block

WASHINGTON — As progressives seek to place a new tax on billionaires on California’s November ballot, a Republican congressman is moving in the opposite direction — proposing federal legislation that would block states from taxing the assets of former residents.

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who faces a tough re-election challenge under California’s redrawn congressional maps, says he will introduce the “Keep Jobs in California Act of 2026” on Friday. The measure would prohibit any state from levying taxes retroactively on individuals who no longer live there.

The proposed legislation adds another layer to what has already been a fiery debate over California’s approach to taxing the ultra-wealthy. It has created divisions among Democrats and has placed Los Angeles at the center of a broader political fight, with Bernie Sanders set to hold a rally on Wednesday night in support of the wealth tax.

Kiley said he drafted the bill in reaction to reports that several of California’s most prominent billionaires — including Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin — are planning to leave the state in anticipation of the wealth tax being enacted.

“California’s proposed wealth tax is an unprecedented attempt to chase down people who have already left as a result of the state’s poor policies,” Kiley said in a statement Wednesday. “Many of our state’s leading job creators are leaving preemptively.”

Kiley said it would be “fundamentally unfair” to retroactively impose taxes on former residents.

“California already has the highest income tax of any state in the country, the highest gas tax, the highest overall tax burden,” Kiley said in a House floor speech earlier this month. “But a wealth tax is something unique because a wealth tax is not merely the taxation of earned income, it is the confiscation of assets.”

The fate of Kiley’s proposal is just as uncertain as his future in Congress. His 5th Congressional District, which hugs the Nevada border, has been sliced up into six districts under California’s voter-approved Proposition 50, and he has not yet picked one to run in for re-election.

The Billionaire Tax Act, which backers are pushing to get on the November ballot, would charge California’s 200-plus billionaires a onetime 5% tax on their net worth in order to backfill billions of dollars in Republican-led cuts to federal healthcare funding for middle-class and low-income residents. It is being proposed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West.

In his floor speech, Kiley worried that the tax, if approved, could cause the state’s economy to collapse.

“What’s especially threatening about this is that our state’s tax structure is essentially a house of cards,” Kiley said. “You have a system that is incredibly volatile, where top 1% of earners account for 50% of the tax revenue.”

But supporters of the wealth tax argue the measure is one of the few ways that can help the state seek new revenue as it faces economic uncertainty.

Sanders, an independent from Vermont who caucuses with the Democrats, is urging Californians to back the measure, which he says would “provide the necessary funding to prevent more than 3 million working-class Californians from losing the healthcare they currently have — and would help prevent the closures of California hospitals and emergency rooms.”

“It should be common sense that the billionaires pay just slightly more so that entire communities can preserve access to life-saving medical care,” Sanders said in a statement earlier this month. “Our country needs access to hospitals and emergency rooms, not more tax breaks for billionaires.”

Other Democrats are not so sure.

Gov. Gavin Newsom, who is eyeing a presidential bid in 2028, has opposed the measure. He has warned a state-by-state approach to taxing the wealthy could stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.

Some of he wealthiest people in the world are also taking steps to defeat the measure.

Brin is donating $20 million to a California political drive to prevent the wealth tax from becoming law, according to a disclosure reviewed by the New York Times. Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal and the chairman of Palantir, has also donated millions to a committee working to defeat the proposed measure, the New York Times reported.

Feb. 12 (UPI) — Russia has attempted to block access to WhatsApp, the Meta-owned encrypted smartphone messaging application said, accusing the Kremlin of trying to force its citizens to use a state-owned service.

WhatsApp said the Russian attempt to block the service occurred Thursday.

“Trying to isolate over 100 million users from private and secure communication is a backwards step and can only lead to less safety for people in Russia,” WhatsApp said in a brief statement in both English and Russian.

“We continue to do everything we can to keep users connected.”

Little information about the alleged effort was made public by the U.S.-based company. UPI has contacted WhatsApp and Roskomnadzor, Russia’s Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, for comment.

