S. ally. While Doha has hosted Hamas’ political leadership for years, Qatar’s leadership thought their relationship with Washington would protect them from Israeli violations of its territory.

“A lot of this stems from the Israeli attack on Hamas in Doha,” said Elliott Abrams, a veteran diplomat from the Reagan, George W. Bush and first Trump administrations. “The Qataris panicked, and went to Trump to ask for defense and assurance that Israel would never do that again. And I think he had a price: to deliver Hamas.”

“Can they deliver Hamas? They can deliver the guys in Doha,” Abrams continued. “They can threaten them with expulsion. They can tell them that they’re living in fancy hotels, but they can be Palestinian refugees tomorrow morning. But the relationship between those people and the leadership on the ground is very unclear.”

U.S. officials believe it is the Egyptians, more so than the Qataris, with intelligence, sourcing and leverage on the ground in the Gaza Strip that can bring Hamas’ chain of command in compliance with a settlement. But whether Egyptian leadership is willing to exert its leverage is unclear. An unusual Egyptian military buildup in the Sinai Peninsula, in violation of the Camp David Accords that have secured Israel’s peace with Egypt since 1979, is causing widespread concern in diplomatic circles over Cairo’s intentions.

Talks over Trump’s plan have moved from Doha to Cairo.

“If talks in Cairo focus solely on the first phase of the peace plan — the release of hostages and prisoners, the first Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the flood of humanitarian goods — there is a good chance of success,” said Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute. “But if the talks range into subsequent phases of the plan, including Hamas disarmament and deployment of third-country troops to Gaza, it will likely get bogged down as has been the case before.”

Pressure on Israel

Trump’s diplomatic push has also exposed growing concern within his administration over the damage Israel’s continued military campaign is inflicting on its global reputation — and on its support within the United States.

Over the weekend, speaking with an Israeli news outlet, Trump said that Netanyahu had “gone too far in Gaza, and Israel has lost a lot of support in the world.” It came amid reports that Trump had scolded Netanyahu over his initial reaction to Hamas’ willingness to negotiate over the plan.

“Whether you believe it was justified or not, right or not, you cannot ignore the impact that this has had on Israel’s global standing,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS News on Sunday.

Much of the world supports Trump’s plan, which would see a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee oversee governance in the strip, and an international coalition funding the reconstruction of its economy and infrastructure. Palestinians would not be forced to leave the territory.

The proposal comes amid signs that Israel is rapidly losing support within the United States, with new polls showing 59% of Americans disapprove of its actions. A Pew poll showed that 55% of Republicans said they view Israel favorably — but that a growing generational divide, across party lines, risks eroding support for Israel over time.

“I think it’s gone on too long,” Megyn Kelly, a conservative commentator and former Fox News host, said last week on the Fifth Column Podcast. “I know what Hamas does, trust me. And I’ve been covering it. But that doesn’t mean that the devastation and destruction can go on forever.”

Other prominent figures on the right, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and commentators Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, have become more vocal criticizing Israel in recent months.

“Israel’s now taken out Hezbollah, it’s decimated Hamas, it had a war with Iran that we almost got dragged into,” Kelly added. “It’s time to wrap it up in this American’s view. I am entitled to that opinion. And I will not be shamed out of it by being called an antisemite.”

Netanyahu and his closest allies, including Ron Dermer, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs and a former ambassador to Washington, have long believed that Israel is best served relying more on deep ties to the American right than on Jewish Americans overall or on balanced bipartisanship. Increased opposition to the war among MAGA Republicans may force Netanyahu’s team to expedite its end.

Whether discontent on the right is driving Trump to push for a peace deal is unclear. But his personal involvement could prove key to success, regardless of his motives, Satloff said.

“The key new factor that is giving a chance to phase one is President Trump’s intense personal interest in freeing the hostages and the desire of key Arab players not to disappoint him,” Satloff said. “But we shouldn’t exaggerate the importance of even this critical factor — the entire house of cards can still collapse.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: ‘I don’t want this all on camera,’ gubernatorial candidate Katie Porter says in testy interview
The deep dive: Your guide to Proposition 50: California redistricting
The L.A. Times Special: Those hyper-realistic videos you’re seeing could be fake news — because they’re actually AI ads

More to come,
Michael Wilner

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — Regardless of all the campaign jabber, Proposition 50 is not about saving democracy, stopping power grabs or veering off the moral high road. It’s about which political party controls Congress.

Or whether Republicans and Democrats share the power.

