challenge

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is heading to a conference of world leaders in Germany later this week as part of his ongoing effort to use the global stage to urge investment in California’s climate-related initiatives and challenge President Trump’s isolationist policies.

Newsom will appear at the Munich Security Conference to talk about trade and jobs and tell foreign leaders that “California is a stable and reliable partner,” he said Tuesday during an unrelated event.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is leading the official U.S. delegation to the conference, while Democratic leaders Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York are also expected, according to news reports.

The three-day event focuses on the intersections of trade, economics, security and foreign policy, and is expected to draw business leaders and heads of state.

Vice President JD Vance’s appearance at last year’s gathering caused a stir after he argued that European’s immigration policies are too relaxed and European nations are too reliant on the United States.

Ahead of the gathering, conference organizers released a report Monday that found that the “world has entered a period of wrecking-ball politics. Sweeping destruction — rather than careful reforms and policy corrections — is the order of the day.”

Newsom told reporters that he will appear on several panels, and suggested he will focus in part on staying competitive with China when it comes to new technologies and job growth.

“China is cleaning our clock as it relates to low-carbon green growth. They are cleaning our clock in terms of not just electric vehicles, because it’s not about electric power, it’s about economic power,” he said.

“It’s about exports, manufacturing, jobs — and this country is walking away,” he continued. “We are walking away from science and we are walking away from common sense.”

“Gavin Newscum is traveling to another international conference to whine about climate policies instead of doing his job as the governor of California?” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers, using President Trump’s derogatory nickname for the governor. “Nothing new to see here.”

Newsom is in his last year as California governor and is considering running for president in 2028. He last month traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where he criticized world leaders for not challenging Trump’s aggressive posture when it comes to his threats to acquire Greenland, as well as his tariffs.

Newsom also attended the U.N. climate policy summit in Belém, Brazil, in November.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer has emerged rattled but ultimately unscathed after a day and night of drama during which a key member of his Labour Party called for him to resign over revelations about a former ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, in the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Starmer has faced more than a week of mounting pressure since the release of the latest tranche of documents from the US Department of Justice relating to the criminal cases against the late sex offender. They revealed that Mandelson had maintained a close friendship with the disgraced financier even after Epstein had pleaded guilty to solicitation of sex with a minor and was jailed in 2008.

They include documents and emails that suggest Mandelson may have received payments from Epstein and passed sensitive information to him during the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

Since then, Starmer has admitted that he knew of the pair’s friendship when he appointed Mandelson as ambassador but said the peer had lied about the extent of it. The affair has caused outrage in parliament. Two key members of Starmer’s inner circle have resigned and a third is under pressure to go. On Monday, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar called for the prime minister to do the same.

While Starmer’s position has been shored up for now by a rally of support from his cabinet on Monday night, just how badly has this affair shaken his government?

Why did Anas Sarwar call for Starmer to resign?

Sarwar said at a news conference early on Monday afternoon that he had called Starmer and told him it was time for him to resign. “I spoke to the prime minister earlier today, and I think it’s safe to say he and I disagreed,” Sarwar said.

He said “too many mistakes” had been made in relation to the appointment of Mandelson.

“The distraction needs to end, and the leadership in Downing Street has to change,” Sarwar said as he became the first Labour heavyweight to stand against the prime minister.

While Sarwar said he believed Starmer to be a “decent man”, the fury over the Epstein files had severely damaged the government’s support and wrecked its chances in the upcoming Scottish parliament elections. Opinion polls put Scottish Labour some distance behind the Scottish National Party, followed by the far-right Reform party, led by Nigel Farage.

But cabinet members came out in support of Starmer, ultimately ending the coup that never was. Angela Rayner, former deputy prime minister and a senior member of the Labour Party, was the first to show him support. She said in a post on X that while she did not defend Starmer’s judgement, “the worst possible response [to the scandal] would be to play party politics or factional games.”

“I urge all my colleagues to come together, remember our values and put them into practice as a team,” she wrote on X. “The Prime Minister has my full support in leading us to that end.”

Within hours, nearly every minister had followed suit. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, urged people to “give Keir a chance”. Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, said he hoped the prime minister would stay on, and Douglas Alexander, Scotland secretary, said he “respected” Sarwar’s stance but backed the prime minister.

On Monday night, Starmer addressed more than 400 MPs and peers at a Labour Party meeting. “I have won every fight I’ve ever been in. I fought to change the Labour Party to allow us to win an election again,” he told them.

“But I’ll tell you this, after having fought so hard for the chance to change our country, I’m not prepared to walk away from my mandate and my responsibility to my country or to plunge us into chaos as others have done.”

