bill

Rare bipartisan bill requires data centres to pay for infrastructure, but environmental groups say it falls short.

The United States Senate has voted to move forward on a bipartisan bill that would speed up the process to build new data centres and energy infrastructure in the country.

Nearly all of the chamber’s Republicans, as well as more than a dozen Democrats, voted 73-25 on Monday to take up the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, which supporters, including US President Donald Trump, have said is necessary to meet the nation’s growing demand for electricity.

“This Bill is a BIG WIN for U.S. ENERGY INDEPENDENCE and DOMINANCE”, Trump posted on social media Monday as he encouraged lawmakers to support it.

The legislation would overhaul the permitting process for major energy projects – both clean energy and fossil fuel-run – across the US, reduce deadlines for environmental reviews and impose restrictions on when projects can be challenged in the country’s courts. It would also force owners of energy-hungry data centres to pay for the infrastructure that is needed to power them.

Growing anger in the US over those facilities’ use in powering artificial intelligence (AI), which has resulted in rising electricity bills for customers across the country, helped fuel last week’s takeover of the US Congress by Democrats.

“The people sent us a very clear message on Tuesday that they expect us to lower the costs in their daily lives,” Democratic Senator Martin Heinrich, the ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said on Monday. “We don’t have to wait for the new Congress to start lowering costs. We can do that today.”

Authors of the bill claim it will provide $19bn in savings on residential electricity bills through 2040. The number of solar and wind projects connecting to the US electric grid would be doubled, with data centres paying $55bn over the next 10 years to cover their power usage.

But despite the bill’s claims of increasing clean energy projects, environmental organisations are opposed to the legislation. They argue it would also lock in development of fossil fuels, weaken environmental laws and make it harder for US residents to challenge projects in their communities.

Earlier this year, a coalition of national groups – including the Climate Justice Alliance, Indigenous Environmental Network and Western Environmental Law Center – issued a joint statement opposing the bill.

“We cannot allow the lies to continue, as the facts are clear: If this backroom permitting reform deal is pushed through, it will enable a no-guardrails buildout of dangerous projects that will harm our health and environment, drive up energy costs, and violate our rights,” they said in September.

“This will be especially harmful for communities of color and lower income neighborhoods already overburdened by pollution and climate impacts.”

While the legislation received rare overwhelming support from both major political parties, the Democrats’ midterm win could complicate its final passage.

Some in the party argue that the legislation should be shelved until new Democratic majorities in the US House and Senate are sworn in early next year.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who is on track to become the body’s new speaker in January, criticised the bill last week, warning it “falls short” in several areas.

“We must once again support the clean energy economy and combat the climate crisis with the fierce urgency of now,” a Jeffries spokesperson said in a statement released to the Associated Press.

Jeffries’s office added: “Leader Jeffries will not rubber-stamp legislation that emerges from the Senate without more constructive involvement with our Caucus as we fight to make life more affordable for the American people.”

A bipartisan plan to speed the federal approval process for major energy and infrastructure projects received the endorsement of President Trump on the eve of a key Senate vote on the bill.

“This Landmark Permitting Reform Legislation will codify our America First Energy Agenda, and ensure that we can build Pipelines, Mines, and Power Plants faster than ever before, lowering Energy Costs for American Families, and creating High Paying American Jobs,” Trump said in a social media post Sunday that urged senators to vote for the bill.

On Monday, the Senate is slated to take a procedural vote on the measure, seen as a once-in-a-generation chance to overhaul the byzantine system for approving projects needed to modernize power grids, build artificial-intelligence data centers and revitalize clean energy development.

The legislation is supported from groups including oil companies and renewable energy developers, but faces hurdles to passage in the two remaining months Congress is in session. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is opposing the bill in its current form, arguing it hasn’t received enough input from House Democrats. Other progressive Democrats say they should use their newfound control of Congress next year to negotiate a better deal.

Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, as well as Republican Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Mike Lee of Utah, unveiled a new version of the bill Saturday, but several environmental groups still opposed it.

“After closely evaluating the full bill and the newly released substitute amendment alongside our state and territorial affiliates, Tribal partners, environmental justice partners, hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation partners, water coalition partners, and other conservation partners, we have concluded we cannot support the legislation in its current form,” Collin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement Sunday.

Natter writes for Bloomberg.

Jordon Hudson is suing the owners of a Massachusetts rental property for their alleged connection to the release of a video that showed her then-boyfriend Bill Belichick shirtless and outside the home while Hudson was renting it in 2023.

