campaign

EMILY Ratajkowski raised the temperature as she posed for steamy lingerie snaps to promote her campaign with Lounge underwear. 

The actress and model, 34, flaunted her famous figure in a selection of lingerie pieces from her collaboration with the underwear brand, and posted some of the saucy pics to her Instagram account.

5

5

5

Mum-of-one Emily donned a hot-pink bra, panties and garter set in one snap, as she posed suggestively with white sheets on a bed.

In another picture, the Gone Girl actress lay seductively on the floor in an all-black set as she looked directly into the camera.

The famously slender star also showed off her frame and toned stomach as she posed stood up in the all black ensemble, 

The sexy lingerie pieces are part of the model’s collection with Lounge Underwear, dubbed “Emily’s Edit”. 

Speaking about the edit, Emily said: “Sexiness has nothing to do with what someone else sees. It’s about how I feel. 

“I’m a mother, I’m a writer, I’m someone who loves fashion. I play a dozen different roles every day. I love that Lounge recognizes how multifaceted women can be.”

The edit, which features seasonal picks from the star, marks Lounge’s Fall 2025 collection, and also features clothing items including a suede blazer and matching shorts, a cherry lacquer argyle cardigan, and a chocolate sheer shirt paired with a coordinating skirt.

It comes a week after Emily was seen partying away with British pop star Charli XCX, after attending their wedding ceremony in Sicily, Italy. 

The Brat star, 33, married her The 1975 drummer husband George Daniel in a small ceremony in London last month, before flying out to Italy to throw a huge celebration with family and close friends.

Emily was among a flurry of stars who attended the wedding, which included Matty Healy, Gabriette, Amelia Dimoldenberg and Julia Fox.

The model appeared to attend the ceremony alone – without her four-year-old son Sylvester Apollo Bear, who she shares with her ex-husband Sebastian Bear-McClard. 

Emily finalized her divorce with the film producer, who faced a slew of sexual misconduct allegations, in July, after filing for divorce in September 2022. 

The model sparked her latest romance rumours earlier this month, after she was spotted getting close to Caught Stealing actor Austin Butler in New York. 

The pair were spotted together at the Waverly Inn in Manhattan’s West Village, in what could mark her first relationship since her divorce.

She has previously been linked to stars including chart-topper Harry Styles, Oscar winner Brad Pitt, artist Jack Greer and SNL alum Pete Davidson. 

Emily recently revealed she would be making a career turn, as she gears up for a screen-writing debut on A24’s untitled drama series for Apple TV+, which is set to explore female identity and modern motherhood – with Lena Dunham and author Stephanie Danler. 

“Lena was the first person who published my writing, on Lenny Letter, but she knew about me from Instagram,” she told Variety in July. 

“I’ve had a lot of experiences, with Lena specifically, where she has seen past surface level things and given me so many opportunities.”

5

5

NEW YORK — New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced Sunday that he is ending his campaign for reelection.

In a video released on social media, Adams spoke with pride about his achievements as mayor, including a drop in violent crime. But he said that “constant media speculation” about his future and a decision by the city’s campaign finance board to withhold public funding from his reelection effort made it impossible to stay in the race.

“Despite all we’ve achieved, I cannot continue my reelection campaign,” Adams said.

The one-term Democrat’s decision to quit the race comes days after he repeatedly insisted he would stay in the contest, saying everyday New Yorkers don’t “surrender.”

But speculation that he wouldn’t make it to election day has been rampant for a year. Adams’ campaign was severely wounded by his federal bribery case — since dismissed by the Justice Department after he agreed to cooperate with President Trump’s immigration crackdown — and liberal anger over his warm relationship with Trump. He skipped the Democratic primary and got on the ballot as an independent.

In the video, Adams did not directly mention or endorse any of the remaining candidates in the race. He also warned that “extremism is growing in our politics.”

“Major change is welcome and necessary, but beware of those who claim the answer [is] to destroy the very system we built over generations,” he said. “That is not change, that is chaos. Instead, I urge leaders to choose leaders not by what they promise, but by what they have delivered.”

Adams’ exit could potentially provide a lift to the campaign of former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a fellow Democratic centrist running as an independent, who has portrayed himself as the only candidate able to beat the Democratic Party’s nominee, state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani.

It was unclear, though, whether enough Adams supporters would shift their allegiance to Cuomo to make a difference.

Mamdani, who, at age 33, would be the city’s youngest and most liberal mayor in generations if elected, beat Cuomo decisively in the Democratic primary by campaigning on a promise to try to lower the cost of living in one of the world’s most expensive cities.

Republican Curtis Sliwa also remains in the race, though his candidacy has been undercut from within his own party. Trump in a recent interview called him “not exactly prime time.”

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who has endorsed Mamdani, said in a statement after the mayor’s announcement that she has been proud to have worked with Adams for the last four years, and that he leaves the city “better than he inherited it.”

Offenhartz and Izaguirre write for the Associated Press.

Democrats, despite their hypersensitive, bleeding-heart reputation, can be harsh. Ruthless, even.

When it comes to picking their presidential nominee, it’s often one and done. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry were embraced and then, after leading their party to disappointing defeat, cast off like so many wads of wet tissue.

Compare that with Republicans, who not only believe in second chances but, more often than not, seem to prefer their presidential candidates recycled. Over the last half century, all but a few of the GOP’s nominees have had at least one failed White House bid on their resume.

The roster of retreads includes the current occupant of the Oval Office, who is only the second president in U.S. history to regain the perch after losing it four years prior.

Why the difference? It would take a psychologist or geneticist to determine if there’s something in the minds or molecular makeup of party faithful, which could explain their varied treatment of those humbled and vanquished.

Regardless, it suggests the blowback facing Kamala Harris and the campaign diary she published last week is happening right on cue.

And it doesn’t portend well for another try at the White House in 2028, should the former vice president and U.S. senator from California pursue that path.

The criticism has come in assorted flavors.

Joe Biden loyalists — many of whom were never great fans of Harris — have bristled at her relatively mild criticisms of the obviously aged and physically declining president. (She leaves it to her husband, former Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, to vent about the “impossible, s— jobs” Harris was given and, in spite of that, the failure of the president and first lady to defend Harris during her low points.)

The notable lack of self-blame has rankled other Democrats. Aside from some couldas and shouldas, Harris largely ascribes her defeat to insufficient time to make her case to voters — just 107 days, the title of her book — which hardly sits well with those who feel Harris squandered the time she did have.

More generally, some Democrats fault the former vice president for resurfacing, period, rather than slinking off and disappearing forever into some deep, dark hole. It’s a familiar gripe each time the party struggles to move past a presidential defeat; Hillary Clinton faced a similar backlash when she published her inside account after losing to Donald Trump in 2016.

That critique assumes great masses of voters devour campaign memoirs with the same voracious appetite as those who surrender their Sundays to the Beltway chat shows, or mainline political news like a continuous IV drip.

They do not.

Let the record show Democrats won the White House in 2020 even though Clinton bobbed back up in 2017 and, for a short while, thwarted the party’s fervent desire to “turn the page.”

But there are those avid consumers of campaigns and elections, and for the political fiends among us Harris offers plenty of fizz, much of it involving her party peers and prospective 2028 rivals.

Pete Buttigieg, the meteoric star of the 2020 campaign, was her heartfelt choice for vice president, but Harris said she feared the combination of a Black woman and gay running mate would exceed the load-bearing capacity of the electorate. (News to me, Buttigieg said after Harris revealed her thinking, and an underestimation of the American people.)

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, the runner-up to Harris’ ultimate vice presidential pick, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, comes across as unseemly salivating and greedily lusting after the job. (He fired back by suggesting Harris has some splainin’ to do about what she knew of Biden’s infirmities and when she knew it.)

Harris implies Govs. JB Pritzker and Gretchen Whitmer of Illinois and Michigan, respectively, were insufficiently gung-ho after Biden stepped aside and she became the Democratic nominee-in-waiting.

But for California readers, the most toothsome morsel involves Harris’ longtime frenemy, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The two, who rose to political power in the early 2000s on parallel tracks in San Francisco, have long had a complicated relationship, mixing mutual aid with jealousy and jostling.

In her book, Harris recounts the hours after Biden’s sudden withdrawal, when she began telephoning top Democrats around the country to lock in their support. In contrast to the enthusiasm many displayed, Newsom responded tersely with a text message: “Hiking. Will call back.”

He never did, Harris noted, pointedly, though Newsom did issue a full-throated endorsement within hours, which the former vice president failed to mention.

It’s small-bore stuff. But the fact Harris chose to include that anecdote speaks to the tetchiness underlying the warmth and fuzziness that California’s two most prominent Democrats put on public display.

Will the two face off in 2028?

Riding the promotional circuit, Harris has repeatedly sidestepped the inevitable questions about another presidential bid.

“That’s not my focus right now,” she told Rachel Maddow, in a standard-issue non-denial denial. For his part, Newsom is obviously running, though he won’t say so.

There would be something operatic, or at least soap-operatic, about the two longtime competitors openly vying for the country’s ultimate political prize — though it’s hard to see Democrats, with their persistent hunger for novelty, turning to Harris or her left-coast political doppelganger as their savior.

Meantime, the two are back on parallel tracks, though seemingly headed in opposite directions.

While Newsom is looking to build Democratic bridges, Harris is burning hers down.

Supporters of the November ballot measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts — an effort led by Gov. Gavin Newsom to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives next year — have far out-raised the opposition campaigns, according to fundraising disclosures filed with the state.

The primary group backing Proposition 50 raked in $77.5 million and spent $28.1 million through Sept. 20, according to a campaign finance report that was filed with the secretary of state’s office on Thursday.

The committee has $54.4 million in the bank for the final weeks of the campaign, so Californian should expect a blizzard of television ads, mailers, phone calls and other efforts to sway voters before the Nov. 4 special election.

The two main groups opposing the ballot measure have raised $35.3 million, spent $27.4 million and have roughly $8.8 million in the bank combined, campaign finance reports show.