It’s also about exerting some control over unhinged President Trump. That would happen if voters across America next year flip the House of Representatives from Republican to Democrat, ending one-party rule of the federal government. Proposition 50 could help do that.

Does an obedient Republican Congress continue to allow Trump to walk all over it? Or does a new Democrat-led House exercise its constitutional duty to provide checks and balances over the executive branch?

This is what’s potentially at stake in California’s special election on Nov. 4. And it’s mostly what has motivated political donors to kick in an astronomical $128 million so far for the fight.

But let’s back up.

For many decades, state legislators drew their own districts — gerrymandering them to blatantly help themselves and their party win elections. And with some creative hands from California’s House delegation, Sacramento’s lawmakers also gerrymandered congressional districts.

It was unethical but perfectly legal. The final straw came in 2001 when legislators of both parties conspired to draw districts that protected every incumbent, whether Democrat or Republican.

California voters finally had enough and in 2008 banned gerrymandering. They assigned legislative redistricting to an independent bipartisan citizens’ commission. In 2010, voters also gave the panel responsibility for drawing House seats.

It has worked great. Politicians no longer get to choose their own voters. And the districts have become much more competitive.

District maps have always been drawn at the beginning of each decade after the decennial census — until now.

This time, Trump got worried that Republicans could lose the House in next year’s elections — a fate that has often befallen a president’s party during a midterm.

So Trump pressured Texas Gov. Greg Abbott into orchestrating a mid-decade legislative gerrymandering of his state’s House districts, with the aim of gaining five more Republican seats. The president has also been browbeating other red states to rig their congressional lines.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom quickly retaliated. He asked an eager Democrat-controlled Legislature to draw up new House maps designed to gain five new Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ action.

Democrats already outnumber Republicans in the California House delegation, 43 to 9. In Texas, Republicans hold 25 of the 38 House seats. Nationally, Democrats need to gain just three seats to retake House control.

Unlike in Texas, Newsom needs the voters’ permission to resume gerrymandering. That’s what Proposition 50 does, along with granting voter approval of proposed new weird-looking congressional maps drawn by Democratic lawmakers.

How weird? To make a new 2nd District Democrat-friendly, it was stretched hundreds of miles from the rural northeastern Oregon border southwestward into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.

Under the ballot measure, the independent commission would resume redistricting in 2031 after the next census. Proposition 50’s opponents contend Democrats can’t be trusted to keep the gerrymandering temporary.

And they’re hypocritically screaming about a “Newsom power grab” — without also pointing the finger at Trump and Abbott, who started this fight.

At its core, this is a brawl over raw political power. Forget any idealism.

Longtime Republican operative Jon Fleischman mixed his party’s principal talking point with reality in a recent blog:

“Prop. 50 is a naked power grab by Gavin Newsom,” he wrote.

“If it passes, five of nine safe GOP House seats in California will flip to safe Democrat, potentially flipping the House next year.”

In trying to rally Democratic voters — who outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1 in California — Newsom frames Proposition 50 as essential for democracy.

“It’s all at stake,” the governor asserts, sounding a bit hyperbolic. “This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves … and stand guard for the republic and our democracy.”

Come on, our republic will survive regardless of what happens to Newsom’s gerrymandering proposal — even if Trump does strain democracy.

Proposition 50 also is opposed on idealistic grounds — particularly by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and wealthy GOP donor Charles Munger Jr. Both were strong backers of creating the independent redistricting commission. Munger has contributed $33 million to the anti-50 effort.

“Gerrymanders are a cancer and mid-decade gerrymanders are metastasis,” Munger wrote in a New York Times op-ed last month.

If Democratic politicians gerrymander California, he asserted, “then they lose the moral high ground.”

Well, if this is the moral high ground we’re living in under the Trump regime, I’d like to move to another level.

My definition of a moral high ground doesn’t include a Congress that won’t push back against a bully president who cuts back millions in research aid to universities because he doesn’t like what they teach, who sics his own masked police force of unidentified agents on California residents, who sabotages our anti-pollution programs.

Isra Ahmad, a member of the independent commission, noted in a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece that “California has embraced [redistricting] equity and transparency while states like Texas entrench partisan advantage.”

And she asked: “Does taking the high road matter when your opponents are willing to play dirty?”