The application Russia was allegedly attempting to drive users to was not named by WhatsApp, but is widely believed to be Max, a smartphone application that Reporters Without Borders condemns as a tool for digital control.

According to the free speech and media watchdog, Russia is seeking to make Max the most widely used messaging app in Russia and the occupied Ukrainian territories. It said the service requires a Russian or Belarusian phone number and blocks communication with other parts of Ukraine while harvesting user data and disseminating pro-Kremlin news and information.

“Max gives the Kremlin a powerful tool for spreading its propaganda in a centralized digital space,” Vincent Berthier and Pauline Maufrais of RSF said in a joint statement published in November.

“This forced adoption also creates an information blackout for Ukrainian citizens in the occupied territories, cut off from free Ukraine.”

WhatsApp made its accusation after Telegram founder Pavel Durov made similar allegations against Moscow.

“Russia is restricting access to Telegram in an attempt to force its citizens to switch to a state-controlled app built for surveillance and political censorship,” he said in a post on Telegram.

“Restricting citizens’ freedom is never the right answer. Telegram stands for freedom of speech and privacy, no matter the pressure.”

Roskomnadzor said in a statement that it will continue to restrict access to Telegram over alleged violations of Russian law, privately owned Russian business news outlet RBC reported.

It accused Telegram of not implementing legally regulated measures to protect the security of citizens’ data and said it would continue to take steps to compel its compliance with the law.

“By decision of the authorized bodies, Roskomnadzor will continue the introduction of phased restrictions in order to achieve compliance with Russian legislation and ensure the protection of citizens,” the agency said.

Meta was designated as an extremist organization by a Russian court in 2022, leading to bans of Meta-owned Facebook and Instagram. Other social media platforms, including X, are blocked or restricted in the country.

Feb. 12 (UPI) — In a rare rebuke of the Trump administration, the Republican-led House on Wednesday moved to block sweeping tariffs imposed on Canada by President Donald Trump.

In a 219-211 vote on Wednesday evening, House lawmakers approved legislation terminating a national emergency Trump declared early in his administration to slap tariffs on the United States’ northern neighbor.

Six Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues to pass the legislation into an uncertain future in the Senate. One Democrat, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, voted against terminating the emergency.

The legislation, however, could end up being only symbolic. Even if the GOP-led majority approves it, President Donald Trump would be expected to veto it.

Even as the resolution faces an uncertain future, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and sponsor of H.J.Res.72, said Democrats, joined by several GOP lawmakers, forced the measure to the floor to put Republicans on record.

“The question was simple: stand with working families and lower costs, or keep prices high out of loyalty to Donald Trump?” Meeks, who has argued the tariffs have increased household costs, said in a statement following the vote.

“House Democrats will continue fighting to lower costs, even if most Republicans won’t.”

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

On Feb. 1, Trump declared a national emergency with respect to Canada over drugs entering the United States across their shared border, alleging Ottawa was “failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with the United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.”

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, Trump imposed a sweeping 25% tariff on most Canadian goods and a 10% duty on Canadian energy products.

The tariffs have kicked off a trade war with Canada and have begun fraying the United States’ relations with Ottawa, which, in the months since, has sought to lessen its dependency on Washington.

Premier Doug Ford of Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, on Wednesday night thanked the members of Congress who voted to terminate the emergency declaration, saying they “stood up in support of free trade and economic growth between our two great countries.”

“An important victory with more work ahead,” he said in a social media statement.

“Let’s end the tariffs and together build a more prosperous and secure future.”

Trump lashed out against House and Senate Republicans on Wednesday, warning that those who vote against his tariffs “will suffer the consequences come Election time,” suggesting that he could interfere with their chances of winning their next primary.

The president argued in a post on his Truth Social platform that tariffs improve the United States’ economic and national security “because the mere mention of the word has Countries agreeing to our strongest wishes.”

