Bill

With his million-dollar donation to the pro-Obama “super PAC,” Bill Maher has established himself among the top Democratic mega-donors, a field dotted with boldface Hollywood names.

Donors from the entertainment industry gave $2.2 million through January to Priorities USA Action, according to the Center for Responsive Politics — half of the group’s overall fundraising since it formed last spring.

Much of that came from a single donation by Dreamworks Animation CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg, who wrote a $2-million check to the group last May. His former producing partner, director Steven Spielberg, contributed $100,000 in July.

Director/producer J.J. Abrams and his wife, Katie McGrath, kicked in a combined $100,000 to the group in June.

Each new round of Federal Election Commission filings have revealed a new set of million-dollar donors, although the vast majority have given to super PACs supporting Republican candidates or the GOP as a whole.

And none of those prolific givers have made their pledges quite as public as Maher, who brandished a gigantic check onstage at his comedy special CrazyStupidPolitics.

Maher’s past political giving has been relatively modest – a total of $4,850 given since 2004, mainly to the Democratic presidential campaigns of Sen. John F. Kerry, former Sen. John Edwards and then-Sen. Barack Obama, as well as to the successful 2008 Senate run for fellow comedian Al Franken.

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration are increasingly anxious that an ongoing standoff with Democrats over reopening the government may drag into Thanksgiving week, one of the country’s busiest travel periods.

Already, hundreds of flights have been canceled since the Federal Aviation Administration issued an unprecedented directive limiting flight operations at the nation’s biggest airports, including in Los Angeles, New York, Miami and Washington, D.C.

Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, told Fox News on Thursday that the administration is prepared to mitigate safety concerns if the shutdown continues into the holiday week, leaving air traffic controllers without compensation over multiple payroll cycles. But “will you fly on time? Will your flight actually go? That is yet to be seen,” the secretary said.

While under 3% of flights have currently been grounded, that number could rise to 20% by the holiday week, he added.

“It’s really hard — really hard — to navigate a full month of no pay, missing two pay periods. So I think you’re going to have more significant disruptions in the airspace,” Duffy said. “And as we come into Thanksgiving, if we’re still in a shutdown posture, it’s gonna be rough out there. Really rough.”

Senate Republicans said they are willing to work through the weekend, up through Veterans Day, to come up with an agreement with Democrats that could end the government shutdown, which is already the longest in history.

But congressional Democrats believe their leverage has only grown to extract more concessions from the Trump administration as the shutdown goes on.

A strong showing in races across the country in Tuesday’s elections buoyed optimism among Democrats that the party finally has some momentum, as it focuses its messaging on affordability and a growing cost-of-living crisis for the middle class.

Democrats have withheld the votes needed to reopen the government over Republican refusals to extend Affordable Care Act tax credits. As a result, Americans who get their healthcare through the ACA marketplace have begun seeing dramatic premium hikes since open enrollment began on Nov. 1 — further fueling Democratic confidence that Republicans will face a political backlash for their shutdown stance.

Now, Democratic demands have expanded, insisting Republicans guarantee that federal workers get paid back for their time furloughed or working without pay — and that those who were fired get their jobs back.

A bill introduced by Republican Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, called the “Shutdown Fairness Act,” would ensure that federal workers receive back pay during a government funding lapse. But Democrats have objected to a vote on the measure that’s not tied to their other demands, on ACA tax breaks and the status of fired workers.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota, has proposed passing a clean continuing resolution already passed by the House followed by separate votes on three bills that would fund the government through the year. But his Democratic counterpart said Friday he wants to attach a vote on extending the ACA tax credits to an extension of government funding.

Democrats, joined by some Republicans, are also demanding protections built in to any government spending bills that would safeguard federal programs against the Trump administration withholding funds appropriated by Congress, a process known as impoundment.

President Trump, for his part, blamed the ongoing shutdown for Tuesday’s election results earlier this week, telling Republican lawmakers that polling shows the continuing crisis is hurting their party. But he also continues to advocate for Thune to do away with the filibuster, a core Senate rule requiring 60 votes for bills that fall outside the budget reconciliation process, and simply reopen the government with a vote down party lines.

“If the filibuster is terminated, we will have the most productive three years in the history of our country,” Trump told reporters on Friday at a White House event. “If the filibuster is not terminated, then we will be in a slog, with the Democrats.”

So far, Thune has rejected that request. But the majority leader said Thursday that “the pain this shutdown has caused is only getting worse,” warning that 40 million Americans risk food insecurity as funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program lapses.

The Trump administration lost a court case this week arguing that it could withhold SNAP benefits, a program that was significantly defunded in the president’s “one big beautiful bill” act earlier this year.

“Will the far left not be satisfied until federal workers and military families are getting their Thanksgiving dinner from a food bank? Because that’s where we’re headed,” Thune added.

RAPPER Chris Brown footed a £160,240 booze bill during a wild night out in London.

The US star — on bail for assault — partied with his entourage in the capital ahead of his trial next year.

One session involved at least four bottles of £2,900-a-time Louis Roederer Cristal Magnum Champagne at the Selene nightclub, which promises “the epitome of ultimate pleasure”.

Days later, the West End club posted the anonymous megabucks receipt on social media.

Some of those who partied with him — including models and other rappers — have revealed Chris footed the bill.

His entourage also posted the receipt alongside shots of a private jet and luxury hotel suites from his ten-day visit, after he flew in on October 18.

RAPPER’S RETURN

Singer Chris Brown can return to US from UK after ‘bottle attack’ claims

JAIL HOUSE ROCK

Chris Brown sings to lags as star’s thank-you note to inmate pal revealed

One insider told The Sun: “Chris lives life in the fast lane and thinks nothing of splashing out on the best there is.”

Brown is set to stand trial in London next October, accused of attacking music producer Abraham Diaw at the Tape club in Mayfair in 2023.

He denies ABH, attempted GBH and having an offensive weapon — a tequila bottle.

The rapper’s agents were approached for comment.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — Republicans narrowly defeated a bipartisan bill in the Senate requiring congressional approval for military action against Venezuela as the Trump administration continues a military buildup in the region and attacks on alleged drug boats in nearby waters.

The GOP lawmakers rejected Senate Joint Resolution 90 in a 51-49 vote on Thursday evening, with Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska casting ballots in favor of the measure with their Democratic colleagues.

The resolution was introduced by Paul, and Democratic Sens. Adam Schiff of California and Tim Kaine of Virginia in response to reporting that President Donald Trump was considering military ground strikes against Venezuela.

Venezuela has long been a target of Trump, who, during his first administration, launched a failed multiyear pressure campaign to oust its authoritarian leader, President Nicolas Maduro.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has used his executive powers to target drug cartels, including the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang. Trump has claimed, without providing evidence, that TdA has “invaded” the United States at Maduro’s direction, despite his own National Intelligence Council concluding in May that the regime “probably does not have a policy of cooperating” with TdA.

The vote was held as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a 17th known military strike on an alleged drug trafficking boat in Caribbean international waters. Since Sept. 2, the United States has killed around 70 people in the attacks.

The attacks have drawn domestic and international criticism and allegations of war crimes, murder and extrajudicial killings. Some Democrats called on the Trump administration to answer questions over the legality of the strikes without gaining proper congressional approval.

Following the Thursday vote, Kaine said the Trump administration told some members of Congress that it lacked legal authority to launch any attacks into Venezuela. Some worry that an attack could devolve into a full-scale war.

“Trump’s illegal strikes on boats in the Caribbean and threats of land strikes in Venezuela recklessly and unnecessarily put the U.S. at risk of war,” Kaine said in a statement.

In a separate statement, he criticized his Republican colleagues, stating: “If the U.S. is going to put our nation’s sons and daughters into harm’s way, then we should have a robust debate in Congress in front of the American people.”