The answer: We should all play by the same rules — even if it unfortunately requires temporary gerrymandering. After Trump leaves, we can return to the high road.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: California voters were mailed inaccurate guides ahead of November special election
The interpersonal read: He’s a real pain for Gavin Newsom. And a rising Democratic star
The L.A. Times Special: In the biggest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, some claim they were paid to sue

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.

The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.

The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court said in an unsigned order Friday.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.

Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.

But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.

Homeland Security applauded the Supreme Court’s action. “Temporary Protected Status was always supposed to be just that: Temporary,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Yet, previous administrations abused, exploited, and mangled TPS into a de facto amnesty program.”

Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.

The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.

Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.

Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.

Shortly afterward, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.

In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.

The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.

He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.

The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.

In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.

“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.

The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.

In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.

That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”

Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.

In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.

“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”

Happy Thursday. Your usual host, D.C. Bureau Chief Michael Wilner, is on assignment. So you’re once again stuck with me, California columnist Anita Chabria.

Welcome to another week of the onslaught and overload that is Trump 2.0. What should we talk about?

President Trump’s threat to use the military in more American cities? Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth’s He-Man rant to top military brass?

Or what about the government shutdown?

In a week with enough drama to make the Mormon wives on Hulu seem tame in comparison, it’s hard to know whether all of it matters or none of it. Because, of course, we desperately want none of it to matter, since it’s all just too much.

But too much is never enough for Trump. So let’s break it down, starting with the big man himself.

A protester holds a sign outside of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building on Sept. 28, 2025, in Portland, Ore.

(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

The ‘enemy within’

“I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military,” the Commander-in-Beef said during his Kim Jong Il-style televised address to military leaders.

“San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re gonna straighten them out one by one,” Trump said. “This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it’s out of control.”

Yes, Los Angeles, you, with your whimsical opera whodunits and Hollywood ghost tours, are a threat to American stability. Knock it off or the National Guard will knock it off for you.

Those statements from Trump came minutes after Hegseth said to his military officers, “You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don’t necessarily belong always in polite society.”

Senior military leaders look on as President Trump speaks at Marine Corps Base Quantico on Sept. 30, 2025, in Quantico, Va.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Which sounds exactly like the kind of guy we should sent in to do crowd control at the Olympics. But before you dismiss the entire performance as strongman cosplay, consider how indifferent most Americans are to threats that the military will soon roll into Portland, Ore., or even our acceptance of troops in Chicago.

After L.A. and Washington, D.C., Trump has done exactly what he set out to do: Reduce our alarm at the use of the military on our streets so that it seems normal, almost benign. In fact, many now agree that this is the way to go. A recent study from the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention found that “nearly one third of respondents (32%) agree at least somewhat that the current federal government ‘should use the military to help enforce its policies.’”

Yikes.

It is, in fact, not OK. Protesting citizens are not the “enemy within.” Democrats are not the enemy. Jimmy Kimmel is not the enemy. Heck, even tech-bro libertarians aren’t the enemy, no matter how arrogant they are.

But the last few days have seen the president, through executive orders and speeches, label all dissent and dissenters as enemies — even using state agencies to do it. After the government shutdown, the Department of Housing and Urban Development displayed a banner on its homepage that blamed the “Radical Left.”

So the president has defined the “enemy within” as those who oppose him, and now informed the military personnel that they “have to handle it.”

Armed members of the National Guard patrol on Aug. 29, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

What about the ‘beardos’?

That Hegseth, so clever. In between celebrating death and violence, he found time to attack female service members, “weak” men, those who would dare investigate wrongdoing in the military and of course, the most dreaded of insurgents: the “beardos.”

An apparent mash-up of “beard” and “weirdo,” which would please most eighth-grade boys, Hegseth used the term to describe what he said was an “unprofessional” look of some soldiers that is henceforth forbidden.

Of all the crazy and concerning in his 45-minute rant, why do I care about this moment?

Those beardos are mostly Black and brown men. Black men are prone to a shaving bump condition called pseudofolliculitis barbae and are sometimes granted permanent shaving waivers because of it. Hegseth wants to kick out of the military men with this painful condition who don’t shave.

It’s likely also aimed at Sikh service members, who grow beards as part of their religious observance. Until now they’ve been granted exemptions too. While this is a small number of servicemen, it’s significant that Hegseth’s “unprofessional” policy targets minorities.

Hegseth made it clear what he thinks of inclusion in any form, dubbing it an “insane fallacy” that “our diversity is our strength.”

Instead, he argued that it is widely accepted that “unity is strength.”

