bill

Polo Lam and his girlfriend Laura Matos say they only spent minutes on the phone to check Google Maps and the internet but were stunned at the final cost

A British traveller has warned holidaymakers about the risk of unexpected charges after spending just two hours in Monaco left him and his girlfriend with a £109 (€128.88) phone bill. Polo Lam, 30, from Whitby, North Yorkshire, was travelling across Europe with his girlfriend Laura Matos, 29, in September when the couple made a brief stop in Monaco.

Despite using just 18.66MB of mobile data between them, the pair were left picking up almost £85 (€99.79) in roaming charges, sending their monthly bill soaring to £109 (€128.88), compared with just £25 (€29.18) the previous month. Experts say 18.66MB is roughly the amount of data someone might use scrolling through Instagram for just three to 10 minutes, depending on the content being viewed.

The couple were enjoying a budget-friendly interrail holiday from Barcelona to Vienna, travelling through France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary. While staying in Nice, they decided to visit nearby Menton and make a short stop in Monaco, which hadn’t originally been part of their plans.

Laura, a psychologist and founder of La CoolMente, said: “It was actually my idea to visit Monaco. I’d heard so much about the luxury and the famous casino, and I wanted to see what it was like for myself.”

But it was only when they continued their journey into Italy that Polo checked their mobile account and discovered the their trip had cost more than they bargained for. Speaking to Nomad eSIM, Polo said: “I couldn’t believe it when I saw the bill. We’d only been in Monaco for a few hours, and somehow our phone bill had jumped to £109 (€128.88).

“We’d barely used our phones. We only checked Google Maps and opened Instagram, but that was about it.

“What really scares me is thinking about what could have happened if we’d stayed overnight. If we’d spent a whole day or two there, we could potentially have been looking at a bill running into the hundreds, or even thousands of pounds.

“I’m pretty stingy when it comes to money, so you can imagine how I felt. We’d gone interrailing to have a relatively inexpensive holiday, and suddenly we had this huge phone bill.”

Laura added: “We were both confused about where the charges had come from. We’d only used our phones briefly to find our location, so we felt the bill was completely unreasonable. We kept talking about it for days afterwards because we’d been trying so hard to save money throughout the trip.”

Polo said the unexpected expense put a dampener on their holiday. “The worst part was thinking about what else we could have spent that money on. We were trying to keep costs down, and it would have paid for three or four meals out in some of the places we visited.”

Laura agreed that the money could have been put to much better use. She said: “We’d been avoiding expensive experiences to save money, so it was frustrating to see that money disappear on a phone bill without getting anything enjoyable in return.

“I’d much rather have spent it on a nice meal at a restaurant with a view, visiting a museum or even a more comfortable hotel. When you’re travelling around Europe by interrail, a bit of extra comfort can make a big difference.”

The experience left the couple more cautious about using their phones abroad, particularly when travelling between countries. Polo said: “I’d tell anyone travelling around Europe to check exactly which countries are covered by their mobile plan. Just because somewhere is in Europe doesn’t mean your normal roaming allowance applies. We found that out the expensive way.”

Ensure our latest travel news always appears at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

Tim Page, Marketing Lead at Nomad eSIM, said: “One of the biggest misconceptions about mobile roaming is that travelling within Europe automatically means you’re covered by your usual mobile plan.

“Monaco is a perfect example. Despite being surrounded by France on three sides, it’s not part of the European Union and isn’t automatically covered by the EU’s Roam Like at Home rules. Introduced in June 2017, these rules generally allow customers of EU mobile operators to use their calls, texts and data across EU countries without paying additional roaming charges.

“This means travellers could be using their phones in Nice without additional roaming charges, then cross into Monaco and face significantly higher rates for exactly the same usage. Before travelling, always check which countries are included in your mobile plan, particularly destinations such as Monaco, Andorra and Switzerland.

“Even small amounts of data can result in surprisingly expensive bills, so consider switching off data roaming or using a travel eSIM that specifically covers your destination. If you do receive an unexpected roaming charge, contact your mobile provider as soon as possible. While there’s no guarantee, some providers may be willing to reduce or waive the charges as a goodwill gesture.”

McALLEN, Texas — The Ford Expedition rumbled to a stop and Cindy Banda’s bedazzled flip-flops landed on the asphalt of the Houston cancer center’s vast parking lot. She threaded through the rows of cars, a tally of patients who gather here to sit with chemotherapy needles or lie on radiation machines.

The elevator dinged open. A year ago in this building, surgeons removed Banda’s right breast, and she still didn’t know whether treatment had expunged the cancer from her body. Doctors had told her it would be tough to beat.

“I’m more of a positive person myself,” Banda said, now sitting with a white wristband in a dim waiting room. But the bills are harder to dismiss, and the single mother with six children in her care repeated something like a mantra. “Keep the house. Keep the cars. And just keep the kids stable.”

That’s true for many Americans, as rising healthcare costs leave more families with a sinking feeling after seeing the bill for surgery or medication. Heading into the Nov. 3 midterm elections, about half of registered voters said healthcare costs are a major problem for them and their families, up from a little more than one-third four years ago, according to a Fox News poll from September.

With party control of Congress at stake, registered voters are nearly twice as likely to say they trust Democrats over Republicans to handle healthcare, according to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from the same month. Those frustrations, combined with broader concerns over rising prices, have sapped support for President Trump and his Republican Party.

Banda knows how that feels. She backed Trump in each of his three campaigns, motivated by her opposition to abortion. But when cancer came, the ensuing scramble to make ends meet was painful enough to rearrange her priorities, and she started to think about voting Democratic for the first time.

The 46-year-old was ushered into a sterile room for her appointment, her phone lighted up with a text. “Please contact TD Auto Finance.”

“This one’s $1,300,” she said of the car payment bill. “I have to go back to work.”

She had been on sick leave for a year from her job selling internet service, and she needed the income to support her three children and three more she had taken in after her sister’s death.

The doctor said her reconstruction surgery could be scheduled early next year. “I was hoping for maybe December,” Banda said, “only because I’ve met my deductibles.” Come January, she would have to pay down the $7,500 again. Earlier may be possible, the doctor replied, if the skin around her surgical scar loosens.

The evening had cooled slightly by the time she walked back through the rows of parked cars, their ebb and flow marking the tide of sickness, survival and death in a small corner of a colossal healthcare industry that saves lives while taking in over $5 trillion every year.

Banda paid $8 for parking as she left.

Confronting death and debt

Two weeks later, Banda was back at work, making door-to-door rounds to sell Spectrum’s Wi-Fi in McAllen, her city along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Rio Grande Valley. Banda, holding blue fliers, walked along a row of storefronts, some that closed since she last was in the area.

She hadn’t had a sale and commission since October of last year, after the biopsy and diagnosis.

The doctor who gave her the news had hugged Banda, and she sobbed even though, she says, she never really sobs in front of other people. During chemo, her children took turns buzzing off her wispy hair. When her 9-year-old daughter’s hand quivered, a teenage cousin helped guide the clipper over her mother’s scalp.

Banda’s first impulse was to maintain normality, stability, for the children.

But that requires roughly $7,000 a month for utilities, mortgage, car payments and groceries, along with the two water leaks. Then, even with insurance through her job, the surgeries, chemo and radiation added up to over $25,000 that she’s been paying off, making Banda one of tens of millions of other people in the United States in medical debt.

Banda tries not to dwell on death and debt.

“It’ll consume you,” she says. She smothers those thoughts beneath her bubbly demeanor and avoids being alone. But that truce, between her insistence on positivity and the fears that it covers, is brittle.

Certain thoughts still arrive uninvited. Banda’s late sister, Melissa, didn’t have life insurance. Banda makes sure it’s a payment she never misses.