Despite having an overwhelming financial advantage, the campaign supporting Proposition 50 has tried to portray itself as the underdog in a fight to raise money against opposition campaigns with ties to President Trump and his supporters.

“MAGA donors keep pouring millions into the campaign to stop Prop. 50 in the hopes of pleasing their ‘Dear Leader,’” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the Yes on 50, the Election Rigging Response Act campaign. “We will not take our foot off the gas — Prop. 50 is America’s best chance to stop this reckless and dangerous president, and we will keep doing everything we can to ensure every Californian knows the stakes and is ready to vote yes on 50 this Nov. 4th.”

A spokesperson for one of the anti-Proposition 50 campaigns, which was sending mailers to voters even before the Democratic-led California Legislature placed Proposition 50 on the November ballot, said their priority was to help Californians understand the inappropriateness of redrawing congressional boundaries that had been created by a voter-approved, state independent commission.

“We started communicating with voters early about the consequences of having politicians draw their own lines,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for a coalition that opposes the ballot measure. “We are confident we’ll have the resources necessary to continue through election day.”

A spokesperson for the other main anti-Proposition 50 group agreed.

“When you’re selling a lemon, no amount of cash can change the taste. We’re confident in raising more than sufficient resources to expose Prop. 50 for the blatant political power grab that it is,” said Ellie Hockenbury, an advisor to the No on 50 – Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab campaign. Newsom “can’t change the fact that Prop. 50 is nothing more than a ploy for politicians to take the power of redistricting away from the voters and charge them for the privilege at a massive cost to taxpayers.”

The special election is expected to cost the state and the counties $282 million, according to the secretary of state’s office and the state department of finance.

If approved, Proposition 50 would have a major impact on California’s 2026 congressional elections, which will play a major role in determining whether Trump is able to continue enacting his agenda in the final two years of his tenure. The party that wins the White House frequently loses congressional seats two years later, and Republicans hold a razor-thin majority in the House.

After Trump urged GOP-led states, notably Texas, to redraw their congressional districts to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress in next year’s midterm election, Newsom and other California Democrats responded by proposing a counter-effort to boost the ranks of their party in the legislative body.

California’s congressional districts are drawn once every decade after the U.S. Census by a voter-approved independent redistricting commission. So Democrats’ proposal to replace the districts with new boundaries proposed by state lawmakers must be approved by voters. The state Legislature voted in August to put the measure before voters in a special election on Nov. 4.

Polling about the proposition is not definitive. It’s an off-year election, which means turnout is likely to be low and the electorate is unpredictable. And relatively few Californians pay attention to redistricting, the esoteric process of redrawing congressional districts.

There are more than 30 campaign committees associated with Proposition 50 registered with the secretary of state’s office, but only three have raised large amounts of money.

Newsom’s pro-Proposition 50 effort has received several large donations since its launch, including $10 million from billionaire financier George Soros, $7.6 million from House Majority PAC (the Democrats’ congressional political arm) and $4.5 million from various Service Employees International Union groups. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt and his wife have contributed $1 million to a separate committee supporting the proposition.

The opposition groups had few small-dollar donors and were largely funded by two sources — $30 million in loans from Charles Munger Jr., who for years has been a major Republican donor in California, and a $5-million donation from the Congressional Leadership Fund, the GOP political arm of House Republicans.

For nearly a decade, President Trump has promised “energy dominance” — a vague but alluring slogan hinting at a world in which the U.S. is king. A world in which other nations depend on us for their power, ensuring economic prosperity in the form of domestic jobs, cheap gasoline and low electric bills.

The problem is, it’s a breathtaking lie.

As recent events have made abundantly clear, Trump and his allies don’t care about energy dominance. They care about killing renewable energy and helping fossil fuel companies profit. Even if it means higher power costs. Even if it means destroying American jobs. Even if it means ceding the future to China.

All of which is happening. “Energy dominance” is a terrifyingly effective propaganda campaign that demands a robust response from the renewable energy industry, which, like the Democratic Party, has largely failed to meet the moment. Solar and wind companies have instead let Trump’s messaging rule the day, pushing back weakly at best as they scramble for slices of an “energy dominance” pie that will never be theirs.

It’s time for them to start punching back.

Amid a yearlong assault on clean power — including Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which slashed federal incentives for solar farms, wind turbines and electric cars — nothing has better exemplified the MAGA Republican Party’s stance toward renewables than an unprecedented, possibly illegal effort to block several massive clean energy projects, including at least one already under construction.

Last month, the Trump administration ordered the Danish company Orsted to stop building Revolution Wind, a $4-billion floating wind farm in the waters off the Rhode Island coast that was already 80% complete. A judge ruled Monday that work can proceed — a win for New Englanders, who stand to pay half a billion dollars per year in higher utility bills and face a higher risk of blackouts if the project doesn’t come online.

Also last month, Trump’s Interior Secretary Doug Burgum reversed the Biden administration’s approval of an Idaho wind project, Lava Ridge. Earlier, he halted construction of Empire Wind off the New York coast, changing course only after Gov. Kathy Hochul reportedly agreed to approve two gas pipelines. Burgum’s agency asked judges last week to cancel approval of offshore wind farms in Maryland and Massachusetts.

Trump’s hatred for wind turbines dates back to his failed effort in the mid-2010s to derail an offshore wind farm that he said would ruin the views from his Scottish golf resort. But he and his accomplices have attacked the solar industry, too.

A worker helps build the Gemini solar project on federal lands outside Las Vegas in January 2023, during the Biden administration.

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

Trump’s appointees have issued directives making it harder for solar and wind companies to qualify for tax credits before they expire, and stalling approvals for renewable energy projects on public and private lands. The U.S. Department of Agriculture gutted a program that provides financial support for farmers who want to lower their energy bills by installing solar panels.

“The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!” Trump wrote on social media in August.

If climate-friendly energy is stupid, then America’s biggest energy companies are pretty dumb. Solar panels, wind turbines and batteries made up 94% of the nation’s new power capacity last year — a trend driven by the fact that solar and wind are the cheapest sources of new electricity. Even in Texas, renewables are booming.

So how have Trump and friends justified their attacks on clean energy?

In large part by lying.

In that August social media post, Trump claimed that states reliant on wind and solar power “are seeing RECORD BREAKING INCREASES IN ELECTRICITY AND ENERGY COSTS.”

That’s false. Although Californians do pay high electric rates for complex reasons, states with similarly climate-friendly power supplies — such as wind-rich Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota — enjoy some of the country’s cheapest electricity.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright, meanwhile, said in a recent interview that in the absence of batteries, solar panels and wind turbines are essentially “worthless” when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing — rehashing a tired anti-renewables talking point that deliberately ignores the incredible growth of energy storage, driven by rapidly falling battery costs.

Wright — who previously ran a fossil fuel company — is also engaged in the latest climate-denial fad: acknowledging that global warming is real but insisting the consequences aren’t so bad, and that phasing out oil and gas is actually more harmful than replacing them with clean energy. Never mind the bigger wildfires, the harsher droughts, the deadlier heat waves, the rising seas, the deadly air pollution…

To support his lies, Wright handpicked five infamously contrarian researchers who produced a report questioning decades of well-established climate science. Dozens of leading experts quickly uncovered errors.

“The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating,” Wright said in a written statement alongside the report. “Yet we are told — relentlessly — that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat.”

Oil, gas and coal did indeed help build today’s society. And now we know they pose an existential threat to society if we keep using them for too much longer.

This shouldn’t be a hard story for renewable energy companies to tell. One European power generator, at least, is doing it well.

Some of the Hywind Tampen floating offshore wind turbines in the North Sea, operated by Equinor, an international energy company based in Norway.

(Ole Jørgen Bratland / Equinor)

In a recent ad for Swedish energy company Vattenfall, actor Samuel L. Jackson stands on a bluff at the edge of a gorgeous sea. He looks out across the water, where wind turbines spin serenely in the distance.

“Mother— wind farms. Loud, ugly, harmful to nature. Who says that?” Jackson asks, shaking his head. “These giants are standing tall against fossil fuels. Rising out of the ocean like a middle finger to CO2.”

The tagline: “We’re working for fossil freedom.”

You’d be hard-pressed to find such punchy, provocative messaging from the U.S. clean energy industry.

When the Trump administration said last month it was making it harder for solar and wind projects to qualify for federal tax credits, for instance, Abigail Ross Hopper — president of the Solar Energy Industries Assn. — urged the Trump administration to “stop the political games, stop punishing businesses, and get serious about how to actually build the power we need right now to meet demand and stay competitive.”

Similarly, when federal officials halted work on Revolution Wind, American Clean Power Assn. Chief Executive Jason Grumet called it “a broken promise to the communities, workers, consumers, and businesses counting on this project.”

“Taking jobs away from American families while raising their energy bills is not leadership,” Grumet said.

Underlying both missives — and the industry’s entire playbook, so far as I’ve seen — is the assumption that clean energy companies are dealing with a normal, good-faith government. That Trump and company aren’t just trying to own the libs and line the pockets of campaign fundraisers. That they truly care about “energy dominance.”

It’s time for solar and wind executives to stop pleading with MAGA Republicans and start telling Americans the real story. That clean energy is cheaper, healthier and just as reliable as fossil fuels. That China is dominating the renewable energy arms race, and we badly need to catch up. That we don’t need coal, and we won’t always need oil and gas, and “energy dominance” is a lie meant to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

That strategy probably won’t pay off in the short term. But in the long term, nothing else will.

THIS is the moment a Ukraine naval drone strikes one of Vladimir Putin’s key fuel sites sparking chaos in Russia.

The Salavat factory was hit for the second time in less than a week amid Volodymyr Zelensky’s soaring campaign against Russian oil.

6

6

6

Footage shows thick black smoke billowing out of the facility as an inferno rages on the ground.

A second explosion, meanwhile, is seen pounding the building.

Locals reported hearing a “loud noise” before flames ravaged the surrounding area.

The Salavat refinery, considered a linchpin in Russia’s oil industry, was last hit on September 18 – causing a “massive explosion”, according to local media.