The troubling idea there is the confusion between unity and uniformity. Can’t a Black, bearded soldier have unity with a white, clean-shaven one? Can’t a female soldier share unity and purpose, a American identity, with a male fighter? Of course.

But Hegseth, who fired top Black and female military leaders this year, was never really talking about unity, was he? At least not the pluralism that has defined American unity until now.

The bipartisan flop

Let’s bounce to JD Vance, a “beardo” whose humorlessness has become his defining trait.

“There’s a lot of emergency healthcare at hospitals that are provided by illegal aliens,” he said on Fox News, in his ongoing press tour to blame the government shutdown on Democrats. The line here, a false one, is that Democrats are demanding the federal government pay healthcare costs for undocumented immigrants.

“We turned off that funding because of course we want American citizens to benefit from those hospital services,” Vance said.

Maybe if immigrants weren’t eating so many cats and dogs, they wouldn’t need so much healthcare. But I digress.

What Vance is maybe alluding to, disingenuously, is federal law that says anyone who enters an emergency room must be provided lifesaving services. So if an undocumented immigrant is in a serious car accident and is taken to a hospital, it is required to at least stabilize the person.

The same law was used, much to MAGA consternation, to protect some abortion services in dire cases — a protection Trump largely undid.

This raises the question, should we just let seriously injured brown people die in the waiting room because they can’t produce a passport?

But it’s also true that some states — through state funds — do insure undocumented immigrants, especially children and pregnant women. California is one of the few states that offer undocumented residents of all ages and genders access to its Medi-Cal coverage, though Newsom was forced by budget concerns to scale back that access in coming years. But states that do offer this coverage are, through a quirk in federal law, reimbursed at a higher rate for emergency services, also likely what has Vance in a tizzy.

The rationale behind offering this insurance has been proved out multiple times — preventative care is cheaper than emergency care. Give a guy a prescription for heart medication and he may not have a heart attack that lands him in the emergency room.

Federal programs, though, aren’t open to noncitizens, and no federal dollars are used to support California’s expansion of healthcare to undocumented people. That ban includes folks who want to buy their own affordable insurance through the marketplaces created by Obamacare.

The real issue around insurance and the shutdown is how much the cost of this marketplace insurance is about to skyrocket for average Americans. About 24 million Americans get their health insurance through these plans, with most receiving a tax credit or subsidy to help with the costs. The Republican plan would take away those credits, leaving consumers — many in the middle class — with premiums that would at least double in the coming year.

It is somewhat shocking that Democrats are doing such a terrible job getting the word out about this — instead going on the defensive to the claims about undocumented insurance. Average people — Republican or Democrat — cannot afford a doubling of their insurance costs. This is a bipartisan issue. All Americans want affordable healthcare.

We should not sacrifice affordable insurance in favor of billionaire-friendly policies and because Democrats are fumbling an easy message.

So, unfortunately, in a week of chaos, yes, it all matters.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Here’s how the U.S. government shutdown will impact California
The what happened: Pentagon plans widespread random polygraphs, NDAs to stanch leaks
The L.A. Times special: Jane Fonda, derided as ‘Hanoi Jane’ and a traitor during the Vietnam War, is a modern-day force in Democratic politics

P.S. I’m starting a propaganda watch, because it’s becoming off the hook. This is from the Department of Homeland Security. “Defend your culture.” You mean, like, your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

ORLANDO, Fla. — After Paola Freites was allowed into the U.S. in 2024, she and her husband settled in Florida, drawn by warm temperatures, a large Latino community and the ease of finding employment and housing.

They were among hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the state in recent years as immigration surged under former President Biden.

No state has been more affected by the increase in immigrants than Florida, according to internal government data obtained by the Associated Press. Florida had 1,271 migrants who arrived from May 2023 to January 2025 for every 100,000 residents, followed by New York, California, Texas and Illinois.

Freites and her husband fled violence in Colombia with their three children. After some months in Mexico they moved to Apopka, an agricultural city near Orlando, where immigrants could find cheaper housing than in Miami as they spread throughout a community that already had large populations of Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. Her sister-in-law owned a mobile home that they could rent.

“She advised us to come to Orlando because Spanish is spoken here and the weather is good,” Freites, 37, said. “We felt good and welcomed.”

The data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which must verify addresses of everyone who is allowed to enter the U.S. and stay to pursue an immigration case, shows Miami was the most affected metropolitan area in the U.S. with 2,191 new migrants for every 100,000 residents. Orlando ranked 10th with 1,499 new migrants for every 100,000 residents.