“Sometimes I think, and I shouldn’t think like this, but I’m worth more gone than here,” she said one day. “Obviously, the goal is not that, the goal is to beat it,” she continued, “to keep the house and keep the cars.”

So far she has, with the help of others.

On top of child support, the father of Banda’s 9-year-old often pays $400 a week for a nanny to help with the kids. Banda’s own father sent her $700 before for her recent Houston appointment, one of his many cash infusions. Her high school classmates, whom she hadn’t been in close touch with in decades, fundraised by selling grilled chicken, rice and beans from a roadside tent. Two GoFundMe fundraisers collected nearly $30,000, and Banda rented her late sister’s house while putting her own in forbearance.

But months of insecurity takes its own, sleepless toll. She needed to sell some internet services to catch up.

After sticking the Spectrum Wi-Fi fliers onto empty storefronts, she drove to pick up her kids from school. The following day she had a morning meeting at a barbershop for what would be her first sale back at work.

Turning on Trump

A lifelong Christian, Banda had voted her antiabortion stance in past elections. When her sister was kidnapped and murdered by her ex-husband in 2020, Banda retreated from religion. The cancer brought her back to church with an apology to God, but it also made her rethink her politics.

She voted for Trump in 2016, and his first four years seemed steady, she said, so she voted for him again in 2020. President Biden’s tenure, including a global pandemic and related inflation, felt like bedlam, so she voted for Trump to return to the White House in 2024.

But two years later and fighting an expensive disease, she had found no respite from high prices.

So when James Talarico, a Presbyterian seminary student running for U.S. Senate as a Democrat, visited one of Banda’s fundraisers — speaking about his diabetes and his work in the Texas Statehouse to lower the price of insulin — it moved her. “Imagine if he can do that for the cancer,” she said.

Talarico and his Republican opponent, state Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton, have different approaches to healthcare. Talarico wants all Americans to be able to join Medicare; Paxton proposed a $25,000 tax deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses.

Talarico also supports a law guaranteeing abortion access nationwide, which Banda has voted against for years. But after she slid into debt to stay alive, after her grocery bills mounted and the high school had to comp the kids’ soccer gear she couldn’t afford, Banda’s antiabortion concerns have been superseded by worry about costs.

“Because it’s what I’m living,” she said. “I’m living it.”

Banda cast an early ballot for Talarico. “Never voted Democrat before today!!” she wrote in a text with blue heart emoji.

Awaiting news

Banda had just started a new cancer-targeting medication that cost $16,000 a month, reduced to $500 by insurance. By the afternoon, she was nauseated and fatigued, unable to eat. The malaise would keep her home the next day. She would miss the meeting with the barbershop to close her first deal since getting sick, though she felt confident it was in the bag.

But Banda pushed through the discomfort one evening to join her family as they replaced the flowers at her sister’s tomb.

She drove past the headstones and oak trees in the evening’s slanting light, and the family gathered around Melissa Banda’s tomb in an open-air mausoleum. There was no speech. Their eulogy was her father, Fidel Banda, methodically clipping and arranging the flowers for his daughter.

Banda walked along the wall of tombs. She will find out on election day whether the cancer is in remission or whether it’s spread to her organs.

“This one’s for me,” she said, pointing to a blank tomb next to her sister’s.

“Mom!” said her daughter with the huffiness of a 9-year-old. “Why would you say that?”

Banda smiled and added, “in a hundred years.”

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

Amanda Cannon was taken ill while on holiday with her daughter

A British nan is fighting for her life in Turkey after suffering a heart attack while on holiday as her family faces a £25,000 hospital bill.

Amanda Cannon, 58, was rushed to intensive care after collapsing during a trip with her daughter Marisa White on October 10. The grandmother-of-nine from Redhill, Surrey, reportedly went without oxygen for 10 minutes after suffering what doctors believe was an epileptic seizure and cardiac arrest.

She is currently on life support in a private hospital in Antalya, Turkey. Relatives say her treatment is costing around €3,500 (£3,000) a day, with the bill already reaching €30,000 (£25,000).

Hannah Cooper, the mum of Amanda’s grandchildren, flew to Turkey with her five-year-old daughter after receiving a distressing call from Marisa. She said Amanda suddenly “jolted backwards”, turned blue and stopped breathing. Marisa immediately began CPR before paramedics arrived and took over.

No travel insurance

But because she has no travel insurance, her former daughter-in-law Hannah said Turkish medics would not stop treatment for religious reasons. They fear the mounting costs could run into hundreds of thousands of pounds if her condition does not improve.

Hannah, 33, from Shoreham-by-Sea, Sussex, told Talk to the Press: “She’s now in a deep coma. She’s got kidney failure, liver failure. They said there’s a 20 per cent chance that she’ll wake up and if she does, she’ll be in a vegetative state.”

She added: “I got a phone call from her daughter saying that she just suddenly jolted backwards, went grey, purple, blue, started foaming from the mouth and stopped breathing. Her daughter gave her CPR. Then when the ambulance got there, they took over. She went without oxygen for about 10 minutes.”

Doctors later told the family Amanda had suffered what appeared to be a seizure as well as a heart attack. She was placed on life support and remains in coma.

Amanda travelled to Turkey with daughter Marisa, who Hannah said suffered from many severe physical and mental health conditions. Concerned she would struggle to deal with the crisis alone, Hannah booked flights and travelled out to support her.

She said: “She doesn’t have the mental capacity to cope with what’s going on. The language barrier is so hard. We have to keep going on Google Translate to speak to the doctor because he doesn’t understand us and we don’t understand him.”

Medical costs stacking up

As the family tried to come to terms with Amanda’s condition, they were shocked to learn of the mounting medical costs. Hannah said she received a phone call asking for £5,000 shortly after Amanda was admitted.

She said: “I said to them that I don’t have £5,000, but I’d be flying over to Turkey. Since then, I’ve had several emails asking for payment.”

Hannah later discovered Amanda’s stay in the private intensive care unit was costing around €3,500 every day. She also revealed that the hospital wouldn’t release her to a public one until they cleared half of the bill.

Hannah said: “I’ve asked for a transfer to a state hospital where it would still cost money, but not like this.”

The family launched a GoFundMe appeal with an initial target of £15,000, but now fear the total bill could be far higher. Despite no longer being with Amanda’s son, Hannah said the 58-year-old has remained a huge part of her life.

She said: “She’s been like a second mum to me for 17 years. She’s always been my biggest supporter.”

Toll on family

The ordeal has also taken a toll on Amanda’s grandchildren.

Hannah said: “My eldest is asking a lot of questions and is upset. My little girl just keeps saying she wants to see her nan.”

She said doctors would either wait until Amanda was biologically dead or keep her alive. Hannah and her daughter are set to return to the UK on Sunday, October 18, while Marisa plans to fly back to Turkey after collecting medication.

Hannah concluded: “We’re upset, shocked and confused. We just don’t know what’s going to happen next.”

The fundraiser can be found on GoFundMe.

Oct. 17, 2026 8:31 AM PT

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s abrupt decision to waive sanctions on Russia days before they were to take effect drew outrage Saturday from members of Congress, which had overwhelmingly passed the legislation in a bipartisan display of American support for Ukraine in the war with Russia.

Lawmakers from both parties blasted the executive order late Friday, the latest in a series of steps that the Republican president has taken drawing the United States closer to Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Trump recently announced a diesel deal with Putin to import Russian energy in a long-shot effort to curb high gas prices in the U.S. that are roiling the midterm elections on Nov. 3.

“Beyond irresponsible,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), on social media, hours after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky expressed hope that the sanctions that were supposed to take effect Sunday targeting Russian’s economy could be revived.

