CNN will host a California gubernatorial primary debate May 5.
The two-hour debate will take place at 6 p.m Pacific time at a venue in the Los Angeles area that is yet to be determined. CNN anchors Elex Michaelson and Kaitlan Collins will serve as moderators.
The debate will air live across CNN, CNN International, CNN en Español and, for viewers without cable, on CNN’s subscription streaming service.
Participating candidates must have at least 3% support among likely primary voters in two state polls or an average of 3% across two polls that meet CNN’s methodology standards. The polls must be released between Feb. 1 and April 27.
The candidates must also have raised, contributed or lent to their campaigns at least $1 million, based on publicly available data from the California secretary of state.
Candidates from both parties are eligible to participate due to California’s “jungle primary” system, in which all candidates appear on the same ballot regardless of political affiliation. The top two finishers advancing to a November runoff, even if they are both from the same party.
The poll showed six Democratic candidates currently qualifying for the debate under CNN’s standards: U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell, former House Rep. Katie Porter, philanthropist Tom Steyer, former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, former state Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan.
CNN typically does not carry debates involving candidates in statewide races, but the network believes that the California contest is significant enough for a national platform.
“One out of approximately every eight Americans lives in the Golden State and it is at the forefront of some of the most complex challenges of our time,” said David Chalian, CNN’s political director and Washington bureau chief. “California’s jungle primary system also allows for the debate to include a wide spectrum of viewpoints and proposals to tackle those challenges that will reverberate across the country in this pivotal election year.”
Billionaire hedge fund founder turned environmental warrior Tom Steyer, a leading Democratic candidate for California governor, is facing mounting questions about how he earned his wealth — notably investments in private prisons that are now being used to house undocumented immigrants facing deportation.
Some of the most vicious political attacks come from his Democratic rivals and Sacramento special interest groups as the June 2 primary election fast approaches, but Steyer has been dogged for years about his past, controversial business ventures and how they help fund his unbridled campaign spending.
Steyer, 68, faced that ire during a town hall event in San Diego last week.
“Tom, you’re not going to come to San Diego and ignore this detention center,” Holly Taylor, a 37-year-old Democrat screamed at Steyer, holding signs with QR codes to help detainees at an Otay Mesa private prison that Steyer’s hedge fund backed. “It’s a concentration camp. They’re drinking water out of a toilet.”
Taylor, a crime scene cleaner from Pacific Beach, is among scores of people who gather weekly at the facility to raise money for detained immigrants to provide them some comfort amid the Trump administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids.
In 1986, Steyer, co-founded Farallon Capital, which had shares valued at $89.1 million in the Corrections Corp. of America in 2005, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. That company, now known as CoreCivic, operates private prisons around the nation that are housing people picked up by federal immigration agents, including the one in Otay Mesa.
It is not the first time Steyer has faced criticism about the connection with private detention facilities. At the California Democratic Party convention in February, protesters dressed in orange prison jumpsuits sought to draw attention to the controversy.
“Before he was a progressive, he made millions off of companies that operate ICE detention centers, that operate private prisons that incarcerated young children,” state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said during a recent interview with a political influencer known as Mrs. Frazzled.
“His entire campaign is built on the backs of kids in cages,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, (D-Dublin) wrote Tuesday in a post on X.
People protest outside of a lunch held by California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer at the 2026 California Democratic Party State Convention in San Francisco on Feb. 21.
(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)
Several years earlier, Yale University’s graduate teachers union called upon the school — Steyer’s alma mater — to divest from Farallon because of concerns about how the private prison company treated detainees, notably minorities.
Steyer has repeatedly expressed remorse about his former firm’s ties with the detention company. In 2012, he sold his stake in Farallon, which was named in reference to islands off the coast of San Francisco and was once one of the largest hedge funds in the world.
“I deeply regret that Farallon made that investment, and I personally ordered the investment in CCA to be sold because it did not accord with my values then or now,” Steyer told The Times in 2019 after he launched a short-lived presidential campaign.
Asked to comment about the latest iteration of the controversy, Steyer’s campaign pointed to comments he made in March at a town hall in San Francisco about how among the hundreds of thousands of companies his hedge fund invested in, the private prison company changed the course of his life.
“It was a mistake, and I sold it over 20 years ago, thinking, not that it won’t be profitable, it’s just a mistake. I don’t want to be in that business. But let me say this, it wasn’t just a mistake,” Steyer said. “It was also a big wake-up call that I was in the wrong place, that I was in a business that was taking me to places I absolutely didn’t want to go. And there’s a reason I walked away from that business and walked away from a ton of money, because I felt like that is not the life I want.”
He added that he and his wife, Kat Taylor, have spent the past two decades pushing for rehabilitative justice — treatment instead of mass incarceration except for violent felons.
“Am I a perfect person? No, have I made mistakes? Yes,” Steyer said. “But for those of you who like to read the Bible, there is a moment on the road to Damascus when someone makes a change, and I have made a big change, and I did it a long time ago, and I’ve been pushing very, very hard the other way.”
Farallon also invested in fossil fuel projects, including an Australian coal mine that denuded thousands of acres of koala habitat and generated an enormous amount of carbon emissions.
Steyer, who has a net worth of $2.4 billion according to Forbes, has painted himself as a reformed billionaire who walked away from Farallon because of angst about how he earned his fortune. He has spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting Democratic causes, notably efforts to fight climate change.
“The truth is that is not where I think there is value, and that is not what I’m seeking in my life,” he said at a Sacramento town hall in March when retired state employee Gina Coates asked how, as a woman of color, she could believe his promises given his privilege as a wealthy white man.
“In terms of trusting me, let me say this, I left my business 14 years ago, and anybody who cared about money would not have done it,” Steyer said.
Steyer later said at the town hall that he left Farallon because he realized that he didn’t want to remain on that path.
“I want to have a meaningful life,” he said. “I want to stand with the people of this state and have actual prosperity. Twelve trillionaires and 40 million people who can’t make rent is not success.”
But Steyer and his wife continue to receive significant income from the hedge fund, including millions of dollars in investments, holdings and various complicated transactions in 2024, according to a statement of economic interest and tax returns he was required to file with the California Secretary of State’s office because of his gubernatorial run.
A Steyer campaign spokesman said Steyer created guardrails to ensure that he does not profit off companies he morally disagrees with.
“Tom has put in place an investment policy to ensure that he does not directly invest in fossil fuels, payday lending, or private prisons,” spokesman Anthony York said. “To the extent he inadvertently incurs exposure to those industries through third-party managers or liquid legacy investments, Tom will donate all profits to charity.”
After leaving Farallon, Steyer became one of the nation’s top Democratic donors. And he has used his wealth to fund his political ambitions. Steyer contributed nearly $342 million of his own money to his short-lived 2020 presidential campaign, according to the Federal Election Commission.
In the 2026 governor’s race, Steyer has donated nearly $112 million to his campaign as of Thursday, according to the California secretary of state’s office. He has been an ubiquitous presence on the airwaves, including local news programs and campaign ads that aired during the “Puppy Bowl” on the Animal Planet channel on Super Bowl Sunday. In the past month, Steyer has aired more than 5,000 ads, according to iSpot, which tracks television commercials.
California, home to 23.1 million registered voters, is home to some of the nation’s most expensive media markets. And candidates, particularly those who are not well known, need to spend heavily on television advertising if they hope to have a successful campaign.
But money is no guarantee of success. Billionaire Meg Whitman, the former eBay chief and formerly a longtime Republican donor, spent $144 million of her money on her 2010 gubernatorial bid. That set a record for a candidate’s contribution in a state race at the time, but Whitman lost to Jerry Brown by nearly 13 percentage points.
In 1998, Democratic multimillionaire Al Checchi who had been the co-chair of Northwest Airlines spent $40 million of his wealth on an unsuccessful run for governor, also a record at the time.
Steyer is one of the top three Democrats in the sprawling field to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom. And his liberal positions are drawing the ire of powerful forces in Sacramento. On Tuesday , the state’s Realtors donated $5 million to an independent expenditure committee opposing Steyer’s bid.
Taylor, who confronted Steyer at the San Diego town hall, said she had not planned to be so vocal. But as the event unfolded, she decided she had to speak, not only to Steyer but to the attendees. She and her compatriots gather every Sunday outside the Otay Mesa facility to raise money to help detainees buy food in the prison commissary and call their families.
“My main issue is that he has gotten financial gain off of these people suffering,” she said.
President Trump endorsed conservative commentator Steve Hilton for California governor late Sunday night.
The endorsement could have a major impact on a race that remains up for grabs, with recent opinion polls showing Hilton and his top Republican rival, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, as top contenders in the 2026 contest.
“He is a truly fine man, one who has watched as this once great State has gone to Hell,” Trump posted on Truth Social, adding that he has known Hilton for many years.
Trump in his endorsement praised Hilton while attacking the record of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, using a derogatory name for the governor. Newsom is serving the last year of his final term as governor as he weighs running for president in 2028.
“Gavin Newscum and the Democrats have done an absolutely horrendous job. People are fleeing, crime is increasing, and Taxes are the highest of any State in the Country, maybe the World. Steve can turn it around, before it is too late, and, as President, I will help him to do so! With Federal help,” Trump said.
Despite California’s solidly Democratic electorate, a recent poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies found Hilton and Bianco leading the crowded field of candidates just months before the June 2 primary — leading to the possibility of Democrats being shut out of a November election that will determine California’s next governor. The crowded field of Democrats in the race has splintered their party’s voters, providing an opening for the Republicans, the poll showed.
Under the state’s top-two primary system, the top two candidates advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.
If Trump’s endorsement leads to California Republican voters coalescing behind Hilton, severely damaging Bianco’s campaign, that likely would reduce the odds of two GOP candidates finishing in first and second place in the primary.
Trump’s endorsement came the day after Hilton and Bianco squared off in a testy debate in Rancho Mirage that was moderated by Richard Grenell, Trump’s former ambassador to Germany, and days before the state GOP meets in San Diego to consider an endorsement in the race.
On Saturday, Bianco said he suspected that Trump would weigh in on the race and that his team had been in talks with the president’s advisors.
“Of course, I would want him to support me. He’s the president of the United States,” Bianco said in an interview.
Hilton on Saturday questioned whether the president would weigh in on the race.
“I’ve said that I’d be honored to have the President’s endorsement. I think that the California Governor’s race is pretty low on his [agenda] right now,” he said in an interview. “I haven’t asked for that, and I’m not expecting him to weigh in.”
Jon Fleischman, the former executive director of the California Republican Party, wrote on Substack late Sunday that he believes that Trump’s endorsement will significantly boost Hilton’s support among GOP voters.
“This Timing Is Not Accidental,” he wrote, noting that while it was previously unclear whether either candidate could receive the 60% of delegate votes to secure the party nod at its upcoming convention. “Well, obviously this endorsement from the President for Hilton will supercharge his momentum going into the weekend convention”
That’s for sure. It’s reminiscent of the panic that followed Joe Biden’s wretched debate performance in Atlanta, the biggest disaster to hit the city since a 2009 flood caused more than half a billion dollars in damage.