The CBP data captured the stated U.S. destinations for 2.5 million migrants who crossed the border, including those like Freites who used the now-defunct CBP One app to make an appointment for entry.

Freites and her husband requested asylum and obtained work permits. She is now a housekeeper at a hotel in Orlando, a tourist destination with more than a dozen theme parks, including Walt Disney World, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld. Her husband works at a plant nursery.

“We came here looking for freedom, to work. We don’t like to be given anything for free,” said Freites, who asked that the AP identify her by her middle and second last name for fear of her mother’s safety in Colombia.

Orlando absorbed new immigrants who came

Historically, Central Florida’s immigrant population was mainly from Mexico and Central America, with a handful of Venezuelans coming after socialist Hugo Chávez became president in 1999. In 2022, more Venezuelans began to arrive, encouraged by a program created by the Biden administration that offered them a temporary legal pathway. That same program was extended later to Haitians and Cubans, and their presence became increasingly visible. The state also has a large Colombian population.

Many immigrants came to Florida because they had friends and relatives.

In Orlando, they settled throughout the area. Businesses catering to newer arrivals opened in shopping areas with Mexican and Puerto Rican shops. Venezuelan restaurants selling empanadas and arepas opened in the same plaza as a Mexican supermarket that offers tacos and enchiladas. Churches began offering more Masses in Spanish and in Creole, which Haitians speak.

As the population increased, apartments, shopping centers, offices and warehouses replaced many of the orange groves and forests that once surrounded Orlando.

The economy grew as more people arrived

New immigrants found work in the booming construction industry, as well as in agriculture, transportation, utilities and manufacturing. Many work in restaurants and hotels and as taxi drivers. Some started their own businesses.

“It’s just like a very vibrant community,” said Felipe Sousa-Lazaballet, executive director at Hope CommUnity Center, a group that offers free services to immigrants in Central Florida. “It’s like, ‘I’m going to work hard and I’m going to fight for my American dream,’ that spirit.”

Immigrants’ contributions to Florida’s gross domestic product — all goods and services produced in the state — rose from 24.3% in 2019 to 25.5% in 2023, according to the pro-immigration American Immigration Council’s analysis of the Census Bureau’s annual surveys. The number of immigrants in the workforce increased from 2.8 million to 3.1 million, or 26.5% to 27.4% of the overall population. The figures include immigrants in the U.S. legally and illegally.

Immigrants looked for advice

Groups that help immigrants also increased in size.

“We got hundreds of calls a week,” said Gisselle Martinez, legal director at the Orlando Center for Justice. “So many calls of people saying ‘I just arrived, I don’t know anybody, I don’t have money yet, I don’t have a job yet. Can you help me?’”

The center created a program to welcome them. It grew from serving 40 people in 2022 to 269 in 2023 and 524 in 2024, Melissa Marantes, the executive director, said.

In 2021, about 500 immigrants attended a Hispanic Federation fair offering free dental, medical, and legal services. By 2024, there were 2,500 attendees.

Hope, meantime, went from serving 6,000 people in 2019, to more than 20,000 in 2023 and 2024.

Many now fear being detained

After President Trump returned to office in January, anxiety spread through many immigrant communities. Florida, a Republican-led state, has worked to help the Trump administration with its immigration crackdown and has enacted laws targeting illegal immigration.

Blanca, a 38-year-old single mother from Mexico who crossed the border with her three children in July 2024, said she came to Central Florida because four nephews who were living in the area told her it was a peaceful place where people speak Spanish. The math teacher, who has requested asylum, insisted on being identified by her first name only because she fears deportation.

In July 2025, immigration officials placed an electronic bracelet on her ankle to monitor her.

Because a friend of hers was deported after submitting a work permit request, she has not asked for one herself, she said.

“It’s scary,” she said. “Of course it is.”

Salomon writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Elliot Spagat in San Diego contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — A former state legislative leader says fellow Democrats in Sacramento have long ignored the housing needs of middle-class Californians. And he has a plan to help them buy a new home.

To their credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers have been chipping away at regulatory obstacles to home building in recent years, particularly in the just-concluded legislative session.

But the building pace is still far behind what’s sorely needed — and what Newsom promised when he first ran for governor seven years ago. Supply doesn’t come close to meeting demand and that pushes home prices much higher than millions of middle-class families can afford.