In a civil lawsuit filed Friday in Suffolk County Superior Court, Hudson accuses the couple of invasion of privacy, breach of contract and unfair and deceptive conduct after the video, which was captured on a porch security camera, and “personal and private information about Ms. Hudson” were leaked online.

According to the complaint, that leak in November 2023 was the reason the public found out about the romantic relationship between the then-22-year-old former college cheerleader and the then-70-year-old coach of the New England Patriots, who now coaches the North Carolina Tar Heels.

“These outrageous violations of Ms. Hudson’s privacy have, among other things, resulted in significant unwanted publicity and scrutiny of Ms. Hudson and her relationship with Mr. Belichick, which they had intended to remain private, and led to the ridicule and denigration of Ms. Hudson through numerous tabloid stories published by the media,” the complaint states.

“This unwanted scrutiny and the ensuing media stories, which contain false information, has caused significant damage to Ms. Hudson, which would not have occurred had Defendants not leaked Ms. Hudson’s personal and private information.”

The Times was unsuccessful in attempts to reach the defendants for comment.

The complaint states that Hudson booked the rental house for four days through Airbnb in or around June 2023. During her stay, the filing states, Hudson received a text from one of the owners reminding her not to park in front of a neighbor’s property. According to the complaint, the owner also texted Hudson “a link to a Ring video of a shirtless Mr. Belichick walking to and from the Property, which had been captured and saved without the knowledge or authorization of Mr. Belichick or Ms. Hudson (the ‘Ring Video’).”

Hudson then informed the defendant that privacy was important to them and asked if she could delete the video, the lawsuit states, to which she received the response: “We will delete it from ring, but as you know, unfortunately, videos are never totally deleted.”

After the video was leaked and the relationship became public, the complaint states, the same defendant told Hudson, “I absolutely did not leak this video to twitter or anyone.” But in May 2025, according to the filing, the owner told Hudson in a text that while they didn’t release the video publicly, “we had sent it to a few people initially wondering is this him [Mr. Belichick], isn’t it him and I don’t know what happened from there.”

The complaint also accuses the defendants of giving a second porch video of Belichick to journalist Pablo Torre, who aired it on his podcast that same month.

Hudson is requesting a jury trial and seeks unspecified damages and an order “enjoining Defendants from disclosing or disseminating any personal and/or private information related to Ms. Hudson to any third-party.”

Multiple media outlets reported last month that Hudson and Belichick quietly ended their romantic releationship in late 2025 but remain close friends and business partners.

WASHINGTON — House Democratic leaders are placing an early emphasis on healthcare as they discuss their immediate priorities upon the swearing-in of the new Congress on Jan. 3.

Early votes in the House next year are expected to focus on boosting Medicaid and restoring an enhanced tax subsidy that is designed to lower the cost of Affordable Care Act health plans for millions of enrollees.

Democrats are also promising swift action on legislation to stop the war with Iran and to reverse some of President Trump’s tariffs.

“We’re going to get out of the gate fast,” said New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader who is in line to become the next House speaker.

The legislative flurry carries enormous stakes for Democrats as they seek to translate their sweeping victories in the midterms — their numbers will exceed 250 in the 435-member House — into achievements that deliver on their promises to lower the cost of living.

Obstacles for the Democratic agenda

Passing those bills should not be a problem with such a large Democratic House majority. Getting them signed into law most certainly could be.

A 60-vote threshold in the Senate looms for the legislation, as does a potential presidential veto. Trump on election night posted a photo on his social media site of a red hat with a simple message on it: “Veto.”

Following those early votes, Jeffries said five working groups are developing plans to put forward bills that would lower costs in areas such as housing, energy, groceries and caregiving.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) said Democrats will at some point take up legislation dealing with artificial intelligence and data centers. He is part of a group of lawmakers working on a document that will lay out some of the priorities for Jeffries to consider.

“House Republicans last year made a conscious decision to let the AI industry run wild, and that was a bad decision politically and a bad decision on policy,” Lieu said. “Two things will change next term. We will hold public hearings on AI. We will pass legislation, reasonable guardrails on AI, and specifically data centers.”

A return to past political fights

Democrats are trying to reverse Medicaid changes that are expected to cut more than $900 billion from the program over a decade. The Republican-approved cuts helped offset some of the costs of Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill that was signed into law last year. The Medicaid changes in the bill imposed new administrative requirements and added conditions for eligibility, including work requirements.

Some of the most substantial changes have yet to take effect. Still, enrollment in Medicaid has dropped by about 5 million, or about 7%, since July 2025, when the bill was signed into law, according to KFF, a health policy research and news organization.