“What part of enforcing a law passed 86-11 by the Senate does the President and his advisors not understand?” Tillis said. “It’s unconscionable that this administration is capitulating to a Russian dictator who illegally invaded Ukraine.”

Tillis said that if Trump wants to actually bring down energy prices, he should resolve the Iran war, which is largely blamed for the spike at the pump, and “not by doing a solid for Vladimir Putin.”

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas said, “Lindsey would be appalled,” referring to the late Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who worked endlessly on the bill before he died this summer. The bill is known as the Lindsey Graham Russian Sanctions Act.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said Trump is “thumbing his nose” at Congress and “enabling Vladimir Putin to continue his war of aggression.” She urged her colleagues to take action to reverse course.

Trump’s actions come as Ukraine is bracing for a stark winter confronting Russia’s ongoing attacks on its energy infrastructure to heat homes and keep the lights on. Zelensky, who has endured a rocky relationship with Trump but stayed close to the U.S. lawmakers, urged supporters to speak out on behalf of the sanctions.

The next steps are highly uncertain with the House and Senate on recess until after election day. Trump said he was waiving the sanctions indefinitely, citing national security concerns. It is unlikely Congress would be in a position to take any action to challenge Trump’s moves until lawmakers return to Washington.

It took almost a year for Graham to persuade Trump to agree to the Russian sanctions package. It was designed to impose steep tariffs on countries that import large amounts of Russian oil and energy products and was promoted as way to halt the flow of funds fueling Putin’s four-year war against Ukraine.

But even as Zelensky had watched from the visitor gallery as the Senate advanced the package after Graham’s death, skeptics in Congress warned Trump would be unlikely to follow the bill once he had signed it into law a month ago.

Last week, a bipartisan group of senators urged the Trump administration to more quickly clamp down on Russia, particularly the “shadow fleet” of tankers that Moscow is using to transport oil and bypass America’s sanctions. The senators noted that the bulk of the new law’s provisions were to be effective Sunday.

Instead, Trump soon announced the diesel deal with Putin, saying that Russia had agreed to supply tons of fuel to the U.S., where gas prices have skyrocketed in some areas and voters saying affordability issues are a top concern.

Outraged lawmakers have pledged to stop the Trump-Putin deal.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee who had led opposition to the Graham bill — warning that Trump would flout the law — introduced legislation Friday that would block Trump’s diesel deal with Putin.

“At a time when the United States should be increasing pressure on the Kremlin, Donald Trump is cozying up to Putin and striking self-enriching deals instead of standing with Ukraine,” Meeks said in a statement.

He called the deal “corrupt” and said it “goes against everything the United States stands for.”

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Investments in pharmaceutical companies made on behalf of President Trump increased significantly after he returned to the White House last year, with his portfolio adding millions of dollars in stock in firms that benefited from a Republican-backed law that shields certain medications from Medicare price negotiations, according to a report from congressional Democrats.

The report, released Friday by the Joint Economic Committee’s minority arm, found that Trump’s pharmaceutical stock holdings grew from a maximum reported value of $1.7 million in 2024 to as much as $56.2 million at the end of 2025. The report said that included up to $39.1 million worth of stock held in companies that benefited from exemptions to Medicare’s drug price negotiation program, which came through a provision in the Republicans’ 2025 tax and spending law.

Additional analysis of Trump’s financial disclosures provided by committee Democrats showed that his investment portfolio bought as much as $2.55 million in shares of pharmaceutical companies benefiting from the exemptions on three dates before he signed the legislation in July 2025. That included up to $950,000 in purchases on July 1, 2025, the day the Senate passed the bill. His portfolio also bought as much as $1 million in AbbVie stock in August 2025, after the bill became law.

The Republican president’s wealth has grown since he took office last year through a web of business interests, many of which have benefited from the policy moves of his administration. The White House has repeatedly denied any ethics issues and accused Democrats of “attempts to fabricate conflicts of interest.”

The report also noted that the exemptions policy could leave some Medicare beneficiaries paying thousands of dollars more for certain cancer treatments and other medications than they would have if Medicare had been allowed to negotiate lower prices.

The findings come as Trump has made lowering prescription drug costs a central part of his healthcare policy, striking deals with pharmaceutical companies that his administration says will make medications more affordable for Americans, although drug pricing is based on a complicated set of factors.

Recent polling from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows that most Americans think Trump is profiting off the presidency in unethical or illegal ways and is focused more on his wealth than on helping people like them.

Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan, who leads the Joint Economic Committee’s minority arm, called the report’s findings “outrageous and yet typical from this president, who makes the American people foot the bill again and again for his own gains.”

Davis Ingle, a White House spokesperson, said Trump’s stock and bond portfolio is independently managed by third-party financial institutions. He denied any conflict of interest.

“Neither President Trump nor any member of his family has any ability to direct, influence, or provide input regarding how the portfolio is invested or when investments are bought or sold,” Ingle said in a statement.

A law from President Biden’s Democratic administration allowed Medicare for the first time to negotiate prices for some of the costliest prescription drugs. Republicans’ 2025 tax and spending bill expanded an existing exemption for medications developed to treat rare diseases or conditions, delaying when certain costly drugs could become eligible for negotiations or excluding them entirely, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Also known as the orphan drug exclusion, the carve out allows drug companies to continue charging lucrative prices that might otherwise have been reduced through Medicare negotiations.

Supporters of the change argued that a broader exemption would encourage drug companies to develop treatments for rare diseases. Critics say it allows makers of blockbuster medications to avoid negotiations that could lower costs for Medicare and its recipients.

The report estimated that Medicare beneficiaries receiving the cancer drugs Keytruda, manufactured by Merck, and Opdivo, by Bristol Myers Squibb, could pay roughly $5,000 more annually than they would if Medicare negotiated prices for the medications. Trump’s portfolio includes stock in both firms.

The report also said that Trump’s portfolio continued to buy and sell pharma company stocks throughout the first eight months of 2026, adding as much as $3.5 million in stock wealth in the sector.

All recent U.S. presidents have dumped their stocks before assuming office, put their money in broadly diversified funds or set up a “blind” trust so they couldn’t even know what they owned.

Trump has put his broader business interests in a trust managed by his sons. But the arrangement rejects the conflict of interest protections that his recent predecessors in office had instituted.

Hussein writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Bernard Condon in New York contributed to this report.

A British couple were left with a massive £28,000 bill while holidaying in a beautiful Greek island

A mother has said she will never go abroad on holiday again after being handed a £28,000 bill. Diane Steadman, 61, was on holiday on the Greek island of Skiathos on September 11 when disaster struck.

To get between the beaches on their £2,200 holiday, Diane and partner Mick Raftery had used quadbikes they’d rented. However, during one short journey between two beaches, the pair claim they were hit by a local car.

The impact from the rear sent both Diane and Mick flying off the road. While Mick came away with a few cuts and bruises, Diane landed heavily, breaking two vertebrae in her back. Diane recalled: “I felt a jump in my back and I don’t remember anything else.”

She added: “All I remember is waking up on the road. He [the car diver] wasn’t watching the road and didn’t have time to slow down. I was in and out of consciousness, I didn’t have the energy to speak to anybody when I woke up. I tried to be strong but I’m so frightened, I feel like I’m going to die.

After being moved by ambulance to a local medical centre Diane, a mother-of-two, was rushed to the mainland for further treatment, all under the belief the whole incident would be covered by her travel insurance.

However, she was shocked to find out that quadbikes weren’t covered by her policy.

What’s more, although she was under intense pain relief, she was unable to afford a £40,000 operation, so had to borrow a massive £28,000 to fly back to the UK via air ambulance on September 30.