In California, the high anxiety is a result of the state’s “jungle” primary, in which all candidates appear on the same ballot, regardless of party, with the top two finishers advancing to a November runoff. With so many Democrats running, there’s the genuine prospect of them splintering partisan support, resulting in the leading GOP candidates — Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton — grabbing both slots and moving past June 2.
How likely is that to happen?
I can’t say. And Nostradamus is away on spring break.
But one of California’s leading political savants, Paul Mitchell, has developed a helpful online tool to suss out the possibilities. Visitors to his site have run tens of thousands of simulations, which right now put the odds of a Democratic freeze-out at about 17% to 20%.
Which suggests it’s unlikely. But it’s also not impossible.
Why don’t some Democrats step aside, for the good of the party?
That’s easy for you to say.
Anyone putting themselves out there by seeking public office has to have a certain amount of faith, in both their capabilities and the prospect of good fortune smiling upon them. (Luck being a greatly undervalued factor in political success.)
To be clear, no one is running away with the gubernatorial contest. For all the talk of Republicans “leading” in the polls, it’s more like a four- or five-way tie for first place, when you factor in the margin of error. And 20% support — which is roughly what the top candidate receives in surveys — is hardly a number to strike fear in the heart of rivals.
Several of the candidates mired near the bottom of polls — Antonio Villaraigosa, Xavier Becerra,Betty Yee — are probably looking at the end of the line if they lose this race. So you can understand, if not necessarily agree with, their reluctance to drop out and call it a day, in the hope that, just maybe, that proverbial bolt of lightning will strike.
So why doesn’t someone force some candidates to drop out?
Like who? There is no Tammany Hall. This isn’t Chicago under Boss Daley. Modern-day California has never had that kind of all-powerful political machine.
The closest approximations were in San Francisco, where brothers Phil and John Burton held great sway, and Los Angeles, where another pair of siblings, Howard and Michael Berman, exercised enormous clout with their compatriot, Henry Waxman. But their influence was mainly limited to Congress, the Legislature and local politics. They weren’t kingmakers when it came to electing California governors.
And the two major political parties, which never wielded the power they enjoy in other states, have become even less influential in this entrepreneurial age of politics, when candidates raise their money online and boost their profile by going on the political chat shows on TV.
The governor could certainly try to pare the Democratic field. But he’d risk humiliating himself and hurting his presidential prospects in the process.
How so?
It would be embarrassing if Republicans were to seize the governorship on Newsom’s watch. (At least among those political insiders who pay attention to that kind of stuff.) It would also be embarrassing if the governor tried to muscle candidates aside and failed.
It’s not at all clear Newsom would have much clout. He isn’t particularly close to any of the candidates running. No one needed his blessing to enter the race, or his backing to sustain their candidacy. And there isn’t very much the term-limited governor, playing out his final months in office, can offer as incentive to quit.
Newsom also has to consider how it would look if he tried to ease out the laggards — whose ranks happen to include all the prominent candidates of color: Becerra, Villaraigosa, Yee and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.
City Councilmember Nithya Raman came out ahead of incumbent Karen Bass in a new poll on the Los Angeles mayor’s race, though the poll’s director cautioned that it did not give the whole picture.
Raman had a commanding lead in a field of five major candidates, with 33% of voters supporting her, while Bass trailed at 17%, according to the poll by the Loyola Marymount University Center for the Study of Los Angeles.
Leftist Rae Huang came in just behind Bass at nearly 17%, while tech executive Adam Miller had 13% and conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt had 12%.
In the Loyola Marymount poll, unlike the other polls, respondents were given brief descriptions of the candidates, including their occupations and political priorities.
Raman was labeled a “progressive LA City Councilmember focused on housing affordability, homelessness and systemic reform,” while Bass was “incumbent mayor of Los Angeles, veteran legislator, focused on homelessness.”
One of Raman’s challenges, as a councilmember representing Los Feliz and Silver Lake as well as parts of the San Fernando Valley, is to spread her name recognition citywide, with the June 2 primary election about two months away. She entered the race to challenge Bass, her one-time ally, at the last minute, hours before the early February filing deadline.
The Loyola Marymount poll of 370 registered Los Angeles voters was conducted from Feb. 11 to March 16. It did not include a choice for “undecided,” while the other two polls showed that significant percentages of voters hadn’t made up their minds.
“This poll shows if only positive descriptors are used and context is provided, Raman is ahead,” said Fernando Guerra, director of Loyola Marymount’s Center for the Study of Los Angeles, who directed the poll.
Guerra said he believes Bass is the front-runner, taking the previous polls into account.
Bass’ campaign took issue with the Loyola Marymount poll.
“In 2022, this same LMU poll had Karen Bass at 16% — she ended up winning the primary with 43%. The only thing more ridiculous than this poll is Spencer Pratt’s performance on The Hills,” said Alex Stack, a spokesperson for the Bass campaign, referencing Pratt’s reality show.
Raman’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a post on X citing the poll, Raman wrote, “OUR CAMPAIGN IS SURGING … Angelenos are ready for a city that actually works.”
Paul Mitchell, vice president of the bipartisan voter data firm Political Data Inc., said the poll’s sample size was too small to draw conclusions and that the poll was less reliable because it was conducted over the course of more than a month.
He also noted that with many of the candidates relatively unknown, including the descriptors could have a major effect.
“I’m sure Nithya Raman doesn’t have citywide name recognition, but that description is really great,” Mitchell said.
Guerra said he didn’t include an “undecided” option because he wanted to “force” respondents to give an answer, similar to when they actually vote.
In the Emerson poll, more than 50% of voters were undecided on who to support for mayor. The Berkeley IGS poll showed about a quarter of voters were undecided.
In LMU’s mayoral poll from 2022, released in early March of that year, 42% of respondents chose “undecided/someone else” for mayor.
After Bass, who had 16% support, then-City Councilmember Kevin de Léon was second at 12% in the 2022 poll. Rick Caruso, the billionaire developer, who ended up making the runoff election against Bass, received 6% support.
In that year’s June primary, Bass got 43% of the vote, Caruso nearly 36% and De Léon about 8%.
This year’s LMU poll also asked L.A. voters what kind of candidate they would prefer for mayor.
Nearly 50% said they prefer a Democratic Socialist, while 25% said they want a moderate Democrat, 19% said a conservative and just 8% said an establishment Democrat.
“Los Angeles is much more progressive than its elected leadership. This poll captures that,” Guerra said.
Some disagreed.
Mike Trujillo, a consultant for moderate Democrats who is not representing anyone in the mayoral race, said polling he has done across the city shows that the Democratic Socialists of America’s popularity is much lower.
Raman is a dues-paying member of the Los Angeles chapter of DSA, which endorsed her in her two successful City Council campaigns.
“If you believe this poll, I have bridges to sell you on 1st Street, 6th Street, and Alameda Street — and there’s no bridge on Alameda,” he said. “The poll was basically A to Z in Nithya Raman’s contact list.”
This year’s LMU poll also asked L.A. County voters about the governor’s race. Former U.S. Rep. Katie Porter led at about 16%, followed by Republican Steve Hilton at 13% and billionaire Tom Steyer at 12%.
The Berkeley IGS poll showed two Republicans — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and Hilton — leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins among voters statewide, with Democratic support split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.
Once upon a time in California, I went to the Orange County fairgrounds to watch Arnold Schwarzenegger give the signal for a wrecking ball to drop onto a vehicle.
The audience went wild, and Schwarzenegger went on to become governor and deliver on his promise to roll back a car tax increase, thereby blowing a $4-billion hole in the state budget.
I think it’s fair to say that in the current gubernatorial campaign season, the excitement level is several decibels below what we experienced in 2003. But once again, it’s fair to say we’ve not seen anything quite like this year’s derby.
“There’s no historical precedent in modern California history for a governor’s race with such a large field or such an amorphous field of candidates,” said longtime political observer Dan Schnur. “Unless you’re paying very close attention, it feels like a big multi-headed political blob.”
The two Republicans could be the top two vote-getters because the Democrats have arranged themselves into a circular firing squad. While the Dems scramble for votes in the June 2 primary, the two Republicans lead in the polls because they’re splitting the GOP vote, and under the rules of the top-two primary, they could face off in the November election.
That means that California, which is one of the bluest states in the country and has nearly twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans, could end up with a Republican governor, which would be like having a Dodgers manager who wears a Yankees jersey in the dugout.
And by the way, if it happens, the Republican would be able to shuffle regulatory boards, attempt to squeeze budgets and create a bit of chaos, but still not get much accomplished because of Democratic super-majorities in the Senate and Assembly.
And he would be targeted for recall even before he takes office. (More on that in a minute.)
There is a way for the Democrats to avoid this humiliation, but they can’t seem to agree on anything at the moment. Party leaders have all but asked the candidates at the bottom of the polls to bow out, but understandably the response has been, “Why me? I’m no worse than the others.”
USC decided to host a debate night, a simple enough proposition, but then flubbed the deal by leaving four candidates off the invitation list — four candidates of color. A kerfuffle followed, and the debate was dumped, and an attempt to let everyone into the party fell apart.
So now what?
It’s possible the Dems will huddle around one or two candidates who then move up in the polls and remove the threat of the unthinkable — two Republicans head-to-head. That would be Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco going against former Fox TV host Steve Hilton.
It’s also possible the Dems will play dirty and either spend money to promote one of the two Republican candidates or torpedo one of them. All they want, at the moment, is for a Democrat to make it past the primary, because that would all but ensure victory in November, given voter registration advantages.
And then, if that doesn’t work, there’s the recall scenario.
“You could shut it down probably within five or six months,” said Mike Madrid, a longtime California GOP political consultant.
“It would surely happen,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who helped Schwarzenegger knock Gov. Gray Davis out of office, and take his job, in the 2003 recall.
A wealthy Democratic donor could bankroll the recall campaign, Stutzman said. Or public employee unions might put up the money, given that a Republican winner is likely to create a state version of Elon Musk’s ham-handed attempt to fire nearly everyone on the federal payroll.
“The pitch,” Stutzman said of the recall strategy in an email, would be that “Trump still looms and CA must resist, and a GOP gov is a fluke of weird election law. Difficult to imagine it wouldn’t succeed.”
I thought of one more approach the Democrats could use to make sure at least one of them is on the ballot in November. Tom Steyer, a leader for many years on one of the most critical issues in California and the world, climate change, has already spent tens of millions of dollars on TV ads that run about every two minutes, promoting him as the best candidate for governor.
They’re so repetitious, you can’t help but tune them out.
But everyone would pay close attention if Steyer instead ran ads offering incentives for either Bianco or Hilton to leave the state. Steyer could offer $10 million cash for Bianco to move to Hawaii, and maybe throw in a beach house. He could buy a private jet for Hilton to take him back to his native Britain. Every day, there could be new ads upping the ante until one of them leaves the Golden State.
Wouldn’t that be a better use of Steyer’s money? It might even get him elected.
To be honest, having some honest pushback against Democratic authority in California wouldn’t be a terrible thing. It’s not as if Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democrats are winning the battle against homelessness, housing shortages, affordability and other big challenges, and voters understandably want more — way more — for their tax dollars.
An experienced, no-nonsense, sensible, fiscally conservative GOP candidate would do the state good.