Reversing those cuts would probably require Trump and the Republicans to abandon the hard-fought changes they made to cut entitlement spending in their signature tax bill. It’s an unlikely proposition.

The effort to extend enhanced tax subsidies for certain enrollees in ACA plans has also been debated and voted on in the current Congress. The measure passed the House with some Republican support but stalled in the Senate.

There also have been numerous war powers votes regarding Iran — 14 in the Senate and six in the House.

Gridlock may be on the horizon

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said going into the election that a Democratic majority in the next Congress would amount to “two years of paralysis.”

“I don’t think that’s good for anybody,” Thune said.

But Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York is insisting that his party will push its agenda with or without the Republican president’s help.

“If he vetoes it, it will show the divisions. As much as we didn’t want to shut down, when we shut down the government for a month over healthcare, people knew we were on their side,” Schumer said in an interview with the New York Times’ podcast “The Daily.”

Schumer said he believes Democrats can gain some Republican votes on restoring the enhanced subsidies for ACA plans. When asked if he was hearing from Republicans expressing a willingness to work with him on legislation, he replied: “They’re never so definitive but, yes, I am getting initial signs that way on certain issues, not on every issue.”

While the prospects for getting any of the early priority bills over the finish line are uncertain, the votes in Congress will help frame the choices voters will face during a presidential election in 2028.

Tensions within the new majority

Progressive groups call the agenda outlined by Jeffries a good early start, but they have much greater expectations for Democrats this Congress.

“It’s perfectly fine if the Senate and the House are unified and Donald Trump is standing in the way because that sets up another tidal wave election in 2028,” said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a Democratic-aligned group that backs progressive candidates and policies.

At the same time, he said Schumer cannot be content to let bills die in the Senate because of the 60-vote threshold.

“It will require the Democrats to get rid of the filibuster,” Green said. “There’s no doubt about it.”

He said there’s a disparity because Republicans’ top priorities — tax cuts and Supreme Court justices — can get through with simple majorities. But the Democratic Party’s top priorities require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

“The only question is will the American public trust Democrats enough to keep giving us more power or will this week’s gains whittle away because we do nothing? That’s why the filibuster is a threshold question,” Green said last week.

Schumer, in an interview with the Associated Press last week, would not say whether he would try to eliminate the filibuster.

“The focus has got to be on getting things done,” Schumer said. “That’s all I am saying.”

In a memo to fellow members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) said Democrats also need to target what he called “powerful forces outside of government.” Examples he cited were corporations using Americans’ private data to adjust their pricing based on a consumer’s personal data and AI companies that he says are putting jobs and lives at risk.

“By focusing not just on the Trump administration but also on big corporations and billionaires, we will show the American people we are not just anti-Trump but also pro-worker and pro-consumer,” Casar said.

Freking writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

Bill Bedgood, who coached Giancarlo Stanton of the New York Yankees when he was an All-CIF basketball player at Sherman Oaks Notre Dame in 2007, supposedly retired from coaching after the 2023-24 season at Valencia.

So what in the name of short retirements is Bedgood back as head coach at Valencia for this season?

“I think I’m in for life,” he said.

Valencia coach Bill Bedgood wipes away a tear while discussing his decision to step down from coaching duties to be only a dad to his son, Bryce, left, in 2023.

(Eric Sondheimer / Los Angeles Times)

Valencia players couldn’t be happier. Bedgood guided the Vikings to section, regional and state titles in 2023. He’s also on everybody’s list for favorite geometry teacher.

Three Valencia basketball players at Saturday’s Foothill League basketball media day raised their hand when asked if they had taken “Mr. Bedgood” for geometry. All got A’s too.

“Probably my favorite class in high school,” point guard Ali Eldein said.

Eldein insisted he wasn’t saying that to gain more playing time.

Valencia has so much depth this season that the practices are more than competitive. The best player in the Foothill League could be 6-foot-7 senior Steven Irons.

In 2023, after winning the state title with his son, Bryce, on the team, Bedgood wiped away tears after announcing he was going to step down after years of coaching at Bishop Alemany, Notre Dame, Saugus and Valencia.

Now it’s clear he has so much loyalty to Valencia and its students that Bedgood might not be retiring again any time soon.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email eric.sondheimer@latimes.com.

Soaring gas prices and a war with Iran. Historically low approval ratings. A potential blue tsunami. A new rape allegation.

President Trump has a lot on his plate, and so too does the nation. Sunday, he took to Truth Social to address the people.

“Let’s talk about this COMPLETE AND TOTAL LOSER, Bill Maher,” the president wrote at the top of his longest post ever.