As she waits for an operation to fix her back, Diane has paid tribute to her partner but also admitted she does not intend to go abroad again.

She said: “It’s just been one thing after another, I will not be going abroad again, no way. Mick has been brave and tried to put a smile on my face. I’m scared of the operation, everyone is telling me it’s going to be okay.”

Meanwhile Mick has issued a warning of his own pleading with people to make sure they check the small print of their insurance policies so they know what is and isn’t covered to avoid something similar happening to him and Diane.

He added: “Check your insurance before you rent a quad bike. We were mistaken in thinking insurance covered quad bikes too.”

As well as asking people to check their policies, Mick has also set up a GoFundMe to help him and Diane cover some of their costs following the disaster.

A new Pixar animated film, the sequel to Lionsgate’s “Michael” and a large crop of indie projects are among the latest films to be awarded a California tax credit for in-state production.

In total, 35 films — including 28 independent projects — received production incentives in the latest round of incentives.

Together, the projects are expected to contribute more than $1 billion in direct production spending in-state and hire more than 5,400 cast and crew members and more than 24,800 background actors, the California Film Commission said Wednesday.

“California is the home of entertainment, full stop,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “We’re not just protecting that legacy; we’re investing in its future.”

Pixar received the largest credit ($40.1 million) for an untitled animated film, followed by Lionsgate, which was awarded $30.8 million for the sequel to “Michael,” the film based on the life of Michael Jackson. Paramount Pictures got $29.3 million for an untitled crime thriller.

The latest round of tax credit awards comes less than a month after Newsom signed a bill to create the state’s first post-production incentive. Industry editors, sound mixers, visual effects artists and composers had said such a credit was necessary to lure jobs back from overseas.

On a national level, a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is pushing to create a federal tax credit for film and TV. The bill is expected to be introduced in Congress in early November and backers are aiming to get it passed by Dec. 11, when the current Congress ends. If passed, the credit would take effect in 2027 and would be stackable with states’ production incentives.

Tens of thousands of people have rallied across Spain as protests have spread since the conservative-dominated parliament rejected a bill proposing measures to tackle a housing crisis.

Parliament on Friday voted down two decrees proposed by Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s minority left-wing coalition government that were intended to address the housing crisis.

The protests erupted late last month after an 87-year-old woman was evicted from her home of 70 years in the capital, Madrid. Maria del Carmen Abascal’s eviction came after an international investment fund bought her building and hiked the rent.

Local media reports have suggested that Sanchez could call snap elections for as early as November after watching the strength of Saturday’s protests across the country. Spain’s current legislative term is set to end next summer.

Will the housing crisis trigger snap elections? Here’s what we know:

What happened on Friday in parliament?

The emergency measures proposed by Spain’s leftist government to tackle the country’s housing affordability crisis failed to pass on Friday.

The government had proposed two measures to protect renters in the country. The first decree was meant to stop evictions of vulnerable people, make real estate speculation harder, impose tighter restrictions on short-term leases and provide tax incentives to encourage renting and the construction of housing.

The second decree proposed making leases automatically renew when they are set to expire, essentially making them indefinite. A property owner would have to pay a tenant 12 months of rent to break the contract.

Sanchez, who leads a coalition government composed of his Socialist Party and the far-left Sumar, ⁠appealed to lawmakers in the run-up to the vote to put aside political calculations and pressure.

“Think about ordinary people, about those who most need the protection of public institutions. Think about the millions of young people who ⁠cannot afford to ⁠move out of their parents’ homes. Think about the families living with the constant ⁠anxiety of ever-rising rents,” he said before the voting.

But his government’s proposed measures were shot down by the majority of ⁠the 350-seat lower house of parliament.

The right-wing ⁠Catalan separatist ⁠party Junts refused to back the housing decrees, saying they would ultimately tighten the housing market. The centre-right Popular Party and far-right Vox also voted against the measures.

Miriam Nogueras of Junts argued the decrees would lead only to owners removing their properties from the rental market and thus driving up prices even further.

“If they really wanted to protect people, collar the vulture funds, and reactivate housing, they would have already done it. They’ve had eight years,” she added on X, referring to Sanchez’s government.

Health Minister Monica Garcia said on X that the right-wing parties “have voted for a feudal economy in which a minority extracts the salary from a majority that works for their luxuries. And they do it against their own voters, who also suffer increasingly high rents, live in fear that the contract will end and can even be evicted.”

“Today the right has given rent-seeking a parliamentary majority that it doesn’t have on the street, but it’s going to pay for it sooner rather than later,” she added.

Before the parliamentary vote, Marta Soler Gallart, head of the Department of Sociology at the University of Barcelona, explained that neither of the two decrees addressed the housing problem in the medium or long term.

“Models such as Vienna’s with its low rents are cited in support of these decrees, but it is overlooked that the Vienna model and others have low rents because of their long history of creating and maintaining public social housing,” Soler Gallart told Al Jazeera on September 30.

“In Spain, however, public funds are invested in social housing which, after a while, the recipients sell at market price.”

Soler Gallart also said the new measures disadvantage landlords with small or few properties by extending five-year tenancy agreements by a further two years and by providing an indefinite extension of their leases.

“However, these extensions are not compulsory if the landlord can prove that they need the property for their own use,” she said.

Why are people protesting across Spain?

Protests erupted across Spain in late September after 87-year-old Abascal was evicted from her home. The investment fund that bought her building hiked her rent by more than 200 percent to roughly $1,880 a month, a move aimed at pushing out the long-term tenant to make way for lucrative tourist apartments.

In recent years, Spain has seen protests against mass tourism, which has been linked to the housing crisis and soaring cost of living. Spain is the second most visited country in the world, attracting 97 million tourists last year.

While Abascal has returned to her home, according to her representatives, she has become the face of the country’s housing crisis, and people across Spain have been demanding the government address the issue.

Angered by parliament’s rejection of the government measures, tens of thousands of people took to the streets.

“It’s a shame,” Nando de Anguulo, 26, who joined Saturday’s protest in Madrid, told the Reuters news agency.

“It only proves that it is us, the people, who have to adapt to the political parties and not the politicians to what the people want, and this can’t go on like that.”

While the protests were mostly peaceful, in the southeastern city of Valencia, police fired rubber bullets and tear gas to break up demonstrations. About 30 protesters managed to get inside the City of Arts and Sciences, a landmark cultural building, before police removed them.

Meanwhile, in Madrid, Spanish police arrested three members of a far-right group and fired rubber bullets on Saturday night.

Far-right activists, some of whom performed Nazi salutes, tried to reach demonstrators camped out in the Puerta del Sol, a central square in the Spanish capital, the Spanish government said.

Valeria Racu, a spokesperson for the Tenants’ Union, said Saturday’s rallies revealed “a new energy that we haven’t seen in a long time and energy that is showing that eight days of people’s power can achieve more than eight years of progressive government”.

“Now begins real politics – politics which has always belonged to the people and which will return once and for all to the streets,” Racu added.

Could the housing crisis lead to snap elections?

Housing is a sensitive issue in Spain because it impacts how people vote. The average rent in the country has almost doubled in the past 10 years. The average price per square metre has risen from 8.20 euros (about $9.08 at the time) in 2016 to 15.1 euros ($17.15) this year, according to the real estate website Idealista.

In an October 1 article for Vanity Fair, Spanish journalist Jorge Dioni Lopez noted that after eight years in power, housing is what is causing Sanchez to lose support among educated young people, children of the middle classes.

“The government faces a difficult situation. Firstly, because most of the relevant powers lie with other levels of government. Secondly, because Spain is a nation of homeowners. Unlike in other European countries, almost all the public housing that has been built has ended up in private hands, and historically, homeownership has been more attractive than renting,” he wrote.