Who has resigned from Starmer’s team and why?

Two key figures have already resigned, and a third is under pressure to do so, UK media has reported.

Amid growing outrage over the new revelations about Mandelson and Epstein, Starmer’s chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, resigned on Sunday, taking “full responsibility” for advising the prime minister to appoint Mandelson to the ambassadorship, which he took up in 2025, despite the risks.

“The decision to appoint Mandelson was wrong,” McSweeney said. “He has damaged our party. … I advised the prime minister to make that appointment and I take full responsibility for that.”

Mandelson was dismissed from the post in September after serving seven months after the UK daily The Sun obtained other emails between him and Epstein that showed the depth of their friendship.

After the release of the latest tranche of Epstein documents on January 30, Mandelson resigned from the Labour Party and the House of Lords.

Tim Allan, Starmer’s communications chief, resigned on Monday, saying he was leaving to pave the way for a “new No 10 team” to be built as Starmer tries to reset his government.

Allan, who founded the Portland Communications firm specialising in reputation management, had been in the job for only five months, and Starmer is now looking to hire his fifth communications chief since taking office in 2024.

Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary and senior-most civil servant in Downing Street, is also reportedly under pressure to resign and is said to be currently negotiating his exit from the role, which he has been in for less than a year.

The UK’s Guardian newspaper reported that some people close to Starmer view him as a “disastrous” appointment.

What did the Epstein files reveal about Mandelson?

The latest release of files showed Mandelson maintained his relationship with Epstein after the latter was jailed in 2008.

They also suggested Mandelson received payments from the late financier and may have shared market-sensitive information with him that was of financial interest to Epstein.

Leaks of sensitive information by Mandelson allegedly took place in 2009 while he was serving as the UK’s business secretary.

The UK police have launched a criminal investigation over suspected misconduct in public office linked to Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein.

In one of the emails revealed in the most recent tranche of documents released from the US Justice Department, Mandelson told Epstein to “fight for early release” shortly before he was sentenced in 2008.

“I think the world of you,” Mandelson told Epstein, adding about his prosecution: “I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

How damaging has this all been for Starmer?

Starmer has apologised publicly for appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US despite knowing of his ties – but not the extent of them, he said – to the disgraced financier.

“None of us knew the depth and the darkness of that relationship,” Starmer said on Thursday as he apologised to Epstein’s victims.

“I am sorry – sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you, sorry for having believed Mandelson’s lies and appointing him.”

But this has not been enough to let him off the hook entirely, experts said.

Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, said the scandal has been hugely damaging for Starmer. “A more popular PM might have been able to ride it out, but he was already facing a good deal of hostility from voters before it blew up,” Bale told Al Jazeera. “He’s managed so far to hold on to his cabinet, but he’s completely lost the trust of the electorate – and that’s hard to get back.”

Bale said “people are disgusted by” Starmer’s decision to appoint Mandelson “despite knowing that he’d stayed friends with Epstein after he’d been convicted”.

Can Starmer’s leadership still be challenged?

While Starmer has survived Monday night, his position is still weak with low approval ratings, experts said.

Labour is expected to suffer losses in crucial Scottish elections in May. A parliamentary by-election is also due on February 26.

“The immediate danger [to Starmer] is that [Labour] suffers catastrophic losses in a by-election and then a big set of elections in May,” Bale said. “That will reignite calls for Starmer to resign and, if he doesn’t, a challenge from one or more of his colleagues.”

Among the top runners to replace Starmer are Rayner, his former deputy prime minister who resigned from the cabinet last year over a tax scandal.

A website pitching Rayner as leader, angelaforleader.co.uk, went live in January briefly, The Guardian newspaper reported. Rayner has denied any links to the website.

Another politician gearing up to replace Starmer is Wes Streeting, the health secretary.

Streeting, 43, has also been called out for his ties with Mandelson. In a bid to distance himself from the former ambassador, Streeting this week shared private chats he had with Mandelson that questioned the government’s growth plan.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, 45, is another possible successor to Starmer. She has grown popular among several right-aligned leaders of the Labour Party with her moves to tighten border controls and crack down on unauthorised immigration.

What other issues has Labour faced under Starmer?

The Labour Party swept to power in July 2024, ending nearly 14 years of Conservative rule. However, the prime minister has since had a difficult time in Downing Street.

In the 2024 elections, Reform UK, the right-wing, populist, anti-immigration party led by Farage, won just five of the 650 seats in parliament. However, it has gone on to become one of the best polling British parties. In July, a YouGov poll put Reform in the lead, predicting it could win 271 seats if elections were held then.