The problem is that the two Republicans in the running, Bianco and Hilton, are Trump toadies.
In an embarrassingly amateurish political stunt, Bianco blew the president a kiss and all but begged for an endorsement by seizing 650,000 ballots from last November’s election to determine whether they were fraudulently counted.
Hilton recently said in an interview with ABC’s Eyewitness News 7 that he believes “everybody supports” Trump’s immigration policies.
Hilton might have missed the news that U.S.-born residents are carrying their passports in case they’re targeted by skin color. That Californians by the thousands have joined the resistance. That despite claims, most deportees don’t have criminal records. And that even some of the state’s GOP lawmakers have begged Trump to stop raiding industries that rely on immigrant help (and are often owned by Republicans).
And by the way, is this a smart time for a GOP candidate in California to be doing his best Trump impression?
The president’s popularity is down, consumer prices are up, he’s shamelessly pardoned drug lords and Jan. 6 barbarians, he thinks the presidency is a game of Battleship after promising to keep us out of wars, gas prices are sky high, he just said he was glad that Vietnam War hero and former FBI Director Robert Mueller had died, and he’s playing golf all day as if everything’s hunky dory.
Like I said, there’s not a big-name character like Schwarzenegger in the race, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good options. If you like Bianco or Hilton, so be it. Otherwise I suggest you read up on the other eight:
Steyer, Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former L.A. Mayor and legislative leader Antonio Villaraigosa, former Rep. Katie Porter, former state attorney general and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former State Controller Betty Yee, San José Mayor Matt Mahan, and U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell.
A proposed gubernatorial forum hastily cobbled together in the hours after USC canceled its Tuesday debate fell apart because the candidates of color who were excluded from the previously planned event were unable to show up in person at KNBC-TV’s studio in Universal City, according to multiple sources.
Facing mounting pressure that its debate selection criteria excluded every candidate of color, the university canceled its debate late Monday. On Tuesday morning, billionaire Tom Steyer — a Democrat — proposed holding an alternative face-off, with KNBC moderating. But the candidates who had not been invited to the USC debate had already made other commitments.
“A lot of this came out of nowhere — there’s a debate and you’re not invited, followed by there’s no debate, and then maybe we should all hang out and have a conversation,” said Kyle Layman, a strategist advising former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.
USC officials declined to comment on Tuesday’s developments — as did KABC-TV, one of the broadcast partners of the canceled debate. KNBC did not respond to a request for comment, but someone involved with planning a potential debate there said pulling together such an event in just a few hours was impossible, and also unfair to the candidates who had made other plans after initially being excluded from the USC debate.
“We looked into the possibility of doing something. It just wasn’t possible because of the last-minute logistics. It was not feasible,” said the person, who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “We couldn’t get everybody here.”
The fact that the candidates excluded from the USC debate couldn’t find a way to participate in Tuesday evening’s alternative forum irritated some people involved in the planning, however. Becerra, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former state Controller Betty Yee had loudly protested not being invited to the USC event.
“This is like probably one of the last opportunities they have to be with other leading contenders of the race, so why not take this opportunity?” said someone who took part in conversations about the proposed last-minute debate, who asked for anonymity to speak openly. “If the whole thing is about bringing your message to the voters, making sure voters have as much information as possible, talking about the issues that matter, wouldn’t you want to take every opportunity to do that?
“If you’re going to talk a big game about taking your message to voters, the importance of debates, why not do it?” this person said.
Becerra, Thurmond, Villaraigosa and Yee have reportedly formed an informal pact not to participate in any debate that does not include all of them, which Yee referenced in a Tuesday afternoon news conference.
“The idea that none of the candidates of color are going to be joining a debate is just inappropriate for a state like California,” Yee said. “We also need to have a commitment from all of the debate sponsors that they will include all of us going forward.”
Yee and Thurmond were not invited to the next major televised debate, which will take place April 1 at Fresno State University. Becerra and Villaraigosa had previously confirmed their attendance, according to a news release from the Western Growers Assn., one of the event’s sponsors.
And all four candidates of color, along with San José Mayor Matt Mahan, were not invited to a debate on April 22 in San Francisco that will be hosted by KRON-TV and broadcast on Nexstar Media Group stations throughout California.
“We don’t need gatekeepers,” Mahan said in a statement Tuesday evening. “I’m calling on my fellow candidates to work together to organize our own debates — so we can take our ideas for a better California to every corner of California. Let’s let the voters truly decide.”
The scrapped USC debate was going to be hosted by the institution’s Dornsife Center for the Political Future and co-sponsored by KABC and Univision. Six candidates had been invited to participate: Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Dublin), former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, Mahan and Steyer; along with the leading Republicans, conservative commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.
Candidates and elected officials called the criteria used to determine participation in the debate biased because it included Mahan, a white candidate who is polling near the bottom of the pack but is supported by notable names in the USC community. Hours after the debate was canceled, Steyer’s campaign sought to create an alternate event that would include all of the candidates.
“We were trying to do the right thing upon learning that the debate was canceled at USC,” said a member of Steyer’s campaign who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “Tom immediately was like, ‘We can do something alternative.’ People want to hear from the gubernatorial candidates. It was on the table. It was offered.
“NBC couldn’t get all the candidates here, but we tried,” this person said. “Given the short amount of time we were trying to put this together, it ultimately could not happen because not all the candidates could get to the studio.”
Thurmond, who was in Sacramento and Richmond on Tuesday, joined a political influencer on YouTube Tuesday evening, while Yee attended previously scheduled events with the East Area Progressive Democrats and a women’s group in the L.A. area. Villaraigosa had lined up other interviews at his Wilshire campaign office, Becerra was traveling, and Porter was scheduled to host a livestream on her Instagram account Tuesday evening.
When he entered the race for California governor, San José Mayor Matt Mahan pitched himself as a pragmatic Democrat who would prioritize improving residents’ quality of life and government efficiency.
He unveiled a key part of that promise on Tuesday with an expansive plan to reform state government, including tying pay raises for elected officials and other top leaders to improvements on key issues, and pledging not to approve any tax increase until the state proves “that we can deliver better outcomes with the dollars we already have.”
Mahan also delivered a blistering rebuke of ballooning state spending — which, as he often points out on the campaign trail, has increased nearly 75% over the last six years. In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying economic uncertainty, California lawmakers approved a no-frills state budget that came in at $202 billion. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s latest spending proposal is nearly $349 billion.
“We have fallen into this lazy, reflexive mindset of always going back to voters and telling them that the only solution to every problem is a tax increase or a new bond or a new rule coming down from Sacramento,” Mahan said in an interview. “We need to step back and take a really hard look at our existing spending and increase the level of transparency and accountability in government.”
His eight-page plan includes ways to measure and track accountability, some of which are drawn from policies in other states. They include lobbying reforms, following up on audit recommendations and overhauling the state’s digital infrastructure and its procurement process — services Mahan described as “clunky and cumbersome.”
He also proposed a “California Performance Review,” inspired by a similar effort in Texas throughout the 1990s, that would review state agencies and solicit input from employees to eliminate waste and inefficiencies.
But near the top of the list is a proposal to tie pay raises for state officials including the governor, lawmakers and thousands of gubernatorial appointees to “measurable outcomes” in areas such as reducing homelessness and unemployment.
“People in the real world don’t get raises if they don’t do a good job,” Mahan said, “and I think it should be the same for the politicians and senior administrators who are allocating budgets, leading projects, making the big decisions on behalf of the people of California.”
Though the benchmarks would be created with input from the state Legislature, Mahan floated one example: reducing unsheltered homelessness by 5% to 10% within one year, something he said he’s accomplished three years in a row in San José.
It’s a solution one might expect from a former entrepreneur and mayor of a city in the heart of Silicon Valley. Mahan made a similar proposal at the local level last year, but it was rejected by the City Council.
“Tying pay to performance is nothing short of revolutionary in government. It’s a private-sector model that is overdue,” said former state Sen. Steve Glazer (D-Orinda), a Mahan supporter who sponsored several bills aiming to increase transparency in government.
Dozens of tech company executives are backing Mahan in the race for governor and have collectively donated millions to his campaign, as well as two independent expenditure committees supporting him.
That has raised concerns from some voters, and criticism from some of Mahan’s opponents, that he would be beholden to their interests and veto future regulations on tech or artificial intelligence companies.
Mahan has sought to dispel those concerns, arguing that he believes AI and social media platforms should be regulated. Of his plan to overhaul state information technology systems and infrastructure, he said that “whenever we spend public dollars, we have to run open, transparent and competitive procurement processes that ensure best value for the taxpayers.”
Though Mahan did not specify how he would link government outcomes to pay raises, state lawmakers have largely panned his campaign and are unlikely to get on board. The change probably would also require voter approval.
Currently, annual raises for elected officials are determined by a citizen commission that was added to the California Constitution in 1990. Changing how that panel works or imposing limits on when it can approve raises would require a constitutional amendment, which requires voter sign-off.
But Mahan contended it would be one of the fastest ways to fix a system that he says works for special interests at the expense of working people.
“I’m under no illusion that this will be easy, but I think it’s a necessary realignment of incentives,” he said. “We have to make ourselves as accountable to the people as we possibly can be.”
Democratic legislative leaders on Monday called on voters to boycott USC’s upcoming gubernatorial debate if the university does not invite candidates who were excluded from participating.
The unsparing letter adds another layer of controversy to Tuesday’s forum, which as a result of the university’s selection criteria would not include any of the leading candidates of color.
“We are writing to demand you open the March 24 gubernatorial debate to all leading candidates,” said the letter sent Monday evening to USC President Beong-Soo Kim by Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and the leaders of the legislative Latino, Black, Asian and Pacific Islander, Native American, LGBTQ, Jewish and women’s caucuses. “The outcry over this debate is deafening and includes legal demands from the excluded candidates’ attorneys, public calls by elected leaders across the state, concerns from the included candidates’ own campaigns, and growing alarm from California voters. Instead of responding to these valid concerns by expanding the debate, USC has doubled down.”
USC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday. Tuesday’s debate is scheduled less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes.
The university has been embroiled in controversy over the criteria it used to select the candidates it invited to participate in Tuesday’s debate, which is co-sponsored by KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision.
Specifically, critics have pointed out the methodology allowed San José Mayor Matt Mahan — a white candidate who recently entered the race and is polling poorly — to vault above former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee.
“The university’s selection process — built on a formula never before used for a debate of this scale, has delivered a result that is biased,” the letter says. “When a methodology produces this outcome — one that elevates a candidate with notable ties to USC’s donor community and the co-director of the Dornsife Center for the Political Future — the burden falls on USC to explain itself, not on everyone else to accept it. If USC does not do the right thing, we call on California voters to boycott this debate.”
Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist previously said he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.
USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.
“I had no conversations with the debate hosts or organizers,” Caruso said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “This is the most important election for California in a generation, and I encourage everyone to be engaged, learn as much as possible about each candidate, then form an opinion who can move California forward in the most positive of ways. Watching debates is a part of that process. That is why I believe debates should include all the credible candidates.”
The debate sponsors released a joint statement on Friday defending their decision.
“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” said the statement by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future and its broadcast partners. “The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”
Hours later, the four prominent Democrats who were excluded from the debate called on their rivals to boycott the event, reiterating their concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.