Sen. Todd Young, a Republican of Indiana, voted against the bill on Thursday, and explained in a statement that he has been informed of the legal rationale behind the strikes and does not believe the resolution is appropriate right now, but that could change.

“My vote is not an endorsement of the administration’s current course in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. As a matter of policy, I am troubled by many aspects and assumptions of this operation and believe it is at odds with the majority of Americans who want the U.S. military less entangled in international conflicts,” he said.

California’s tech companies, the epicenter of the state’s economy, sent politicians a loud message this year: Back down from restrictive artificial intelligence regulation or they’ll leave.

The tactic appeared to have worked, activists said, because some politicians weakened or scrapped guardrails to mitigate AI’s biggest risks.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom rejected a bill aimed at making companion chatbots safer for children after the tech industry fought it. In his veto message, the governor raised concerns about placing broad limits on AI, which has sparked a massive investment spree and created new billionaires overnight around the San Francisco Bay Area.

Assembly Bill 1064 would have barred companion chatbot operators from making these AI systems available to minors unless the chatbots weren’t “foreseeably capable” of certain conduct, including encouraging a child to engage in self-harm. Newsom said he supported the goal, but feared it would unintentionally bar minors from using AI tools and learning how to use technology safely.

“We cannot prepare our youth for a future where AI is ubiquitous by preventing their use of these tools altogether,” he wrote in his veto message.

The bill’s veto was a blow to child safety advocates who had pushed it through the state Legislature and a win for tech industry groups that fought it. In social media ads, groups such as TechNet had urged the public to tell the governor to veto the bill because it would harm innovation and lead to students falling behind in school.

Organizations trying to rein in the world’s largest tech companies as they advance the powerful technology say the tech industry has become more empowered at the national and state levels.

Meta, Google, OpenAI, Apple and other major tech companies have strengthened their relationships with the Trump administration. Companies are funding new organizations and political action committees to push back against state AI policy while pouring money into lobbying.

In Sacramento, AI companies have lobbied behind the scenes for more freedom. California’s massive pool of engineering talent, tech investors and companies make it an attractive place for the tech industry, but companies are letting policymakers know that other states are also interested in attracting those investments and jobs. Big Tech is particularly sensitive to regulations in the Golden State because so many companies are headquartered there and must abide by its rules.

“We believe California can strike a better balance between protecting consumers and enabling responsible technological growth,” Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, said in a statement.

Common Sense Media founder and Chief Executive Jim Steyer said tech lobbyists put tremendous pressure on Newsom to veto AB 1064. Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that rates and reviews technology and entertainment for families, sponsored the bill.

“They threaten to hurt the economy of California,” he said. “That’s the basic message from the tech companies.”

Advertising is among the tactics tech companies with deep pockets use to convince politicians to kill or weaken legislation. Even if the governor signs a bill, companies have at times sued to block new laws from taking effect.

“If you’re really trying to do something bold with tech policy, you have to jump over a lot of hurdles,” said David Evan Harris, senior policy advisor at the California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which supported AB 1064. The group focuses on finding state-level solutions to threats that AI, disinformation and emerging technologies pose to democracy.

Tech companies have threatened to move their headquarters and jobs to other states or countries, a risk looming over politicians and regulators.

The California Chamber of Commerce, a broad-based business advocacy group that includes tech giants, launched a campaign this year that warned over-regulation could stifle innovation and hinder California.

“Making competition harder could cause California companies to expand elsewhere, costing the state’s economy billions,” the group said on its website.

From January to September, the California Chamber of Commerce spent $11.48 million lobbying California lawmakers and regulators on a variety of bills, filings to the California secretary of state show. During that period, Meta spent $4.13 million. A lobbying disclosure report shows that Meta paid the California Chamber of Commerce $3.1 million, making up the bulk of their spending. Google, which also paid TechNet and the California Chamber of Commerce, spent $2.39 million.

Amazon, Uber, DoorDash and other tech companies spent more than $1 million each. TechNet spent around $800,000.

The threat that California companies could move away has caught the attention of some politicians.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who has investigated tech companies over child safety concerns, indicated that despite initial concern, his office wouldn’t oppose ChatGPT maker OpenAI’s restructuring plans. The new structure gives OpenAI’s nonprofit parent a stake in its for-profit public benefit corporation and clears the way for OpenAI to list its shares.

Bonta blessed the restructuring partly because of OpenAI’s pledge to stay in the state.

“Safety will be prioritized, as well as a commitment that OpenAI will remain right here in California,” he said in a statement last week. The AG’s office, which supervises charitable trusts and ensures these assets are used for public benefit, had been investigating OpenAI’s restructuring plan over the last year and a half.

OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman said he’s glad to stay in California.

“California is my home, and I love it here, and when I talked to Attorney General Bonta two weeks ago I made clear that we were not going to do what those other companies do and threaten to leave if sued,” he posted on X.

Critics — which included some tech leaders such as Elon Musk, Meta and former OpenAI executives as well as nonprofits and foundations — have raised concerns about OpenAI’s restructuring plan. Some warned it would allow startups to exploit charitable tax exemptions and let OpenAI prioritize financial gain over public good.

Lawmakers and advocacy groups say it’s been a mixed year for tech regulation. The governor signed Assembly Bill 56, which requires platforms to display labels for minors that warn about social media’s mental health harms. Another piece of signed legislation, Senate Bill 53, aims to make AI developers more transparent about safety risks and offers more whistleblower protections.

The governor also signed a bill that requires chatbot operators to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content. But advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, removed their support for Senate Bill 243 because they said the tech industry pushed for changes that weakened its protections.

Newsom vetoed other legislation that the tech industry opposed, including Senate Bill 7, which requires employers to notify workers before deploying an “automated decision system” in hiring, promotions and other employment decisions.

Called the “No Robo Bosses Act,” the legislation didn’t clear the governor, who thought it was too broad.

“A lot of nuance was demonstrated in the lawmaking process about the balance between ensuring meaningful protections while also encouraging innovation,” said Julia Powles, a professor and executive director of the UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy.

The battle over AI safety is far from over. Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said she plans to revive the legislation.

Child safety is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans are examining after parents sued AI companies such as OpenAI and Character.AI for allegedly contributing to their children’s suicides.

“The harm that these chatbots are causing feels so fast and furious, public and real that I thought we would have a different outcome,” Bauer-Kahan said. “It’s always fascinating to me when the outcome of policy feels to be disconnected from what I believe the public wants.”

Steyer from Common Sense Media said a new ballot initiative includes the AI safety protections that Newsom vetoed.

“That was a setback, but not an overall defeat,” he said about the veto of AB 1064. “This is a David and Goliath situation, and we are David.”

Roshni Ward, 30, and Louis Hunt, 33, were fed up with the UK and high living costs

A British couple, fed up with the UK’s “poor work-life balance” and cost of living, have found their own paradise where their water bill is a few pounds and a meal out costs a fraction of what it does at home. They say that, in Thailand, they save a whopping £1,000 a month on rent and pay just £2.76 for water bills.

Roshni Ward, 30, and her fiancé Louis Hunt, 33, were exhausted from working 11-hour days and overtime in their flat in Rye, East Sussex, and yearned for a “slower pace of life”. The pair decided to pack their bags and move to Chiang Mai, Thailand, last September.

They were instantly smitten with the laid-back lifestyle, friendly locals, balmy 30C weather, and breathtaking architecture. Their monthly rent is now a mere £300, which includes access to a gym and pool, while water bills are only £2.76, taxis cost £1.50, and takeaways are just £2. This has resulted in savings of over £1,000 compared to their previous UK rent of £1,350.

Roshni, who now works as a content creator, said: “We always wanted to move abroad and had toyed with the idea of it. The UK didn’t feel safe and a poor work-life balance meant we were too burnt out to enjoy life.

“Since moving, we love the slower pace of life, as well as the weather, the rich culture and the welcoming locals. And the cost of everything is so much lower, which was a shock to the system – in a good way! If we can help it, we won’t come back to the UK.”

