Commission

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political ambitions have reached a new low. In his efforts to look like a “fighter” ahead of a potential run for the presidency in 2028, he’s willing to ignore democratic rules in pursuit of political aims, setting aside the state’s independent redistricting system to counter Texas Republicans’ proposed partisan gerrymander. Newsom and his allies want to maximize the number of California Democrats elected to Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

In 2008 and 2010, California voters passed ballot initiatives that gave the power to draw the state’s legislative and congressional district lines to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a 14-person independent body composed of five Democrats, five Republicans and four people who are registered with neither of the two major parties. Potential commissioners go through an extensive vetting and selection process (which the state Legislature participates in) and are prohibited from many forms of political activism, including donating to candidates, running for office or working for elected officials.

Since the latest redistricting, in 2021 — triggered as usual by the constitutionally mandated decennial census — the map crafted by the commission has survived legal and political challenges, and the current districts are set to be in place through the next round of redistricting in 2031.

Now Newsom wants to prematurely redraw the lines and craft his own partisan gerrymander for the November 2026 midterm elections, wresting control of the process away from the commission and giving it instead to the Democratic majority in the state Legislature. Last week, Newsom confirmed that he will call a special election to get voter approval for this end-run around the commission, but even dressed up with a vote, this is cynical politics, not democracy, at work.

Newsom’s excuse is the sudden partisan redistricting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and President Trump are backing to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress from that state, and in turn, to enhance the party’s chances to retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) calls the Texas action a “Trumpian power grab,” and Newsom assails it as the “rigging of the system by the president of the United States.” (Recent public opinion research conducted by Newsom’s pollster revealed that the public is more likely to support a California redistricting maneuver if the fight has Trump, not Texas, as the central villain.)

But two wrongs don’t make a right.

A key difference between the proposed line redrawing in Texas and the California plan is that the former, however brazen, is legal and precedented, while the latter specifically contravenes California law and the expressed will of the state’s voters. In Texas, legislators are entrusted with drawing district lines, and a mid-decade partisan gerrymander they executed in 2003, again to boost Republican representation in the U.S. House, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (except for one district whose lines violated the Voting Rights Act).

But California voters explicitly placed the drawing of district lines in the hands of the independent citizens’ commission to take politicians out of the process. Commissioners draw district lines based on numerous factors, including laws, judicial decisions and population shifts. They’re bound by a basic rule: District lines cannot be drawn to purposefully benefit a specific party or candidate. And all the commission’s deliberations must happen in public. The maps they’ve devised have been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans; and that’s one of the many reasons why California voters entrusted the commission with this important power.

If Newsom gets his way, California’s districts for the 2026 midterm will ensure the election of as few Republicans as possible. Recent reports suggest that his gerrymander will mean Republicans win only four out of 52 House seats (9%), compared with the current California delegation, which includes nine Republicans (17%). Republicans make up about 25% of California’s registered voters and statewide Republican candidates have won roughly 40% of the vote over the last few election cycles.

The fact that Newsom’s plan returns the power to redistrict to the citizens commission after the midterms makes it no less a subversion of the democratically expressed will of California’s voters. To add insult to injury, the cost of the special election to ratify the scheme is estimated to be about $60 million in Los Angeles County alone, with statewide costs likely exceeding $200 million.

By bending electoral rules in service of their own political interests, Newsom and California Democrats become no better than Abbott and Texas Republicans. And Newsom’s hypocrisy strains the credibility of his argument that Trump and his allies are diminishing democracy.

If Newsom moves forward with his cynical plan, Californians will at least have the power to reject it at the ballot box this November. Voters should reinforce their commitment to minimizing the role of partisanship and politics in redistricting, and to the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Lanhee J. Chen, a contributing writer to Opinion, is an American public policy fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was a Republican candidate for California controller in 2022.

Published on
05/08/2025 – 17:10 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

The European Commission said on Tuesday it was surprised by comments German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil in which he highlighted the EU’s weakness in the ongoing tariff talks, despite Germany having been fully briefed ahead of the agreement reached on July 27 by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump.

“It is most surprising to us,” Commission spokesperson Olof Gill said, adding: “Nothing has happened here in terms of the Commission’s approach, negotiation or outcome achieved without the clear signal received from our member states.”

Klingbeil said on Monday, ahead of his meeting with US Treasury Secretary Scott Besant in Washington DC, that EU representatives “have shown weakness” during trade negotiations with the US.

“Overall, as Europeans, we must become stronger,” Klingbeil insisted, “then we can also stand up to the US with more self-confidence. Not against the US, but in dialogue with the US.”

Germany “had been fully briefed on the details of the agreement at a political level”, Commission Deputy Spokesperson Arianna Podestà added on Tuesday.

Since the announcement of the EU-US tariff agreement on July 27, the Commission has maintained that the deal represents the least bad option, allowing the EU to avoid a further escalation in the transatlantic trade dispute.

However, the details of the agreement are still under negotiation, just days after a US Executive Order set tariffs at 15%. Germany, in particular, continues to see its automotive industry heavily impacted by 25% US tariffs — contrary to the political deal, which aimed to reduce them to 15%.

Negotiations also continue on which products may be eligible for exemptions.

“We fight for every product and every industry,” a senior EU official said, adding: “We’re really trying to get as many products into the list of exemptions.”

A joint EU-US statement is expected to be released soon, aiming to reinforce the political commitments made on both sides of the Atlantic.

Under the current framework, the US has agreed to apply a 15% tariff on EU goods, while the EU has committed to purchasing US energy and investing in the United States.

Published on
04/08/2025 – 18:23 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

The European Commission will suspend on Tuesday a package of trade countermeasures targeting €93 billions’ worth of American goods which was scheduled to take effect on 7 August, as it continues to negotiate a joint statement formalising the agreement struck by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump on 27 July.

“The EU continues to work with the US to finalise a joint statement, as agreed on 27 July,” EU spokesperson Olof Gill said, adding: “With these objectives in mind, the Commission will take the necessary steps to suspend by six months the EU’s countermeasures against the US, which were due to enter into force on 7 August.”

In line with the agreement reached, the US reduced its tariff rate to 15% last Thursday.

Gill said the step gained the EU immediate tariff relief, “a first important foundation is laid for restoring clarity to EU companies exporting to the US”.

