SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill into law Thursday that will make it illegal to declaw a cat in California, a practice that lawmakers and animal advocates argued is outdated and inhumane.
Assembly Bill 867 by Assemblymember Alex Lee (D-San José) bars veterinarians from performing the procedure, which involves amputating the first bone in each of a cat’s toes or severing its tendons so that it can’t extend its claws. California law previously required the procedure to be performed by veterinarians, but will now limit it to cases of medical necessity.
“Many countries have already outlawed this inhumane practice,” said Lee, who called declawing a “barbaric” mutilation to make life more convenient for pet owners.
While most owners do not declaw their cats, the practice has been used by some to prevent the animal from scratching people, furniture or other pets. Various polling has found that roughly a quarter of cats are declawed, but it has fallen out of favor among veterinarians and pet owners in recent years. The nation’s largest veterinary provider, Mars Veterinary Health, said it does not support elective declawing.
“Feline scratching and nail sharpening are normal behaviors and the removal of nails has been shown to lead to chronic pain and, in some cases, to cause long-term behavioral issues,” the company said in a statement on its website.
The California Veterinary Medical Assn., which represents veterinarians, opposed the bill, saying it sets a dangerous precedent to limit the scope of one profession.
“When our veterinarians are telling us that they’re performing the procedure, it’s usually because the elderly patient is usually on chemotherapy, on a blood thinner … and they can’t risk being scratched,” Grant Miller, director of regulatory affairs at CVMA, said during a legislative hearing.
Miller said surveys of their members found 80% of veterinarians no longer declaw cats, evidence he argued shows they’ve adequately policed themselves. He said AB 867 limits instances that should be considered legitimate reasons for declawing.
“If the owner is coming in and saying we can’t keep our cat because it keeps scratching us, can you do something, we believe that that’s qualification to consider the procedure, but only after all other alternatives have been exhausted,” he added.
The bill includes an exemption for cats that need the procedure out of medical necessity, including to address a recurring infection or a condition that jeopardizes the animal’s health. But, it does not include procedures to make a cat easier to handle, to avoid scratching people or furniture or for any other cosmetic reason.
West Hollywood became the first jurisdiction in the country in 2003 to pass a ban on declawing cats. Other cities have since passed similar restrictions, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, Burbank, Culver City, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, according to an analysis of the bill.
New York was the first state to ban declawing in 2019, while dozens of other countries have made the practice illegal.
Lee, the bill’s author, said his hope is that the number of cats declawed in California will shrink to zero.
“You can trim the nails just like our nails,” he said. “You can do many different things.”
Carlson Turner, seven, suffered the nasty injury backflipping into a swimming pool on holiday in Antalya, Turkey, and needed urgent treatment at Konakli Medical Centre
Rhiannon Dunn, pictured with her son Carlson hours before the accident, had to pay £1,500 for his treatment(Image: Kennedy News & Media)
A mum was forced to fork out £1,500 when her son split his head open backflipping into a pool on holiday – as the hospital didn’t accept her Asdainsurance.
Rhiannon Dunn, 32, was left “panicking and I was crying” when little Carlson was rushed to a medical centre to treat the 1.5cm gash on the back of his scalp following the accident. The seven-year-old lad had four stitches put in his head under local anaesthetics and an X-ray on his skull to make sure there were no fractures.
Rhiannon had secured insurance with Asda before the trip to Antalya, Turkey at the start of September, but the hospital would not accept the cover. The mum of four had to cough up £1,532.27 for the treatment before Carlson could be discharged from Konakli Medical Centre.
After Asda was approached by journalists, it said it has paid Rhiannon in full and “surprised and disappointed” the medical centre would not accept the £40 Superior Asda travel insurance.
The accident happened on the first day of the trip, which Rhiannon had booked as a birthday present for Carlson. The youngster hit his head with such force it split open, causing severe bleeding.
Rhiannon, a full-time carer, said: “His cut was so wide open and deep, he needed stitches and to go to hospital. The wound was very deep and black and because he’s a red head it stood out.
“Everything was fine but then they shut us in a room and told us we had to pay the last bill. I told the hospital we had travel insurance from Asda. It was a premium travel insurance with unlimited access as I know kids can be clumsy.
“I was more worried about my son. He was looking at me and he was scared and frightened. I was more upset as you buy travel insurance for a reason and they wouldn’t accept it.
“In the end I had to borrow money from a friend. I don’t know what would have happened if I didn’t pay. Asda were shocked that they [the hospital] wouldn’t accept it.
“Asda spoke to the Turkish hospital and the hospital still point blank refused to accept the travel insurance. We were [put] in an office box room until we paid up. Asda were very distressed with the hospital and said they tried everything they could. I was panicking and I was crying.”
Konakli Medical Centre has apologised the mum felt “distressed” but said treatment is prioritised and “never delayed” over insurance matters. The hospital confirmed that ‘not all policies or insurers are accepted for direct cashless billing’, and in those instances patients are expected to pay the bill.
Rhiannon, who is from Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, is now speaking out about her experience to warn holidaymakers to check their travel insurance is accepted at hospitals near to where they stay.
“It’s annoying because you buy travel insurance for a reason… He told me he’d hit his head, [then I spotted the blood] and started panicking,” Rhiannon, a mum of four, continued.
“I just want to warn other parents to check your insurance and what hospitals it covers. The hospital said they don’t work with Asda travel insurance but Asda said they hadn’t been notified that they didn’t work with them.
“It’s affected me financially as you pay for holiday insurance for a reason and expect to pay the excess [if you need to claim], but I’ve never known to have to cough up the whole amount.
“I want to raise awareness to other families to make sure they do thorough checks and to make sure the local hospital near to where you are staying is covered through your insurance.”
Travel Insurance explained
A spokesperson for Konakli Medical Centre said: “Firstly, we take all patient feedback seriously, and we are sorry to hear that Ms Dunn felt distressed during her visit.
“We work with many travel insurance providers; however, not all policies or insurers are accepted for direct cashless billing, particularly when there is no prior agreement or contract in place.
“In such cases, patients are generally required to pay for treatment and seek reimbursement from their insurer. This is standard procedure at many private healthcare facilities internationally.
“Our medical centre always prioritises the urgent care and well-being of the patient. Treatment is never delayed due to insurance matters.
“Once the patient is stable and treatment is complete, administrative steps regarding payment or insurance are handled. No patient is ever held against their will at our facility. Payment is processed in a separate administrative area from the patient registration desk.
“Additionally, before any treatment is carried out, the full medical process and associated costs are clearly explained to the patient (or guardian), and informed consent is obtained prior to proceeding.”
After being contacted by journalists, Asda said they were ‘surprised and disappointed’ that the hospital didn’t accept the insurance details but said they had now processed Rhiannon’s claim.
An Asda Travel Insurance spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that Ms Dunn had this experience on her holiday, and we wish her son a speedy recovery.
“Ms Dunn’s insurance claim has now been accepted and paid in full. We were surprised and disappointed that the hospital did not accept her insurance details, which was the cause of this problem and, had the hospital followed normal process, the challenges experienced could have been avoided.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed into law a bill that sets up a state Office for Civil Rights to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in California schools.
Assembly Bill 715 was among the most hotly contested education-related measures, spawning from dissatisfaction, largely among a coalition of Jewish groups, to the way ethnic studies has been taught in some California classrooms.
The critics said in some schools, ethnic studies classes have improperly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that lessons reflected bias against Jews. The allegations of bias are denied by those instructors who include lessons about the conflict in their syllabus.
The law creates a state Office for Civil Rights that reports to the governor’s cabinet. It would take on a monitoring and assistance mission — fielding complaints and questions; preparing learning materials and reports on identifying and combating discrimination; and helping teachers, schools and school districts comply with state antidiscrimination laws.
Different forms of discrimination would be addressed by a specialized coordinator — one each for antisemitism, religious discrimination, race and ethnicity discrimination, gender discrimination and LGBTQ+ discrimination.
The final version of the bill — paired with companion Senate Bill 48 — expanded beyond an initial focus on antisemitism. This revision was a response to those who questioned why the original bill language addressed only discrimination against Jews.
“California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms,” Newsom said in a statement. “At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: Our schools must be places of learning, not hate.”
Bill co-author and state Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay) called the legislation “a historic first … that centers on the well-being of children across our state, many of whom bravely shared horrific stories about their experiences in our schools.”
The bill drew strong opposition from teacher unions, faculty groups, Muslim organizations and liberal groups who worried about the suppression of discussion about current events in the Middle East.
A surge of antisemitism
Antisemitic incidents increased in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war that began with a Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, that killed about 1,200. The war continues with Israel’s campaign to eradicate Hamas, leading to a Palestinian death toll estimated at more than 67,000, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry.
At a recent news conference in support of the bill, a Jewish student told of her experience at a public middle school in the Bay Area.
“After Oct. 7, everything changed,” said Ella, who was identified only by her first name. “People who I thought were my friends turned on me. They called me the Jew. They told me that my family is living on stolen land, and yelled at me that I was a murderer and a terrorist. They even started to chase me, and I had to run away for my own safety just because I’m Jewish and I speak Hebrew. I didn’t deserve any of this.”
Ella said some staff members, instead of providing support, expressed biased views.
No matter what a student believes or who they are, “every student deserves to be safe, valued and respected,” said bill co-author and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles).
The final — and much amended — version of the bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature. The vote in the state Assembly was 71 yes, 0 no with 9 abstentions; the vote in the state Senate was 35 yes, 0 no, 5 abstentions.
But this outcome belied an extended, hard-fought debate.
The original legislation targeted ethnic studies — or certain versions of how it was being taught. AB 715 evolved, however, to take on antisemitism more broadly.
A contentious debate
The legislation drew resistance from organizations including ACLU California Action and the California Teachers Assn. Leading voices among the critics also included pro-Palestinian and Muslim groups, a large faction of ethnic studies teachers and some Jewish groups that are strongly critical of the Israeli government.
ACLU California Action warned of a “chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech by educators and students.”
“We abhor and condemn antisemitism in any form,” the California Teachers Assn., wrote in a July letter to the state Senate Education Committee. But “at a time when there are those that seek to weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm some ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so.”
The bill coincided with Trump administration actions to combat antisemitism — and to suppress pro-Palestinian activism — as part of his wide-ranging ideological push. Those actions and AB 715 became inevitably associated in the public discourse.