In his speech on Monday, Starmer called the challenge posed by the rise of the Reform party, which has won over a number of high-profile defectors from the Conservative Party in recent weeks, “a fight for our lives”.

Starmer is also facing domestic pressure to put a stop to undocumented immigration to the UK. More than 32,000 people tried to cross the English Channel from France in small boats last year. These crossings are dangerous and have resulted in many deaths.

The UK and France have laid the blame on each other for the rising numbers. This led to a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal signed between the UK and France last year, under which the UK returns one migrant to France for each accepted refugee. The scheme has had little success, however, with only a handful of migrants returned.

Starmer himself has dropped in popularity by 20 percentage points from July 2024 to January this year, according to YouGov.

“Reform has obviously spooked some in the Labour Party,” Bale said, adding, however, that Reform is eating into the Conservatives’ base more. “And Labour probably needs to worry more about the Greens and the Liberal Democrats at this stage.”

“The break-up of the two-party duopoly that has dominated British politics for a century is no longer simply an aspiration among challenger parties but an ongoing reality,” Bale said.

This Morning presenter Ben Shephard will host ITV’s new reality show The Summit

ITV’s new reality show The Summit is sent to air in just a few hours as a number of contestants including a I’m A Celebrity star’s daughter take on major challenges.

The Summit, hosted by This Morning presenter Ben Shephard, will see a group of people attempt to reach the peak of one of New Zealand’s biggest mountains.

Ben will join 13 non-celebrity contestants, and they will head out on an epic 100-kilometre journey across a wild, mountainous landscape.

Their goal is to climb 8,500ft to the Summit of a distant mountain to win a share of a cash prize of up to £200,000, with the format already a hit in Australia.

The programme was originally thought to be debuting on UK screens in 2025, but according to TVZone, the launch date was pushed back to 2026 due to scheduling.

The Summit kicks off tonight (February 10) on ITV1 at 9pm. The following episode will air at the same time the following night on Wednesday (February 11.)

Episode three will air on Wednesday, February 18, marking the move away from two episodes a week.

However, from here The Summit will air on consecutive Tuesdays leading up to the series finale on Tuesday, March 17.

The Summit’s full line-up

I’m A Celebrity’s Gillian McKeith’s daughter Afton is among the many contestants who has signed up for a new ITV reality show.

The pageant and fitness coach, 24, who competed to be named Miss England last year, will take part in the reality show.

Speaking about why she wanted to take on the big challenge, Afton revealed: “I wanted to push myself out of my comfort zone, ground myself and take on a new adventure in order to grow as an individual.”

The star said her biggest strengths is her leadership skills and my ability to strategise however her weakness is “lack of hygiene” as she admitted it was a major “concern”.

• Charlett – 38-year-old Pole Fitness Instructor from Wiltshire
• Jenny – 46-year-old Sales and Marketing Manager from Peterborough
• Dockers – 36-year-old Senior Construction Manager from Hull
• Tara: 31-year-old Social Media Influencer from Manchester
• Tyra: 24-year-old England Football Scout from London
• Warren – 52-year-old Ordained Minister and former Gladiator from London
• Patrick – 24-year-old Content Creator from Milton Keynes
• Miranda – 50-year-old Publican from Northampton
• Colleen – 48-year-old Ex-Steel Worker from Port Talbot
• Drew – 32-year-old Project Manager from North London
• Thomas – 29-year-old Tour Guide from Winchester
• Sean – 25-year-old Customer Service Advisor from Liverpool
• Joel – 35-year-old Mentor/Coach from Loughborough

The Summit airs tonight at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX

**For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website**

If the proposal is implemented, workers would not be able to seek remedy through an independent review board.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump is making it harder for fired federal employees to get their jobs back by limiting their right to appeal dismissals to an independent review board.

The change was proposed as part of a government plan released on Monday by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Under the proposal, federal employees seeking to challenge their termination would be required to appeal directly to OPM, which reports to the president, rather than to an independent body known as the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

The MSPB acts as a mediator between federal workers and the government and has been in place since 1978. After Trump took office, the board’s caseload surged by 266 percent between October 2024 and September 2025. Federal workers who were cut in early 2025 and accepted buyouts received their final paycheques at the end of September.

If implemented, the proposal would build on Trump’s broader push to shrink the federal government and limit workers’ ability to challenge those decisions. The administration forced out roughly 317,000 federal employees last year.