The trade dispute is not over

However the trade dispute between the EU and the US is not over, as both sides still need to negotiate certain points of the agreement that have led to differing interpretations.

 Furthermore, the US Executive Order of July 31 does not provide relief to the EU automotive industry as expected (it remains subject to 25% tariffs), nor does it exempt strategic sectors such as aircraft.

As negotiations continue, the Commission should postpone through urgency procedure the retaliation package it adopted against the US tariffs.

It consists in two lists of products that were worth respectively €21 billion and €72 billion and were merged on 24 July after EU member states adopted them, targeting US products such as soyabean, cars, aircraft and Bourbon Whiskey.

July 23 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the Trump administration to remove three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission as the case proceeds through the courts in another emergency appeal on firings backed by the conservative-dominated court.

The court, in a 6-3 opinion along ideological lines, ruled in a lawsuit brought by Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr., who were nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

In a dissent by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she said the court majority decided on the emergency appeal to “destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress.”

The majority opinion was unsigned and based upon an earlier 6-3 order that allowed the dismissal of two independent labor boards in Trump vs. Wilcox: the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,” the court ruled. “The stay we issued in Wilcox reflected ‘our judgment that the government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.’

“The same is true on the facts presented here, where the Consumer Product Safety Commission exercises executive power in a similar manner as the National Labor Relations Board, and the case does not otherwise differ from Wilcox in any pertinent respect.”

The order is stayed pending disposition by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Va. On July 1, the three-judge panel rejected Trump’s request for an administrative stay pending appeal.

“Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority, and no court has found that constraint unconstitutional,” the appeals court said. “The district court correctly declined to permit a President — any President — to disregard those limits.”

District Judge Matthew Maddox found on June 13 that Trump’s removal was unlawful and blocked it. Maddox, who serves in Maryland, was appointed by President Joe Biden.

“Depriving this five-member commission of three of its sitting members threatens severe impairment of its ability to fulfill its statutory mandates and advance the public’s interest in safe consumer products,” Maddox wrote in his decision. “This hardship and threat to public safety significantly outweighs any hardship defendants might suffer from plaintiffs’ participation on the CPSC.”

The terms of the five members are staggered to overlap during presidencies.

Boyle’s term was to end in October after filling a vacancy in 2022, with Hoehn-Saric in October 2027 and Trumka in October 2028. The board consists of five members, and they are operating as a two-member quorum, which is allowed for six months.

The remaining members are Acting Chairman Peter Feldman, who was appointed by Trump during his first term, and Republican Douglas Dziak, who was appointed by Biden in 2024.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court ruling that Maddox’s decision has “sown chaos and dysfunction” at the agency.

In May, the three commissioners were notified their positions were terminated immediately. A president can legally only remove a commissioner for neglect of duty of malfeasance.

The court has allowed the termination of employees as the cases proceed through the courts.

Lower court judges have relied on a decision in 1935, called Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States, about the mass firings. The Supreme Court has said it will act on this matter.

On July 14, the justices allowed the Trump administration to mass fire half of the Education Department. Trump wants the agency abolished, and the court has not ruled on that decision, which requires a vote by the U.S. Senate.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was created in 1972, protects consumers from dangerous products, including issuing safety standards and recalls.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat representing Minnesota, criticized the decision, saying: “For over 50 years, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has been free from politics so it can remain focused on its core mission of keeping Americans safe – from banning lead paint, to ensuring electronics aren’t fire hazards, to making swimming pools safe for kids. Last year alone, the Commission recalled 153 million unsafe items.”

“By firing the three Democratic commissioners, the President has undermined the independent structure of the Commission and its critical work — and the Supreme Court is letting it happen,” added the member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

The Supreme Court signaled again Wednesday that it believes the president has the power to fire the leaders of agencies and commissions that Congress said were independent.

Granting another emergency appeal, the justices set aside a Baltimore judge’s order and upheld President Trump’s decision to fire the three Democratic appointees on the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In a brief order, the conservative majority said it had said agency officials may be fired by the president.

The three liberals dissented.

“Once again, this Court uses its emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency, as established by Congress,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “By allowing the President to remove commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The court’s conservative majority has repeatedly sided with Trump and against district judges on matters related to federal agencies, including their spending, staffing and leadership.

They believe the Constitution gives the president the executive authority to control the government, including by firing and replacing the heads of agencies, boards and commissions.

They have ruled for Trump even when his removal orders conflicted with the law as established by Congress.

At issue is whether Congress holds the power to structure the government or instead whether the president has the executive authority to reshape it .

Since 1887, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was established to set railroad rates, Congress has created independent agencies with the aim of giving non-partisan experts the authority to regulate in the public interest.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was established in 1972 to be led by five members who were appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They would have seven-year terms and could be fired only for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

The commission investigates complaints about hazardous products, and it can require warning labels, order their recall or remove them from the market.

In May, the Trump White House told the commission’s three Democratic appointees — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — they were “terminated” but without accusing them of wrongdoing or malfeasance.

They sued in a federal court in Maryland where the CPSC has its headquarters. U.S. District Judge Michael Maddox, a Biden appointee, ruled the firings were illegal and reinstated the three to their positions.

The judge pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1935 decision that protected the constitutionality of “traditional multi-member independent agencies.”

The court’s opinion in the case of Humphrey’s Executor vs. United States drew a distinction between “purely executive officers” who were under the president’s control and those who served on a board “with quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative functions.”

But the court’s conservatives have hinted they may overturn that precedent.

Five years ago, Chief Justice John G. Roberts spoke for the court and ruled the director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau can be fired by the president, even though Congress had said otherwise.

But since that case did not involve a multi-member board or commission, it did not overrule the 1935 precedent.

In late May, however, the court cleared the way for Trump to fire a Democratic appointee on the National Labor Relations Board and a second on the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf,” the court said then in an unsigned order.

Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, said that decision should have cleared the way for the firing of the three members of the CPSC.

But the 4th Circuit Court stood behind Maddox’s order.

The Constitution “entrusts Congress with the power to design independent agencies that serve the public interest free from political pressure,” said Judge James Wynn of the 4th Circuit. “Here, Congress lawfully constrained the President’s removal authority. … The district court correctly declined to permit a President — any President — to disregard those limits.”