“Housing is our savings system and also the primary means of transmitting wealth between generations,” he added.

After Spain’s parliament rejected the government’s housing reform bills on Friday, the leader of the centre-right People’s Party, (PP) Alberto Nunez Feijoo, urged Sanchez to “call elections as soon as possible”, claiming he had the support of “neither the streets nor parliament”.

While Sanchez has not officially announced new elections, the Spanish online news site El Diario has reported that elections could take place as early as November 29. Spain’s general elections are currently scheduled for July 2027.

Oct. 3, 2026 3:03 AM PT

Menopause has been having a moment lately, and Washington is taking notice. On Sept. 16, the Senate held its first hearing on the dismal state of federally funded menopause research and vast gaps in treatment and care. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health and Human Services also convened pharmaceutical manufacturers and physicians to troubleshoot the alarming lack of availability of estradiol patches, an essential menopause hormone treatment, and the Food and Drug Administration held a full day of expert panels on female-dosed testosterone, which is currently only FDA-approved for men.

One week later, Health and Human Services joined the American Urological Assn. for a discussion about a silent killer of postmenopausal women: urosepsis from recurrent urinary tract infections. There is a simple solution — localized vaginal estrogen — and yet because of outdated guidelines and lack of clinician training, the medication is too often ignored or denied. Nor is the prescription routinely covered by Medicare, despite its well-established health and longevity benefits for women over age 65.

These are among the attempts to now, finally, address decades of policy failures — a refreshing change, quite frankly, given neither political party has ever prioritized menopause. That 2026 marks the year when menopause has entered the policy arena comes as little surprise to me. I’ve been beating this drum for years. Every aspect of daily life that menopause touches — the soaring cost of medical care, inadequate access to health insurance, extreme underinvestment in scientific research focused on women’s health, even the myriad ways midlife women are stretched to the limit caring for kids and aging parents — is smack in the middle of the political zeitgeist. These are the kitchen table issues on the minds of voters this election.

Menopause moment, meet the midterms.

Another issue rightly revealed by menopause is the chasm of public trust in government. As one of the four expert witnesses who testified at the Senate, I was heartened that it was a true bipartisan endeavor. But that’s a rarity these days in Congress, an institution rife with dysfunction. Our federal health agencies have become so shamelessly politicized they are on a collision course with science — from HHS’ overt moves to undermine childhood vaccines, to the decimation of leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is struggling to respond to the crisis of measles outbreaks across the country.

My goal as a policy advocate is to help turn the tide on this country’s long record of neglect when it comes to menopause. Like many other women’s and reproductive health advocates, after the 2024 election l turned my attention to state legislatures — not just as a consolation prize but as a way to test what range of reforms were feasible and to get as many good laws as possible passed. It was the right move. Over the last two years, more than 60 bills have been introduced in 28 states — to do things like require private insurance and Medicaid to cover menopause care and treatment, improve clinician training and public education, and bolster antidiscrimination protection in the workplace. Ten of those states now have 21 laws on the books.

California is one and can claim real leadership. Among the bills passed by the Legislature, Assembly Bill 2270 from 2023-24 incentivizes continuing medical education on menopause for clinicians, the majority of whom receive little to zero training while in medical school and residency. The California Department of Corrections is now collaborating with medical experts to help bring menopause resources to incarcerated women in state prisons.

Newsom also just vetoed AB 1940, which would have codified menopause as a protected category in the state’s workplace antidiscrimination laws.

The Legislature has been especially deft at easing access to FDA-approved hormonal treatments, including testosterone, often used off-label by menopausal women: AB 82 ends the requirement to report prescriptions to the state’s tracking database; AB 1778 proactively declassifies testosterone as a controlled substance under state law, should there be action in Washington to do the same under federal law.

Although Newsom twice vetoed bills to mandate insurance coverage for menopause treatment — and deserved all the flak he received — the 2026-27 state budget includes a minor course correct: a $3.4-million “trailer bill” to invest in public education and make menopause treatments more affordable; Medi-Cal patients are not fully covered by the addendum, though, making it a toothless reform for those who need support the most.

Why should California’s menopause agenda, or that of the other 27 states that have introduced reforms, matter to the rest of the country? They offer useful models of what to do — or in the case of Medicaid exclusion, what not to do — in crafting meaningful policies. Perhaps more important, they offer a rationale that can help persuade the public; those who might balk at a congressional bill or federal policy, in part because of skepticism of the federal government or the current administration, can listen to and learn from other stakeholders, including governors and state lawmakers and activists.

Take for example the FDA decision in November 2025 to remove the long-critiqued “black box” warning on estrogen products for menopause. This was the culmination of a decade-long campaign by physicians, researchers and scientists — who had been waging the fight for accurate labeling well before the acronym MAHA ever existed and regardless of which party held power. Yet the very image of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using his moment at the podium to credit the Trump administration’s deep commitment to women’s health posed a serious credibility challenge. Aligned and contemporaneous state reforms offered much-needed reassurance and clarity to many.

Trust in government is understandably at a low point, but this happens to be when menopause finally has caught the attention of policymakers at all levels of power. Some are taking long-overdue steps for women’s health, however implausibly. Let’s take the wins.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is the author of “When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide.” She is executive director of NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a pair of bills this week designed to help a San Diego stadium and development project led by Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke sidestep environmental review hurdles.

Newsom signed Senate Bill 344 and Senate Bill 958, which were put forward by state Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson (D-La Mesa) to help the stadium project, known as Midway Rising. The project would replace the decades-old Pechanga Arena and include a new 16,000-seat facility, 4,254 homes, including up to 2,000 affordable units, and commercial and outdoor space. The site is south of Mission Bay.

Newsom cast the bills as part of a package to help speed up the construction of much-needed housing.

“Every Californian deserves a fair shot at a stable home — families shouldn’t have to wait years for housing to be approved and built in their communities,” he said in a written statement.

Senate Bill 344 deems Midway Rising in full compliance with the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act, known was CEQA.

The act, adopted in 1970, has been credited for protecting California’s natural resources and minimizing pollution. It also has been criticized for sometimes being weaponized by opponents of a project, including housing developments.

After the state Legislature’s vote last month, Weber Pierson said the project would provide “much-needed affordable housing, permanent jobs, community spaces, and health resources in a part of our city that is ready for investment.”

Former San Diego Assemblymember Lori Saldaña, a longtime critic of the proposal, called Senate Bill 344 “reckless and rushed” because it was introduced late in the session without public input. Saldaña said the site isn’t suitable for development because of sea-level rise that she said is causing street flooding in the area.

Senate Bill 958 states that a project’s increased building height, and any related noise, shadows, or impact on wildlife shall not be considered significant environmental impacts, if the project meets a host of conditions.

It would apply to any development in the state but was introduced to benefit Midway Rising, according to Weber Pierson.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) was among those who voted against both bills.

The developers “don’t want to play by the rules, so they came here to Sacramento asking for a special exemption,” DeMaio said during a discussion on Senate Bill 958 last month.

“We’re talking about the coast. I think a big condo tower on the coast impeding the view is a significant environmental impact, and I think deep down in your heart of hearts, you know that,” DeMaio said.

State lawmakers routinely carve out environmental exemptions for proposed sports stadiums, sometimes in the closing days of the legislative session.

Former Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) led his colleagues in passing a bill in 2013 that helped the Sacramento Kings arena by limiting environmental lawsuits. The new arena for the Golden State Warriors basketball team in San Francisco also benefited from CEQA reforms passed by state lawmakers in 2011.

The San Diego City Council still needs to approve the project.