The move comes amid a separate proposal announced last week that would reclassify high-level career civil servants as “at will” employees. That change would give the administration broader authority to fire career officials who do not align with the sitting president’s agenda, affecting roughly 50,000 workers at the nation’s largest employer.

Outlined in a more than 250-page document, the directive would allow workers to be fired if they were “intentionally subverting Presidential directives”.

“Congress gave OPM the authority to set how reduction-in-force appeals are handled, and this rule puts that responsibility to work,” an OPM spokesperson told Al Jazeera in a statement. “It replaces a slow, costly process with a single, streamlined review led by OPM experts. That means agencies can restructure without years of litigation, and employees get faster, fairer resolution if mistakes occur.”

The proposal also comes as the administration has sought to fire political appointees from previous administrations without just cause. Since last year, the White House has been attempting to remove US Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged mortgage fraud.

Cook challenged the decision in federal court, which ruled that the president did not have the authority to fire her. The White House appealed, and the case is now before the Supreme Court.

While the court has not yet issued a ruling, a decision in the president’s favour would make it easier to remove political appointees who do not align with a given administration’s agenda.

Zach Eckersley scored four tries and Jake Wardle three as the Warriors, last year’s Super League runners-up, easily despatched the Hornets.

Wakefield showed no mercy in their victory either, with Max Jowitt, Matthew Storton and Josh Rourke sharing seven tries between them against the Lions.

Batley were overwhelmed by Catalans, conceding within the first 17 seconds before the visitors ran in a further nine tries.

Elsewhere, Oldham easily defeated Dewsbury Rams 46-0 and Keighley Cougars edged a low-scoring encounter against Midlands Hurricanes 18-14.

The draw for the fourth round will take place on Monday, 9 February, with live coverage on BBC Radio Manchester from 18:40 GMT.

MILAN — History didn’t begin in Italy, but it made a number of significant advances there. The foundations for representative government, the 365-day Julian calendar, modern sanitation, newspapers, roads and the postal system were established in Rome.

Centuries later, the rest of the world is still doing as the Romans do.

But if Rome is Italy’s past, Milan is its present and future.

It is the country’s financial center, home to the Italian stock exchange. It’s the world’s fashion center, home to luxury brands including Prada, Versace, Armani and Dolce & Gabbana. And it has one of the largest concentrations of millionaires in the world, one for every 12 of the city 1.37 million residents.

“It’s a city that’s becoming more global and global,” said Giorgio Ricci, the chief revenue officer for Inter Milan, the city’s top soccer club. “Milano is now a real ambassador of that Italian culture, from lifestyle to design to food and whatever.”

And now, like Rome in the summer of 1960, it also has the Olympic Games.

The Milan-Cortina Games are the first Olympics officially shared between two host cities and the most logistically complex Winter Games ever, taking place over 8,500 square miles of northern Italy. And though most of the medals will be awarded in the surrounding mountains at Cortina d’Ampezzo, Valtellina and Val di Fiemme, Milan will be the beating heart of the Games, much as it is the beating heart of the country.

The main opening ceremony will take place at San Siro, the 75,000-seat stadium that is home to the city’s two first-division soccer teams, Inter Milan and AC Milan. Figure skating, speedskating and men’s and women’s hockey will also be held at four other venues across the city.

San Siro in Milan will host the opening ceremonies for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics.

And that will happen, organizers say, whether the venues are ready or not — and one of them is not. The 11,800-seat Unipol Dome, which will be known as Milano Rho Ice Hockey Arena during the Olympics, is one of just two competition venues that had to be constructed for the Games. It played host to the first games of the women’s hockey tournament Thursday despite the fact that construction crews were still administering the final touch-ups outside the building as Sweden was beating Germany in the opener.

“Do we have every area of that venue finished? No,” said Christophe Dubi, the International Olympic Committee‘s executive director for the Olympic Games said earlier this week. “Is it absolutely necessary for the Games? No. Everything that is public-facing, whether for media or athletes, will be first-class.”

Organizers certainly hope so because there’s a lot riding on these Games. If Milan can pull off an efficient, modern, sustainable and technologically “smart” event, it will reinforce the city’s status as one of the world’s top-tier global capitals, one with financial roots and a trendy multicultural image.

Fail in any one of those categories and Milan could suffer significant financial and reputational damage.

A singer busks late at night in Piazza del Doumo in Milan ahead of the Winter Olympic Games.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

The competition is expected to draw 2.5 million people to Milan — many of them first-time visitors — while generating more than $7 billion in economic activity. Much of that spending went to upgrade the city’s and regional rail lines, which are expected to be overwhelmed given the spread-out nature of the Games.