Leading bill supporters, including state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), strongly objected to any linkage with the Trump administration.
“There’s a false and extremely dangerous narrative being peddled,” Wiener said in an August news conference. “It is an effort to basically say that if you are claiming antisemitism by anyone other than right-wing extremists, you’re somehow aligning yourself with Donald Trump. That is deeply, deeply offensive, and it is a lie.”
The ethnic studies connection
Although the bill evolved, it retained a mechanism to raise issues related to how ethnic studies is taught.
The bill speaks of ensuring antidiscriminatory course and teacher-training materials. To investigate formal complaints, the state would rely on an existing complaint procedure, which examines alleged violations involving discrimination, harassment, intimidation and bullying.
Some critics of AB 715 acknowledged that the bill was revised to address their concerns but they still opposed it. They continue to worry that the new law will chill discussion of controversial issues in ethnic studies and elsewhere — and also falsely equate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
There also was criticism on the right from Will Swaim of the California Policy Center — which said the bill that emerged was too watered down. It had become a “do-nothing law that promises to do everything,” Swaim wrote, while creating a new state bureaucracy in the process.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will allow police oversight officials investigating misconduct to access confidential law enforcement personnel records, a change that watchdogs have argued will increase accountability for officers who break the rules.
Los Angeles County advocates and members of the county’s Sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission pushed for months in support of AB 847. The legislation comes in response to what proponents have described as efforts by the sheriff’s departments in L.A. and other counties to stymie access to sensitive records.
When it takes effect on Jan. 1, the new law will “grant access to the confidential personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers … to civilian law enforcement oversight boards or commissions during investigations” into officers’ conduct, according to the bill’s legislative summary.
Hans Johnson, the chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission, said it’s a much-needed change.
“I’m pleased because this has been a long road,” he said in a phone call Monday night. “Tonight is a moment of vindication.”
The Sheriff’s Department wrote in a statement that “the passage of AB 847 provides clarity to a long-standing legal issue that has been the subject of contention between the Department and its Civilian Oversight Commission (COC) since its inception.” It added that the “Department will work with County Counsel, labor representatives, and the COC on the implementation of this new law.”
Some law enforcement unions and advocacy groups criticized the law.
Lt. Steve Johnson, president of the L.A. County Professional Peace Officers Assn., said in an email that his organization “fully understand[s] the intent to enhance civilian oversight,” but when “access to confidential records isn’t safeguarded with precision and responsibility, it opens the door to real dangers. Transparency must never come at the cost of personal safety or public trust.”
Newsom’s office did not immediately provide a comment Monday.
Johnson said the bill’s signing is an especially meaningful victory for the families of people such as Joseph Perez and Emmett Brock, who were beaten by L.A. County sheriff’s deputies in 2020 and 2023, respectively. He also cited the case of Andres Guardado, who was shot to death by deputies in 2023, “and others who were the subjects of efforts by our commission to get records disclosed to us under subpoena about sheriff deputies’ encounters and beatings.”
In a phone call Monday night, Vanessa Perez, Joseph’s mother, called the law’s signing a “big victory not just for Joseph, but for all families impacted by the Sheriff’s Department.”
Perez said she expects the new law will allow the Civilian Oversight Commission to review previously off-limits records about the deputies who beat her son and redacted portions of other documents.
She and other members of the general public will not be able to access the records, as the law requires “oversight boards to maintain the confidentiality of those records, and would authorize them to conduct closed sessions, as specified, to review confidential records,” according to its legislative summary.
Still, Perez is hopeful her son’s case will benefit from the additional disclosure now allowable under AB 847.
Robert Bonner, a former federal judge and former chair of L.A. County’s Civilian Oversight Commission who has said he was abruptly removed from that post earlier this year, praised the bill’s signing in an email Tuesday.
The law “will be essential to holding accountable those who use excessive force against members of the public,” Bonner wrote. “This is a big deal. This is a quantum leap forward for civilian oversight commissions.”
THOUSANDS of pensioners will be able to apply for a winter cash boost worth up to £300 in just days.
More than nine million people are set to get the Winter Fuel Payment to help with their energy bills over the colder months.
1
Certain pensioners will need to apply to get the Winter Fuel PaymentCredit: Getty
Most people who are eligible will get the payment automatically, and will receive letters in the post from the DWP in October and November telling them how much cash they will receive.
However, certain pensioners will need to apply to get the benefit.
You can apply either by post or over the phone, and the DWP phone lines to make a claim open on October 13.
Postal applications opened earlier on September 15.
Pensioners have until March 31 2026 to make a claim.
income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
awards from the War Pensions Scheme
Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
Incapacity Benefit
Industrial Death Benefit
If you don’t receive any of these benefits, you’ll need to claim manually if you’ve not got the Winter Fuel Payment before, or if you’ve deferred your State Pension since your last Winter Fuel Payment.
While the highest amount of free support is £300, the total will depend on when you were born and your circumstances on the qualifying week, which is between September 15 and 21 of this year.
Pensioners born before September 22, 1959, with an income of £35,000 or below will be eligible for between £100 and £300 to help towards heating bills.
Those hoping to receive the cash must be 66 by the end of the qualifying week.
You won’t be eligible for the payment if you earn more than £35,000 a year, and HMRC will claw back the automatic payment made to you through your tax code or tax return.
Your income can come from a range of factors including, your private pension and state benefits.
Other people who won’t be eligible include those who:
live outside England and Wales
were in hospital getting free treatment for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025 and the year before that
need permission to enter the UK and your granted leave says that you cannot claim public funds
were in prison for the whole of the week of 15 to 21 September 2025
The Winter Fuel Payment was axed for 10million pensioners last year, with only those on certain benefits qualifying.
But the government was forced to perform a U-turn after a huge public outcry, with the funding now being reinstated for millions.
The gov.uk website provides further guidance on the scheme and how to make a claim.
Pensioners are also being warned to be wary of text messages from scammers posing as the DWP, who try to get you to click on a fake link to make a claim.
These are not official DWP messages and should be deleted, the government has said.
The Winter Fuel Payment is separate from the Warm Home Discount, which offers struggling households £150 off their electricity bill.
The money is not paid to you, and households that are eligible will have the discount applied to their bill by their energy provider.
What energy bill help is available?
There’s a number of different ways to get help paying your energy bills if you’re struggling to get by.
If you fall into debt, you can always approach your supplier to see if they can put you on a repayment plan before putting you on a prepayment meter.
This involves paying off what you owe in instalments over a set period.
If your supplier offers you a repayment plan you don’t think you can afford, speak to them again to see if you can negotiate a better deal.
The votes of Californians who drop their ballots in mailboxes on Nov. 4 may not be counted because of U.S. Postal Service processing delays, state officials warned Thursday.
In many parts of the state, a ballot dropped in the mail is now collected the next day, said Atty. General Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber at a news event Thursday.
The change affects voters who live 50 miles or more from six regional mail processing facilities in Los Angeles, Bell Gardens, San Diego, Santa Clarita, Richmond and West Sacramento, according to Bonta’s office.
Ballots that aren’t postmarked on or before Election Day are not counted.
The large swaths of the state affected by the Postal Service changes include both rural and urban areas such as Bakersfield, the Central Valley, the Central Coast, Palm Springs and more.
The warning by state officials to drop off ballots earlier than Election Day marks a dramatic shift in California, where mail-in voting has become accessible and popular. All registered voters in California receive a vote-by-mail ballot.
“If you want your vote to count, which I assume you do, because you’re putting it in the mail, don’t put it in the mail on Election Day if you’re 50 miles from these voting centers,” Bonta said.
In the Nov. 4 special election, California voters will decide on Proposition 50, championed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats to try to boost their party’s numbers in Congress by redrawing district boundaries.
The proposal came in response to a redistricting measure in Texas that seeks to increase the number of congressional Republicans at the behest of President Trump.
Postal Service representative Natashi Garvins said in an email that same-day postmarking has never been guaranteed. Garvins said that customers who want a manual postmark should visit a Postal Service location and request one at the counter.
At Thursday’s news event, state officials unveiled a large map with six circles around the mail facilities. Communities located outside the circles are affected by the postmarking change. The Secretary of State’s office wasn’t able to provide a figure for how many registered voters are affected.
Elections expert Paul Mitchell examined the map at The Times’ request.
“This is going to be a significant change for any voters who are outside of these circles that have recently voted by mail on election days,” said Mitchell, who drew the proposed congressional districts that will be before voters on Nov. 4.
Some municipalities have elections on the Nov. 4 ballot in addition to Proposition 50, Mitchell noted.
A news release from the U.S. Postal Service in February outlined some of policy changes, which appear to be part of a 10-year plan rolled out several years ago.
The Postal Service isn’t funded by the government but does receive some money from Congress for certain services.
Bonta on Thursday defended his decision to not immediately inform voters about the changes, arguing that the announcement would have gotten lost in the news cycle.
“Now is a perfect time to tell people about this,” said Bonta. “This is the voting window. This is when people are thinking about voting.”
Weber said her office was only informed “a couple of weeks ago” about the changes.
Ballots will go out to California registered voters starting Oct. 6. Voters can mail ballots, drop them off at a ballot box or take them to a vote center.
Weber on Thursday also responded to questions about faulty voter guides mailed to some voters, which mislabeled a congressional district represented by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Agua Dulce) as District 22 rather than District 27.
Weber blamed the Legislative Analyst’s Office for the error and said her office caught the mistake. About 8 million people will receive postcards informing them of the error, she said, at a cost to taxpayers of about $3 million to $4 million.
Meanwhile, Newsom on Thursday signed a pair of bills that he said will protect elections from undue influence.
Senate Bill 398 by Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Orange) makes it a crime to offer voters financial payments or the chance to win a prize in exchange for casting a ballot or registering to vote.
The new law exempts transportation incentives, such as rides to voting locations, or compensation provided by a government agency to vote.
The bill was introduced in response to Elon Musk’s America PAC announcing in 2024 that it would hold a lottery in swing states for $1 million for those who signed a petition supporting the First and Second Amendments.
The plan was widely criticized as an effort to drive voter registration in favor of then-candidate Donald Trump.
SB 42, also by Umberg, places a measure on the November 2026 ballot asking voters whether the state should repeal its statewide ban on public financing of campaigns.