Imagine a Washington in which President Trump was held to account. A Washington in which Congress doesn’t roll over like a dog begging for a treat. A Washington that functions the way it’s supposed to, with that whole checks-and-balances thing working.

Enticing, no?

Democrats need to win just three seats in 2026 to seize control of the House and impose some measure of accountability on our rogue-elephant president. That’s something Trump is keenly aware of, which is why he’s pushing Texas to take the extraordinary step of redrawing its congressional boundaries ahead of the midterm election.

Republicans, who’ve exercised iron-clad control over Texas for decades, hold 25 of Texas’ 38 congressional seats. A special session scheduled next week in Austin is aimed at boosting that number by as many as five seats, increasing the GOP’s odds of hanging onto the House.

Enter, stage left, California’s White House-lusting governor.

As part of a recent Southern campaign swing, Gavin Newsom sat down with a progressive Tennessee podcaster to discuss the Republican power grab. (The picnic bench, rolled up shirt sleeves, beer and f-bomb showed the governor was being authentic, in case there was any doubt.)

“They’re not f— around now. They’re playing by a totally different set of rules,” Newsom said of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and his fellow Republicans. Years ago, he noted, California created an independent commission to draw its political lines, which states normally do once a decade after new census figures come out.

But with a super-majority in Sacramento, Newsom said, Democrats could “gerrymander like no other state.”

“We’ve been playing fair,” he continued, but Abbott’s actions “made me question that entire program.” Later, elaborating on social media, the governor accused Republicans of cheating their way to extra House seats and warned, “California is watching — and you can bet we won’t stand idly by.”

There’s a Texas expression for that: All hat and no cattle.

The fact is, voters took the power of political line-drawing away from the governor and his fellow lawmakers, for good reason, and it’s not like Newsom can unilaterally take that power back — no matter how well his chesty swagger might play with Trump-loathing Democrats.

“We have a commission,” said Justin Levitt, an expert on redistricting law at Loyola Law School. “Not only that, a Constitution and the commission’s in the Constitution. And not only that, we have a Constitution that says you only get to redistrict once every 10 years, unless there’s a legal problem with the existing maps.”

In other words, it’s not up to Newsom to huff and puff and blow existing House districts down.

California voters approved Proposition 20, which turned congressional line-drawing over to a nonpartisan, 14-member commission, in November 2010. The point was to introduce competition by taking redistricting away from self-dealing lawmakers. It passed by an overwhelming margin, 61% to 39%, and has worked just as intended.

After decades of prebaked congressional contests, when the success of one party or the other was virtually guaranteed, California has become a hotbed of competition; in recent years, the state — an afterthought in November balloting for president — has been key to control of the House. In 2026, as many as a dozen seats, out of 52, could be at least somewhat competitive.

“I think it’s worked out great,” said Sara Sadhwani, an assistant politics professor at Pomona College and a member of the redistricting commission. (Others doing the map-making included a seminary professor, a structural engineer and an investigator for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.)

There are two ways, Levitt said, that Newsom and fellow Democrats could undo the commission’s handiwork.

They could break the law and pass legislation drawing new lines, face an inevitable lawsuit and prevail with a sympathetic ruling from the California Supreme Court. Or they could ask voters to approve different lines through a new constitutional amendment, in a hurried-up special election ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Both scenarios seem as plausible as Newsom delivering universal healthcare and fulfilling his pledge to build 3.5 million new homes a year, to name two other extravagant promises.

To be clear, none of the above condones the plot that Trump and Abbott are attempting to hatch. Their actions are politically ruthless and more than a little cynical. (A letter from Trump’s hand-in-glove Justice Department has provided a legal fig leaf for the special session. Texas was recently — expediently — notified that four of its majority-minority congressional districts were unconstitutionally gerrymandered along racial lines, thus justifying the drawing of a new map.)

That’s no excuse, however, for Newsom to end-run California voters, or call a special election that could cost hundreds of millions of dollars at a time the state is gushing red ink.

Politics rooted in vengeance is both dangerous and wrong, whether it’s Trump or Newsom looking to settle scores.

There’s also the matter of delivering vacant threats. Some Democrats may thrill each time Newsom delivers one of his pugnacious pronouncements. That seems to be a big part of his presidential campaign strategy. But those same voters may tire of the lack of follow through, as Californians have.

Newsom has a well-deserved reputation for over-promising and under-delivering.

That’s not likely to serve him well on the national stage.

Five years after her son was beaten so badly by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies that he needed more than 30 stitches and staples to his face and head, Vanessa Perez is still looking for answers. So are county officials tasked with holding the department accountable for misconduct.

Despite a subpoena and an ongoing legal battle, obtaining a complete account of what happened to Vanessa’s son Joseph Perez has proved impossible — at least so far.

The sheriff’s department has released a heavily redacted report outlining its version of what transpired in the San Gabriel Valley community of East Valinda on July 27, 2020.

According to the report, deputies from the Industry Station stopped Joseph, 27, on suspicion of breaking into a car. He punched and kicked them multiple times, the document states. Three deputies injured their hands and a fourth broke his leg falling off a curb. Six deputies punched Joseph and deployed various holds and takedowns before he was arrested and charged with five counts of resisting an executive officer, court records show.

But entire pages of the department’s “use of force” report are blacked out, leaving Vanessa and members of the Civilian Oversight Commission wondering what details are being kept secret.

County oversight officials issued three subpoenas in February for cases under scrutiny, including one seeking an unredacted copy of the Perez file. The County Counsel’s Office has resisted, arguing the files should remain confidential, and the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department has declined to hand them over.

Amid the subpoena standoff, Vanessa, 43, shows up to speak at nearly every monthly meeting of the oversight commission in a black T-shirt with a picture of her son’s bloodied face.

“Surviving an arrest shouldn’t look like Joseph. And it shouldn’t look like 121 punches either. That’s what they admitted to,“ she told The Times, referring to an unofficial tally she made based on the deputies’ statements in the redacted document.

Vanessa Perez holds a photograph of her son, Joseph Perez, taken after he was beaten by Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies in July 2020.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

The beating was so severe, she said, it left her son struggling to carry on a conversation.

“He’s not able to do that anymore,” she said. “It’s just hard for him to socialize, period, with the constant fear.”