“Tariffs have given us Economic and National Security, and no Republican should be responsible for destroying this privilege,” he said. In a second post, Trump said Canada was taking advantage of the United States without providing proof, calling Ottawa “the worst in the World to deal with.”

“TARIFFS make a WIN for us, EASY,” he said. “Republicans must keep it that way!”

Democrats have criticized Trump’s tariffs since they were announced, and now point to economists’ estimates that say the measures — including those imposed against Canada — have increased household costs.

According to the Budget Lab at Yale University, income loss due to Trump’s tariffs, including those imposed on Canada, amounted to about $1,700 per American household last year. The nonpartisan Tax Foundation said the tariffs amount to an average tax increase per U.S. household of $1,000 in 2025 and $1,300 this year.

Though estimates vary, economists generally agree that the tariffs have raised costs for American households.

The U.S.-Canada relationship has greatly degraded during Trump’s second term. Threats to make Canada the United States’ 51st state, his imposition of tariffs and the shifting right of Washington’s foreign and domestic policies have prompted officials in Ottawa to look elsewhere for stable economic partnerships.

Last month, Trump threatened to impose a 100% tariff on Canadian imports in response to Canada seeking to forge a new trade deal with China.

Last October, the U.S. Senate passed a similar resolution to end the emergency declaration related to Canada, but the GOP-led House did not take it up before the end of the congressional session.

In the courts, the legality of Trump’s tariffs is being challenged by multiple lawsuits, with opponents, including states and companies, arguing that the president exceeded his authority in imposing the taxes, which historically are Congress’ responsibility as holder of the purse.

PROVO, Utah — Graphic videos showing the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while he spoke to a crowd on a Utah college campus quickly went viral, drawing millions of views.

Now, attorneys for the man charged in Kirk’s killing want a state judge to block such videos from being shown. A hearing was held Tuesday. Defense attorneys also want to oust TV and still cameras from the courtroom, arguing that “highly biased” news outlets risk tainting the case.

Prosecutors, attorneys for news organizations, and Kirk’s widow urged state District Court Judge Tony Graf to keep the proceedings open.

“In the absence of transparency, speculation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories are likely to proliferate, eroding public confidence in the judicial process,” Erika Kirk’s attorney wrote in a Monday court filing. “Such an outcome serves neither the interests of justice nor those of Ms. Kirk.”

But legal experts say the defense team’s worries are real: Media coverage in high-profile cases such as Tyler Robinson’s can have a direct “biasing effect” on potential jurors, said Cornell Law School Professor Valerie Hans.

“There were videos about the killing, and pictures and analysis [and] the entire saga of how this particular defendant came to turn himself in,” said Hans, a leading expert on the jury system. “When jurors come to a trial with this kind of background information from the media, it shapes how they see the evidence that is presented in the courtroom.”

Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty for Robinson, 22, who is charged with aggravated murder in the Sept. 10 shooting of Kirk on the Utah Valley University campus in Orem. An estimated 3,000 people attended the outdoor rally to hear Kirk, a co-founder of Turning Point USA, who helped mobilize young people to vote for Donald Trump.

To secure a death sentence in Utah, prosecutors must demonstrate aggravating circumstances, such as that the crime was especially heinous or atrocious. That’s where the graphic videos could come into play.

Watching those videos might make people think, “‘Yeah, this was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel,’” Hans said.

Further complicating efforts to ensure a fair trial is the political rhetoric swirling around Kirk, stemming from the role his organization played in Trump’s 2024 election. Even before Robinson’s arrest, people had jumped to conclusions about who the shooter could be and what kind of politics he espoused, said University of Utah law professor Teneille Brown.

“People are just projecting a lot of their own sense of what they think was going on, and that really creates concerns about whether they can be open to hearing the actual evidence that’s presented,” she said.

Robinson’s attorneys have ramped up claims of bias as the case has advanced, even accusing news outlets of using lip readers to deduce what the defendant is whispering to his attorneys during court hearings.