If voters approve, California could begin considering systems where taxpayer dollars help fund candidates for public office, which supporters say diminishes the power of wealthy donors to sway the outcome of races. Charter cities are already permitted to have public financing programs, with Los Angeles, Long Beach and San Francisco among those that have chosen to do so.
Newsom said the bills are part of a broader push in California to safeguard democracy.
“Right now, our founding ideals and values are being shredded before our eyes in Washington D.C., and California will not sit idle,” Newsom said. “These new laws further protect Californians’ voices and civic participation in what makes our state and our country great.”
Responding to the Trump administration‘s hampering of federal regulators, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed a bill greatly expanding California’s power over workplace disputes and union elections.
The legislation, Assembly Bill 288, gives the state authority to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other disputes between private employers and workers in the event the National Labor Relations Board fails to respond.
As Newsom signed the worker rights bill, his office drew a sharp contrast with the gridlock in Washington, D.C., where a government shutdown looms.
“With the federal government not only asleep at the wheel, but driving into incoming traffic, it is more important than ever that states stand up to protect workers,” Newsom said in a statement. “California is a proud labor state — and we will continue standing up for the workers that keep our state running and our economy booming.”
The NLRB, which is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions, has been functionally paralyzed since it lost quorum in January, when Trump fired one of its board members.
The Trump administration has also proposed sweeping cuts to the agency’s staff and canceled leases for regional offices in many states, while Amazon, SpaceX and other companies brought lodged challenges to the 90-year-old federal agency’s constitutionality in court.
With this law in place, workers unable to get a timely response at the federal level can petition the California Public Employment Relations Board to enforce their rights.
The law creates a Public Employee Relations Board Enforcement Fund, financed by civil penalties paid by employers cited for labor violations to help pay for the added responsibilities for the state labor board.
“This is the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century,” said Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “California workers will no longer be forced to rely on a failing federal agency when they join together to unionize.”
The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is hampered in other ways.
The law could draw legal challenges over whether the bill infringes on federal law.
It was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, which warned that the bill improperly attempts to give California’s labor board authority even as the federal agency’s regional offices continuing to process elections as well as charges filed by workers and employers.
The chamber argued that “courts have repeatedly held that states are prohibited from regulating this space.”
Catherine Fisk, Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law counters, however, that in the first few decades of the NLRB’s functioning, state labor agencies had much more leeway to enforce federal labor rights.
She said the law “simply proposes going back to the system that existed for three decades.”
The bill’s author, Assemblymember Tina McKinnor (D-Hawthorne) said the bill will ensure California workers can continue to unionize and bargain.
“The current President is attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees’ fundamental right to join a union,”McKinnor said in a statement. “This is unacceptable and frankly, un-American. California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize.”
WASHINGTON — With a government shutdown looming, Democrats and Republicans angrily blamed each other and refused to budge from their positions Tuesday, unable to find agreement or even negotiate as hundreds of thousands of federal workers stood to be furloughed or laid off.
The partisan standoff over healthcare and spending threatened to trigger the first U.S. government shutdown in almost seven years at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday. To avoid it, the Senate would have had to pass a House measure that would extend federal funding for seven weeks while lawmakers finish their work on annual spending bills.
A vote on the bill, along with a Democratic alternative, was scheduled for early evening. But a resolution appeared far off as tempers flared, increasing the odds of a shutdown by the hour.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Republicans are trying to “bully” Democrats by refusing to negotiate on an extension of healthcare benefits and other priorities.
“It’s only the president who can do this. We know he runs the show here,” Schumer said Tuesday morning, after a bipartisan White House meeting the day before yielded little progress.
“Republicans have until midnight tonight to get serious with us,” Schumer said.
President Trump and his fellow Republicans say they won’t entertain any changes to the legislation, arguing that it’s a stripped-down, “clean” bill that should be noncontroversial.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Republicans “are not going to be held hostage” by the Democrats’ demands. The GOP-led House was on a weeklong recess, unavailable for immediate votes even if the Senate did find bipartisan agreement. And far from entering into negotiations, Trump instead posted a fake, mocking video of Democrats on Monday evening after the White House meeting.
On Tuesday, Trump threatened retribution, saying a shutdown could include “cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things that they like, cutting programs that they like.”
It was still unclear if either side would blink before the deadline.
Blame game escalates
Although partisan stalemates over government spending are a frequent occurrence in Washington, the current impasse comes as Democrats see a rare opportunity to use their leverage to achieve policy goals and as their base voters are spoiling for a fight with Trump. Republicans who hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate would probably need at least eight votes from Democrats to end a filibuster and pass the bill with 60 votes, since Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is expected to vote against it.
Still, Schumer said Trump and Republicans would be to blame if the government shuts down.
A handful of Democrats said they were still deciding how to vote, holding out for a last-minute compromise. Thune said he is “hoping there are Democrats out there who are reasonable and understand what’s at stake here.”
The last shutdown was in Trump’s first term, from December 2018 to January 2019, when he demanded that Congress give him money for his U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump retreated after 35 days — the longest shutdown ever — amid intensifying airport delays and missed paydays for federal workers.
Democrats’ healthcare asks
Millions of people could face higher insurance premiums if the healthcare subsidies expire at the end of the year. Congress first put them in place in 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, to expand coverage for low- and middle-income people who purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.
Democrats say they want the subsidies immediately extended. They have also demanded that Republicans reverse the Medicaid cuts that were enacted as a part of Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” this summer and for the White House to promise it will not move to rescind spending passed by Congress.
“We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said.
Thune has pressed Democrats to vote for the funding bill and take up the debate on tax credits later. Some Republicans are open to extending the tax credits, but many are strongly opposed to it.
In rare, pointed back-and-forth with Schumer on the Senate floor Tuesday morning, Thune said Republicans “are happy to fix the ACA issue” and have offered to negotiate with Democrats — if they will vote to keep the government open until Nov. 21.
No agreement at the White House
The bipartisan meeting at the White House on Monday was Trump’s first with all four leaders in Congress since retaking the White House for his second term. Schumer said the group “had candid, frank discussions” about health care and the potential for health insurance costs to skyrocket once expanded Affordable Care Act tax credits expire Dec. 31.
But Trump did not appear to be ready for serious talks. Hours later, he posted a fake video of Schumer and Jeffries taken from footage of their real news conference outside the White House after the meeting. In the altered video, a voiceover that sounds like Schumer’s voice makes fun of Democrats and Jeffries stands beside him with a cartoon sombrero and mustache. Mexican music plays in the background.
At a news conference on the Capitol steps Tuesday morning, Jeffries said it was a “racist and fake AI video.”
Schumer said that “we have less than a day to figure this out” and Trump is trolling on the internet “like a 10-year-old.”
A crucial, and unusual, vote for Democrats
Democrats are in an uncomfortable position for a party that has long denounced shutdowns as pointless and destructive, and it’s unclear how or when it would end. But party activists and voters have argued that Democrats need to do something to stand up to Trump.
Some groups called for Schumer’s resignation in March after he and nine other Democrats voted to break a filibuster and allow a Republican-led funding bill to advance to a final vote.
Schumer said then that he voted to keep the government open because a shutdown would have made things worse as Trump’s administration was slashing government jobs. He says now that he believes things have changed, including the passage this summer of the massive GOP tax cut bill that reduced Medicaid.
Shutdown preparations begin
The stakes are huge for federal workers across the country as the White House told agencies last week that they should consider “a reduction in force” for many federal programs if the government shuts down. That means that workers who are not deemed essential could be fired instead of just furloughed.
Either way, most would not be paid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated in a letter to Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst on Tuesday that around 750,000 federal workers could be furloughed each day once a shutdown begins.
Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat, said some of the many federal workers in his state support a shutdown.
“What I hear from federal workers is they’ve been on a slow, shutdown firing since the beginning of this administration,” Warner said. “They want us to push back.”
Federal agencies were already preparing. On the home page of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, a large pop-up ad reads: “The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people.”
Jalonick, Mascaro and Groves write for the Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Kevin Freking, Matthew Brown, Darlene Superville and Joey Cappelletti in Washington contributed to this report.
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill Monday that will create new transparency measures for large AI companies, including public disclosure of security protocols and reports of critical safety incidents.
Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) said Senate Bill 53 will create “commonsense guardrails” to ensure groundbreaking innovations don’t sacrifice safety and transparency amid the rapid growth of AI technologies. Newsom said the bill strikes the right balance of working with the artificial intellegence companies, while not “submitting to industry.”
“AI is the new frontier in innovation, and California is not only here for it – but stands strong as a national leader by enacting the first-in-the-national frontier AI safety legislation that builds public trust as this emerging technology rapidly evolves,” Newsom said in a statement.
The bill was introduced this year after Newsom vetoed a broader bill last year, which was also authored by Wiener. That bill, SB 1047, was supported by Elon Musk and prominent AI researchers, but opposed by Meta and OpenAI.
In his lengthy veto message last year, Newsom called SB 1047 “well-intentioned” but added that it was not the “best approach to protecting the public from real threats posed by the technology.” In punting the measure last year, Newsom announced that his administration would convene a working group of AI leaders and experts to develop more workable protections that became the basis for SB 53.
The new law will require companies to disclose their safety and security protocols and risk evaluations. It mandates reporting of critical incidents — such as cyberattacks or unsafe behavior by autonomous AI systems — to the state’s Office of Emergency Services.
Cal OES would begin publishing annual reports in 2027 that anonymize and aggregate critical safety incidents it receives. SB 53 also strengthens whistleblower protections for employees who report violations.
The Attorney General in California will be able to bring civil penalties of up to $1 million against companies who violate the new law.
“With a technology as transformative as AI, we have a responsibility to support that innovation while putting in place commonsense guardrails to understand and reduce risk,” Wiener said in a statement.
The bill was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Progress, a tech industry association.
“This exhaustive approach compels developers to allocate significant time and resources toward preparing for hypothetical risks rather than addressing actual, demonstrable harms,” wrote the Chamber of Progress.
California lawmakers want Gov. Gavin Newsom to approve bills they passed that aim to make artificial intelligence chatbots safer. But as the governor weighs whether to sign the legislation into law, he faces a familiar hurdle: objections from tech companies that say new restrictions would hinder innovation.
Californian companies are world leaders in AI and have spent hundreds of billions of dollars to stay ahead in the race to create the most powerful chatbots. The rapid pace has alarmed parents and lawmakers worried that chatbots are harming the mental health of children by exposing them to self-harm content and other risks.