Days before the Olympic torch was lit at San Siro, Milan’s Piazza del Duomo, which fronts the city’s elaborate Gothic cathedral, was packed with Olympic visitors, many wearing sweatshirts and jackets bearing the flags of their homelands. NBC will anchor its 700 hours of linear TV coverage from a temporary studio tower built in the square, with the iconic church as its backdrop.

Around the corner along the Via Orefici, which dates to the Middle Ages, many of the neighborhood’s trendy boutiques have hung neon signs with the Games logo, proclaiming themselves proud sponsors of the Olympics. At night, a singer who calls herself Anna Soprano performs a solo street opera.

However many locals have failed to catch Olympic fever with high ticket prices and fears about traffic, security measures and crowded Metro trains dampening enthusiasm.

An opera singer performs in Milan ahead of the 2026 Winter Olympics.

Buried beneath Milan’s rush to the modern from the Middle Ages — just beyond the Duomo Cathedral, which was begun in 1386, is the massive 15th Century Sforza Castle — lies a more recent history the city would just as soon forget. Milan was Italy’s Munich, the birthplace of Benito Mussolini’s fascist movement.

Yet it later became the center of anti-fascist resistance, with partisans seizing control of the city in the final days of World War II and executing Mussolini, hanging his corpse from the roof of an Esso station in the Piazzale Loreto. Milan marked that day by naming a prominent square in the city’s center April 25 Plaza for the day the uprising that liberated Milan began.

If Milan is modern Europe, some of the competition clusters outside the city, spread from Valtellina on the Swiss border in the north to Cortina d’Ampezzo, 27 miles south of the Austrian border, represent both the rustic and gentrifying Italy.

The scenic Fiemme Valley, site of cross-country skiing, ski jumping, and Nordic combined , is made up primarily of three small villages — Carano, Daiano and Varena — in the Dolomites mountain range. Despite a history of human activity that dates back more than 6,000 years, the area wasn’t officially established as the municipality of Val di Fiemme until the three townships merged in January 2020.

Today it is a major outdoor-sports destination, having played host to the FIS Nordic World Ski championship numerous times; in the summer it is a favored destination of hikers.

Valtellina, a 75-mile-long valley that runs along the Swiss border, will be the site of Alpine skiing, snowboarding, freestyle skiing and the debut sport of ski mountaineering. The region is known as the heart of the Alps and is a premier Alpine wine area, famous for the elegant reds that come from grapes grown on steep, terraced vineyards.

Cortina d’Ampezzo in northern Italy will host multiple events during the 2026 Olympics.

Cortina d’Ampezzo, meanwhile, is a breathtakingly beautiful ski resort and outdoor sports paradise about 35 miles from the Austrian border. Unlike Valtellina and Val di Fiemme, which are rustic and traditional, Cortina is one of Europe’s most expensive ski towns, its streets lined with high-end stores, luxury hotels and Michelin-starred restaurants. For year-round residents, property prices are the highest in the Italian Alps.

It was scheduled to host the 1944 Winter Olympics before World War II intervened, delaying the its arrival until 1956, when 32 nations — the largest to attend a Winter Games at the time — competed in four sports and 24 events. This month it will be the site of the biathlon, Alpine skiing, curling and sliding sports (bobsled, luge and skeleton).

The new $140-million Cortina Sliding Centre, the second Olympic venue whose construction fell well behind schedule, was completed days before the opening ceremony but a cable car intended to carry spectators to the women’s ski events was not expected to be finished in time. That could lead to traffic jams since visitors will have to take their cars more than a mile up the mountain.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that California this fall may use its new election map, which is expected to send five more Democrats to Congress.

With no dissents, the justices rejected emergency appeals from California Republicans and President Trump’s lawyers, who claimed the map was a racial gerrymander to benefit Latinos, not a partisan effort to bolster Democrats.

Trump’s lawyers supported the California Republicans and filed a Supreme Court brief asserting that “California’s recent redistricting is tainted by an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

They pointed to statements from Paul Mitchell, who led the effort to redraw the districts, that he hoped to “bolster” Latino representatives in the Central Valley.

In response, the state’s attorneys told the court the GOP claims defied the public’s understanding of the mid-decade redistricting and contradicted the facts regarding the racial and ethnic makeup of the districts.

Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed re-drawing the state’s 52 congressional districts to “fight back against Trump’s power grab in Texas.”

He said that if Texas was going to redraw its districts to benefit Republicans so as to keep control of the House of Representatives, California should do the same to benefit Democrats.

The voters approved the change in November.