The four Democrats who are participating in the debate — Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan — all issued statements criticizing USC’s selection criteria, but did not pull out of the debate.
“It is a shame that USC has decided to elevate one candidate at the expense of others,” Swalwell wrote on X on Sunday. “USC, and every host of a gubernatorial debate, should employ fair, objective, and honest criteria for all candidates. I remain hopeful they will do so Tuesday night.”
Porter expressed similar thoughts.
“Criteria used to determine which candidates qualify to participate in a debate must be transparent, fair, and objective,” she wrote on X. “I’m disappointed by how USC handled the process for Tuesday’s debate. Candidates and Californians deserve answers.”
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has a lead over her challengers in her bid for reelection, but more than half of voters view her unfavorably, according to a poll released Sunday.
Bass was supported by 25% of voters, while City Councilmember Nithya Raman drew 17% and conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt came in third at 14% in the poll by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times.
About a quarter of voters were undecided, the poll found.
Bass has come under heavy criticism for her handling of the devastating Palisades fire. More than a year later, 56% of those polled said they had an unfavorable view of her, while 31% viewed her favorably.
The survey of 840 likely voters between March 9 and 15 provides one of the first snapshots of the mayoral race, less than three months before the June 2 primary.
Beyond the top three, leftist Rae Huang notched support from 8% of those polled, while tech entrepreneur Adam Miller drew 6%.
Despite Bass’ lead, the poll is “borderline catastrophic” for her, because the field of candidates is so weak, said Dan Schnur, a politics professor at USC, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine.
“That she’s having this much trouble against this field, against such a little-known field of opponents, bodes very, very poorly for her,” Schnur said. “The only thing saving her at this point is that the top tier of potential candidates who were considering running against her decided to stay out of this race.”
The mayoral race solidified in early February, when Raman shocked the political establishment by jumping in against her ally Bass, hours before the filing deadline.
By that time, other well-known politicians, including billionaire developer Rick Caruso and L.A. County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, had opted to stay out of the race. Former Los Angeles schools Supt. Austin Beutner dropped out following the death of his 22-year-old daughter.
Those decisions have left Angelenos with a field of candidates they hardly know. While they have strong views about Bass, slightly more than half of those polled said they didn’t know enough about Raman to have an opinion. Even more voters were unfamiliar with the other candidates.
Bass was on a diplomatic trip to Ghana when the Palisades fire ignited on Jan. 7, 2025, killing 12 people and destroying thousands of homes. She was unsteady in her initial public appearances and has since come under attack by Pratt, Caruso and others over the LAFD’s management of the fire and the pace of the recovery as well as allegations that she ordered an after-action report on the fire to be watered down.
Bass’ campaign has pointed to declining homelessness and crime as among the successes of her first term as mayor.
“It’s clear Angelenos are frustrated by decades of inaction on major issues,” Douglas Herman, a spokesperson for the Bass campaign, said in a statement. “This campaign will show that it’s Karen Bass who changed the direction on these issues and that others running responded with reports while Karen Bass took action.”
Raman, who represents Los Feliz and parts of Silver Lake and the San Fernando Valley, was viewed favorably by 26% of those polled and unfavorably by 23%. The 51% who said they didn’t have an opinion of her could be an indication that she has yet to expand her name recognition citywide.
She has said that her decision to run was driven in part by her frustration with city leaders’ inability to get the basics right, such as fixing streetlights and paving streets.
“I am very grateful that our campaign to make our city more affordable is resonating with so many Angelenos,” she said in a statement.
Former City Councilmember Mike Bonin, who runs the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State L.A., said that after the shock of Raman’s entry into the race, the mayoral campaign has taken on a sleepier pace.
“Candidates are raising money and doing their due diligence … but it’s felt like a staid, quiet race,” he said. “This poll reflects that.”
Bonin said the most important number is the gap between Raman and Pratt.
If no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the primary, the top two finishers will proceed to a November run off. According to Bonin, Raman and Pratt will likely be jockeying to face off against Bass.
“While voters are clearly looking for an alternative [to Bass], they haven’t chosen one,” Bonin said.
The poll showed Bass — the city’s first female mayor and first Black female mayor — with strong support from Black voters, at 43%, while Raman has 6%.
Raman, who if elected would be the city’s first South Asian mayor, leads with Asian and Pacific Islander voters at 34%, with Bass at 10%.
Bass performs better with older voters, while Raman and Huang are appealing to younger voters, the poll found. Huang led the pack at 19% with voters between 18 and 29 years old.
In the poll, Angelenos ranked their top priorities for the next mayor to address. Building more affordable housing came in first, followed by fixing streets, sidewalks and streetlights and then moving homeless Angelenos indoors.
One potential bright spot for Bass was policing.
The poll found that 39% of Angelenos think the LAPD needs to increase in size, with 29% saying the department should stay the same size and 19% saying it should shrink.
Raman, meanwhile, has said that she believes the police force is the right size at around 8,700 officers, down from a peak of 10,000 in 2020.
“Bass is going to make Raman look like AOC’s liberal sister,” said Schnur, referring to progressive U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). “If she ends up in a runoff against Raman, she can run as a tough-on-crime centrist.”
The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America will not endorse a candidate for mayor.
After City Councilmember Nithya Raman decided at the last minute to run against her former ally Mayor Karen Bass, the group called a vote on whether to reopen the endorsement process, which it had closed without supporting a candidate.
DSA-LA backed Raman’s two successful city council runs, but she has been at odds with the group on some issues.
Also in the mix was another mayoral candidate, community organizer Rae Huang, whose positions align more closely with those of the group.
The two candidates were present for Saturday’s vote at Immanuel Presbyterian Church in Koreatown, though neither spoke.
The left-wing organization, which has about 5,000 members, is known for running strong ground game campaigns that include canvassing, door-knocking and phone banking. In addition to Raman, three other DSA-backed politicians now sit on the 15-member City Council.
Before the vote, DSA-LA members argued for and against reopening the endorsement process.
“The worst thing we can do right now for our movement is to say, ‘Well, actually, we’re not going to endorse Rae or Nithya. We’re going to do a third thing, which is to issue no endorsement.’ Who is the audience for this message?” said Leslie Chang, a co-chair of DSA-LA.
DSA-LA member Anna Gross argued that neither candidate was ideal, with Huang, who has little political experience, being a long shot and Raman hesitating to fully embrace the group.
“I do want a democratic socialist mayor, but as it stands, we have one candidate who is not going to win … and a candidate who will not openly identify as a democratic socialist,” Gross said.
Of the 488 members who voted Saturday, about 55% supported reopening the endorsement process, falling short of the required two-thirds majority.
If the process had been reopened, the group would have then voted on whether to endorse Raman, Huang or neither.
Huang’s earlier attempt to get the endorsement while the window was still open had failed because she did not obtain enough valid member signatures to qualify.
If the race is not decided in the June 2 primary, DSA-LA can still endorse a candidate in the runoff.
Besides Bass, Raman and Huang, the field of 14 candidates includes conservative reality TV star Spencer Pratt and tech entrepreneur Adam Miller.
Some members believed that a mayoral endorsement would take resources away from the slate of six local candidates they have already endorsed.
In city council races, DSA-LA is backing incumbents Hugo Soto-Martínez and Eunisses Hernandez; Faizah Malik, who is running against incumbent Traci Park on the Westside; and Estuardo Mazariegos for an open South L.A. seat.
The group is also backing Marissa Roy, who is challenging City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, and Rocío Rivas, an incumbent L.A. Unified school board member.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, has seized more than 650,000 ballots from last November’s election and is investigating whether they were fraudulently counted.
“This investigation is simple: Physically count the ballots and compare that result with the total votes recorded,” Bianco said at a news conference Friday.
The unusual probe drew a sharp rebuke from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who said in a statement Friday that it is “unprecedented in both scope and scale” and appears “not to be based on facts or evidence.”
“There is no indication, anywhere in the United States, of widespread voter fraud,” Bonta said. “Counts, recounts, hand counts, audits, and court cases all support this.”
According to Bonta’s office, Bianco’s department on Feb. 26 seized about 1,000 boxes of ballot materials in Riverside County related to the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats in response to partisan redistricting in Republican states, including Texas.
The sheriff said his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have rejected.
President Trump, who remains fixated on his 2020 election loss, continues to amplify election conspiracy theories and has repeatedly called for the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections to counter what he says is widespread fraud.
Bonta and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, both Democrats, have vowed to fight federal interference that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia.
Bianco is an outspoken Trump supporter who said in an endorsement video in 2024 that, after 30 years of putting criminals in jail, he figured it was “time to put a felon in the White House — Trump 2024, baby” — referencing Trump’s conviction by a New York jury for falsifying business records while paying hush money to a porn actor.
Bianco’s investigation, which includes all the ballots cast in Riverside County in November, raises questions about how he would handle the election denialism movement if elected governor.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, in a left-leaning state.
Last fall, Proposition 50 passed in Riverside County with 56% of the vote — a margin of more than 82,000 ballots.
A citizens group called the Riverside Election Integrity Team has said it performed an audit finding that 45,896 more ballots were counted than were cast.
In a lengthy February presentation to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco disputed that figure, saying it was based on a misunderstanding of raw data that had not been fully processed.
The actual discrepancy, Tinoco said, was 103 votes, a variance of 0.016% that was far below what he said was the state’s preferred 2% margin of error for certifying results.
Bianco on Friday said that there “is no acceptable error, small or large, in our elections.”
The sheriff did not name the Riverside Election Integrity Team, but his description of the allegations brought to him by “a group of citizen volunteers” matched theirs.
Bianco said the investigation was “not a recount” for the Proposition 50 contest and was “just as much to prove the election is accurate as it is to show otherwise — we will not know until the count is complete.”
Bonta said his office has “attempted to work cooperatively” with the Sheriff’s Department to understand the basis for the probe. The sheriff, Bonta said, “has delayed, stonewalled, and otherwise refused to work with us in good faith” and failed to provide most of the requested documents.
“We’re concerned that there is not sufficient justification for seizing every ballot that was cast in this very largely populated county,” an official in Bonta’s office said in an interview Friday night.
In a March 4 letter to Bianco, the attorney general cited Bianco’s plan to use Sheriff’s Department staffers, “who are not trained and have no experience,” to count the ballots.
“Let me be clear: this is unacceptable,” Bonta wrote. “Your decision to seize ballots and begin counting them based on vague, unsubstantiated allegations about irregularities in the November special election results sets a dangerous precedent and will only sow distrust in our elections. You are also flagrantly violating my directives.”
At his news conference Friday, Bianco fired back by calling Bonta “an embarrassment to law enforcement.”
A Riverside County Superior Court judge, Bianco said, has ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the ballot count.
In a statement Friday, Secretary of State Weber said “the Sheriff’s assertion that his deputies know how to count is admirable. The fact remains that he and his deputies are not elections officials and they do not have expertise in election administration.”
Four Democrats running for governor called on their fellow candidates to boycott an upcoming debate at USC, reiterating concerns that the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate resulted in every prominent candidate of color being excluded from the forum.