Parents who allege chatbots encouraged their teens to harm themselves before they died by suicide have sued tech companies such as OpenAI, Character Technologies and Google. They’ve also pushed for more guardrails.
Calls for more AI regulation have reverberated throughout the nation’s capital and various states. Even as the Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan” proposes to cut red tape to encourage AI development, lawmakers and regulators from both parties are tackling child safety concerns surrounding chatbots that answer questions or act as digital companions.
California lawmakers this month passed two AI chatbot safety bills that the tech industry lobbied against. Newsom has until mid-October to approve or reject them.
The high-stakes decision puts the governor in a tricky spot. Politicians and tech companies alike want to assure the public they’re protecting young people. At the same time, tech companies are trying to expand the use of chatbots in classrooms and have opposed new restrictions they say go too far.
Suicide prevention and crisis counseling resources
If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, seek help from a professional and call 9-8-8. The United States’ first nationwide three-digit mental health crisis hotline 988 will connect callers with trained mental health counselors. Text “HOME” to 741741 in the U.S. and Canada to reach the Crisis Text Line.
Meanwhile, if Newsom runs for president in 2028, he might need more financial support from wealthy tech entrepreneurs. On Sept. 22, Newsom promoted the state’s partnerships with tech companies on AI efforts and touted how the tech industry has fueled California’s economy, calling the state the “epicenter of American innovation.”
He has vetoed AI safety legislation in the past, including a bill last year that divided Silicon Valley’s tech industry because the governor thought it gave the public a “false sense of security.” But he also signaled that he’s trying to strike a balance between addressing safety concerns and ensuring California tech companies continue to dominate in AI.
“We have a sense of responsibility and accountability to lead, so we support risk-taking, but not recklessness,” Newsom said at a discussion with former President Clinton at a Clinton Global Initiative event on Wednesday.
Two bills sent to the governor — Assembly Bill 1064 and Senate Bill 243 — aim to make AI chatbots safer but face stiff opposition from the tech industry. It’s unclear if the governor will sign both bills. His office declined to comment.
AB 1064 bars a person, business and other entity from making companion chatbots available to a California resident under the age of 18 unless the chatbot isn’t “foreseeably capable” of harmful conduct such as encouraging a child to engage in self-harm, violence or disordered eating.
SB 243 requires operators of companion chatbots to notify certain users that the virtual assistants aren’t human.
Under the bill, chatbot operators would have to have procedures to prevent the production of suicide or self-harm content and put in guardrails, such as referring users to a suicide hotline or crisis text line.
They would be required to notify minor users at least every three hours to take a break, and that the chatbot is not human. Operators would also be required to implement “reasonable measures” to prevent companion chatbots from generating sexually explicit content.
Tech lobbying group TechNet, whose members include OpenAI, Meta, Google and others, said in a statement that it “agrees with the intent of the bills” but remains opposed to them.
AB 1064 “imposes vague and unworkable restrictions that create sweeping legal risks, while cutting students off from valuable AI learning tools,” said Robert Boykin, TechNet’s executive director for California and the Southwest, in a statement. “SB 243 establishes clearer rules without blocking access, but we continue to have concerns with its approach.”
A spokesperson for Meta said the company has “concerns about the unintended consequences that measures like AB 1064 would have.” The tech company launched a new Super PAC to combat state AI regulation that the company thinks is too burdensome, and is pushing for more parental control over how kids use AI, Axios reported on Tuesday.
Opponents led by the Computer & Communications Industry Assn. lobbied aggressively against AB 1064, stating it would threaten innovation and disadvantage California companies that would face more lawsuits and have to decide if they wanted to continue operating in the state.
Advocacy groups, including Common Sense Media, a nonprofit that sponsored AB 1064 and recommends that minors shouldn’t use AI companions, are urging Newsom to sign the bill into law. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta also supports the bill.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation said SB 243 is too broad and would run into free-speech issues.
Several groups, including Common Sense Media and Tech Oversight California, removed their support for SB 243 after changes were made to the bill, which they said weakened protections. Some of the changes limited who receives certain notifications and included exemptions for certain chatbots in video games and virtual assistants used in smart speakers.
Lawmakers who introduced chatbot safety legislation want the governor to sign both bills, arguing that they can both “work in harmony.”
Sen. Steve Padilla (D-Chula Vista), who introduced SB 243, said that even with the changes he still thinks the new rules will make AI safer.
“We’ve got a technology that has great potential for good, is incredibly powerful, but is evolving incredibly rapidly, and we can’t miss a window to provide commonsense guardrails here to protect folks,” he said. “I’m happy with where the bill is at.”
Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), who co-wrote AB 1064, said her bill balances the benefits of AI while safeguarding against the dangers.
“We want to make sure that when kids are engaging with any chatbot that it is not creating an unhealthy emotional attachment, guiding them towards suicide, disordered eating, any of the things that we know are harmful for children,” she said.
During the legislative session, lawmakers heard from grieving parents who lost their children. AB 1064 highlights two high-profile lawsuits: one against San Francisco ChatGPT maker OpenAI and another against Character Technologies, the developer of chatbot platform Character.AI.
Character.AI is a platform where people can create and interact with digital characters that mimic real and fictional people. Last year, Florida mom Megan Garcia alleged in a federal lawsuit that Character.AI’s chatbots harmed the mental health of her son Sewell Setzer III and accused the company of failing to notify her or offer help when he expressed suicidal thoughts to virtual characters.
More families sued the company this year. A Character.AI spokesperson said they care very deeply about user safety and “encourage lawmakers to appropriately craft laws that promote user safety while also allowing sufficient space for innovation and free expression.”
In August, the California parents of Adam Raine sued OpenAI, alleging that ChatGPT provided the teen information about suicide methods, including the one the teen used to kill himself.
OpenAI said it’s strengthening safeguards and plans to release parental controls. Its chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote in a September blog post that the company believes minors need “significant protections” and the company prioritizes “safety ahead of privacy and freedom for teens.” The company declined to comment on the California AI chatbot bills.
To California lawmakers, the clock is ticking.
“We’re doing our best,” Bauer-Kahan said. “The fact that we’ve already seen kids lose their lives to AI tells me we’re not moving fast enough.”
WASHINGTON — The U.S. remains mired in a deadly pandemic, the economy is suffering from a bout of inflation and states face challenges from climate to transportation, but with only days left in their close-fought race, the hottest issue dividing Virginia’s candidates for governor this week was the late novelist Toni Morrison.
The Republican candidate, Glenn Youngkin, who has steadily gained ground over the past two months, aired an ad featuring Laura Murphy, a parent who had campaigned years ago against the use of Morrison’s widely acclaimed, Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “Beloved” in her son’s high school Advanced Placement English class.
In 2016 and again in 2017, then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, vetoed a bill aimed at “Beloved” that Murphy helped lobby through the state legislature. It would have required K-12 teachers to give parents advance notice of books with “sexually explicit content” and allow them to take their children out of class. “Beloved,” based on a true story of a woman who killed her child to save her from slavery, includes several graphic descriptions of sexual violence.
Youngkin accused the former governor, now seeking to return to the office, of wanting to “silence parents because he doesn’t believe they should have a say in their child’s education.”
McAuliffe fired back that Youngkin was “focused on banning award-winning books from our schools and silencing the voices of Black authors” such as Morrison. The Republican, he said, was engaged in “Trumpian dog whistles.”
Get our L.A. Times Politics newsletter
For both candidates, the issue provided a chance to rally key audiences — conservative suburban parents on the one side, Black voters on the other — as the state hurtles toward an election Tuesday that, if polls are correct, could be among its closest in years.
President Biden and former President Trump both have a lot riding on the outcome.
Last year, Biden carried Virginia by 10 points, and Democrats currently control all the statewide elected offices. The party took control of both houses of the state legislature over the last four years, and Republicans haven’t won the governorship since 2009.
In short, while Virginia is not as deeply blue as California or New York, it’s a state Democrats recently have been able to count on.
Right now, they can’t.
Biden’s popularity in the state has tumbled, just as it has nationwide since this summer when the Delta variant of the coronavirus upended his optimistic forecasts about COVID-19. A Monmouth University poll in mid-October found Virginia voters disapproving of Biden’s job performance, 52% to 43%, sharply down from an August poll.
The president’s slumping polls are a big problem for McAuliffe, creating “headwinds” for him, as the candidate told supporters last month.
He faces several other difficulties: With Democrats having run the state for the last eight years, they’re naturally the target of voters seeking a change. And McAuliffe, as a former governor trying to make a comeback — Virginia doesn’t allow governors to run for consecutive terms — wouldn’t be a likely change candidate in any case. As a 64-year-old white, male, longtime political figure, he’s not the type to inspire huge enthusiasm among young voters or progressives.
Youngkin, a first-time candidate, has skillfully positioned himself. He’s seized on discontent over schools to take control of an issue on which Democrats have long had an advantage. The Monmouth poll showed that education had risen on the list of top voter concerns and that Youngkin had pulled even with McAuliffe as the candidate voters thought could best handle the issue.
Overall, Youngkin clearly has momentum on his side. The Monmouth poll was one of several recently that found the two candidates dead even — a big accomplishment for the Republican, who this summer trailed by around seven points. A Fox News poll released Thursday evening showed Youngkin moving into the lead among likely voters.
Democrats have dominated early voting, which the state has greatly expanded, but both parties expect Republicans to show up in large numbers to vote in person on Tuesday.
Youngkin, the former CEO of Carlyle Group, a big private equity firm, has poured at least $20 million of his own money into the race, allowing him to keep pace with McAuliffe, a prolific fundraiser. He’s used that money for a barrage of television ads that depict him in classrooms, pledging to raise teacher pay — stealing a page from the Democratic playbook.
At the same time, he has closely identified himself with parents angry over unresponsive school bureaucracies — a sentiment that has boiled over in many parts of the country.
Youngkin has used education issues to mobilize conservatives, pledging to ban teaching of critical race theory in Virginia. It’s not clear that the academic theory, which analyzes the outcomes of systemic racism, is taught anywhere in the state’s K-12 schools, but the idea that it might be has become a rallying cry on the right. That, plus Trump’s endorsement, has solidified his Republican support.
Education also has given him an entrée to less ideological voters in the state’s large suburban regions. In recent elections, those voters increasingly have turned against the GOP, but many are deeply frustrated over the last year and a half of COVID-related school disruptions.