Fueling those concerns was a television camera operator who zoomed in on Robinson’s face as he talked to his attorneys during a Jan. 16 hearing. That violated courtroom orders, prompting the judge to stop filming of Robinson for the remainder of the hearing.

“Rather than being a beacon for truth and openness, the News Media have simply become a financial investor in this case,” defense attorneys wrote in a request for the court to seal some of their accusations of media bias. Unsealing those records, they added, “will simply generate even more views of the offending coverage, and more revenue for the News Media.”

Prosecutors acknowledged the intense public interest surrounding the case but said that does not permit the court to compromise on openness. They said the need for transparency transcends Robinson’s case.

“This case arose, and will remain, in the public eye. That reality favors greater transparency of case proceedings, not less,” Utah County prosecutors wrote in a court filing.

Defense attorneys are seeking to disqualify local prosecutors because the daughter of a deputy county attorney involved in the case attended the rally where Kirk was shot. The defense alleges that the relationship represents a conflict of interest.

In response, prosecutors said in a court filing that they could present videos at Tuesday’s hearing to demonstrate that the daughter was not a necessary witness since numerous other people recorded the shooting.

Among the videos, prosecutors wrote, is one that shows the bullet hitting Kirk, blood coming from his neck and Kirk falling from his chair.

Brown and Schoenbaum write for the Associated Press.

Cuban diplomat says Havana is ready for dialogue with Washington, but certain things are off the table, including the constitution and its socialist government.

Cuba and the United States are in communication, but the exchanges have not yet evolved into a formal “dialogue”, a Cuban diplomat has said, as US President Donald Trump stepped up pressure on Havana.

Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, Cuba’s deputy foreign minister, told the Reuters news agency on Monday that the US government was aware that Cuba was “ready to have a serious, meaningful and responsible dialogue”.

De Cossio’s statement represents the first hint from Havana that it is in contact with Washington, even if in a limited fashion, as tensions flared in recent weeks amid Trump’s threats against the Cuban government in the aftermath of the US military’s abduction of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, Cuba’s longstanding ally.

“We have had exchange of messages, we have embassies, we have had communications, but we cannot say we have had a table of dialogue,” de Cossio said.

In a separate interview with The Associated Press news agency, De Cossio said, “If we can have a dialogue, maybe that can lead to negotiation.”

The deputy minister also stressed that certain issues are off the table for Cuba, including the country’s constitution, economy, and its socialist system of government.

On Sunday, Trump indicated that the US had begun talks with “the highest people in Cuba”.

“I think we’re going to make a deal with Cuba,” Trump told reporters at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

Days earlier, Trump had referred to Cuba in an executive order as “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security, and warned other countries he would impose more tariffs on them if they supplied oil to Cuba.

On Monday, Trump reverted to issuing threats to Havana, announcing at the White House that Mexico “is going to cease” sending oil to Cuba, a move that could starve the country of its energy needs.

Mexico, which has yet to comment on Trump’s latest statement, is the largest supplier of oil to Cuba.

Mexico had repeatedly said that it would not stop shipping oil to Cuba for humanitarian reasons, but also expressed concern that it could face reprisals from Trump over its policy.

In recent weeks, the US has moved to block all oil from reaching Cuba, including from Cuba’s ally Venezuela, pushing up prices for food and transportation and prompting severe fuel shortages and hours of blackouts, even in the capital, Havana.

Responding to Trump’s threat regarding oil supplies, Cuba’s De Cossio said that the move would eventually backfire.

“The US… is attempting to force every country in the world not to provide fuel to Cuba. Can that be sustained in the long run?” de Cossio said to Reuters.

The US has imposed decades of crushing sanctions on Cuba, but a crippling economic crisis on the island and stepped-up pressure from the Trump administration have recently brought the conflict to a head.

Israel says it will reopen the Rafah crossing on Sunday after nearly two years — but only for restricted, tightly controlled movement of people. Humanitarian aid remains barred. Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud reports from Rafah as Israel retains full security control.