It’s just one of a number of facilities Ukraine has targeted in recent weeks as it steps up its campaign on Russian energy infrastructure.

The strikes have sparked chaos in Moscow with petrol stations reportedly not able to stockpile fuel.

Widely used petrol – such as Ai 92 and Ai 95 – are often unavailable, according to reports.

One employee at a petrol station in the western Belgorod suggested the oil crisis had reached a tipping point, with stations forced to close “because there was no gasoline”.

She told Reuters: “The station in the neighbouring village also closed, and others simply ran out of gasoline.”

Moscow has been forced to ban fuel exports for six months, sacrificing vital revenue just to stop unrest at home.

Military intelligence expert Philip Ingram MBE previously explained how “Putin’s greatest fear” is “the Russian people rising up.”

Before the invasion, energy exports made up around 40 per cent of the Kremlin’s budget.

Even under sanctions, oil and gas still bring in 30 per cent of Russia’s income.

He showed how Ukraine has zeroed in on this “river of oil money” with pinpoint strikes hundreds of miles inside Russian territory.

Long-range drones have torched colossal refineries, exploded pumping stations and set storage tanks ablaze – systematically dismantling Moscow’s refining capacity.

The campaign has shattered Russia’s aura of invulnerability, exposed its sprawling oil empire as a fatal weakness, and brought the war crashing into the lives of ordinary Russians.

And as Ingram puts it: “It proves that in modern warfare, the most effective battle plans aren’t always about brute force on the tactical frontline, but about finding your enemy’s single point of failure – and striking it again and again with unrelenting precision.”

6

6

It comes as Donald Trump announced in his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly that Ukraine could win back “every inch” of its territory with Russia.

In a major pivot from his previous stance on the three-and-a-half-year conflict, Trump also dismissed Russia’s military strength and mocked its inability to beat Ukraine in just a few days.

Posting on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said Ukraine “may be able to take back their country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that”.

Trump’s Vlad-bashing follows months of growing frustration at Putin’s refusal to end the offensive in Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov hit back at Trump’s insults, particularly those levelled at the Russian economy.

“The phrase ‘paper tiger’ was used in relation to our economy,” he said.

“Russia is more associated with a bear. And paper bears don’t exist.

“Russia is a real bear.”

Peskov did, however, admit that the Russian economy had faced “tensions”.

6

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta on Monday accused Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr of unlawfully intimidating television broadcasters into toeing a conservative line in favor of President Trump, and urged him to reverse course.

In a letter to Carr, Bonta specifically cited ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” off the air after Kimmel made comments about the killing of close Trump ally Charlie Kirk, and Carr demanded ABC’s parent company Disney “take action” against the late-night host.

Bonta wrote that California “is home to a great many artists, entertainers, and other individuals who every day exercise their right to free speech and free expression,” and that Carr’s demands of Disney threatened their 1st Amendment rights.

“As the Supreme Court held over sixty years ago and unanimously reaffirmed just last year, ‘the First Amendment prohibits government officials from relying on the threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,’” Bonta wrote.

Carr and Trump have both denied playing a role in Kimmel’s suspension, alleging instead that it was due to his show having poor ratings.

After Disney announced Monday that Kimmel’s show would be returning to ABC, Bonta said he was “pleased to hear ABC is reversing course on its capitulation to the FCC’s unlawful threats,” but that his “concerns stand.”

He rejected Trump and Carr’s denials of involvement, and accused the administration of “waging a dangerous attack on those who dare to speak out against it.”

“Censoring and silencing critics because you don’t like what they say — be it a comedian, a lawyer, or a peaceful protester — is fundamentally un-American,” while such censorship by the U.S. government is “absolutely chilling,” Bonta said.

Bonta called on Carr to “stop his campaign of censorship” and commit to defending the right to free speech in the U.S., which he said would require “an express disavowal” of his previous threats and “an unambiguous pledge” that he will not use the FCC “to retaliate against private parties” for speech he disagrees with moving forward.

“News outlets have reported today that ABC will be returning Mr. Kimmel’s show to its broadcast tomorrow night. While it is heartening to see the exercise of free speech ultimately prevail, this does not erase your threats and the resultant suppression of free speech from this past week or the prospect that your threats will chill free speech in the future,” Bonta wrote.

After Kirk’s killing, Kimmel said during a monologue that the U.S. had “hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Carr responded on a conservative podcast, saying, “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Two major owners of ABC affiliates dropped the show, after which ABC said it would be “preempted indefinitely.”

Both Kirk’s killing and Kimmel’s suspension — which followed the cancellation of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” by CBS — kicked off a tense debate about freedom of speech in the U.S. Both Kimmel and Colbert are critics of Trump, while Kirk was an ardent supporter.

Constitutional scholars and other 1st amendment advocates said the administration and Carr have clearly been exerting inappropriate pressure on media companies.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, said Carr’s actions were part of a broad assault on free speech by the administration, which “is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st amendment.”

Summer Lopez, the interim co-chief executive of PEN America, said this is “a dangerous moment for free speech” in the U.S. because of a host of Trump administration actions that are “pretty clear violations of the 1st Amendment” — including Carr’s threats but also statements about “hate speech” by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi and new Pentagon restrictions on journalists reporting on the U.S. military.

She said Kimmel’s return to ABC showed that “public outrage does make a difference,” but that “it’s important that we generate that level of public outrage when the targeting is of people who don’t have that same prominence.”

Carr has also drawn criticism from conservative corners, including from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) — who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, which oversees the FCC. He recently said on his podcast that he found it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Cruz said he works closely with Carr, whom he likes, but that what Carr said was “dangerous as hell” and could be used down the line “to silence every conservative in America.”

Eight months into his second term, President Trump’s long-standing pledge to take on those he perceives as his political enemies has prompted debates over free speech, media censorship and political prosecutions.

Trump has escalated moves to consolidate power in his second administration and target those who have spoken out against him, including the suspension of late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Pentagon restrictions on reporters and an apparent public appeal to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to pursue legal cases against his adversaries.

In a post on social media over the weekend addressed to Bondi, Trump said that “nothing is being done” on investigations into some of his foes.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he said. Referencing his impeachment and criminal indictments, he said, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Criticizing investigations into Trump’s dealings under Democratic President Biden’s Justice Department, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that “it is not right for the Trump administration to do the same thing.”

Directive to Bondi

Trump has ratcheted up his discussion of pursuing legal cases against some of his political opponents, part of a vow for retribution that has been a theme of his return to the White House. He publicly pressed Bondi over the weekend to move forward with such investigations.

Trump posted somewhat of an open letter on social media Saturday to his top prosecutor to advance such inquiries, including a mortgage fraud investigation of New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and a possible case against former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump accuses of threatening him.

The president posted that he had “reviewed over 30 statements and posts” that he characterized as criticizing his administration for a lack of action on investigations.

“We have to act fast — one way or the other,” Trump told reporters later that night at the White House. “They’re guilty, they’re not guilty — we have to act fast. If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty or if they should be charged, they should be charged. And we have to do it now.”

Trump later wrote in a follow-up post that Bondi was “doing a GREAT job.”

Paul, a frequent Trump foil from the right, was asked during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the propriety of a president directing his attorney general to investigate political opponents. The senator decried “lawfare in all forms.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said it was “unconstitutional and deeply immoral for the president to jail or to silence his political enemies.” He warned that it could set a worrisome precedent for both parties.

“It will come back and boomerang on conservatives and Republicans at some point if this becomes the norm,” Murphy said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Trump is turning the Justice Department “into an instrument that goes after his enemies, whether they’re guilty or not, and most of them are not guilty at all, and that helps his friends. This is the path to a dictatorship. That’s what dictatorships do.”

The Justice Department did not respond Sunday to a message seeking comment.

Letitia James investigation

Each new president nominates his own U.S. attorneys in jurisdictions across the country. Trump has already worked to install people close to him in some of those jobs, including former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in the District of Columbia and Alina Habba, his former attorney, in New Jersey.

Trump has largely stocked his second administration with loyalists, continuing Saturday with the nomination of a White House aide as top federal prosecutor for the office investigating James, a longtime foe of Trump.

The president announced Lindsey Halligan to be the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia on Saturday, just a day after Erik Siebert resigned from the post and Trump said he wanted him “out.”

Trump said he was bothered that Siebert had been supported by the state’s two Democratic senators.

“There are just two standards of justice now in this country. If you are a friend of the president, a loyalist of the president, you can get away with nearly anything, including beating the hell out of police officers,” Murphy said, mentioning those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol pardoned by Trump as he returned to office. “But if you are an opponent of the president, you may find yourself in jail.”

New restrictions on Pentagon reporters

Trump has styled himself as an opponent of censorship, pledging in his January inaugural address to “bring free speech back to America” and signing an executive order that no federal officer, employee or agent may unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.

Under a 17-page memo distributed Friday, the Pentagon stepped up restrictions on the media, saying it will require credentialed journalists to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release, including unclassified information. Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.

Asked Sunday whether the Pentagon should play a role in determining what journalists can report, Trump said, “No, I don’t think so.”

“Nothing stops reporters. You know that,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for slain activist Charlie Kirk’s memorial service.

Trump has sued numerous media organizations over negative coverage, with several settling with the president for millions of dollars. A federal judge in Florida tossed out Trump’s $15-billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times on Friday.

Jimmy Kimmel ouster and FCC warning

Perhaps the most headline-grabbing situation involves ABC’s indefinite suspension Wednesday of veteran comic Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. What Kimmel said about Kirk’s killing had led a group of ABC-affiliated stations to say it would not air the show and provoked some ominous comments from a top federal regulator.

Trump celebrated on his social media site: “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done.”

Earlier in the day, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who has launched investigations of outlets that have angered Trump, said Kimmel’s comments were “truly sick” and that his agency has a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading misinformation.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that Kimmel’s ouster wasn’t a chilling of free speech but a corporate decision.

“I really don’t believe ABC would have decided to fire Jimmy Kimmel over a threat,” he said Sunday on CNN. “ABC has been a long-standing critic of President Trump. They did it because they felt like it didn’t meet their brand anymore.”