Roshni and Louis began earnestly considering an overseas relocation following their return from a Thai getaway in December 2024. Roshni was employed full-time as a corporate team leader in broadband sales and revealed she’d frequently find herself putting in extra hours at weekends, preventing her from unwinding and savouring her leisure time.

Louis was employed full-time as a carpenter, enduring 11-hour shifts including his commute, and would become physically drained as well.

Roshni said: “There was a poor work-life balance. When we got to the weekend, we were so burnt out that we didn’t want to do anything.”

They also felt insecure in the UK, especially Roshni as a woman, owing to crime rates, and recalled from their December break that they felt considerably safer in Thailand. So the moment their lease on their rented property in Rye expired, they started searching for rental properties in Thailand and relocated to Chiang Mai on September 3.

Roshni and Louis both quit their UK positions – with Roshni becoming a full-time content creator and Louis becoming an online fitness coach. She said the residents were all incredibly friendly and everyone was prepared to assist you if you were struggling.

There is a substantial community of international expats, providing plenty of chances to encounter fresh faces and mingle. The pair love exploring stunning temples, elephant sanctuaries, Thai eateries and waterfalls.

Roshni said: “There’s something for everyone in Chiang Mai.”

The couple have discovered that swapping the UK for Thailand has slashed their living costs dramatically. Despite both working remotely for international clients and earning UK wages, they’ve found life in Thailand to be a fraction of the cost.

Their stylish condo, just a ten-minute drive from the city centre and boasting a gym, swimming pool and co-working area, sets them back a mere £300 per month. This is a stark contrast to their previous flat in the UK which cost them a hefty £1,350 each month.

Utility bills are also significantly cheaper, with water costing a mere £2.76 compared to the UK’s steep £76. Even getting around is a bargain – a 20-minute taxi ride in Thailand will only set you back £1.50.

Electricity bills are another area where they’re making huge savings, paying just £44 compared to the UK’s whopping £300. And because taxis are so affordable, they’ve ditched owning a car or bike, saving even more on fuel and maintenance costs.

Eating out is also a steal, with takeaways costing between £1.50 and £2, and a full meal and drinks at a restaurant coming in at just £8 – a far cry from the UK, where it would be around £60. Roshni added that pints of beer are “no more than £2”.

The only item they’ve found to be pricier in Thailand is Bisto gravy granules, setting them back around £5 due to import costs. But despite the financial benefits, what they love most about their new home is the slower pace of life and the rich culture.

Roshni said: “In the mornings we can get lie-ins, go to the gym, have a swim and then start work. In the UK, everyone starts early and is asleep by 11pm, here, you could finish work at 10pm and everything is still open. Louis has some UK clients – he can have a business call at 11pm and we can still go out for a meal after.”

They are smitten with the culture – the opportunity to visit stunning temples, elephant sanctuaries and tours – as well as the tranquil and friendly locals.

She said: “Anyone will stop and help you if you need it. In the UK, if someone foreign came up to you asking for help, most people wouldn’t stop.”

Despite their short stay in Thailand, they are so enamoured that they can’t envision returning to the UK.

Roshni revealed: “We would like to stay permanently. We’d be more open to starting a family here than in the UK because it’s so much safer. We’ve just fallen in love.”

Costs: UK vs Thailand

Monthly rent: £1,350 vs £300

Monthly water bills: £76 vs £2.76

Monthly electric: £300 vs £44

Monthly transport: £95 for car costs vs £30 for taxi

Meal out: £60 vs £8

Pint of lager: £5.50 vs £2

Oct. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Senate has passed legislation terminating the national emergency declared by President Donald Trump to impose tariffs on Canada, a day after it terminated the United States’ tariffs on Brazil.

Republicans Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, joined their Democratic colleagues in a 50-46 vote to pass S.J. Res. 77 on Wednesday evening.

“Tonight, the Senate came together and sent President Trump a clear, bipartisan message: he cannot continue to abuse his power and unilaterally wage a trade war against one of our strongest allies,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said in a statement.

“We cannot afford to keep raising costs, hurting businesses and eliminating jobs by attacking our neighbor and ally.”

The move is mostly symbolic as it is not expected to be taken up by the Republican-controlled House.

Tariffs have been a central mechanism in Trump’s trade and foreign policy, using them to right what he sees as improper trade relations as well as to penalize nations he feels are doing him and the United States wrong.

In February, Trump announced 25% tariffs on Canadian imports under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, attracting retaliatory tariffs from Ottawa.

Then, in August, Trump raised tariffs on Canada to 35%.

Over the weekend, Trump announced a further 10% tariff on Canada over anti-tariff aired by Ontario’s provincial government.

The legislation passed Wednesday seeks to cancel the declared emergency, under which the tariffs were imposed.

“In order to strengthen our weakening economy, we need stability and strong relationships around the world — not chaotic trade wars that raise prices, shut American businesses out of foreign markets and decrease tourism to the U.S.,” Kaine, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

Relations between Canada and the United States, the closest of allies, have greatly soured under the second Trump administration. From tariffs to comments about annexing Canada, Ottawa and its citizens have begun to turn away from the United States in distrust and frustration to strengthen trade and defensive relations with Europe.

On Tuesday, five Republicans joined the Democrats to pass a similar bill seeking to end Trump’s tariffs on Brazil.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge has disqualified President Donald Trump‘s top prosecutor in Los Angeles, ruling Bill Essayli has been unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California since late July.

The order was issued Tuesday by Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Federal District Court in Hawaii, stating Essayli “is not lawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California.”

The effect of the order, however, was unclear, as it states that though he may not continue in the role as interim U.S. attorney, he may continue to perform his duties as first assistant United States attorney.

“For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing,” Essayli said in a statement.

“I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California.”

The ruling comes in response to motions filed by three defendants seeking to dismiss indictments brought against them and to disqualify Essayli as acting U.S. attorney.

Essayli, who was appointed by the Trump administration, was sworn in on April 2 to serve as the interim U.S. attorney for 120 days.

As his term was nearing its end on July 31, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Essayli as a special attorney, effective upon his resignation as interim U.S. attorney.

In his ruling Tuesday, Seabright, a President George W. Bush appointee, said that Essayli assumed the role of acting U.S. attorney in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the amount of time prosecutors may fill federal positions without Senate approval.

“Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. He has been unlawfully serving in that capacity since his resignation from the interim role on July 29, 2025,” he said.

“He is disqualified from serving in that role.”

Despite his ruling on Essayli, Seabright denied the three defendants’ request to dismiss their indictments, stating “the prosecutions remain valid.”

The ruling is the latest going against the Trump administration’s attempts to employ people in high-ranking positions without securing congressional approval.

In August, a federal judge ruled Alina Habba, a former personal Trump lawyer, was illegally serving as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey after her 12-day interim term expired.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah had been unlawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada.

Both decisions are being appealed.

SACRAMENTO — Though hailed by some for signing new laws to combat antisemitism in California schools, Gov. Gavin Newsom expressed enough reservations about the bills to urge state lawmakers to make some changes.

Supporters of the legislation, Senate Bill 48 and Assembly Bill 715, said it was needed to protect Jewish students on campus, while opponents argued it was broadly written and would stifle free speech and classroom discussions about current events in the Middle East, including the Israel-Hamas war.

Newsom, when he signed the bills, directed legislators to work quickly on a follow-up measure to address “urgent concerns about unintended consequences.”

The governor made similar requests for nearly a dozen other major bills he signed into law this year, including measures providing safeguards on artificial intelligence, protections for children online and banning law enforcement officers donning masks — a direct response to federal agents hiding their identities during immigration raids across the state.

Newsom’s addendums provide a glimpse into the sometimes flawed or incomplete process of crafting new laws, at times hastily at the end of legislative session, requiring flaws or unresolved conflicts to be remedied later.