A month after the oversight commission‘s subpoena, L.A. County Sheriff Robert Luna responded by filing a lawsuit, asking a court to determine whether his department must comply. Luna said at the time that the County Counsel’s Office had advised the department that releasing the documents “violates the law.”

In a statement to The Times, the sheriff’s department said it is “taking deliberate steps to resolve the dispute and ensure its actions align with both the law and the principles of transparency.”

Last month, the County Counsel’s Office said in a statement that it “has fully supported” the commission “in its efforts to seek the information it needs to play a powerful oversight role on behalf of LA County citizens. This includes assisting with a declaratory relief action that will hopefully bring judicial clarity to the commission’s ability to obtain the information it seeks.”

Joseph maintains he was not the aggressor in the July 2020 incident. His mother said he was in the middle of a “mental health episode.”

Court records show Joseph has been jailed multiple times since on a range of charges, including methamphetamine possession and damaging a vehicle. In August 2022, he pleaded no contest to one of the five charges from the beating incident and was sentenced to 32 months in state prison.

He is currently incarcerated at Pitchess Detention Center in Castaic after violating his probation from a separate case in which he was convicted of resisting two West Covina police officers.

He has struggled with addiction and been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression and psychosis, according to his mother.

Anne Golden, Joseph’s public defender, said in a recent court hearing that he suffers from impaired executive functioning due to a traumatic brain injury inflicted by the deputies.

In a brief phone call last month from jail, Joseph told The Times he believes the full report about what happened to him should be released to “show that I was in the right.”

Vanessa Perez holds a photo of her and her son, Joseph Perez.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

“They’re lying about a lot of stuff with my case,” he said. “They lied about how it went down; they’re saying I’m the aggressor when I wasn’t. The reality is they beat me up — they left me for dead.”

The sheriff’s department said the deputies involved in the incident declined to comment.

The department said in a statement that every use of force “incident is thoroughly reviewed to evaluate if policies and procedures were followed,” adding that in “this incident, the use of force … was determined to be within policy.”

Oversight officials seeking records related to Joseph’s case and others have been stymied at every turn, according to Loyola Law School professor Sean Kennedy. Kennedy resigned from the commission in February following a dispute with county lawyers over another matter.

“To have effective and meaningful civilian oversight, it’s necessary for the commission to be able to review confidential documents about police misconduct and use of force,” Kennedy said. “Without that, this is all just oversight theater.”

Last month, Robert Bonner, the oversight commission’s chair, revealed that L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger intended to replace him despite his desire to stay on and finish ongoing work.

Barger said in an email last month that the move “reflects my desire to continue cultivating public trust in the oversight process by introducing new perspectives that support the Commission’s vital work.”

During the commission’s June 26 meeting, Bonner, 84, alleged that powerful people in county government do not want meaningful oversight over the sheriff’s department. A former federal judge who once served as U.S. attorney in Los Angeles and led the Drug Enforcement Administration, Bonner was fiery in his remarks.

He said he believed the County Counsel’s Office was advising the sheriff to withhold documents as a means of “telling this commission what it can and can’t do, and that goes over the line.”

“They treat our subpoenas like public record requests,” Bonner said.

The Civilian Oversight Commission has said it is willing to go into closed session to review the full reports, but the county’s lawyers argue that’s not legal.

On Tuesday, the state Senate’s public safety committee approved a bill previously approved by the state Assembly that would allow oversight commissions across California to conduct closed sessions to review personnel records and other confidential materials.

But the proposal, AB 847, still requires approval from the full state Senate and governor. And even if it does become law, the county counsel’s office argues that the L.A. County code explicitly bars the commission from reviewing sensitive documents in closed session.

Robert Bonner, chair of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Civilian Oversight Commission, speaks during the commission’s meeting at St. Anne’s Family Services in L.A. on June 26.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Bonner has pushed for the county code to be changed, saying he and other members of the oversight body “vigorously disagree with County Counsel’s interpretation” of it.

“This commission needs subpoena power to be effective, and it needs to have effective subpoena power, which means it needs to be able to go into closed session,” Bonner said during the commission’s June meeting.

The sheriff’s department said it “will abide by the ultimate judicial determination as to whether those records can be lawfully disclosed.”

Whether the oversight body can issue subpoenas is not in dispute. In March 2020 — four months before Joseph was beaten — L.A. County voters overwhelmingly approved Measure R, a ballot initiative that granted the commission subpoena power.

But the county is thwarting the legal orders, according to Bert Deixler, former special counsel to the Civilian Oversight Commission. That intransigence, he said, contributes to a culture of impunity in the sheriff’s department.

“More momentum will be built in the wrong direction, the county will continue to get sued, the county continues to have more and more financial challenges, and it’s a race to the bottom,” he said.

On June 3, Vanessa Perez drove in from her home in West Covina to attend a hearing for her son at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown L.A.

After waiting several hours for him to emerge, she became emotional as Joseph finally walked into the courtroom through a side door. His hands were cuffed in front of his wrinkled yellow jail T-shirt and his ear lobes were stretched with white paper plugs over his tattooed neck.

Vanessa Perez stands at the location in East Valinda where her son, Joseph Perez, was beaten by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in July 2020.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

But despite his lawyer’s pleas for the court to allow Joseph to enter a job training program and immediately begin receiving treatment for his mental health problems, Judge James Bianco ordered him to remain behind bars pending a mental health diversion reinstatement hearing.

“Mr. Perez has been given all the chances that I’m inclined to give him,” Bianco said.

Joseph looked back at his mother once before being escorted back out of the courtroom.

While her son remains locked up for now, Vanessa is demanding the unredacted version of the beating report be made public. She wants to understand why his beating didn’t warrant an internal affairs investigation or discipline for the deputies involved.

“We know Joseph wasn’t the first and won’t be the last,” she said. “With Joseph’s story exposed we … will know how they lied, how they covered their asses, from the deputies to the sergeant to the captain.”

July 5 (UPI) — French Archbishop Thibault Verny is the Vatican’s new president of its Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors after opposing child abuse within the Episcopal Conference.

Pope Leo XIV appointed Verny to succeed American Capuchin Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley, with whom Verny worked to promote a “culture of protection for vulnerable people,” Vatican News reported on Saturday.