SACRAMENTO — Days after signing a package of bills to rebuff aspects of federal immigration enforcement in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed two bills from Los Angeles lawmakers that targeted public employment for federal agents.

One of the bills, backed by Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), would have blocked agents and contractors who worked to enforce federal immigration laws from state and local jobs in California, including for law enforcement agencies. It was called the “Get the Feds Out” or “GTFO” Act.

Newsom said the bill goes “a step too far.”

“It is a mistake to discourage empathetic and qualified Americans from working in the federal government, or choosing to leave long-standing employment with the federal government because they find the current administration’s policies and tactics reprehensible,” the governor wrote in a veto letter to the Legislature made public on Wednesday.

The governor added that hiring for public employment already includes personal conduct evaluations. He emphasized the “horrific tactics” used by immigration agents during President Trump’s second term but said it is the responsibility of Congress to hold the administration and individual agents accountable.

Newsom signed a similar bill that prevents federal agents from becoming police in California if their federal badge was revoked for misconduct.

While he expressed disappointment in the veto, Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez (D-Los Angeles), the author of Assembly Bill 1896, applauded Newsom for signing “a strong package of legislation that will protect Californians and stand up for our immigrant communities.”

“From the beginning, the GTFO Act was about a simple principle: We should never use public dollars to reward conduct that has caused fear, terror, and pain in our communities. I am proud to have stood alongside my brother, Speaker Rivas, in this fight and this fight is not over,” Gonzalez said in a statement to The Times.

A spokesperson for Rivas said while the proposal did not become law, “Californians know Trump’s immigration agenda is failing and doesn’t keep anyone safe. That’s why Assembly Democrats are leading the nation in holding ICE accountable. The Speaker thanks his colleagues for delivering real results this year.”

The outgoing governor also vetoed a proposal from Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Culver City), Assembly Bill 1537, that would have prevented sworn law enforcement officers from taking secondary employment or contract jobs for immigration enforcement.

Newsom took issue with the prospect of prohibiting “secondary employment law enforcement officers choose to do in their free time.”

“State and local peace officers already must abide by specific standards and rules, including ones that apply to their personal conduct,” Newsom wrote in the veto letter. “Any officers who violate those standards are held accountable through investigations that may culminate in their peace officer status being suspended or revoked entirely.”

Bryan, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on the veto.

Earlier this week, Newsom signed 21 bills aimed at federal immigration enforcement, including bans on electric shock gloves and face coverings for law enforcement. Other laws impose a 25% tax on companies that operate private detention centers, along with additional oversight of the facilities.

“No tax will stop ICE from deporting criminal illegal aliens to make California safe again,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said in an email. “While California sanctuary politicians continue to release pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and murderers onto their streets, our brave law enforcement will continue to risk their lives to arrest these heinous criminals and make California safe again.”

California voters will decide whether to establish a $7.5-billion state scientific research arm — similar to the National Institutes of Health — after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that will put the proposal on the March 2028 ballot.

The new state fund would aim to blunt federal research cuts by the Trump administration and ensure state and private institutions — including the University of California and California State University — can continue to produce scientific breakthroughs.

If voters approve the measure, $7.5 billion in bonds would fund California scientific and medical research into diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s and ALS. Other research areas include reducing wildfire risk and fighting pandemics and climate change.

“This is a research and science bond that does the opposite of what Donald Trump is doing that will allow us to double down on what makes this state great — what makes America great,” Newsom said Wednesday during a bill signing atop the Golden Gate Bridge. “We are the tentpole of the U.S. economy because we invest in the future so that we can all do well there.”

The legislation to establish the bond measure, state Senate Bill 895, was authored by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who in a statement called it a “bold step to protect science, improve lives, and continue California’s global leadership on innovation for many years to come.”

The bill was sponsored by the Union of American Physicians and the University of California, as well as the United Auto Workers Local 4811, which represents some 60,000 UC academic workers.

The bond measure represents a pullback from what Wiener and supporters first proposed.

Originally conceived as a $23-billion bond measure that the Legislature would approve to go before voters in November, it was whittled down to $12 billion. But lawmakers then did not approve it in time for the November ballot.

Wiener said legislative leaders and the governor’s office then worked out a compromise, deciding on a $7.5-billion bond measure for 2028.

The measure also calls for the new state fund to establish regulations that would allow it to recoup part of its investments while not damaging innovation.

“This is a major achievement, made possible by an extraordinary coalition of people who understand the importance of investing in scientific research,” UC President James B. Milliken said in a statement.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a landmark bill that would give a financial boost to California’s struggling newsrooms.

Assembly Bill 2222 will create refundable tax credits for California local news organizations based on the number of journalists they employ. It passed through both houses. It marks an innovative yet controversial attempt to slow the decline of local journalism.

The bill, called the Community Newsroom Employment and Workforce Sustainability Act, works by assigning a “job retention credit” of $20,000 per journalist for up to five positions, and after that $15,000 for every additional journalist. Part-time positions will be awarded half-credits. It also stacks an additional $15,000 credit for each new hire, to incentivize expanding journalist head counts.

Before signing the bill Wednesday morning, Newsom spoke about what he called the “assault on the free press and the First Amendment..coming from Washington D.C. and Donald Trump.”

“It’s journalists that need to report those stories and local journalists that need to uncover and sort of peel back the facade if democracy is going to survive, let alone thrive,” Newsom said.

The bill was supported by the California News Publishers Assn., of which the Los Angeles Times is a member and a wide range of other community news boosters. Backers said it could be a lifeline to local news organizations, many of which have struggled to maintain staffing levels over the past two decades.

California has lost more than 12,000 of its local journalists since 2002, according to nonprofit advocacy group Rebuild Local News. And almost 40% of all local U.S. newspapers have vanished, according to an annual report on the state of local news put out by Northwestern University’s Medill journalism school.

To pay for the credits, the bill would amend California’s tax code to align with a little-discussed component of President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” tax bill that expanded taxes on some companies by eliminating a deduction for executive salaries of over $1 million annually.

It is common practice for the state to consider aligning its tax code with the federal structure to make filing taxes easier and administering them more cheaply. But California has not yet sought to adopt this federal tax change, a move which would increase tax revenues to the state.

The California Taxpayers Assn. and groups representing business interests such as the California Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill because it raises taxes on employers that they argue already face billions of dollars in new taxes.

They contend that the higher costs will be passed along to consumers.

The governor’s finance office issued an analysis opposing the bill for not including a cap on the tax credits, thus creating “unlimited fiscal liability to the state,” and argued the bill mainly subsidizes existing activity rather than encouraging the creation of new jobs.

While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Newsom acknowledged some of the concerns that have been raised about those who will receive benefits from the bill’s funds, specifically hedge funds and billionaire owners and outlets who he says spread propaganda.

“It does subsidize those that don’t need to be subsidized,” he said. “We have hedge funds in this space. We have billionaires in this space. We have people that are profiteering in this space by gutting the newsrooms and extracting value out of the space that also are the beneficiaries.”

Newsom said he chose not to veto the bill because he believes its benefits outweigh the liabilities. He added that he hopes the legislature and next governor can work to narrow down who benefits most from the legislation.

“We should not be subsidizing hedge funds,” he said. “We should be focused on where the need is the greatest, in my humble opinion, and I do think when you have no cap, the limitlessness of this…to some of the most well-heeled organizations, where now they simply could pull from this bill the benefits that they didn’t even ask for or need, is self-evident.”

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill, said the governor’s signature shows California’s commitment to the free press at a time when newsrooms are shrinking and misinformation is rampant.

“Local journalism is the backbone of an informed democracy, and today California made clear that the people doing this essential work are worth investing in,” Ward said in a statement. “This historic investment will help keep reporters in our communities, strengthen nonprofit and public media, and ensure Californians continue to have access to trusted, fact-based local news.”