In the California recall election, Republicans had hoped that tapping into parental anger could give them the boost they needed to defeat Gov. Gavin Newsom. That failed, in large part because the top Republican candidate, Larry Elder, lacked credibility with swing voters.
Youngkin has avoided Elder’s habit of creating controversies. Instead, it was McAuliffe who inadvertently helped his opponent with ill-chosen words. During a candidate debate in September, as he explained why he had vetoed the so-called “Beloved” bill, McAuliffe said “I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions.”
Then, he added: “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.”
Youngkin has heavily featured that line in his ads.
McAuliffe’s campaign eventually responded with an ad in which the former governor expressed respect for parents, but the damage was done.
On top of the reasons that may cause some swing voters to switch this year, McAuliffe also faces a turnout problem, according to Democratic strategists close to his campaign: After the drama of last year, many Democratic voters are exhausted with politics. Republicans, by contrast, are highly motivated to avenge their recent losses.
To counter apathy, McAuliffe has depended heavily on Democrats’ chief motivator — Trump.
In speeches and advertisements, he constantly links his opponent with the unpopular former president.
So do his surrogates, including Biden.
“I ran against Donald Trump. And Terry is running against an acolyte of Donald Trump,” Biden said Tuesday during a campaign rally with McAuliffe in northern Virginia.
Former President Obama, Georgia’s Stacey Abrams and other leading Democrats who have come into the state to campaign have stressed the same point.
Trump, in his usual way, has not been able to resist the urge to get involved. On Wednesday, his spokesperson put out a statement saying that Trump “and his MAGA movement will be delivering a major victory to Trump-endorsed businessman Glenn Youngkin.”
McAuliffe’s campaign went into overdrive to ensure the statement was widely seen.
With the contest appearing so close — tight enough that the winner might not be known until final ballots are counted late next week — there’s one forecast that’s clear: Whichever candidate wins probably can thank Donald Trump.
As Jennifer Haberkorn and Nolan McCaskill reported, the measure, the subject of negotiations for months, would spend roughly $1.75 trillion over the next 10 years on a host of Democratic priorities, including universal preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds, subsidies for childcare and continuation of the expanded child tax credit.
On healthcare, the bill would expand subsidies under the Affordable Care Act and close the hole in Obamacare that excludes low-income people in the dozen states, mostly in the South, that have refused to expand Medicaid. Both expansions would last through 2025. Medicare would grow to include hearing coverage.
The bill would also include about $500 billion to combat climate change.
Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hope that agreement on the framework will allow the House to pass the separate $1 trillion infrastructure bill that cleared the Senate in early August. But a large number of progressive House Democrats are continuing to hold out. They want more concrete assurances that Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have been the main impediments to Biden’s budget plan in the Senate, will vote for the framework before they’ll vote to approve the infrastructure bill, which the two more-conservative senators support.
Democratic leaders hope to bring both bills to a vote as early as next week.
Several Democratic priorities fell out of the bill as the White House negotiated with Manchin and Sinema to reduce its cost. As Haberkorn reported, a key element that dropped out was a program for paid family leave. Also gone is a plan to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
Friday morning, Biden began his European events with a private meeting with Pope Francis. As Megerian wrote, the meeting comes at a time when some conservative U.S. bishops have talked of denying Biden communion because of his support for abortion rights. The pope’s decision to host Biden “sends a message to the American bishops that denying communion is not something that he approves of,” said John K. White, professor of politics at the Catholic University of America in Washington.
Our daily news podcast
If you’re a fan of this newsletter, you’ll probably love our new daily podcast, “The Times,” hosted by columnist Gustavo Arellano, along with reporters from across our newsroom. Every weekday, it takes you beyond the headlines. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts and follow on Spotify.
Oil industry on the hot seat
In advance of the climate summit, a House committee has been grilling oil industry leaders about their decades-long record of downplaying the role that fossil fuels play in causing global warming. As Anna Phillips and Erin Logan reported, the hearing marked the first time that members of Congress have directly questioned oil and gas executives under oath about reported efforts to mislead the public about climate change.
Enjoying this newsletter? Consider subscribing to the Los Angeles Times
Gov. Newsom and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg announced $5 billion in loans to help modernize California’s seaports. The money probably won’t come in time to help clear out current snarls that have backlogged shipments, but it should help prevent future logistical nightmares, Megerian and Russ Mitchell reported.
The field of candidates for mayor of Los Angeles got another entry this week as Ramit Varma, an entrepreneur from Encino, announced his candidacy. As Dakota Smith reported, another businessman waits in the wings. Rick Caruso, the prominent developer, has been discussing a race with strategists, including Bearstar Strategies, the firm whose partners Ace Smith and Sean Clegg devised campaigns for former Gov. Jerry Brown and Vice President Kamala Harris.
One UK man visited the world’s most expensive cafe, Cedric Grolet, in Monaco. After ordering a coffee and some pastries, he was shocked to receive a bill that left his wallet empty
Some of the world’s most innovative but expensive desserts come from French chef Cedric Grolet, but they may set you damage your pocket(Image: STEPHANE DE SAKUTIN/AFP via Getty Images)
It seems like the cost of a coffee and pastry has soared everywhere. Whether you’re popping into your neighbourhood Greggs or a hip independent bakery, it’s hardly shocking to fork out £5 or more for a flat white and croissant.
But while that stings your purse, it pales in comparison to what’s available at one of the globe’s most lavish cafés, where a basic sweet indulgence can exceed your entire weekly grocery bill. Head south to France and you’ll discover Monaco, the billionaire’s paradise. This minuscule principality is famed as the beating heart of Formula One, home to countless multi-million pound superyachts – and its legendary casino.
Perched above that very casino within the Hotel de Paris Monte-Carlo, an upmarket patisserie has gained notoriety for its exquisite pastries and bakes – alongside the astronomical prices they demand.
Stroll through the marble foyer and you’ll discover what’s been branded the “world’s most expensive café”, Cedric Grolet.
Grolet is a globally celebrated French pastry chef boasting millions of social media fans and honours, including “Best Pastry Chef in the World”.
The Monte-Carlo branch marks his Mediterranean debut, following phenomenally successful launches in Paris, London and Singapore, though given its setting, it appears among the most expensive.
His masterpieces are immediately identifiable, with puddings crafted to mirror lemons, peaches or strawberries perfectly on the exterior, before unveiling intricate layers of mousse, cream and sponge inside.
Some of the traditional pastries might not necessarily empty your wallet, but they’re still decidedly on the expensive side. For instance, a pain au chocolat will set you back a hefty €12, but with some more luxurious pastries available, one visitor soon fell into the sweet trap and was left with a massive bill.
During a visit to the bakery that he later shared on TikTok, Charlie Betts ended up shelling out an eye-watering £140 on just a few items and a matcha.
Upon arriving at the bakery, he said: “There’s life like looking at fruits, I don’t even know what they would be, maybe little chocolate tarts? I’m not sure, but I think it’s going to be quite good. Hopefully, the best sweet treats I’ve ever had in my life.
Content cannot be displayed without consent
“This has got to be the best thing of my life. I’m really scared of what the price is going to be.”
Ordering a chocolate chip cookie, a peanut, mango and strawberry styled dessert, and a final special rose tart, the bill was certainly on the steep side. Each dish was clearly meticulously assembled with layers of mousse, foams, cake and jams all rolled into something scrumptious, but can any baked good justify such a high price tag?
Charlie summarised: “If price isn’t involved, I’m going to give it a solid 8.5 out of 10. My most expensive meal ever.”
Many in the comments were as shocked at the price. One person wrote: “As a pastry chef, those prices are ridiculous.”
While another added: “I get hives at the price of Costa, can’t imagine what medical condition I’d develop here.”
An outstanding outfielder in his first three major league seasons, Russell moved to the infield full time in his fourth year. It was a disaster.
“It was something I lost a lot of sleep over,” said Russell, who led the majors with 34 errors that year. “After the season, I just collapsed for a few weeks.”
Then he picked himself up and went to work on getting better and in his second year as a shortstop he led the majors with 560 assists, led the National League in defensive WAR and made the first of three all-star teams.
He went on to play more games for the Dodgers than any player in Los Angeles history.
It was a remarkable career, one that hardly needed a second act. But even after he left the stage, Russell never left the theater. Six months after his last at-bat — he struck out as a pinch hitter in the final week of the 1986 season — Russell was back in uniform as the team’s bench coach.
He later managed in the Dodgers’ minor league system, replaced Tommy Lasorda in that job at the major league level and, for the past 13 years, has worked in the team’s community relations department, coaching youth camps and appearing at schools, fan fests and other events. Since 2002 he’s also served as an umpire observer, partly because the job gets him a good seat behind the plate at Dodger Stadium.
If the team were to a pick a Mr. L.A. Dodger, someone emblematic of the team’s history and values since moving to Southern California, the soft-spoken, humble Russell, a Dodger for nearly half a century, would have to be in that conversation.
But it was his dedication to mastering the switch from the outfield to shortstop — becoming the first prominent player since Honus Wagner to make the move — that literally changed the direction of the franchise. If he hadn’t made it work, the Dodgers may never have had the courage to turn a minor league outfielder named Davey Lopes into a second baseman, where he became Russell’s double-play partner.
If he hadn’t made it work, the Dodgers may never have tried pushing a scatter-armed third baseman named Steve Garvey across the diamond to first, opening up the position to Russell’s right for Ron Cey. The resulting infield of Garvey, Lopes, Russell and Cey played together for 8 ½ seasons, longer than any quartet in baseball history, winning four pennants and a World Series.
“Each one of us had different talents,” Russell said. “It was tough at first but all of a sudden we started having success. It’s four brothers.”
From left, Ron Cey, Bill Russell, Davey Lopes and Steve Garvey pose before an old-timers game at Dodger Stadium in 2013. The infield quartet won four pennants and a World Series together.
(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)
Now Betts, a six-time Gold Glove-winning outfielder, has mastered the move too, helping the Dodgers to the cusp of their 12th division title in 13 seasons. However if Betts perfected the shift, Russell pioneered it.
“He was a great athlete,” said Steve Sax, Russell’s double-play partner his last five seasons. “He was maybe the fastest guy in the organization. The whole genesis of being able to move guys around was the thought they’re so athletic, why can’t they make the transition?
“And he proved that to be true.”