Verny is the Archbishop of Chambery and the Bishop of Maurienne and Tarentaise in France.

As president of the commission to protect minors, Verny said he will continue working to protect minors against sexual abuse and raise awareness within the church.

“In France, my mission … allowed me to listen to the victims and accompany them on their journey,” Verny said. “It was a decisive experience.”

He also worked with law enforcement and other civil authorities to develop protocols for thwarting abuse within the church.

“It is a matter of raising awareness among the various sepiscopates, religious orders and congregations in different countries about listening to and accompanying victims in a specific way,” Verny said.

“We must continue to implement a mindset [and] a culture within the churches to spread the protection of minors and ensure that it becomes natural, both in the church and in family and also in society.”

His appointment comes as the Catholic Church works to address past wrongs and prevent future occurrences.

Pope Francis in September visited Timor-Leste, during which he called for protecting youth amid a clergy abuse scandal in the island nation.

He made the visit following the Vatican in 2022 disciplining Bishop Ximenes Belo, who had been accused of sexually abusing young boys during the 1980s and 1990s.

The accusation was one of many that have plagued the Catholic Church for many years.

In France, the Independent Commission on Sexual Abuse published a 2,500-page report in 2021 after a three-year investigation.

Published on
05/07/2025 – 14:10 GMT+2

ADVERTISEMENT

China’s imposition of anti-dumping duties on European Cognac is “unfair” and “unjustified”, a European Commission spokesperson said on Friday, underscoring a downtick in relations ahead of an EU-China summit scheduled for the end of July.

“China’s measures are unfair, we believe they are unjustified, we believe they are inconsistent with the applicable international rule and are thus unfounded,” Commission spokesperson Olof Gill said on Friday.

The Asian giant has announced anti-dumping duties of up to 34,9% over EU brandy for a period of five years starting from 5 July 2025, sparing some of the largest EU Cognac producers which had made minimum price commitments, such as Remy Cointreau, Pernod Ricard and LVMH’s Hennessy.

The Chinese launched an investigation into brandy last year in retaliation for tariffs imposed by the EU on Chinese electric vehicles. It was followed by the announcement of several other investigations into EU pork and dairy products, which have not yet been closed.

Anti-dumping duties were also imposed in May on some EU industrial plastics.

Gill added that the duties on EU brandy were “part of a worrying pattern of China abusing trade defence instruments, starting and conducting investigations on the basis of questionable allegations and insufficient evidence, all this within a short period of time.”

This blow to EU brandy comes as some media report that China has cancelled the second day of the EU-China summit scheduled for 24 and 25 July.

The Commission’s chief spokesperson Paula Pinho refused to confirm the cancellation, arguing that the summit’s agenda “has not been agreed yet” by the EU and China.

Points of contention are increasing between the two, despite hopes for a diplomatic reset born of the jeopardy both sides face in the face of  an ongoing tariff dispute with the US.

The South China Morning Post reported on Friday that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas it did not want to see a Russian loss in Ukraine because it feared the US would then shift its whole focus to Beijing.

When a top official responsible for oversight of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced recently that he is being forced out of his position, it brought to a fever pitch tensions that had been building for months.

On one side are watchdogs who say efforts to bring reforms and transparency to the Sheriff’s Department are being stymied. On the other are county officials who claim fresh perspectives are needed on the Civilian Oversight Commission.

The showdown is playing out as the commission continues fighting the county for access to internal sheriff’s department records on deputy misconduct, including investigations into gang-like cliques said to rule over certain stations and promote a culture of violence.

Robert Bonner, the oversight commission chair, wrote in a letter last month that he was “involuntarily leaving” the body he has been a member of since its founding in 2016. Bonner, 83, said in an interview that he was chairing the commission’s May meeting at the L.A. County Hall of Records when he unexpectedly received a letter from County Supervisor Kathryn Barger stating that she would be appointing someone to replace him.

On Thursday, Bonner gave his first address to the commission since revealing his time as chair will end this month.

Bonner said he was “still surprised” that he had been “dismissed without so much as a phone call from Supervisor Barger.”

And he had choice words for other county operators that he described as thorns in the commission’s side.

“It can be treacherous. The county bureaucrats — and this includes, by the way, the county counsel’s office — they guard their turf and see an independent commission as a threat to that turf,” Bonner said.

“There are forces within the county,” he added later, “that do not want to see real, effective and meaningful oversight over the sheriff’s department.”

Helen Chavez, a spokesperson for Barger, said in an email that Bonner’s claims that the supervisor summarily dismissed him were made “for dramatic effect” and “are not only inaccurate but also mischaracterize the circumstances of his departure” from the commission.

“His assertion that his presence alone was essential to achieving reforms is both self-serving and dismissive of the dedicated Commissioners and staff who are collectively advancing the Civilian Oversight Commission’s mission,” the statement said. “These reforms are bigger than any one individual, and they will continue without interruption.”

Barger, who chairs the county‘s Board of Supervisors, told The Times in a statement last month that she is “committed to broadening the diversity of voices and expertise represented on the Commission.”

Fifth District Supervisor Kathryn Barger attends a Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors meeting in 2023.

(Irfan Khan/Los Angeles Times)

She said her decision to replace Bonner “reflects my desire to continue cultivating public trust in the oversight process by introducing new perspectives that support the Commission’s vital work.”

On Thursday, Patti Giggans, an ally of Bonner’s on the commission, stood up for the departing chairman during what he said would likely be the last of the body’s monthly meetings he’d attend as a commissioner.

“I have a feeling all of us here, all the commissioners, appreciate your leadership, your tenacity, your brilliance and courage to go up against forces that are not necessarily yet in agreement with what effective oversight means,” she said.

The County Counsel’s office said in an email that it “has fully supported the COC, as an advisory body to the Board, in its efforts to seek the information it needs to play a powerful oversight role on behalf of LA County citizens.”

But some observers note that the county counsel is in an awkward position, since the office represents multiple parties involved. That includes the Civilian Oversight Commission, which has been trying to enforce subpoenas, as well as Barger’s office and the sheriff’s department.

Peter Eliasberg, chief counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said it seems to him that nearly every time such a dispute comes up, the county’s lawyers side with the sheriff’s department.