A fireside chat it was not.

The 1,300-word-plus screed was triggered by Friday’s episode of “Real Time With Bill Maher,” a mainstay on HBO since 2003. The comedian referred to Trump as a “lame duck” president with low approval ratings during a segment with his guest, former White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

Trump, 80, likely expected praise from his fellow curmudgeon Maher, 70, since the men had recently dined together at the White House. It was their second such date following a controversial get-together in March 2025, which Maher juiced for all it was worth in an effort to stand out from his fellow late-night hosts.

Maher’s chummy relationship with Trump has made him an outlier among his peers, many of whom have been in the president’s crosshairs.

CBS canceled Stephen Colbert’s show after decades on the air following pressure from Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chair. Trump has bitterly complained about being treated unfairly by Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Meyers. They, too, now have targets on their backs.

Maher has avoided the same fate by railing on Trump only half as much as his late-night peers, leaning into various MAGA grievances about the “woke” left and forging a fair-weather friendship with the second-term president.

If the Maher of 2003 could see himself now, he’d likely dedicate a searing monologue to the hypocrisy. The host was once positioned as an irreverent comedian whose political satire was guided by his no-BS take on Capitol Hill and American culture. Common sense over party fealty. Political correctness be damned.

But as the political landscape has shifted, so too has Maher’s approach.

Now he plays the role of a staunchly nonpartisan crank on TV while dining with the president in person.

“Yeah, I did it again, b—!” Maher said to his audience Friday. “I know. I’m the bad guy because I go and say face-to-face to the man the things you write in articles that he’ll never read, but OK. You know what? F— you. I like these dinners.”

So brave. So calculated.

Maher was dipping back into the attention he received in 2025, when he first dined with Trump and described the president as “gracious and measured.”

Their rendezvous was just the sort of thing the comedian would have mercilessly lampooned if he wasn’t in fact part of the joke. Fellow comedians such as Patton Oswalt have criticized the HBO host for placating Trump, while Larry David satirized Maher’s first date with the president in a New York Times essay titled “My Dinner With Adolf.”

The controversy was a boon for “Real Time,” boosting its waning relevance by putting Maher back in the news and reinforcing the tired charade that his fearlessness knows no bounds.

This week’s public skirmish was a repeat performance, if not a somewhat pathetic display of both men’s need to agitate for attention.

Maher told his audience on Friday’s episode that he spoke with the president about deadly ICE incidents, Ukraine and how Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was “dragging” Trump down. In closing, he assured the audience he was no pushover by poking at the president’s recent favorable dealings with Russia (a diesel deal, lifting sanctions), then saying, “I could not have been treated better if I was Russian.”

Given the president’s delicate psyche, Maher knew anything short of absolute praise would be perceived as an insult. As for the knock about Trump’s slumping approval numbers? A sure trigger.

In Sunday’s Truth Social manifesto, Trump referred to Maher as a “biased, dumb SLEAZEBAG” whose program is plagued by low ratings. The president also alleged that the comedian was drunk and had a drink in hand as he toured the White House on Oct. 15, and that Maher is a “major POTHEAD” who “looked like hell this time.”

So much for Trump’s initial comments about their meeting. He had told reporters that it was “a great dinner.”

“Bill Maher, I tell you what, he likes me a lot more than people understand,” Trump said. “And I actually like him.”

Not unlike Trump, Maher also enjoys praise, and blames the “woke left” when he doesn’t get it.

The typically smug host appeared upset earlier this year at the Golden Globes when presenter Wanda Sykes roasted him and another nominee up for best performance in stand-up comedy on television, Ricky Gervais.

“There’s some people pissed off that a queer Black woman is up here doing the job of two mediocre white guys,” Sykes said. “… But first, I want to give them some love.” Addressing Maher directly, she said, “You give us so much. But I would love a little less. Just try less.” The camera panned to a stone-faced Maher, who appeared “butthurt” (a term he likes using to dismiss the gripes of folks he gripes about).

The bruised feelings didn’t stop there. Later, on Maher’s “Club Random” podcast, he vented about being passed over by Hollywood.

“I’ve been nominated for 33 Emmys, and they would never give it to me,” he told his guest Joel Edgerton. “I speak freely, and this woke town f— hates that. That’s OK. I’ve made my peace with that, so I know how this goes.”

If Maher has been “soft-canceled” by the industry, as he claims, then Hollywood has a funny way of showing its disdain: HBO renewed “Real Time” through 2028.

Perhaps he learned from his frenemy Trump that grievance politics sells, and it’s time to cash in.

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.