Not all Republicans have applauded the move. On his podcast Friday, GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a former Trump foe turned staunch ally, called it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Trump called Carr “a great American patriot” and said Friday that he disagreed with Cruz.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

Without a doubt, it is important to capture the reflections of a vice president who found herself in an unprecedented situation after the president was pressured to withdraw from the 2024 election. And “107 Days,” a taut, often eye-opening account — written with the help of Geraldine Brooks — takes you inside the rooms where it happened, as well as what led up to Kamala Harris’ remarkable run.

For one, apparently MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell first gave Harris the idea she should seek the presidency in 2020. Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, were having breakfast at a restaurant near their Brentwood home when O’Donnell “wandered up to our table to talk about the dire consequences of a second Trump term.” Harris, then in her first term as a U.S. senator, recounts that O’Donnell bluntly suggested: “‘You should run for president.’ I honestly had not thought about it until that moment,” she writes in “107 Days.”

Later, Harris also reveals that Tim Walz was not her first choice for running mate: Pete Buttigieg was, though she ultimately concluded the country wasn’t ready for a gay man in the role.

“We were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man,” she writes. She assumes Buttigieg felt similarly, but they never discussed it.

We do not glean much more than we already knew or assumed about President Biden’s life-changing 2024 phone call that set Harris on this path. Pleas for Biden to step aside had been building following his disastrous debate performance less than five months before the election, but by that time Harris had given up on the idea that he would withdraw from the race. But on Sunday, July 21, Harris had just finished making pancakes for her grandnieces at the vice president’s residence and was settling in to watch a cooking show with them when “No Caller ID” came up on her secure phone.

“I need to talk to you,” Biden rasps, then battling COVID-19. Without fanfare, he told her: “I’ve decided I’m dropping out.” “Are you sure?” Harris replies, to which Biden responds: “I’m sure. I’m going to announce in a few minutes.” In italics, we are made privy to what Harris is thinking during their brief phone call: “Really?” Give me a bit more time. The whole world is about to change. I’m here in sweatpants.”

If we wanted in on the powerful feelings that must have been swirling within each of them during such an exchange, or a nod to the momentousness of the moment — no dice. The conversation shifted to the timing of Biden’s endorsement of Harris, which Biden’s staff wanted to delay and which she wanted immediately. Politics, not sentiment, reigned.

The Atlantic book excerpt published earlier this month, it turns out, accurately represents the overall tone of “107 Days.” A thread running throughout is one of bitterness toward Biden’s inner circle, whom Harris felt had been poisoning the well since she first took office: “The public statements, the whispering campaigns, and the speculation had done a world of damage,” she recounts, and perhaps laid the groundwork for her defeat. While she had a warm relationship with the president himself, Harris believes she was never trusted by the first lady or the president’s closest advisors, nor did they throw their full weight behind her as the Democratic nominee.

At the same time, she never doubted that she was the right person for the job. She writes, “I knew I was the candidate in the strongest position to win. … The most qualified and ready. The highest name recognition.” She also calculates that the president and his team thought she was the least bad option to replace him because “I was the only person who would preserve his legacy.” “At this point,” she adds, “anyone else was bound to throw him — and all the good he had achieved — right under the bus.”

For those who are cynical about politics, “107 Days” will not alter your view. After Biden announces his withdrawal, First Lady Jill Biden welcomes Second Gentleman Emhoff into the fray, advising: “Be careful what you wish for. You’re about to see how horrible the world is.” Her senior adviser David Plouffe encourages Harris to distance herself from the president on the campaign trail, because “People hate Joe Biden.” Again and again, Harris provides examples of being left out of the loop or not robustly supported by his inner circle. She writes that her feelings for the president “were grounded in warmth and loyalty” but had become “more complicated over time.” She claims never to have doubted Biden’s competence, even while she worried about how he appeared to the public.

“On his worst day,” she writes, “he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump at his best.” Still, his decision about seeking a second term shouldn’t “have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition,” she concludes in an observation that grabbed headlines upon its publication in the Atlantic excerpt.

The exhilaration that Harris’ campaign frequently exuded in those early rallies is summarized here, but those accounts don’t capture the joy. Some of the details she chooses to highlight tamp down the excitement. For example, at their first rally together after picking Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate, Walz, Harris and their families greet an audience of 10,000 people in Philadelphia. Though Harris writes, “We rode the high of the crowd that night,” she also notes, “When Tim clasped my hand to thrust it high in an enthusiastic victory gesture, he was so tall that the entire front of my jacket rose up.” She makes “a mental note to tell him: From now on, when we do that, you gotta bend your elbow.”

The Kamala Harris I saw on the campaign trail and enthusiastically voted for is often in evidence on the page. She is smart, savvy, funny and tough. As in many of her stump speeches and media interviews, she tends to recite her accomplishments as if reading from a resume, which sometimes reads as defensive. But she is also indefatigable: She believes that she must win to save democracy, yet she seems to shoulder that formidable burden without breaking a sweat.

“107 Days” does an excellent job of conveying the difficulty of seeking — and occupying — high office, and suggests that if she’d won, Harris’ resilience and ambition would have served her well as the leader of the free world. Many of her insights are astute, though occasionally tinged with rancor. She does accept responsibility for certain missteps, such as when she was asked on “The View” if she would have done anything differently than Biden had she been in charge. She reflects that her response — “There is nothing that comes to mind” — landed as if she’d “pulled the pin on a hand grenade.” But she doesn’t attribute her eventual loss to that or any other miscalculation: She simply needed more time to make her case.

I craved a soaring moment, a rallying cry. I didn’t find hope or inspiration within these pages — the book felt more like an obligatory postmortem with an already established conclusion. If an aim of this memoir was to rally the troops for a Harris run in 2028, “107 Days” falls short of lighting a fire. The brilliant, charismatic woman who came close to breaking the ultimate glass ceiling has given us an essential portrait of an unforgettable turning point in her journey, but “107 Days” is mainly absent the perspective and blueprint for going forward that so many of us hunger for. A few years out, that wisdom may come.

Haber is a writer, editor and publishing strategist. She was director of Oprah’s Book Club and books editor for O, the Oprah Magazine.

BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. — As the nation comes to grips with the slaying of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, two candidates in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Park are going door to door seeking to win a legislative seat left open by another political attack that killed a longtime state lawmaker and her husband.

The troubling political violence is a clear concern along Brooklyn Park’s tree-lined streets, where voters will head to the polls Tuesday to fill a state House seat left vacant by the fatal home-invasion killing of their neighbor, Rep. Melissa Hortman. The Democrat was first elected in 2005 and served as Minnesota’s Democratic House leader before her death in June.

Hortman, her husband and their dog were killed early on the morning of June 14 in their Brooklyn Park home in what investigators say was a politically motivated attack.

Vance Boelter, 57, faces federal and state murder charges in the Hortmans’ deaths, as well as attempted murder and other charges in the shooting of another Democratic Minnesota lawmaker, Sen. John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, who both survived a shooting attack at their home the same day.

A neighborhood in fear

The Republican candidate seeking Hortman’s seat, real estate agent Ruth Bittner, noticed early in her campaign that people in the neighborhood where Hortman was killed seemed afraid to open their doors.

“We are in very, very scary times, and we definitely need to get out of this trajectory that we’re on here,” Bittner said.

Bittner said the political violence — particularly since the Wednesday killing of Kirk as he spoke at a Utah college event — briefly gave her pause about running for public office. But she concluded that “we can’t cower.”

“We have to move forward as a country and we have to, you know, embrace the system that we have of representative government, and we have to just do it, you know?” she said. “There’s no way to solve this problem if we shrink back in fear.”

The special election also comes less than a month after two schoolchildren were killed when a shooter opened fire on a Minneapolis Catholic church during Mass. The Aug. 27 shooting injured 21 others, most of them students at Annunciation Catholic School.

Officials identified the shooter as 23-year-old Robin Westman, a former student who they say fired more than a hundred rounds through the windows of the church. Westman was found dead of what appeared to be a self-inflicted gunshot.

“It’s definitely come up, you know, folks have referenced the recent shootings, Annunciation and Charlie Kirk,” the Democratic candidate, Xp Lee, a former Brooklyn Park City Council member, said Thursday as he knocked on doors in the district. “Just yesterday, I was outdoor knocking, [and] a couple of people mentioned it.”

Lee said Hortman was a neighbor whom he would often see walking her beloved golden retriever, Gilbert, around Brooklyn Park. He said she met with him to offer advice when he ran for City Council.

“I can’t think of a better way to honor her than to go to the Capitol and do my best in the seat,” he said.

Kirk killing aftermath

The shooting of Kirk, which happened in front of hundreds of people and was captured on video and widely circulated on social media, has rattled the nation and drawn condemnation from across the political spectrum. Officials announced Friday that the suspected gunman, Tyler Robinson, 22, was taken into custody Thursday night, and investigators said they believe he acted alone.

“An open forum for political dialogue and disagreement was upended by a horrific act of targeted violence,” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said in a post on X. “In America, we don’t settle our differences with violence or at gunpoint.”

Hoffman, the lawmaker who was shot and wounded in June, and his family also issued a statement denouncing the attack on Kirk.

“America is broken, and political violence endangers our lives and democracy,” the Hoffmans’ statement said. “The assassination of Charlie Kirk today is only the latest act that our country cannot continue to accept. Our leaders of both parties must not only tone down their own rhetoric, but they must begin to call out extreme, aggressive and violent dialog that foments these attacks on our republic and freedom.”

Lee described the political climate in the wake of Kirk’s killing as a “charged atmosphere.”

“So I want to do what I can to really bring that down,” he said. That includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, he said.

Lee keeps a shotgun for home defense, he said, but assault-style rifles “are weapons of, like, war that really we don’t need on our streets.”

Vancleave and Beck write for the Associated Press and reported from Brooklyn Park and Omaha.

Sept. 13 (UPI) — The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO is launching a new military campaign in Poland following an incursion by Russian drones in Polish airspace earlier in the week, the military alliance confirmed in a statement.