While the new map has five more Democratic-leaning districts, the state’s attorneys said it did not increase the number with a Latino majority.

“Before Proposition 50, there were 16 Latino-majority districts. After Proposition 50, there is the same number. The average Latino share of the voting-age population also declined in those 16 districts,” they wrote.

It would be “strange for California to undertake a mid-decade restricting effort with the predominant purpose of benefiting Latino voters and then enact a new map that contains an identical number of Latino-majority districts,” they said.

Trump’s lawyers pointed to the 13th Congressional District in Merced County and said its lines were drawn to benefit Latinos.

The state’s attorneys said that too was incorrect. “The Latino voting-age population [in District 13] decreased after Proposition 50’s enactment,” they said.

Three judges in Los Angeles heard evidence from both sides and upheld the new map in a 2-1 decision.

“We find that the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming,” said U.S. District Judges Josephine Staton and Wesley Hsu.

In the past, the Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not bar state lawmakers from drawing election districts for political or partisan reasons, but it does forbid doing so based on the race of the voters.

In December, the court ruled for Texas Republicans and overturned a 2-1 decision that had blocked the use of its new election map.
The court’s conservatives agreed with Texas lawmakers who said they acted out of partisan motives, not with the aim of denying representation to Latino and Black voters.

“The impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in a concurring opinion.

California’s lawyers quoted Alito in supporting their map.

After two decades and two stints as Walt Disney Co. boss, Bob Iger finally is hanging up the reins.

Disney this week tapped 54-year-old parks chief Josh D’Amaro to succeed Iger as chief executive. The handoff is set for March 18, at the company’s annual investor meeting, with Iger staying on as a senior advisor and board member until his December retirement.

The changing of the guard atop one of America’s iconic companies marks the end of an era.

History probably will remember Iger as a visionary leader who transformed Disney by reinvigorating its creative engines through a series of blockbuster acquisitions, broadening its international profile and boldly steering into treacherous streaming terrain by launching Disney+ and ESPN+ as audiences drifted from the company’s mainstay TV channels.

Iger, 74, has long been Hollywood’s most respected and inspiring studio chief, known around town simply as “Bob.”

Disney Chairman James Gorman said in an interview that Iger’s nearly 20 years in power is framed by two epochs: “Bob 1” and “Bob 2.”

After becoming CEO in 2005, Iger presided over a period of remarkable growth. Through acquisitions of Pixar Animation, Marvel Entertainment and the “Star Wars” studio, LucasFilm, the company gained blockbuster franchises and popular characters, including Captain Marvel, Baby Yoda and Sheriff Woody from “Toy Story,” to populate movie theaters and theme parks.

“Bob steadied the company and built it out,” Gorman said. “He created an absolute powerhouse.”

Simultaneously, Iger strived to preserve ABC, ESPN and the whimsical charm that spilled from founder Walt Disney’s imagination so many decades ago. Iger has treasured such animated gems as Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Winnie the Pooh, Polynesian princess Moana and more.

“The Iger era has been defined by enormous growth, an unyielding commitment to excellence in creativity and innovation, and exemplary stewardship of this iconic institution,” Gorman said in a statement on behalf of the board, adding: “We extend our deepest gratitude to Bob Iger for his extraordinary leadership and dedication to The Walt Disney Co.”

Former CEO Michael Eisner told The Times that Iger has “succeeded masterfully” at every turn.

“From ABC Sports to ABC Television Network and then at Disney, when we inherited him in the ABC/Capital Cities acquisition, Bob created success upon success,” Eisner said. “It’s why he was picked as the Disney CEO, a role that has been his greatest success … What a record!”

Iger‘s first reign ended when he stepped down as CEO in February 2020, then retired from the company 22 months later.

But that leadership handoff proved disastrous, becoming Iger’s biggest blunder — one he has since worked hard to correct.

Bob Iger passed the CEO torch to Bob Chapek in 2020.

(Business Wire)

Former parks chief Bob Chapek stepped into the big role, but he lacked stature, creative chops and support among key executives. He quickly confronted the magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic, which shuttered Disney’s revenue machines — theme parks, movie theaters and sporting events that anchor ABC and ESPN.

Wall Street soon soured on multibillion-dollar streaming losses by Disney and traditional entertainment firms that were jumping into streaming to compete with Netflix. The company’s stock fell.

Chapek also stumbled into a political feud with Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who branded Disney as “woke.” The public tussle tarnished the Burbank company’s clean image and undermined its goal of entertaining the masses, no matter their political stripes.

The board beckoned Iger back in November 2022 to quell a revolt by senior Disney executives and allay concerns among investors.