At 76, Russell is nearly four decades removed from his last of his 2,181 big-league games, all with the Dodgers. But he’s still fit, not far off his playing weight of 175 pounds. And while he was once among the fastest players in the majors, he now moves at a purposeful saunter rather than a sprint. Wire-rim glasses crease his once-boyish face and the mop of straw-blond hair he once tucked under his cap has gone white, leaving him looking more like a college English professor than a once-iconic athlete.
“I just enjoyed going to the park and being with the guys. They just make you feel young again,” said Bill Russell, who turns 77 in October.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
What hasn’t changed is his love for a game that has been his life and for a team that has become his family.
“I just enjoyed going to the park and being with the guys. They just make you feel young again,” said Russell, who often wears a wry smile that suggests he’s in on a joke no one else knows about.
“Billy’s very special,” said Peter O’Malley, the Dodgers’ owner and president throughout much of Russell’s career.
“He was stable. Popular with the fans for sure. He deserves more credit that he’s received.”
Russell grew up a short drive from both the Missouri and Oklahoma state lines in the kind of nondescript Kansas town where everybody knew their neighbors and hard work wasn’t a virtue, it was an expectation.
The middle child in a family of five children, he attended a high school so small it didn’t have a baseball team. So he played basketball during the winter and baseball on sandlots and with American Legion teams during the summer. He was the kind of player scouts once described as “an athlete,” meaning he was smart enough and talented enough to excel at any position, though the Dodgers listed him as an outfielder when they selected him in the ninth round of the second amateur draft in 1966.
He gave most of his $14,000 signing bonus to his parents, minus the money he needed to buy a second-hand Chevy like the one his best friend drove.
Russell shot up the minor-league ladder, playing just 221 games before making the jump from Class A Bakersfield to the majors in 1969, doubling in his first big-league at-bat.
The adjustment from the minors to the majors was far easier than the change from the tiny mining town of Pittsburg, Kan., to the technicolor sprawl of Southern California.
“Coming to Los Angeles, you’ve got to be kidding me. A big city like this?” said Russell, who had rarely traveled more than 30 miles from Pittsburg before signing with the Dodgers. “My town was only 10,000 people so I had to grow up fast.
“I’m 20 years old, I’m in the major leagues and the minimum salary is $10,000. It wasn’t even $1,000 a month. But that was more money than I’d ever thought of. And I’m playing in Hollywood.”
After playing 18 seasons with the Dodgers, Bill Russell managed the ballclub from 1996-98.
(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)
Playing exclusively in the outfield, too, although Monty Basgall, a fellow Kansan and the former minor league infield instructor who scouted Russell as an athlete, was already plotting the move to shortstop, the most challenging defensive position after catcher.
“Shortstop is a difficult position,” said Derrel Thomas, a former teammate who played everywhere but pitcher during a 16-year big-league career. “A lot of people don’t give Monty Basgall any credit for what he did helping with the infielders.”
After some preparation in the instructional league and the minors, Russell made his major league debut at shortstop on the final day of the 1970 season, then played 47 games as a middle infielder a year later. But the move didn’t become permanent until Russell’s fourth season when he replaced an aging Maury Wills.
“I wasn’t in a position to say anything, really,” said Russell, who still speaks with a noticeable Midwestern accent.
“I had doubts about it, no question. But I figured my longevity in the big leagues, if I had [any], would come with moving to the infield.”
In fact, the move nearly ended his career. Russell made his first poor throw seven games into the season and by the all-star break he had as almost as many errors as extra-base hits. By then, he was also looking over his shoulder, expecting the Dodgers to put an end to the experiment.
“I’m surprised they didn’t,” he says now. “The fans got involved too. It wasn’t a standing ovation when I was coming back to the dugout after making some errors.
“At that time people brought transistor radios to the stadium. You could hear [Vin Scully] doing the game. I could hear him say something about me at shortstop. Talk radio was just coming on board and they were on me. It was a lot of negative stuff.”
Quitting, however, wasn’t an option.
“Maybe I was too dumb, I don’t know,” Russell said with a shrug. “I never thought about giving up or going back home. What am I going to do back home? I did say to myself, ‘I’m going to show these people I can play this position.’
“And I did. For 13 years.”
Through hard work and determination, Russell turned his fielding from a liability into an asset and the Dodgers began to win, reaching the World Series four times over the next nine seasons. And while Russell never won a Gold Glove — he twice led the majors in errors — he finished in the top five in fielding percentage by an NL shortstop three times, was in the top five for putouts four times and in the top three for assists six times.
He was understatedly brilliant, so much so that Cincinnati Reds’ shortstop Dave Concepcion once mocked Russell’s critics saying he didn’t know who the best fielder was “but I sure watch Bill Russell in the playoffs a lot.”
“He would never quit. Never,” O’Malley said. “Making that transition at the major league level, he deserves extraordinary credit for that.”
Almost lost in the focus on his defense was the fact Russell was a tough out, hitting better than .271 six times and excelling in clutch situations.
“That went all the way back to high school,” said Russell, who hit the shot that took his underdog team to the final of the Kansas state tournament. “It’s just a calmness. You can’t describe it. You can’t teach it. It is something that comes over you and you get a calm feeling that you’re going to succeed.”
As a high school infielder at Arroyo High in El Monte, James Baker was given his choice of uniform numbers. He didn’t have to think long before selecting one.
“I wore No. 18,” he said. “Because of Bill.”
It was the same number he had worn in Little League and American Legion ball.
“He was Mr. Clutch,” Baker, 61, said of Russell. “He was the dean of the infield.”
“The great thing about Bill Russell,” added Rick Zubiate, 57, Baker’s brother-in-law “is he wasn’t flashy. He made all the plays he was supposed to. Not only that, he had a presence and he commanded everybody around him to be better and expect more of themselves.”
Russell may be little more than a face on an old baseball card to Generation Z. But for children of the ‘60s like Baker and Zubiate, he remains the archetypal Dodger, one with a Dodger Blue resume that is unassailable. Which is why Baker and Zubiate braved rush-hour traffic last week to drive to Ontario, where Russell was appearing at an event for the Dodgers’ newest minor league affiliate.
“I loved him,” Baker said after asking Russell for an autograph.
And what’s not to love? He played more games and has more World Series at-bats than any player in L.A. Dodger history. He trails only Willie Davis and Garvey in hits and only Clayton Kershaw has matched Russell’s 18 seasons at Dodger Stadium.
Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda, right, hugs Bill Russell in the dressing room after the Dodgers beat the Phillies, 6-5, in Game 3 of the 1977 NLCS.
(Associated Press)
But he also managed in the team’s minor league system, was the bench coach under Lasorda for seven years, then managed the big-league team for parts of three seasons, posting the fourth-best winning percentage by a manager since the franchise left Brooklyn. And he still pulls on his old uniform — with the bright red 18 over his Dodger blue heart — several times a year to join former teammates including Garvey, Sax and Steve Yeager in reminiscing with fans at fantasy camps and clinics.
“We have fun out there,” he said. “People come from all over the country. [It’s] like you’re still involved in the whole scene of being a major league player.”
If the speed and power of Willie Mays is synonymous with the San Francisco Giants and the style and grace of Ted Williams is emblematic of the Boston Red Sox, Russell’s blue-collar work ethic and country-boy humility is the embodiment of the Dodgers since they moved to Southern California.
“Quintessential Dodger?” O’Malley said. “Absolutely right. From start to end, he deserves the credit. He was respected and liked by everybody.”
Russell stood out, O’Malley said, partly because he blended in.
“He was quiet,” he said. “But keen sense of humor. If he wanted to make a point or be heard, he could nail it with a comment. It was pretty darn funny.”
Yet Russell’s silent excellence often went unappreciated. A .263 lifetime hitter who had fewer home runs in his career than Shohei Ohtani has this year alone, he received just three Hall of Fame votes the only time his name appeared on the ballot. For a time, even his loyalty to the Dodgers went unrequited; for years after his last game as manager Russell felt unwelcome at Dodger Stadium, the result of a toxic stew of bruised egos, Machiavellian maneuvering and corporate mismanagement.
It began midway through the 1996 season when Lasorda, the manager who had groomed Russell in the minors then won with him in the majors, had a heart attack. A month later Lasorda stepped down and Russell took over on an interim basis, guiding the Dodgers to a playoff berth.
That earned him the job full time but it didn’t earn him unquestioned support throughout the organization. The low-key Russell was a striking contrast to the colorful and bombastic Lasorda, more Mr. Rogers than Bobby Knight.
“He’s named the manager following Tommy. That’s not easy,” O’Malley said. “And he did it in his own way.
“But things didn’t work out. Following Tommy was not an easy task.”
Critics who had preferred hitting coach Reggie Smith, Mets manager Bobby Valentine or triple A manager Mike Scioscia — all former Lasorda pupils — over Russell quietly worked to undermine him and 74 games into his second full season as manager, Russell was fired by the team’s new overlords at Fox, who also sacked general manager Fred Claire, replacing him with Lasorda.
By then a major rift had developed between Russell and his former manager, who privately questioned Russell’s performance to management and publicly questioned his qualifications to manage. As a result many pointed fingers for the firings at Lasorda, who strongly denied being involved.
Bill Russell observed umpires on behalf of MLB during Sunday’s Dodgers-Giants game at Dodger Stadium.
(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)
Either way, the relationship was irrevocably broken.
Russell left with a .537 winning percentage over parts of three seasons, a better mark — albeit over a far shorter span — than the one that took Lasorda to the Hall of Fame. After firing Russell, the Dodgers never made the playoffs under Fox, with the seven-season postseason drought matching the team’s longest since the late 1960s-early 1970s.
The hard feelings have softened some with the passing of both time and Lasorda, who died in 2021. (Russell, pointedly, was not invited to the funeral; Scioscia, Valentine, Garvey and Cey were.)
“I knew him better than anybody. I was like his son,” Russell said earlier this month, sitting at a patio table near the neat two-bedroom Valencia house where he’s lived for 20 years.
“I don’t want to bad mouth him but he wanted to keep managing. He just couldn’t accept not being there. That’s just the way it was.”
The slight wounded Russell, who took off his Dodger uniform for what he thought would be the final time. O’Malley, who was in the room when Bob Graziano, the former banker Fox put in charge of the team, fired the manager, invited Russell back to the stadium later that season. But the place where he had grown from a boy to man wasn’t the same.
So he went on to work as an advisor with a team in Taiwan, spent a season as bench coach in Tampa Bay and managed in the minors for both the Rays and Giants.