San Jose State University professor emeritus and political analyst Larry Gerston said governors sometimes go this route when, despite having concerns, they feel the legislation is too urgent to veto.

“I think you are looking at a situation where he thought the issue was sufficiently important and needed to go ahead and get it moving,” he said.

Gerston, however, noted those with a cynical view of politics could argue governors use this tactic as a way to undo or water down legislation that — for various political reasons — they wanted to pass in the moment.

“Depending upon your attitude toward the governor, politics and legislation, [that viewpoint] could be right or wrong,” he said.

One of the authors of the antisemitism bills, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), said he will put forth another measure next year and continue working with educational organizations and the California Legislative Jewish Caucus to ensure the right balance is struck.

“The assertions that the bill is intended to prevent instruction about controversial topics, including topics related to Israel, is just not accurate,” said Zbur, who introduced AB 715. “We will be making sure that it’s clear that instruction on complicated issues, on controversial issues, that critical education can continue to take place.”

Zbur said he will reexamine a provision requiring the “factual accuracy” of instructional materials.

“One of the things that we’ve agreed to do was focus on making sure that the bill continues to meet its goal, but revisit that factually accurate language to make sure that, for example, you can continue to teach [works of] fiction in the classroom,” he said.

Another new law flagged by Newsom bans local and federal agents from wearing masks or facial coverings during operations.

The governor approved Senate Bill 627 — carried by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) — last month as a response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that are often conducted by masked agents in unmarked cars. Newsom said it was unacceptable for “secret police” to grab people off the streets.

“This bill establishes important transparency and public accountability measures to protect public safety, but it requires follow-up legislation,” Newsom wrote in his signing statement. “Given the importance of the issue, the legislature must craft a bill that prevents unnecessary masking without compromising law enforcement operations.”

Newsom said clarifications about safety gear and additional exemptions for legitimate law enforcement activities were needed.

“I read this bill as permitting the use of motorcycle or other safety helmets, sunglasses, or other standard law enforcement gear not designed or used for the purpose of hiding anyone’s identity, but the follow-up legislation must also remove any uncertainty or ambiguities,” he wrote.

Wiener agreed to revisit the measure.

“I’m committed to working with the Governor’s office to further refine SB 627 early next year to ensure it is as workable as possible for many law enforcement officers working in good faith,” he said.

California is the first state to ban masking for federal law enforcement and the law will likely be challenged in court. The move drew ire from U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who called the legislation “despicable” and said forcing officers to reveal their faces increases their risk of being targeted by criminals.

Newsom is also urging legislators to adjust two new tech-related laws from Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland).

Assembly Bill 853, dubbed the California AI Transparency Act, is intended to help people identify content created by artificial intelligence. It requires large online platforms, such as social media sites, to provide accessible provenance data on uploaded content starting in 2027. Provenance data is information about the origin and modification history of online content.

In his signing statement, Newsom called the legislation a “critical step” but said it could interfere with privacy.

“Some stakeholders remain concerned that provisions of the bill, while well-intentioned, present implementation challenges that could lead to unintended consequences, including impairment of user privacy,” he wrote. “I encourage the legislature to enact follow up legislation in 2026, before the law takes effect, to address these technical feasibility issues.”

Assembly Bill 1043 aims to help prevent children from viewing inappropriate content online. It directs operating system providers to allow parents to input their children’s ages when setting up equipment such as laptops or smartphones, and then requires users to be grouped in different age brackets. It gained approval from tech companies including Meta and Google while others raised concerns.

“Streaming services and video game developers contend that this bill’s framework, while well-suited to traditional software applications, does not fit their respective products,” Newsom wrote in his signing statement. “Many of these companies have existing age verification systems in place, addressing complexities such as multi-user accounts shared by a family and user profiles utilized across multiple devices.”

The governor urged lawmakers to address those concerns before the law is set to take effect in 2027.

Wicks was unavailable for comment.

Chelsea Clinton is already running for a second term — as a mom!

“Next summer, Charlotte is going to be a big sister! Feeling very blessed & grateful this holiday season,” the former first daughter said Monday on Twitter. She and husband Marc Mezvinsky had their first child, Charlotte Clinton Mezvinsky, in late September 2014.

The announcement featured a picture of Charlotte eyeballing a book titled “Big Sisters Are the Best.” (Perhaps the little one’s next read will be her mom’s book “It’s Your World: Get Informed, Get Inspired & Get Going”? OK, we’ll give her some time …)

Grandparents Bill and Hillary Clinton were quick to jump in with official congratulations.

Follow Christie D’Zurilla on Twitter @theCDZ and Google+. Follow the Ministry of Gossip on Twitter @LATcelebs.

Follow Christie D’Zurilla on Twitter @theCDZ and Google+. Follow the Ministry of Gossip on Twitter @LATcelebs.

SACRAMENTO — State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has emerged as one of California’s most vocal critics of President Trump, will run next year for the congressional seat held by former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

A formal announcement from Wiener is expected next week, the San Francisco Standard reported.

Erik Mebust, a spokesperson for Wiener, declined to comment.

Wiener, 55, has already declared his intention to eventually run for the seat held by Pelosi and has raised $1 million through an exploratory committee. But he previously indicated that he would wait until Pelosi, who was first elected in 1987, stepped down.

That calculus changed, according to the Standard, when Saikat Chakrabarti, a progressive candidate, entered the race for Pelosi’s seat.

Ian Krager, spokesperson for Pelosi, released a statement saying Pelosi was focused on Proposition 50, which will be on the ballot in California’s Nov. 4 special election. The measure would redraw California’s congressional districts in favor of Democrats and was pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and California Democratic leaders after President Trump urged Texas to reconfigure the state’s district to elect five more Republicans to Congress, part of an effort to keep the GOP in control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Speaker Pelosi is fully focused on her mission to win the Yes on 50 special election in California on November 4th. She urges all Californians to join in that mission on the path to taking back the House for the Democrats.”

Pelosi, 85, hasn’t indicated whether will she run again. If she does seek another term, her age could be a factor at a time when younger Democrats are eager to see a new wave of leaders.

Pelosi was among several top politicians who persuaded then-President Biden to forgo a second term after widespread concerns about his age.

Wiener, elected to the state Senate in 2016, is best-known for his work pushing local governments to add more housing density.

He is a member of the California LGBTQ+ Caucus and has been a leading advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. If elected, Wiener would be the first openly gay person to represent San Francisco in Congress.

Before his election to the state Legislature, Wiener served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and worked as a deputy city attorney in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office.

Newsom last week signed Wiener’s Senate Bill 79, one the most ambitious state-imposed housing efforts in recent memory. The bill upzones areas across California, overriding local zoning laws to allow taller, denser projects near public transit.

The bill was fiercely opposed by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and other L.A. leaders who want to retain power over housing decisions.

Wiener has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration, sparring on social media with the president’s supporters. Another one of his recent bills, to prohibit on-duty law enforcement officers from masking their faces during immigration raids, was signed into law by Newsom.

If bill is signed into law, Portugal would join several European countries which already have full or partial bans.

Portugal has approved a bill to ban face veils used for “gender or religious motives” in most public spaces that was proposed by the far-right Chega party and targets burqas and niqabs worn by Muslim women.

Under the bill, approved by parliament on Friday, proposed fines for wearing face veils in public would range from 200 to 4,000 euros ($234-$4,670). Forcing someone to wear one would be punishable with prison terms of up to three years.

Face veils would still be allowed in aeroplanes, diplomatic premises and places of worship.

According to local media reports, the bill is now set to be discussed in the parliamentary committee on Constitutional Affairs, Rights, Freedoms, and Guarantees – a body responsible for reviewing legislation related to constitutional matters.

If signed into law, it would put Portugal alongside European countries, including France, Austria, Belgium and the Netherlands, which already have full or partial bans.

President Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa could still veto the bill or send it to the Constitutional Court for checks.