“When I came back three years ago, I had a tremendous amount that needed fixing,” Iger acknowledged during a Monday earnings call with analysts. “But anyone who runs a company also knows that it can’t just be about fixing. It has to be preparing a company for its future.”

Succession immediately became the board’s top priority with Iger then in his early 70s. But Disney’s executive bench had thinned through a series of high-level departures and the company’s expenditures had gotten out of control.

Iger restructured the company, which led to thousands of layoffs, and gave division executives financial oversight to, in Iger’s words, give them “skin in the game.”

His successor, D’Amaro, last spring recalled bringing a 250-page binder to Iger for review upon the chief’s 2022 return to the Team Disney building in Burbank. The book was stuffed with detailed updates for each component of D’Amaro’s enormous parks and experiences division.

The following day, Iger showed up at D’Amaro’s office, binder in hand.

“He pulled out one page,” D’Amaro recounted during an investor conference last year, adding that Iger said: “we have plenty of room to grow this business. We’ve got land in all of our locations around the world,” D’Amaro said. “We’ve got the stories [and] we’ve got the fans.”

That laid the seeds for Disney’s current $60-billion, 10-year investment program to expand theme parks and resorts, cruise lines and open a new venture in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. D’Amaro was put in charge of the effort, which is designed to cement Disney’s leading position in leisure entertainment. That mandate has become increasingly important to Disney amid the contraction of linear television and cable programming revenue.

Iger’s second stint as CEO wasn’t nearly as fun as the first.

He was dragged into a bitter proxy fight with two billionaire investors, who challenged his strategy, succession plans and Disney’s 2019 purchase of much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox. The move was controversial, with critics lamenting the $71-billion purchase price. Disney reduced its outlay by selling regional sports networks and other assets, but the deal left the company with significant debt just before COVID-19 hit.

The Fox deal gave Disney rights to hundreds of properties, including “Avatar,” “Deadpool” and “The Simpsons.”

Iger vanquished the proxy challenge, and this week, he again defended the Fox purchase, which gave Disney control of streaming service Hulu, National Geographic channels and FX.

“The deal we did for Fox, in many ways, was ahead of its time,” Iger said on the earnings call, noting the lofty bidding war currently underway for Warner Bros. Discovery.

“We knew that we would need more volume in terms of [intellectual property], and we did that deal,” Iger said, pointing to Disney’s deployment of its franchises beyond the big screen into its money-making theme parks. “When you look at the footprint of the business today, it’s never been more broad or more diverse.”

TD Cowen media analyst Doug Creutz still thinks the Fox deal was a dud, saying in a report: “There were plenty of value-destroying media deals before DIS-FOX, so we disagree with their assertion” despite the multiples being offered for Warner.

From left; James Gorman, chairman of the Walt Disney Co. board of directors; Disney Experiences Chairman Josh D’Amaro; Dana Walden, co-chair of Disney Entertainment; and Bob Iger, chief executive of the Walt Disney Co.

(Walt Disney Co.)

Iger is credited with astutely managing Disney’s image and corporate culture.

He was instrumental in resolving Hollywood’s bitter year of labor strife by negotiating truces with the Writers Guild of America and performers’ union, SAG-AFTRA, in 2023.

He has also sought to distance the company from divisive politics, albeit with limited success.

Disney agreed to pay President Trump $16 million to settle a dispute over inaccurate statements that ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos made a month after Trump was reelected. But free speech advocates howled, accusing Disney of bending to Trump.

In September, Iger led the company out of political quicksand amid an uprising of conservatives, including the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, a Trump appointee, who were riled by comments by ABC late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel in the wake of activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.

Iger maintains Disney made the decision to return Kimmel to his late-night perch independent of the political pressure from both sides.

Enormous challenges remain for D’Amaro, the incoming CEO.

He and his team, including Chief Creative Officer Dana Walden, must ensure Disney’s movies and TV shows deliver on the company’s commitment to quality, and that its streaming services — Disney+, Hulu and ESPN — rise above the competition.

In recent years, Disney’svaunted animation studios, including Pixar, have struggled to consistently release hits, though it has found success with sequels. Disney Animation’s “Zootopia 2” is now the highest-grossing U.S. animated film of all time, with worldwide box office revenue of more than $1.7 billion, and the 2024 Pixar film “Inside Out 2” hauled in nearly $1.7 billion globally.

The company also must maintain its pricey sports contracts, including with the NFL, to drive ESPN’s success. This week, Disney and the NFL finalized their deal for the league to take a 10% stake in ESPN.