“We ask each and every candidate who is in this race to recognize that if we can’t have a fair process for a debate, then we should all not participate,” said Xavier Becerra, the former U.S. Health and Human Services secretary. “We call on them to withdraw from this biased forum.”
Becerra’s call was echoed by former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former state Controller Betty Yee during a Friday afternoon news conference.
The candidate’s request comes a week after some of them raised concerns about the criteria for Tuesday’s debate, arguing that it was engineered to allow the inclusion of San José Mayor Matt Mahan, who entered the race in late January and quickly raised millions of dollars from Silicon Valley executives.
“The rules initially were polling and money. Matt Mahan is [polling] lower than some of us, period,” Villaraigosa said, adding that the debate organizers “then added time in the race,” which resulted in Mahan’s invitation.
Mahan’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on Friday, but when Becerra raised such concerns last week, Mahan said the former Biden administration official ought to be included in the debate.
The matter is further complicated by Mahan supporters who have notable ties to the university.
Mike Murphy, a co-director of the USC center hosting the debate, has been voluntarily advising an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan. The veteran GOP strategist said last week that he had nothing to do with organizing the debate and that he has asked for unpaid leave at the university through the June 2 primary if he takes a paid role in the campaign.
USC has also received tens of millions of dollars in donations from billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso and his wife. Caruso, a USC alumnus who served as a trustee for years, is also a Mahan supporter.
A representative for Caruso did not respond to a request for comment.
The debate, hosted by the USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, KABC-TV Los Angeles and Univision, is scheduled to take place on campus at 5 p.m. Tuesday — less than two months before ballots begin arriving in voters’ mailboxes. The forum will be streamed and broadcast on ABC and Univision affiliates across the state.
USC and the television stations put out a joint statement Friday morning, prior to the candidates’ news conference, justifying the criteria used to determine who was invited to participate and saying none of the debate partners had any influence on the methodology.
“We want to be clear that we categorically, unequivocally deny any allegations that the debate criteria was in any way biased in favor or against any candidate and want to clarify the facts,” they said in a statement, adding that Christian Grose, a USC political science professor, was asked to develop “data-driven” benchmarks to determine which candidates were invited.
“The methodology was based on well-established metrics consistent with formulas widely used to set debate participation nationwide — a combination of polling and fundraising — and developed without regard to any particular candidate.”
After the Democratic candidates called for their competitors to not participate, USC and KABC declined to comment further. Univision did not respond to a request for comment.
Grose defended the methodology he crafted as “objective” in an interview Friday, and said he met with Becerra as well as the staff of other candidates to explain it.
“The idea that it was biased or designed to create some sort of outcome to disfavor the candidates who spoke at the press conference is just not correct,” Grose said, adding that attacks on the methodology have a “chilling effect” on universities and media outlets who sponsor debates.
“I’m not worried about the optics,” he said. “The optics are we are having a debate at USC to inform voters and educate students.”
Jarred Cuellar, a political science assistant professor at Cal Poly Pomona, described Grose’s methodology as “thoughtful” and “empirically grounded,” and characterized the concerns raised by candidates not included in the debate as unfounded and not credible.
“The formula is methodologically sound and represents a clear improvement over how debate participation has often been determined,” he said. “Rather than relying on a single metric such as polling, it takes a multidimensional approach to evaluating candidate viability. That approach better reflects how political scientists measure complex phenomena like electoral competitiveness.”
But the controversy has caused consternation among USC professors past and present.
“It seems like an unforced error that is casting the entire event in a bad light,” said a current USC professor who closely follows politics but is not involved in the debate, and who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. “It’s super important that if the debate happens, it happens correctly.”
Darry Sragow, a veteran Democratic strategist who taught election and environmental law at USC for 19 years, said that while he believes the large field of Democratic candidates needs to be winnowed, that’s not the job of a university or media outlets.
“Every one of these eight [Democratic candidates] is capable of running the state of California,” he said. “ It would certainly be my advice to USC and to Univision and to ABC to allow all the candidates to take part, or to cancel the debate.”
The four Democratic candidates not invited to the debate argued that voters are just starting to pay attention to the thus-far sleepy race and that diverse candidates should be represented.
“We are a minority-majority state, and the idea that the four candidates of color are not going to be on the stage to bring those perspectives, to really speak to those communities, is really not doing right by the voters,” Yee said.
Becerra said some of the candidates had requested to speak with top university leadership, including President Beong-Soo Kim. In other conversations, he said university officials raised the possibility of “either canceling this debate or incorporating more of the candidates in it. Evidently they could not agree to do that. … I think they recognize that there were problems with the way this debate had been organized.”
Becerra said he reviewed the formula and has “never seen” debate criteria like it before during his decades of serving in elected office.
“Your fundraising numbers are divided by the number of days you’ve been out there campaigning in front of voters,” he said. “So you could have raised millions of dollars, but if you’ve been in longer than someone else who just raised millions of dollars very quickly, you get penalized.”
Campaigns for the invited candidates — Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, climate activist Tom Steyer and Mahan; as well as Republicans Chad Bianco, the sheriff of Riverside County, and former Fox News host Steve Hilton — did not respond to requests for comment on the call to boycott the debate.
SACRAMENTO — Californians have never been forced to choose between Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, two homegrown political darlings, during any election.
Twenty-eight percent of the California Democrats who were surveyed selected the governor as their top choice in the 2028 presidential election. U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) followed with 14% and former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg received 11%. Harris came in fourth, with only 9% of voters in her own state naming her as their preferred Democratic nominee.
“It’s quite a positive result for Newsom,” said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Berkeley IGS Poll. “He’s separated himself from the rest of the pack, and especially when you compare him to the other major Californian in the considerations, he’s three times as much as Kamala. That’s quite impressive.”
The political careers of the governor and former vice president have orbited each other but never crossed since Newsom was sworn in as San Francisco’s mayor and Harris as the city’s district attorney on the same day in 2004. Now the two Bay Area natives are both flirting with the 2028 presidential contest as they travel the country promoting their life stories on respective book tours.
When Harris jumped into the 2020 and 2024 races for the White House, Newsom said he wouldn’t run against her. He’s discredited the idea that the two politicians have some kind of a sibling rivalry and noted that their trajectories ran adjacent and never collided.
Newsom was asked again last month whether he would vie against Harris in a presidential contest. The governor said he hasn’t “gotten in the way of her ambition ever,” and he doesn’t imagine that he would in the future. His answer changed when he was pressed to respond specifically to the potential for 2028.
“That’s fate. I don’t, I don’t know,” Newsom said to CNN’s Dana Bash, throwing up his hands. “You know, you can only control what you can control.”
Newsom and Harris had greater support from Black and Latino voters than white and Asian American Democrats in the new poll. She performed well among Democrats younger than 30 compared with other age groups, while Newsom fared better with older Democrats. More women selected Newsom as their first or second choice than they did Harris.
Neither California heavyweight performed particularly great among Democratic voters in the Bay Area, which DiCamillo called a curious finding for two politicians from the region. Support was higher for Harris and Newsom in almost every other region of the state.
DiCamillo believes the presence of Ocasio-Cortez on the list probably pulled some support from Harris. California voters in other recent polls were also sour on a third presidential run by Harris.
An Institute of Governmental Studies poll in August gauged interest in the potential candidacy of Newsom and Harris. About 45% of the state’s registered voters said they were enthusiastic about Newsom running, compared with 36% for Harris. Almost two-third of voters in that survey, and half of Democrats, said Harris should not run for president again.
Although Newsom clearly beat the field of candidates in the most recent poll, DiCamillo said receiving support from a little more than a quarter of those surveyed in his own backyard isn’t exactly wonderful. The governor’s approval rating is also down.
The poll found that 48% of California registered voters say they approve of the job Newsom is doing, with the same share disapproving of his performance. That marks a drop from 51% approval the last time DiCamillo asked in August. Disapproval also climbed, by 5 percentage points.
Voters held positive opinions about Newsom’s participation in international conferences, which was described in the poll as the governor “offering an alternative to the policies being promoted by President Trump on issues like climate change and the economy.” The poll found 59% of statewide registered voters approve and 37% disapprove.
“Though Californians may hold mixed views on his gubernatorial tenure, they overwhelmingly see him as the strongest counter to Trump and MAGA candidates,” Mora said. “Harris’s earlier presidential defeat, compounded by persistent voter biases against women and candidates of color, may also be shaping these early numbers.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
SACRAMENTO — During the Los Angeles writers’ strike in 2023, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell wanted to reach out to his donors in Hollywood and ask what he could do to help them. But he didn’t have an easy way to find the screenwriters who backed his many campaigns.
So Swalwell and his congressional chief of staff launched an AI technology company that sifts and analyzes campaign fundraising data.
The company has since been used by dozens of political campaigns, including by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Los Angeles). Even Swalwell’s current campaign for California governor hired the artificial intelligence company, called Findraiser.
But some details of Swalwell’s private venture remain unclear, including the company’s investors.
Craig Holman, a governmental ethics expert with the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen, said it’s common and legal for candidates to use their own businesses to promote their campaigns or the campaigns of others, as long as all business interactions are charged at market value.
He said Swalwell can talk about his business privately but cannot do so in relation to his role in Congress, to avoid running afoul of ethics rules barring using one’s position for personal monetary gain.
Holman called it “odd and politically unwise” that Swalwell’s business will not publicly disclose all of its investors.
Swalwell, who has represented Northern California in Congress since 2013, is among the top Democrats in the governor’s race, according to a recent poll, but thus far none of the candidates has a breakaway lead.
Findraiser is close to profitability, his onetime chief of staff, current campaign manager and Findraiser CEO Yardena Wolf said in a podcast interview that aired in October.
The company received more than $67,400 from congressional campaigns in the 2025-26 cycle, according to filings with the federal government.
Members of Congress are not barred from owning outside companies or accepting a small outside salary, with exceptions. Swalwell makes no income from the company, according to filings he has made with the state of California, though he could benefit if the company was ever sold.
“Findraiser is a platform like hundreds of other tools in the market that helps Democratic campaigns communicate more efficiently,” a Swalwell spokesperson said. “Congressman Swalwell and the Findraiser team consulted the House Committee on Ethics on the conception and implementation of the tool every step of the way.”
Still, it highlights how mixing public service and private business can raise ethics questions.
Wolf told The Times that none of Findraiser’s investors have business before Congress, but she declined to reveal the names of the backers.
The fair market value of Findraiser is between $100,001 and $1 million, according to campaign finance documents filed with the state this month.
Swalwell stated on the documents that he is a part owner. Besides the Congress member and Wolf, the other member of the company listed with the state is Paul Mandell, who runs an event business.
The company’s website boasts that it provides a “straightforward AI-powered chatbot that supercharges your fundraising database searches. This first-of-its-kind tool sits on top of your political fundraising database, allowing you to ask simple, intuitive questions and receive the results you need instantly.”
The website also contains testimonials, including from former Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison, who says Findraiser provides the AI technology that makes it “easier than ever for campaigns to connect with the right donors and raise what they need to win.”
The amount of money campaigns are paying to use Findraiser is nominal, federal campaign finance records show. During the 2025-26 cycle, Swalwell’s campaign for Congress reported paying Findraiser $6,630. His campaign for governor paid the company $975.