Operation Eastern Sentry will “bolster NATO’s posture along the eastern flank” and “involve a range of Allied assets and feature both traditional capabilities and novel technologies, including elements designed to address challenges associated with drones,” the organization confirmed in a release.

Earlier in the week, Polish and Dutch fighter jets scrambled by NATO shot down more than 20 Russian drones over eastern Poland.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk later confirmed the “multiple violations of Polish airspace,” and the country invoked NATO’s Article 4, convening allied nations to respond.

NATO countries, including the United States, have since pledged their full support for Poland.

This comes after U.S. President Donald Trump questioned Thursday whether the Russian drones could have been accidental.

“It could have been a mistake. It could have been a mistake, but also I’m not happy with anything regarding that situation,” Trump told a reporter asking about the situation.

Tusk responded in a Friday social media post.

“We would also wish that the drone attack on Poland was a mistake. But it wasn’t. And we know it,” Tusk said in response to Trump’s comments.

“No, that wasn’t a mistake,” Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski added separately on X.

American officials struck a supportive tone Friday.

“The United States stands by our NATO allies in the face of these alarming airspace violations. And rest assured, we will defend every inch of NATO territory,” acting U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea said in an address to the U.N. Security Council.

The new military exercise is aimed at deterring further Russian military aggression in NATO airspace or on the ground.

“The violation of Poland’s airspace earlier this week is not an isolated incident and impacts more than just Poland. While a full assessment of the incident is ongoing, NATO is not waiting, we are acting,” NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Alexus G. Grynkewich, said in a statement issued by NATO’s Allied Command Operations.

“Eastern Sentry and this new approach will deliver even more focused and flexible deterrence and defense where and when needed to protect our people and deter against further reckless and dangerous acts like what occurred earlier this week,” he said.

Denmark, France and Germany have already committed military aircraft to the operation, with Denmark also pledging an anti-air warfare navy frigate. Meanwhile Britain has “expressed its willingness to support,” according to the NATO statement.

In January, NATO launched a similar operation aimed at deterring Russian operations to sabotage deep-sea cables in the Baltic Sea.

The Baltic Sentry program was also implemented by NATO’s Allied Command Operations and came after an undersea cable connecting Estonia and Finland was cut last December.

From the outside looking in, Gov. Gavin Newsom unofficially announced he was running for president on Thursday, March 30, 2023, the day he transferred $10 million from his state campaign funds to launch his PAC, Campaign for Democracy, along with a nationwide tour. Newsom unofficially suspended his campaign a month later, on April 25, the day President Biden announced he was seeking reelection.

This timeline is important when it comes to talking about Kamala Harris. Newsom, like Harris, has been in the wings for years as part of the next generation of Democratic national leaders — and, like Harris, he was ready for the spotlight when Biden decided to stick around instead.

The title of Harris’ upcoming book, “107 Days,” is in reference to the amount of time she had to launch a campaign, write policy, secure the nomination and fundraise after Biden bowed out in the summer of 2024. An excerpt from the memoir titled “The Constant Battle” was published this week in the Atlantic. In it, Harris suggests some of the foes she was battling during her time in the White House were Biden loyalists who did not want to see her succeed as vice president.

It’s a rather scathing critique given the stakes of the 2024 election. The excerpt in its entirety is an uncomfortable glimpse into one of the most chaotic moments in American politics. Unsurprisingly there have already been reports of pushback from former Biden aides with one being quoted as saying: “No one wants to hear your pity party.”

Which is why it is important to remember the timeline.

In March 2020, while campaigning in Detroit, a 77-year-old Biden stood next to Harris, Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and told his party that he viewed himself “as a bridge, not as anything else,” adding: “There’s an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country.” Recognizing his age was a concern for voters back then, the message Biden sent that day suggested he was running for only one term.

And then more than three years later, Biden changed his mind and his message. In doing so, he did not just go back on a campaign promise, he prevented the future of his party — like Newsom, Whitmer, Booker and Harris — from making a case for themselves in a normal primary.

That’s why the book is called “107 Days.” That’s how much time he gave his would-be successor to win the presidency.

Biden was a tremendous public servant whose leadership steered this nation out of a dark time. He also was conspicuously old when he ran for president and considered a short-timer. The first woman to be elected vice president didn’t decide to run for the top job at the last minute. But Biden went back on his word in 2023 and drained all the energy out of his party. It was only after the disastrous debate performance of June 2024 that the whispers inside the Beltway about his ability to win finally became screams.

“Joe was already polling badly on the age issue, with roughly 75 percent of voters saying he was too old to be an effective president,” Harris writes. “Then he started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza.”

That’s not slander against Biden; that’s the timeline. It may not be what some progressives want to read, but that does not mean the message or messenger is wrong.

Legend has it James Carville, key strategist for Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential run, once went to a white board at the campaign’s headquarters in Arkansas and wrote three key messaging points for staffers. The catchiness and humor of one, “the economy, stupid,” elevated it above the other two: “change vs. more of the same” and “don’t forget health care.” Clinton’s victory would later cement “the economy, stupid” as one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring political quips — which is really too bad.

Because the whole point of Carville going to the white board in the first place wasn’t to come up with a memorable zinger, it was to remind staffers to stay on the course. The Democrats’ 2024 chances were endangered the day Biden changed direction by running for reelection, not when he stepped aside and Harris stood in the gap.

That’s not to suggest her campaign did everything right or Biden staying in for as long as he did was totally wrong. But there’s a lot to learn right now. Democrats are extremely unpopular. Perhaps instead of dismissing the account of the party’s most recent nominee, former Biden aides and other progressives should take in as much information as they possibly can and consider it constructive feedback.

In 2020, Biden had one message. In 2023, it was the opposite. I’m sure there are things to blame Harris for. Losing the 2024 election isn’t one of them.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

When Kamala Harris left the White House, she was trailed by three big questions.

She’s now answered two of them.

First off, the former vice president will not be running for California governor in 2026. After months of will-or-won’t-she speculation, the Democrat took a pass on a race that was Harris’ to lose because, plainly, her heart just wasn’t into a return to Sacramento.

On Wednesday, with publication of the first excerpts from her 2024 campaign diary, Harris answered a second question: What kind of book — candid or pablum-filled — would she produce?

The answer flows directly to the third and largest remaining question, whether Harris attempts a third try for the White House in 2028.

If she does, and the portions published Wednesday by the Atlantic magazine give no clue one way or the other, she’ll have some work to do mollifying the person who made her vice president, thus vaulting Harris to top-tier status should she run again.

That would be one Joe Biden.

Harris’ book — “107 Days” — recounts the shortest presidential campaign in modern U.S. history.

It’s no tell-all.

Surely, there’s a good deal of inside dope, juicy gossip and backstage intrigues that Harris is holding back for political, personal or practical reasons.

Still, it’s a tell-plenty.

The headline-grabbiest passage is Harris’ suggestion that Biden, felled by a thoroughly wretched debate performance that showed the ravages of his advanced age, should have stepped aside before being effectively forced off the Democratic ticket.

“ ‘It’s Joe and Jill’s decision,’ “ Harris wrote. “We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness? In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high.

“This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition,” she went on. “It should have been more than a personal decision.”

The relationship between Harris and Jill Biden, which was famously glacial, will surely turn Arctic-cold with Wednesday’s revelations. And Biden’s thin-skinned husband, who still harbors the fanciful belief he would beaten Donald Trump had he been the Democratic nominee, isn’t likely to be any more pleased.

There’s more.

Harris suggests in many ways Biden was more hindrance than helpmate as she struggled to step out from the shadow that inevitably shrouds the vice president.

When Biden finally spoke to the nation to explain his abdication and anointment of Harris as his chosen successor, Harris notes he waited nearly nine minutes into an 11-minute address to offer his cursory blessing.

She also expresses a deep personal pique toward Team Biden and West Wing staffers who had little faith in Harris or her political abilities and had no hesitation stating so — in private, anyway.

“When the stories were unfair or inaccurate, the president’s inner circle seemed fine with it,” Harris wrote. “Indeed, it seemed as if they decided I should be knocked down a little bit more.

“Worse, I often learned that the president’s staff was adding fuel to negative narratives that sprang up around me.”

Fact check: True.

But Harris also skates around certain hard truths, suggesting the staff turnover that plagued her early in her vice presidency was just the normal Beltway churn.

Harris has a reputation for being an imperious and difficult boss — it’s not misogynistic to say so — and she did suffer a notably high level of staff burnout and turnover that hindered her vice presidential operation.

Harris embarrassed herself in some stumbling TV appearances — especially early in her vice presidency — and it’s not racist to point that out. She has no one to blame but herself.

Perhaps most critically, Harris bequeathed the Trump campaign a sterling political gift late in the campaign when she appeared on the TV chatfest “The View” and, served up a softball of a question, whiffed it spectacularly.

“What, if anything,” Harris was asked, “would you have done … differently than President Biden during the past four years?”

It’s a question she could have easily anticipated. The separation of a president and the vice president looking to follow him into the Oval Office is a political rite of passage, though always a fraught and delicate one.

It’s necessary to show voters not just a hint of independence but also a bit of spine.

George H.W. Bush handled the maneuver with aplomb and succeeded Ronald Reagan. Hubert Humphrey and Al Gore did not, and both lost.

Given her chance, Harris squandered a choice opportunity to put some badly needed space between herself and the dismally regarded Biden.

“There is not a thing that comes to mind,” was her tinny response, and that gaffe is entirely on the former vice president.

It didn’t necessarily cost her the White House. There were plenty of reasons Harris lost. But at a time when voters were virtually shouting out loud for change in Washington it stamped the vice president, quite unhelpfully, as more of the same.

‘I am a loyal person,” Harris writes, which is not only self-justifying but has the slightly off-putting whiff of someone declaring, by golly, I’m just too honest.

Perhaps behind closed doors she screamed and raged, telling the octogenarian Biden he was old and senile and sure to cost Democrats the White House and deliver the nation to the evil clutches of Donald Trump — though that seems doubtful.

“Many people want to spin up a narrative of some big conspiracy at the White House to hide Joe Biden’s infirmity,” she wrote.