And, as broadcast TV audiences continue to gray, Disney must evaluate the importance of the ABC network, where Iger got his start more than 50 years ago working behind-the-scenes for $150 a week.

Investors also are looking for D’Amaro to lift Disney’s wobbly stock, which has fallen 9% so far this year.

“The stock price doesn’t fairly reflect what [Iger] has done, but … it will,” Gorman said. “And he should get credit for it.”

In a statement Tuesday, D’Amaro expressed gratitude to Disney’s board “for entrusting me with leading a company that means so much to me and millions around the world.”

“I also want to express my gratitude to Bob Iger for his generous mentorship, his friendship, and the profound impact of his leadership,” D’Amaro said.

Times staff writer Samantha Masunaga contributed to this report.

Washington, DC – A group of United States citizens and immigrant rights groups has launched a lawsuit seeking to challenge the sweeping suspension of immigrant visa processing for 75 countries by the administration of United States President Donald Trump.

The lawsuit filed on Monday argues that the Trump administration has relied on a false narrative to justify the visa processing suspension, one of the most substantial restrictions on legal immigration in the country’s history.

The lawsuit charges the policy “constitutes an unlawful nationality-based ban on legal immigration and a new set of discriminatory, unlawful public charge rules that strips families and working people of the process guaranteed by law”, according to a case overview by the National Immigration Law Center, which is among the groups supporting the legal challenge.

The sprawling 106-page complaint further alleges that the administration relies “on an unsupported and demonstrably false claim that nationals of the covered countries migrate to the United States to improperly rely on cash welfare and are likely to become ‘public charges’”.

The State Department has described the action, announced in mid-January, as a “pause” on immigrant visa processing on “countries whose migrants take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates”.

The department has not revealed the criteria it used to determine which countries were added to the list, which comes amid a wider effort to constrict legal immigration pathways into the US and to deport undocumented citizens from the country.

The affected countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Brazil, Colombia, Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Somalia and Russia.

The list also includes Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, as well as several Caribbean, Pacific Island, and Eastern European countries.

Non-immigrant visas, including business and tourist visas, remain exempt.

“The freeze will remain active until the US can ensure that new immigrants will not extract wealth from the American people,” the State Department said in January.

‘Arbitrary, unlawful, and deeply harmful’

More than a dozen organisations and individuals named as plaintiffs in Monday’s lawsuit, as well as the seven legal organisations supporting them, argue the administration’s policy misuses the so-called “public charge” ground for inadmissibility laid out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

The provision, they argue, is meant to be a determination made on an “individualised” basis that a person risks becoming “primarily and permanently dependent on government for subsistence” if they are granted immigration status.

In turn, they said the administration is violating another provision of the INA, which says “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence”.

It further argues that the administration has adopted an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes a “public charge”.

The plaintiffs include US citizens who had petitioned and been approved for their family members, including children and spouses, to join them in the US, a process known as “family unification”. Other plaintiffs included foreign nationals approved for immigrant visas through their specialised employment.

Hasan Shafiqullah, immigration supervising attorney at The Legal Aid Society, called the State Department policy “arbitrary, unlawful, and deeply harmful to families who have followed the rules and are simply seeking to reunite with their loved ones”.

Other lawyers supporting the case underscored that the policy disproportionately affects people from Africa, the Middle East, South and Central Asia and Eastern Europe.

Baher Azmy, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of relying on “obviously pretextual tropes about nonwhite families undeservedly taking benefits”.

“Congress and the Constitution prohibit white supremacy as grounds for immigration policy.”

The lawsuit further points to “arbitrary and disparaging” statements made by Trump and administration officials about immigrants being likely to receive public benefits.

It notes that most immigrants are ineligible for most government assistance programmes, yet are required to pay local, state, and federal taxes.

The State Department did not reply to a request for comment on the new legislation from Al Jazeera. US agencies typically do not comment on pending litigation.

Chances of success

The odds of success for the new lawsuit, which comes amid a deluge of legal challenges, remained unclear.

Plaintiffs have won at least temporary pauses on several key immigration issues, particularly related to Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to swiftly deport alleged gang members and his effort to end birthright citizenship, as lawsuits make their way through the legal system.

Many more long-term decisions remain elusive.

Meanwhile, in 2018, a 5-4 ruling by the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court upheld Trump’s visa-processing ban on several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia.

In the 2018 ruling, most justices ruled that the president had broad discretion to limit the entry of individuals into the US.

At the time, the Trump administration cited “national security” concerns rather than the “public charge” argument it has used in the most recent suspension.