“It’s either intentional or it’s incredibly short-sighted for Commissioner Bonner to be pushed out at this point, at a time when he’s been spearheading incredibly important reforms,” Eliasberg said. “It feels to me like this is an effort once again to hamstring this commission.”

Bonner, who previously served as a federal judge and was head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, isn’t the only commissioner to acrimoniously leave the oversight body this year.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna, right, talks with former oversight official Sean Kennedy during the annual Baker to Vegas law enforcement relay on April 5 in Baker, Calif.

(William Liang / For The Times)

In February, Loyola Law School professor Sean Kennedy resigned after county lawyers sought to stop him from filing a brief in court in support of Diana Teran, an advisor to former L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón who faced felony charges from the state. Teran was accused of improperly accessing records about sheriff’s deputies, but a state appellate court recently moved to dismiss the case.

Kennedy said in February that he quit because he believed it was “not appropriate for the County Counsel to control the COC’s independent oversight decisions.”

Last month, Kennedy received notification that a law firm had “been engaged by the Office of the County Counsel” to investigate him for allegedly retaliating against a sergeant in the sheriff’s department who had faced oversight scrutiny. Kennedy has denied any wrongdoing, claiming the probe against him is politically motivated.

In an email this week, Kennedy described Bonner’s removal as “the death-knell for meaningful civilian oversight of the LASD.” He claimed that the Board of Supervisors “supports the sheriff in preventing the commissioners from accessing confidential documents to do their job.”

Barger’s office pushed back against the criticism, pointing to correspondence from Bonner earlier this year that the supervisor’s office said suggested he was willing to step down.

In an April 18 email to Barger, Bonner wrote that “if you decide not to reappoint me, please be assured that I am fine with that.”

Chavez, Barger’s spokesperson, questioned the “stark contrast” between “his posture and tone” then compared with Bonner’s recent public remarks.

Bonner told The Times he followed up his April 18 email to express that he “wanted to be extended” to achieve his goals as chair.

“I never wanted to her to think I lusted for the job,” Bonner said in a text message.

The abrupt departures of Bonner and Kennedy have raised concerns about who will fill the void they leave behind.

The Civilian Oversight Commission voted on Thursday for the body’s co-vice chair, Hans Johnson, to fill Bonner’s shoes when his time in the role concludes on July 17.

“The loss of Rob and Sean, who were deeply committed to getting to the bottom of problems in the sheriff’s department, is a blow to the county,” said Bert Deixler, former special counsel to the oversight commission. “These were two special guys who knew what they were talking about. Long, long history.”

Deixler attributed the turmoil to “political machinations” within the county and decried the move to replace Bonner.

“I just can’t understand it,” he said. “There couldn’t be a merits-based reason for making that decision.”

At the commission’s meeting Thursday, Bonner listed several goals he had hoped to accomplish before his time as chair ends. His priorities included bolstering the board’s ability to conduct effective oversight and compelling a commitment by Sheriff Robert Luna to enact a ban on deputy gangs and cliques.

It’s not yet clear how Bonner’s dismissal will affect those plans.

“I’m leaving,” he said. “You guys have got to pick up the ball here after July 17.”

The latest round of California’s film and television tax credit program will provide government incentives to 48 upcoming projects, according to the California Film Commission.

The slate, which includes both major studio projects and independent films, is expected to employ more than 6,500 cast and crew members and 32,000 background performers, measured in days worked. These projects will pay more than $302 million in wages for California workers, the commission said Monday.

The projects are estimated to collectively generate $664 million in total spending throughout the state.

Of the awarded films, five are features from major studios, including the sequel to Sony Pictures’ “One of Them Days,” which is expected to receive almost $8 million in tax credits and spend $39 million in qualified expenditures.

An untitled Netflix project, which is set to film in California for 110 days, is expected to receive the largest credit of the slate at $20 million.

The rest of the awarded projects are independent, with 37 of them operating on budgets under $10 million. More than half of the films will be shot in the Los Angeles area, the commission said.

“California didn’t earn its role as the heart of the entertainment world by accident — it was built over generations by skilled workers and creative talent pushing boundaries,” Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. “Today’s awards help ensure this legacy continues, keeping cameras rolling here at home, supporting thousands of crew members behind the scenes and boosting local economies that depend on a strong film and television industry.”

The announcement comes as the industry has expressed concern over the amount of production fleeing California in favor of other states or countries that offer more attractive tax incentives.

Late last year, Newsom proposed an increase to the state’s film and TV tax credit, upping the annual tax credit allocation from $330 million to $750 million in an attempt to keep production in California.

In March, the commission announced it was selecting a record 51 projects with tax incentives, marking the most amount of awarded films in a single application window.

BALTIMORE — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies.

The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Biden.

After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause” — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question.

But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president’s authority extends to dismissing federal employees who “exercise significant executive power,” according to court filings.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful.

He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members “without cause.” Its three liberal justices dissented.

In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president’s authority, finding “no constitutional defect” in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners.

The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey’s Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.

During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises “substantial executive authority.”

Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose.

Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president’s removal power would violate his constitutional authority.

After Trump announced the Democrats’ firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course.

“This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,” they wrote.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president’s party. They serve staggered terms.

That structure ensures that each president has “the opportunity to influence, but not control,” the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission’s independence.

Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday.

“Today’s opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,” he said in a statement.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

The California Public Utilities Commission failed to abide by state law when it slashed financial incentives for residential rooftop solar panels in 2022, environmental groups argued before the California Supreme Court Wednesday.

The commission’s policy, which took effect in April 2023, cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending power they don’t need to the electric grid by as much as 80%.

In arguments before the court, the environmental groups said the decision has stymied efforts to get homeowners and businesses to install the climate-friendly panels.

The commission violated state law, the groups argued, by not considering all the benefits of the solar panels in its decision and by not ensuring that rooftop solar systems could continue to expand in disadvantaged communities.

More than two million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal set by a 2018 law of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

On the other side of the courtroom battle were lawyers from Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office, arguing that the commission’s five members, all pointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, had followed the law in making their decision.

In briefs filed before Wednesday’s oral arguments, the government lawyers sided with those from the state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mica Moore, deputy solicitor general, said at the hearing in downtown Los Angles that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This was raising electric bills, she said, especially hurting low-income electric customers.