In fact, she said, Biden was “fully able to discharge the duties of president.”

“On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best.”

Fact Check: Again, true.

“But at 81,” Harris went on, “Joe got tired. … I don’t believe it was incapacity. If I believed that, I would have said so. As loyal as I am to President Biden, I am more loyal to my country.”

Plenty of books have been written offering insider accounts of the White House and presenting far more dire accounts of Biden’s physical and mental acuity. Many more are sure to come.

Harris’ contribution to the oeuvre remains to be seen. Her book is set for publication on Sept. 23 and there is a lot more to come beyond the excerpts just published.

What has been revealed is Harris’ eagerness to settle old scores, to right the record as she sees it and to angrily and publicly call out some of her perceived enemies — including some still active in Democratic politics.

How does that affect her prospects for 2028 and what does it say about whether Harris runs again for president?

You can read into it what you will.

MORRISVILLE, Pa. — Trying to quilt together a patchwork of states that would give him the White House, Mitt Romney ricocheted around the country Sunday, arguing that he represented true change and that reelecting the president would mean a continuation of the status quo: chronic unemployment, high energy prices and increased dependence on government.

Romney said Obama had promised much but had fallen “so very short.”

“Talk is cheap, but a record is real and it’s measured in achievements,” the Republican nominee said, bundled against the cold at his rally in a farm field.

INTERACTIVE: Battleground states

“The president thinks big government is the answer,” Romney added. “No, Mr. President, more good jobs, that’s the answer.”

At that, tens of thousands of people who had gathered for the rally began chanting, “Send him home!”

The Romney appearance in the suburb of Philadelphia was his first in Pennsylvania since September, when he visited a military college. His wife, Ann, and his running mate, Rep. Paul D. Ryan, have appeared here more recently, with Ryan visiting on Saturday.

Campaign officials clearly hoped that Romney’s appearance, and Republicans’ recent ad spending, would turn a state that Obama handily won in 2008.

Aside from one poll that shows the race tied, all other recent surveys show Obama comfortably holding onto Pennsylvania. But a win for Romney would offset a loss in Ohio — where Obama has held onto a steady, if extremely narrow, lead in polls — or losses in a collection of less-populated states such as Wisconsin, Nevada and Iowa.

INTERACTIVE: Outside spending shapes 2012 election

Though Romney has largely ignored Pennsylvania in recent months, his spokesman argued that his visit less than 48 hours before election day was perfectly timed because the state did not have early voting.

“It’s a remarkable juxtaposition here that Mitt Romney will be in the suburbs of Philadelphia today and, you know, four years ago, Barack Obama was in Indiana,” senior advisor Ed Gillespie said on ABC’s “This Week”, referring to the Republican-dominated state that Obama ultimately won in 2008. “When you look at where this map has gone, it reflects the change and the direction and the momentum toward Gov. Romney…. The map has expanded.”

Democrats countered that the appearance in Pennsylvania, which has gone Democratic for two decades, was one of desperation as Romney grasped for a path to the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.

“They understand they are in deep trouble,” Obama senior strategist David Axelrod said on “Fox News Sunday.” “They’re looking for somewhere, desperately looking for somewhere to try to dislodge some electoral votes to win this election, and I can tell you, that’s not going to happen.”

The scene in Pennsylvania reflected the drama at the end of the hard-fought presidential contest. Two cranes hoisted massive American flags; fireworks closed the rally.

“This audience and your voices are being heard all over the nation. You’re being heard in my heart,” Romney said. “People of America understand, we’re taking back the White House because we’re going to win Pennsylvania.”

Romney also made what has become a familiar pitch from both candidates as election day nears.

“Now let’s make sure every single person we know gets out and votes on Tuesday,” he said. “What makes this rally and all your work so inspiring is because you’re here because you care about America. This is a campaign about our country and the future we’re going to leave to our children. We thank you and we ask you to stay at it all the way till victory on Tuesday night.”

Romney also campaigned Sunday in front of large crowds in Iowa and Ohio, where polling shows Obama holds a slim edge. And he held a late-night rally in Virginia, where the race appears to be even.

A Des Moines Register poll released Saturday showed the president ahead by 5 percentage points in Iowa. But Republicans noted that the same poll four years ago overstated Obama’s support in the state, which he won by nearly 10 percentage points.

In addition to six electoral votes, Iowa holds symbolic significance for both candidates: Its first-in-the-nation caucuses launched Obama’s bid in 2008 and proved difficult for Romney in 2008 and this year.

Republican Gov. Terry Branstad said while introducing the GOP nominee in Des Moines that the state that made Obama would take him down.

“Iowans feel betrayed. Almost a sense of — not only disappointed, but almost a sense of betrayal that our principles of sound budgeting and responsible government have been ignored by this administration for four straight years,” Branstad said, adding: “It’s time for a change. It’s time for you to go back to Chicago.”

Romney, speaking at the Hy-Vee Hall, urged his supporters to reach out to disenchanted backers of the president and persuade them that a change in direction was vital for the nation’s future.

“I need your vote; I need your work; I need your help. Walk with me. We’ll walk together. Let’s begin anew. I need Iowa,” he said.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON — The campaign of likely independent presidential candidate Ross Perot on Sunday confirmed that it has asked electors running on Perot tickets to sign notarized oaths pledging their loyalty to the Texas billionaire and their commitment to vote for him in the Electoral College.

The statement came only two days after a senior campaign spokeswoman had described reports of the oaths as “absurd”–a mistake that appears to highlight continued disorganization within the campaign.

Also, the distribution of the oaths–which have been strongly criticized by some Perot electors asked to sign them–underscored growing tensions between grass-roots Perot volunteers in the states and the campaign hierarchy in Dallas.

Campaign spokeswoman Elizabeth Maas on Sunday strongly defended the oaths as necessary to ensure that electors will maintain their support for Perot if he wins a plurality of votes within a state.

Voters who cast ballots for the presidency actually are selecting electors pledged to vote for the candidate when the Electoral College votes in December. But in most states, there is no legal requirement that electors vote for the candidate they are pledged to.

While the Democratic and Republican parties can recruit electors from among a stable of loyal party activists, the Perot campaign has had to find its electors among thousands of volunteers, many of them with no prior ties to Perot and “no history of support for him,” Maas said.

Other Perot aides said Sunday that the campaign is increasingly concerned about many of its volunteers–fearing that some who have signed up as electors might ultimately prove to be uncontrollable or even Republican “moles.”

Names marked with an asterisk have been changed to protect identities.

When Akmal’s* mosque was vandalised last week in Basildon, a town in the English county of Essex, he felt shaken.

“I was so hurt,” said the 33-year-old electrical engineer, who requested Al Jazeera use a pseudonym. “It was so close to home. My local masjid [mosque]. It felt like a real kick in the teeth.”

The South Essex Islamic Centre in Basildon was defaced shortly before midnight on Thursday. Red crosses were daubed across its walls alongside the words “Christ is King” and “This is England”.

The timing, the night before Friday prayers, appeared to many as calculated – an attempt to intimidate a flurry of worshippers in the southeastern English county.

“My wife and baby are growing up here,” Akmal told Al Jazeera. “I want to move out of the area. I just cannot stay here.”

Community leaders condemned the attack.

Gavin Callaghan, the leader of Basildon Council, described it as “pathetic criminal cowardice”.

“Don’t dress it up. Don’t excuse it. It’s scum behaviour, and it shames our town … The cowards who did this will be caught,” he said. “To do this right before Friday prayers is no coincidence. That’s targeted. That’s intimidation. And it’s criminal.”

Wajid Akhter, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, said, “The St George flag is a symbol of England we should all be proud of. For it to be used in this way, [which] echoes how Nazis targeted Jewish homes, is a disgrace to our flag and our nation. Silence has allowed hate to grow.”

Essex police are investigating the incident.

Council staff and volunteers worked in the early hours of the morning to remove the graffiti before worshippers arrived, but a sense of fear is still lingering.

“I was shocked,” said Sajid Fani, 43, who lives in the area. “I didn’t expect something like that to happen here.”

Local bishops decried the misuse of Christian imagery in the attack. They issued a joint statement calling the vandalism “scandalous and profoundly misguided”, saying that invoking Christianity to justify racism is “theologically false and morally dangerous”.

Racism amid flag-raising campaign

The vandalism took place amid a tense atmosphere in the United Kingdom, amid protests against asylum seekers and a social media campaign dubbed #OperationRaisetheColours.

In recent weeks, those heeding the call have pinned the flag of England bearing Saint George’s Cross and Union Jacks to motorway bridges, lampposts, roundabouts and some shops across the UK. Red crosses have been spray-painted on the white stripes of zebra crossings.

According to the anti-far-right HOPE not hate group, the campaign is led by Andrew Currien, a former member of the Islamophobic English Defence League and now a security figure for the political party Britain First, also an anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant group.

While some supporters frame the project as patriotic, it has been tied to racist incidents.

Racist graffiti has appeared in several other locations. Some 300 miles (about 500km) north of Basildon, for example, xenophobic slurs have been sprayed on buildings in County Durham and Houghton-le-Spring in northern England.

Some have blamed the media’s focus on the issue of asylum.

In recent months, British television networks and newspapers have dedicated significant coverage to asylum seekers, as some social media sites allow hateful content to proliferate.

Shabna Begum, head of Runnymede Trust, a race equality think tank, said the spate of vandalism is part of a “frightening intensification of Islamophobia” driven by political and media narratives scapegoating Muslim communities.

“The violence being played out on our streets and the vandalism of mosques is the product of a political and media soundtrack that has relentlessly demonised Muslim communities,” she said. “Whether it is policy or narratives, we have been fed a monotonous diet that tells us that our economic problems are caused by Muslims, migrants and people seeking asylum.”

She warned that history shows governments that fail to confront economic grievances while scapegoating minorities ultimately collapse.

“The question is how much will this betrayal cost for the Muslim communities that are served as political fodder,” she said.

Fani in Basildon said, “It’s the fear factor. They [media channels] put terror in the hearts of people when it comes to Muslims. I want to show people we are just like them. We’re just human.”