During Friday’s parliamentary session, Chega leader Andre Ventura was confronted by several female lawmakers from left-wing parties who opposed the bill, but it passed with support from the centre-right coalition.

“We are today protecting female members of parliament, your daughters, our daughters, from having to use burqas in this country one day,” Ventura said.

In a post on X, he wrote: “Today is a historic day for our democracy and for the safeguarding of our values, our identity and women’s rights.”

Andreia Neto, a lawmaker from the ruling Social Democratic Party, said before the vote: “This is a debate on equality between men and women. No woman should be forced to veil her face.”

Two out of the 10 parties in parliament abstained from the vote – the People-Animals-Nature party, and the Together for the People party, according to local media reports.

The parties have suggested that the proposal incited discrimination.

Only a small minority of Muslim women in Europe cover their faces, and in Portugal such veils are very rare.

But full-face coverings such as niqabs and burqas have become a polarising issue across Europe, with some arguing that they symbolise gender discrimination or can represent a security threat and should be outlawed.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom this week signed a suite of privacy protection bills for transgender patients amid continuing threats by the Trump administration.

But there was one glaring omission that LGBTQ+ advocates and political strategists say is part of an increasingly complex dance the Democrat faces as he curates a more centrist profile for a potential presidential bid.

Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required insurers to cover, and pharmacists to dispense, 12 months of hormone therapy at one time to transgender patients and others. The proposal was a top priority for trans rights leaders, who said it was crucial to preserve care as clinics close or limit gender-affirming services under White House pressure.

Political experts say Newsom’s veto highlights how charged trans care has become for Democrats nationally and, in particular, for Newsom, who as San Francisco mayor engaged in civil disobedience by allowing gay couples to marry at City Hall. The veto, along with his lukewarm response to anti-trans rhetoric, they argue, is part of an alarming pattern that could damage his credibility with key voters in his base.

“Even if there were no political motivations whatsoever under Newsom’s decision, there are certainly political ramifications of which he is very aware,” said Dan Schnur, a former GOP political strategist who is now a politics lecturer at the University of California-Berkeley. “He is smart enough to know that this is an issue that’s going to anger his base, but in return, may make him more acceptable to large numbers of swing voters.”

Earlier this year on Newsom’s podcast, the governor told the late conservative activist Charlie Kirk that trans athletes competing in women’s sports was “deeply unfair,” triggering a backlash among his party’s base and LGBTQ+ leaders. And he has described trans issues as a “major problem for the Democratic Party,” saying Donald Trump’s trans-focused campaign ads were “devastating” for his party in 2024.

Still, in a conversation with YouTube streamer ConnorEatsPants this month, Newsom defended himself “as a guy who’s literally put my political life on the line for the community for decades, has been a champion and a leader.”

“He doesn’t want to face the criticism as someone who, I’m sure, is trying to line himself up for the presidency, when the current anti-trans rhetoric is so loud,” said Ariela Cuellar, a spokesperson for the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network.

Caroline Menjivar, the state senator who introduced the measure, described her bill as “the most tangible and effective” measure this year to help trans people at a time when they are being singled out for what she described as “targeted discrimination.”

In a legislature in which Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses, lawmakers sent the bill to Newsom on a party-line vote. Earlier this year, Washington became the first to enact a state law extending hormone therapy coverage to a 12-month supply.

In a veto message on the California bill, Newsom cited its potential to drive up health care costs, impacts that an independent analysis found would be negligible.

“At a time when individuals are facing double-digit rate increases in their health care premiums across the nation, we must take great care to not enact policies that further drive up the cost of health care, no matter how well-intended,” Newsom wrote.

Under the Trump administration, federal agencies have been directed to limit access to gender-affirming care for children, which Trump has referred to as “chemical and surgical mutilation,” and demanded documents from or threatened investigations of institutions that provide it.

In recent months, Stanford Medicine, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, and Kaiser Permanente have reduced or eliminated gender-affirming care for patients under 19, a sign of the chilling effect Trump’s executive orders have had on health care, even in one of the nation’s most progressive states.

California already mandates wide coverage of gender-affirming health care, including hormone therapy, but pharmacists can currently dispense only a 90-day supply. Menjivar’s bill would have allowed 12-month supplies, modeled after a 2016 law that allowed women to receive an annual supply of birth control.

Luke Healy, who told legislators at an April hearing that he was “a 24-year-old detransitioner” and no longer believed he was a woman, criticized the attempt to increase coverage of services he thought were “irreversibly harmful” to him.

“I believe that bills like this are forcing doctors to turn healthy bodies into perpetual medical problems in the name of an ideology,” Healy testified.

The California Association of Health Plans opposed the bill over provisions that would limit the use of certain practices such as prior authorization and step therapy, which require insurer approval before care is provided and force patients and doctors to try other therapies first.

“These safeguards are essential for applying evidence-based prescribing standards and responsibly managing costs — ensuring patients receive appropriate care while keeping premiums in check,” said spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant.

An analysis by the California Health Benefits Review Program, which independently reviews bills relating to health insurance, concluded that annual premium increases resulting from the bill’s implementation would be negligible and that “no long-term impacts on utilization or cost” were expected.

Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said Newsom’s economic argument was “not plausible.” Although he said he considers Newsom a strong ally of the transgender community, Minter noted he was “deeply disappointed” to see the governor’s veto.

“I understand he’s trying to respond to this political moment, and I wish he would respond to it by modeling language and policies that can genuinely bring people along.”

Newsom’s press office declined to comment further.

Following the podcast interview with Kirk, Cuellar said, advocacy groups backing SB 418 grew concerned about a potential veto and made a point to highlight voices of other patients who would benefit, including menopausal women and cancer patients. It was a starkly different strategy than what they might have done before Trump took office.

“Had we run this bill in 2022-2023, the messaging would have been totally different,” said another proponent who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

“We could have been very loud and proud. In 2023, we might have gotten a signing ceremony.”

Advocates for trans rights were so wary of the current political climate that some also felt the need to steer clear of promoting a separate bill that would have expanded coverage of hormone therapy and other treatments for menopause and perimenopause. That bill, authored by Assembly member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, who has spoken movingly about her struggles with health care for perimenopause, was also vetoed.

In the meantime, said Jovan Wolf, a trans man and military veteran, patients like him will be left to suffer. Wolf, who had taken testosterone for more than 15 years, tried to restart hormone therapy in March, following a two-year hiatus in which he contemplated having children.

Doctors at the Department of Veterans Affairs told him it was too late. Days earlier, the Trump administration had announced it would phase out hormone therapy and other treatments for gender dysphoria.

“Having estrogen pumping through my body, it’s just not a good feeling for me, physically, mentally. And when I’m on testosterone, I feel balanced,” said Wolf, who eventually received care elsewhere. “It should be my decision and my decision only.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Oct. 16 (UPI) — The Senate failed for the 10th time to approve a temporary funding bill to reopen the federal government and voted down a Defense Department appropriations bill on Thursday.

The Senate voted 51-45 in favor of a funding resolution to reopen the federal government, but the vote total was less than the 60 needed for approval.

Two Senate Democrats, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine, voted in favor of the temporary government funding measure, according to CNN.

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky was the lone GOP member to vote against the measure.

The Senate later in the day voted 50-44 on a year-long appropriations bill to fund the Defense Department as the government enters the 16th day of its shutdown over a stopgap funding bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., opposed considering the Defense Department spending bill without also considering the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill, The Hill reported.

Like the government funding measure, the defense budget needs 60 votes to pass. It also would have given a raise for military personnel.

Senate Democrats have voted consistently with no change during the 10 votes to reopen the federal government, as have GOP senators, including Paul in his funding opposition.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., responded to the legislative stalemate by offering to hold floor debates on respective spending bills to fund federal agencies for the 2026 fiscal year, Politico reported.

Thune also suggested Senate Democrats, who have proposed an alternative temporary funding measure, might have some caucus members vote for the House-approved funding resolution due to the effects of an extended government shutdown.