Wolf, in an interview with The Times, declined to provide details about the company’s staff or how much it charges customers.
In her interview with the political podcast “The Great Battlefield,” she recounted that the writers’ strike was the impetus for Findraiser and said Swalwell came up with the name.
She conceded that it is “pretty unusual” for a member of Congress to start a company with his chief of staff. She also said there was “a lot of ethics back and forth — of lawyers and all of that, to make sure that we were aboveboard and that everything is kosher.”
Among other things, Findraiser has helped Swalwell’s campaigns pull in more money, she said. For example, the campaign could identify donors who gave small amounts to Swalwell but larger checks to other politicians, Wolf said.
“We’ve been able to set up meetings with people like that, and they’ve increased their contributions.”
Aside from Wolf, one other staff member who works for both Swalwell’s campaign and his government office is also being paid via a contract to do digital work for Findraiser, Wolf confirmed.
Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform at Issue One, a bipartisan advocacy group, said that although there is no prohibition on a member of Congress hiring his own company, voters may perceive an issue.
“Voters may see self-dealing as evidence that a candidate is prioritizing personal enrichment over public service, which damages confidence in elections and governmental institutions,” he said.
“If donors give money knowing it will personally benefit the candidate, that undermines the integrity of the political system.”
Swalwell’s campaign declined to respond to Beckel’s statements.
Wolf in her podcast interview last year said the business was “going really well.”
“We have PACs that use it. We have first-time candidates, as well as 20-year incumbents who are using it. We have congressional races and Senate races,” Wolf said.
Around 2024, the company began offering beta testing, she said.
“Obviously, both Eric’s and my network are people who are in the political space and just in our day to day, as we were talking to people, we had people say, ‘Well, I want to use it,’” Wolf said. “And so we had a group of people who ended up beta testing.”
A spokesperson for Swalwell’s campaign said that “Findraiser spread through word of mouth among campaigns across the country. Any decision by a campaign or candidate to utilize the tool is based on their choice and their organization’s strategic prioritization.”
The Times contacted 16 congressional campaigns that reported using Findraiser in recent federal filings. None would tell The Times how they came to hire the company.
Both Schiff and Gomez have endorsed Swalwell in his campaign for governor.
Schiff’s paid about $2,000 for two months of Findraiser services last year. However, Wolf, in her podcast interview, said Findraiser works with Schiff “a lot.”
Ian Mariani, a spokesperson for Schiff’s campaign, said the company “is one of many campaign vendors used by our team, and it helped us engage with several people.”
Despite a long, entrenched Democratic reign over California politics, a new poll shows two Republicans leading by slim margins in the state’s 2026 race for governor as the June primary election fast approaches.
The confounding results appear to be mostly due to the state’s left-leaning electorate feeling uninspired by any single candidate in the crowded field of eight top Democrats. Because of California’s top-two primary rule, that lethargy could lead to Democrats being shut out of a November election that will determine the next leader of the largest state in the union, though that is still considered unlikely.
Conservative commentator Steve Hilton had the support of 17% of likely voters and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco had the backing of 16%, according to a poll released Wednesday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.
Following closely behind were Democrats Rep. Eric Swalwell of Northern California and former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, both of whom had support from 13% of the likely voters surveyed. Aside from billionaire hedge fund founder and environmental activist Tom Steyer, who registered at 10% support after plowing tens of millions of dollars into his campaign, no other Democrat had won support from more than 5% of likely voters, the poll showed.
Mark DiCamillo, director of the poll, said he was stunned by how fractured voters are and how little knowledge they have about the candidates less than 60 days before ballots start arriving in Californians’ mailboxes.
“This is historic for me, and especially given that none of the candidates have really a positive image rating with voters, also startling. I mean, perhaps one of the reasons why voters are disengaged, they’re just not enthusiastic about any of the candidates,” he said. “They’re kind of sleepwalking to this election.”
Swalwell and Porter both hew toward the progressive wing of the party and rose to national prominence as frequent guests on cable news shows and as combative, at times theatrical, committee members during congressional oversight hearings. That notoriety prompted attacks from Republicans and the far right and increased their popularity among the Democratic base — both pivotal for voters seeking a strong candidate to challenge President Trump.
Porter slightly rebounded after a dip in polling in the fall after videos emerged of her berating an aide and a reporter. She also has the highest favorable rating of any candidate in the field at 34%.
According to the survey, Steyer’s support from likely voters increased to 10% from just 1% in Berkeley’s October poll. The momentum comes after Steyer spent about $50 million airing television ads since December, according to an analysis by data expert Paul Mitchell for Capitol Weekly.
Among the other top Democrats in the race: former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra was backed by 5% of likely voters; former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and San José Mayor Matt Mahan by 4%, and former state Controller Betty Yee and state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond by 1%.
The poll found that 16% of likely voters were either undecided or backed other, lesser-known candidates.
The splintered support for the Democrats hoping to become the state’s next governor has surfaced in other ways as well. On Monday, the powerful California Federation of Labor voted to endorse four gubernatorial candidates — half the Democratic field.
DiCamillo said he believes the poll’s inclusion of the candidates’ titles that voters will see on their ballots is crucial in a low-information contest.
“That really matters in a race where voters don’t have much information, or they say they don’t know much about the candidates,” he said, adding that it could particularly help Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff. “His job title is kind of impressive, and that voters think, well, that’s credible, so let me consider him.”
The fear of two Republicans winning the top two spots in the June 2 primary prompted California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks to urge low-polling candidates to consider their viability and drop out if they didn’t see a path forward earlier this month.
Some candidates bristled, arguing that party leaders were in effect telling every candidate of color to leave the race. Aside from one candidate, all of the top Democrats in the race responded by quickly filing their campaign documents with the secretary of state’s office, meaning that their names will appear on the ballot.
The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary are the only ones who advance to the November general election — regardless of their political party.
The odds that a Republican will become California’s next governor appear slim. No Republican has won a statewide election in California since 2006, the year Hollywood movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger was elected to a second term as governor. Democratic registered voters in the state outnumber Republicans by nearly 2 to 1.
Compared with prior gubernatorial races that had well-known Democratic front-runners, none of the candidates of either party are particularly well known by voters. Large numbers of voters have no opinion about any of the candidates — including roughly two-thirds of those asked about Mahan, Yee and Thurmond.
Voters were far more tuned in to the issues that they believe are most important for the state’s next governor to tackle.
Affordability was dominant among all voters, regardless of political ideology, the poll found. Four out of 10 voters said reducing the cost of living in California is among the top issues the next governor should prioritize, and smaller numbers also highlighted building affordable housing and lowering gas prices and utility rates.
Affordability “is the top issue for voters, both here in California and across the country. There’s no question,” DiCamillo said. “Perhaps it’s even of greater urgency here in California, just given our cost of living is higher than in most other places.”
Building new housing, paring back regulations to allow such construction quickly and to reduce the cost of buy a home, disincentivizing private firms from buying homes and reducing gas prices are among topics candidates frequently speak about on the campaign trail and in debates.
A notable split was evident among voters when asked about cutting waste, fraud and political corruption in state government, the poll found. Nearly 50% of Republicans said this was a top priority, compared with 10% of Democrats and a little over a quarter of voters who do not state a party preference.
DiCamillo said this sentiment aligns with President Trump’s messaging and what his administration has been pursuing in the federal government. Trump has repeatedly painted California as teeming with waste, fraud and abuse. On Monday, when he launched a task force to fight fraud that will be led by Vice President JD Vance, California was among the states he singled out as having insufficient oversight of federal funds.
GOP voters in California share similar sentiments, DiCamillo said.
In Washington, D.C., “they’re cutting back, trying to make government smaller, and … just cut the waste as well,” he said. California “Republicans, given the fact that Democrats have been controlling things for so long, they think … more of that is needed now here in California as well.”
The Berkeley IGS/Times poll surveyed 5,019 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 14. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.
WASHINGTON — An advocacy group hoping to expand support for child and elder care is planning to spend $50 million to back Democrats in congressional races, tying the costs of caregiving to the nation’s affordability debate.
The Campaign for a Family Friendly Economy, created a decade ago, aims to make caregiver issues more salient in elections. The announcement comes as the cost of child care continues to rise and as waiting lists for federal child-care subsidies, which support working families in poverty, continue to grow.
Sondra Goldschein, executive director of the campaign and its political action committee, said child care and elder care are important to the affordability conversation, especially as child-care costs exceed what families pay for housing. Then there is the pressure on the “sandwich generation,” composed of middle-aged people who are caring simultaneously for their own children and parents.
“When child care can cost more than your rent or a mortgage, or you have to sacrifice a paycheck in order to be able to take care of a loved one,” that can motivate how people vote, said Goldschein. “Each election cycle, we see candidates recognizing that more and more.”
She hopes the message will resonate as families face a slew of rising costs, including climbing gas prices driven by a war in Iran that is unpopular with many voters.
The campaign plans to pour support for Democrats into Senate races in North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Maine and Ohio and into House races in Iowa and Pennsylvania. It is also slated to dispatch volunteers to talk with voters about caregiving.
The National Republican Congressional Committee did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Republicans have begun to back child care as an issue crucial to growing the workforce, but their proposals tend to be less dramatic than those offered by Democrats. Last year, through President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans made an estimated 4 million more families eligible for a child-care tax credit. The law also increased child-care aid for military families and tax credits for employers who provide child care to their workers.
Before 2020, many candidates rarely spoke about child care. But the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare the child-care industry’s precarity and necessity. Preschools and child-care centers were pressed to stay open so parents in front-line jobs — such as those in healthcare — could return to work.
Then-President Biden successfully persuaded Congress in 2021 to pass $39 billion in aid for child care, allowing states to offer support to more families and subsidizing wages for child-care workers. Later that year, Biden sought to create nationwide universal pre-kindergarten and to vastly expand child-care subsidies for families so that none would pay more than 7% of their household income for care. But the proposal narrowly failed in Congress. Since then, the pandemic aid has dried up and families are feeling the pinch of rising costs.
Now, several candidates have centered their campaigns around child-care affordability. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who won election after pledging to make the city more affordable for middle-class residents, ran on universal child care. Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey and Gov. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia won elections after pledging to expand child-care subsidies.
Candidates this election cycle are running on universal child-care pledges. They include Democrats Janeese Lewis George, who is running for mayor in Washington, D.C., and Francesca Hong, a gubernatorial candidate in Wisconsin. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is up for reelection this year, has pledged to support Mamdani’s ambitions and eventually to expand universal child care statewide.
Neither the White House nor the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees federal child-care programs, responded to requests for comment. In his 2024 campaign, during an address to the Economic Club of New York, Trump said increasing foreign tariffs would “take care” of the expense of child care. That plan, thus far, has not materialized.
In Trump’s current term, the administration has largely focused on cracking down on fraud, after a viral video alleged Somali-run child-care centers in Minneapolis were billing the government for children they weren’t caring for.
While there have been prosecutions stemming from child-care subsidy fraud, the Minneapolis video’s central claims were disproven by state inspectors. Nonetheless, the Trump administration attempted to freeze child-care funding for Minnesota and five other Democratic-led states until a court ordered the funding to be released.