In signing the bill, Newsom emphasized the role of journalism in uncovering scandal and wrongdoing.

“The L.A. Times to their credit did a big investigative piece on Bell, and people getting paid a million dollars in some cases, local government officials, a million damn dollars a year. No one would have known had it not been for local journalism. How many more Bells are out there, not just in this state, but all across the country?”

California is set to bring back a program aimed at reducing conflict between wild animals and people, as the state’s rebounding wolf population continues to cause concern among ranchers.

Newsom signed a bill restoring the program Tuesday ahead of a “fireside chat” focused on biodiversity and natural resources, during which he described growing up with a father who was dedicated to protecting mountain lions, condors and other wildlife.

Protecting nature is “a moral issue,” Newsom said, describing a “relationship we have to what’s above us, and … how that connects us to our Creator.”

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife once employed 13 specialists dedicated to resolving human-wildlife conflicts, but it let all but one of them go after funding ran dry in 2024. The loss came as such clashes are increasing, with climate change and urban sprawl bringing people closer to bears, mountain lions and other animals.

State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, author of Senate Bill 1135, said she’s seen it play out with sea lions around La Jolla Cove. This year, someone kicked one of the marine mammals, she said, and in general there have been no government staffers “to provide the guardrails.”

When the program ended, “we weren’t doing the education, and we didn’t have staff at the state that could help intervene or provide guidance,” Blakespear (D-Encinitas) told The Times. “It was a clear lack.”

The legislation also codifies a program to compensate ranchers when they lose livestock to wolves or suffer indirect harm. The program also provides money for nonlethal equipment to deter wolves, such as electric fences with bright flags.

Part of the law is rebranding, adding “coexistence” to both programs’ names.

The California Cattlemen’s Assn. and the California Farm Bureau shifted from opposing the bill to an “enthusiastic neutral,” said Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs for the former trade group, noting his colleague coined the term.

Wilbur’s group was initially concerned about parts of the bill focused on livestock compensation, but he said they were amended in a way to avoid impeding how the program operates. However, the changes “didn’t quite get us to a support position because we didn’t necessarily view it as a significant improvement over the status quo.”

His group is in favor of the bill’s requirement to relaunch the Wildlife Coexistence Program, as it’s now called, saying it “does provide resources, for instance, for my members that are contending with mountain lion depredations of their livestock.”

The bill signing comes as California’s gray wolves had at least 42 pups this year — a record. The apex predators were extirpated in the state in the 1920s, beginning to naturally recolonize their native digs only 15 years ago.

“It’s a great sign for the conservation of the species that the population continues to reproduce, and that the number of individuals continues to reproduce,” said Axel Hunnicutt, gray wolf coordinator for the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The animals’ success has delighted conservationists but frustrated some cattle ranchers, whose livelihood can become dinner for the endangered canids.

Hunnicutt spoke to The Times from Siskiyou County, where he was trying to get more GPS collars on wolves in the Whaleback pack, linked to 41 confirmed or probable livestock attacks this year, according to a recent report. That’s by far the most of any pack in the state.

Hunnicutt’s team consists of him and two other employees, along with temporary staffers. Collaring wolves in a pack that doesn’t already have the devices is challenging, he said. It involves setting up cameras, howling throughout the night to try to get the animals to respond and sometimes driving hundreds of miles looking for tracks.

Some members of the Whaleback pack are collared, providing a good starting point. While on the phone, he said he could see the tracks of two wolves on the road where he was walking.

Proponents of SB 1135 say it could lead to the expansion of Hunnicutt’s team or more resources for efforts such as collaring, which wildlife officials say helps reduce conflicts by enabling ranchers to know where wolves are.

However, the legislation does not guarantee funding for the programs it establishes.

Pamela Flick, California program director for Defenders of Wildlife, a co-sponsor of the bill, said advocates asked state leaders for $18 million in one-time funding for the human-wildlife coexistence program, followed by $15 million annually. They also asked for around $30 million for wolf compensation and management.

What they got this year is $6 million, with $2.5 million earmarked for compensation, according to Flick.

“It’s really a drop in the bucket when we’re talking about statewide human-wildlife conflicts,” she said. “So we will be advocating for additional funds in out years for sure.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a raft of bills designed to push back on the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement in California, including bans on electric shock gloves and a revamped ban on law enforcement face coverings after a previous law was blocked by a federal judge.

The more than 20 bills approved by the governor Tuesday were crafted to thwart tactics used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including the use of facial coverings and making arrests outside immigration hearings. Other bills are meant to boost state oversight of federal detention centers in the state.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families. California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state,” Newsom said in a statement. “This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities. We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable.”

The governor signed legislation to ban the use of electric shock gloves by any law enforcement in the state, which was hastily written and passed after reports that the Department of Homeland Security planned to spend $20 million to outfit agents with the gloves.

One bill, dubbed the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for residents to sue federal agents for alleged civil rights violations, such as racial profiling, unlawful searches or interfering with the right to free speech.

Its author, Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said the law already applies to state and local officials and that his bill, SB 747, closes a loophole that exempts federal officials.

Newsom signed another bill by Wiener that bans ICE agents and other law enforcement from wearing face coverings or masks while on duty. After a federal judge blocked his prior bill, which applied to federal agents but not state police, Wiener passed legislation that applies to both.

Many of the bills Newsom signed Tuesday aim to improve state oversight at immigration detention centers within the state and slowroll the development of new facilities.

Among them is AB 1801, which requires municipalities to wait at least 180 days and hold public hearings before approving any plans to build or convert facilities into immigration detention centers.

Newsom signed a 25% tax on companies that operate immigration detention centers in the state. Most of the detention centers in California are run by the private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic, under contracts with the federal government. AB 1633 by Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco) would raise an estimated $177 million, according to a fiscal analysis of the bill.

Another new law requires local agencies to disclose 911 calls made from immigration detention centers. It stems from a CalMatters investigation which found alleged sexual assaults at Otay Mesa, a detention center in San Diego, were being investigated by CoreCivic, the company that operates the facility, rather than local law enforcement.

“Our communities deserve safety, and no person in detention should have to resort to throwing notes over the walls of a detention facility to have their needs met and their voice heard,” Sen. Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Legislative Latino Caucus and the bill’s author, said in a statement after lawmakers passed her legislation.

Activists and Democratic lawmakers have raised alarms about the rising number of in-custody deaths and poor conditions inside ICE detention facilities. The federal government has reported 57 in-custody deaths during Trump’s second term, up from the 26 deaths reported during the previous four years.

During reviews of detention centers around the state last year, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office found substandard conditions including overcrowding, delays in medical care and poor quality food and drinking water. At one center, detainees were not given clothing warm enough to protect against extremely low temperatures in the facility, Justice Department staff reported.

Newsom signed legislation indefinitely extending the attorney general’s duty to review private detention centers, which had been set to expire next year.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday is expected to approve a bipartisan bill that would give the NCAA and its member conferences the authority to enforce uniform national rules on college athletics.

If the bill is passed by the Senate, it would move to the House and, if approved, on to President Trump for his signature to become law.

What the Protect College Sports Act would do

Under the Protect College Sports Act — co-authored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — the NCAA would be granted a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the organization to create standardized rules around athlete eligibility, limit conference realignment and prevent the creation of a super league — a private-equity model for college sports that would replace NCAA subdivisions.

The bill is also an attempt to codify the $2.8-billion antitrust settlement reached last year in House vs. NCAA, which allowed Division 1 schools to share revenue with their current players and compensate past players. The new bill would increase the revenue sharing cap to around $50 million per school from $21.5 million, albeit with a more strict and enforceable model.