Days before the mosque was vandalised, a roundabout opposite was painted with a red cross.

“I wasn’t offended by England flags being flown,” said Fani. “But this is different. It crossed a line.”

In the wake of the vandalism, mosque leaders encouraged worshippers to attend Friday prayers in greater numbers as a show of resilience.

Fani said the turnout was larger than usual: “Alhumdulillah [Thank God], it resulted in more people coming to the mosque, so the outcome was positive.”

‘A line between being patriotic and being outright racist’

Maryam*, a Muslim woman who lives in Basildon, lamented the “attack on the Muslim community” as she emphasised that it reflects a dark climate.

“There’s a line between being patriotic and being outright racist or Islamophobic – and some people here are crossing that line.”

In her view, a wave of protests against housing asylum seekers at hotels earlier this summer has coincided with Islamophobic abuse – particularly in Epping, a nearby town where The Bell Hotel has been the focus of violent agitation.

Police data is yet to confirm a link or rise in racist attacks, but locally reported incidents tell a troubling story.

Last week, a man in Basildon was arrested after a hijab-wearing woman and her child were allegedly racially abused, while vandals sprayed St George’s crosses on nearby homes.

At the end of July, residents reported glass projectiles being hurled from the upper floors of a building near Basildon station, apparently targeting Muslim women and families of colour.

Beyond the headline incidents, Maryam reeled off a list of other recent examples of racism she has witnessed – a woman of East African origin called a racial slur, a driver mocking a Muslim woman in hijab as a “post box”.

“Unfortunately, I’ve [also] been subjected to a lot of Islamophobia in Basildon – often in front of my child,” she added. “It has affected my mental health … it’s created a lot of trauma and barriers to simply living a normal life.”

While the mosque attack prompted swift attention from councillors and police, isolated incidents against individuals often go unreported.

“If the police engaged with the community better, explained what hate crimes are, how they’re reported, how investigations work, it would remove barriers to reporting,” said Maryam.

INCLINE VILLAGE, Nev. — Jim Ross has had a long and fruitful career as a Democratic campaign strategist. Among his victories was electing Gavin Newsom as San Francisco mayor.

Tom Ross has enjoyed similar success on the Republican side. He counts Kevin McCarthy’s election to the Legislature and, later, Congress, among his wins.

But perhaps his most important achievement, Tom Ross said, was working on the 2008 campaign that established California’s independent redistricting commission — “the gold standard” for fair and impartial political map-making. “It needs protecting,” he said.

No, said Jim Ross. It needs overriding.

He backs Newsom’s effort to undo the commission’s work in favor of a gerrymander that could boost Democratic chances of winning the House in 2026 — or else, he fears, “there will be ongoing Republican domination of politics … for decades to come.”

The two are brothers who, despite their differences, harbor an abiding love and respect for one another, along with an ironclad resolve that nothing — no campaign, no candidate, no political issue — can or ever will be allowed to drive a wedge between them.

“Tom’s the best person I know. The best person I know,” Jim, 57, said as his brother, 55, sat across from him at a local burrito joint, tearing up. “There’s issues we could go round and round on, which we’re not going to do.”

“Especially,” said Tom, “with someone you care about and love.”

That sort of fraternal bond, transcending partisanship and one of the most heated political fights of this charged moment, shouldn’t be unusual or particularly noteworthy — even for a pair who make their living working for parties locked in furious combat. But in these vexing and highly contentious times it surely is.

Maybe there’s something others can take away.

::

The Ross brothers grew up in Incline Village, not far from where Nevada meets California. That was decades ago, before the forested hamlet on Tahoe’s east shore became a playground for the rich and ultra-rich.

The family — Mom, Dad, four boys and a girl — settled there after John Ross retired from a career in the Air Force, which included three combat tours in Vietnam.

John and his wife, Joan, weren’t especially political, though they were active and civic-minded. Joan was involved in the Catholic church. John, who took up a career in real estate, worked on ways to improve the community.

The lessons they taught their children were grounded in duty, discipline and detail. Early on, the kids learned there’s no such thing as a free ride. Jim got his first job at the 76 station, before he could drive. Tom mowed lawns, washed cars and ran a lemonade stand. The least fortunate among the siblings wore a bear suit and waved a sign, trying to shag customers for their dad’s real estate business.

To this day, the brothers disdain anything that smacks of entitlement. “That’s our family,” Jim said. “We’re all workers.”

Like their parents, the two weren’t politically active growing up. They ended up majoring in government and political science — Jim at Saint Mary’s College in the Bay Area, Tom at Gonzaga University in Washington state — as a kind of default. Both had instructors who brought the subject to life.

Jim’s start in the profession came in his junior year when Clint Reilly, then one of California premier campaign strategists, came to speak to his college class. It was the first time Jim realized it was possible to make a living in politics — and Reilly’s snazzy suit suggested it could be a lucrative one.

Jim interned for Reilly and after graduating and knocking about for a time — teaching skiing in Tahoe, working as a sales rep for Banana Boat sunscreen — he tapped an acquaintance from Reilly’s firm to land a job with Frank Jordan’s 1991 campaign for San Francisco mayor.

From there, Jim moved on to a state Assembly race in Wine Country, just as Tom was graduating and looking for work. Using his connections, Jim helped Tom find a job as the driver for a congressional candidate in the area.

At the time, both were Republicans, like their father. Their non-ideological approach to politics also reflected the thinking of Col. Ross. Public service wasn’t about party pieties, Jim said, but rather “finding a solution to a problem.”

Jim, left, and Tom Ross have only directly competed in a campaign once, on a statewide rent control measure. They talk shop but avoid discussing politics.

(William Hale Irwin / For The Times)

Jim’s drift away from the GOP began when he worked for another Republican Assembly candidate whom he remembers, distastefully, as reflexively partisan, homophobic and anti-worker. His changed outlook solidified after several months working on a 1992 Louisiana congressional race. The grinding poverty he saw in the South was shocking, Jim said, and its remedy seemed well beyond the up-by-your-bootstraps nostrums he’d absorbed.

Jim came to see government as a necessary agent for change and improvement, and that made the Democratic Party a more natural home. “There’s not one thing that has bettered human existence that hasn’t had, at its core, our ability to work collectively,” Jim said. “And our ability to work collectively comes down to government.”

Tom looked on placidly, a Latin rhythm capering overhead.

He believes that success, and personal fulfillment, lies in individual achievement. The Republicans he admires include Jack Kemp, the rare member of his party who focused on urban poverty, and the George W. Bush of 2000, who ran for president as a “compassionate conservative” with a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment as Texas governor.

(Tom is no fan of Donald Trump, finding the president’s casual cruelty toward people particularly off-putting.)

He distinctly remembers the moment, at age 22, when he realized he was standing on his own two feet, financially supporting himself and making his way in the world through the power of his own perseverance.

“For me, that’s what Republicans should be,” Tom said. “How do you give people that experience in life? That’s what we should be trying to do.”

::

Newsom’s 2003 campaign for San Francisco mayor was a brutal one, typical of the city’s elbows-out, alley-fighting politics.

It took a physical toll on Jim Ross, Newsom’s campaign manager, who suffered chest pains and, at one point, wound up in the hospital. Was the strain worth it, he wondered. Should he quit?

“The only person I could really call and talk to was Tom,” Jim said. “He understands what it is to work that hard on a campaign. And he wasn’t going to go and leak it to the press, or tell someone who would use it in some way to hurt me.”

That kind of empathy and implicit trust, which runs both ways, far outweighs any political considerations, the two said. Why would they surrender such a deep and meaningful relationship for some short-term tactical gain, or allow a disagreement over personalities or policy to set things asunder?

Jim lives and works out of the East Bay. Tom runs his business from Sacramento. The two faced each other on the campaign battlefield just once, squaring off over a 2018 ballot measure that sought to expand rent control in California. The initiative was rejected.

Though they’ve staked opposing positions on Newsom’s redistricting measure, Proposition 50, Jim has no formal role in the Democratic campaign. Tom is working to defeat it.

The brief airing of their differences was unusual, coming solely at the behest of your friendly columnist. As a rule, the brothers talk business but avoid politics; there’s hardly a need — they already know where each other is coming from. After all, they shared a bedroom growing up.

Jim had a story to tell.

Last spring, as their mother lay dying, the two left the hospital in Reno to shower and get a bit of rest at their father’s place in Incline Village. The phone rang. It was the overnight nurse, calling to let them know their mom had passed away.

“Tom takes the call,” Jim said. “The first thing he says to the nurse is, ‘Are you OK? Is it hard for you to deal with this?’ And that’s how Tom is. Major thing, but he thinks about the other person first.”

He laughed, a loud gale. “I’m not that way.”

Tom had a story to tell.

In 2017, he bought a mountain bike, to celebrate the end of his treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He’d been worn out by six months of chemotherapy and wasn’t anywhere near full strength. Still, he was determined to tackle one of Tahoe’s most scenic rides, which involves a lung-searing, roughly five-mile climb.

Tom walked partway, then got back on his bike and powered uphill through the last 500 or so yards.

Waiting for him up top was Jim, seated alongside two strangers. “That’s my brother,” he proudly pointed out. “He beat cancer.”

Tom’s eyes welled. His chin quavered and his voice cracked. He paused to collect himself.

“Do I want to sacrifice that relationship for some stupid tweet, or some in-the-moment anger?” he asked. “That connection with someone, you want to cut it over that? That’s just stupid. That’s just silly.”

Jim glowed.

Millions of dollars worth of political TV ads are expected to start airing Tuesday in an effort to sway Californians on a November ballot measure seeking to send more Democrats to Congress and counter President Trump and the GOP agenda, according to television airtime purchases.

The special-election ballot measure — Prop. 50 — will likely shape control of the U.S. House of Representatives and determine the fate of many of Trump’s far-right policies.