The House already approved the measure favored by the GOP, which simply extends the 2025 funding through Nov. 21 while continuing negotiations on a full-year funding bill.

Senate Democrats have proposed an alternative measure that would fund the federal government through Oct. 31 and extend Affordable Care Act tax credits on insurance premiums and expand Medicaid access.

Schumer blamed the GOP for the budget impasse by refusing to negotiate a proposed $1.5 trillion in additional spending over the next decade that Senate Democrats want to include in the stopgap funding.

“The Trump shutdown drags on because Republicans refuse to work with or even negotiate with Democrats in a serious way to fix the healthcare crisis in America,” Schumer said, as reported by Politico.

Thune in an interview that aired on MSNBC on Thursday morning said Senate Republicans will not negotiate the ACA tax credits until the government is open again, according to ABC News.

The fiscal year started on Oct. 1, which is the first day of the government shutdown due to a lack of funding.

Thune said his party plans to attach additional funding bills to the Pentagon measure, though it’s unclear if Democrats support the idea, CBS News reported.

The additional bills would seek to fund the Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor.

In an analysis published in September, the Urban Institute said the number of uninsured people between the ages of 19 and 34 would increase by 25% if the subsidies expire in the new year.

There would be a 14% increase among children. In all, 4.8 million people would lose health insurance coverage.

The Trump administration has said it’s against extending the ACA subsidies, and has accused Democrats at the state level of using federal tax dollars to provide undocumented immigrants with healthcare services, which Democrats have denied.

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for health insurance under the ACA, the federal healthcare.gov website states.

In an appearance on MSNBC on Wednesday night, Thune said he told Democratic leaders he’d be willing to hold a vote on the subsidies in exchange for their help reopening the government.

“We can guarantee you a vote by a date certain,” he said. “At some point, Democrats have to take ‘yes’ for an answer.

“I can’t guarantee it’s going to pass. I can guarantee you that there will be a process and you will get a vote.”

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are poised for the 10th time Thursday to reject a stopgap spending bill that would reopen the government, insisting they won’t back away from demands that Congress take up healthcare benefits.

The repetition of votes on the funding bill has become a daily drumbeat in Congress, underscoring how intractable the situation has become. It has been at times the only item on the agenda for the Senate floor, while House Republicans have left Washington altogether. The standoff has lasted over two weeks, leaving hundreds of thousands of federal workers furloughed, even more without a guaranteed payday and Congress essentially paralyzed.

“Every day that goes by, there are more and more Americans who are getting smaller and smaller paychecks,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, adding that there have been thousands of flight delays across the country as well.

Thune, a South Dakota Republican, again and again has tried to pressure Democrats to break from their strategy of voting against the stopgap funding bill. It hasn’t worked. And while some bipartisan talks have been ongoing about potential compromises on healthcare, they haven’t produced any meaningful progress toward reopening the government. Thune has also offered to hold a later vote on extending subsidies for health plans offered under Affordable Care Act marketplaces, but said he would not “guarantee a result or an outcome.”

Democrats say they won’t budge until they get a guarantee on extending the tax credits for the health plans. They warn that millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance — such as small business owners, farmers and contractors — will see large increases when premium prices go out in the coming weeks. Looking ahead to a Nov. 1 deadline in most states, they think voters will demand that Republicans enter into serious negotiations.

“The ACA crisis is looming over everyone’s head, and yet Republicans seem ready to let people’s premiums spike,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer in a floor speech.

Still, Thune was also trying a different tack Thursday with a vote to proceed to appropriations bills — a move that could grease the Senate’s gears into some action or just deepen the divide between the two parties.

A deadline for subsidies on health plans

Democrats have rallied around their priorities on healthcare as they hold out against voting for a Republican bill that would reopen the government. Yet they also warn that the time to strike a deal to prevent large increases for many health plans is drawing short.

When they controlled Congress during the pandemic, Democrats boosted subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans. It pushed enrollment under President Obama’s signature healthcare law to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. Nearly 24 million people currently get their health insurance from subsidized marketplaces, according to healthcare research nonprofit KFF.

Democrats — and some Republicans — are worried that many of those people will forgo insurance if the price rises dramatically. While the tax credits don’t expire until next year, health insurers will soon send out notices of the price increases. In most states, they go out Nov. 1.

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she has heard from “families who are absolutely panicking about their premiums that are doubling.”

“They are small business owners who are having to think about abandoning the job they love to get employer-sponsored healthcare elsewhere or just forgoing coverage altogether,” she added.

Murray also said that if many people decide to leave their health plan, it could have an effect across medical insurance because the pool of people under health plans will shrink. That could result in higher prices across the board, she said.

Some Republicans have acknowledged that the expiration of the tax credits could be a problem and floated potential compromises to address it, but there is hardly a consensus among the GOP.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) this week called the COVID-era subsidies a “boondoggle,” adding that “when you subsidize the healthcare system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

President Trump has said he would “like to see a deal done for great healthcare,” but has not meaningfully weighed in on the debate. And Thune has insisted that Democrats first vote to reopen the government before entering any negotiations on healthcare.

If Congress were to engage in negotiations on significant changes to healthcare, it would likely take weeks, if not longer, to work out a compromise.

Votes on appropriations bills

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are setting up a vote Thursday to proceed to a bill to fund the Defense Department and several other areas of government. This would turn the Senate to Thune’s priority of working through spending bills and potentially pave the way to paying salaries for troops, though the House would eventually need to come back to Washington to vote for a final bill negotiated between the two chambers.

It could also put a crack in Democrats’ resolve. Thune said Thursday, “If they want to stop the defense bill, I don’t think it’s very good optics for them.”

It wasn’t clear whether Democrats would give the support needed to advance the bills. They discussed the idea at their luncheon Wednesday and emerged saying they wanted to review the Republican proposal and make sure it included appropriations that are priorities for them.

While the votes will not bring the Senate any closer to an immediate fix for the government shutdown, it could at least turn their attention to issues where there is some bipartisan agreement.

Still, there was a growing sense on Capitol Hill that an end to the stasis is nowhere in sight.

“So many of you have asked all of us, how will it end?” said House Speaker Johnson. “We have no idea.”

Groves and Jalonick write for the Associated Press.

GERRY Adams will be blocked from claiming taxpayer-funded compensation under changes to the law today.

The former Sinn Féin leader was on track to receive a government payout for his detention in the 1970s.

1

But a new Troubles Bill will now ban him and around 400 other largely republican former-detainees from receiving public cash.

It comes after an unexpected Supreme Court ruling in 2020 on historical detentions in Northern Ireland risked forcing ministers to splurge vast sums of money on individuals who claimed they were wrongfully detained during the Troubles.

The landmark case, brought by Adams, found his initial detention under an Interim Custody Order (ICO) was unlawful because a junior minister signed the order, not the Secretary of State.

This pivotal decision opened the floodgates for thousands of compensation claims for imprisonment and quashed convictions.
Later, Mr. Adams won a court battle in 2023 that ruled he was wrongly denied compensation after his convictions for trying to escape jail in the 1970s were quashed.

Today, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn will introduce new legislation to Parliament to clarify that the relevant law always permitted junior ministers to sign the ICOs and, therefore, ensure no compensation will be paid.

A government source told The Sun: “The last government completely failed to successfully address this issue.

“Today we are making it clear in the law that detentions were legitimate and lawful.

“A result of this will be that those previously eligible will not get a single penny of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.”

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have phased out a range of popular consumer products, including nonstick pots and pans, that contain synthetic chemicals with potential links to cancer.

“I appreciate the efforts to protect the health and safety of consumers, and while this bill is well-intentioned, I am deeply concerned about the impact this bill would have on the availability of affordable options in cooking products,” Newsom wrote in his veto statement. “I believe we must carefully consider the consequences that may result from a dramatic shift of products on our shelves.”