Reporting from El Progreso, Honduras — Not long after Jesuit priest Jack Warner met a bearded, 22-year-old Midwesterner in 1980, the two Americans bonded, drawn together by the goals and questions that led them both to El Progreso, a small city not far from vast banana fields — the campos bananeros.
Warner was 35 and had arrived a year earlier to form the Teatro La Fragua, a theater company for Hondurans. As the young priest looked to forge a relationship with the campesinos, his friendship blossomed with Tim Kaine, who had taken a year off from Harvard Law School to join the Jesuit mission.
“He was 22 years old,” Warner said, “and it was the typical thing that a 22-year-old would do: What do I do with my life?”
Kaine, now a 58-year-old U.S. senator from Virginia and the Democratic vice presidential nominee, has often said that his time in Honduras helped him answer that question, giving him “a North Star” to guide his life toward public service. It’s central to his biography and likely to arise Tuesday night when he debates his Republican opponent, Mike Pence.
When Kaine traveled to Honduras, the nation was in the throes of turmoil, flanked by countries torn by civil war and ruled by the heavy hand of a U.S-backed military bent on stamping out what it perceived to be communism spreading in the region.
“I got a firsthand look at a system — a dictatorship — where a few people at the top had all the power and everyone else got left out,” Kaine said in July at the Democratic National Convention.
He also witnessed extreme poverty. His experiences, coupled with the Jesuit goal of being “men for others,” led him to become a civil-rights lawyer for 17 years, specializing in housing-discrimination cases. Honduras convinced him, he said, “that we’ve got to advance opportunity for everyone.”
Kaine now serves on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and this year co-sponsored a bill that would increase aid to Central America’s “Northern Triangle” — Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras.
Key to his experiences in Honduras was the friendship and example of Warner and a handful of other Jesuits. And a Christmastime visit to a poor man’s house taught him a lesson that resonates decades later.
During his time in El Progreso, Kaine lived in a barracks, along with Warner and other Jesuits. After their work days wrapped up about 5 p.m., he and Warner frequently commiserated over office duties, students, the teatro and the poetry Kaine was writing. Warner, a former English teacher, worked with Kaine on his verse. Over time, they became confidants.
Father Jack Warner admires a painting created by an actor who performs in the Teatro la Fragua in El Progreso, Honduras.
(Veronica Rocha / Los Angeles Times )
Both men grew up in the Midwest — Kaine in the Kansas City, Kan., suburb of Overland Park; Warner in St. Louis — and had been drawn to the Jesuit mission of social justice from an early age.
Kaine attended Rockhurst High School for boys, run by Jesuit priests who ran a demanding schedule of daily Masses, theology classes and community service activities with retreats.
Kaine, who earned a bachelor’s degree in economics at the University of Missouri, was at Harvard Law when he began to question his faith and the path he should take in life, he says. Because he had made a brief trip to Honduras in 1974 to deliver donations to the Jesuits, he decided to write them and see whether they could use some help. They said yes.
“He took a rather strong decision to seek out an answer — not everyone comes to Progreso,” Warner said.
Kaine had to tell his law school dean, and his parents, of this new direction. “The dean, not to mention my parents and friends, were confused about what I was doing and even questioned whether I would come back,” Kaine once recalled in a Virginia Tech speech.
By September 1980, Kaine was rumbling along in a bus into northern Nicaragua, where he visited another American Jesuit, Father James Carney. In Honduras months earlier, Carney had encouraged peasants to fight for their land, and he was expelled by the Honduran military, which saw him as one of the leftist priests who embraced liberation theology and the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua.
Activists, some of them priests or the peasants they worked with, would be banished or killed by authorities. Carney would later disappear in what was believed to be a clandestine Honduran military operation backed by the CIA.
“It was a time when anytime the police stopped you, you got really nervous. You never knew what was going to happen,” Warner recalled. “We were under a military dictatorship at the time and very heavy military control. It was scary, and one had to live very carefully.”
We were under a military dictatorship at the time and very heavy military control. It was scary, and one had to live very carefully.
— Father Jack Warner, on Honduras in the 1980s
In El Progreso that September, Kaine soon met another Jesuit, Brother James O’Leary, a missionary also from Missouri.
O’Leary, who died in 2002, was often described as an outspoken, occasionally cranky but also skilled carpenter, painter and electrician who built houses and chapels for the poor. Kaine worked with him at his Loyola Technical Vocational Center, helping to boost the school’s enrollment and teaching carpentry and welding. As a youngster, Kaine had picked up skills working in his father’s ironworking shop in the Kansas City area.
Kaine declined to be interviewed for this story, but in a speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, he recalled what O’Leary taught him.
“I learned from a great mentor there, Brother Jim O’Leary, that faith is about more than words or doctrine — it’s about action,” he said. “And that led me to spend my life in public service.”
One of Kaine’s former students at the vocational center, Alex Hernandez Monroy, recalled the daily lessons in carpentry and welding from the shaggy-haired young American.
“His Spanish wasn’t very good, but despite all that he interacted with us,” said Hernandez Monroy, then 13 and now 48. Although Kaine couldn’t pronounce certain words, the students appreciated his efforts.
“Something very important that he did was that he visited the families of the students,” he said. “We were not used to interacting with Americans, so it had an impression on us to see someone like him educating us.”
Using some of the skills he learned from Kaine and O’Leary, Hernandez Monroy teaches carpentry to a group of 15 students at the school. “They taught us that we could help our kids,” he said. “The majority of our youth are at risk, so that left an impression on us.”
::
About 35,000 people lived in El Progreso in 1980, when it was dominated by the presence of the United Fruit Co., the world’s largest — and often exploitative — banana company. Today it has a population of about 200,000, and the winding roads leading to the city are lined by brightly colored, one-story concrete homes.
During Kaine’s time there, however, it was a collection of dusty, rural villages and banana camps, with mountaintop towns accessible only by foot or mule. As a center for union activity, it became a target of the communism-fearing Reagan administration.
While war raged in neighboring El Salvador and Nicaragua, Honduras remained calm — but was gripped in fear. It was the staging ground for many of the United States’ clandestine operations aimed at toppling other governments.
People dared not speak about activism or union organizing lest they risk being among those who “disappeared.” More than a dozen priests were killed in the 1970s and 1980s after being associated with liberation theology, considered a Marxist-tinged doctrine that preached to the poor.
While Catholic priests in Central America were attacked for advocating on behalf of the poor, Kaine maintained a low profile and didn’t attract notice from the military.
Warner, a slender man with gray shoulder-length hair, recalled Kaine’s time in Honduras during a recent interview at the theater in El Progreso.
“His interest was in the students and what he was doing in his work, which is what we were all doing,” Warner said. “Trying to figure how we can do the work without being kicked out of the country for exploring it.”
Kaine also saw poverty and expressed his feelings about it through writing, as did Warner.
The priest maintained a daily newsletter with accounts of poverty and life in El Progreso. “We all have our defenses to shut out the existence of human misery, most of which consist of closing our eyes and pretending it doesn’t exist,” Warner wrote in a December 1980 newsletter. “Hopelessness then becomes a way of life for both parties.”
Warner published one of Kaine’s poems, titled “Still Life,” in which he described the “thick misery” of the town of San Pedro Sula. “In the saddest slum of San Pedro, lives are played out in the shade of a highway where buses glide like lost thoughts overhead.”
He likened the challenges, or “questions marks” facing the town to fingers testing the wind. “Each predicts change that just won’t come.”
Kaine spent nine months in El Progreso before returning to Harvard. He has kept in occasional touch with Warner and has returned to Honduras several times, most recently last year. This year, he and 25 senators called for an end to immigration raids in the U.S. targeting women and children who were fleeing violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.
When he accepted the nomination for vice president, Kaine said that the three basic values he absorbed in Honduras hold true today: “Fe, familia y trabajo.” Faith, family and work.
Students take a break before heading to class to learn carpentry at Loyola Technical Vocational Center, where Tim Kaine volunteered, in El Progreso, Honduras.
(Veronica Rocha / Los Angeles Times )
“I came to understand the power of faith and communal worship,” Kaine said at Virginia Tech in 2006. “I learned how to speak Spanish and began to understand how the things which can seem to divide us — like language and skin color — were so much smaller than the dreams and fears that unite us.”
Kaine also has repeatedly recalled what became one of his most indelible memories of Honduras.
He and Father Jarrell Wade, a Jesuit known as Father Patricio, had traveled by mule to visit a dirt-poor family around Christmas. As they prepared to leave, the husband handed Wade a bag. “Merry Christmas, padre,” he said.
Inside the worn bag were fruits and vegetables he had saved for the priest. Wade took the bag and thanked him.
Kaine was appalled and angered that the priest would take food from such a poor family — “I was fuming” — until Wade imparted the lesson: “You must be really humble to accept a gift of food from a poor person, and the most important thing in life is the ability to give.”
The list of candidates running for Los Angeles city and school board offices is set, with a number of incumbents facing what could be competitive primary elections on June 2.
Fourteen Angelenos have qualified to run for mayor, including incumbent Karen Bass, City Councilmember Nithya Raman and former reality TV star Spencer Pratt.
Seven City Council incumbents face at least one challenger, while Councilmember Monica Rodriguez is running unopposed to represent her northeast San Fernando Valley district.
City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto is running against three opponents — deputy attorney general Marissa Roy, human rights attorney Aida Ashouri and Deputy Dist. Atty. John McKinney.
In the race for city controller, incumbent Kenneth Mejia will battle it out against Zach Sokoloff, who is on sabbatical from his job as senior vice president of asset management at Hackman Capital Partners.
For the last week and a half, workers at the City Clerk’s Office have been verifying the legitimacy of voter signatures submitted by the candidates, finishing the last batch on Friday.
Gathering the required 500 signatures is relatively easy in citywide races but harder in council and school board districts. Some candidates who submitted petitions by the March 4 deadline failed to qualify because some of their signatures were deemed invalid.
In each race, if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in June, the top two finishers will compete in a November runoff.
The field of 14 for mayor narrowed significantly from the roughly 40 who filed initial paperwork on Feb. 7. The qualifiers include a game streamer, a singer-songwriter and a tech entrepreneur, as well as government veterans like Asaad Alnajjar, a longtime engineer for the city. Rae Huang, a pastor and housing advocate, will also appear on the ballot.
Raman, a former Bass ally, shook up the race with her surprise entry, hours before the filing deadline.
A recent poll found that about 51% of Los Angeles voters are undecided on who they want for mayor. Bass led at 20%, followed by Pratt at just over 10% and Raman at slightly more than 9%, according to the Emerson College Polling/Inside California Politics poll.
Tech entrepreneur Adam Miller was supported by just over 4% of those polled, with Huang at about 3%.
In District 1, which stretches from Glassell Park and Highland Park to Chinatown and Pico Union, four challengers are looking to unseat City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez. They are Maria Lou Calanche, a former Los Angeles Police Commissioner and founder of the nonprofit Legacy LA; Nelson Grande, an executive consultant and former president of Avenida Entertainment Group; Raul Claros, founder of CD1 Coalition, which organizes cleanup days; and Sylvia Robledo, a small-business owner and former council aide.