The opposition to the rare California mid-decade redistricting has booked more than $10 million of airtime for ads between Tuesday and Sept. 23 in media markets across the state, according to media buyers who are not affiliated with either campaign. Supporters of the effort have bought at least $2 million in ads starting on Tuesday, a number expected to grow exponentially as they are aggressively trying to secure time in coming weeks on broadcast and cable television.

“This early start is a bit stealthy on the part of the no side, but has been used as a ploy in past campaigns to try to show strength early and gain advantage by forcing the opposing side to play catch up,” said Sheri Sadler, a veteran Democratic political media operative who is not working for either campaign. “This promises to be an expensive campaign for a special election, especially starting so early.”

Millions of dollars have already flowed into the nascent campaigns sparring over the Nov. 4 special-election ballot measure that asks voters to set aside the congressional boundaries drawn in 2021 by California’s independent redistricting commission. The panel was created by the state’s voters in 2010 to stop gerrymandering and incumbent protection by both major political parties.

The campaign will be a sprint — glossy multi-page mailers arrived in Californians’ mailboxes before the state Legislature voted in late August to call the special election. Voters will begin receiving mail ballots in early October.

Redistricting, typically an esoteric process that takes place once a decade following the U.S. Census, is receiving an unusual level of attention because of partisan efforts to tilt control of Congress in next year’s midterm election. Republicans have a narrow edge in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the party that wins control of the White House often loses congressional seats in the following election.

Earlier this summer, Trump asked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw his state’s congressional districts to add five GOP members to the House, setting off a redistricting arms race across the nation. California Gov. Gavin Newsom launched a campaign to redraw the state’s congressional districts in an effort to boost the number of Democrats in Congress, negating the Texas gains for Republicans, but it must be approved by voters.

The coalition opposing the effort is an intriguing mix: former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, wealthy Republican donor Charles Munger Jr., former GOP House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, Assemblyman Alex Lee (D-San Jose), the chair of the Legislative Progressive Caucus, and Gloria Chun Hoo, president of the League of Women Voters of California.

Many partisans — in both political parties — opposed independent redistricting when it was championed by Schwarzenegger and Munger in 2010.

Jessica Millan Patterson, the former state GOP chairwoman who is leading McCarthy’s effort to oppose new congressional boundaries, demurred when asked about the dissonance. Voters, she said, made their choice clear at the ballot box about their preference to have an independent commission draw congressional districts rather than Sacramento politicians.

“The people of California have spoken,” she said, adding that most voters agree that an independent commission is preferable to partisan politicians drawing districts.

The “Stop Sacramento’s Power Grab” committee that Patterson leads plans to focus on conservative and right-of-center voters, and will be well-funded, she said.

McCarthy was a prodigious fundraiser while in Congress and his long-time friend, major GOP fundraiser Jeff Miller, is raising money to oppose the ballot measure.

Schwarzenegger is not part of the McCarthy effort, instead backing the good-government message of the Munger team. Patterson argues that anything the former governor does only brings more attention to their shared goal, even if he isn’t part of their effort.

“Gov. Schwarzenegger is Gov. Schwarzenegger,” Patterson said, pointing to an X post of the global celebrity wearing a T-shirt that said “Terminate Gerrymandering” while working out on Aug. 15. “He is a celebrity, a box-office guy. He’s going to make sure reasonable people know that we don’t want to put this power back in Sacramento. He will bring the glitz and glamour, like he always does.”

Schwarzenegger has long championed political reform. During his final year as governor, he prioritized the ballot measure that created independent congressional redistricting. Since leaving office, he made good governance a priority at his institute at the University of Southern California and campaigned for independent redistricting across the nation.

“Here are some of the things that are more popular than Congress: hemorrhoids, Nickelback, traffic jams, cockroaches, root canals, colonoscopies, herpes,” Schwarzenegger said in a 2017 Facebook video. “Even herpes, they couldn’t beat herpes in the polls.”

The former governor is reportedly backing the effort by Munger, the son of a billionaire, who bankrolled the ballot measure that created independent congressional redistricting in 2010. Munger has donated more than $10 million to an effort opposing the November ballot measure; the organization he funded has booked more than $10 million in television spots through Sept. 23.

“These ads are the start of our campaign’s effort to communicate directly with voters about the dangers of allowing politicians to choose their voters and abandoning our gold standard citizen-led redistricting process,” said Amy Thoma, a spokesperson for the Munger-backed Voters First Coalition.

Supporters of the effort to redraw the districts argued that Republicans are trying to cement GOP control of the nation’s policies.

“Trump cronies … are spending big to defeat [Prop.] 50 and help Trump rig the 2026 election before a single person [has] voted,” said Hannah Milgrom, a spokesperson for the campaign. “They are spending big — and early — to trick California voters into allowing Trump to keep total control over the federal government for two more years.“

A United States appeals court has declared President Donald Trump’s blanket tariff policy illegal, but it stopped short of pausing the wide-ranging import taxes altogether.

On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, largely upheld a decision in May that found Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing universal tariffs on all US trading partners.

Trump had invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify the move, claiming that trade deficits with other countries constituted a “national emergency”.

But the appeals court questioned that logic in Friday’s ruling, ruling seven to four against the blanket tariffs.

“The statute bestows significant authority on the President to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the court wrote.

“But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the appeals court therefore said his tariff policy could remain in place until October 14.

That was a departure from the May ruling, which included an injunction to immediately halt the tariffs from taking effect.

What is this case about?

The initial May decision was rendered by the New York-based US Court of International Trade, a specialised court that looks exclusively at civil actions pertaining to cross-border trade.

That case was one of at least eight challenges against Trump’s sweeping tariff policies.

Trump has long maintained that the US’s trading partners have taken advantage of the world’s largest economy, and he has depicted trade deficits – when the US imports more than it exports – as an existential threat to the economy.

But experts have warned that trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing: They could be a sign of a strong consumer base, or the result of differences in currency values.

Still, on April 2, Trump invoked the IEEPA to impose 10-percent tariffs on all countries, plus individualised “reciprocal” tariffs on specific trading partners.

He called the occasion “Liberation Day“, but critics noted that the global markets responded to the tariff announcements by stumbling downward.

A few days later, as the “reciprocal” tariffs were slated to take effect, the Trump administration announced a pause for nearly every country, save China. In the meantime, Trump and his officials said they would seek to negotiate trade deals with global partners.

A new slate of individualised, country-specific tariffs was unveiled in July in the form of letters Trump posted to his social media account. Many of them took effect on August 1, including a 50-percent tariff on Brazil for its prosecution of a Trump ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro.

Just this week, on August 27, India was also slapped with a 50-percent tariff as a result of its purchase of oil from Russia.

Mexico, Canada and China, meanwhile, have faced Trump’s tariff threats since February, with Trump leveraging the import taxes to ensure compliance with his policies on border security and the drug fentanyl.

What are the arguments?

US presidents do have limited power to issue tariffs in order to protect specific domestic industries, and Trump has exercised that power in the case of imported steel, aluminium and automobile products.

But in general, the US Constitution places the power to issue taxes, including tariffs, under Congress, not the presidency.

Lawsuits like Friday’s have therefore argued that Trump has exceeded his presidential authority in levying blanket tariffs.

The appeals court decision also pointed out that the IEEPA does not give the presidency unchecked power.

“It seems unlikely that Congress intended, in enacting IEEPA, to depart from its past practice and grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs,” the ruling said.

The decision came in response to two lawsuits: one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center, on behalf of five US small businesses, and the other by 12 US states.

Still, on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump appeared defiant, emphasising that his tariffs would remain in place despite the appeals court’s decision.

“ALL TARIFFS ARE STILL IN EFFECT! Today a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end,” he wrote.

He added that it was his view that tariffs “are the best tool to help our Workers”. He also implied he expected the Supreme Court to back him up in his appeal.

“If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong,” Trump said.

“Tariffs were allowed to be used against us by our uncaring and unwise Politicians. Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation.”

Slide over, Steve Garvey. It appears another former Major League Baseball slugger with Southland ties will run for political office.

Mark Teixeira, who batted a robust .358 in a two-month stint with the Angels in 2008 before signing a longterm lucrative contract with the New York Yankees, announced his campaign for Texas’ 21st Congressional District in the U.S. House on Wednesday.

Teixeira, an avowed conservative who has lived in or near Dallas much of his adult life, said he is “ready to help defend President Trump’s America First agenda, Texas families, and individual liberty.”

Garvey is also a Republican, and he lost in a landslide to Democrat Adam Schiff for California’s open seat in the U.S. Senate last November. Despite being a beloved former Dodgers great, Garvey, 75, held few public events and struggled to gain traction with voters in a state that has not elected a Republican to statewide office in nearly two decades.

Unlike Garvey, Teixeira, 45, is running in a heavily Republican district that Chip Roy won by 26% of the vote in November. Teixeira’s announcement follows Roy’s decision not to seek re-election because he is running for the office of the Texas Attorney General.

Teixeira, a former first baseman, played 14 seasons for four MLB teams — the Texas Rangers, Atlanta Braves, Angels and Yankees. He retired after the 2016 season with 409 career home runs.

The Angels acquired him from the Braves in a trade late in the 2008 season, and he helped them to the only 100-win season in franchise history by hitting 13 home runs and driving in 43 runs while batting .358 in 54 games.

Teixeira also performed well in the American League Division Series, batting .467 with a .550 on-base percentage, although the Angels fell in four games to the Boston Red Sox. He was a free agent after the season and Angels owner Arte Moreno offered him $160 million over eight years before retracting the offer two weeks later.

Several other teams made similar if not more lucrative offers, and Teixeira signed with the Yankees for $180 million over eight years. The slugging switch-hitter helped New York to the 2009 World Series championship, leading the AL with 39 homers and 122 runs batted in.

The Yankees defeated the Angels in the AL Championship Series before beating the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series. The following season, Teixeira spoke highly of the Angels despite leaving Anaheim for the greener pastures of New York.

“I hope there are no hard feelings between Arte and myself,” Teixeira told The Times’ Mike DiGiovanna. “I loved that organization. Arte, [Manager Mike] Scioscia, it’s first class, top to bottom. But your wife and kids being happy is more important than your personal desires.”