One of the biggest raps on California is that housing costs have skyrocketed out of reach for many. That’s a big reason why lots of middle-class folks have fled the so-called Golden State for less expensive regions.

“Much of the work by the governor and the Legislature in recent years has focused on homelessness and affordable housing, both of which require taxpayer subsidies and leave the middle class behind,” says former Van Nuys lawmaker Bob Hertzberg, who was an Assembly speaker and Senate majority leader.

“Middle-class Californians just can’t save up enough for a down payment. And the few government programs to assist middle-class buyers are complex, underfunded and are restricted to first-time homebuyers.”

He notes the political consequences: “We [Democrats] haven’t done enough for them. And they’re punishing us in their voting patterns.”

Yes, the middle class has been turning right all across the country. Housing affordability is a problem in many states, but is particularly acute in California.

In July, the median price for an existing single-family home in California was $884,050, according to the California Assn. of Realtors. The normal 20% down payment would require a buyer to lay out $176,810 in cash. Not many young couples — or middle-aged either — have that much spare money on them.

The median home price varies greatly throughout the state. In San Mateo County, it’s $2.1 million; in San Francisco, $1.6 million. Other counties: Orange, $1.4 million; Riverside, $630,000; Ventura, $949,500; Kern, $390,000; Sacramento, $559,000.

Hertzberg has submitted a proposed ballot initiative for the 2026 election that would allow middle-class buyers of brand-new homes to borrow most of their down payment.

Rather than putting up 20% of the selling price in cash, the buyer would fork over just 3% — $26,522 based on the July statewide median price — and borrow the remaining 17%, or $150,289.

So, there’d be the regular first mortgage on 80% of the selling price, plus a second mortgage on the down-payment loan.

Based on Hertzberg’s calculations, for example, a three-bedroom, three-bath Santa Clarita home selling for $700,000 would require monthly payments of $4,253 on the two mortgages. That assumes a combined interest rate of 7%.

New townhouses and condos also would qualify under the program. The statewide median price for those in July was $647,000.

Why only new homes? Hertzberg says it’s “critically important” to increase the housing supply and the only way to do that is to build more. At the same time, it creates construction jobs.

Also, politically, it draws the support of developers, carpenters unions and Realtors.

And for local governments, it generates more property and sales taxes.

Who’s defined as middle class? Buyers whose household income is less than 200% of the median for their local area. Statewide, that’s $193,000. But it varies: $213,200 in Palmdale, $262,600 in Camarillo, $207,800 in San Bernardino, $177,000 in Fresno, $311,720 in San Francisco.

Unlike other government housing programs, this one isn’t limited to just first-time homebuyers. It only requires buyers to be Californians and to live in the home as their primary residence. No renting out.

The program would be administered and implemented by the California Housing Finance Agency.

“Most importantly — no cost to taxpayers,” Hertzberg says.

The “Middle Class Homeownership” act would be financed by the sale of $25 billion in revenue bonds that would create the down-payment loan pot. Borrowers must repay their second mortgage if the home is sold or refinanced within 15 years.

Regular lending institutions would arrange the loans and charge minimum fees.

“It’s very difficult to work with a government bureaucracy, so we’ll have banks handle all the paperwork,” Hertzberg says.

He says the program would be self-financed. Loan repayments would resupply the pot for additional homebuyers. He figures the $25-billion kitty would generate up to 150,000 new homes — helpful, but still well below the millions more that California needs.

Dan Dunmoyer, president and chief executive of the California Building Industry Assn., says California would need to be building 437,000 new homes annually to reach Newsom’s original campaign promise of 3.5 million by the time he leaves office after next year. Instead, we’re building only 112,000.

Hertzberg recalls that about five years ago he introduced legislation to spur middle-class home ownership. “It got loaded up with taxpayer-subsidized affordable housing and provisions from so many interest groups, I just walked away,” he says.

“Anytime there’s a nickel on the table, the interest groups find a way to grab it.”

“I was majority leader of the Senate,” he continues. “I know how to do this stuff. But I couldn’t get something just focused on the middle class.

“Let’s get them a home. Home is where the wealth is. Home is a dream.”

Hertzberg’s plan makes sense in concept. We rightly help veterans buy homes. Why not also help the entire struggling middle class.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Supporters of redrawing California’s congressional districts raise tens of millions more than opponents
The deep dive: DC Explained: Medi-Cal Cuts Loom in San Diego as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Begins to Hit Home
The L.A. Times Special: Who’s winning the redistricting fight? Here’s how to read the polls

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.