None of it felt comfortable.
“I was in the Dodger organization 30 years,” he said. “To go somewhere else, it wasn’t right.”
After managing the Shreveport Swamp Dragons to a last-place finish in the Texas League in 2001, he returned to Southern California — and Dodger Stadium — as an umpire observer for Major League Baseball, a job that lets him sit behind the plate and watch games.
As if he could imagine doing anything else.
“He’s brought a different perspective because he played at the highest level and he managed,” said Matt McKendry, MLB’s vice-president of umpire operations. “But, you know, Bill loves being at the ballpark and if he wasn’t doing what he’s doing for us, I think he’d be at Dodger Stadium almost every night anyway.”
Because for Russell it’s never been a stadium. It’s home.
Protesters are angry over bills that could grant Bolsonaro amnesty after a coup attempt and give lawmakers immunity.
Published On 21 Sep 202521 Sep 2025
Share
Thousands of Brazilians have taken to the streets to protest against moves by the National Congress to boost lawmakers’ immunity and push for an amnesty that could include far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro, sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison on charges related to an attempted military coup.
Protesters in rallies in more than a dozen cities accused the conservative-majority Congress of putting its own interests above social and economic issues. Music legends Caetano Veloso, Chico Buarque and Gilberto Gil – who defied censorship during the military dictatorship of the 1960s – reunited in Rio de Janeiro’s Copacabana neighbourhood to perform a protest concert.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Aline Borges, a 34-year-old environmentalist who attended the protest in the capital, Brasilia, expressed her frustration at the political establishment. “We are here to protest this Congress, which is made up of criminals and corrupt people dressed as politicians, who are pushing for a law that protects them,” she told the AFP.
Calls for demonstrations grew after the lower house of parliament passed a constitutional amendment that would make it harder to arrest or launch criminal proceedings against lawmakers. Under the so-called “Shielding Bill”, lawmakers voting in a secret ballot must give the go-ahead for one of their own to be charged or arrested.
The following day, the lower house voted to fast-track a bill backed by right-wing opposition lawmakers – dubbed by critics as the “Bandit’s Bill” – that could grant amnesty to Bolsonaro, his closest allies and hundreds of supporters convicted for their roles in the January 2023 uprising.
Both bills face an uphill battle in the Senate. President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said he would veto the amnesty bill.
Ahead of Bolsonaro’s Supreme Court trial on September 11, thousands of his supporters had rallied in his defence. The former president, who has denied any wrongdoing, is the first to be convicted of trying to overturn an election in Latin America’s largest economy.
Polls show the country remains deeply divided over his fate. According to a recent Datafolha poll, 50 percent of 2,005 respondents said Bolsonaro should be jailed, while 43 percent disagreed and 7 percent declined to answer.
Currently under house arrest, Bolsonaro faces up to 40 years in prison after being found guilty on five charges, including leading a “criminal organisation” to conspire to overthrow Lula. A detailed operational plan called “Green and Yellow Dagger” was identified, which included a plan to assassinate Lula.
Bolsonaro has maintained he will run for president in 2026, despite Brazil’s top electoral court barring him from running in elections until 2030 for spreading unfounded claims about Brazil’s electronic voting system.
In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.
Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.
“We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.
Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.
SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.
Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.
Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.
Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.
Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.
Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.
“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”
Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.
“We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.
Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.
“If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.
California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.
During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.
“That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.
Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.
Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.
The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.
“Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.
A high yield is only one part of the story when it comes to picking dividend stocks.
It is tempting for a dividend investor to simply select the highest yielding stocks. The problem with that approach is that it exposes you to the risk of dividend cuts if the yield is too high for the company to support.
Which is why dividend lovers also need to consider dividend history as they look at a company. And, when you do that, you’ll find that companies like Pfizer(PFE -0.50%), which has a huge 7.2% yield, don’t match up to companies like Johnson & Johnson(JNJ 1.03%), Omega Healthcare(OHI -0.50%), and Merck(MRK -0.03%).
Here’s what you need to know about these three healthcare dividend stocks.
Image source: Getty Images.
1. If you need the money to live, dividend reliability is key
Pfizer is actually a well-run company. Sure, it is facing hard times right now, but it has dealt with difficult periods before and survived. It is highly likely that it will do so again, noting that some of the issues it is dealing with are a natural part of the pharmaceutical industry. For example, patent expirations are on the horizon, and it needs to find new drugs to replace older ones. Investors rightly worry about such patent cliffs, but they aren’t the least bit unusual for drug makers.
That said, Pfizer’s huge 7.2% dividend yield is also a reflection of the downbeat view among regulators and consumers around vaccines. So there’s more to watch here than the normal industry swings. But the same things could, largely, be said of Merck, one of Pfizer’s competitors. The drugs and vaccines in question are different, but the worries are basically the same. You could easily buy either one if you wanted exposure to the pharma sector. Why pick Merck and its less impressive, though still high, 4% yield?
The answer is simple. Merck has a long history of supporting its dividend even through difficult periods. Pfizer cut its dividend in 2009 when it bought Wyeth. The acquisition was good for Pfizer, but the dividend cut was terrible for income investors. If dividend consistency matters to you, Merck wins here.
2. Omega Healthcare has survived the hardest of times
If Merck’s dividend resilience over time impresses you, you’ll probably find Omega Healthcare even more exciting. The company owns senior housing facilities, which were hard hit during the COVID-19 pandemic. To put it simply, older people in group settings were at severe risk of dying from the pandemic. That had the exact negative impact you would expect on nursing homes and similar properties. And yet Omega Healthcare, a senior housing-focused real estate investment trust (REIT), didn’t cut its dividend like many of its competitors.
It didn’t raise the dividend, either, but it did stand behind the payment, realizing that investors were relying on that quarterly check. That should make Omega’s nearly 6.4% yield look a lot more attractive, even for more conservative dividend investors.
And don’t forget that the pandemic is now mostly in the rearview mirror. The second quarter of 2025 saw Omega invest in new assets, which should help spur growth and post an 8% year-over-year increase in adjusted funds from operations (FFO). With the business looking like it is on the mend, the dividend is likely more secure now than it has been in years.
3. The Dividend King approach
If you are looking to stick to only the most reliable of dividend companies, however, then you’ll want to buy a Dividend King. These are stocks that have raised their dividends for over 50 years. Johnson & Johnson’s string of over 60 annual dividend increases makes it the healthcare stock to beat when it comes to dividend reliability. Of course, investors know how reliable this drug and medical device maker is, so the stock is usually afforded a premium valuation. Right now, the yield is around 3% or so, the lowest on this list. However, it is still higher than the 1.7% yield of the average healthcare stock, making J&J a good pick for investors who place a high value on dividend consistency.
Clearly, Johnson & Johnson has its own warts to consider. For example, it faces all of the same issues in the pharma space as Merck and Pfizer. It is also dealing with a lingering class action lawsuit around talcum powder that it once sold. So even this Dividend King isn’t risk-free. But if history is any guide, you can count on the dividend continuing to be paid through thick and thin.
Don’t just jump at the highest yield
Although there’s nothing particularly wrong with Pfizer, a comparison to Merck, Omega, and J&J shows that a high yield isn’t the only factor you should consider if you are looking for a good dividend stock. If reliable dividend stocks are what you want populating your dividend portfolio, you will clearly want to look past Pfizer’s yield. And when you do that, you’ll likely find that Merck, Omega, and Johnson & Johnson all offer a more compelling combination of income reliability and yield.
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a sweeping package of climate and environment bills aimed at reducing the cost of electricity, stabilizing gasoline prices and propping up California’s struggling oil industry.
At a bill signing ceremony at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, Newsom told state lawmakers and representatives from labor, business, climate and energy groups that the package was a compromise, designed to push California toward a clean-energy future while still ensuring the state has enough affordable gasoline to meet drivers’ needs.
“Everybody recognized this moment and worked together across their differences, which were not insignificant,” Newsom said.
The bills signed into law include an extension of the state’s nation-leading cap-and-trade program through 2045. The program, rebranded as cap-and-invest, limits greenhouse gas emissions and raises billions for the state’s climate priorities by allowing large polluters to buy and sell their unused emission allowances at quarterly auctions.
The cap-and-invest program should funnel up to $60 billion through 2045 into lowering utility bill costs for California households and small businesses during months when prices spike, officials said. Another $20 billion will go toward the state’s trudging high-speed rail project, and $12 billion to public transit.
California’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen 20% since 2000, while the state’s gross domestic product increased 78% over the same time period, Newsom’s office said.
The most controversial bill in the package was SB 237, which will allow oil and gas companies to drill up to 2,000 new wells per year through 2036 in Kern County, the heart of California oil country. The bill effectively circumvents a decade of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to stymie drilling in the county that produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.
Some environmentalists fumed over that trade-off, as well as over a provision that will allow the governor to suspend the state’s summer-blend gasoline fuel standards — which reduce emissions but drive up costs at the pump — if prices spike for more than 30 days or if it seems likely that they will.
That bill was introduced as part of an effort to stabilize volatile gas prices as Valero and Phillips 66 prepare to close refineries in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County’s South Bay that represented an estimated 20% of the state’s refining capac ity.
Environmental groups said the bills still represent progress, particularly as the Trump administration and the Republican-led Congress step away from clean energy policy.
“D.C. has not led,” said Katelyn Roedner Sutter, the California state director for the Environmental Defense Fund. “California will.”
Through AB 825, California is also laying the groundwork for an electricity market among Western states. The bill is designed to make it easier to share solar and wind power across state lines, meaning California can export excess solar energy while importing wind energy from gustier places like New Mexico and Wyoming.
“Today is a big win for the Golden State,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg). “If you pay utility bills and you want them lower, you win. If you drive a car and hate gas price spikes, you win. If you want clean drinking water, you win. If you want to breathe clean air, you win today. It’s a pretty big winner’s circle.”
United States President Donald Trump appears to be relishing in the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night comedian’s popular talk show was taken off air over comments he made about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.
“He made a total FOOL of himself,” President Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Thursday evening, reposting a clip from last year’s Academy Awards in which Kimmel spontaneously took aim at the US leader.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Earlier in the day, Trump said Kimmel was fired because he said a “horrible thing about a great gentleman known as Charlie Kirk”.
Trump told reporters on his return from visiting the United Kingdom that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – which regulates all broadcasts in the US – should consider removing the licences of broadcasters who “hit Trump”.