Under Name, Image and Likeness deals, wealthier schools were able to circumvent the “soft” $21.5-million cap by lining up lucrative corporate sponsorships and endorsements for prospective athletes. The bill would allow the NCAA to crack down on attempts to bypass the limit by incorporating booster or affiliated-entity money into total revenue sharing calculations, while also giving schools an additional $27 million in the funding cap to retain current athletes.

Potential boost for smaller schools

A potential consequence of the bill could be that big-name programs lose their ability to draw the best college athletes with promises of massive compensation, allowing smaller programs to compete under NCAA regulations.

The NCAA and its affiliates have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for congressional intervention on its rule-making power over the last seven years. Supporters of the bill, including Cruz, have said the bill would bring order and consistent regulation to college sports.

“If we’re going to be having a national competition … it is only Congress that can establish a clear and enforceable legal rule book,” Cruz said on the Senate floor last week.

Influential figures in college sports, including former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban and ESPN analyst Pat McAfee, have publicly called on Congress to pass the measure. It has also drawn support from 24 of the NCAA’s athletic conferences.

“Congress does need to fix the mess in the courts and create a national framework so the people inside college sports can enforce fair rules,” Saban said during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee hearing in June. “Without that legal certainty, every rule becomes another lawsuit, every standard becomes another risk, and the system keeps drifting toward a professional model.”

What the opponents say

The legislation is not without its opponents. Some players, labor organizations and members of Congress argue that the bill would prevent highly sought-after college athletes from participating in their own negotiation process.

“What this bill does, at its core, is protect a system of exploitation,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an AFL-CIO trade union press release. “This bill protects the billions of dollars that coaches and executives are making by suppressing compensation for some of the most highly valued athletes in the world.”

The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have also brought forward concerns that the bill does not allow Black athletes — who make up a majority of players in the football and basketball programs — into the collective bargaining process.

The NCAA plans to enforce a five-year eligibility rule, cap agent fees at 5%, put penalties on second transfers and codify student-athlete protections, such as 10-year degree completion assistance and post-eligibility healthcare. If the bill passes, all challenges to these rules would have to be handled in federal court.

Some senior Republican officials in the House, including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), have expressed some hesitance in passing the legislation without clarity as to whether student-athletes will be considered employees and if further limits should be placed on international student-athletes. If changes are made in the House, the bill would be returned to the Senate for another vote.

Support from Trump

Trump, on the other hand, has expressed strong support for the bill.

“THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT is a great Bill, and the Senate will hopefully stay in D.C. until it passes,” he wrote on Truth Social last month. “Without this Bill, millions of young Athletes will be hurt, programs will be canceled … the fans will be robbed, and Universities will go broke”

More state money to pay for arts teachers will reach local schools if legislation signed Sunday by Gov. Gavin Newsom works out as intended, but the new law will not resolve a lawsuit accusing the Los Angeles school district of misspending as much as $77 million in its share of the funding.

The aim of Assembly Bill 2440 is to encourage more school systems to use arts funding made available through Proposition 28, which voters passed in November 2022.

“The clear message we heard was that many school districts have been struggling to navigate legal ambiguity regarding compliance with Proposition 28,” said bill author Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates) in a recent statement to The Times. He said his goal was to provide “statewide guidance” so that all or most school systems could use the money without concern over violations of spending rules that could result in financial penalties.

Proposition 28 sets aside an amount equal to 1% of the state’s base education funding — close to $1 billion per year — to increase arts education. This extra funding is drawn down from the state’s general fund — so it adds to the total allotted for education.

The initial funding, nearly a billion dollars statewide, went out for the 2023-24 school year and has continued annually. But millions of dollars have not yet been spent, according to early reviews of the data.

Some local officials said they were holding back over concerns that they would inadvertently violate the rules for spending the money — and would then have to pay it back, creating significant financial risk.

This bill had backing from arts organizations, education and school district officials and the California Teachers Assn. No opposition was recorded in the legislative record; nor were there any opposing votes as the bill worked its way through the legislative process.

But then Austin Beutner — the author of Proposition 28 — learned of the measure and stepped forward with concerns. He contendedthe bill would make using the arts money easier, but in wrong ways. He said the bill would undermine the guarantee that new arts funding would reach every school. Also it would in effect eliminate the provision that campuses serving low-income communities receive higher levels of new funding. Moreover — and of key importance — the legislation would allow districts to use the new arts money to replace existing arts funding, leaving students no better off than before, he said.

Beutner had structured Proposition 28 precisely to prevent this supplanting of funds. Districts not willing to provide the required increased instruction at every school would, by design, lose access to the new arts money.

Beutner began to rally opposition, including United Teachers Los Angeles, L.A. mayoral candidate Nithya Raman and San Diego school board President Richard Barrera, who is running for state superintendent of public instruction — and who has the endorsement of the California Teachers Assn.

Beutner also announced his attention to file litigation against the bill.

Muratsuchi said he had no intent to undermine the goals of Proposition 28 — and a compromise soon emerged.

The final version — which has Beutner’s approval — clarifies that small schools or small school districts can pool their money to share an arts teacher, provided that every school gets the additional arts instruction. The bill also gives some legal protection for school districts against financial penalties if their arts funding decreases as a result of factors beyond their control, such as the expiration of a grant.

An LAUSD lawsuit continues

Beutner alleges that L.A. Unified has intentionally misused the new arts money.

Beutner pursued passage of Proposition 28 after serving as superintendent of L.A. Unified. His stint ended in mid-2021 with the expiration of a three-year contract.

“LAUSD has done exactly what the law prohibits,” Beutner alleged in an ongoing lawsuit filed in February 2025. “It has eliminated existing funding sources for existing art teachers, and replaced those funds with Proposition 28 funds, thereby violating the requirement that the funds supplement rather than supplant existing sources.”

The lawsuit lists 37 elementary schools with the same or reduced money for arts instruction from 2022-23 to 2023-24 — when the new funding first arrived — and alleges that most L.A. Unified schools faced a similar funding situation.

Before the lawsuit, but in response to growing criticism, L.A. Unified officials quietly added $30 million to the elementary school arts budget for the 2024-25 school year amid ongoing accusations from Beutner, union leaders and parents.

The district has defended its actions.

“We continue to follow implementation guidance as provided by the state of California to ensure that we are fully complying with the requirements of Prop. 28,” the district said in a statement at the time of the lawsuit, a contention that it has made repeatedly.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed a bill that prohibits third-party brokers from advertising, selling or transferring tee-time reservations at publicly owned golf courses without the written consent of the course operator.

The state legislation is a response to a network of brokers that had sprouted up around Los Angeles municipal golf course tee times.

These brokers, many of whom were in the Korean community, would gobble up tee times, then advertise them on social media, particularly the Korean app KakaoTalk. They charged up to $40 as a booking fee.

Getting tee-time reservations at L.A. municipal golf courses had long been difficult. But after golf influencer Dave Fink revealed evidence of the broker network to his viewers, the problem became public.

“This is an issue that affects everybody who pays taxes in the city, and anybody who plays golf as well, so I just felt like it was my duty to say something,” Fink said in an interview with The Times in March 2024.

After Fink’s videos went viral, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks announced an investigation into the practice.

The state has more than 200 municipally owned golf courses, according to Assemblymember Christopher M. Ward (D-San Diego), who authored the bill.

“Public golf courses belong to the public, and residents shouldn’t have to compete with brokers buying up tee times just to turn around and sell them at inflated prices,” he said in a statement Sunday.

The legislation “puts an end,” he said, “to this unfair practice and helps ensure local residents, seniors, students and families can continue accessing the public courses their communities support.”