Councilmember Bob Blumenfield is terming out in District 3, leaving the race to represent the southwestern San Fernando Valley open to a newcomer. The three candidates are Timothy K. Gaspar, who founded a private insurance company; Barri Worth Girvan, a director of community affairs for an L.A. County supervisor; and Christopher Robert “C.R.” Celona, a tech entrepreneur.
In District 5, which includes Bel-Air, Westwood, Hancock Park and other West L.A. communities, Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky faces two challengers: tenants rights attorney Henry Mantel and accountant Morgan Oyler.
With Councilmember Curren Price terming out in District 9, six candidates are vying to represent parts of downtown and South L.A. They are Jose Ugarte, who was formerly Price’s deputy chief of staff; Estuardo Mazariegos, a lead organizer at the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment; nonprofit director Elmer Roldan; entrepreneur Jorge Nuño; professor and therapist Martha Sánchez; and educator Jorge Hernandez Rosas.
Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Westside communities of District 11, including Brentwood, Pacific Palisades and Venice, will face off against civil rights attorney Faizah Malik.
In District 13, which includes Hollywood and East Hollywood as well as parts of Silver Lake, Echo Park and Westlake, Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez is defending his seat against three challengers. They are Colter Carlisle, vice president of the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council; Dylan Kendall, an entrepreneur and founder of Grow Hollywood; and Rich Sarian, vice president of strategic initiatives for the Social District.
And in District 15, which includes San Pedro and other harbor-area communities as well as Watts, Councilmember Tim McOsker is running against community organizer Jordan Rivers, who is continuing his campaign after reports that he stabbed a neighbor when he was 12. Rivers said it was an “accident” that happened a decade ago.
Three seats are open on the Los Angeles Unified School District board.
In District 2, incumbent Rocío Rivas is being challenged by Raquel Zamora, an LAUSD teacher and attendance counselor.
In District 4, incumbent Nick Melvoin is facing off against Ankur Patel, director of outreach at the Hindu University of America.
District 5 school board member Kelly Gonez is running unopposed for her third term.
Former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, one of the top Democrats running for California governor, on Friday blasted USC and the ABC affiliate in Los Angeles for hosting a debate that he argues purposely excludes all candidates of color.
Becerra said he and the other candidates were excluded from the televised debate unfairly, a decision that he said “smells of election rigging” in a hotly contested race less than three months before the June primary.
“My father used to tell me of the days when he would encounter signs posted outside establishments that read ‘No Dogs, Negroes or Mexicans Allowed,’” Becerra wrote in a public letter to USC President Beong-Soo Kim. “USC’s actions may not seem so transparent. But, you have deliberately chosen to selectively filter the voters’ view of the field of gubernatorial candidates in what all observers characterize as a wide-open race.”
The university said in a statement that it authorized a political expert to create the formula to determine who would be included in the debate.
“At the request of the Center for the Political Future, Dr. Christian Grose, Professor of Political Science and International Relations, independently established the methodology that determined eligibility for the debate,” according to a statement from the center. “No one in the USC administration had any role in developing, reviewing or approving those criteria.”
The center later said in a statement on Friday that it reiterated the criteria that determined which candidates were invited to participate in the debate, and that nothing had changed since the forum was first planned.
The criteria for gubernatorial candidates to participate considered opinion polling and campaign fund raising. Six candidates were asked to participate in the March 24 debate, which is cosponsored by ABC7 Los Angeles and Univision.
There was conflicting information about USC’s stated criteria, however. The methodology says that the fundraising totals considered were based on semi-annual reports campaigns filed with the California Secretary of State’s office. However, the document later says that the fundraising figures also includes large donations that campaigns are required to immediately report.
This is a critical difference, because San José Mayor Matt Mahan did not enter the race until late January, and thus far has not been required to file any semi-annual fundraising disclosures with the state. However, he has received significant donations since he entered the race.
Mahan agreed with Becerra, saying that he ought to be part of public forums about who will lead the state.
“The former Secretary is absolutely correct, he should be included in the debate,” Mahan said in a statement. “His long record of service to California has earned him a place on every debate stage in this campaign for Governor.”
USC officials said they are clarifying how they selected candidates to participate in the race.
“We are reissuing the criteria to make clear that they include current fundraising totals, including semi-annual and late reports, which were always part of the formula,” the Center for the Political Future said in a statement. “We are not changing the criteria. We have updated even as of today and the rank order includes the same top 6 candidates.”
Grose said that the selection of candidates was based upon polling and fundraising numbers, and that the sentence about semi-annual fundraising reports was inaccurate.
“It was just a wording issue. It’s not a methodology issue,” he said.
Six candidates are scheduled to appear at the debate: Republicans Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton; and Democrats Northern California Rep. Eric Swalwell, former Orange County Rep. Katie Porter, billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer and Mahan.
The kerfuffle occurs after Democratic candidates of color accused state party leaders of trying to oust them from the race in favor of white candidates, who have more support in opinion polls.
In addition to Becerra, other prominent Democratic candidates excluded from the debate include former state Controller Betty Yee, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who also condemned the candidate-selection formula.
“Californians deserve a fair process, and voters deserve to hear from all qualified voices,” Villaraigosa, who taught public policy at USC for three years after leaving office, said in a statement. “But this biased and bigoted action by USC to manipulate the data to exclude every qualified Black, Latino, and API candidate in favor of a less qualified white candidate is shameful.”
Becerra said USC went to great lengths to justify the candidates that were excluded, but the bias was clear.
“You can’t escape the detestable outcome: you disqualified all of the candidates of color from participating while you invited a white candidate who has NEVER polled higher than some of the candidates of color, including me,” he said.
Becerra was clearly referring to Mahan, who recently entered the race and has received millions of dollars of support from Silicon Valley leaders. Becerra noted that veteran GOP strategist Mike Murphy, co-director of the USC Center for the Political Future, which is a sponsor of the debate, is assisting an independent expenditure committee backing Mahan.
Murphy said he had recused himself from anything involved in the debate, and that he was a volunteer for the outside group backing Mahan. If he becomes a paid advisor to the independent expenditure committee, he said he has requested unpaid leave from the university through the June 2 primary.
“I’ve been transparent that I’m personally a Mahan supporter,” Murphy said. “I’ve had zero to do with the debate.”
It’s taken 18 months, but Bob Lomas has been shown the error of his ways and has said sorry to all those he offended
12:41, 13 Mar 2026Updated 12:56, 13 Mar 2026
Bob realises how misguided his remarks are once he spends time with youth worker Chris(Image: 72 Films)
Sacked Reform candidate Bob Lomas has apologised for the racist comment that saw him disowned by party leader Nigel Farage 18 months ago, after being chained to a Black youth worker on Channel 4’s Handcuffed.
The former soldier, 70, has posted his apology on Instagram, after he was persuaded by Chris Preddie that his views were offensive and racist. In the video post the ex-Reform member, from Yorkshire, said: “My name is Bob Lomas and 18 months ago I said that Black people should get off their lazy arses, go and get a job and stop acting like savages.
“I can’t change what I said, I can only apologise for saying it. I vehemently apologise for using those words. I made a bloody big mistake and I am bloody sorry that I did and I want to apologise to anybody that is affected.”
Content cannot be displayed without consent
Handcuffed, hosted by Jonathan Ross, sees people with opposing viewers shackled together for a shot at the £100,000 prize. In Monday’s episode viewers will see Chris Googling Bob to find out who he is actually chained to.
Bob admits having made the shocking comment that ended his political career, on Facebook, but starts off defending himself, arguing: “Everything’s racist if you want it to be. I witnessed a riot in London and was appalled by what was happening in my capital city. I could have worded it better but it gets to the point where you can’t say anything about anything.”
But Londoner Chris, who was awarded the OBE 13 years ago at the age of 25 for his inspirational youth work, said that the terminology had left him feeling “quite disgusted”. And once he has explained his own background, Bob backs down and admits that his views were wrong.
In the programme, Chris tells him that his father had died after being caught up in gangs and he was quickly groomed for a life of crime. himself. “I didn’t have a role model,” he explains. “I didn’t want to sell drugs but, if I didn’t, then I’m not eating. Not surviving.”
He credits the youth worker who helped him to break out with having “saved my life” because Chris feels certain he’d be “dead or in prison” without that support. Getting the OBE from the late Queen Elizabeth had been a huge honour. “I was so proud,” he confesses. “People started to see me as a normal citizen – I was told my whole life that I’d amount to nothing.”
Looking moved by what he’s learned, Bob admits that Chris’s story is “very, very shocking” and tells the camera that he’s impressed by how he not only got out, but went on to help others do the same. “He used that experience to help bring other young men and women out of that mindset. What he does for his community is unbelievable. I salute him.”
Bob was standing as the Reform candidate for Barnsley North when he was dropped by party leader Farage, along with two others, in June 2024 over remarks made by all three on social media. Speaking on Question Time afterwards, Farage claimed: “I wouldn’t want anything to do with them”. The racism within Reform was widely condemned by other political leaders, with Farage told to “get a grip” on his party.
– Handcuffed – Last Pair Standing continues on Monday, Channel 4, 9pm
Tensions rose in The Apprentice as a candidate shared a decision he would “regret for the rest of my life”.
22:10, 12 Mar 2026Updated 22:35, 12 Mar 2026
The Apprentice’s Lord Sugar calls out ‘nasty move’ as candidate admits ‘regret’(Image: BBC)
BBC The Apprentice said goodbye to yet another candidate this week but not before Lord Sugar addressed someone’s “slimey” actions.
In week seven of the hit BBC business show, the remaining candidates took on virtual reality fitness where they were tasked with building demos and brands before chasing investment.
Unfortunately, when it came to the boardroom, it was game over for Team Eclipse, headed up by project manager Lawrence Rosenberg who scored an investment four times lower than Team Alpha.
The drama really began in the boardroom when it came to Lawrence choosing who he would be bringing back with him.
He first decided to pick Rajan Gill for his “lack of contributions” before sharing the controversial reason for his second choice of Levi Hague.
Lawrence said: “With respect Lord Sugar, I think you have made it quite clear about your mind on Levi so I will need to bring back Levi as well.”
Prior to his decision, Lord Sugar had questioned Levi what he had achieved in the past seven weeks of the process but despite his own reservations, The Apprentice legend wasn’t happy with this “naughty”, tactic.
“This is not how this process is supposed to work, you’re supposed to bring people back in who you think did not contribute to this task.”
Lord Sugar described it as a “nasty move” with Lawrence apologetically saying that “I’ll regret it for the rest of my life”.
The Apprentice legend said he was going to be “fair” to Levi though and keep him for another week, putting him forward as next week’s project manager with the candidate laughing “happy days”.
Despite this business between Lawrence and Levi, it was actually Rajan’s turn to be fired for his lack of contributions to the task.
This didn’t stop Lord Sugar from giving Lawrence one last telling off though as he warned: “You were this close to getting out of here.”
The drama wasn’t quite over yet though as when the saved pair went back to the house, Lawrence admitted to the rest of the group that he was “beyond embarassed”, having made a “weak decision”.
Levi wasn’t going to let him off the hook just yet though as he simply stated to the remaining candidates: “Don’t ever use me as a scapegoat in there, don’t ever do that to me.”
The Apprentice continues every Thursday at 9pm on BBC One.
For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.