“I would think maybe their licence should be taken away,” Trump said, though federal law prohibits the FCC from revoking a broadcaster’s licence for negative coverage or speech disliked by the government.
“It will be up to [FCC Chair] Brendan Carr,” Trump added.
The Disney-owned ABC network removed the Jimmy Kimmel Live show from programming indefinitely on Wednesday after an opening monologue by Kimmel in which he said “the MAGA gang” was trying to “score political points” from Kirk’s death.
Disney made the move after the FCC’s Carr – a Trump appointee – appeared to imply on a right-wing podcast that Kimmel’s remarks had put Disney’s licence in jeopardy.
“This is a very, very serious issue right now for Disney,” Carr said.
“They have a licence granted by us at the FCC, and that comes with it an obligation to operate in the public interest.”
Brendan Carr, then commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, testifies in a 2020 US Senate oversight hearing [File: Jonathan Newton/Reuters]
Kimmel was due to meet with three Disney network executives to discuss the fate of his show, Bloomberg News reported on Thursday.
The comedian is the latest in a growing list of media figures, journalists and news organisations to face Trump’s wrath in the form of lawsuits and personal vendettas.
In July, CBS said The Late Show with Stephen Colbert would go off air in 2026, days after Colbert criticised CBS’s parent company Paramount for a $16m settlement in a case with Trump.
ABC News also agreed to pay $15m over inaccurate on-air comments made by an anchor that Trump had been found “liable for raping” writer E Jean Carroll. Trump had, in fact, been found liable for sexual abuse. More recently, Trump is bringing a multibillion-dollar lawsuit against The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal for their coverage of his relationship with high-flying financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
In another Truth Social post on Wednesday, Trump seemed to suggest further suspensions of late-night comedians, namely two popular NBC hosts.
“That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC,” the president said, referring to Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.
“Their ratings are also horrible. Do it NBC!!!”
Democratic Party lawmakers are now pushing to pass a new bill, called the No Political Enemies Act, which they in part credited to Kimmel’s suspension.
The bill aims to deter officials from retaliating against free speech and provides tools for those targeted by the government, according to a legislative summary, though it is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Congress.
Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has also called for Carr’s resignation from the FCC in a social media post on Thursday, before railing against the Trump administration in a news conference announcing the bill.
“First, let’s be very clear: Political violence has no place in America,” Schumer said.
“But let’s also be clear: The Trump administration campaign of threats against civil society and free speech … is an assault on everything this country has stood for since the Constitution was signed,” Schumer said.
“There’s an assault on democracy coming out of the White House and their allies, and we see more evidence of it every day,” he said.
This company has two dominant businesses in high-growth industries with potential for massive profits.
Billionaire Bill Ackman is one of the most widely followed investment managers on Wall Street. His Pershing Square Capital Management hedge fund has outperformed the S&P 500 in 2025. It’s up 22.9% as of the end of August, compared to a 10.8% gain in the benchmark index during that period.
Ackman’s outperformance stems from taking advantage of opportunities when the market temporarily undervalues certain stocks. He holds only a handful of positions in the fund, and he typically buys and holds them for a long time. Even better, he and his team are happy to share the details on social media and investor calls, making it relatively easy for average investors to follow along.
In May, Pershing Square disclosed that it had bought another member of the “Magnificent Seven” stocks. Its first Magnificent Seven stock, Alphabet(GOOG -0.72%)(GOOGL -0.73%), has been a longtime holding for the hedge fund, and represents one of its biggest holdings. While the new addition isn’t quite as large as its stake in Alphabet, it presents another great opportunity for those following Ackman’s investing style.
Image source: Getty Images.
A magnificent new position
The stock market saw some very big swings at the start of the year, which were exacerbated in early April by President Donald Trump’s tariff announcements. While the stock market was moving wildly, it presented several great opportunities for investors that could follow Warren Buffett’s timeless advice: “Be greedy when others are fearful.”
To that point, Ackman saw the chance to pick up one stock he’s been studying and has long admired. Amazon(AMZN -1.20%) shares fell on fears that tariffs would negatively affect its retail business, and that a slowing economy would produce less demand for its cloud computing services. Ackman and his team freed up capital by selling Pershing Square’s entire position in Canadian Pacific Kansas City to buy the stock.
Ackman got a steal of a deal. He said he bought shares at 25 times forward earnings estimates. While there was a lot of uncertainty at the time about whether those earnings estimates would need to be revised downward, Ackman had confidence that Amazon was well worth the price. In fact, he thinks the stock is still undervalued. “Although the company’s share price has appreciated meaningfully from our initial purchase, we believe substantial upside remains given its ability to drive a high level of earnings growth for a very long time,” he wrote in his letter to shareholders last month.
Here’s why Ackman may continue to hold Amazon shares for a very long time.
Two great category-defining businesses
Amazon essentially has two businesses: Its retail operations and its cloud computing platform. Ackman believes both still have room to benefit from long-term growth trends and opportunities for margin expansion.
On the cloud computing side, Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the largest public cloud provider in the world. It now sports a $120 billion run rate, and it’s about 50% bigger than its next-closest rival. It’s also tremendously profitable already. The segment sports a 37% operating margin over the past 12 months. To put that in perspective, Alphabet’s Google Cloud has an operating margin of less than half that (although it’s gaining leverage as it scales).
Despite Amazon’s large run rate, there’s still ample room for growth in both the near term and long term, according to Ackman. Amazon’s management has struggled to build out capacity fast enough to meet the surging demand from artificial intelligence customers. It’s spending over $100 billion on capital expenditures this year (some of that related to its logistics network), and management says that demand continues to outstrip supply growth. That situation is echoed by Alphabet’s management and other hyperscale cloud providers.
In the long run, Ackman expects more enterprises to move from on-premise computing to the cloud. He points out that just 20% of IT workloads are currently using cloud computing, but he expects that to invert over time, to 80% of workloads being in the cloud.
On the retail side of the business, Ackman points out that Amazon isn’t the only retailer affected by tariffs. In fact, it may be better suited to navigate the environment, as it sports a wide selection of goods. Amazon’s ability to offer reliable and convenient delivery on a growing number of items gives it an advantage over competitors.
That advantage is only improving as it continues to build out its logistics network and warehouse technology, and reduce costs. That allows it to get more items to more customers faster, all while decreasing its fulfillment expenses. Ackman points out that Amazon’s logistics improvements led to a 5% reduction in per-unit shipping costs last quarter. He thinks further improvements could lead it to double its retail profit margin from 5%. That’s a huge profit on a $550 billion business.
While Amazon shares have climbed significantly since Ackman established Pershing Square’s position, investors shouldn’t shy away from the stock at this higher price. The long-term trends favor Amazon’s businesses, and it’s a leading player in both.
Adam Levy has positions in Alphabet and Amazon. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Los Angeles City Council on Wednesday approved a fivefold increase to its contract with a law firm that drew heated criticism for the invoices it submitted in a high-stakes homelessness case.
Three months ago, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher billed the city $1.8 million for two weeks of legal work, with 15 of its attorneys billing nearly $1,300 per hour. By Aug. 8, the cost of the firm’s work had jumped to $3.2 million.
The price tag infuriated some on the council, who pointed out that they had approved a three-year contract capped at $900,000 — and specifically had asked for regular updates on the case.
Despite those concerns, the council voted 10-3 Wednesday to increase the firm’s contract to nearly $5 million for the current fiscal year, which ends in June 2026. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky supported the move, saying Gibson Dunn’s work has been “essential to protecting the city’s interests.”
“At the same time, we put new oversight in place to ensure any additional funding requests come back to council before more money is allocated,” said Yaroslavsky, who heads the council’s budget committee.
Councilmembers Tim McOsker, Adrin Nazarian and Nithya Raman voted against the contract increase.
McOsker, who also sits on the budget committee, said he was not satisfied with Gibson Dunn’s effort to scale back the amount it is charging the city. After the council asked for the cost to be reduced, the firm shaved $210,000 off of the bill, he said.
“I think Gibson should have given up more, and should have been pressed to give up more,” McOsker said after the vote.
A Gibson Dunn attorney who heads up the team that represents the city did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Meanwhile, an aide to City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto welcomed the council’s vote.
“We are pleased that the City Council recognizes and appreciates the strong legal representation that Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has provided and continues to provide to the city,” said Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for Feldstein Soto, in a statement.
Gibson Dunn was retained by the city in mid-May, one week before a major hearing in the case filed by the L.A. Alliance for Human Rights, a nonprofit group that has been at odds with the city over its handling of the homelessness crisis since 2020.
The city reached a settlement with the L.A. Alliance in 2022, agreeing to create 12,915 homeless shelter beds or other housing opportunities. Since then, the L.A. Alliance has repeatedly accused the city of failing to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
In May, a federal judge overseeing the settlement called a seven-day hearing to determine whether he should take authority over the city’s homelessness programs from Mayor Karen Bass and the City Council, and hand them over to a third party. Alliance lawyers said during those proceedings that they wanted to call Bass and two council members to testify.
Feldstein Soto has praised Gibson Dunn’s work in the L.A. Alliance case, saying the firm helped the city retain control over its homelessness programs, while also keeping Bass and the two council members off the stand. She commended the firm for getting up to speed on the settlement, mastering a complex set of policy matters within a week.
Feldstein Soto initially hoped to increase the size of the Gibson Dunn contract to nearly $6 million through 2027 — only to be rebuffed by council members unhappy with the billing situation. On Wednesday, at the recommendation of the council’s budget committee, the council signed off on nearly $5 million over one year.
A portion of that money will likely go toward the filing of an appeal of a federal judge’s order in the LA Alliance case, Feldstein Soto said in a memo.
Faced with lingering criticism from council members, Feldstein Soto agreed to help with the cost of the Gibson Dunn contract, committing $1 million from her office’s budget. The council also tapped $4 million from the city’s “unappropriated balance,” an account for funds that have not yet been allocated.
By transferring the money to the Gibson Dunn contract, the council depleted much of the funding that would have gone to outside law firms over the current budget year, said McOsker, who called the move “bad fiscal management.”
Raman, who heads the council’s homelessness committee, said her dissenting vote wasn’t about the price of the services charged by Gibson Dunn, but rather the fact that so much was spent without council approval.
“As someone who is watching that money very closely, I was frustrated,” she said. “So my ‘no’ vote was based on that frustration.”