The credits for the energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid are valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commissioners have voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The environmental groups and other critics of the commission’s decision have argued that there is no “cost shift.” They say that the commission failed to consider in its calculations the many benefits of the rooftop solar panels, including how they lower the amount of transmission lines and other infrastructure the utilities need to build.

“The cost shift narrative is a red herring,” argued plaintiff’s attorney Malinda Dickenson, representing the Center for Biological Diversity, the Environmental Working Group and the Protect Our Communities Foundation.

Moore countered by saying the commission doesn’t have to consider all the possible societal or private benefits of the rooftop panels.

For example, even though the rooftop panels could result in conserving land that was otherwise needed for industrial scale solar farms, the government lawyers argued in their brief, the commission was not obligated to consider that value in its calculation of the amount of costs the rooftop panels shift to other customers.

The government lawyers also said the commission had created other programs beyond the electric bill credits to help disadvantaged communities afford the solar systems.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

During the oral arguments, the seven justices focused on a legal question of whether a state appeals court erred when it ruled in January 2024 against the environmental groups and said that the court must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court concluded in its opinion.

The environmental groups argue the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

Moore told the seven justices that the appeals court had made the correct decision to defer to the commission.

Not all justices seemed to agree with that.

“But we’re pretty good about figuring out what the law says,” Associate Justice Carol Corrigan said to Moore during the proceeding. “Why should we defer on that to the commission?”

The justices will weigh the arguments made by both sides and issue a decision in the next 90 days.

The big utilities have for decades tried to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems that can cost tens of thousands of dollars. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

On another front, the state’s three big utilities are now lobbying in Sacramento to reduce credits for Californians who installed their panels before April 15, 2023. The commission’s decision in 2022 left the incentives in place for those panel owners for 20 years after their purchase.

Early this year, Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon (D-Whittier), a former Southern California Edison executive, introduced a bill that would have ended the program for all solar owners who installed their systems by April 2023 after 10 years. In face of opposition and protests by solar owners, Calderon amended the bill so it would end the program — where credits are valued at the retail electric rate — only for those selling their homes.

Calderon said the bill would save the state’s electric customers $2.5 billion over the next 18 years.

On Monday, Roderick Brewer, an Edison lobbyist, sent an email to Assemblymembers, urging them to vote for the bill known as AB 942. “Save Electricity Customers Billions, Promote Equity,” he urged in the email.

The Assembly voted 46 to 14 to approve the bill on Tuesday night, sending it to the state Senate for consideration.

The timing of the vote surprised opponents of the bill. They expected a vote late this week because of rules that allow more time for bills to be reviewed after they are amended. Calderon amended the bill late Monday.

Nick Miller, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, said Calderon had asked for a waiver of the rules so that it could be voted on Tuesday night.

Such waivers, Miller said, are “not uncommon.”

May 24 (UPI) — President Donald Trump signed four executive orders to overhaul the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and hasten the process and deployment of new nuclear power reactors in the United States.

They allow agencies to build reactors on federally owned land, revamp the NRC, create new timelines for construction permits, and expand domestic uranium production and enrichment capabilities.

Trump on Friday signed the orders called: Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Deploying Advanced Nuclear Reactor Technologies for National Security and Reinvigorating the Nuclear Industrial Base.

Nuclear executives joined Trump, including Constellation CEO Joe Dominguez, who leads the largest operator of nuclear plants in the U.S.

Constellation wants to restart operations at Three Mile Island, aiming to bring the Unit 1 reactor back online in 2028. The Unit 2 reactor at Three Mile Island was the site of a partial meltdown in 1979.

“We’re wasting too much time on permitting and we’re answering silly questions, not the important ones,” the Constellation CEO said.

The agency is also reviewing whether to restart the mothballed Palisades plant in Michigan.

Dominguez said nuclear energy is best-suited to support artificial intelligence data center needs with consistent, around-the-clock service.

Between 1954 and 1978, the United States authorized construction of 133 civilian nuclear reactors at 81 power plants. Since 1978, the NRC has authorized a fraction of that number, and only two reactors have entered into commercial operation.

“Instead of efficiently promoting safe, abundant nuclear energy, the NRC has instead tried to insulate Americans from the most remote risks without appropriate regard for the severe domestic and geopolitical costs of such risk aversion,” according to one of the executive orders.

Former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who now heads the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Energy Futures Initiative, said the moves could increase safety or security risks.

“Reorganizing and reducing the independence of the NRC could lead to the hasty deployment of advanced reactors with safety and security flaws,” Moniz, a nuclear physicist who served under President Barack Obama, said.

NRC overhaul

The 50-year-old independent NRC regulates nuclear reactors. The new executive order dictates reductions in force “though certain functions may increase in size consistent with the policies in this order, including those devoted to new reactor licensing.”

The NRC shall also create a team of at least 20 officials to draft the new regulations.

The order will not remove or replace any of the five commissioners who lead the body, according to the White House.

The NRC will work with the Department of Government Efficiency, the Office of Management and Budget, and other executive departments and agencies on the reorganization, according to the White House.

The public hearings process at the agency also will be streamlined, the executive order said.

New reactors

Trump’s orders also create a regulatory method for the departments of Energy and Defense to build nuclear reactors on federal land, the administration official said.

The commission will be required to decide on nuclear reactor licenses within 18 months and, within 60 days, the secretary of energy is expected to issue guidance on what counts as a qualified test reactor.

The order says that qualified test reactors can be safely operational at Department-owned or Department-controlled facilities within two years.

“Federal Government has effectively throttled the domestic deployment of advanced reactors, ceding the initiative to foreign nations in building this critical technology,” the order reads. “Our proud history of innovation has succumbed to overregulated complacency.”

Two new reactors that recently came online at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, Ga., took seven years longer than planned to build and came in $18 billion over budget.

The secretary of state is also expected to “aggressively pursue” at least 20 new agreements by the close of the 120th Congress “to enable the United States nuclear industry to access new markets in partner countries.”

“We’re also talking about the big plants — the very, very big, the biggest,” Trump said at the signing. “We’re going to be doing them also.”

Other changes

Another of the orders Trump signed seeks to fully leverage federally owned uranium and plutonium resources declared excess to defense needs.

Trump also wants a pilot program for reactor construction and operation outside the National Laboratories.