The legislation would have prohibited the selling or distributing of cookware with intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, by 2030. It phased out PFAS in products for infants and children, ski wax, dental floss, food packaging and cleaning products starting in 2028. Previously used items would have been exempt.

Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who introduced the legislation, Senate Bill 682, said he will continue to work on the issue moving forward.

“We are obviously disappointed,” he said. “We know there are safer alternatives — [but] I understand there were strong voices on both sides on this topic.”

Allen previously explained he introduced the bill to help protect the state’s water supply from contamination.

A study released in 2023 by the U.S. Geological Survey found tap water in urban areas of Southern and Central California is more likely to contain PFAS than the drinking water in most of the nation’s other regions.

“The water agencies, sanitation agencies and local governments are faced with increasingly impossible-to-meet standards just to keep the water supply for our constituents clean,” Allen said during a Senate committee meeting in April. “They’re facing the costs while the producers who keep pushing these products out on the market are not being held accountable.”

PFAS are commonly dubbed “forever chemicals” because of their well-established longevity. They are linked to adverse health effects, including liver enzyme changes and kidney and testicular cancer, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The chemicals have been used for decades to prevent food from sticking to pans or packaging, or to make materials more resistant to stains. California has taken steps in recent years to ban their use in certain items, like cosmetics and menstrual products.

Dozens of organizations weighed-in on Allen’s bill, with the Sierra Club, California Health Coalition Advocacy and the League of California Cities supporting the legislation.

The Chemical Industry Council of California and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance were among those opposed.

Steve Burns, president of the sustainability alliance, was especially concerned by the provision barring the distribution of the banned products.

“California is the entry point for nonstick cookware and other products that come into the Port of Long Beach, the Port of Los Angeles or the Port of Oakland, and then get distributed throughout the country,” he told The Times. “They go to warehouses, distribution centers and get loaded up on rail or usually trucks — so there’s a lot of jobs in the California economy that depend on products that have Teflon.”

Burns said science hasn’t shown that all PFAS are harmful and argued California should have studied the issue further. He pointed to Illinois, which recently passed similar legislation but ultimately nixed the line banning nonstick cookware. An amendment instead directs the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency to assess scientific data on fluoropolymers, the type of PFAS used in nonstick pots and pans.

Several states have recently moved toward restricting items with PFAS. Last January, Minnesota became the first state to ban PFAS in cookware. The Cookware Sustainability Alliance filed a lawsuit arguing the law discriminated against out-of-state commerce. A judge dismissed the suit in August.

The sustainability alliance has shared letters of opposition on its website from several prominent chefs and culinary personalities, including cook and television host Rachael Ray and Mark Dommen, the chef at Hestan, a new restaurant in Napa slated to open later this year.

Dommen explained the legislation would have placed an unfair burden on restaurants and food service providers.

“Non-stick cookware is essential to our daily operations and eliminating these products without a viable alternative would drive up costs, disrupt our supply chain, and put California restaurants at a competitive disadvantage,” Dommen wrote.

Ray, who has a cookware line, argued easy-clean cookware helps families eat healthier by making it easier to prepare meals without extra oils or fats.

Her letter drew a gentle rebuke from actor and environmental activist Mark Ruffalo, who implored Ray on social media to reconsider her stance and said her advocacy on behalf of the cookware industry was putting the bill in jeopardy.

“Some of us have so much PFAS in our blood that we face a far greater risk of developing cancer,” he wrote in a recent letter shared on X. “Let’s work together to get PFAS out of the everyday products we bring into our home.”

Scientific studies about the health effects of PFAS will continue, according to the CDC.

“Ongoing research has identified associations between PFAS exposure and several health impacts,” the agency’s website states. “There are many factors that can influence the risk of these effects, such as exposure, individual factors and other health determinants. Research is ongoing to understand the mechanisms of PFAS toxicity.”

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday vetoed legislation that would have allowed public and private colleges to provide preferential admissions to applicants directly descended from individuals who were enslaved in the United States before 1900.

The governor thanked the bill’s author for his commitment to addressing disparities and urged educational institutions to review and determine “how, when, and if this type of preference can be adopted.”

“This bill clarifies, to the extent permitted by federal law, that California public and private postsecondary educational institutions may consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery,” Newsom wrote Monday in his veto. “These institutions already have the authority to determine whether to provide admissions preferences like this one, and accordingly, this bill is unnecessary.”

The legislation would not have required applicants to belong to any particular race or ethnicity — a crucial detail that proponents said distinguished it from affirmative action, which is banned at California colleges. Critics, however, argued the term “slave” was used as a proxy for race.

Legal experts told The Times last month the measure probably would have faced challenges in court if the governor signed it into law.

“The question with this sort of provision is does this count as on the basis of race?” said Ralph Richard Banks, professor at Stanford Law School and the founder and faculty director of the Stanford Center for Racial Justice. “A secondary issue is going to be whether, even if it is not formally about racial classification, was it really adopted to get around the no-racial-classification rule? The law prohibits indirect methods of doing something that would be prohibited if you were to do it directly.”

Race-based college admissions are banned by federal and state law.

Proposition 209, which California voters approved nearly three decades ago, amended the state Constitution to bar colleges from considering race, sex, national origin or ethnicity during admissions. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 in effect ended race-conscious college admissions nationwide, ruling in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard that such policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

California became the first state government in the country to study reparations, efforts to remedy the lingering effects of slavery and systemic racism, after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer sparked a national conversation on racial justice.

Newsom and state lawmakers passed a law to create a “first in the nation” task force to study and propose effective ways to help atone for the legacy of slavery. That panel spent years working on a 1,080-page report on the effects of slavery and the discriminatory policies sanctioned by the government after slavery was abolished, and the findings became the genesis for a slate of legislation proposed by the California Legislative Black Caucus.

Last week, Newsom signed Senate Bill 518, which will create a new office called the Bureau for Descendants of American Slavery. That bureau will create a process to determine whether someone is the descendant of a slave and to certify someone’s claim to help them access benefits.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), who introduced Assembly Bill 7, said his legislation would have allowed colleges to grant preference to the descendants of enslaved people in order to rectify a “legacy of exclusion, of harm.”

Andrew Quinio, an attorney specializing in equality issues for the Pacific Legal Foundation, believes AB 7 was blatantly unconstitutional. The foundation is a conservative public interest law firm that seeks to prevent government overreach.

“This was a bill that was born out of the Reparations Task Force recommendations; it was part of the package of bills of the Road to Repair from the California Legislative Black Caucus so this has a very clear racial intent and racial purpose and it will have a racial effect,” he said. “[Legislation] doesn’t have to benefit the entirety or even the majority of a demographic in order for it to be unlawfully based on race.”

Lisa Holder, a civil rights attorney and president of the Equal Justice Society, a progressive nonprofit that works to protect policies that promote diversity, argued the measure’s framing made it highly likely to satisfy legal challenges.

“This (legislation) is very specifically tailored to correct the harms that we have seen, the harms from the past that continue into the present,” she said. “… Because this bill seeks to erase those harms by focusing specifically on the descendant community, it is strong enough to establish a compelling interest.”

Gary Orfield, a law and education professor and co-founder of the Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA, agreed the legislation was carefully written in a way that could have withstood legal challenges. He pointed out California allows university programs that support Native American students because they were narrowly tailored to focus on tribal affiliation — which is considered a political classification — instead of race or ethnicity.

Orfield said applicants of various races could have potentially benefited from the new admissions policy, as many Native Americans were enslaved and Asiatic coolieism, or Asian indentured servitude, was declared a form of human slavery in the state constitution in 1879.

“All Black people weren’t slaves and all slaves were not Black,” he said. “I think there is a good argument to say that slavery isn’t defined strictly by race and is not just a proxy for race and there certainly is a legitimate concern when you are thinking about remediation for historic violations.”