Within 240 days, the agencies are expected to develop management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste, and deployment of advanced fuel cycle capabilities “to establish a safe, secure, and sustainable long-term fuel cycle,” according to the order.

Additionally, the order directs the Department of Education to work toward increasing participation in nuclear energy-related apprenticeships and career and technical education programs.

May 17 (UPI) — Maryland Governor Wes Moore vetoed a measure that would have created a commission to study reparations in the former slave state.

Moore vetoed the bill on Friday but said he will propose other methods to address the effects of slavery, Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination against blacks in Maryland.

“Together, we must take urgent action to address the barriers that have walled off black families in Maryland from work, wages and wealth for generations,” Moore said Friday in a letter to state lawmakers.

Moore said he will make an announcement regarding the wealth gap in Maryland during the Juneteenth holiday.

The bill was among several that Moore vetoed about 10 days before the deadline to act on them.

The proposed commission would have explored options for addressing the state’s past and subsequent laws deemed discriminatory toward blacks from 1865 to 1965.

The options would have included a formal apology, cash payments or enacting laws that would make amends for past wrongs.

“You can’t have unity without justice, and you can’t have justice without truth-telling, and you can’t have truth-telling without courage,” Delegate Gabriel Acevero, D-Montgomery County, said upon the measure’s introduction in April.

The measure would have created a 23-member commission tasked with studying the effects of slavery and how to make amends with the descendants of former slaves.

Potential state policy changes might have included help with social services and down payments, debt forgiveness, child care coverage and property tax rebates.

A Maryland lawmaker who opposed the proposed reparations commission said it would create a race-based reparations tax.

“It is disgraceful that we are going to set up a reparation tax that will tax one race and give to another race, all in the name of equity,” Delegate Matthew Morgan, R-Calvert and St. Mary’s counties, said upon the bill’s passage in April.

He called “equity” a “Marxist term.”

Epic Games on Friday said that its popular game “Fortnite” will be offline on Apple devices because the iPhone maker blocked its recent app update.

The dispute comes just weeks after Epic Games and other app developers cheered a judge’s ruling that limited the commissions that Apple makes through third party apps distributed through its app store.

Apple received a scathing rebuke from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who sided with Epic Games, which alleged that the Cupertino, Calif., tech giant ran afoul of an order she issued in 2021 after finding the company engaged in anticompetitive behavior.

Under the ruling, Apple can’t collect commissions on purchases U.S. customers make through links inside iPhone apps that direct them to outside websites. Developers, which make money by selling digital goods and services via their apps and games, want to avoid giving Apple a cut of their revenue by sending customers to other websites.

“That [Apple] thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation,” the judge wrote in her ruling.

Many developers applauded the court’s ruling, which limits what they call the Apple tax, and said they would pass on the savings to customers.

Epic Games’ Chief Executive Tim Sweeney earlier this month said “Fornite” would return to the App Store in the U.S. and possibly worldwide if Apple extends “the court’s friction free, Apple tax-free framework” globally. But on Friday, the “Fortnite” X account said that Apple blocked its submission.

“Now, sadly, Fortnite on iOS will be offline worldwide until Apple unblocks it,” the account posted. Epic Games did not return requests for further comment.

Apple said on Friday that it asked that “Epic Sweden resubmit the app update without including the U.S. storefront of the App Store so as not to impact Fortnite in other geographies.”

“We did not take any action to remove the live version of Fortnite from alternative distribution marketplaces,” Apple said in a statement.

Rob Enderle, principal analyst with advisory services firm Enderle Group, said the recent ruling applies to the U.S. and Apple wants to retain the rest of its control worldwide. Apple makes significant money through apps.

“Apple is using their monopoly strength to prevent ‘Fortnite’ from benefiting globally from their core win,” Enderle said.

Epic Games filed its lawsuit against Apple in 2020. “Fornite” generates revenue by letting people buy digital goods, such as “skins,” in the game, and Epic wanted to let users buy items outside the Apple system to avoid the company’s commission.

The court ordered Apple to let app developers put links in its apps so customers could make outside purchases and bypass the company’s commission fee. Apple, however, defied the order, the court said.

Apple limited the ways that developers could communicate with its customers about out-of-app purchases and used wording that discouraged users from clicking on those links, the judge wrote. Apple would charge a commission fee for any goods or services purchased within seven days of a consumer clicking on a link that took them out of the app, the ruling said.

Apple is appealing the ruling and has said it strongly disagreed with the judge’s decision.

May 16 (UPI) — Microsoft said Thursday it is proposing a resolution to European Commission concerns over how it bundles Teams with MS Office and Office 365.

Microsoft said its proposed commitments to resolve issues with the Commission “require Microsoft to maintain availability of those suites in the European Economic Area over the next seven years, and they set minimum price deltas that Microsoft must maintain between the versions of those suites without and with Teams.”

“The proposed commitments are the result of constructive, good-faith discussions with the European Commission over several months. We believe that they represent a clear and complete resolution to the concerns raised by our competitors and will provide European customers with more choices.”

Microsoft said that if the Commission accepts their proposed commitments, “we have decided that we will, at the same time, align the options and pricing for our suites and Teams service globally, as we’ve done in the past.”

The commission launched a public consultation period Thursday on Microsoft’s offered commitments.

“Microsoft would make available versions of these suites without Teams and at a reduced price; allow customers to switch to suites without Teams, including in the framework of existing contracts; offer Teams’ competitors increased interoperability with other Microsoft products; and allow customers to move their data out of Teams to facilitate the use of competing solutions,” the commission said under the proposed commitments.

In a preliminary finding, the commission found Microsoft restricted competition in the European market by bundling Teams with other Microsoft software giving Teams a competitive advantage in distribution.

The commission said Microsoft’s proposed commitments include offering customers purchasing EEA versions of its Office 365 and Microsoft 365 suites without Teams to get a lower price than the one for corresponding suites that include Teams.

In addition, Microsoft would allow Team’s competitors and certain third parties to access effective interoperability with identified Microsoft products and services.

Customers would also be allowed to extract their Teams messaging data for use in competing platforms and to switch to software suites without Teams.

Microsoft’s blog statement said, “We are hopeful that following the market test, the European Commission will conclude that the proposed commitments resolve its concerns, and in the following months, adopt a final decision closing its investigation.”