Orfield, however, said convincing the public was a different matter.

“I don’t think all people will easily understand this,” he said. “Americans tend to think that discrimination doesn’t cross over multiple generations. But I think that it does — I think there has been a long-lasting effect.”

Staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Monday signed legislation to study inequalities in youth sports, a move likely to draw ire from Republicans who believe the measure is intended to support transgender athletes.

The legislation, Assembly Bill 749, creates a commission to examine whether a new state board or department is needed to improve access to sports regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, income or geographic location.

In an open letter last month to the governor, Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) zeroed in on the term “gender identity.”

“The author and supporters of [this legislation] know if they were upfront and put forth a straightforward bill allowing biological males to compete against young women and girls, it would be easily defeated,” Jones wrote on Sept. 26. “So instead they are trying to establish a stacked commission to indirectly rig the issue in their favor.”

Jones urged Newsom to veto the bill and referenced the governor’s previous remarks about transgender athletes. During the first episode of his podcast “This Is Gavin Newsom,” the governor — a longtime ally of the LGBTQ+ community — acknowledged the struggle faced by transgender people but called transgender women’s participation in women’s sports “deeply unfair” and warned it was hurting Democrats at the polls.

Assemblymember Tina S. McKinnor, who introduced the bill, said Jones should keep his focus on Washington.

“Senator Brian Jones’ time would be better spent writing to the Republican controlled Congress to end the Trump Shutdown and reopen the federal government, rather than attacking trans students,” McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) wrote in an email to The Times.

Legislation referencing gender identity tends to be a lightning rod for controversy nationwide, with opinion polls suggesting Americans hold complex views on transgender issues.

A survey conducted this year by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found 66% of U.S. adults favor laws requiring transgender athletes to compete on teams that match their sex assigned at birth. At the same time, 56% of adults supported policies protecting transgender people from discrimination in jobs and public spaces.

During legislative committee hearings on the bill, McKinnor focused on the legislation’s potential racial impact. She said last year’s Play Equity Report found 59% of white youth participated in structured sports programs, compared with 47% of Black youth and 45% of Latino youth.

“Participation in youth sports remains unequal despite the well-documented physical, mental and academic benefits,” McKinnor told the Senate Health Committee in July. “These disparities stem from systemic barriers such as financial limitations, uneven program quality, outdated physical education standards and the lack of a coordinated statewide strategy.”

More than two dozen organizations endorsed the bill, including the Los Angeles Rams, city of San Diego, USC Schwarzenegger Institute, YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles and the Boys and Girls Clubs of West San Gabriel Valley and Eastside.

The legislation directs the state public health officer to convene the commission, which will be composed of 10 members appointed by the governor and three appointed by each the speaker of the Assembly and the Senate Committee on Rules. The health officer will also sit on the panel, or appoint their own designee.

Newsom did not issue a statement when his office announced a slate of bills he signed on Monday.

In March, Newsom infuriated the progressive wing of his party when, while hosting conservatives commentator Charlie Kirk on the governor’s podcast, he broke away from many Democrats on the issue of transgender athletes. Newsom, an outspoken champion of LGBTQ+ rights since he was mayor of San Francisco, publicly criticized the “unfairness” of transgender athletes participating in women’s sports.

WASHINGTON — Troops patrol train stations and streets in the nation’s capital. Masked federal law enforcement agents detain District of Columbia residents. Congress passes bills that further squeeze the city’s autonomy. And the one person who could act as a voice for Washington on Capitol Hill has been a rare sight.

Even longtime allies say Democrat Eleanor Holmes Norton, the district’s nonvoting delegate in the House, has not risen to the challenge of pushing back against the Trump administration’s intervention into her city. They cite her age, 88, and her diminished demeanor.

That has raised questions about the 18-term lawmaker’s future in that office and has led to calls for her to step aside and make way for a new generation of leaders. The race to replace her has began in earnest, with two members of the D.C. Council, including a former Norton aide, announcing campaigns for the 2026 contest.

“D.C. is under attack as at no other time in recent history, and we need a new champion to defend us,” Donna Brazile, a onetime Norton chief of staff, wrote in a Washington Post opinion essay.

Brazile acknowledged Norton’s legendary service and why she might wish to continue. “As I’ve told her in person,” Brazile said, “retirement from Congress is the right next chapter for her — and for the District.”

Norton has so far resisted that call. Her office declined to make her available for an interview, and her campaign office did not respond to requests for comment. The oldest member of the House, Norton came to office in 1991 and has indicated she plans to run next year.

Federal intervention created new demands

Washington is granted autonomy through a limited home rule agreement passed by Congress in 1973 that allowed residents to elect a mayor and a city council. But federal political leaders retain ultimate control over local affairs, including the approval of the budget and laws passed by that council.

That freedom came under further restrictions after Republican President Trump issued an emergency order in August. It was meant to combat crime as he federalized the city’s police department and poured federal agents and National Guard troops into the city. Trump’s emergency order expired in September, but the troops and federal officers remain.

While the D.C. delegate position is a nonvoting one, it grants the people of the district, who have no other representation in Congress, a voice through speechmaking on the House floor and bill introduction.

Even without a vote in Congress, “there are so many things that the delegate can do from that position, even if it’s just using the bully pulpit,” said Cliff Albright, co-founder of Black Voters Matter, a voting rights group. “Even if it’s just giving folks encouragement or showing that fight that a lot of people want to see.”

At public appearances, Norton has seemed unsteady and struggled to read from prepared notes, including at a recent committee hearing focused on stripping some of Washington’s independence on prosecuting crime.

During Trump’s monthlong security emergency and since, Norton has not been as publicly visible as city officials, who attended protests and held media events denouncing the intervention.

Without a push for party unity from congressional leaders on Washington’s interests, the delegate’s role has added importance, said George Derek Musgrove, associate professor of history at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County.

“The delegate really has to be a one-person whip operation to try and hold the caucus in line against this Republican onslaught,” Musgrove said.

City leaders step in

It is unclear what a more energetic delegate could have done, given Trump’s expansive view of executive power and Republican control of Congress. Nonetheless, some critics of her performance have suggested it might have helped the city avoid a recent federal budget plan that created a $1.1-billion budget hole earlier this year. Months later, Congress has yet to approve a fix for the shortfall, even though Trump has endorsed one.

With Norton quiet, other leaders in the Democratic-run city have filled the void since Trump’s emergency declaration.

Mayor Muriel Bowser has stepped in as the district’s main mediator with the administration and Congress, joined by the council, although that outreach has been fragmented. D.C. Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb sued the administration in the most combative stance against the federal government’s actions.

As Norton left a recent House hearing about the district, she responded with a strong “no” when asked by reporters whether she would retire.

Among those seeking to challenge her in next year’s Democratic primary are two council members — Robert White Jr., a former Norton aide, and Brooke Pinto. Many others in the city have expressed interest. Allies, including Bowser and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, have declined to publicly endorse another Norton run.

A push for new faces

Norton’s life is a journey through American history.

In 1963, she split her time between Yale Law School and Mississippi, where she volunteered for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. One day during the Freedom Summer, civil rights activist Medgar Evers picked her up at the airport. He was assassinated that night. Norton also helped organize and attended the 1963 March on Washington.

Norton went on to become the first woman to lead the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which helps enforce anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. She ran for office when her predecessor retired to run for Washington mayor.

Tom Davis, a former Republican congressman from Virginia and a staunch Norton ally who worked with her on a number of bills, said voters should know who she is and what she is capable of, even now.

“She saved the city,” he said, listing off accomplishments such as the 1997 act that spared the city from bankruptcy, as well as improving college access. “She was a great partner.”

Davis said both major political parties are yearning for new faces.

“She’s still very well respected. She’s got a lot seniority,” he said. “I think she’s earned the right to go out on her terms. But that’s gonna be up to the voters.”

Fields, Brown and Khalil write for the Associated Press.